Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 231

Archive 225

←

Archive 229

Archive 230

Archive 231

Archive 232

Archive 233

→

Archive 235

Somebody disputed this!

Hi

Can this book From British author Hargrave Jennings be deemed as an unreliable source by arguing that the publisher is an "on demand publisher"? Thanks.

References

-Casktopic_say 06:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Casktopic: It depends upon what claim is being made. Can you give the article and context please? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Well it was published in 1892, and an anthropological text that old is likely to be extremely out of date and not a valid source for facts. It might be a valid source for the author's opinion, assuming his opinion was notable/noteworthy (ie, of historical interest) - but it would have to be attributed and the publication date should be made clear. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Two things:

• The citation is very wrong. Should be:

Hargrave, Jennings (1892). Phallism : a description of the worship of lingam-yoni in various parts of the world, and in different ages, with an account of ancient & modern crosses, particularly of the crux ansata (or handled cross) and other symbols connected with the mysteries of sex worship. London: Privately printed. OCLC 225528163.

• Before anybody comments, the proposed content for to be supported by this must be stated. This is a book from the age of orientalism in western scholarship and some things in books that came out of that era are horrible. But generally what folks wrote above is generally correct. Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC) (fix garble Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC))

Could you explain why this must' be stated? We really need to know the specific context... which article are we talking about, and how is the source being used? Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes we do need to know those things. I don't understand the 'why" part of your question Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood your use of the word "content". Did you mean that the context must be included, here in this discussion... or that the content (taken from the source) has to appear in the article? If the latter, I wanted to know why. Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Why must the content be specified? Because the instructions on this noticeboard (which few people seem bothered to read) say so:

Before posting, please check the archives for prior discussions of the source.  If after reviewing, you feel a new post is warranted, please be sure to include the following information, if available:
Links to past discussion of the source on this board. 
Source.  The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example: [http://www.website.com/webpage.html]. 
Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: [[Article name]].

Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y".

— InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 21:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Not the OP, but for those asking I believe this is the content they are trying to use the citation to support. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Outdated scholarship and the publisher is not reliable enough. It better to remove it. Unless there was lack of scholarly content about this subject, I would be fine with accepting this source and information, but we have more modern and more reliable sources. Capitals00 (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• On-demand publishing for a historical book is not unusual. No one expects all outdated academic texts to be re-published regularly. This is one of those individual merit situations. The context in which it should be used etc. For example, in a discussion about the historical anthropological thinking, this would likely be useable as a reference/example of the scholarship at the time. It should not (unless by some miracle there has been no change) be used to reference current thinking. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

AllMusic

Posting here for the hell of it, and cause User:Chris troutman dropped me a note saying AllMusic might not be an RS because it had user-generated content; he said he got this from this noticeboard. I'm not aware that AllMusic did that, but I haven't seen any discussion of the source here so I don't know. I never cite from their website, I think, only from what I get through Google Books, but it's a valid point. What do y'all know? And when are we going to come up with a centralized list and a stamp of approval that we can put in the infobox of the publication's article? Drmies (talk) 04:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• IMHO AllMusic should be approached on a case-by-case basis, so neither a universal stamp of approval, nor a universal stamp of disapproval. I didn't understand how and why "infobox" entered your question, but I'd suggest to keep that topic out of the equation – unless if your question is about one infobox specifically.

I could give some fairly recent examples where editor consensus led to removal of AllMusic from an article, and other examples where editor consensus decided for inclusion. As these examples may be quite unrelated to your question, I see no point in looking them up: so please be specific:

• Which page of this website would you like to use (a.k.a. Source)? It is a very extended website, with huge differences between pages: some, for instance, having a named author, others dominantly commercial, etc.
• For which Article do you want to use that webpage?
• For which Content do you want to use that webpage?

--Francis Schonken (talk) 05:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be about "Lorena's Holly Tucker ... the Waco singer ..." ([1]) at Waco, Texas#Music: I'd defer to her own biography for confirmation of the place of birth ("... Waco native ..."; "... Waco, Texas native ..."). The three third party sources currently used in the Waco article (one of them being AllMusic) say the same, so the situation shouldn't be problematic afaics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• This is not a reliable source. It can be edited by others and it's content (other than biography page) are garbage. I have objected the use of allmusic as source before.[2] Just don't use it as source for anything. Excelse (talk) 08:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Would you have any problem with how AllMusic is used as a source here (currently references nos. 19 and 23)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Generally, I think it should be avoided for biographical information. Their statements about accuracy seem a bit contradictory. They strive for accuracy and provide a means for accepting corrections [3], but they disclaim accuracy [4]. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Blowing the lid off the CryptoNote/Bytecoin scam (with the exception of Monero)

Hello, I was trying to edit the CryptoNote web-page, and was informed that my source (a web-forum) was black-listed as unreliable. I think an exception should be granted in this specific case: since the forum post goes into great detail, with references.

That page is the definitive source on the scam. Third-party news organizations did not cover it because CryptoNote was not notable at the time. The scam actually innovated with strong privacy: in order to hide it, if nothing else. As a result, a fork of the original scam inherited that privacy, and grew to be notable.

Here is the content I was prevented from posting:

... On August 15, 2014; user rethink-your-strategy on the BitcoinTalk forums: pointed out that the dates on the white-papers appear to have been faked. It is believed that the documents were back-dated as part of an elaborate pre-mining scam.

Edit: removed the domain name, because it is black-listed here as well.

Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist. To save your changes now, you must go back and remove the blocked link (shown below), and then save.

Note that if you used a redirection link or URL shortener (like e.g. goo.gl, t.co, youtu.be, bit.ly), you may still be able to save your changes by using the direct, non-shortened link - you generally obtain the non-shortened link by following the link, and copying the contents of the address bar of your web-browser after the page has loaded. Links containing google.com/url? are resulting from a copy/paste from the result page of a Google search - please follow the link on the result page, and copy/paste the contents of the address bar of your web-browser after the page has loaded, or click here to convert the link.

If you feel the link is needed, you can:

Request that the entire website be allowed, that is, removed from the local or global spam blacklists (check both lists to see which one is affecting you). Request that just the specific page be allowed, without unblocking the whole website, by asking on the spam whitelist talk page.

Blacklisting indicates past problems with the link, so any requests should clearly demonstrate how inclusion would benefit Wikipedia.

198.48.133.157 (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

References

WP:NOR

Forum posts, particularly for contentious claims as this would be, are not acceptable. We'd need other reliable sources to cover it from their perspective. With forums, there's no indication that the posters are experts in their field nor any fact-checking. --MASEM (t) 05:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Forum posts have rudimentary fact-checking: especially for such outrageous claims. Other users will call out obvious bull-shit. I understand why the forum as a whole was black-listed. I am asking for the specific forum thread to be white-listed. 198.48.133.157 (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Not going to happen. Unusable source. Alexbrn (talk) 05:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

IMO, the source taking the date of the cryptonote papers at face-value is worse. The sources is a blog, which in turn cites another web-forum. (both accessible with the wayback machine). We have a rare case where self-published information is the best source. Any "credible" organizations looking at it years later are just going to rehash what my source said. Would it help if I came up with sources saying that this history is generally regarded as true? (I briefly tried searching for "crypotonote history" articles, and did not find anything promising).

Responding to myself: reference 8 does not actually appear to disagree with my claim. When I was going down the rabbit hole checking the source: the forum thread mentions 'buddhacoin', with a date of 2013 (post date of 2015). The may imply the authors started (unpublished) work back then (It may be a fake post to establish history as well). 198.48.133.157 (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I feel that that specific link is needed under WP:NOR. Quoting Wikipedia:RS:

With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing. However, newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt.

198.48.133.157 (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

According to Eisenstein ("Folgerungen aus den Capillaritätserscheinungen" page 12) All internet forums are rubbish. Now you will note I have cited this this to an RS, so it must be true.

The simple fact is that citing a source, and actually representing what it says are not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

If you check the CryptoNote talk page, you will see that two other people tried to reference the same source. The Cryptonote papers themselves are "self-published", so are not considered credible. As I explained in the OP, Cryptonote was not considered notable at the time, so received no media coverage. However, the protocol was innovative enough that a forked version (Monero) became large enough to be notable. We are not allowed to mention the colorful history of Monero in the WP article without "Reliable Sources" to back it up. I am telling you: that forum post is the most reliable source you will get. I have seen no serious attempts to debunk it (the bitcoin.it wiki cites a post in the same thread (page 9) that comes close). 198.48.133.157 (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

And what people are telling you is that forum posts are not reliable except on rare occasions where they can satisfy other criteria (eg,a valid use as a primary source, an identified expert on a subject and so on). If the *only* available source is an unreliable forum posting, then it wont be used. We are not required to make any attempt to debunk it, the source is required to fulfill our reliable source criteria. This does not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Since the link itself is not viewable on this thread as yet, I am going to post a Google search of the article/post so people can find and read it: [5]. Anyway, if the anonymous (lengthy!) post has any validity, what needs to happen is that the conclusions or the concept(s) get picked up by more reliable source(s)/media and those would be usable as citation(s). For instance, here is a source with an actual named author that discusses the post: [6]. Since most cryptocurrencies are still fairly underground, I'm not sure many mainstream sources are going to be discussing this. Disclaimer: I don't know a whole lot about cryptocurrencies. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Is Endometriosis.org a reliable medical source?

Would you consider the Endometriosis.org website to be a reliable medical source for information on endometriosis?

• The site has a team of editors working on articles: http://endometriosis.org/about/team/
• And an international peer review board of medical experts who both contribute & verify the publications: http://endometriosis.org/about/peer-review-board/
• The articles within cite sources, example: http://endometriosis.org/treatments/progestins/

It seems like in the example article they cite mostly primary sources(studies) but also some secondary sources (is THIS a secondary source?) so would this site be considered a tertiary or a secondary source? If I want to update & improve the article on endometriosis can this website itself be used as a source? I guess I want to know if the complied info from this website can be used at all. Thanks. Dinosaurseatpancakes (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Patient organisations are not reliable for medical claims. Simples. -Roxy the dog. bark 14:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Does anybody else have any thoughts? Their review board has 23 doctors. Seems lazy to me to just disregard this site regardless of it's merits just because it can be categorized as a patient organization. Is there truly a good reason to assume all patient organizations have biased information no matter their methods? Dinosaurseatpancakes (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The subject is beyond my area of expertise, but I do have a couple thoughts on this. First, the reliability of a source depends on context but we don't have a specific source or content outlined in the above instructions. Second, why would we use a patient organization rather than some better source? I would think there would be various sources written by physicians, researchers, or other academics; or the citations noted in the website's articles. Third, Center Watch doesn't link to this website in its list of patient organizations (i.e. [7]), but I guess that begs the question as to whether Center Watch's links matter. Fourth, check out Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). -Location (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe, but there are more important issues.

MEDRS is clear that we look for recent reviews from good quality journals, statements from major medical/scientific organizations (e.g WHO, CDC, FDA, NIH, NHS, NICE, etc), and good textbooks.

There are many, many recent reviews in pubmed. NHS choices has good content, as do other major bodies. And it is covered in textbooks.

We generally avoid university/hospital websites as well as patient advocacy organizations because they are very uneven, even at the same organization. Many so-called patient advocacy groups turn out to be astroturf when you dig into them (see for example this Bloomberg] article about how Alexion Pharmaceuticals set up and used patient advocacy groups to drive sales of its drug (the most expensive drug in the world). :{

So really - why would we cite it? It is not a classic MEDRS source, and there is no lack of classic MEDRS sources.

This kind of thing is generally driven by people who a) think "Its on the web so let's use it and this is so much easier than working through the literature", or b) who have some connection to the organization and are actually looking to use WP to drive traffic to its website (which is WP:REFSPAM) Not saying either thing is happening in this instance.

All of our articles need improving and updating - please use high quality sources to do so - recent literature reviews in good quality journals and statements from major medical/health organizations. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks I will take all of this into account. As someone who has lived with endometriosis for two decades you could say I'm frustrated with the state of the endo article on WP. It is a hot mess. I personally don't consider WP a reliable source but I'm certain a large number of the younger generation of women would take it for granted. I would like to see a more coherent article with less omission and bad info basically. I'm just not sure where to even begin. The biggest problem with this illness is literally lack of up-to-date information and lack of interest within the medical community itself. The amount of specialists who can actually treat it properly is scarce and I have no doubt some of them are in it for the $$$(some have their own clinics). It may look like there's lots of good info to go around but from a patient's perspective there is not even enough research or guidelines for GP's. Because of this some patient orgs have been on the forefront of compiling the newest research with the help of specialists when the general medical community has not. Not that this has anything to do with WP, just that the article is a mess. Dinosaurseatpancakes (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of the quality of our article on Endometriosis, there may be a better article on the German Wikipedia. Does anyone know German or feel like using the Google translator? See de:Endometriose, which is marked as their equivalent of a Featured article. One of the editors there, User:Hic et nunc, is a physician as well as a German wiki administrator and he has provided laparoscopic photos for the article which suggest he may be familiar with the disease. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

You're right, I'm a gynaecologist in Germany and familiar with the disease. The question if Endometriosis.org is a reliable medical source can easily be answered: Yes, in my opinion.

They provide evidence based information in a language that can be understood by patients. That doesn't mean that these information are of less quality. There are only a few web based sources with a peer review board. And this board is excellent.

They review studies as they would do for a journal but publish the information understandable.

Of course there are many scientific sources. But are we really able to evaluate the published studies and reviews? And is this our goal? I don't think so.

The editors and the peer review board of Endometriosis.org do this. And the list of the scientists in the peer review board is like a who is who in endometriosis.

The only difference is IMHO the preparation of the provided information in a simple language.--Hic et nunc (talk) 06:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Patient organisations are not reliable for medical claims. Changing the policy this way will just open the floodgates. No. -Roxy the dog. bark 07:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The policy is quiet right. But I think that endometriosis.org is more than this and different from other patient organisations. Of course you can find information on other sites like PubMed Health and NHS. But I didn't find a mark like "This site is peer-reviewed for accuracy" there.

And if you look here you see resources for further finding and reading of scientific papers like in a scientific journal... --Hic et nunc (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for all the input. I personally think this source is reliable. There are 23 doctors, most of whom are specialists on their review board. In my country alone there are maybe only a handful of actual endo specialists & experts. The website is indeed directed at patients but it does not assert itself as a patient organization. It appears to be an information portal made by it's editors who have listed ties to several different(and notable) health organizations. I know many would be quick to dismiss this source as invalid and using it could attract deletionists. This is why I wanted to have this discussion to serve as food for thought. I understand the reasons behind WP policies but I take issue with any policy's blind enforcement without consideration for individual merits of sources. Too black & white. In the case of endo, patient orgs are key in pushing for more research and legislative changes in the first place. Without them it would not happen since they are the no.1 interest group. Both medical journals and patient orgs can have their biases and issues but a few bad apples doesn't have to mean the whole tree will rot. Endo knowledge has only recently gained more traction despite being around since the 1800's. I dare say, partly a result of bias against women's issues in medicine. I'm glad to know there are experts on WP and of the excellent German article. Unfortunately I only know finnish and am indeed a lay person when it comes to editing medical WP articles. Still, I would like to attempt to improve the endo article. Readability, WP:WEIGHT, salvaging info/removing, clear statistics etc. Sources like this can really help the non-expert. Dinosaurseatpancakes (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Not reliable We can and should use better sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• Sources are evaluated in context - what is the information to be used in the article this site would be used to reference? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

As I realize that, it is reliable source. It has a team; it has an international peer review board, consist of experts on the subject. Do we really understand relibility of the sources? SwordOfRobinHood (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Possibly okay with major caveats As far as I can tell, this is a (very conscientious) patient advocacy organization. They appear to do a good job of summarizing research without overselling specific studies. They claim to be financially independent, and I don't see anything that gives me a reason to doubt that claim. To my mind, they could be comparable to a site like WebMD or the Mayo Clinic: they can be acceptable for non-controversial information, but they should be avoided when claims are contested. Peer reviewed research is always preferable, but this is an okay source if someone simply wants to quickly make improvements or fill out missing information in an article. (see IRS:OTHERSOURCES) Nblund ^talk 16:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Not reliable: per Policy. How much emphasis does this need? -Roxy the dog. bark 17:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

No policy prohibits the use of a source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

RFC: "Exemption from WP:V" at Wikiproject Days of the year

There is a discussion underway at Wikiproject:Days of the year regarding whether to require direct sourcing per WP:BURDEN. At least one editor thought that a notice should be posted here to ensure we get broad consensus. Toddst1 (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Ted Cruz

Given that Ted Cruz has now said that other people have access to his twitter account can it be used as an RS, as it may not be him posting it?Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn't be using Twitter posts for anything unless that Twitter post was noted by others, and in a case like this, we can follow what they say. I would suspect they would say something like "A post made to Cruz' Twitter account said that...", rather than "Cruz said on Twitter that...". --MASEM (t) 13:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe but the germ of this was the above DM discussion (it must be this person they put their name to it). We can use blogs and social media that is verified,but here we have a verified social media account that has posts by third parties.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The way the situation sounds, it seems to be more that these are people in Cruz' employ (or in this case, was in his employ) to post for him, rather than being an "open relay" concept. Knowing that Cruz doesnt have full control, but it remains within full control of people paid by Cruz, we just should be aware that it's not necessarily Cruz behind the Twitter posting but still likely representing his views/takes for the most part. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

In general Facebook, Twitter, and other social media of most "important" people (pols, celebrities, business leaders, etc.) are run by a media team (which may be a bored intern or even an outsourced outfit). They can be construed as being endorsed by the person - if they are not retracted by the person. Trump is an "outlier" in that he actually posts to his own twitter (at least he is purported to), however it has been claimed that also in his case some of the messages are from a media team. In any event - if someone retracts a social media post - we should treat it as possibly not made by himself (either due to the account being compromised or staff ineptness - even though at times it is also a way to do "account owner bungleup").Icewhiz (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's quite common for busy people to employ someone else to tweet for them. One could even consider it a "best practice" for high-profile individuals. I remember attending a talk by Guy Kawasaki in which he freely acknowledged "I have a ghost" who does his tweeting for him, adding that people in the audience might see a tweet from him while he's clearly not tweeting up on stage. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to report stories not become part of them. Mentioning a tweet is helping it to go viral. It's giving it attention beyond what it has received. We should only mention tweets when they have been reported in reliable secondary sources. Let reporters determine who wrote them. TFD (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Is The Nation's article "A Leak or a Hack? A Forum on the VIPS Memo" Fake News? Is The Nation a Fake News Source?

