Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 191

Over the last two months a large number of edits have been made to dozens, possibly hundreds of articles about law schools. Almost all the edits follow the exact same format and appear to originate from a single commercial organization "Law School Transparency", inserting links to its website into specific law school articles. LST seeks to monetize data that is available for free elsewhere, and often introduces errors into the data in the process.

There are slight variations in the edits for some law schools--for example, some note the overall employment rate for law students and not just the "Full Time JD required not solo" category invented by LST. The more favorable edits appear to be for law schools who have paid LST for its services or otherwise provided financial support to the organization.

Someone (apparently from LST) has inserted LST metrics into most law school's websites without any prior discussion of whether or not LST is a reliable source of information.

Hello,

I am writing with regard to the article Reynolds and Reynolds in response to a view held by User:206.180.44.25 that a particular line in the article should be removed.

The content concerned is as follows:

A 2008 report by the employer rating site Glassdoor ranked Reynolds and Reynolds the third lowest rated company based on employee satisfaction.

The source used is

His view is apparently based on the help provided at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_189#Glassdoor.com which suggested that Glasshouse.com does not serve as a reliable source. My interpretation is any public-edible content on Glassdoor.com cannot be used as a reliable source. In this case, however, the source made use of a collation of content from Glasshouse.com as a large scale analysis, is published by the official Glassdoor.com team and cannot be edited by the public. The statement is also factually correct and well supported by the source. As such in this case, it should be treated as a reliable source.

As the user is unable to agree with me on this () and continue to revert my attempts of reverting his edits to remove the line (), I would appreciate if somebody should offer some help with that regard.

- Andrew Y _talk 16:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Can't answer your question re. Glassdoor, but you might like to look at this. Quote: "At the end of 2008, Glassdoor.com published its company ratings based on employee satisfaction. (C.R. 123-29; R.R. 560-65). R & R ranked third worst with a 2.0% overall rating and Brockman had an 8% CEO approval rating." That's from a submission to the Texas Supreme Court. Doesn't make Glassdoor reliable, but lawyers acting for the relator in this case presumably had some confidence that it was reliable enough for a court to consider. QuiteUnusual (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I have forwarded the link over to the user concerned and hopefully in this case I am successfully convince the editor concerned that this is indeed in some context a reliable source. At the mean time, any definite opinion on this issue is very much welcomed. - Andrew Y _talk 17:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It is attributed here, and Glassdoor is definitely a reliable source for its own statements. Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 22:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. That submission was from a man bringing suit against R&R, who would have an interest in including as much negative information about the company as possible. His use of that survey says nothing for its reliability. Again, the survey is something that is taken by self-selected employees or former employees, not through any scientific process. There is no vetting of the results whatsoever. 206.180.44.25 (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Then include these caveats in the article. Rhoark (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

so, about this. How do folks feel about the sourcing of that image which that page says is: "Image taken from a page by Yoshino Hideo (Chiba prefectural assembly member in Japan), but original image is from Goro Nakamura's book: Vietnam War Agent Orange, p. 119". Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Dunno about the sourcing, but the image fails NFCC#8 (as it is not critically discussed in the image, nor necessary to see to understand that AO can cause birth defects, particularly as there's a free image of handicapped children that follow that is free; as well as possible failing principle of least surprise. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

My goodness, not a pleasant thing to see. Wow. As for that sourcing, i cannot read Japanese and so i cannot even begin to evaluate the sourcing. There are thousands of other images that are adequately sourced as to documenting of deformities caused by Agent Orange, so i don't have an issue with this image being used in this way, however. It's a case where a specific source may be questionable, but the general knowledge is widely known and widely sourced and therefore it doesn't make sense to me to work against the inclusion of such an image on such a page. If you wish to, then i'm sure you'll successfully argue that the sourcing is not adequately reliable, and someone will have to find another image to use in a similar way for a similar function in the article. I do not recommend it to anyone, but a simple Google image search on babies deformed by Agent Orange yields many results, including the same image that you're questioning here. I do think that having an image to show the effects of a chemical is useful, as stated by the previous comment. SageRad (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Specifics matter. I did the google image search too. i found a bunch of bloggy, unreliable sources that had it posted, many of them linked to back to this instance in WP. I found no reliable sources using it. And the first commenter said the image fails Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #8, and was saying that the image was not OK to use. Failing any one of those criteria means the image should be deleted. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, specifics matter, and you say that as if i was not being specific, or some other implied insult. Anyway, i am writing here to note that the photo has disappeared and has not been replaced by anything that is available publicly. So, while this issue was posted here in relation to the non-public nature of a photo, the result has been the disappearing of a photo to represent this issue. No other photo has been selected. SageRad (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a matter of copyright law and whether the use of this specific image complies with WP's NFCC policy. I tagged it for speedy deletion citing NFCC #8 and linking to this discussion. The admin who deleted it agreed. There is no obligation to supply another image; the rationale presented here is that the images we already cite, already show that agent orange causes birth defects. This is a matter of how policy applied to that specific image. WP policy - which is what governs what happens here. Jytdog (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The image is at File:JADE HELM LOGO.png and links to . At Talk:Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theories it's also been suggested that we can use a homemade video of a local council as a source. This may all of course be accurate, but I think we need much better sources. Doug Weller (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

A document and a video posted by anonymous users? No. The creation of such materials must be proven to come from reliable sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'd say no. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It might be worth glancing at things I've posted to the article talk page since it was linked here. To state it succinctly, footage from the same video, and slides from the same document, have been used by the mainstream media. The document seems to have been posted on Google Docs by a reporter for the Houston Chronicle. (shrugs) I have no real strong opinion about us using the logo (I haven't seen it anywhere else), but it does seem to have been used by USASOC in this one context. Revent^talk 17:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• I did look at it and commented there. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree that home-made video of a city council meeting is not a reliable source. CorporateM (Talk) 05:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Are scifi-universe.com and krinein.fr reliable sources? --Cattus ^talk 17:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliable for what fact(s)? -- GreenC 20:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

1. Source. http://prabook.org, specifically http://prabook.org/web/person-view.html?profileId=916725
2. Article. Vincent Bugliosi
3. Content (a). "Bugliosi was born on August 18, 1934 in Hibbing, Minnesota, the son of Italian immigrants, Aida Valeri (Sassoferrato, Marche, Italy) and Vincenzino Bugliosi (Costacciaro, Umbria, Italy)."
4. Content (b). The above was recently changed from: "Bugliosi was born on August 18, 1934 in Hibbing, Minnesota, the son of Italian immigrants, Ida (Valerie) and Vincent Bugliosi."

I am not familiar with this website, but the about page suggests it may be another wiki. Bringing it here for additional opinions. - Location (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@All Hallow's Wraith: pinging you per this edit. - Location (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

User-created content. Not RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Not reliable Looks like some wikipedia scraping too. Note that the Prabook entry for Bugliosi is virtually the same as the previous wikipedia version, not the new one. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. It does appear that the material with the parents was added in conjunction with the Prabook citation: diff. - Location (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Source Book: Francis Drake in Nehalem Bay 1579, Setting the Historical Record Straight by Garry D. Gitzen, Fort Nehalem Publishing, 263 pages, 8 1/2 by 11 inches, 100 plus illustrations, 6 Appendices, more than 90 bibliography items, and 9 plus pages of end notes.. . .

Source Article: Edward Wright’s World Chart of 1599 by Garry D. Gitzen, Terrae Incognitae, Vol. 46 No. 1, April 2014, 3–15.

Source Review: Terrae Incognitae Editor Marguerite Ragnow, Ph.D. review of Edward Wright's World Chart of 1599 by G. Gitzen. Ggitzen (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Alfie Deyes is a well-known British YouTube celebrity. He has authored two books and hosted a show on BBC Radio 1. Numerous editors have sought to add his birthdate to his article, initially unsourced but accurate. It is virtually unheard of for sources to be required for birthdates. However, per WP:ABOUTSELF social media sites can be used for basic, unquestionable facts. Therefore, I used a YouTube video by the subject, 'Draw my Life' in which Deyes stats his birthday as 17th September 1993. User:Nikthestunned reverted my edits has cited WP:BLPPRIVACY to argue such material should not be included in the article, despite BLPPRIVACY stating 'Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object.' It is clear Deyes does not object, because he stated his birthdate with his own mouth! The editor has also claimed the video is not a reliable source and that the birthday information is unreliable because it could be a lie. The same has occurred regarding Joe Sugg. Could other editors give their opinions on this matter AusLondonder (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Far from being virtually unheard of for sources to be requires for birthdates, it's common to ask for reliable sources. Our policy for living people at WP:BLP says "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. In a similar vein, articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted". The same policy also 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. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research and the original sourcing policies."

People don't always tell the truth about their age. Many celebrities want to be seen as younger than they are, some people want to be seen as older. Doug Weller (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I have not seen many article where a source is next to a birthdate. Anyway, Deyes clearly does not regard his birthdate as private, as he has publicly discussed it. Sources have used his age. He has not complained. AusLondonder (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Both are correct. Yes, we do need a reliable source for a birthdate; in general statements by people about their birthdates are treated as reliable. It is true that people can lie, especially about birthdates, but unless we have equally or more reliable sources that they are actually lying, we do treat their own statements as reliable. Similarly if he has published his own birthdate, he clearly does not treat it as private. --GRuban (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

So as it turns out, Deyes' birthdate can now indeed be verified using a reliable source, so I've re-added it. I should probably have checked at each instance of the DoB being added, but this sort of editing can be quite persistent for YouTuber articles. I originally started removing these DoBs as often those editing them were in disagreement, and when there's dispute about unsourced personal content it must be removed. ("Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" - Jimbo, 2006)^[1] I also don't see why we should be adding them before they're verifiable. Nikthestunned 09:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Lex Kogan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article contains a number of medical claims about ibogaine sourced to non-medical literature, as well as claims about living people and some borderline advertising. Any thoughts about how best to approach this one? The article was also deleted about 2 years ago, so if admin could check to see if this is a substantial copy that would be helpful. VQuakr (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to take this to afd if an admin can determine that it isn't a substantial copy and can't be G4ed. He still appears not to be notable or have any real significant coverage in reliable sources about him. Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if this will be picked up, but, here goes ! Item on Saigon Post Office :- states - ".. which was built in early 20th.century..." WRONG ! I was in the building 1st.March 2015. It states there on the walls that it was built between 1886 and 1891. That's late 19th.century.

I've found a source and amended the article appropriately. Thank you. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

When contact changes minds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'd appreciate some advice regarding a Wikipedia article about a researcher (LaCour) who recently falsified data for a social science paper.

Per WP:RS, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered...." Accordingly, I inserted the following sentence into the article When contact changes minds:

This was reverted on the grounds that "There seems to be agreement that these sources are making political hay from little or no information about the actual incident." Accordingly, there is presently no way that any of these sources can be used in this article in any way whatsoever, either to support a brief and general statement (as quoted above), much less a more detailed statement. Is this exclusion consistent with the policy?

In case anyone wants more detail (feel free to skip this): I'll briefly summarize what these five sources say for purposes of this noticeboard. According to [1], there is no evidence that Science has any liberal bias, and "LaCour and Green’s study was clearly published simply because it ran counter to so much prior research showing that it's really difficult to change people's political views (and it didn't hurt that Green's name was on it, given how respected he is in the field)." Thus, [1] is in opposition to [2] which says that LaCour's argument originally gained acceptance in the scientific community because it "flattered the ideological sensibilities of liberals, who tend to believe that resistance to gay marriage can only be the artifact of ignorance or prejudice, not moral or religious conviction." As to what motivated LaCour's dishonesty in the first place, his co-author, Donald Green, has expressed bafflement about any instance of scientific fraud, per [3]. However, [4] points to the pressure that social scientists are under to publish scholarly articles, although "profound pressure to publish certainly can’t explain LaCour’s deception on its own". In [5], pro-gay-marriage columnist S.E. Cupp writes that, "The doctored study will only encourage the perception that advocates are going too far." Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Please see the article talk page for a more in-depth discussion. In any case, my position is that (1) sources are not reliable absolutely, but rather they can be reliable for somethings and not for others; for a source to be reliable for a particular subject it needs some credible reason to believe that the source has some expertise on the subject, (2) these are editorials, not factual newspaper articles, by people who do not have any expertise either in social science research nor in scientific fraud, (3) these editorials largely ignore the actual facts of the subject of the article in favor of making political points that have little or nothing to do with the subject, and (4) the NY Magazine piece says the same thing about the lack of useful information in the WSJ editorial, and (after already having pointed this out on talk) Anythingyouwant's wilful omission of this in his description of what the NY Mag source says is a distortion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm making willful omissions? Au contraire mon frere. I said above "[1] is in opposition to [2]". Nor have I sought to portray opinion as straight reporting.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I believe (and already said on the talk page) that painting 1-2 as being in opposition to each other, as a he-said she-said story where both sides are equally valid and one can choose based on political leanings, is an incorrect description. It is not merely the case that they hold opposing but balanced positions. [1] says that [2] is silly, badly informed, and vacuous. I.e., if we believe [1] enough to use it as a source, we should also believe it enough to discount the possibility of using [2] as a source. But using [1] without [2] doesn't make sense, so the right outcome is to use neither. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not our proper role to say, based upon two opposing sources, that they are equally correct or that one is right and the other wrong, and I never did so.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

See, there you go again, playing the "there must be two political sides to a question and we must balance both sides" game that has so much to do with what is wrong with US journalism today. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what you are referring to.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliability is in proportion to claims. The claim seems to be "opinions exist" which is a very low hurdle to meet for reliability. There is not an RS problem here, but one of weight. It's up to consensus whether the opinion on non-expert mainstream media is due a sentence, but again that seems pretty easy. There is a a trend among editors particularly in pages related to sociology of taking the preferability of academic sources to justify complete erasure of lay sources. A local consensus of that kind has no prerogatives. I don't think it would be at all out of line even to cite the specific content of an attributed opinion from the likes of WSJ. Rhoark (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, Rhoark. If others here agree that there is no RS problem, then I guess the next stop will be the NPOV noticeboard to discuss weight, or perhaps an RFC at the article talk page. Which way would you advise?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The objections seem to be the relative weight of uncredentialed sources. Inserting your material in a new section titled along the lines of "Media Response" or "Public Reception" to clearly differentiate it from credentialed academic responses should allay these concerns. If not, the ball's in the other court. Rhoark (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course, if everything gets blanked by an IP having three edits at Wikipedia, then all discussion is useless. Wikipedia is certainly annoying sometimes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The WSJ is reliable for its own opinion. It's opinion as one of the largest papers in the US (the largest?) makes it's inclusion useful to the reader. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Suggest in references "Aldershot in the Great War" published by Pen and Sword author Murray Rowlands be added. ISBN 978 1 78303 202 6 {{isbn}}: Check isbn value: checksum (help) published in 2015 be added to the bibliography.

The proper place to suggest the addition of useful references to an article is on that article's talk page. It does seem to be a good one! NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do it. Which article are you referring to? Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This polemical book, by the "prolific science fiction and fantasy writer" John Grant (author), is in use as a source for negative information regarding the BLP Anthony Watts (blogger), and also his blog, Watts Up With That? . I raised the question of why this author is a credible source, since he doesn't seem to have any particular expertise on the topic, at the Watts BLP talk page. You may read the replies, but in essence, the substantial reply was, "Take it to RS/N."

So: why should the opinion of this SF/F writer, who occasionally writes popular science, be reliable for anything but his personal opinions? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Grant, John (2011). Denying Science: Conspiracy Theories, Media Distortions, and the War Against Reality. Prometheus Books. ISBN 1616144009. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

• Use at WUWT (quotes in first cite, as of 6/16/15)):

"The blog Watts Up With That? is a notorious hotbed of irrational AGW denialism"

"the massively trafficked denialist site Watts Up With That"

"Watts is best known for his very heavily trafficked blog Watts Up With That?, began in 2006, which provides not just a megaphone for himself but a rallying ground for other AGW deniers."

• Use at Anthony Watts_(blogger)

Cite 29, 6/16/15. Grant 2011, p. 302: "Watts is best known for his very heavily trafficked blog Watts Up With That?, began in 2006, which provides not just a megaphone for himself but a rallying ground for other AGW deniers, notably Christopher Monckton. The blog played an important role in the Climategate fiasco, through its dissemination of the hacked CRU emails."

Also an innocuous use at Cite 2, readily available elsewhere:

"Anthony Watts is a TV journalist, a weather presenter who studied Electrical Engineering and Meteorology at Purdue University; there's no record of his having graduated, however, and he's been reticent in discussing this. After a career in local television, in 2004 he moved to radio, joining the FOX News affiliate KPAY-AM in Chico, California."

--Pete Tillman (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Grant is a fine scifi writer. This is a polemic, a political/public-policy broadside. It is published on the non-fiction side of his fiction publisher. I would say it is reliable for the author's opinion. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The author's education is a year at King's College London according to his linkedin profile, as I interpret it. The publisher's reputation is good for some imprints according to this WP:RSN discussion but poor or "borderline" according to this WP:RSN discussion. I'm dubious. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• So far, everyone contributing here has already been active at the article talk page (as I have). It is disingenuous not to make this clear yourself. A noticeboard discussion is useful only to the extent that it gains participation from people who aren't already making the same arguments elsewhere. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • As another editor active at the talk page, I note that this request is malformed: it refers to inline cites which include quotes from the book, but fails to show the text supported by the cites as required in note "3. Content. The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting". Additionally, it links to Anthony_Watts_(blogger)#Notes for cite 29, but due to intervening editing, that is now note 31.
    Evidently Grant has published factual books as well as fiction, the publisher of this specific book is Prometheus Books which could be expected to provide a properly skeptical view, and is well aware of the need for fact checking and accurate biographical information: see this case. . . dave souza, talk 17:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

For use in the article on Entropy Estimation.

This source is a dissertation from Duke University: http://gradworks.umi.com/33/98/3398410.html and http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/handle/10161/2458 . It contains an analytic solution to the expected self-entropy of a distribution whose conjugate prior is a Dirichlet distribution. It is the only publication I've ever seen that provides an analytic solution to that problem, which is of course a very important problem for Machine Learning. Content hasn't been added yet, but the core content of interest is:

${\displaystyle E[H(\pi )|\alpha g_{0}]=\psi (\alpha +1)-\sum _{k\in K}g_{0k}\psi (\alpha g_{0k}+1)}$

I read over a little but the part in WP:RS on scholarly sources, and it seems this remains ambiguous, given it's importance for Machine Learning, and the lack of any other source for an analytic solution. Kevin Baas^talk 21:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Completed dissertations are reliable, but primary. It's perfectly admissible as a source for an equation, but should not be used to support statements about its significance (such as how novel or important a result it is.) Rhoark (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

1. Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/travis-walter-donovan/the-zeitgeist-movement-en_b_501517.html
2. Article: Zeitgeist (film series) or The Zeitgeist Movement (if the movement is re-split from the film series article)
3. Content: Factual claims and opinion about The Zeitgeist Movement

WP:NEWSBLOG says, "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals...". So is Travis Walter Donovan a professional?

• "The Huffington Post is an aggregate blog that features both professional columnists and non-columnists."
• On 4 April 2010, one month before he posted the Zeiteist article, Donovan's HuffPost bio says he is, "an intern for HuffPost Green".
• On 19 January 2011, eight months after the initial post, seven months before he last updated the article, published author Sarah Posner called Donovan, "The Huffington Post’s associate green editor".
• On 20 August 2011, one month after his last update to this article, Donovan's HuffPost bio says he is, "Senior Verticals Editor for The Huffington Post".