(Moved here from NPOV noticeboard) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

In Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, we have had an extended discussion over whether the article "A Leak or a Hack? A Forum on the VIPS Memo" in The Nation and the article which preceded it, "A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack" are fake news.

Both articles are central to the topic of our article Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. The follow-up article, "A Leak or a Hack? A Forum on the VIPS Memo" has been painstakingly constructed to present the opinions of both camps in the VIPS group as well as perspectives of other people with specialist knowledge (which the VIPS team members on both sides of the question of Russian hacking of the DNC files also possess).

I have difficulty understanding why, at the very least, "A Leak or a Hack? A Forum on the VIPS Memo" should not be summarized to present opinions of notable experts in a source which is neither in WP:PUS or Zimdars' fake news list in the article Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. It is notable discussion from a reliable source, and is already mentioned in three other reliable sources: [8] [9] and [10]

I'm soliciting outside opinions because we're at an impasse in the editing community on that article on this question. loupgarous (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

It's misleading to frame this debate as a question of whether or not The Nation is a reliable source, or whether the article is "fake news." That's not the issue, and iirc that claim was only made by one editor on the article talk page. The issue is whether the the VIPS report has enough weight to be covered in the article (ie, is it WP:DUE). If you read the sources carefully, an awful lot of the "coverage" actually suggests that the report is deeply flawed and casts very serious doubt on its conclusions. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The "fake news" narrative keeps popping up as a reason to exclude either article from being used. Today we heard it from SPECIFICO and Geogene. Your reading of the "coverage" is off-topic on this question. I'd like a ruling on the accusations that the article in question and/or The Nation are fake news. Then we can go on to other NPOV issues. loupgarous (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

It becomes "fake news" when it is given legitimacy by repetition and extensive discussion of debunked counterfactual claims. The amount of time and attention demanded by those who promote this story creates the false equivalency that turns nonsense into fake news, both loosely defined. We certainly don't need a formal definition such as those linked by OP above. It has nothing to do with where it's published. The NY Times had plenty of coverage of the Obama birther story. SPECIFICO talk 00:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

(pinged) Yes, I am of the opinion that it is fake news. But for our purposes, I'm also worried that out of thousands of reliable sources that are largely equivalent and mostly interchangeable (meaning that to support most statements in the article you can take your pick of, for example, CNN, Reuters, the Washington Post or the New York Times because they cover the same events in the same way) there is a push to include this one article from The Nation that makes, by its own admission, an extraordinary claim that you can't source anywhere else, but which has been mostly ignored by reliable sources except for a couple times it was a subject of criticism. That's undue weight, when you have a multi-week push, to include in two different Wikipedia articles, a bizarre magazine article that claims to blow up the mainstream narrative and which is not taken seriously by other sources. I've seen this the one source out of thousands that we must include trope before, and I consider it an indicator of Fringe as it appears in current event articles. Geogene (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

That's very insightful. Have you considered creating an essay page that gives that advice? You could call it WP:THEONESOURCE and Wikipedia:The one source out of thousands that we must include. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give that some thought. Geogene (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

If you don't call it WP:ONESOURCETORULETHEMALL I will hunt you down and make you pay like you kidnapped Liam Neeson's daughter. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I am not involved in the aforementioned talk page discussion, but I too am a bit puzzled by the framing of the question. Questions regarding the reliability of a source should be posted at WP:RSN. -Location (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Good point. I suggest that we move this discussion to RSN. If nobody objects within a day or so, I will move the thread, leaving a link here. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• On reflection, you're right, this belongs in RSN. No objection to the move. loupgarous (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• No objections, so I am making the move. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• The VIPS report has zero credibility. The fact that it was covered by otherwise reliable sources does not give it credibility, as those sources implicitly admit that it lacks credibility. Indeed, this particular source starts out with an editor's note indicating not only that they went out of their way to find a fringe group contradicting the mainstream view, but that their initial coverage of that report was too credulous and that the report was not the unanimous findings of the group, but rather the much-disputed opinions of a subset of that group. I fail to see how a single article makes the VIPS report a view worthy of inclusion. That being said, criticisms of the report seem to be somewhat more noteworthy than the report itself. And of course, if we're going to cover those criticisms, we need to be able to at least briefly outline what they're criticizing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so the designation "fake news" for this stuff is really just a short hand way for some editors to say "this is a bunk story and analysis, it got retracted or at least qualified by the Nation, it's been debunked by several other sources, why are we wasting time on this?". All of that is true. But I guess, strictly speaking, it's not "fake news". Just a waste of time and very very very much UNDUE. But since these discussions on the talk page always get bogged down into a whole lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, just calling this thing "fake news" is a quick way of saying "it's bunk and undue, I've already explained why, not gonna keep repeating myself just to enable your obfuscatin' ways". So fake news or not, it just doesn't belong in the article. Volunteer Marek  19:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it is a weight issue. The value of The Nation is that it covers stories ignored elsewhere. But that means it has little value for widely covered topics. It's best use is for topics that receive little coverage. So it's article about the VIPS memo fails weight. Incidentally, there is a discussion at The Nation about why thy published the story.[11] TFD (talk) 03:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• I have one more qualm. I and SPECIFICO were having an argument over the inclusion of two analyst opinions, published in RS, namely those by Leonid Bershidsky (Bloomberg News) and Scott Shane (New York Times) who criticized the lack of evidence presented to the public and drew some analogues with the 2002 "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" story (neither of them were drawing their opinions from VIPS' report, though Bershidsky made a mention of it). I believe they are no worse than other journalists/analysts' opinions presented in this section (like Andrei Soldatov or Anne Applebaum), but SPECIFICO called it "fringe nonsense" and "fake news" and refused to elaborate further. I would like to hear the others' opnion on that. --S. Roix (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

To summarise MPants, if we were to include it, we would have to add numerous paragraphs explaining why everyone thinks its crap. Better not to include it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with SPECIFICO on calling them "fake news". However, the Bloomberg article you refer to is an opinion piece, which I don't think is really a reliable source for anything other than the author's own opinion - which by itself is almost certainly irrelevant to the article. The New York Times piece looks fine to me - I assume "news analysis" is still fact-checked and published under the auspices of the New York Times' actual journalism. I don't know about "fringe nonsense" - that seems more like a comment on their suitability for inclusion based on the weight due their viewpoints on the topic, and not a comment on the reliability of the sources themselves. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's the author's own opinion, but like I said, Andrei Soldatov and Anne Applebaum also express just their own opinion. Since Bershidsky is a noteworthy political analyst who wrote extensively on Putin's regime's tactics, I think his piece may be worth including. --S. Roix (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

You might be right, but does that have anything to do with whether the source is reliable? Like, is there any reason to bring that question to a noticeboard about reliability? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Revelation 12 Sign

• Revelation 12 Sign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not sure if I should revert this edit for apparent COI/promotion or not. Other sourcing issues also exist, so more eyes are welcome. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 02:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Not sure this is the right forum, but yes undo it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks. —PaleoNeonate – 18:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Mail: where does reliability end and censorship begin?

There has been a discussion at Talk:The State (2017 TV series) regarding a review published in The Daily Mail, where a review was removed from the article on the grounds of the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220#Daily_Mail_RfC. I actually support the Daily Mail ban in cases where it is being used to relay facts—after all, story fabrication was what motivated the ban—but I am concerned that the ban is being used as a pretext to censor opinion. I would never have supported the ban if I had known it was going to be used as a cover for censorship.

We know the DM cannot be trusted for facts but I don't see how we get from this point to not trusting it for an author's opinion. As an analogy, Facebook and Twitter and other self-published media are not considered reliable secondary sources but we permit the use of confirmed SPS as a primary source for the author's opinion. I don't see how The Daily Mail situation differs from this scenario. How exactly is it not reliable for the opinion of the journalist or columnist who authored the article?

I think its usage should not be curbed in a primary source capacity because no evidence was presented at the discussion that the opinions of the DM's journalists are being fabricated through the publication process. I would like to get further opinions on this. Betty Logan (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

A Daily Mail discussion in May on WP:NPOVN includes relevant-looking opinions by three of the five editors who "closed" the Daily Mail RfC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• It's a moot point. While the DM is reliable for opinions published therein, unless those opinions are covered by decent sources they would be WP:UNDUE anyway. Alexbrn (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

It is RS for it's own views. Whether theses views are relevant is another matter.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree with Betty Logan. Daily Mail was founded in 1896 and its standing as a 114-year archive of historical record cannot be challenged. If, in recent years, its news coverage has become unreliable, then only 21st century news coverage should be excluded from citation. Book, film, television, theatre, dance and other reviews should not have been, in all certainty, included in the ban, which could not have been meant to be so all-encompassing. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 14:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

William Beach Thomas. That's a century ago. - Sitush (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Precisely. Is anyone making the claim that William Beach Thomas' coverage of the Great War was unreliable or that news articles from Daily Mail's entire archive, going back to 1896, cannot be used as citations? Let us peruse the scores of names at Category:Daily Mail journalists and decide if they are no longer eligible to be cited. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Er, did you read the article? Of course, WBT is unreliable for fact. - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Although this is not the venue to discuss the credibility of specific individuals under Category:Daily Mail journalists, which lists 113 names, I did read the article and for those who wish to use his reportage to support claims of Daily Mail's historical unreliability, here are some quotes from that article: "Beach Thomas filed reports from places such as the Somme in a format matching that of his colleagues, who regularly downplayed the unpleasant aspects of the conflict such as the nature of death", "...journalistic support for the cause was appreciated by military commanders such as Douglas Haig, who saw the propaganda generated by the correspondents as an integral part of the Allies' efforts", "...other British war correspondents, even though all those journalists were playing a similar disinformation role" and, finally, "Beach Thomas's war work led to state recognition, as it did for many of the correspondents and newspaper owners; France appointed him a Chevalier of the Legion of Honour in 1919 and he was appointed a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire (KBE) in 1920". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Just as a note, with the DM and other tabloid sources removed, we have a statement is Before the drama aired, Richard Kemp, a former advisor to the UK government on counter-terrorism, warned that it would be a "recruiting sergeant" for ISIS, a view prominently reported by several tabloid newspapers. However, the idea that the drama made ISIS glamorous or attractive was rejected by most reviewers. There are now a couple things wrong with this. First, without going to DM or the ilk, I can't find a source to support Kemp's view from an RS. If we use DM or the others, yes, its there, but the DM ban suggested they may be misreporting this, unless a true RS source can be found for Kemp's view, that needs to be removed. The Guardian article does talk to the DM and other tabloids critiquing the work as ISIS recruitment, so the rest of the statement still fine, but in such a case, where DM is part of the story, then it is completely reasonable to include the original DM source to show that reference, that's still in line with the DM "ban". --MASEM (t) 15:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: Kemp re-tweeted his central comment, with a link to the article [12], so I must assume he was reasonably happy with how he was reported.

If we're serious about wanting to report on the "Reception" the series had, that includes how it was presented in the populist press, including details such as their citing Richard Kemp as an authority figure decrying the series. Jheald (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

We're still then at the issue is if anyone else noted Kemp's reaction, outside of the tabloids. --MASEM (t) 01:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

If this is a wider "trope" why do we need to use the DM anyway?Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

If the DM is not a reliable source, while it is a reliable source for its own opinions, it is not a reliable source for the opinions of other people. Fakenews and hoax websites frequently falsely claim that people have said things they did not.

Masem, I do not think that if a reliable source mentions and uses an unreliable source that opens the door to us using the unreliable source. Reporters are trusted to determine what in the unreliable source is accurate, while editors are not. Only what the reliable source reports is reliable, so there is no need to use the unreliable one.

TFD (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

MapReader also removed: "with the Daily Mail going so far as to give the first episode a zero-star review.". That was a Daily Mail writer's opinion, not the Daily Mail quoting someone else. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

How do you know that the writer actually wrote it and that someone else wrote it and DM put another name on it? Since DM is not reliable, we cannot rely on their claim of authorship, or that they have not revised the original text. TFD (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

It's one thing for faking/rewording interviews, etc. However, the DM ban never touched on whether they were actually stealing content and publishing it under their name, which would quickly put them in legal problems. That's a wholly different issue that is unproven and so we shouldn't be assuming they are doing it - eg content that is coming from an writer employeed by the DM should be assumed it is that work until we have evidence that shows otherwise. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? That the Mail has been accused (rightly or wrongly) of routinely plagiarising content is surely not in dispute—Roy Greenslade has been tracking it for years (just google his name and "mail plagiarism" and take your pick of the articles—here's a recent one in which they made the mistake of ripping off a Murdoch-owned paper who had the resources to fight back). The Mail have (unsurprisingly) challenged this article, so I'll let you judge for yourself whether it has the ring of truth. ‑ Iridescent 17:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has concluded that the Dail Mail is unreliable for everything not just some things. TFD (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not what the conclusion said. "The Daily Mail may have been more reliable historically, and it could make sense to cite it as a primary source if it is the subject of discussion. These seem to be good points, but should come up very rarely. Editors are encouraged to discuss with each other and apply common sense in these cases." (emphasis mine). In the specific case of the DM publishing their opinion that a program is akin to ISIS recruitment, as criticism about the program which was noted by other sources, including the DM's criticism article as a source is common sense, so that a reader, trying to understand what this point was, can read the original article(s) that created this controversy. --MASEM (t) 23:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Signed reviews published by the Daily Mail are reliable for "opinion cited and ascribed as opinion." Authorship ascribed by the newspaper is as reliable as the ascription by other newspapers, and saying that they would lie about who wrote a review fails the (fill in the blank) test. The only area where they, and other media, routinely fail is in the area of "celebrity gossip" where even the New York Times fails. Collect (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The issue is that for interviews, we depend on the reliability of the source to establish the reliability and relevance of whoever they're interviewing, and to give us a context for their statements (including their expertise.) I don't think the Daily Mail would lie about who their source is; I do think they might interview a source with no expertise, or interview a source who is far outside the mainstream and then present him as mainstream, or quote someone out of context or in a way that otherwise misrepresents some aspect of the topic, or otherwise "massage" a quote or interview to produce a story. We wouldn't normally quote someone from a WP:PRIMARY source like a social media page or their blog, certainly not on anything controversial, unless we had a reliable source to provide context and establish relevance - and since the Daily Mail lacks reliability, it's no better than doing that. Therefore, I'm opposed to using DM interviews or quotes unless they're referenced or confirmed in a higher-quality source. (And in that case, we should just use the other source.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Interviews in the Daily Mail aren't reliable sources for anything other than writing specifically about "claims made by the Mail". The Daily Mail is notorious for fabricating interviews (a couple of high-profile examples [13], [14]) so anything claimed by the Mail that isn't corroborated elsewhere should be taken with an extreme pinch of salt. ‑ Iridescent 16:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

All of the examples of Daily Mail's journalistic shortcomings (plagiarism, fabrication) appear to concern its news coverage. Are there any examples of alleged journalistic failure regarding its opinion pieces (columnists, reviewers of television, film, stage, dance, exhibitions, galleries, etc)? —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. See past editions of Private Eye. They're in hock to a lot of friends and reviews etc reflect that. - Sitush (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there evidence to support the accusations or even suspicions that any Daily Mail entertainment reviewer took bribes to write a positive opinion when no other publication would find anything positive to say, or that any Daily Mail reviewer was threatened with dismissal if he or she did not write a complementary review when such a review was clearly not warranted? —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

In the UK the Daily Mail (for all its questionable relationship to truth) is not a fringe newspaper -- it single-handedly accounts for almost 25% of the UK national newspaper market, and is a significant opinion-former. If the DM takes strongly against an artistic work, that is a significant element of the popular critical response, which we should be reporting. Similarly, if the DM moves strongly behind a campaign on an issue, that is also part of the story.

So on an issue like eg the Liverpool Care Pathway, the DM is certainly no WP:MEDRS. But removing the links to the DM's populist reporting on the subject (see article history), which to a large extent triggered the issue and gave a platform to the LCP's most vocal critics, makes it a lot more difficult for readers to understand how the issues were presented in the popular press, and the media storm that ultimately forced the NHS to disavow the practice.