So is this writer a professional? Can this source be used "with caution" per WP:NEWSBLOG? OnlyInYourMindT 18:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

HuffPo blogs are mostly not reliable, I think we must not use HuffPo blogs for anything controversial or political. Spumuq (talq) 10:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:NEWSBLOG implies only that newspaper or journal articles presented in a blog format are as reliable as if presented in a more "traditional" online newspaper format, or on paper. There is little evidence that HuffPo ever exercises editorial control over its contributions. In other words, we must not use HuffPo (blogs, or not) for anything controversial, other than for the opinions of the writers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

While I appreciate that you've tried to address the three key bullets listed at the top of this page and I wish that more editors would take your clear, three-bullet approach to opening a request, the "content" information that you've provided is rather non-specific. "Factual claims and opinion" covers just about anything that ever appears in a blog. (Without knowing anything about this article, topic, or source, I note that a statement like "Bob Schlob was born in 1962" requires a different standard of evidence than, say, "Bob Schlob was a leprechaun".) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: Your reading of WP:NEWSBLOG continues to confound me. :-)

@Spumuq: I'm attempting to rely on the professionalism of a professional journalist, not on the lack of oversight of the HuffPo blog, which is specifically what WP:NEWSBLOG addresses.

@TenOfAllTrades: I understand that, say, a fashion expert is not a reliable source for opinions on politics or mechanical engineering. That isn't this situation. According to WP:NEWSBLOG, if this person is a professional journalist, then their factual claims or opinion pieces are worth more than some random blog. Right? I do not think I'm misreading this policy. Surely if Walter Cronkite had written this HuffPo blog post, we'd be able to cite it. OnlyInYourMindT 08:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Speaking generally, I have found that the more resistant an individual is to specifically identifying the claims he wishes to support with a source, the more likely it is that the claims are not sufficiently supportable using that source. Now you're just wasting our time with irrelevant hypotheticals involving Walter Kronkite – for whom we would still insist you identify the specific claims you would like to make – instead of answering what ought to be a simple question. Please don't be so disrespectful of the volunteers here who are trying to help resolve your issue. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@TenOfAllTrades: The reason I don't specify a claim is because I think they are all equal. There is an author and a list of claims. None of the claims are anymore outlandish than any other. Just lecture summaries, membership numbers, statistics, locations, dates, etc. To me, it seemed the important thing was determining if this writer was a professional or not, so WP:NEWSBLOG could be applied. If we can't apply WP:NEWBLOG then specifying a claim would be a waste of time. OnlyInYourMindT 12:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• @OnlyInYourMind: again, please name the claim(s) and/or opinion(s) you'd like to insert in the Zeitgeist article you mentioned. A blanket approval of whatever content Donovan produced on that topic in HuffPost Green to be included in a specific Wikipedia article will not be given. Just specifying what this noticeboard can do for you, i.e. nothing if you don't mention which specific claims/opinions you want to include in the encyclopedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• HuffPo blogs have poor to zero quality control, and routinely publish abject nonsense. This is not a reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: How about this claim: "March 13th, 2010 was the second annual celebration of ZDay. Coordinated by The Zeitgeist Movement, ZDay is an educational event geared toward raising awareness of the movement. While 337 sympathetic events occurred in over 70 countries worldwide, NYC was home to the main event, a 6-hour live web cast presentation with lectures from the movement's key figures, and 30 different countries represented in the audience." ...On second thought, I suppose another way to read WP:NEWSBLOG might be that we can only use pieces like this for the professional journalist's opinion, but not for their claims of fact (since there is no organizational fact checking oversight on this particular newsblog). This must be what everyone is saying. So professional journalists who make factual claims outside of the oversight of their reliable fact checking structure are not to be trusted? We cannot assume an individual, no matter how professional, is capable of producing an independently fact-checked story. Therefore, like Arthur Rubin said, they are only good for their opinion. Which is a shame because this piece almost entirely lacks opinion. Does that sound right? OnlyInYourMindT 12:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that when WP:NEWSBLOG says "professional", it's using it as a shortcut for the general rules for using self-published expert sources, which say: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publication." In other words, if for some bizarre reason James Watson were to publish something in the Huffington Post blogs about DNA, we could cite it, because he is such a recognized expert in that field that even his blog posts can be relevant. However, simply being a professional journalist doesn't qualify unless they're an established expert on that specific topic. If he were a famous scholar of the the Zeitgeist Movement, perhaps, then it would qualify. --Aquillion (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

My first thought was that being a professional journalist made one an expert at reporting facts and self-fact-checking. Like if a professional journalist published a HuffPost blog covering a James Watson DNA lecture. We'd get things like date, location, headcount, lecture history, and a shallow overview of lecture content. One does not need to be James Watson to report such things. Dammit... That sounds reasonable so now I'm back on the fence. OnlyInYourMindT 17:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@OnlyInYourMind: a possible interpretation is that you outsmarted us all with your misreading of WP:NEWSBLOG (I'd happily concede to that), however: this didn't bring you any closer to a permission for using a questionable source. Your contentions approach absurdity ("The reason I don't specify a claim is because I think they are all equal" – yeah, sure, like that's how an encyclopedia works: our standard MO is to summarize sources, which always implies making choices of what is left out of the summary – if "all claims are equal" it is not even possible to make a summary). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken:

@TenOfAllTrades: The reason I don't specify a claim is because I think they are all equal. There is an author and a list of claims. None of the claims are anymore outlandish than any other. Just lecture summaries, membership numbers, statistics, locations, dates, etc. To me, it seemed the important thing was determining if this writer was a professional or not, so WP:NEWSBLOG could be applied. If we can't apply WP:NEWBLOG then specifying a claim would be a waste of time. OnlyInYourMindT 12:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

If the author made a factual claim about leprechauns or the details of bioengineering, clearly that would not be equal to his claims about locations and dates. My point is that all his claims are equally reasonable for a reporter. He is writing about only the things that a professional reporter would be an expert at reporting.

So the question is, if a professional reporter self-publishes a story, would the reporter-appropriate things they reported on be considered a reliable source for wikipedia or not? OnlyInYourMindT 06:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, on this noticeboard no blanket "reliable" qualifications are awarded to any source. A request here consists of three parts:

• source Y
• article Y
• content N ... no content proposed, request can not be processed – apart from the general remark that *generally* Huffington Post is not considered a reliable source, so you'd need a very specific request, explaining why the proposed content merits inclusion in the encyclopedia, and why it can't be sourced from a *generally* more reliable source (e.g. this source, already used in the article, has Z-Day related info - why would a less reliable source be used to give info on the same?)

As for the general reliability of the Huffington Post source I invite to take a look at the source about a published false story linked below in the #Daily Mail section: that source is as dismissive about Huffington Post (that equally published the same false story) as it is about the Daily Mail tabloid. So, yes, the reputation of Huffington Post is very low, so that an inprecise request, not mentioning the precise content to be included in the encyclopedia will only get a blanket refusal. No amount of jugling around with fancy allcaps links will make the request more acceptable. The only way to possibly (although unlikely) make it more acceptable is to mention the precise content one wants to add to the encyclopedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. We'd need a very good reason to treat the Huffington Post as a reliable source, and certainly shouldn't offer carte blanche regardless of the content that it's supposed to support. bobrayner (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Book

• Cameron, John A. IT'S ME, Edward Wayne Edwards, the Serial Killer You Never Heard Of. Golden Door Press. ISBN 978-1885793034.

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

• Primary article: Edward Edwards (serial killer)

The author claims that the above serial killer is responsible for all of the following:

• Atlanta child murders (placed into article Wayne Williams)
• Colonial Parkway Killer case
• Robison family murders (placed in article)
• Murder of JonBenét Ramsey (placed in article)
• Murder of Chandra Levy (placed in article)
• The murder for which Ryan W. Ferguson has been convicted (placed in article)
• The 2001 anthrax attacks
• He was the Zodiac Killer (placed in articlethreetimes)
• Murder of Martha Moxley (placed in article)
• Murder of Laci Peterson (placed in article)
• Murder of Margaret Ann Pahl
• The murders for which West Memphis Three were convicted (placed in article)
• A murder for which Burton Abbott was executed (placed in article)
• He murdered the Black Dahlia at age 13 but according to author committed first murder at age 11
• Murdered Suzanne Degnan at age 12
• Peggy Hettrick murder case
• Murder of Jimmy Hoffa

This is the tip of the iceberg as Cameron concludes that Edwards killed more than 100 people, and was responsible for more than 15 wrongful convictions. Please read the second paragraph under section Other possible murders.

It is my contention that this is an unreliable source and Wikipedia should not allow its inclusion based on the extreme fringe theories held by the author. I believe it is questionable, lacking in fact-checking and has not been properly vetted. Numerous errors, unsubstantiated and sensational claims, illogical conclusions. In a podcast interview, the author states that no law enforcement agency including the FBI will take him seriously and have brushed him off. He also states that no news agency or publication except the tabloid The Globe would treat him seriously either. The website contains the all-caps slogan "LETS TELL THE TRUTH AND FREE THE INNOCENT!" These statements are red flags and without acceptance, Wikipedia should not be used as a tool of promotion for this work and the work should be omitted from all articles.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

A couple of other red flags:

• Despite the appearance of Mary Leonard and Ricky Beard on the list of “The Known Victims,” their names appear nowhere else in the book.
• Cameron writes in the third person while describing his investigation, possibly to include self-congratulatory remarks, such as, “Cameron had nailed it” and "[Edwards was] impressed with Cameron’s tenacity".