With respect to The State, the DM's reporting and review was noted at the time by El Pais in Spain [15] and repeated in detail by e.g. Marianne in Paris before the series began showing in France. In the UK its key allegation of "glamorising ISIS" became a touchpoint that most critics felt they subsequently had to address, even if only to reject it. As with the LCP, if we want to our readers to be able to look into the subject further, and assess for themselves the reporting in the more populist sheets (tabloid self-serving stirred-up moral panic ? -- or no smoke without fire ?), it's helpful to link to the articles in question, to allow them to easily access the texts to read what was actually said, as we would for other primary sources. Jheald (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I firmly believe each article from the Daily Mail should be taken on each merit, not implement a blanket ban as has happened. After all, we have a number of GAs that are heavily reliant on Daily Mail sources and there was no problem with them in regard to reliability in reviews and they were accepted as reliable for inclusion. We should look at each separate article and see if it is an opinion piece or a reasoned review of events that are being covered. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Weight requires that we present opinions according to their significance in reliable sources. So anything that appears in the Daily Mail fails weight, unless a reliable source takes notice of it. Many Americans for example believe the world was created in 6 days, but we don't give it weight according to how many people hold the opinion, but by how prevalent it is in the writing of experts. TFD (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:WEIGHT applies here. WEIGHT determines whether we cover something in an article, not where we draw information from. In this particular case there were plenty of reviews of the program outside of the DM, so "weight" is something of a red herring. The subject is covered and the only question here is whether the biggest selling newspaper in the UK has a voice in the national discourse, no matter how reliable or unreliable it is for factual reporting. Given the fact that other media outlets actively challenged their critique of the program I would wager it does, and Wikipedia is therefore remiss not to cover it. There are other instances where someone notable may pen an article, such as Ed Miliband's defence of his father, where I think the DM quite clearly qualifies in a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE capacity. Betty Logan (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

WEIGHT applies because we do not mention any opinions that have not been covered in reliable sources. So an opinion only covered in the Daily Mail has no weight and cannot be mentioned. And it can only be used as a primary source for its own opinions generally for articles about itself. TFD (talk) 10:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Betty Logan and also find the removal of the Daily Mail citation in the context absurd. Not only is it being cited for its own opinion, but the Daily Mail is actually a part of the story in this case, and its view is directly challenged in the next sentence. Furthermore, its view is presented as a kind of minority or fringe one. It doesn't make sense to remove it in this context. -Darouet (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

In agreeing with this and Betty Logan, I would say that even if one considered it a fringe view, the fact that more reliable sources like the Guardian clearly wrote their reviews/commentary on the program aimed at countering the "ISIS propaganda" claim, even if not mentioning DM by mail, means we would be remit in not including the major papers, even if they are tabloids, to include this facet. The fringe view became part of the discussion, not standalone and unnoticed by anyone else. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

But would we need to quote the source they were commenting on? Also in the Daily Myth the only tabloid making the claim?09:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• In the thread above, collect opined that "Signed reviews published by the Daily Mail are reliable for "opinion cited and ascribed as opinion." Authorship ascribed by the newspaper is as reliable as the ascription by other newspapers, and saying that they would lie about who wrote a review fails the (fill in the blank) test." But as is clearly documented at WP:DAILYMAIL, they regularly cut and paste material from other websites (including interviews, signed reviews, news items, and pretty much anything that catches their eye), edit it a bit to insert total fabrications to make make it into more lurid clickbait, then publish it using another name as the author. So if the Daily Mail publishes a signed review, we have no idea whether the review was modified, whether the author listed is the actual author, or even if the whole thing was made up out of whole cloth. The Daily Mail is unreliable for everything except claims such as "The Daily Mail said X" with a citation to where the reader can read The Daily Mail saying X. Even using The Daily Mail as a source about itself, something that we allow even on unreliable sites like InfoWars.com, should not be allowed in the case of The Daily Mail. The claim "Alex Jones founded Infowars" can be cited with a link to Infowars making that claim, on the reasonable assumption that they are not lying about themselves. The claim "The Daily Mail is owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust and published in London" cannot be supported in the same way -- with a link to The daily Mail saying that -- because The Daily mail lies about everything and plagiarizes everything and we are not allowed to guess whether or not any one particular claim is a lie or is plagiarism. If you can find the claim in another source, use that other source. If the claim is found only in The Daily Mail, don't make the claim on wikipedia. We have no way of knowing that it is true. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Neverthess, "Reception" in a film or tv series article doesn't just mean how the item was received in the quality press. It shouldn't ignore also how the item was received in the populist press. And the best source for how the Daily Mail received it is the Mail itself. Jheald (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. that is a proper use. The way to handle this is to say "The Daily Mail called the film 'Better than Saving Christmas but not a good as Battlefield Earth' " with a citation to where The Daily Mail said that. We should not say that "Professor Eustace P. McGargle, writing in The daily Mail, called the film..." because we have no idea whether the name on the review is fake, or whether, if it is the name of a real person, what The Daily Mail published is what they actually wrote. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: that sounds reasonable. -Darouet (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment As others have said, the original proposal was not for a blanket ban on Daily Mail articles being used as reference. As the Daily Mail is a national newspaper with a high circulation it is inherently a source for notability on certain subjects. Just because you don't agree with the editorial line (and I certainly don't) and just because you believe it shouldn't be used to establish current facts of serious situations, the fact remains that due to it's circulation and importance as a media outlet, it certainly can be used to prove notability of cases. In a lot of cases, this might not be needed (for example a film that is reviewed by many journalists), but in some cases, the Mail may write about a figure, or institution, etc that is not normally covered by other media. IN this case, the Daily Mail is a source of notability for subjects.The discussion linked by the OP here was one based on the reliable sources noticeboard and the discussion centred on the use of the DM as a RELIABLE source, not a NOTABLE one. Egaoblai (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• From WP:N - the guideline covering notability - second paragraph "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." - the list of things on which the Daily Mail can be considered 'reliable' has been demonstrated to be very small. If something was only covered in the Mail and not elsewhere, it would not demonstrate notability. This is clarified slightly further down with "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity" - that the mail is popular and widely read is no indication that what it covers is notable. If it covers something that is notable, it will be covered elsewhere, and from experience at a higher quality level. Although I believe we are off-topic here as notability guidelines do not apply to content within a notable article. Just wanted to correct your statement above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

While you are right to say that determining notability does not rely on fame (a popular phenomenon that was never written about for instance) I think there is a distinction between reliable (as a source for facts on a subject) and reliable (as a source for notability). I support the notion that DM is not reliable for facts, but it must surely be a source for notability given it's position as a national newspaper. My understanding is that if a national newspaper has written about a subject, this alone is grounds for notability, regardless of whether the source is reliable or not, as notability is based on a general notion of importance. If we take away the ability of DM to be used a criteria for determining notability, then we are in effect creating systemic bias as well as a chilling effect on the encyclopedia which means that subjects who have appeared in a national newspaper are not deemed notable. Whether you agree with the paper or not, I find it very hard to see how the subjects it chooses for coverage are not notable. Imagine a case where someone wants to make a page about a historic church in their village. Now an editor comes along and says "well what makes it notable?" and the person points them to a DM article which said the church was voted Britain's most beautiful church by it's readers and this was followed by an article on the church. Are we seriously saying that in a case like this, the response of Wikipedia would be to say that this wasn't sufficiently notable, that a news source read by a huge population of the country was not sufficiently notable for this Church. To make it even clearer, let's say the church was also mentioned in another media, but an over zealous editor remarks that the church is not notable because it only has this one mention, and the DM mention doesn't count. This sounds like a ludicrous outcome to this proposal.Egaoblai (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The reason why 'reliable' is part of the notability guidelines is that an unreliable source cannot be trusted to demonstrate an accurate picture of the situation. That the DM covers something is not necessarily an indication of the notability of the subject, only that the DM is covering it for its own agenda. This applies in general however to almost everything on wikipedia. If an article only has a single reliable source, often it will be deleted at AFD due to a lack of demonstrated notability. If an article has a single unreliable source, it will be deleted if further sources cannot be found. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I actually agree that the DM can be used to establish notability, but there's an important caveat to that; If only the DM is reporting on something, then that's not enough. Not even close. Even the most well-respected reliable sources cannot make something notable simply by writing a story about it; there's a reason all the verbiage in WP:NOTABILITY uses plural forms to refer to sources. But if someone were to find something written about in an RS, and the only other source covering it were the DM, I think that's enough to at least argue that it's notable, though whether that argument succeeds or not depends on other factors. I certainly wouldn't hold that extensive coverage by the DM establishes notability; outlets with identifiable ideologies can harp on endlessly on certain issue for the purpose of furthering that ideology. That doesn't make it notable, it just shows that the source in question wants it to be notable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with the consensus view that ... the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles as established by the RfC. --John (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Use of court filing as source in article on gang

Comment invited at Talk:Lunada Bay Boys. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration

I would be grateful if editors could find some time to comment on an RFC as to RS suitability at the talk page for the above article, thank you. The queried RS are

https://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2017/06/the-forgotten-truth-about-the-balfour-declaration/

& (for comparison)

http://www.balfourproject.org/balfour-weizmann-and-the-creation-of-israel-by-charles-glass/

• An essay by Martin Kramer on the topic of his expertise is reliable wherever it is published. If other scholars take different perspective, they can also be cited.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• There is no longer an RfC on this subject, and Kramer's article is cited repeatedly in the present version. So this request should be archived. Zero^talk 02:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The use of YourEDM.com as a source for electronic music articles

I'm here regarding the use of YourEDM.com on articles such as Monstercat and related articles, such as Monstercat Uncaged Vol. 2, Saving Light and Nerds by Nature EP.

In Monstercat:

On June 6, 2017, Monstercat announced a partnership with Psyonix to help promote the two year anniversary of Rocket League with the release of Rocket League x Monstercat Vol. 1, an 18-song album from various artists whom had songs signed to Monstercat previously including Slushii, Aero Chord and Vicetone. The album was released on July 5, 2017.

In Monstercat Uncaged Vol. 2:

Without You, a song by Grant, Anevo and Conro (featuring vocals by Victoria Zaro) was released as an album-exclusive to Uncaged, Vol. 2 a few days prior to the album's release.

In Saving Light:

The song reached number one on the Beatport overall chart within a week of its release, becoming the first trance single to do so in 5 years.

In Nerds by Nature EP:

Landon Fleury of YourEDM stated "Though Nerds by Nature contains much of the duo’s highest quality material, this clumsy disorganization makes the EP difficult to enjoy as a solid body of work".

Thanks for any feedback provided. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

First off I speak as someone with absolutely no familiarity with this field. The writing style of the articles seems pretty casual to me. The "About us" page indicates the company is well organized however: "CEO," "CFO," "Chief content and social media manager," etc. They also have some high-level partnerships (see here, one of which I confirmed here), although I'm not finding much information on the company from outside sources. Their Facebook page is verified. And they've conducted some exclusive interviews like this one. So on the outside it seems like a decent source, but I do have some qualms about the contributors, whose descriptions make them sound like little more than enthusiasts. It's like when I read this article written by a "High school senior with a passion for aviation business management." I might be careful using YourEdm.com as a result. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 00:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

RT news

Just more of a heads up, but RT has been labeled a "foreign agent" by the US government ([16]). Something to consider when using them as a source. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Is RT actually considered an RS for anything at all related to politics or otherwise controversial?? Tornado chaser (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

RT has generally found to be a reliable source for statements made by Russian officials ascribed to those officials, and for the opinions of those cited to hold such opinions. It has generally not been accepted for any contentious claims of fact and treated as fact within Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This make sense, I think it might also be reliable for noncontroversial stuff like "a tornado was sighed in (province) on (date)" but not any contentious statements of fact. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

We need to consider the US government bias though in this, and that just because something is foreign doesn't mean it is not reliable. That sounds a bit like xenophobia. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone—up to and including the Kremlin—thinks RT is a remotely reliable source for anything other than the most uncontentious of facts; it's openly a propaganda mouthpiece. We don't accept RFERL as a source for the same reason. ‑ Iridescent 21:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Unless we think Donald Trump should dictate what is or isn't fact, I don't see that his government's decision is persuasive one way or the other. He also called a number of mainstream sources "fakenews." However, if the U.S. government releases its reasons that could be helpful. Iridescent, I don't know if you have ever watched the channel, but its news reporting is pretty much like anyone else's and many of its hosts come from other U.S. cable news networks. TFD (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

RT is state run, it's not an issue of being foreign, if the US had a state-run news agency we wouldn't trust that either. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The US definitely has state run news outlets - from Voice of America, Radio Free Europe on. The BBC is a British Government agency. Agence France-Presse was a French Government agency until 1957. See also Deutsche Welle, and a host of other agencies under direct or indirect government control across the world. RT is far from the only example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_46#Voice_of_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_23#Article_protected_for_6_weeks_now_over_dispute_whether_the_Voice_of_America_can_be_used_to_call_someone_an_expert Collect (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the RT wikipedia page, you will see, even in the lede, that there is controversy about weather RT is reliable. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

"RT in a nutshell". CowHouse (talk) 03:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Spencer was actually introduced as a founder and editor of the alternativeright.com, which is clear from the picture attached to the tweet and you can view the clip on youtube. Spencer had been a doctoral student at Duke University in modern intellectual history and at the time was a frequent contributor to U.S. conservative publications, not yet known for his current beliefs on race. Nor was he a regular contributor to RT - hence the clip is from 5 years ago. Spencer was interviewed by Jake Tapper's CNN four months ago, which you can also find on youtube. TFD (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

who said he was? Tornado chaser (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Was what? TFD (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any proof he wasn't known for his views on race by then? He was already the President and Director of a white supremacist think tank.

He was a "frequent contributor to U.S. conservative publications"? I think you mean "he was fired because his views were considered too extreme."

Your CNN comment is fallacious if it were true. I can't find any interview of him by Jake Tapper from four months ago. I did find this less-than-flattering CNN interview where he is described as "the face of white supremacy's new, more optic side." I don't think I need to tell you that this is not remotely comparable to him being an invited expert on RT.

There are plenty of other examples of RT's unreliability, e.g. giving credibility to 9/11 truthers, 'Russia Today Has an Illuminati Correspondent. Really.' and RT using Alex Jones as a source of credible information on a pro-conspiracy story (this 2012 article was still available as late as 2015 before being deleted). Just compare CNN's criticism of Trump to RT's criticism of Putin if you honestly think they are comparable. CowHouse (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can play that game. Glenn Beck, who was a CNN host, promoted a book by the conspiracy theoriest Cleon Skousen book, The Five Thousand Year Leap. At the same time, another CNN host, Lou Dobbs was accused by the SPLC of providing false information and inviting leaders of hate groups on the show. Not to mention that CNN pushed the Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq hoax, and invited birthers such as Orly Taitz and Donald Trump onto their show.

The likely explanation is that RT confused Spencer with his namesake, Richard Spencer, who was Middle East correspondent for The Telegraph. Note that there was no discussion of race (they were talking about Iraq) and Spencer was never invited back in the past five years. Tapper never explains why RT put him on.

TFD (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

They correctly identified Spencer as the founder of alternativeright.com, as you have already said. You need to provide some evidence that they invited the wrong Spencer. Plausibility isn't proof.

Your only argument is two wrongs make a right. You really think RT is worth defending after using Alex Jones as a credible source, or was that just an honest mistake too? Unlike CNN's WMD's in Iraq position (a mistake rather than a lie), RT have deliberately lied and pushed conspiracies. Their actual news stories have promoted conspiracies, not just one host saying he personally liked a book. Your Lou Dobbs example is quite funny actually, since I've never seen an RT reporter be disciplined for conspiracy-mongering (unless the conspiracy was anti-Russian).

Please justify this fear-mongering, conspiratorial news story (not opinion piece) about a "US Army plan that calls for detaining “political activists” at re-education camps" that cites InfoWars as their source. If InfoWars is not considered reliable on Wikipedia, why should RT be reliable if they use them as a source? If you insist on trying to create a false equivalence with CNN again, then you must provide a news story (not an opinion piece or host's personal opinion) which uses InfoWars as their source.

Russia's press freedom is abysmal (ranked 148 out of 180 worldwide) and opposition newspapers are largely known for their journalists having been murdered. RT never strongly criticises Putin or the Russian government. It's completely justified that RT is considered a propaganda outlet and therefore an unreliable source. CowHouse (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

This is actually completely irrelevant as to whether RT is RS. I mean, it's not, but not because of this. Volunteer Marek  20:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

On a note pf sarcasm, this could support the notion that they are RS for the position of the Russian government.Icewhiz (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, they are RS for statements made by Russian government official. Also for "non-controversial" stuff, but in that case, if it really is non-controversial, then it's trivial to find other, better, sources. Volunteer Marek  21:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Did Jimmy Dore call Hillary Clinton a fascist?

The following discussion on The Young Turks, was used as source by a columnist that Jimmy Dore called Hillary Clinton a fascist:[17]

Jimmy: You say we have to vote for Hillary because we might get a fascist.

Cenk: Yes.

Jimmy: The definition of fascism is what?

Cenk: There we go. People say it's when business and...

Jimmy: ...government...

Cenk: ...merges.

Jimmy: So this is a fascist versus a fascist and a racist.

I think what he meant was that by Cenk's definition Clinton was a fascist. I see no reason to present the columnists misrepresentation of the discussion, even with inline attribution.

TFD (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• In short, I am of the view that Dore clearly called Hillary Clinton a fascist. See Talk:Jimmy Dore for my detailed view.
• Also, Dore's final quote is actually: "so our choice is a fascist, or a fascist and a racist?" CowHouse (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

In context, the "So" is important, because it links the statement to, and predicates it on, the immediately preceding definition of fascism. That definition is, at best, incomplete. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• There is no doubt that the Daily Banter says that Dore called Clinton a fascist

Agreed with TFD that the Daily Banter shows itself as an unreliable source - a tabloid really - by misrepresenting what Dore actually said as well as the context in which he said it.

On another level of policy analysis, this is in-the-moment political gossip about [(bernie vs hilary) vs trump], and we are an encyclopedia, NOTGOSSIP/NOTTABLOID and NOTNEWS

On yet another level of analysis, someone would need to bring much stronger sourcing than a political gossip blog to show that mentioning this is DUE

On yet another level of analysis, writing stuff about living people based on crappy sources like this is not what BLP is about.