I can only agree that this source is questionable at best, and if cited at all, a disclaimer (something along the lines of "this assertion has, as yet, not been corroborated") should be included. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I have been studying the book for a few months, and I know other people that have also studied it. I have also discussed it with the author. It references numerous sources (photos,published letters,websites,criminal records,newspaper cuttings) in suppport of the claims, and I am not aware of any claim in the book that is demonstrably false. Other serial killers have claimed large numbers of victims, so that should not in itself be a reason for doubting the reliability of the source, neither should the style of the prose. The claims are listed under "other possible murders", that should be a sufficient disclaimer. Recent developments such as the announcement of a retrial in the Chandra Levy case also tend to support the book's claims. So I don't agree this source is should be deemed unreliable.JusticeAdvocate1 (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Doubt of the source isn't originating from the serial killer's claims (he claimed to kill about 500); it is originating from the author's claims. The announcement of a retrial has nothing to do with this book and therefore it is illogical to presume that the announcement may be taken as some form of support/endorsement.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the comments made by DoctorJoeE and Berean Hunter above. David J Johnson (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I haven't gone through all of the articles that the book is being cited in, but I believe that the book is used more or less appropriately in the article about Ryan W. Ferguson. If the book is being used as a source of factual information, that's a problem, because the author is theorizing unproven things based on his own research. But saying "This author wrote a book about this case and in it he speculates X and Y." is appropriate for the section about media coverage. Perhaps we can reword the other articles to fit with this wording. Is that acceptable, JusticeAdvocate1? Bali88 (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Not to me, it isn't. Why would we have a book featured in a section of its own (undue weight) that holds a singular and unaccepted fringe theory? Why include it at all? How does that improve the article? We don't have to include a book just because it exists. That's like saying that we saw it on TV or the Internet so it must be worth mentioning.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Because there is a long tradition of doing just that on wikipedia: including books written about cases, tv shows they've been featured on, songs inspired by the case, etc. The only exception would be if the subject was just so incredibly notable that they have dozens if not hundreds written about them. Of course you would have to be more selective in those circumstances, but typically if a court case has been seen in the media or had books written about it, they are mentioned. The article about Michelle Pheiffer has a "pop culture" section that lists where she was mentioned in songs. This is standard wikipedia stuff. The concerns you've mentioned would all be valid concerns---if we were purporting the information as being truthful. But just including a blurb in the "media" section saying "this person wrote a book about the topic and this is what he speculates" is perfectly in line with wikipedia tradition. Now it doesn't have to be in it's own section. It should include all instances of books written about the case. Bali88 (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

What if said book were a part of a promotional campaign or the subject of non-disclosed paid editing? The analogy of Michelle Pfeiffer falls short. She is a pop culture subject therefore it makes sense that there might be a pop culture section in that article. Not every subject is a pop culture subject nor should they be. Most of the current additions of the above book into articles essentially amount to "The author of this book says that Edward Edwards did it." <== That really isn't very helpful to the reader because there is no further explanation...I guess they'll have to buy the book to figure out how it ties in? To expound on the explanations would probably start tipping the scales of undue weight. We are perfectly within the scope of policies and guidelines to reject the addition of some sources. That is why WP:NOTRELIABLE exists.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The book is not reliable and it should not be used in the manner described above per WP:REDFLAG and WP:ONEWAY. We should not be cherry-picking fringe claims that have not been discussed in reliable secondary sources. - Location (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The book is hardly "fringe". It's claims were summarised by the Daily Mail, for example : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2607944/The-prolific-serial-killer-youve-never-heard-murdered-JonBenet-Ramsey-Jimmy-Hoffa-AND-victims-Zodiac-Killer-claims-detective-new-book.htmlJusticeAdvocate1 (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Haha -- being picked up by the Daily Mail is a mark against another source, not a vote for it. See discussion in above section. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The claim that Edwards was responsible for the murders of the Robinson family, the Black Dahlia, JonBenét Ramsey, Chandra Levy, Martha Moxley, Laci Peterson, Margaret Ann Pahl, Suzanne Degnan, and Peggy Hettrick, as well as those attributed to Wayne Williams, the Colonial Parkway Killer, Ryan W. Ferguson, the West Memphis Three, Burton Abbott, and the Zodiac Killer... and the 2001 anthrax attacks ...is about as fringe as you can get. Even a bunch of traditional news sources reporting on the absurdity of this claim would not be enough to warrant a blurb in each related article, although you might be able to create an article about the book if you had enough high quality reviews. - Location (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Location's objections are, in a nutshell, mine as well. Many examples of WP's "long tradition", cited above, are inappropriate, and are often taken down, as they should be. I would feel differently if at least some of the author's speculations had been endorsed by police and/or other sources, but so far that has not happened. Should it happen in the future, we can always reconsider. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The book is fringe to the nth degree. To say that the Daily Mail is a reliable source - and I say this as a UK resident - is frankly ill advised. I totally agree with Location's comments. Should reliable sources appear in the future, we can then change the page, but certainly not yet. It would diminish a factual article with fringe theories. David J Johnson (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you JusticeAdvocate1, the source you supplied reminded me that I forgot to mention that the author claims Edwards murdered Jimmy Hoffa, too.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep, in Detroit -- while Edwards was living in Florida. Because Hoffa had called him a "homo" in 1967 while they were both in Leavenworth. This is evidence? Please. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

An editor has reverted my removal of this unreliable source on the West Memphis Three article and arguing on that talk page that they do not see a consensus here. They would like to argue this on an article-to-article basis which defeats the purpose of why I brought it here. Is there a consensus here? If so, then I would request editors join that discussion, please.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, for clarity, list the articles here where you intend to do such cleanup, consensus will quickly form I'm sure (just to ease the mind of possible reverters). --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Articles are listed in BH's original note. This seems like a no-brainer to me; it's hard to think of a book not authored by Kevin Trudeau or Andrew Wakefield that fails WP:RS more egregiously than this one. This is precisely the sort of source material that critics cite when they accuse WP of unreliable sourcing. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 22:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Unreliable source per the above.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Is findmypast.com to be considered wholly unreliable for use in sources of BMD places and dates? I can see several discussion threads in the archives here which raise concerns about the site, e.g. that it's a commercial profit-making company, that its source material is behind a pay-wall, that it is a primary source, that its search results may be based on transcriptions, and so on. But I could not find any categorical consensus or policy decision that it should never be used in any way. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Should not be used as a source in itself as it is only a collector of information, most of the facts that can be used are from primary sources which should be cited directly, other information is member submitted and not reliable. Although before somebody plays the dont use primary sources card in most cases it is very difficult to prove that the primary source is actually refering to the intended subject without using other sources. MilborneOne (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm really not sure that BMD index information (which is really what I'm talking about here) is ever "member submitted". Are you saying that that we have to cite the original birth, death or marriage certificates themselves? How does one do that? One can give a register entry number, but that proves nothing, unless one orders a copy of the certificate (and scans an image onto Commons? - which can anyway be "electronically tweaked") - but isn't that all WP:OR? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

findmypast.com like ancestry.com has user submitted family trees which are not reliable sources. No reason why you cant reference the BMD Index itself as it is published by the General Register Office (for UK stuff) it doesnt have to be captured electronically to be used as a source. The main problem is that it very difficult to prove that the entry you have relates to the wikipedia subject hence the dangers of primary sources and original research. I cant see why you would want to reference findmypast.com directly for anything, you could use the General Register Office and other source material but all you can say is that "A Fred Foo birth was registered in Fooville according to the General Register Office Birth Index" what you cant say is that it is the Fred Foo the subject of the article without a secondary source that makes the connection. MilborneOne (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

But the BMD Index isn't published on-line by the General Register Office. Instead the GRO recommends that you go use freebmd.org.uk. Is an off-line reference to a register entry in some way inherantly better than an online one? I don't see how either is 100% valid without sight of the actual certificate. And I'd argue that it's not clear cut: people whose place of birth and/or age is already given by a reliable secondary source, may be easily pinned down if they have an unusual name, e.g. Sunetra Sarker. The Smiths and Joneses of the world present more of a problem. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it is inappropriate to be using family history/genealogy sources such as this in an article. Going back to an actual certificate is OR. If the information hasn't been mentioned in newspaper/magazine/journal articles or books about the person, then that means third-party sources don't consider the information that important. If they don't think it important enough to mention, then we don't need to be digging around to try to find it either. Karanacs (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Well that's wholly contrary to my understanding on every level. I think date and place of birth are basic facts that any biographical article ought to seek to contain. I also don't see why typical biographical sources, such as a newspaper and magazine interviews, should be expected to contain any of these, but especially not exact date of birth - I'd be very surprised to find that. And I don't even accept that findmyoast.com and freeBMD can be wholly characterised as "family history/genealogy sources" - their BMD data are just copied from the national registers. Their "family history/genealogy" business (for fimdmypast.com anyway), to help people construct their own family trees, is quite distinct and separate. Maybe I should have begun by asking "Is the BMD data at findmypast.com to be considered wholly unreliable...?" Martinevans123 (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps, but our WP:BLP policy states:

"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. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.

"Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies Please note that exceptional claims require exceptional sources." (The last sentence was a reference but I removed the tags) Doug Weller (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. How very surprising. When it says "do not use" there is no reference to e.g. scanned images, so I assume that would mean just a bare reference to a register/ catalogue number. It would just assume the editor had seen and read the certificate for him/herself, and this could not reasonably be verified, of course. But this begs the question, does the publishing of the record by findmypast.com etc constitute a "reliable secondary source", which is where I started. (I'm also unsure what "dicusses" means in this context, but I'm prety sure it doesn't really mean "a discussion" as such). Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

As an administrative note: we secured the WP:FindMyPast Wikipedia Library donation when it was suggested by another partner; we were skeptical about geneological sources, but there were already over 1700 links to sources that can be found on FindMyPast on en.wiki at the time of getting the partnership. There seems to have been a long-standing strategy for verifying material through FindMyPast, before the TWL donation. I am imagining that their are more editors to include in this conversation, Sadads (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, one of those editors might well be Nikkimaria. Many thanks for this info. I had no idea it even existed. Is there a nice distinction between "verifying material" and "using as a reliable source"? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I think WP:PSTS is relevant here: while primary sources aren't reliable secondary sources, they may be used under certain circumstances - primarily for straightforward facts, when the primary source has been reliably published.

It's also worth noting that FindMyPast is not solely genealogical data - it also has a significant collection of historical newspapers, which are fine to use. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. So, for the benefit of the "hard of thinking" (like me), was that a yes or a no? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

A distinction between using to verify and using as a source? Not really - my point is, primary sources can be used as reliable sources (which verify content) in particular circumstances. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that a FindMyPast search record with a place of birth, e.g. can be used as "a reliable primary source" if what is says has been published in a secondary source e.g. ? And if the year was also included in that secondary source, fimndmypast could also be used for that too?? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

PLEASE HELP SETTLE A DISPUTE BETWEEN postdlf AND Mr. Posen concerning the reliability of citing: Stop Thief! The True Story of Abraham Greenthal, King of the Pickpockets in 19th Century New York City, as Revealed from Contemporary Sources, ©2015 by Edward David Luft, Washington, DC, 166 pp. http://www.lbi.org/digibaeck/results/?qtype=pid&term=2928280 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Posen (talk • contribs) 20:11, 17 June 2015‎ Moved from preceding section by dave souza, talk 08:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

postdlf wrote an article entitled "Abe Greenthal" on Wikipedia. He cites Robert A. Rockaway as a source even though he himself easily proved Rosaway wrong on Greenthal's date of death. Nevertheless, he continued to cite Rockaway as authoritative. Mr. Posen was, upon reading the article, inspired to do the research to prove the actual facts and discovered that the greater part of postdlf's statements were wrong, having been based upon an unreliable source. Luft cited in his book highly reliable sources to prove this. postdlf claims to be too busy to look at the book to see the sources cited. Mr. Posen sees this as "Alice in Wonderland"--"First the sentence and then the evidence." If you have experience in editing 19th century criminal history or in knowing about fact-checkiong, please evaluate the Luft book as a reliable source for accurate citation. postdlf is a administrator on Wikipedia while Mr. Posen is not. postdlf states, "If the source is approved by other experienced Wikipedia editors I would of course have no problem with it being used appropriately in the article." Please see the talk pages of both postdlf and Mr. Posen for further comments.Mr. Posen (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

PLEASE HELP SETTLE A DISPUTE BETWEEN postdlf AND Mr. Posen concerning the reliability of citing: Stop Thief! The True Story of Abraham Greenthal, King of the Pickpockets in 19th Century New York City, as Revealed from Contemporary Sources, ©2015 by Edward David Luft, Washington, DC, 166 pp. http://www.lbi.org/digibaeck/results/?qtype=pid&term=2928280 postdlf wrote an article entitled "Abe Greenthal" on Wikipedia. He cites Robert A. Rockaway as a source even though he himself easily proved Rosaway wrong on Greenthal's date of death. Nevertheless, he continued to cite Rockaway as authoritative. Mr. Posen was, upon reading the article, inspired to do the research to prove the actual facts and discovered that the greater part of postdlf's statements were wrong, having been based upon an unreliable source. Luft cited in his book highly reliable sources to prove this. postdlf claims to be too busy to look at the book to see the sources cited. Mr. Posen sees this as "Alice in Wonderland"--"First the sentence and then the evidence." If you have experience in editing 19th century criminal history or in knowing about fact-checkiong, please evaluate the Luft book as a reliable source for accurate citation. postdlf is a administrator on Wikipedia while Mr. Posen is not. postdlf states, "If the source is approved by other experienced Wikipedia editors I would of course have no problem with it being used appropriately in the article." Please see the talk pages of both postdlf and Mr. Posen for further comments.Mr. Posen (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The Luft source appears to be a monograph stored at and made available through the Leo Baeck Institute and since the Leo Baeck Institute functions, essentially as an archive or library and not as a publisher, per se, as such it is not a reliable source due to, first, the fact that it has not been published by a publisher with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, as required by the sources section of the Verifiability policy and, second, because it is for all intents and purposes a self-published source which cannot be used except for the purposes set out in that policy, which does not include this use. (And before the question is raised, though the author Edward David Luft, appears to be a genealogist of some note who might (or might not) in the field of Jewish or Polish genealogy qualify as an expert for purposes of the expert exception to the self-published-source policy, there is nothing to show that he is an expert in the sense required by that policy regarding the life of Abraham Greenthal or regarding criminality so would not qualify as an expert in this regard.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Panjury should be objective for review and rating. Don't remove it from the Jurassic_World — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngtszman (talk • contribs) 02:04, 15 June 2015‎ (UTC)

Panjury meets none of the criteria for reliable sources listed at WP:IRS. It's a group self-publishing site. It describes itself as a "melting pot of subjectivity." In its "About Us" page it says the following: "All content are created by our users and as a result, we are not responsible for what may appear on Panjury.com." Links to such websites have no business on an encyclopedia. BusterD (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

In agreement with BusterD -- this should not be used as a reliable source. Cheers, Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 00:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

This came up on the discussion on Balad al-Sheikh (see Talk:Balad_al-Sheikh#Recent_revert).

The old The Palestine Post (presently The Jerusalem Post) is normally considered WP:RS, though partisan (it defined itself as a Jewish/Zionist newspaper).

Presently all the old copies (from the 1930s, 1940s), of The Palestine Post are available online, via this link. The newspaper for the Arab Palestinian at that time, Filastin (newspaper), is not online.

This creates a problem. We now have some editors searching through these archives, noting down every attack against Jews, and no attacks against Arabs. This creates rather ridiculous situations, like at Balad al-Sheikh where it is well-known that at least 10 times as many Arab civilians were killed compared with Jewish victims in the 1930 &1940s. Still, almost all the text is about the -relatively few- Jewish victims.

I have no objection agains using, say The Jerusalem Post, for present news: presently we also have other news (like Maan, or al Jazeera) that gives a different perspective. We just don´t have that for the old 1930s -1940s newspapers.

My suggestion: we can remove all references to The Palestine Post from the 1930-40s, *if* they are not used by other sources. Huldra (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

While newspapers are reliable sources for news, they are poor secondary sources for historical events. Once historians have caught up with events, we should stop using contemporaneous news reporting. TFD (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that is my opinion also. There must be dozens, if not hundreds, of reliable scholarly studies/books about the 1930-40s in Mandatory Palestine. However, if, say, Benny Morris (or any other scholar of that period) cites The Palestine Post, I would gladly link to the original The Palestine Post-article together with the Morris-reference. Huldra (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Strictly speaking this is less about WP:RS and more about WP:UNDUE; no matter how good the sources are, it still does not justify giving undue weight to one aspect of a topic. --Aquillion (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, i completely agree with Aquillion here. This is not about the source that's being used, but rather about the completely one-sided bias in how it's being used, which leads to the scale tipping far into one side of a controversial topic. That's not cool on Wikipedia. WP:UNDUE SageRad (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I see your point, but I have looked invain for the Wikipedia:UNDUE/Noticeboard ;) And I have been editing against two, shall we say, rather pro-Israeli editors on that page, who have in effect told me that they see nothing wrong in giving each Jewish victim about 100 times the text compared to that of an Arab Palestinian victim. It is rather frustrating. Huldra (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is part of WP:NPOV, so.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

That´s the problem: my fellow editors do not think it is WP:NPOV, as it is supported by a generally acknowledged WP:RS, namely Palestine Post. Mediation is declined, as they think nothing is wrong with the article. Anyway, I will wait until this report is archived (for any other responses); then, if I have heard nothing else, I will take it down pr WP:UNDUE. And then take it from there..... Huldra (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

That all sounds very bad, and wrong, but it's not the source that's the question. It's the apparently heavily biased behavior wanting to take over a page for their own point of view. SageRad (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

"we can remove all references to The Palestine Post from the 1930-40" because of "Filastin (newspaper), is not online" (sic!)

Is it only me who see such proposal & argument as censorship & absurd one? --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You put the first sentence as a quote, but, AFAIK, nobody has written that sentence here before. Huldra (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, isn't it your quote: "My suggestion: we can remove all references to The Palestine Post from the 1930-40s..." @Huldra (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2015 ?

BTW: have you noticed Debresser about this topic? --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

A: I would have been perfectly happy with other sources from "the other side", (not only Filastin (newspaper)), alas, there are none online, AFAIK.

B: this is not WP:AN or WP:AN/I: there is no note given here that you should contact/notify other editors. In fact, I would see it as an advantage to get the views of people who normally do not edit in the I/P area; an "outside" view, so to speak. If I would have notified anyone, it would have been on the Israel-Palestine notice-board: I didn´t. Huldra (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but along with your "I will wait until this report is archived (for any other responses); then, if I have heard nothing else, I will take it down..."

it not seems me as fair play. I'll notify him.

Regarding to your claims: Palestine Post did write about Arab victims as well. See, for example: , , , , etc.

I'm sure that anyone may find there even more after learning some search rules. So I'd propose you to withdraw your claims. --Igorp_lj (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that "any" is an awfully severe way to go. If nothing else, I imagine there are plenty of non-controversial events of the era that the Palestine Post reported on, for which there is no reason to doubt reliability. For example (and I'm making this up, but I can easily imagine it):

• July 1942, during the first battle of El Alamein, the Mandatory Government warns residents that if the British lose this battle, there is little else between Rommel's army and Palestine. Residents should take precautions appropriately.

No reason Palestine Post couldn't be cited to say that the Mandatory Government gave a warning. In fact, it would probably be at least as good a source as a primary document from the Mandatory Government itself, because then there would at least be evidence that the warning was actually issued, not just documented and filed.

Like any other source, and especially any contemporaneous journalistic source on any subject, Palestine Post needs to be used carefully. But there's also no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no requirement that sources be on-line, and certainly no need to ignore an on-line reliable source just because other sources, with a different view, might be available off-line. Get thee to a library and inspect off-line sources, if need be. Brad Dyer (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I live in a country which, in spite of excellent library services, does not have old copies of, say Filastin (newspaper). And if it did have it, it would not help me, as I don´t read Arabic. And, might I further note; Brad Dyer and Igorp lj opinions are 100% predictable, (both ore old-timers in the I/P conflicts on Wikipedia), which is why I wanted "outsiders" opinions on this. It boils down to this: is it ok to use 100 more times the space/text on a Jewish victim than on a Arab victim? If anyone answers "yes" to than question, seriously, I will call than person a racist. Quite simply. Huldra (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Luckily for us, you are not the only person editing Wikipedia, and there are literally tens of thousands of active editors, many of them with access to decent libraries. if this is as much of an issue as you make it to be, one of them will fix it. And no, the issue is not 'is it ok to use 100 more times the space/text on a Jewish victim than on a Arab victim' - it is if it is appropriate to remove a reliable source which is available on-line, just because there is not an equivalent on-line source that might have other views. The answer to that is pretty clearly 'no'. Brad Dyer (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Well hi there, Brad Dyer, now why, oh why, am I not the least surprised that you turn up here? Whit such unsurprising opinions? Btw, those "tens of thousands of active editors" are not very interested in this area, I´m afraid. Virtually every article I edit on Wikipedia has fewer than 30 "watchers", so also with Balad Al-Sheikh. And how many libraries, even "pretty decent ones" have copies of newspapers from the Middle East dating to the 1930s 1940s? Not many, outside the Middle East, I would say. And to repeat: It would not help me anyway, as I don´t read Arabic. Balad al-Sheikh have been totally unbalanced since 2011, how many more years is it acceptable for you that it will remain so? For ever? And there are dozen, if not hundreds of scholarly books about the era (=1930s-1940s), from scholars who have studied *all* sources. Why do we not stick to those instead? Huldra (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

You are as unsurprised to find me here as i am unsurprised to see you here, trying to achieve via poorly argued wikilawyering that which you could not do through the normal process of editing. Wikipedia policy is clear: sources do not have to be on line, and difficulty in accessing a source that might have a different view point is not grounds for removing other reliable sources that are easily available. Brad Dyer (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Brad Dyer is absolutely correct regarding sourcing on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I have never said that sources should be online (I add off-line info (from my books) all the time) What I am saying is that WP:UNDUE should be followed, and that presently (and for the last 4 years) it hash´t been. Huldra (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Huldra is wrong on more than one account.