So no. Not reliable, and also NOT, NPOV, and BLP issues Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Saying that one person called another a fascist is definitely something we would want to cite to a high-quality WP:RS. I don't think The Daily Banter - essentially a blog - is usable for that, nor is it high-profile enough for us to cite it as a primary source for its own opinions. We'd have to find another source presenting that interpretation, or at least highlighting it as the opinion of The Daily Banter. --Aquillion (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• he clearly states in this video his opinion that Hillary's a fascist.[18] Jaydogg1994 (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• No. The statement, in context, is clearly based on the immediately preceding definition of fascism as "mixing big business and government". That's not really a widely accepted or complete definition of fascism; nor what would be understood by our readers if we made a simple statement "Dore called Clinton a fascist". Endorse the statements of Jytdog et al w.r.t. the reliability of the source, NPOV, BLP and all the NOTs. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Prince fansite that references an RS

Some content was removed from "International Lover" because it is from a fansite, but it is actually content from a WP:RS that a fansite posted. Is this edit valid?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok ....the problem ....is the fan cite citing the RS correctly and in the right context? We expect our editors to cite sources they have seen....not cite interpretations or off quotes by non-RS about a RS. Can anyone verify the RS...perhaps the RS goes on to explain a dispute to the claim?--Moxy (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are there any issues with referencing the RS direct? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• I don't have access to the RS. It is not available at the Chicago Public Library.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the 3rd party assessment. I have left a note on the talk page about this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• Princevault.com is not a reliable source. If it cites a source that is reliable and you can access that source, you can use that source directly. Imagine, for example, if the Spectacular Tabloid reported that in the New York Times Joe Politico announced a plan to round up all the minorities. The New York Times is a reliable source that you can certainly cite, but the tabloid might misreport what the Times said. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Should Breitbart articles be given talkpage PRESS templates

• We have a history of templating Breitbart articles on talk pages, Talk:Google's Ideological Echo Chamber, Talk:Yuri Kochiyama, and others. Breitbart has a has a history of writing article criticizing our editing: [[19]] Notice that the most recent three articles are by "T. D. Adler edited Wikipedia as The Devil’s Advocate. He was banned after privately reporting conflict of interest editing by one of the site’s administrators. Due to previous witch-hunts led by mainstream Wikipedians against their critics, Adler writes under an alias." This issue was brought to my attention when an editor came to may talk page to congratulate me for being mentioned in an article on Breitbart; a page I had started Antifa (United States), article here: [20]. (The part of the article that is about the period when I was actively editing the page looks accurate.) But when I added it to the Antifa talkpage, it was removed. So I am bringing this quesiton here. My personal opinion is that removing PRESS templates mentioning Breitbart articles that address our editing directly and in detail makes us look bad by appearing to confirm the very bias that Breitbart accuses of of.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Breitbart's some kind of loony/conspiracist American web site right? Probably shouldn't be dignified with such templates. Alexbrn (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

This may be useful in evaluating what standards are used in this situation. Arkon (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe, but OTHERSTUFF, and there may be a lot on that list that needs to be pruned. Moreover, we should always be open to making decisions on a case-by-case basis. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Breitbart is not a reliable source, and whether it's "press" in the first place is kind of doubtful. We don't consider Occupy Democrats to be press, do we? Moreover, this particular article, of course, is by a banned editor and attacks a number of current editors, so placing it on the talk page is uncollegial and in bad taste, to say the least, and out of respect for my long acquaintance with E.M.Gregory I won't say what "the most" is. BTW, it's worth noting what kind of attention this attracts--look in the talk page history, and note the attempt at a chilling effect by the IP disruptor, probably the one who posted my home address on-wiki a while ago--which is all the more reason to stick to our guidelines, to write an encyclopedia, to not be a forum, and to not encourage forum posting and discussion. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Doug Weller, were you pinged about this already? Drmies (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)I pinged only the 2 editors who wrote about this article on my talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Not sure why this is even framed as a RS issue, it's not about including content in the article it was referenced on. Arkon (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Does not appear to be a reliability problem. Might be an issue with the writer being a banned user, though that is not something for this board. But as far as I can tell there no rules against that in this situation? PackMecEng (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't get that at all. This is an encyclopedia; our content should be based on reliable sources. If we're going to say "the press cited us", it should be real "press" that cites us, and part of that surely is "are they reliable". If not, then we might as well include every Facebook post or every blog that says something about some Wikipedia article. So yeah, for "press", RS seems to be a necessary step. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The difference is article space vs talk page. If it were mentioned in article space I would agree with you, but it is not. As there are already many opinion pieces and even Breitbart cited this year alone in press coverage one more should not be an issue. The question still comes down to basically posting on behalf of a banned user. I don't know the answer on that one but this does not seem to be an issue of using Breitbart in this situation. PackMecEng (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I've been here long enough to know the difference between article space and talk space, thank you very much, and it is a matter of reliability regardless, and invoking the BLP, by the way, isn't much of a stretch either. You're confusing a bunch of things, by the way--the first problem is that of RS and of "press". That it's an opinion piece is entirely different matter. And I'm not suggesting that E.M.Gregory is "posting on behalf of a banned user" at all, though I believe he is not helping the cause with this dispute. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I was not trying to imply E.M. Gregory did anything wrong, or that they were trying to post for a banned user either. Just something to look at in regards to posting it in general. By the way, what was the BLP argument you mentioned? PackMecEng (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the article? Wikipedia editors are living people. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps try WP:BLPN if that is the case. As this is looking less and less a RS issue. PackMecEng (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Saw this discussion referenced on EM Gregory's talk page. I think that usage of the "press" template message should reflect not just the source but the writer. So the answer is "maybe" include Breitbart articles, if they are bona fide news articles written by named staffers, and are not simply ideological hatchet jobs. In other words, if they are reliable sources that could be included in a Wikipedia article. But in the case of the Antifa article, writer is anonymous, not a Brieitbart staffer, and has an axe to grind, so absolutely not. Coretheapple (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Clarifying Coretheapple (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• A few points to consider: even with Brietbart as a non-RS , it has a large enough readership that their articles will have visibility and so one critical of a specific WP may draw SPAs or concerned editors. I would think there might be some value noting that in a press template, but that could possible also be done as a section header. (~month ago, a similar article from Brietbart appeared and I left a message on ANI only as a cautionary measure in case the specific editors named in it were targetted by SPAs.) --MASEM (t) 18:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Masem, this isn't just an article about a Wikipedia article. Seriously--you should know that there's people involved here. Would you like to know what one of those right-wing POV warriors said about my family last week? You have admin glasses; you can go look for it. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Which my point was to make sure editors and admins on WP know this article that names names or encourages other disruptive behavior does actually exists in case there are actions that need to be done to prevent mass vandalism, offsite SPAs canvassing, or similar actions. That should be noted on the talk page. The press template seems like a reasonable place, though I also think there are other options like a new section or reporting at ANI. There's no obvious answer if the press template should be used here, and the current use of the press template (as automated through pages like Wikipedia:Press coverage 2017), don't give a clear answer. --MASEM (t) 20:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I find it hard to follow. I think you're suggesting that this somehow functions as a guide to users having to deal with vandalism? Well, it's admins who will need to do the actual dealing with, but more to the point, you should know a bit about what kinds of harassment users face given your background with Gamergate: we are providing a front-row seat to a banned editor who gets to continue their attacks on the talk page of a frequently visited article. The editors/admins who are attacked are in no way guilty of having violated Wikipedia guidelines (one of them was unjustly censured, as you may know, and that was quickly undone), and we are going to let them be smeared? Drmies (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
        • Regardless of the link being on WP or not, if there are external people that want to target those named, the mere publication of the article on Brietbart is sufficient; it is not going to be the WP inclusion of the link in a press/media template that is going to be the vector for that. Secondly, I'm more comparing it to a situation like when Stephen Colbert goes out and tells people to edit a certain WP page. This creates a short-term behavior problem for editors and admins to be aware of. ("Hey, why is this random page being edited suddenly by IPs?") As I noted, in a previous case from the same BN author, I pinged the named WP authors at an ANI thread to make them aware that this came up. That's the type of "courtesy" link that would be helpful in such situations to help prepare them or other editors for incoming disruptive behavior.
        • I do absolutely agree that specifically with the author in question that that is a very round-about way for that person to get their say on WP despite being banned, and since we know that history, in this specific case, the press/media template is definitely a bad idea. However, generalize it to a random Breitbart author who we have no idea if they have ever edited at WP before (and we have no means to check or evidence to confirm), making otherwise similar commentary - that's where the picture is not as clear if this is appropriate or not. At which point it does probably does depend on what the coverage is if that could be a press template entry, or should just be flagged to prep editors for incoming problems. --MASEM (t) 23:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• I wasn't pinged. Perhaps everyone named in the article should have been pinged. I'm obviously involved - my name is mentioned 12 times, I think that's just over twice as many times as anyone else's name. I agree with Drmies that anything labelled as press this way should be a reliable source, or we end up having no standard. The exception would be perhaps something that was then given some coverage in the mainstream press. Realising that TDA will almost certainly read this, I am going to try to be polite. :-) This is basically an opinion piece, written by someone with an agenda which seems both political and personal. I don't think that we should discuss the obvious problems with the piece but it's worth pointing out that it is a very subjective analysis and in my opinion doesn't reflect the more complex story around the editing of the article. Nor of course does his statement about being banned match what happened, but none of this is surprising. Should this be treated as we'd treat a normal press report, or is it a hit piece by someone with (and he's upfront about it) an axe to grind? Some of the comments on it are pretty chilling, but then that's not surprising either. I wrote this before Masem commented so I'll add that as someone who's been attacked off-wiki a number of times, even had a fake Facebook page made with an implied attack on my wife, I wouldn't be surprised if this garners more such over time. Ditto the other editors named. Doug Weller talk 18:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• Retain press templates The readership is large, so yes, we should include the template. 'Dignifying' them with a template doesn't enter into it, because that isn't the point of the template. The template is to let editors of the page know that the article was covered in the media, and like it or not, Brietbart is part of the media. If anything it is more important to have it when we get negative coverage from a site like Brietbart, it lets editors know if a bunch of SPAs are potentially on their way, and also gives a heads up that the page is likely to be the target of increased vandalism continuing into the future from traffic directed there from disgruntled readers of the Brietbart article. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 18:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't like hanging fellow editors out to dry as bait for vandals. And yes, "dignifying" does enter into it: we have had these kinds of discussion in many cases, including for instance the IMDB templates. Increasing visibility means increasing credibility. Breitbart is not "press"; "press" template is not appropriate. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
    • No. This is a talk page template, if it was on the main page then your assertion that it adds credibility might hold some weight. They may be unreliable, and we may not like them, but they have, for example, been controversially invited to White House press conferences]. In any case, I suggest that we sidestep the issue of calling them press and simply change the template to be 'media' instead of 'press', thereby changing the template to match the usage, rather than changing the usage to meet the template wording. --Nevermind. It already says 'media', not 'press'. No need to change anything. It might be a 'PRESS' template but so long as the visual wording that is used is 'media', we aren't calling breitbart 'press' at all, and Breitbart will be appropriate for these templates (even if it is arguably not 'press', it definitely is 'media'). — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 20:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• No, no, a million times no. If Mark Zuckerberg got invited to the White House we wouldn't put this template on every article that's been discussed on Facebook. I agree with Drmies here. --John (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

That is not what is being purposed, looking to added one event to many articles. The Breitbart article is specifically about Wikipedia's Antifa article and only being proposed to be added to that one. The question comes in about it mentioning current users and written by a banned user. It's not even a reliable source issue in the least. PackMecEng (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• [comment struck 18:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)] Unscintillating (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• After continuing to consider, I think I am on record that administrators should provide notice of discussions outside Wikipedia if non-administrators need to know of those discussions.  In this case, Drmies is the administrator who brought this to my attention, on E.M.Gregory's talk page, so I think it is proper that the template be retained.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose (do not include) -- the article appears to be from a banned user from an axe to grind, and its inclusion would be tantamount to harassment. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• The page Wikipedia:Press_coverage has this to say, This set of pages lists press coverage of Wikipedia that mentions or discusses Wikipedia as a project – that is, any aspect of Wikipedia overall, such as its structure, success, information, goals, history, or views on Wikipedia in general, and so on.... The template {press} may also be used to document mention of specific articles on their talk page. I think the point of the press templates is simply to alert editors to public discussion of the Wikipedia article in the press. It's not supposed to be part of the editing or discussion process - reliable sourcing policy really doesn't apply. The press template does not endorse the actual contents, or even display it - it simply an alert to users that the material exists. I really don't think this is at all a reliable sources issue. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Question on reliability

A discussion has developed over the last few days at the Formula 1 WikiProject regarding the reliability of a source.

The question is whether this source can be used as a reliable source of information to make four considerable changes to the 2018 F1 season article:

1. Carlos Sainz Jr. being removed from the Toro Rosso lineup (thus assuming that his existing 2018 contract with that team has been terminated)
2. Carlos Sainz Jr. being added to the Renault lineup
3. Adding Renault as McLaren's engine supplier
4. Adding Honda as Toro Rosso's engine supplier

This has been questioned because some users consider that this source not quoting their sources beyond "high level sources state" (=some say), rather than quoting someone involved with the contracts for each of these sources, makes if fail our standards set out in WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFY.

If should be noted that it has been this WikiProject has the convention of erring on the side of caution, as should be the encyclopedic way, and wait until sources on such changes quoting people involved in them are published.

As we seemingly cannot find a solution on the WikiProject, I reach out here in hope for an answer on our query whether this source should be used.Tvx1 10:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment, as far as I am aware (I started the thread referred to) that discussion is only about whether that source would provide verifiability (per WP:VER) for a statement in the article that Sainz will drive for Renault, and so not for Torro Rosso in 2018. As far as I can tell (it is used all over the place) Autosport has generally been considered to be a reliable source (per WP:RS) previously. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: the issue is whether or not articles that rely on anonymous sources can generally be used on Wikipedia. Those articles made specific claims—like Sainz moving to Renault—but did not provide any actual evidence to substantiate the claims beyond relying on anonymous sources. The generally-accepted practice is to wait until someone from the team who is named and is considered to have the authority to confirm the move is directly quoted. To allow articles that rely on anonymous sources would open Wikipedia pages up to edits that are based purely on speculation, effectively presenting unsubstantiated rumour as fact. Although Autosport is generally considered reliable, that does not make its claims verifiable by default—no other publication is making the same claims independently of it. Those that do address the subject makes it clear that they have gotten the story from Autosport. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: it should be noted that the claims made in the disputed source have now been confirmed by the parties involved. However, I still dispute the validity of the original article as it relies on an anonymous source—and it is not the only article by that publication that does so. Being proven right at a later date does not vindicate the use of the anonymous source as there are too many scenarios that arise where anonymous sources can be abused—for example, to justify publishing an article that is misleading as it suggests the publisher has an exclusive story, or to push a particular agenda. I'm not completely opposed to anonymous sources; in exceptional circumstances they are necessary (ironically the anonymous source there was named as "Witness X"), but in the case of 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship (as with all future championship articles), changes in driver line-ups and team changes are very common; there is already talk of what will happen in 2019 as at least five of the best seats will be available. Given how common it is for these things to happen (and the tactic of planting stories to generate publicity), the value of anonymous sources decreases exponentially compared to their use in "Crashgate". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment, just to point out that the source is not anonymous, the source is Autosport, a well respected motor racing publication that is generally considered to be an WP:RS. That they chose to protect the name of their informant in this instance did not change their reliability. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment: you're assuming that they had a source. How do you know that they didn't make an informed guess, dress it up as an anonymous source to protect themselves in case it didn't happen, and then publish it for the sake of having an exclusive story? That's why you can't trust anonymous sources—you don't know who is controlling the message and you don't know why they're releasing the message when they do. The story was accompanied by a report that Sainz may join the team immediately—how do you know the story wasn't planted by Renault to put pressure on Jolyon Palmer? You don't. It's not just Autosport's use of an anonymous source; it's the anonymous source, a lack of evidence in the article, and no secondary reporting to substantiate it. When Deepthroat blew the lid on Watergate, he at least gave the journalists evidence that they could verify, even if Deepthroat's name was never published. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Look, we all had our say in the article and WP discussions. I came here to reach out to uninvolved people. It think we should keep ourselves out of this discussion now and let uninvolved people weigh in.Tvx1 23:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with the above, but I have been doing some research and I just found something interesting that is pertinent to this discussion: this isn't the first time Autosport has relied on anonymous sources like this. A source within Mercedes told them about Valtteri Bottas' move before it was announced. And a source told them about Nico Hülkenberg's move to Renault, too. They also knew about Pascal Wehrlein joining Sauber in advance as well (if the URLs don't work, you might need to insert a "www." into them). And they're just the stories I checked; I'm willing to bet that this is a habit of theirs (once is an accident and twice might be coincidence, but three times is a pattern). It seems that Autosport have a habit of relying on anonymous sources to confirm major stories roughly a week before they are announced—but only after those stories have been repeated on the rumour mill. They had no idea about Nico Rosberg retiring or Fernando Alonso going to Indianapolis until they were announced. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment, the best we can from the first two of those (the third is not the story you suggest) is that they clearly have a good informant or informants (a trait common in reliable news sources) based on the statements being later confirmed by events. And although you suggest they are similar stories to the subject here, they clearly aren't - neither of these two make direct assertions of fact as the subject of this thread does, they make it clear that their informants "suggest" this to be the case. The Sainz article clearly and unambiguously asserts "Sainz will drive for Renault" (which was entirely accurate as Renault have confirmed it now). The evidence suggests to me appropriate editorial diligence and a continued reputation for accuracy. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment: I'm glad you say that "appropriate editorial diligence" is called for because these articles offer no evidence to substantiate their claims. It doesn't matter if it's a vague claim or a definite assertion—if they don't offer evidence, they cannot be used, and the reputation of the publication is no substitute for a lack of evidence. It's also contradictory for you to say that an article without evidence is acceptable because of the publication, but then say that editors should do their diligence based on the precise wording. It feels like you're drawing from both extremes while disregarding the happy medium: if there is evidence, it's valid; if there is no evidence, it's not. Because right now you're arguing for inclusion based on everything but the evidence presented and against exclusion despite this lack of evidence. You can't have it both ways. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Comment, they don't need to reveal the identities of their informants to be considered reliable, nor provide other evidence for their statements. If they have a track record for accuracy and editorial diligence (as they clearly do) then we can take their assertions at face value. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
        • Comment: Right, because no publication with a reputation for accuracy or editorial diligence has ever failed to fact-check. No, wait ...] Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• While we here on Wikipedia are required to name our sources (in this case autosport) there is no requirement that our sources reveal their sources. Most media sources will use anonymous sources from time to time. Yes, all media sources do "get it wrong" from time to time, but that does not make them unreliable. What matters for reliability is the overall reputation for fact checking and "getting it right". Autosport has a good reputation... so we would consider them reliable. Blueboar (talk) 11:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the description of Blueboar. It is a valid point; I realize SwordOfRobinHood (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Blueboar, @SwordOfRobinHood —

"What matters for reliability is the overall reputation for fact checking and "getting it right"."