1. Nobody recently added information from Palestine Post articles. That was done by User:Hanay in 2011. I just updated the references after the website of the Historical Jewish Press website was renovated and the links became invalid.
2. I see no reason to assume that the Palestine Post did not report on attacks against Arabs as well. On the contrary, while looking over the references from the Balad al-Sheikh article I noticed several reports of attacks on Arabs.
3. Huldra mentions that "it is well-known that at least 10 times as many Arab civilians were killed compared with Jewish victims in the 1930 &1940s". That statement is problematic because it is general, and not about Balad al-Sheikh. It is very well possible that in the Balad al-Sheikh area the situation was such, that more Jews were killed than Arabs, or at least an even number of Jews and Arabs.
4. Let's suppose there were 20 attacks on Jews in which every time between 1-3 Jews were killed, and then 1 attack from the Haganah which killed 100 Arabs, then yes, the number of Arab dead is higher, but that not make the 20 attacks any less notable. 20 murderous attacks are not something to delete from Wikipedia just because the conflict ended badly for the other side! On the contrary, 20 attacks should definitely receive more attention than one attack, even if not 20 times more, especially since the 1 attack is usually a result f the 20 attacks that preceded it.
5. Any user is free to add reliable sources regarding attacks on Arabs.
6. Huldra proposes in the most straightforward way to remove reliable sources from Wikipedia because he doesn't like what they say. This is a blatant attempt to censorize Wikipedia and his proposal should be summarily dismissed.
7. Huldra has her own POV, very much on the Arab side, and she tries to push removal of negative information about Arabs and addition of negative information about Jews as much as she can, never stretching the boundaries of Wikipedia policies and guidelines too much. This post in yet another attempt in that pattern of POV editing of her, which I have been trying to oppose on several articles, and should be seen in that light.
8. In addition, Huldra should be warned that she should stop her attempts to rewrite history in favor of the Arab side of the PI conflict, and that Wikipedia is not a place for editors who want to do so.
9. By the way, it was not nice of Huldra not to notify me herself about this discussion. She knows very well I disagree with her on this. Debresser (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

1. Please stop accusing me of something I didn´t do: I made it quite clear: "Balad al-Sheikh have been totally unbalanced since 2011," , it has had that "unbalanced" tag for years, is it going to have it for ever?
2. It is nice to AGF, but The Palestine Post had a stated pro-Zionist policy, "the publication supported the struggle for a Jewish homeland in Palestine and openly opposed British policy restricting Jewish immigration during the Mandate period." And you say it also reported attacks on Arabs, well I have yet to see *any* such attack in a Wikipedia article. Not *one*.
3. No, it is not a general statement, it is for Balad el Sheik: the numbers AFAIK, are that more than 10 times as many Arab civilians were murdered than Jews.
4. Any user is not just "free to add reliable sources" regarding attacks on Arabs: that user must know Arabic and have access to rare newspapers, for a start. (Newspapers, not available in my country).
5. Please stop your constant ad hominem attacs on me: if you think my editing needs sanctioning, then bring it to the appropriate message board. Otherwise: just stop it.
6. I agree with what the "outsiders" in this discussion has said, like: "Once historians have caught up with events, we should stop using contemporaneous news reporting." There are dozens, if not hundreds of scholarly sources about that era, why not stick to them?
7. Finally, I cannot help noting that the present situation of the Balad al-Sheikh article perfectly reflect a certain view-points, that only Jewish lives really count. Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh, e.g., has stated that "in religious law, given the inequality between Arab and Jewish blood, Arabs who kill Jews warrant punishment, but Jews who kill Arabs should be let off". The new head of 'Civil Administration', Rabbi Eli Ben Dahan, have stated “Palestinians are beasts, they are not human.” The Wikipedia article on Balad al-Sheikh treat Arab lives very much along the values of Ginsburgh, Ben Dahan, et al. Not very pretty. Huldra (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

There is one general principle of that applies in all EP situations; print sources are as good as online in terms or reliability; we use the most reliable sources available. It helps editing when sources are online, but if not, and necessary for subject coverage or for balance, they still should be included despite the work needed to get them. For the 20th century, newspapers usually fall within the realm of primary, not secondary sources, so if possible reliable secondary sources are used, supplemented by newspapers--for an indepth article, we would usually include references to key primary sources also, tho we usually would not in a summary. . These reliable sources, if in sufficient detail, would be expected to have citation of the newspapers used by the historians. They can if necessary be cited from there, preferably as quotations, including the form "Newspaper xy as quoted in A.N. Book pp. " (or, more often , "as quoted and translated" . The the quotation is representative and fair and not cherry-picking is the responsibility of the author of the book--we should use preferentially scholarly books that have been reviewed as fair or accepted as fair by all parties. DGG ( talk ) 14:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

http://thehairpin.com/ is used as a source in a medical article, Lady-Comp. I cannot determine if this is a RS; it appears to be a blog that claims to have been published since 2010. — Brianhe (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Not reliable. It's a blog with an open call for submissions: "If you would like to submit original, unpublished content, please email xxx with 2-3 paragraphs outlining your essay or idea." The Lady-Comp article itself is the bigger problem. It looks like an WP:PROMOTION. Assuming the creator or another of the product's promoters will nix a WP:Proposed deletion, the article should be nominated for deletion at WP:Articles for deletion. You can ask me to do that if you agree and don't know how. Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mnnlaxer: Please do nominate. The creator has voiced the opinion that I'm picking on his articles and it would be good if he saw other people acting on their own. — Brianhe (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady-Comp Done. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The call for submissions does not in itself invalidate reliability. It is implied that the site owners will exercise an editorial decision about what to do with submissions; it's not UGC. It may be reliable, but having no apparent expertise or reputation, it's of no weight whatsoever. They appear to have published a book, and have been linked to by HuffPo and Forbes. I'd say its a reliable source for non-contentious claims, especially points of view about being a woman. Whether that's any help at AfD, I don't know. Rhoark (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll grant that the open call isn't conclusive. But the problem is the source has to prove it is WP:Reliable, it isn't assumed. Publishing a book or being linked to aren't enough to be declared RS. Non-contentious claims don't need sources. What possible sentence in an article would be sourced to the POV of a particular woman? BTW, I would love for you to respond to my reply to you above at Bellingcat. Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the cost of the device in the infobox was sourced to the article in question, and this information has since been removed. I'm not sure that price information is all that useful in articles, especially in an infobox, because price can vary throughout the world. With respect to The Hairpin, it appears to be a compendium of blog-type articles written by women for women with little to no editorial oversight. These articles could be reliable for the opinions of their authors but not for Lady-Comp information. Ca2james (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. AcidSnow has recently created the article Somalia Standard Time. Searching for "Somalia Standard Time" returns very few results on Google. I've discussed with AcidSnow whether this is the correct name for the time used in Somalia on my user talk page, and he has pointed to this source. Can we get opinions on whether this is a reliable source? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Would you rather just use "Mogadishu Time" since that appears to be the common name? AcidSnow (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm still a bit confused about whether this is actually a time zone or not, given that other sources state that Somalia uses Eastern Africa Time. Is "Mogadishu time" just like someone saying "London time" for GMT, or is it actually a recognised time zone? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Greenwichmeantime is not a valid source for the existence of a distinct timezone; its content is procedurally generated based on a list of thouands of places (not timezones).

Would any competent editor suggest that Ely, a town of 20,000 people, has its own timezone? bobrayner (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Bobrayner. I've since nominated the article for deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I'd like 3rd party opinions on whether this article in Epoch Times is reasonable reliable sourcing for establishing the notability of this lawsuit against Monsanto for false advertising. This relates to the articles on glyphosate and Monsanto legal cases. We've had several people wanting to include this lawsuit in the sections on advertising controversy, but it has been rejected by other editors on the basis of inadequate sourcing as the source previously was Examiner.com, a user-submitted bloggy source, whereas Epoch Times is an edited publication. I searched the archives about Epoch Times and found that it seems to be acceptable except possible with conflict of interest issues around Falun Gong with which it is associated. The statement that it would be supporting would be something short and simple along the lines of "In April 2015, a lawsuit was brought against Monsanto for false advertising regarding its herbicide Roundup." I've not added it yet, to either article, because there has been contention and i wanted to be polite and not get into an edit war. SageRad (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

this is a truly amazing example of POV pushing. two bits of context:

first: a bloggy newspiece here noted that the attorney driving this class-action suit on the basis of a supposed effect of glyphosate on gut bacteria, has been desperate to get serious new media to report on it, and even tried himself to add content about it to Wikipedia (probably this diff by an IP which was reverted (by the OP, I note), which prompted this funny/ironic reaction from the IP and this dif by IP at least) So far, no major news source has reported on this.

second: SageRad believes glyphosate is Truly Dangerous and his first edits were adding content about glyphosate affecting gut bacteria, first just adding it unsourced and then again unsourced and again unsourced with an edit note referencing "the truth" (I won't list all those), then used a primary source about cows, and then added content about the lawsuit sourced from the SPS site of the lawyer.

Generally, on the subject matter: Generally we don't report on the filing of lawsuits at all as there are tons of lawyers (the epoch times reports that this attorney describes himself as a "hollywood shark") who file lawsuits - we generally report on their outcome, and only if that gets reported in reliable sources.

Turning to the source: with regard to anything related to Monsanto and other controversial issues like fulan gang and china, epochtimes is an unreliable tabloid - here is a search of their pieces on Monsanto. Agenda much? They should be considered similarly to RT which this board has determined many times is unreliable for anything controversial. (btw, RT will surely be the next to report on this, if they haven't already) Jytdog (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The claim "Generally we don't report on the filing of lawsuits at all as there are tons of lawyers...we generally report on their outcome, and only if that gets reported in reliable sources." That's simply not true. I have seen many Wikipedia articles covering major ongoing lawsuits, both civil and criminal, such as:

1. Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Brown_family_lawsuit
2. Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Dorian_Johnson_lawsuit
3. Ferguson_Police_Department_(Missouri)#2011_death_of_Jason_Moore
4. Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Grand_jury_hearing (which was reported on extensively before the matter was closed).

Numerous notable lawsuits and cases have an entire--often lengthy--Wikipedia article devoted to them:

1. Comcast_Corp. v. FCC
2. Lane v. Facebook, Inc.
3. United States v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
4. Hepting v. AT&T
5. American Civil Liberties Union v. Ashcroft
6. Arar v. Ashcroft

-David Tornheim (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for making the point of those arguing against inclusion. Every one of those has been covered by major national and international media, and of the whole articles you list, only one is not completed. (the one exception - the trial of KSM - is of obvious importance, as shown by the sourcing). Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for making this point, David Tornheim ... notice how Jytdog distorts your very point. I would say that statement "Generally, we don't..." is wrong and irrelevant as well. We cover what is relevant and of interest to the readers of articles, in creating an encyclopedia. If a filed lawsuit is of interest and note, then we can include it. I don't see any guidelines that argue against including a lawsuit in progress, if it holds any weight. Damn, all i want is a single-sentence mention in an article on the very topic of legal cases involving Monsanto. What's the problem? Why the utter defensiveness here? Why the continuous distortion of guidelines, and falsities in the dialogue here? Why the wikilawyering? SageRad (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

There are two issues intertwined here. There are WP:ADVOCACY issues with SageRad that will probably be brought up at ANI soon if they keep pushing for this general POV, but is really only relevant for background context here. Transitioning over to the source, it does feel like it's grabbing for low-quality sources to get the content in. As Jytdog mentioned, it does seem like at RT-like source given how much attention it gives to fringe viewpoints, so the reliability is questionable in general for me (i.e. poor editorial oversight). That all being said, we generally don't report on pending lawsuits in articles until the decision has been reached to determine its weight, so the question of trying to add the content in terms of reliability seems moot anyways. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Whoa. Let's focus on the question at hand. I strongly disagree with the various aspersions and mischaracterizations of me in the above, but this is not the place to even talk about those things. So much of the above comments are entirely irrelevant. Let it also be known that Jytdog and Kingofaces43 have been two of the main people constantly attempting to block any mention of this lawsuit in Wikipedia, as well as many other editorial blocks and moves that are all aligned in the pro-industry direction. I am NOT pushing a POV. Because of the POV already embedded in some articles, i have been attempting to regain some balance in articles relating to the chemical industry, to restore balance so they are not unduly favorable to the industry. I am so tired of continuous remarks about an upcoming ANI and various other procedures of impedance. Please focus on the question at hand. Is Epoch Times a reliable enough source to provide notability to this lawsuit suitable for a single-sentence mention in an article that is directly on the topic of Monsanto legal cases, of which this is one. SageRad (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

^I agree. Focus should be on the question at hand, not who raised it. I also don't see the relevancy to the question about the reliability of Epoch Times for this purpose to discuss: (1) other IP's or users' behavior of trying to push the lawsuit on Wikipedia, even if they have a COI or are behaving badly--that's for AN/I, not to answer this question. Please focus on content not users. (2) what is being reported about the lawsuit in blogs that Wikipedia would not deem RS. David Tornheim (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Firstly, Jytdog is utterly wrong in saying that i have a COI or am engaged in advocacy of a disallowed kind. I'm advocating for wikipedia to mirror reality, which is the mission. For the articles to be accurate and give due weight to what deserves it. Different people will of course have differing opinions or reckonings on what is relevant, but i feel serious obstructionism with some people here, not simply weighing in with opinions, and i also see repeated attempts at character defamation and various bad attributions of motivations, and lots of wikilawyering of the worst kind, the kind that is not based in reality, misusing guidelines, and the like, and then spurious accusations as in the comment by Kingofaces43 above, including implicit threats of future actions (as in "WP:ADVOCACY issues with SageRad that will probably be brought up at ANI soon if they keep pushing for this general POV" -- as if my POV that wishes to reflect reality in Wikipedia is a bad thing...)...,. it's out of hand, and i'm getting to the point over and over where i want to say "Please sir, haven't you done enough? At long last, haven't you done enough?" SageRad (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The OP asks about the reliability of the source and the notability of the lawsuit. Although there is no argument for a stand alone article, the notability of an event (i.e. the lawsuit) is typically dependent upon various factors including the diversity of sources and the duration of coverage. All of the coverage about this recent lawsuit is from sources that clearly are not neutral in their stance or reporting of GMOs. As User:Jytdog has pointed out, the Epoch Times clearly has a horse in this race. My view is that it is not a reliable source for material pertaining to GMOs. - Location (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Are we talking about The Epoch Times? I don't know much about it, but our article on it doesn't reflect the way people are discussing it here (and seems well-sourced.) Obviously our article might have problems, but in that case the people discussing it here might want to look at that and see if it needs to be improved; the lengthy list of awards and praises doesn't strike me as "unreliable tabloid" at the moment. Even if it has a clear opinion on Monsanto, that doesn't necessarily mean that it can't be used as a source, per WP:BIASED... but on the other hand, the question here isn't really one of reliability, it's one of whether covering the lawsuit would be giving it WP:UNDUE weight. So the real question isn't whether the Epoch Times' reporting is unbiased or not, but whether this shows that the lawsuit has attracted enough attention to be worth inclusion. A search for Monsanto glyphosate lawsuit on Google news to try and turn up alternative sources reveals only blogs and fringe outlets, so I'd wait and see if anyone more reliable picks up on it. - Aquillion (talk)-21:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The Epoch Times clearly doesn't even pretend to hide its anti-GMO activism, so we shouldn't view this the same way we view a report from the AP or Reuters. The fact this lawsuit is being discussed by "only blogs and fringe outlets" says something about the The Epoch Times and its report. - Location (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes and no. I assume you are not accusing the Epoch Times of fabricating the story, after all, or even of getting it wrong; the fact that the lawsuit has happened is obviously well-established. More generally, do you feel that the Epoch Times' bias would lead it to fabricate stories or make mistakes? I don't see any evidence of that, at least; per WP:BIASED, what matters when it comes to whether a source is reliable isn't whether they have a bias, but whether that bias renders their reporting unreliable, and I don't think that anyone has really convincingly shown that that's the case here. However, the real issue is whether covering the case would be giving it WP:UNDUE weight, and in that I think that the Epoch Times' bias does matter (in that the standard for them to report on a case that reflects badly on Monsanto is going to be lower than it is for other reliable sources, and therefore the fact that they're covering this doesn't mean as much.) So I'm all for leaving it out based on that. I just think it's important to be clear on the rationale so we don't end up with people a few weeks from now pointing to this and saying "wait, wait, we established that the Epoch Times is not reliable!" If you want to establish that, you'd want to point to eg. mistakes they've made in covering Monsanto, especially ones they didn't properly issue a correction on -- the simple fact that they've published a lot of stuff hating on Monsanto doesn't make them unreliable, not even when reporting about Monsanto, as long as the topic isn't WP:UNDUE. It does, however, make them a bit less useful for determining due weight. --Aquillion (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS appears to be particularly applicable here: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. If the intended content is a simple mention of the existence of a lawsuit, the source, Epoch Times, which appears to be a professional, multilingual, established, global web and print publisher, with every indication that a reliable editorial insfrastructure exists to ensure accuracy of basic facts, should be adequate; controversiality over POV coverage of issues is not relevant to whether a US pesticide lawsuit's essential facts are accurately reported. The issue of whether this establishes noteworthiness for inclusion in an article is a matter of individual editor opinion. Noteworthiness shouldn't be a media popularity contest. If an otherwise reliable source for the content in question also likely reaches a reasonably large general audience, and common sense says the item is of interest, that is a reasonable argument that noteworthiness has been established. --Tsavage (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Epoch Times has been used a source for a statement by Monsanto in the March Against Monsanto article since June of 2013. Although user Jytdog was very active on the page at the time, it wasn't an "unreliable tabloid" when used to source a comment from Monsanto's CEO Hugh Grant. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an abundance of US mainstream outlets to cover anything that puts Monsanto in a negative light. There was a (near) blackout on the very well-attended March Against Monsanto, too. Although this is verging on OR, we must realize that in the US all of the media is owned and controlled by just six corporations, so sometimes less-than-mainstream sources must be consulted when reporting on giant, powerful companies such as Monsanto. Since the lawsuit itself isn't in question, I would say that Epoch Times is a perfectly suitable source in this case. petrarchan47คุก 22:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The claim that RT has been determined to be unreliable for anything controversial is not based in fact. I've read most of the archives on this matter, and the determination was that RT was considered biased and unreliable for reporting on Russia, but perfectly acceptable for international matters. petrarchan47คุก 23:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

No. that is not what the archives say about RT - it a tabloid for controversial matters. Fine for run-of-the-mill stories. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Admittedly I haven't read any discussions on this in the past 9 months. Would you link to this new decision? petrarchan47คุก 11:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Crickets... petrarchan47คุก 20:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• I am in agreement with the reasoning and case history presented above by Tsavage and Petrarchan47. The lawsuit appears notable and of interest to readers of the article. The source is one I am unfamiliar with but appears to be sound, per discussion here and this discussion by several Wikipedians who accept the Epoch Times without question. I urge all parties to remain WP:CIVIL as some attempts to disparage "Epoch Times" have been less than polite. Thanks. Jusdafax 07:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

RT has a Russia-aligned outlook on international affairs, perhaps, so that must be taken into account, but otherwise it may have good information. This is a time with so many news sources available, one can use multiple sources to extrapolate closer to reality. Sometimes one perceives more bias in a source that is further from one's own perspective. The BBC has a POV. The NY Times has a POV. The WSJ has a POV. Epoch Times has a POV. So? This is the world we live in. SageRad (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

If you are unfamiliar with the source, how can it appear sound? Here are the statements of a few academic sources:

- Patricia M. Thornton, polysci prof: "Movement-allied media outlets like the Epoch Times help to launch and publicize protests, and then report favorably on the significance of event outcomes, amplifying the effect of dissident activities in the echo chamber of the global media."