While I appreciate the idea here, I feel that their over-reliance on anonymous sources puts a dent in their reliability. Like I said, they always seem to find an anonymous source just before a major announcement is made, but only when the story has been doing the rounds on the rumour mill (and, by extension, only when most people are already convinced that it will happen). As you say, media outlets will rely on anonymous sources, but they quote those sources. Autosport does not; they just allude to the existence of a source. That puts us on dangerous ground because it looks like they're using the rumour mill as a source for the sake of getting an exclusive.

Articles about future events have always been controversial at the Formula 1 WikiProject. That's why I always triangulate when a claim such as Autosport's is made. If the story is published in three sources independently of one another, then I can accept it. But given a) the tight-knit Formula 1 community and b) the high number of respected publications (including both mainstream and specialist media) reporting on it, I find it odd (to say the least) that no other publication makes the same claims despite Autosport's seemingly magical ability to find anonymous sources at will. It just does not add up.

Considering that there is no deadline for work to be done on Wikipedia and that we have a surefire way of ensuring the accuracy of articles in waiting for an official announcement, all of this amounts to editors invoking WP:RS and WP:VERIFY to justify rushing to add content that is questionable. I can think of half a dozen scenarios off the top of my head where anonymous sources could be abused to further an agenda, and that to me makes them unacceptable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

As Blueboar has beautifully described its accuracy within reputation of sources. I avoid to adopt a way, splitting the hair when reliability speaks itself. SwordOfRobinHood (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources at Great Mosque of Kufa

A user keeps adding a hadith to the article Great Mosque of Kufa, the source of which is the Bihar al-Anwar and some 17th century book by Mohammad-Baqer Majlesi (both WP:PRIMARY). Using them contradicts with the guidlines WP:ISLAMOR and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam#Resources, but the user keeps adding it on the grounds that some sources have quoted it. The sources are:

• IslamQuest.net, a religious Q&A website [21] (The answer is not signed by the author)
• The official website of the mosque [22]
• sahebnews.ir, a news website (?)[23] (republished post of the personal blog of a cleric)

I already know that none of the sources are scholarly, peer-reviewed or considered reliable to meet the criterias mentioned in WP:ISLAMOR and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam#Resources, but I need consensus of several editors that can be relied upon. Pahlevun (talk) 11:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

This RSN topic is distorted. The sources are :

• IslamQuest.net (https://www.islamquest.net/fa/archive/question/fa77393), a religious OFFICIAL website by fa:مهدی هادوی تهرانی (The source is about being official and is alive yet : https://web.archive.org/web/20170915103441/http://www.jamaran.ir/بخش-اخبار-59/121303-نامه-آیت-الله-هادوی-تهرانی-خطاب-به-فقهای-شورای-نگهبان) (elected as a member for Assembly of Experts in Tehran) and it is publishing Islamic official replies (no other one can reply or edit there and it is not a Q&A, it is like the Islamic Treatise Resalah(رساله) having problems? and the official answers) such as the Resalah of Naser Makarem Shirazi or Mohammad Fazel Lankarani.
• (Great Mosque of Kufa) The official website of the mosque repeats the Hadith https://web.archive.org/web/20130919075523/http://www.masjed-alkufa.net/news.php?readmore=203
• Imam Husayn Shrine official website repeats the Hadith again : https://www.imamhussain.org/persian/ahlulbayt-55/19608

and many other Shiite sources proving the Hadith. Also IslamQuest.net is based on many other library sources in its footer

The title of Dragon Gate is famous and has been mentioned by many News Agencies including ISNA. The user Pahlevun says why did I laugh to the Hadith :D and this is why he think the Hadith is not reliable :v (@Pahlevun What Hadith is reliable? the Masih ad-Dajjal : Bilgrami, Sayed Tahir (2005). "6". Essence of Life, A translation of Ain al-Hayat by Allama Mohammad Baqir Majlisi. Qum: Ansarian Publications. p. 104.) This source above is more reliable than the Bilgrami source --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 13:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Yet this [[24] makes no mention of any one individual.In fact it makes mention of "researchers" (plural), this implies it is not just one person answering. Thus with no by line we do not know who gave the answer.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

It is said in the about page of islamquest.net (https://www.islamquest.net/fa/aboutus) : "و این اولویت توسط مدیران و کارشناسان بخش فارسی، عربی و انگلیسی مشخص و مورد تأیید نهایی مدیران محترم بخش تحقیقات و خانه رایانه و ریاست محترم مؤسسه فرهنگی رواق حکمت قرار می گیرد، تشکیل می گردد."

translation : And this priority is proved by administrators and specialists of different language parts Farsi, Arabic, English and became proved by the admins of the research part and finally by the BOSS CHIEF :) officer of the Ravagh e Hekmat foundation (Hadavi Tehrani) --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 13:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Also there are many other sources too. How much do you want? http://www.sibtayn.com/fa/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48258:مسجد-کوفه-در-گذر-زمان-تصاویر&catid=2279&Itemid=2882 --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 13:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

This is why I think this discussion need to be had here, I cannot find his name on that page (but this maybe a translation issue).Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: No the last one "sibtayn" was my mistake in copying the different URLs there are many more from hawzah (باب الثعبان + فیل elephant) :

• http://www.hawzah.net/fa/Magazine/View/3301/5343/50193/اماکن-زیارتی-منتسب-به-امام-زمان-(عجل-الله-تعالی-فرجه-الشریف)-در-ایران-و-جهان-(3)
• الخرائج و الجرائج، ج 1، ص 189; الثاقب، ص 248; مدینة المعاجز، ج 1، ص 141 .
• The right URL : http://www.sibtayn.com/ar/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11233:ولائيات(باب الثعبان)&catid=627:2010-02-17-15-32-54&Itemid=3757
• The right URL : sibtayn (this URL was hard to copy)

--IranianNationalist (Welcome) 13:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC) @Pahlevun Is there any problem yet? --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 13:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@IranianNationalist: I think the problem is that you are refusing to deal with WP:ISLAMOR and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam#Resources. None of these sources are RS. Pahlevun (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Can we let others chime in?Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I have seen this fragmented discussion come from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon gate, Talk:Great Mosque of Kufa, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Which is why I suggested here, it is a question about the reliability of sources. I was hoping that some Iranian speakers not party to the dispute might be able to comment on the sources, and how they are being used.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

"I cannot find his name on that page" @Slatersteven: said. REPLY: I didn't know when you read a book you are looking for the author name in every page of that book. When you read the official website of the Hadavi Tehrani (I repeat at least for the 4th time proved by Jamaran : http://www.jamaran.ir/بخش-اخبار-59/121303-نامه-آیت-الله-هادوی-تهرانی-خطاب-به-فقهای-شورای-نگهبان) as it is said in the about page of the website (https://www.islamquest.net/fa/aboutus) : "و این اولویت توسط مدیران و کارشناسان بخش فارسی، عربی و انگلیسی مشخص و مورد تأیید نهایی مدیران محترم بخش تحقیقات و خانه رایانه و ریاست محترم مؤسسه فرهنگی رواق حکمت قرار می گیرد، تشکیل می گردد."

translation : "And this priority is proved by admins of the research part and finally by the CHIEF officer of the Ravagh e Hekmat foundation (Hadavi Tehrani)" then you have a secondary reliable source jamaran.ir proves the website to be official. Official ar:تصنيف:استفتاءات ARE NOT public Q&A and not a kind of a Q&A website. I ping @Darafsh: a Wiki Fa admin here.
For example when you have an official website such as http://reference.bahai.org you don't ask for the name of author of every page to use it in the Bahá'í_Faith article. --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 17:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'm not willing to participate in this discussion because of personal issues. Best regards Darafsh (Talk) 20:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@IrainianNationalist: You can't use other Wikipedias as a source as I see you did at the AfD. I'm sorry but your translation still doesn't make sense. I saw it earlier and it completely confused me. You can't use a Hadith for proof of anything other than what it says, and you certainly cannot "prove a Hadith". But perhaps you don't literally mean that. I see that Islamquest is run by this group. I would be interested in knowing why it shows up on this list. Looking at the article I'm not sure what "The Hadith has many different forms in some cases as a large Snake or as a Dragon, in some cases it is not kissing the feet and in some cases the Snake or Dragon is talking about a conflict between Jinns not Jaber ibn-Sami' but the base of this Hadith is" means - I hope it's not a direct translation from something. It really doesn't make sense. If you are saying that there are various versions of the hadith then we certainly shouldnt choose one to include, and I frankly don't see why it's needed at all. Right now that bit of the article is confusing to an English speaker who isn't familiar with the sources. Doug Weller talk 16:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller "other Wikipedias as a source"?!! it is a completely fallacy, I'v never did such a thing (you couldn't provide a link for your claim :) ). It is weird when you use a Sunni FORUM ("this list") for your claims??!! The Hadith is needed because the background of the door name is the Hadith (do you have any other background in reliable sources?) I provided many sources above including Hawzah and IslamQuest which they are reliable. Also the Official website of the mosque is reliable. Even Slatersteven had no more reply. Darafsh can't participate in this talk because due to another subject in Wiki fa I gave him a gift (it may be seems as a conflict of interest) but I pinged him because I know him from a list of Persian users active in WikiEn. I will try to find the list again and ping some users here to say you to sources are reliable (because it is clear no one of the participants are familiar to Farsi or Arabic language excluding Pahlevun(Farsi)) Also @HyperGaruda: is a few familiar to Arabic to prove the source sibtayn but there are many reliable official Farsi sources so I will ping some users here (I wonder from the users who are not familiar to Farsi or Arabic but they adjudicating about the sources). --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 08:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I apologise, I misread a source and thought it was a Wikipedia. I wasn't using the forum as a claim, I was asking a question about it which you haven't answered, or was stating that it was Sunni your answer? I'm pleased to see that the article is now less confusing. Doug Weller talk 10:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

To those users trying to remind different policies to attempt to show me as a newbie (These are the 94 articles I built in WikiFa(translated or created) + many more other edits) (To avoid prejudices or misunderstanding) @Wikimostafa: is an experienced user familiar to Farsi (probably Arabic too) and is an impartial Muslim user. --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 08:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Also @Huji: a Farsi Wiki admin (impartial user approved by Muslims too) --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 08:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem here is that one of your sources does not say the door is called the dragon door (it does not in fact mention the door) It just relates the tale (whilst also saying it says snake as well), and in fact the quotes from the haddith (in the article) all say snake. At least one other of your sources calls it the serpent door.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, But the subject you forgot to remind is that ALL of MY SOURCES are talking about the Greate Mosque of Kufa and about a dragon gate or serpent gate exactly (the only difference is about a Serpet talking in the Mosque or a Dragon talking in the Mosque. Persian Shiites call it Dragon but Arabs call it serpent, simply) :

• https://www.islamquest.net/fa/archive/question/fa77393 (اژدها in this source means Dragon but الثعبان in this source is something like hydra or ultra large weird crawler between a dragon and a snake (for this reason it is translated to serpent NOT SNAKE)). Different understanding between the translations but all of them are talking about باب الثعبان
• sibtayn IS ARABIC and EXACTLY TALKING ABOUT THE HADITH AND ABOUT THE Serpent or Dragon gate (باب الثعبان).
• These two are enough I don't repeat the list of sources I provided above.

The question is : Are the opposites rationally talking about choose between Dragon or Serpent or Both reminded as different understanding of the same Hadith or they just want to censor the Hadith due to being weird (There are many weird things including Masih_ad-Dajjal Hadithes too) --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 09:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Then we have a problem, because this A: Does not say anything about the door (it is just about the passage in the HAddith) B: it says snake (not dragon). This is not about censorship (and this is the last time I will ask you to stop making comments or accusations about users) it is about the fact that what you say it says does not seem to tally with what we are reading, thus we need other users of Arabic to check the sources. Until that is done we cannot be sure what your sources actually say.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, Ouch! The bab (باب) in Arabic means DOOR (Did you know that?) and the باب الثعبان is only one location in the Shiite world as it is reminded by the official website of the mosque ALSO the Islam Quest is talking about the MOSQUE OF KUFA DIRECTLY (مسجد کوفه).

• It is a COMPLETE Fallacy when someone says the name of the mosque is not the source!!!) (GOOGLE TRANSLATION) IT IS WONDERFUL WHEN YOU CAN'T SEE THE KUFA MOSQUE NAME THERE!
• Or when you can't see Kufa Mosque in the this! (GOOGLE TRANSLATION) : كان عليّ بن أبيطالب (عليه السلام) يخطب بالناس يوم الجمعة على منبر الكوفة --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 10:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not see dragon. It is not enough for Source A to say Door and source B to say dragon, you need a source that combines both. This is pure synthesis.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

This has also been taken here [25].Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven You SHOULD NOT search in the Hadith for the door name (باب الثعبان) (ARE YOU DOING AN ORIGINAL RESEARCH?) You must see the serpent or dragon door in the secondary source (previously links provided by me) again :

• sibtayn Qom : GOOGLE TRANSLATION
• islamquest.net : GOOGLE TRANSLATION

--IranianNationalist (Welcome) 11:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

AI will bow out now and ask others to chime in.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not dragon gate anymore it is serpent door in the Article :

The Serpent door

The Serpent door in Arabic (Arabic: باب الثعبان, romanized: Bāb al-Thu‘bān, lit. 'Gate of the Serpent') or Dragon door in Farsi (Persian: در اژدها) is a famous door of the mosque.
I repeat : I don't have any problem to use Serpent door (I never have had) or any other thing provided in the sources. The problem is when Pahlevun says the official high-ranked clerical sources "are not reliable" and tries to clear the article from the background of the door name (this is censorship I told repeatedly) and @Slatersteven: you supported him from one side(ok, it was a misunderstanding) --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 11:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I asked you to lay of accusations against other users.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Can't approve the "serpent door" is clearly in the sources? There are no other problem between the article text and its sources both are talking about Serpent and Dragon door(Arabic and Farsi versions).
Pahlevun (Hero in Persian language) is a Persian user can read all the sources easily why should he make an RfC for article deletion (instead of MERGE) or say ISNA or clerical sources are not reliable (at least spend a few thinking and googling time) Special:Diff/800401183 How much other similar edits can we find? Ok it was my mistake talking about him and he was not gonna violate from the wiki policies (he was probably not aware of the Shiite holy locations).

OK, now there is no problem with the sources and the article. OK?--IranianNationalist (Welcome) 11:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Special:Diff/801056989 Avoid WP:RUNAWAY stay on the main discussion --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 11:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: The above user is still IranianNationalist despite the different signature. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: I changed my signature (however it is blue yet clearly :) ) to avoid being accused to be National zealot in the views of other users :) --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 08:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Random break

Honestly, it would be better to refrain from using self-published websites as sources, especially if there is no editorial oversight by a third party; see WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:RSSELF. All sources mentioned by IranianNationalist have a vested interest in promoting their religious beliefs (the Mosque of Kufa wants more visitors, while clerics would like to attract more believers in the spirit of da'wah) and while such bias is not a reason per se to dismiss their reliability, I'd urge you to find more secular sources such as (art) historians and etymologists who published their works via reputable third party publishers.

That said, I am against including entire hadith quotes, because: 1) they interrupt the flow of the text, 2) there are often various versions, so which one are you going to include without violating WP:NOTQUOTE? 3) they give the impression of da'wah which is a form of soapboxing, 4) they are borderline violations of WP:ISLAMOR and WP:PRIMARY, 5) real encyclopedias hardly ever use them. A short summary as given in a reliable secondary source is all that is needed to understand the background of the gate. --HyperGaruda (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree, all we need is a short summary from a reliable secondary source. I don't understand the insistence of keeping the hadith in the article and again, I agree with all 5 points you make above. Doug Weller talk 15:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

A "reliable secondary source" that HyperGaruda mentioned, is what I said from the very beginning. Constant PAs towards me, makes me less willing to discuss. Pahlevun (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Beware BuzzFeed articles for at least a day after publication

BuzzFeed run multiple versions of articles for the first few hours, A/B testing what gets most readers. It's not clear from the article whether this applies to the RS serious news content or just to the fluffy clickbait content, but I would advise waiting at least a day before using their RS content - David Gerard (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Are the actual articles changed - or just the lead/teaser to get people to read them? If the content changes, then we are up the creek, if it is just the heading, then we should simply use the "latest available" one - just to avoid confusion? I tend, moreover, to find Buzzfeed to be "less than reliable too much of the time" and IMO should be avoided as much as the DM. Collect (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've noticed this practice on quite a number of clickbaity sites. It's not uncommon at all, but this thread title is very good advice. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Any site like Buzzfeed that, while possibly generating truthful information, but whose principle M.O. is to tease headlines and images to draw readers (and the above linked articles shows the length they will go to that) should not be an RS for us. I know that not all of BuzzFeed's content is like this, but this is the equivalent of a tabloid shouting a tempting headline to make you buy the paper to learn more. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    • The BuzzFeed News section has generally been an RS up to now. (It's really surprisingly good.) It's operated separately from the cute cat videos section. I'm flagging caution at this stage - David Gerard (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could ignore articles for a day from ALL sources. Why are people in such a hurry?:) Objective3000 (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Or better yet: 1 week, excluding corrections and clarifications. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely would be in favor of a "wait at least 24 hours" rule for all news outlets. Even the best, most reliable news sources can sometimes get the story slightly wrong at first (as it is breaking). The morning edition of a major newspaper may be updated or corrected in the mid day or evening edition. A "wait" rule would help us to present updated and accurate information. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Personally I wish people would remember that news stories about current events are PRIMARY sources. But we don't always get what we want... Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

As per WP:NORUSH there is no harm in doing this for BuzzFeed nor other sources. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Airlines and destinations

Over at WT:AIRPORTS we are trying to determine how to reference the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles (example). As you can see, providing secondary sources like news reports (example) for all the destinations is unfeasible. As a result, we would have to rely on primary sources - information direct from the airlines. This does not seem to be a problem as WP:OR states that A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts – that is all we are doing, listing the destinations that airlines serve.

Such primary sources are the following:

• Route maps (example). These are typically interactive as you see in the example. Is this acceptable? This appears to qualify as a reliable, published source, as the information is made available to the public in some form, even though it is interactive.
• Timetables that the user has to search manually (example). These theoretically require a user to search every possible combination of destinations to verify that the information in the table is complete and accurate. As a result, I don't think this type of source is acceptable. Thoughts?
• The airline's actual booking engine. I don't think this should be allowed either, per my reasoning for the timetables.

We managed to find two "secondary" sources that provide extensive data on airline/airport operations: CAPA Centre for Aviation (example) and Flightradar24 (example). I put "secondary" in quotes as these sources are just displaying information from reservation systems and the like (see the disclaimer at the bottom of the Flightradar24 example). Even if they are primary sources, I guess they would be fine as well?

I know I asked a lot of questions so thank you for any insight you can provide. Our discussion at WT:AIRPORTS appears to have grown stale, and we don't seem to have a firm consensus yet. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 17:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Honestly? If you cannot provide secondary sources for this information, given how extensive it is, you probably shouldn't have this information on Wikipedia. These destination listings have always struck me as WP:NOTDIR violations. --Izno (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree. If others haven't written about a topic then we probably shouldn't either. ElKevbo (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

These tables have a long history on airport articles; here is a 2005 discussion I found about them at WT:AIRPORTS. People have raised issues with them (example and example), and there was a RfC that I introduced in 2016 regarding their removal/replacement. Many in the WT:AIRPORTS community came out to defend the tables, and consensus was to keep them. Ssscienccce's argument here does appeal to me. At the same time, I fear that the removal of these tables would drive away a lot of editors/readers, as they have grown into a focal point of airport articles. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 21:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• This issue is a reminder that we have no policies for Maintainability.
  Looking at the JFK article, it appears that the idea here is to post current airline destinations.  This is a goal that is a moving target, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper.  So perhaps the first thing to do to reduce the scope of effort, by picking an "as of" date.  If the lists are too long to expect that they will be read, such as Delta Air Lines in the JFK article, perhaps cut back to samples of destinations, or maybe use the country of destination instead of the airport of destination. 
  When a primary source is the source of authority for something repeated in a secondary source, the primary source is generally more reliable.  Reliability is what matters.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree 100% about the "current airline destinations" point – seems to me like a MOS:RELTIME violation. I'm also interested in your point about scaling back the tables. Proponents often state that the tables are a clear way to determine the size/scope of an airport, but prose-style summary could have the same effect I think (see what I've done at Calgary Airport here and here). Sometimes these tables (and statistics ones too) look like plain almanacs with little to no explanatory information.
    Your point on primary sources in this case also sounds good to me. The airlines wouldn't want to publish incorrect information for their customers. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 22:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with those who say that these lists are too close to being NOTDIR vios. I do understand that the airport project members have repeatedly stated that they want them... but perhaps it is time that the broader community spoke up to over-rule that WP:LOCAL consensus. Blueboar (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

This seems like a case for WP:IAR with regards to NOTDIR. As long as the content is clearly accurate and volunteers are willing to keep it up-to-date, the articles are better off with this content than without it. I think primary sources are generally sufficient here. Airlines used to publish PDFs with this information [26], but that appears to be becoming less common. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Power~enwiki, then would you be in favor of using any of the primary sources I listed above? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 22:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

A primary source is a perfectly valid reliable source for non-contentious information about the primary source. An air carriers own published destinations is fine to source the destinations it serves. No secondary source needed. Unless someone is going to seriously argue that an airline is lying about where it flies (although being the internet, one probably has at some point). The question of if that information is encyclopedic is another matter. But as far as sourcing goes, there is not real argument not to use primary in this case - if the info is deemed relevant to include. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you Only in death, my question was which type of primary source (of the ones I listed above) would be appropriate. For example I gave my reasoning for why I think searchable timetables should not be used as references. Thoughts? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 15:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thats the least useful of the 3. Routemaps where available would be the most efficient from a WP:V angle, airline booking systems are not actually that bad as you can usually tell (if its a good one) where they are flying to quite quickly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Only in death: "Unless someone is going to seriously argue that an airline is lying about where it flies": in my own, not-so-extensive experience, I've bought tickets from A to B, and, after a wait of a couple of hours, from B onward to C; for which airline X gave the very strong impression that it would fly all the way; only to find that my flight from B to C was on the plane and with the staff of the very different airline Y. I believe it's called code-sharing. If you're an assiduous reader of the small print, or know where to look, then you might find that no, X doesn't fly between B and C; it just has a contract by which it can say it does this. Though I hesitate to make an accusation of lying. That matter aside, don't lists of destinations become obsolete rather quickly? -- Hoary (talk) 13:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

RE your last point, personally I think that's the reason why they shouldn't be listed. Its unencyclopedic cruft. As the information is subject to change. But that is a different discussion and not really related to the reliability - except where as above, a primary source is better in some cases because it will provide up to date information (excluding your example) rather than secondary sources which will generally be out of date. I will say that in the UK when booking ongoing flights, where the ongoing is a different carrier, it is clearly marked. The situation may be different elsewhere. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hoary, that is correct. WP:AIRPORTS has 15 rules(!) for the "Airlines and destinations" tables as you see here, and rule #2 explains that codeshares should not be listed. However it's interesting to see your perspective on this. You will note that for American Airlines' route map, a person needs to know to click "Routes" and then untick "Add AA Connections" and "Add AA Partners" in order to remove codeshare information. As an aviation enthusiast I don't even think about it, but now I see it's not so clear for others.

Regarding your last point, I'm not sure. The tables of airports in the US, Canada, Europe, etc. are updated so often (IPs do a lot of the work) that they tend to be accurate. I guess that means changes are indeed frequent? Meanwhile, articles on airports in China, Africa, etc. do not receive the same amount of attention at all. Also, I think the fact that the tables appear "current" (i.e. there is no "last updated" date provided) violates MOS:RELTIME.

Only in death, I am noticing that a lot of editors outside the WP:AIRPORTS community do not really support these tables. I've held two RfC's about this at WT:AIRPORTS (here and here - the latter is still active, sort of): the first one was dominated by airport-article editors, and the second has gone stale with a seeming lack of consensus. I've struggled to attract input from people on the "outside" until now. In terms of a discussion to seek consensus, do you (or anyone else) have any suggestions? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Reference for Business's Encyclopedia of Business (Advameg)

1. The source page in question is here: [27]

It seems to be a tertiary source, which is its own issue, but I'm having a hard time discerning whether it's a reliable tertiary source. We don't have articles on either Reference for Business or its apparent parent company, Advameg (though articles on the latter were repeatedly deleted back in 2006). The page in question includes a list of "Further Reference" newspaper articles which may or may not be what the RfB entry on Oregon Chai is based on; unfortunately none of them seem to be archived by Google Newspapers. It also leads with what looks like a company mission statement but does not seem to be sourced entirely or even mostly to the company's own statements about itself.

2. The Wikipedia article this would potentially be used as a source for, currently at User:Tk8kpgt/sandbox/Heather Howitt, is a userspace draft about the founder of Oregon Chai; I'm a Teahouse volunteer who has been working with Tk8kpgt to try to build a proper article based on independent reliable sources. Sources 3, 4 and 5 as currently listed in the draft are there not to support the sentence they follow but rather were placed there by Tk8kpgt simply because that's the end of the current draft text.

3. Tk8kpgt and I would be using the parts of the source in question with biographical information about Ms. Hewitt, if it is deemed to be reliable, to flesh out the draft. Thanks in advance for your analysis. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 12:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

not seeing an editorial policy (or who can edit it), looks like just another paid for entry business directory.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Update: found the actual source (RfB seems to be stealing the content): encyclopedia.com / International Directory of Company Histories

So it turns out that the Reference for Business / Encyclopedia of Business source is mostly an uncredited mirror of this encylopedia.com article, which is apparently a credited copy of an article in something called the International Directory of Company Histories (copyright date 2006). I've never heard of the International Directory of Company Histories but I wouldn't think encyclopedia.com would republish it if it weren't a reliable source? I checked the archive and in the past it seems encyclopedia.com articles were considered to be only as reliable as (and should be credited to if reliable) the sources they cite. I also checked the archives for the International Directory of Company Histories, and the last time it was asked about, the discussion petered out without real consensus. Sorry for the confusion and thanks in advance for opinions on the International Directory of Company Histories as a source. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 17:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Court document as sources for statements of fact and quotes from the judge at Murder of Ross Parker

Murder of Ross Parker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Here two court documents are being used both for statements of fact and quotes from judges, references (at the moment) 3 and 52. I usually try to avoid such documents and rely on secondary sources, but in this case are these uses within policy? Thanks. User:Doug Weller 13:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY says Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Of the three uses, the first is supporting a statement about the nature of the crime (rather than a comment about living people) the second directly was supporting both a statement of fact (the appeal was denied) and an assertation about the character of one of the convicted - I have removed the second statement regarding their remorse as this clearly falls into the above - and the third reference is quoting the judge's comments on the changes in sentencing guidelines, rather than about the living person. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this. the BLPPRIMARY stuff should be to avoid using transcripts, documents submitted as exhibits, and other things not part of the presiding judge(s)' decision that have BLP claims, though obviously if filtered through a third-party RS (like a news story covering the trial) so that they are pulling the key language they feel is necessary, that avoids the OR and BLP. (eg ZeniMax v. Oculus I wrote, I stuck to the statements made by parties as reported by RSes, not court papers directly). However, the judge(s)'s statements from court decision documents as primary would be fair game, since what the judge(s) decide has weight of law behind it and is not going to be a BLP violation. It's still better to try to use the highlights of a decision captured by a third-party RS to know what parts of the decision have the proper weight, but that's far less a problem compared to using the other material from the court filings. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Could you possibly clarify the point you're making above please becasue it isn't really 100% clear to me? You say you agree with the decision to remove the second statement, yet this removal is of a "judge(s)'s statements from court decision documents". Specificity, there were 4 possible grounds for appeal and the statement was a significant factor in denying the fourth and final one. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the "exercise extreme caution" clause of WP:BLPPRIMARY, however, I'm not sure that I agree that public documents should never be used. To me "exercising extreme caution" means that we need to be careful that a) we don't cause harm to someone by violating privacy issues and b) we don't cherry-pick material in violation of WP:WEIGHT in order to lead a particular POV.

From the article's edit history, I assume THIS and THIS are the documents in question. Maybe I'm not viewing them correctly, but I don't see the phrase "true remorse is therefore lacking" in either of those documents. -Location (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks for everyone on their thoughtful input on this issue. While we do indeed need to exercise caution, part of the notability for this case stems from the later admissions of the media's failure to report on what was they agree was an extremely serious case and how this contrasted with their blanket coverage of other cases. This issue pattern reoccurred with the murder of Kriss Donald, albeit to a less extreme extent. Therefore, for some issues connected to the case there tends to be a relatively small number of reliable sources available, and those can lack sufficient detail/clarity, thus creating the need to use primary sources at times where permissible. FYI the quote in question does exist, you'll find it here: [28], it's obviously a very important piece of information, but it's unclear whether we can use it at present.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

CineVue

The page in question is here. I'm wondering whether people consider it to be a reliable source because it's listed as one of the trusted publications on Rotten Tomatoes. The article where this source is used is on Valley of Shadows. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Making citations with photos/no textual evidence

Got a question.

Lately, I've been noticing that citations used to reference stuff is used via photos with no textual evidence and such. I feel that this shouldn't be used.

Here's an example of someone who's doing this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/KickerTom

Ominae (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I would like clarification on this, too. There is also an example of this in Mary Moorman in which an editor cited a series of still images and placed "She [i.e. Moorman] and her friend, Jean Hill, can be clearly seen in many frames of the Zapruder film." In this example, I wouldn't know who is who unless I had read other sources. -Location (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Using a photo by itself to cite something would be WP:Original research most of the time, as in this case. You would need a reliable source that interpreted the photo in that way. Of course, you could also add the photo the article for illustration. First Light (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

First LIght is right. It's almost always WP:OR. If it's worth putting in the article, a WP:RS would have covered it, in which case that can be cited. One of the few times, it might be allowed is if there are markings or very easily identifiable objects in the photo. For example, if a photograph about a subject during an event is timestamped, that might be worth mentioning, or if a source says that a subject had notably been in France once in their life, and verified photos from that trip show the Eiffel Tower in the background of photos of the subject from that trip, then adding a bit about Paris would be harmless. These are such edge cases that they won't come up if at all, though. In most cases, it's always better to find a RS that backs what you want to say. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Uproxx

Is this Uproxx source [29] reliable for the following statement at the article Jill Valentine: "The actors who featured in the live-action cut-scenes and performed the voice work for the original Resident Evil game used pseudonyms." I hope to promote the article to featured status so keep this in mind when assessing if this source is reliable enough to support that statement at an FA article. Freikorp (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

No. That "article" is mainly personal editorial commentary on the game, and identifies (?) some of the actors, but does not use the word "pseudonyms" nor is the use of a "stage name" normally so characterized. The "article" asserts that their work was abysmal or deficient, and is not of a level suitable for use in any article in my opinion. Then again, I am not a person who thinks Wikipedia needs lots more articles on video games as a rule. Collect (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Collect: Thanks for your reply. The article does use the term pseudonyms though - "for obvious reasons all of Resident Evil’s actors went under generic pseudonyms like 'Charlie' and 'Inezh'". The article's author has also written for IGN (and other notable publications); there is a consensus that IGN is a high-quality source for video-game related featured articles. Does this change you opinion at all? Freikorp (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Nope. It is not a serious piece of journalism, and it deals in opinions and not facts. Sorry, but Wikipedia has quite sufficient cruft already, and this part (wow - an actor in a game does not use their real name!!! Wow!!) is of less than minor value. Collect (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

They do have editors, but they don't talk about their editorial policy at all, which doesn't breed confidence. [30] Unless you're using it to cite a fact about something that Uproxx published (e.g. "X game was called the greatest game of 2017 by Uproxx"), or something that an Uproxx contributor wrote (e.g. "Uproxx contributor Y said that this game was the definitive installment of the entire series"), you should aim to get another source. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Freikorp (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Render unto tabloids that which is tabloid.

Re Buckfast Tonic Wine, is Buckfast Tonic Wine#World Buckfast Day adequately sourced by two independent published media sources, a local TV channel and the national lightweight newspaper, The Daily Record?

This is lightweight tabloid fluff. As such, it is quite reasonable to source it from two such sources. It has been removed once just as "not notable" (of course, notability applies to articles, not sections). It is WP:UNDUE which might apply here, but that would be moving the goalposts. As to sourcing though, there is no credible challenge to these for their veracity. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Blog reliability at Mug shot publishing industry

Saw a section reverted with the claim "unreliable source", the section was added back in, and I found a reliable source to verify the information (I added mine and removed theirs). The editor who added the original source is bordering on an edit war with me trying to re-add their original source. I'm coming here just to verify that it isn't an RS.

• "Florida Mugshot Bill Signed". Jason J Watson Mugshot News. June 5, 2017. Retrieved September 22, 2017.

It's a blog, hence my concern. My other concern being that the editor has only edited the article where it was used, making me think it might be a COI issue. Primefac (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can create a website or a blog. I can find no evidence of reliability. BTW, the About page contains nuggets like "On the seventh day when Nigger Jesus said “Let their be scum” he was born, of a rib from a harlot. He sucked more dick than a bag whore dope sick. Because of this, he contracted Aids". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the source from the article.[31] Other editors may wish to add Mug shot publishing industry to their watchlist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I missed that part of the about, but it definitely doesn't lead one to think that the source should be trusted. Primefac (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

jasonjwatson.com is a self-published source with no evidence that the author is an expert previously published, in the field it covers, by reliable third-party sources. So it may be used, within limits, as a source for unexceptional claims about the website jasonjwatson.com and the opinion of its author, but not for statements of fact about third parties. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, it is not a reliable source. One may search Google Books.com SwordOfRobinHood (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

No blog can ever be considered reliable. It would be considered primary if it's direct from the subject, but not reliable. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources arising from Hearst Communications digital media strategy - celebrity reality TV Wikipedia editing

So a comedian named Josh Gondelman has teamed up with Hearst Communications to set up a reality-TV-celebrity-Wikipedia-editing web property called "Wiki What?", in which Gondelman plays "wikipediatrician" and provides "Wikipedia consults" for celebrities, "editing" Wikipedia "live" and this is videoed. The resulting edited videos produced by Hearst are posted to Facebook. These facebook videos were then used as actual sources in subsequent actual edits.

Another Hearst publication, Esquire Magazine, has promoted the web series in articles. An editor replaced the facebook video refs with the Esquire refs, and these are what you see in the instances below.

This Hearst digital marketing strategy is clearly described in this article, called "Behind Hearst’s Facebook Watch Programming Strategy".

The edits by the initial editor, Mrazzle, are being discussed at COIN but the question for this board, is whether we should consider the Esquire articles and/or the facebook videos as reliable sources.

These web videos and Esquire articles are used in several articles as follows (I have left in a few other refs where necessary):

• Kate Upton

With her horse Roanie, ... With a second horse, Colby,...

References

• T.J. Miller (used to source the exact punctuation of "T.J." - nice PR placement as 1st ref in the article, right?)

Todd Joseph "T.J." Miller ...

References

• Lawrence Gilliard Jr. (placed as 2nd reference in the article)

Lawrence Gilliard Jr. (born September 22, 1971) ...

Gilliard was born in New York City..... Jada Pinkett Smith and Tupac Shakur were classmates of Gilliard's at the Baltimore School of the Arts.... Gilliard decided to pursue acting instead of music, attending Juilliard School for three years.

He joined The Walking Dead cast as a regular, playing Bob Stookey, as of season 4, appearing in thirteen episodes up until he got another job on a new show, which led to his character's death ...

Regarding the craft of acting, Gilliard has said "I do some of my best character work in front of the mirror... If I believe myself then I'm like, 'Alright,they'll believe me.'"

Gilliard has stated that he "loves dessert, especially ice cream and cake."

References

• Samwell Tarly

On the eve of the season 7 finale, Bradley explains on the show 'Wiki What?', "If you think they aren't keeping [Samwell Tarly] around for a reason, you haven't been paying attention."

References

• John Bradley West

John Bradley West (born September 15, 1988), credited professionally as John Bradley, is an English actor, best known for his role as Samwell Tarly in the HBO fantasy TV series Game of Thrones.

Bradley West was born and grew up in the Wythenshawe district of south Manchester. Bradley West has an older sister who is 13 years older than him.

Growing up in Manchester, Bradley West did not have a friend that was a boy until he was 12 years old. As a young boy, Bradley West was obsessed with the Spice Girls, specifically Ginger Spice. "A lot of people ask, 'Why did you get into acting?'" Bradley West said on the show Wiki What? to host Josh Gondelman. 'Genuinely I said to myself when I was about 8 years old, 'I have to get famous in order to meet Geri Halliwell.'"

John Bradley-West is a fictitious name usage that Bradley West created in drama school. His real and birth name is John Bradley West, with no hyphen.

Bradley West is Catholic.

References

On the one hand, I also don't consider reality TV to be a reliable source for anything... on the other hand, the celebrities "really said" these things. But I don't edit content about celebrities so I will leave this for others to judge. Jytdog (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems to me like there is not much editorial control. These are basically interviews and as such primary sources that are not independent of the subject. I think that these things therefore can be used to source uncontroversial details (such as where a person grew up), unless there are reliable secondary sources that contradict this. Whether the kind of trivia listed above belong in a bio is a question for the respective userpages, I think. The Wiki What? editing is, of course, pure COI editing that should be avoided. --Randykitty (talk) 09:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• They're sources that the subjects "really said" these things. Which is UNDUE. They're not RS sources that these claims are true.

What's the problem? What isn't covered under basic Wikipedia 101 editing policy? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

* I am more than a little confused. The Media Industry Newsletter (MIN) article http://www.minonline.com/behind-hearsts-facebook-watch-programming-strategy/ that is being used to support the claim that there is something sinister and deliberately manipulative going on here is simply describing the process of how the digital media is being created. It is not a description of a Machiavellian approach to infecting or influencing content on Wikipedia. Median Industry Newsletter in and of itself is a niche, paid, subscriber-based insider organization that is creating this content. It is not the greatest citation and to use the organization as a basis for this argument actually undermines the strength of the concern itself.

* Esquire is a legitimate news source. Yes the prior link was to only the video on Facebook. In my opinion and experience editing Wikipedia, I know that Facebook, although they are starting to host original content, is not an ideal source for a citation. The Esquire article is also a lot more descriptive, as it is an article with the video -- and is not just the video itself. So based on the fact that it is a mainstream publication, I replaced the Facebook video link with the news article link from Esquire. This is an acceptable use of a source for the citation.

* Just because this has to do with celebrities doesn't mean that the celebrity has less rights to control or say over what is in their article. This is their right under BLP, and to use it as a basis for argument here -- as the reason to see there is something bigger picture here than there actually is -- is misguided and wrong. -- BrillLyle (talk) 10:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not give a celebrity the right to "control what is in their article". What BLP does is limit what anyone else can add to the article about them. Blueboar (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that what is meant by reliable sources can be over simplified to the point where it is assumed that what is considered to be a reliable source in one case automatically implies being reliable in each and every case, but I think that RS requires us to look a little bit further below the surface sometimes and actually examine the sourced article in question. What makes a "reliable source" reliable is that it is assumed that it is original content created by those working for the source which in turn has been thoroughly (or at least as thoroughly as can be expected) fact checked for errors, etc. by an editor or editorial board. As I posted at WP:COIN#"Wiki What?" (the thread which seems to have started everyone involved on this journey), this subject matter is an interview and Wikipedia asks us to treat interviews as WP:PRIMARY. This means we need to be cautious as how it's used, especially per WP:BLPPRIMARY. We know the interview happened and we know who was involved, but do we know whether what was said by Upton was fact checked. In a comedy setting where an interview is given, a celebrity may say things on a whim or in the spirit of the situation, but some of these things may not be suitable for a Wikipedia article and may not be the type of source we should use. If article content was being edited while the interview with Upton was taking place, then there's a chance that whomever did the editing was simply typing what they were hearing without even considered whether it was true. The Esquire article reports on the interview, but it seems to be basially a re-cap without any critical commentary or assessment of what was send. We have a copied-and-pasted Facebook post, an embedded video of the interview, and an op-ed like sentence "But Wikipedia isn't also trustworthy or flattering, so Upton and Gondelman fixed a few discrepancies as well." This Equire article seems to more entertainment fluff piece/opinion piece rather than a critical analysis, so it's value as a reliable source (even if I feel that Esquite in general is a RS) seems questionable in this case. If there are comments made in the interview which are acceptable (as touched upon by Randykitty above) for inclusion in the article, then directly citing the interview as a source (Facebook is not the source, the interview itself is in my opinion) seems possible. However, just assuming that because it's written about in Esquire, it has to be reliable for all uses does seem like a bit of over simplication to me. After all, we don't automatically assume that opinion pieces and blogs are automatically reliable sources themselves simply be the medium they were published in is generally considered to be reliable. I think the most we can say use this source for would be that Upton was interviewed on Wiki What? by Josh Gondelman, and perhaps the author feels that "Wikipedia is not trustworthy or flattering", but reporting on an interview given by someone else is not really the same (at least in my opinion) as formulating the questions and actually sitting down with the interviewee to ask them directly yourself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• I tried to write a more-or-less neutral post, but I will now say that I don't think we should use the facebook or esquire "sources" anywhere in Wikipedia. This is not any kind of journalism but is a cynical social media / digital marketing exploitation of Wikipedia that we should not have any tolerance for - none of the uses of these "sources" provide vital information; the placement of the "sources" high up in articles is especially disgusting. Even now these links are getting traction from being part of WP articles and are being mirrored all over the place. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Use common sense with these videos as with any source. Some of the things T.J. Miller said were clearly bullshit for comedic effect. Make that go away. Errors that are pointed out — fix those. Additional information? Use it or not on a case-by-case basis. The important thing is to get things right. Pay attention to the editing, not the editor — which is difficult for some people. But the show is a publication and if we have a subject saying something is true or not true in good faith, that is the very highest level of presumably reliable sourcing. Carrite (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

This citations are pure WP:REFSPAM in my view. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion nor a tool to be abused in reality TV (the levels of abuse here are nauseatingly interwoven - here is the line of thinking: "Wikipedia gets lots of eyeballs, celebrities crave attention and need it for their careers to go, social media facebook is an endless churn of novelty seeking bullshit, I KNOW lets have a comedian edit Wikipedia with a celebrity!!! Everybody wins!! Eyeballs for everybody! And Wikipedia articles will end up saying what the celebrities want them to say!") The final edits are the same toxic-waste-dumping that Kohs and Woods do only made all social-media post-moderny, including with a citation to the "consult" itself. (Imagine if Kohs or Woods taped their consults with their clients, posted them online, and then cited those in Wikipedia - same exact thing as this.) It is disgusting and has done nothing to do with the mission of Wikipedia and everything to do with Hearst making money and celebrities getting eyeballs and managing their reputations at the same time. Not a single thing to do with our mission. I am talking about the sources here. We should ban all manufactured "sources" like this (lots of press, especially about celebrities, is "placed", but the blatant manipulation of WP here is just over-the-top). Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• I appreciate the heads up but I don't know why our current policies and practices can't deal with this. We should be able to apply the usual criteria to these sources (e.g., do they have a reputation for fact checking and editorial control?) and the information they contain (e.g., is this information critical for readers to know, has this information been included in multiple reliable sources). We're under no obligation to use these sources, especially if it's apparent that they're not reliable or the information they contain is trivial. In fact, I'd be quite appreciative if the subjects of some articles were to help us out a bit by ensuring that critical information is published by a reliable source that we can responsibly use. Finally, let's not lose sight of the fact that we usually are evaluating not just the author (or interview subject, in this case) but also the editor(s) who fact check, edit, and publish the material under their organization's name. If, for example, Vanity Fair believes that these interviews meet their standards for accuracy and newsworthiness (and entertainment) then that's really what we need to focus on. ElKevbo (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It is Esquire, not Vanity Fair, and again per this article, called "Behind Hearst’s Facebook Watch Programming Strategy", Hearst created the series and planned from the beginning to cover it in the Hearst publication, Esquire. This is all a planned digital media strategy for Hearst to generate eyeballs and thus money. This is not any kind of "source" for WP, not unless we want to be patsies and to be exploited this way. Is that what you want? Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

If their media campaign is not published in reliable outlets or includes material that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article then we won't use the material. "Intent" is not something we can or should try to include in our criteria for evaluating sources.

As a side note, some of the material that has been discussed so far has no business being included in an encyclopedia. That - the gratuitous linking of these sources when it's unnecessary and unmerited - is what several people are railing against and I stand with them. If we do our jobs here and apply the policies and procedures we use in other circumstances, we'll either get useful information that can be added to articles or the PR flacks engaged in this work will have wasted their time. ElKevbo (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the subtext at least :) Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Some of you are overthinking this. They are basically primary source interviews and can be used as such (either facebook or esquire) to source what we would usually source such stuff in biographies for. Basic uncontroversial and non-contradictory information. If actor Bob states he was born and raised in Bobville we would take his word at it unless there is evidence to the contrary. This is basic information which is *expected* in biographies. With the caveat these are clearly aimed at being entertainment, so I wouldn't put it past any of the subjects to big up their history in some manner, so be extra vigilant for any special claims. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

DensiFi special interest group (SIG)

I could use other opinions here. I think the right thing to do is delete the whole subsection #Illegal actions of DensiFi SIG which was basically added along with most of the article in one edit last January. The language needs moderating at least (e.g., "illegal", "cabal" which aren't used in the sources).

The sub-section in question is based entirely on primary sources (Perhaps the whole article is - I haven't looked) and I can't find secondary sources. They tell a pretty straightforward story and, aside from the above-mentioned limited instances of hyperbole, it seems to tell the story in a relatively unbiased fashion, though mention of the individual (and his circumstances) whose complaint precipitated the investigation is IMO WP:UNDUE.

Is this one of those instances where we can and should include content based only on primary sources?

Background

IEEE 802.11 is a set of specifications for WLAN computer communication. It is used in products branded WiFi. In 2013, the IEEE 802.11 "Working Group" established a "Study Group" to draw up protocols for the development of amendments to IEEE 802.11. It is hoped this new version - to be called IEEE 802.11ax - will increase the efficiency of WLAN networks by providing 4x the throughput of the current version. Once the Study Group's protocols were published, a "Task Group" took over and allocated a different approach to each of four "ad hoc groups" (the most productive of which was the "spatial reuse" ad hoc group). At about that time, a non-public, restricted-membership group of companies then formed, calling itself the "DensiFi Special Interest Group" (SIG).

The DensiFi SIG was found by an investigation (led by the Working Group's 2nd Vice Chair) to be "a large, unpublicized, closed or quasi-closed group developing material for submission to IEEE 802.11ax". She found

• Non-members were disadvantaged in several ways.
• "DensiFi SIG members, if voting as a block", are apparently able "to prevent adoption of any other proposal" for consideration.
• Just seven or eight companies determine which documents are submitted to IEEE 802.11ax by the SIG.
• "An implicit expectation that a member company’s participants support proposals from the SIG ..."

She concluded that the DensiFi SIG had engaged in "dominance" - a practice the IEEE bylaws define thus:

Dominance is normally defined as the exercise of authority, leadership or influence by reason of superior leverage, strength, or representation to the exclusion of fair or equitable consideration of other viewpoints. Dominance can also be defined as the exercise of authority, leadership or influence by reason of sufficient leverage, strength or representation to hinder the progress of the standards development activity.

The IEEE 802 Executive Committee accepted the report's findings and resolved to treat "the vote of all individuals affiliated with DensiFi SIG members as a single vote in Working Group and Task Group motions and letter ballots related to 802.11ax until such time […] the SIG is no longer active."

Qualcomm was a member of this DensiFi SIG. User:CorporateM, who has a professional relationship with Qualcomm was pointed to this article sub-section by an employee of Qualcomm. Because of that relationship, he asked if I would take a look at it. I'm a bit concerned by the appearance that I might be doing the bidding of a big company that has found something it doesn't like about itself in one of our articles. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Removed by User:Smartse. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

"War on the Rocks"

Hey all--this morning I ran into this, which looks pretty clean, but the rest of the website is a bit garish (and seems to have little more than things marked "Commentary") and I can't really figure out affiliation or editorial stance. There's a huge list of contributors, and this rather odd page links them to the Center for Security Studies. What do you all make of it? Drmies (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a serious platform - with quite serious commentary by professionals. They do have editorial staff - [32]. One thing to note is that a very large portion of the pieces there are effectively opinion pieces. I'm not sure they have any really pronounced slant (other than realism) - though the writers and readers are to a large extent security establishment - who have their own biases.Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I saw that link (and linked it above), but almost everyone is a senior editor and there is no editorial stance noted--and nothing about process, funding, etc. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the piece you quoted by Luke O'Brien is an opinion piece. And I think what he is citing on that piece is possibly worthwhile, but I don't think War on the Rocks checked each and every factual assertion there (though they might have to some extent). War on the Rocks does have a positive reputation I believe (I follow it, have run across it before).Icewhiz (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Record label sources

In my progress to making improvements to the Monstercat article per an ongoing peer review, I have noticed that several sources are not listed on the sources page for a WikiProject: WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES. The sources in question point to:

• DJ Magazine
• NoisePorn
• The DJ List
• Magnetic Magazine
• Your EDM (See also previous discussion)
• EDM Sauce

DJ Mag is being used to back the beginnings of the label and their 2017 award for "Best Breakthrough Label". NoisePorn is also being used for the label's beginnings. The DJ List is being used to describe the label model, where a better source is used later on for the same content. Magnetic Magazine is being used for the compilations. Finally, both Your EDM and EDM Sauce are being used to cover Rocket League x Monstercat Vol. 1, the label's partnership with game developer Psyonix. The question I have is: are these sources reliable for the statements they are backing? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Since Monstercat is mostly about electronic dance music, most of these sources should be considered reliable. EDM Sauce, Magnetic Magazine, DJ Mag sounds reliable enough. I am not sure about Your EDM though, but NoisePorn is probably good to go. Excelse (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

That's...not a very good evaluation of source reliability. Pretty sure anyone can just say "ehhh why not - they're music sources". I mean, you may be right... but stuff like that isn't going to hold up to any counter arguments or concerns in the future. Sergecross73 msg me 01:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• DJ Mag - Reliable - per it's About Us page and Editorial Page. They've been around for 25 years, started as a print magazine, recognized in the industry, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 12:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• The DJ List - Undecided - Their About Us page states they've been around for two decades, but it was difficult to see any sort of staff list, editorial policy, credentials, or anything like that. Sergecross73 msg me 12:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Your EDM - Leaning Unreliable - they have an established staff, but virtually none of them any any sort of credentials other than "loving music" or "listing where they live or grow up". Seems like more of a fan/enthusiast group. Sergecross73 msg me 12:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• EDM Sauce - Leaning Unreliable - Similar to Your EDM above. They've got a staff, but I spot checked like ten profiles, and not a single one had any sort of credentials or authority other than "I love in (insert city) and I love (insert type of electronic music genre)". Looks like another fan/enthusiast group. Sergecross73 msg me 18:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this analysis. Although EDM Sauce is indeed a fansite and your analysis of this website somehow shows that it could be totally unreliable. Should we consider removing this website across wikipedia? Excelse (talk) 05:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I've already found a better source in Monstercat to replace the EDM Sauce source and have already implemented it. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

PoliticusUSA

1. Source. Haraldsson, Hrafnkell (March 15, 2016). "'Lion's Guard' Group Forms to Bust Heads for Trump, Then Disbands". PoliticusUSA.
2. Article. Lion Guard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
3. Content. The Lion Guard (also known as the "Lions of Trump" or the "Lion's Guard Militia") was a paramilitary far-right wing political group that was formed in 2016 in order to provide self-imposed security (outside of private security and professional law enforcement) at the rallies of Republican Party presidential nominee Donald Trump.

Regardless of the fact that the source only supports a portion of the content, I see little to no evidence of reliability here. The source content makes clear this is an opinion piece; PoliticusUSA's "About Us" page suggests that it's more advocacy than newsgathering; Jason Easley, the site's "editor-in-chief," appears to be a blogger, not a reputable journalist; and I could find no examples of PoliticusUSA being cited by other reliable sources. OberRanks claims PoliticusUSA is a "Reuters publishing partner and White House/Congress certified reporters"; regardless of whether that's true or not, that wouldn't seem to satisfy our reliability standards. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I certainly don't know the rules that well about on-line sources, but can only say I've seen PoliticusUSA referenced in quite a few places. They appear to be a legitimate web based news agency. The Lion Guard article is also a very sensitive one, it seems, and was the subject of an almost immediate AfD as soon as it was created and has been flooded with citation needed and dubious source tags every since on almost every paragraph and sometimes even sentences. The sources for this article get challenged quite a bit, more so than other articles, so clarifying this point might serve the article well as well as getting more editors involved with its research and expansion. -O.R.^Comms 17:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Internet Broadway Database

Can Internet Broadway Database (IBDB) https://www.ibdb.com/ be considered as a reliable source in BLPs? DrKilleMoff (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@DrKilleMoff: Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. It depends what you're using it for. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Not IMDB, IBDB.DrKilleMoff (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@DrKilleMoff: Per my interpretation, mostly no. Per Internet Broadway Database it seems a smaller organisation than imdb, so I wouldn´t use them for anything beyond what Wikipedia:Citing IMDb says. And if possible, find better sources or don´t mention whatever it is that only can on ibdb in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

They should be generally fine as an external link though, like in Tim Curry. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It might be worth reading Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_162#Internet_Broadway_Database, where Metropolitan90 highlighted its' sponsor. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

In addition to my comments about IBDB being sponsored by the Broadway League, I would note that IBDB deals with a much smaller number of productions than IMDb. IBDB covers only productions that play in Broadway theatres, of which there are currently only 41. By contrast, IMDb attempts to cover every movie and television program distributed or released anywhere in the world. Consequently, IBDB can cover its subject thoroughly by using information from printed theater programs and, unlike IMDb, does not need to depend upon user submissions. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

They will also take user corrections, and require actual documentation before implementing them. - Nunh-huh 13:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I would treat IBDB the same as I would IMDB. Though a smaller brand, it has a similar model that IMDB uses. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. The IBDB is more likely to be accurate than the IMDb because IBDB's scope is much smaller and, unlike IMDb, IBDB doesn't have to rely on user contributions for most of its data. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

History of the Thirteen Colonies, reliablility of Daniel K. Richters book "Before the Revolution : America's ancient pasts"

I would agree that the article relies heavily on that one source and that may be a problem. However, Dilidor apparently regards the work as completely unreliable and used the term "misinformation". Though I have not read the book, I did read a number of reviews, which seemed to be overall positive.

• Richters page on upenn.edu
• Muse review
• NY books.

These establish, in my view, the book as reliable per WP:RS. I would very much like some extra opinions. Discussion on the appropriate talk page. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 11:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Reliable... but seriously overused. Basing so much of an article on any single source is always a red flag that there may be POV issues in the article. Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

By the way... I have noticed that we also have an article entitled Thirteen Colonies ... and have proposed a merger. We don't need two articles covering the same topic. (and I suspect there are yet others). Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Is a reliable source reliable for information about itself?

I have been working on a draft for Digiday, a media outlet that has been used as a source in well over a hundred Wikipedia articles. My thinking is that the media outlets that we regularly use as reliable sources are also usually notable. Although there is are reasonably extensive discussions of the subject in the Fortune article and the Fast Company top ten list in the article, searches for sources about Digiday are drowned in results from Digiday (and in sources like CNN, Slate, etc., citing Digiday as their own source). I believe that the best source about Digiday, however is "this Digiday article. Is it appropriate to use an article from a particular source to provide information about that source? Also, while we're at it, am I correct in considering Digiday a reliable source? bd2412 T 19:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Reliable for what ? Alexbrn (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a two-part question. Is Digiday a reliable source generally, and if so, is it a reliable source for information about Digiday itself? bd2412 T 21:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

It'll be reliable for some things and probably unreliable for others. Self-serving claims would ring big alarm bells. And then there's the question of due weight: if stuff hasn't been covered by decent secondary sources, then why should Wikipedia be the only publication on the planet to relay something? Alexbrn (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Isn't that why we have WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:WEIGHT? -Location (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd handle it the same way as WP:ABOUTSELF and any other first-party sourcing situations - it could be used sparingly for basic, objective, non-extraordinary details (its founding date, verifying staff, etc) but nothing extroadinary/self-serving type stuff ("one of the fastest growing media outlets", "top level, award winning staff", etc etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

And certainly not to prove the article meets the bar for inclusion. --Izno (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Very much so. The fact that people have linked to it on Wikipedia is not an indicator of notability. The fact that independent reliable sources have written about it in reasonable depth indicates that it is notable. If they have not, it is not. Obviously, a subject writing about itself is not independent. Independent, reliable, substantial coverage is always required. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Bd2412: Okay, I just took a look at the "article", and to be honest, my finger is twitching on both the G11 and G12 button. That's a massive quote farm of highly positive pull quotes. An article that's even 10% quotes is suspect, and that one is way past that. The article is promotional, far overuses nonfree content, and is totally unacceptable. I'll do you the courtesy of warning about it first, since I think you'll fix it, but if it stays like that I will delete it. G11 and G12 are global criteria and that "article" meets both. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for your theory that "even 10% quotes is suspect"? In the twelve years that I have been a Wikipedia administrator (one of the most active), and over the thousands of articles I have written, this is the first I'm hearing of such a notion. Using quotes avoids NPOV by making the article reflect exactly what sources say about it (in this case, independent, reliable sources), without imposing the POV of the person interpreting the quotes. In any case, this is a draft, and has not been submitted for review. bd2412 T 01:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: Although it is beyond the scope of this messageboard, I have further edited the draft to reduce the proportion of quotes, as intended. bd2412 T 03:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

First, I believe what Seraphimblade was saying is that much quoting is virtually a form of advertising and promotion. We essentially become a brochure for this company. We are in the notoriety business rather than other forms information and ideas exchange. Second, I think it is common practice to objectively summarize as much as possible and use quotations sparingly. I am looking for support in policies for this, because it seems I have come across this. But for now, take a look at WP:QUOTEFARM. Regards. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

This also seems helpful: WP:LONGQUOTE ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your more helpful approach. To be clear, the quotes are primarily not from the article subject, but from independent sources writing about the subject. I have trimmed them down in the draft to a degree, applying the guidance from WP:QUOTEFARM of "working smaller portions of quotation into the article text". I had one longer quote in the draft which I have now done away with entirely. Of course, this is still just a draft, in an early stage, and the issue with the quotes would have been addressed further along. It is not relevant to the question that I raised here, so I regret that the discussion was drawn off topic. bd2412 T 19:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Unpublished FBI assessment, court report, other dubious sources at List of Juggalo gang subsets and Juggalo gangs

I posted to Talk:Juggalo gangs "This article relies heavily on a 2011 FBI report and an assessment that was the basis of it. Cryptobomb certainly fails WP:RS and the Publicintelligence source, which is an FBI intelligence assessment called "Juggalos: Emerging Gang Trends and Criminal Activity" was " isseminated for authorized law enforcement purposes only" and we should not use it directly. It formed the basis of the FBI's 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment that we do use, and that's the only FBI source that meets WP:RS. BitDefender blocked http://cryptocomb.org/ so I haven't looked at it but I can't see how it could meet our criteria. At Talk:List of Juggalo gang subsets I mentioned the same issue with the FBI assessment. That article also uses a court report and something called streetgangs.com. I'm sure there are a lot of bad guys there but we still need to follow our policies and guidelines. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I would agree it doesn't met RS, specifically via WP:V (not purposely published in an accessible manner). If a reliable source (eg like NYTimes) got it and discussed in in their terms, we could use that as the source, but we'd still not able to use/provide the original FBI report in that manner. --MASEM (t) 17:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Not reliable per Masem. No other reliable coverage. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Clearly the FBI would not effectively declare war on the Juggalos without the go-ahead from Donald Trump. If President Trump thinks the Juggalos are scum, who are we to question? Pandeist (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Patriot Prayer

Is Entertainment.ie a reliable enough source to say that the American group Patriot Prayer are American? They have a full editorial team so I believe they pass our rs guidelines Darkness Shines (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it's an entertainment website. Surely, you can find better sources. And if you can't, it probably doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Is someone actually challenging the fact that this group is based in America? Not every trivial factoid needs a citation. wow... it seems someone is challenging it. So AQFK's advice is good. Find a better source.Blueboar (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Got an American college paper [33] Seems even Americans need to be told where their from lol Darkness Shines (talk) 13

53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, for God's sake, a community-college student newspaper is the best you can do? --Calton | Talk 04:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page for this dispute, it appears that the dispute isn't "is the group based in America or not" (a question of facts), but "how should the group be described in the lead?" (with the underlying issue being whether it's a regional or national group, and whether 'American' should be part of its first-sentence descriptor.) I think it's a slightly silly dispute, but in terms of what aspects to emphasize and focus on, the lead should probably go with the way the group is described in most high-quality, mainstream sources; the two you've listed here aren't really the best. OTOH you can argue that specifying the country it's based in within the first few sentences (in some form, anyway) is necessary to avoid systematic bias and to make it more clear to non-American editors. In any case you ought to be able to find better sources for it, surely? --Aquillion (talk) 04:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The majority of sources are American, but I shall do what you suggest. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think WP:BLUE applies here. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 17:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Is this discussion stale? In not, this source gives the group's address: 431 SW Madison Street in Portland, Oregon.[34] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Given Gibson organises everything online I see no reason to stick his home address into a Wikipedia article. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Well, I didn't mean that you should put the group's address in the article, only that you have a reliable source for saying that the group is American. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• As Ryk72 says WP:BLUE applies, due to systemic bias the majority of sources are American Darkness Shines (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone subscribe to Billboard? I need to know some boxscore data for a tour.

It's the only source that is reliable for gross, capacity, attendance etc. but only someone who subscribes can access it. Please ping me here or post on my user talk. Thanks.  — Calvin999 14:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Calvin999: You might be better asking off at Wikipedia:Request source. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I have, thank you.  — Calvin999 13:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Government-funded media outlets

I have noticed a number of articles citing government-funded media outlets like Voice of America (voanews.com) or RT (rt.com) as sources. A link search reveals thousands of instances of these domains. Such sources are often regarded as biased or even outright propaganda. Is there a blanket policy regarding the use of such sources? (If not, perhaps there should be?) 2601:644:1:B7CB:75C2:683E:B7D3:6409 (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It depends. The BBC is generally regarded as highly reliable. Others not. This is not a case for blanket policies.Icewhiz (talk) 04:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz:The BBC is funded through a tv license charged to every tv viewer under 75 of any station, not the government. Doug Weller talk 05:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

With a government mandated tax, which is funneled through the culture department. And yet, it is one of the best new sources out there.Icewhiz (talk) 07:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

All taxes are government mandated. That is why it is a *tax*. That is not the same as government funded. Publicly funded is accurate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The BBC is simply not like the VOA or RT and shouldn't be compared to them. Doug Weller talk 10:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The difference is that in the BBC the gvmt does not intervene in content, and that funding is constant and not contingent on coverage (so while funded by a tax, this is a strongly independent institution (ignoring coded messages to spies in newscasts in the past) - moreso than a private outlet relying on ads). In many so called private Russian media channels, gvmt influence is just as strong and possibly stronger than RT - and they are as unreliable as RT if not more so - the Russian regime has enough levers to use, payment is the least effective of them. Reliability is a much broader question than just funding.Icewhiz (talk) 10:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Its largely not. WP:V and WP:RS both work off reliable sourcing, which is defined as independent. The BBC is independent of the UK government in that it is not government funded. RT etc are government funded directly and so lack independence. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

In my view they are RS's except in exceptional claims to related to their government or when they promote fringe views where their government is a primary holder of the view. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree on the BBC being reliable, but I would not use others (like RT) an a source for any controversial claims (could still use RT as a source for the fact that there was a tornado is Russia but not political stuff). Tornado chaser (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

To directly answer your question: No, there is no blanket policy regarding the use of such sources. How a source is funded doesn't really matter. The only thing that really matters is whether the source has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Generally speaking, the BBC News has a great reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. I cite them often. RT doesn't have such a reputation so I don't cite them. But there are many government-funded sources which are excellent such as NASA and CDC to name a couple. I hope this helps. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• context matters. There is a distinction between using a government controlled source in support of a statement of fact (not reliable) and using it in support of an attributed opinion (reliable). For example, a source controlled by a government can be reliable for a statement that the official government stance on a border dispute is "we own the disputed land".... but we have to make it clear that this is a viewpoint (opinion) and not necessarily fact. Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

To b e an RS it has to have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, the BBC (issues over funding aside) does, Do Voice of America or RT?Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out NPR and PBS as other examples of government-funded broadcasters that in most cases would be RSs. I agree that there's too much variation from media outlet to media outlet, and country to country, for any such rule as either "government-funded media are RSs" or "government-funded media are not RSs" to be useful for Wikipedia purposes. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 14:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

myheritage.com

Hi. Simple question - is this site a WP:RS? This is in regards to sourcing dates for individuals. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I replace this whenever seen....in my view not reliable as per WP:QS.....problem...user generated content not vented by experts. That said some of their linked primary docs can be of use sometimes (census, birth cert, immigration documents etc...). --Moxy (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Like other geneology sites, its of limited use directly to source an article. Its useful for research. The primary documents it hosts should be referenced rather than the site directly. EG birth/death records, national census etc. If you wanted to cite something from a historical census for example, you would cite the census directly, but it would acceptable to link to the geneology website if someone wanted to verify it themselves on the talkpage - purely as its the easiest accessible version. Keep in mind a lot of the information would be prohibited from use in BLP's due to being primary legal documents. Is there a particular article/information you want to use it for? Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Citywire.co.uk

http://citywire.co.uk/wealth-manager/news/barings-reborn-in-275-billion-merger/a947515

I was looking for a source on a corporate consolidation, but because the company is based in London, I'm not as familiar with the UK financial industry publications. The best I can gather from citywire's "about us" page, most of the management come from traditional journalism outlets (The Times, FT, Mail on Sunday, etc.) so I assume that this is also a moderately reliable journalist venture, I've just never heard of it before.-Ich (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

They have their own article at Citywire, but it looks like most references are primary. I would say it looks moderately reliable but use with caution. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Is Geek.com a reliable source for claims about horror fiction?

More specifically this article. [35] — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatWeKnow123 (talk • contribs)

It has a full editorial team and the article you link to was written by one of it's editors, so I'd say ya Darkness Shines (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Does the fact that he is the managing editor mean that this was published without any editorial oversight?, which is rather odd as he is not listed as this on the list of their editorial team (or indeed even mentioned on it in any editorial capacity).Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I would say yes, but it would be nice to know the article and the content to which you are referring. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

What is the context on Wikipedia?

Opinion pieces generally are not subject to extensive editorial oversight specifically in the form of fact-checking because they are opinion pieces. I've actually been a fan of Geek.com's resident film critic (to whom most of their YouTube channel is devoted) for longer than I've been an active Wikipedian, and he's made incorrect factual claims quite a lot, which gives me the impression they weren't fact-checking his film reviews -- why would they?

More importantly, the fact that the linked article is itself about an internet urban legend that contains some truth and some fiction -- they say as much -- makes me wonder what we would be citing them for. Unless we are citing them to say Mowgli's Palace doesn't exist (?), it seems like the question of how reliable they are kind of misses thte point.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The linked article is not discussing horror fiction as a genre, it is about creepypasta. Horror-themed stories that circulate in the Internet, and are a mix of fiction by specific writers and urban legends that are constantly modified as they circulate. Some of these tales have been circulating the Internet since the 1990s, and some are actually based on even older urban legends such as the Bunny Man of Virginia (which dates to the 1970s).

There are entire websites devoted to creepypasta, including the Creepypasta Wiki mentioned as a source in the linked article. It currently has 10,603 articles. A rather large number of them are Disney-themed. Dimadick (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)