- "Robert Hackett, a communications professor at Simon Fraser University, says The Epoch Times editorial stance is 'certainly connected to Falun Gong' and 'uses Reuter’s news agency to create an impression of objectivity.'"

- Yuezhi Zhao, described in the above piece as "an expert on media and democracy and the political economy of global communication" writes: " Although Epoch Times displays an indisputable ideological and organizational affinity with Falun Gong... [it] tries to present itself as a 'public interest–oriented comprehensive medium' that is 'independent of any political and business groups, free of any country government and regional interests, and objectively and fairly reports facts and truth'." "Notwithstanding its claims of objectivity, Epoch Times concentrates heavily on negative news of the Chinese government and sympathetic special pages about Falun Gong." "...this paper can be seen as a more Gramscian public organ, articulating the Falun Gong perspective on a wide range of issues."

It is not uncivil or disparaging to describe The Epoch Times's report, in context with the entirety of their reporting on the subject, as an example of advocacy journalism. Context does matter, but we shouldn't let the journalistic equivalent of a press release alone dictate what material goes into the encyclopedia. - Location (talk) 09:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The Epoch Times might be unreliable for reporting in Falun Gong, but for reporting that a lawsuit exists, when we have proof that it does, this source is fine. petrarchan47คุก 11:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Location: I'm replying to you because you seem to be arguing against inclusion through this thread. The issue here is really only about noteworthiness and trying to include or exclude this item from the article, not about sourcing of the factual claim of the existence and basic nature of the lawsuit (that can be done by referring to the actual online court filing documents, as was established on this noticeboard a few weeks ago). These points seem relevant to noteworthiness:

• The claim in this case is significant in the ongoing Monsanto history, regardless of how far it progresses (it's not about anit-Monsanto people trying to indiscriminately add any negative material available, no matter how relatively insignificant).
• Epoch Times seems to have enough reach (check web site, web ranking services, etc), that the news can now be thought of as in the wild, enough people have heard about it that it could spread widely through the general population via various forms of word-of-mouth, IOW, it is not an obscure item known to only a very few (even if it were, that should not alone render it non-noteworthy, as it is a point of FACT, not a belief, opinion, or contested theory, but in any case, now it's not obscure).
• Per Epoch Times (sourced simply for conveying the existence of the case) and the filed court documents, it is verifiably part of our historical record.

That seems to make a good argument for inclusion, regardless of Epoch Times' stance on whatever issues, and taking into consideration any "it's undue anti-Monsanto POV" opinions some editors may have. (A possible underlying question of whether, if it hasn't hit the "mainstream" media, by inclusion Wikipedia may be helping to promote something is really not relevant and not neutral, provided we have gone through the normal content evaluation process, as we are doing here.) --Tsavage (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Epoch Times appears to have a reputation for advocacy rather than dispassionate journalism. If no other sources discusses this lawsuit, I would leave it out as a matter of WP:WEIGHT, and would not use the Epoch Times as a reliable source for anything controversial. Yobol (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

However QuackWatch is an advocacy site that is praised by Project Medicine regulars and its use promoted specifically for times when no other sources cover the same types of claims. Advocacy sites are not disallowed. Here is MastCell on the issue. petrarchan47คุก 19:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I find your analogy to Quackwatch to be completely without merit, so have no further response other than to reiterate that Epoch Times should not be used for controversial material and if the lawsuit is only covered by Epoch Times, mention in any article would likely be undue. Yobol (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The Epoch Times is a reliable source for reporting on the existence of a lawsuit. Certainly the results of the lawsuit will be more interesting than the mere filing of it, but for now the existence can be stated supported by this cite. Binksternet (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Why is petrarchan47 still advocating for flaky sources? Conspiracy-theory thinking like this might be popular in the blogosphere, but has no place on RSN:

Although this is verging on OR, we must realize that in the US all of the media is owned and controlled by just six corporations, so sometimes less-than-mainstream sources must be consulted when reporting on giant, powerful companies such as Monsanto.

bobrayner (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

What's with the personal nature of this comment, bob? There are a good number of people making guideline based arguments to include this source but you find it appropriate to single me out and label me with one of the most disparaging terms an editor can receive. If this a personal vendetta, notice boards are not the place. You were also very active on the March Against Monsanto page when it was being created, and we included the Epoch Times as I noted above - you had no issue with it. My comments about the news blacking out negative information when it comes to Monsanto isn't my personal theory; I linked to the section in the MAM article where several U.S. journalists make this claim. I am simply repeating it. petrarchan47คุก 19:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent me. bobrayner (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Please show me the same courtesy. And in NBs, if you make a claim, a diff should be included. "Why is Petrarchan still advocating for flaky sources?" What the hell are you referring to? petrarchan47คุก 20:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Note also that this lawsuit is mentioned on Alternet which is citing an article in The Ecologist. Is this notable enough? SageRad (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Similar to The Epoch Times, both are advocacy websites, which means they have some sort of interest on what they are reporting. Wikipedia's notability criteria for articles require that sources be independent of the subject. Why should the notability for a topic within an article be any different? - Location (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you please give me a list of "advocacy websites" then, if it's a clear either/or as you imply? These sources are independent of the subject. What do you mean to imply by that? That they are funded or run by an anti-Monsanto organization or something? Or just that they're "lefty" or "environmental" or some other category like that? I would say that the Wall Street Journal is an ideological advocate. Would you? I would say the BBC is. Would you? Where is the line and who defines what falls where? I'm being really serious here. You dismiss serious sources as "advocacy websites" so what does this mean? Whatever disagrees with the point of view that you agree with? Would Democracy Now be a reliable source to you? SageRad (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

First of all, calm down. Secondly, it is clear that The Epoch Times intentionally reports only negative material about Monsanto or GMOs, which indicates that it has a distinct conflict of interest on the subject matter. The line isn't really as fuzzy, or blurred out completely as to be indiscernible, as you have suggested. - Location (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• Folks here supporting inclusion on the basis of a tabloid and advocacy websites are killing me. Do you realize that just in US district courts (not including state courts), there were 284,604 civil suits filed in 2013? (ref) That is about 800 filings a day. In California state court alone, about 1,000,000 (yes about a million) civil cases were filed in 2012 alone. (see data here). Do you want to turn WP into a garbage dump for ax-grinders & litigants to add content when civil litigation is filed about any stupid thing, no matter how FRINGEy the science or valid the case? This is crazy to me. If a filing is a really big deal and covered in major media sources, there is ~some~ reasonable argument for including it. Not in a case like this. Jytdog (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

First, if you want to argue noteworthiness from statistics, what you need to be quoting is the number of lawsuits filed against Monsanto, and the nature of those lawsuits, in order to get an idea of how common filings against Monsanto are, and of what type - without qualification, general numbers are irrelevant. Second, regarding "tabloid and advocacy" sites, unless the claim is that they are lying about the existence of the case (and we have independent confirmation that it does exist), the number of people these sites reach is the only concern, IF it is important to show that the item is not obscure; the only remaining alternative argument here that I can see is that "mainstream" media adds some sort of legitimacy to a filing, which I imagine is (technically, at least) solely the province of the courts. (I apologize for contributing to clogging up a site-wide noticeboard, this sort of argument should be on an article or user Talk page, the question here is about Epoch Times. I felt compelled to reply.) --Tsavage (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

no, the arguments being used here would be exactly the same for the filing of any civil lawsuit, be that against Monsanto, Jeffrey Smith, or you any one.Jytdog (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion of civil law suit filings unless there is substantial reporting in media sources. Not the case here. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Reliable to Establish Noteworthiness -- as per arguments made by Tsavage, Petrarchan47 and Binksternet. Epoch Times is clearly a major publication and is not some tabloid. Every major newspaper and media outlet has bias. A media outlet that takes advertising money from a major corporation like Monsanto is susceptible to pressure from the company to downplay or omit negative reporting on the company or its products under threat of withdrawing advertising. David Tornheim (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment The Epoch Times does appear to publish corrections so they could probably be considered a reliable source for the material if the material is determined to be DUE. However, because this lawsuit has received no mention in mainstream media then to include it is UNDUE in an article. The mainstream media has not hesitated to report on other lawsuits against Monsanto so to suggest that they're willfully engaging in a media blackout with respect to this one seems a bit conspiracy-theorist to me. Ca2james (talk) 06:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
• Agree with the others above that the mention in this source is insufficient to establish noteworthiness that passes WP:DUE. Zad68 02:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Could this archived version of Franklin and Marshall College's school paper F&M College Reporter be used in Robert Ira Lewy to support the statement "Lewy earned a degree in biology from Franklin and Marshall College in 1964, where he was elected to be a member of Phi Beta Kappa."? The information about membership in Phi Beta Kappa is not currently in the article, but the subject of the article has requested that such information be added at Talk:Robert Ira Lewy#Educational background. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I would think that source would be perfectly acceptable to support that statement. It would not be good enough to support, say, notability, but that's not in contention and that's not what you're wanting to use it for. But for a relatively uncontroversial statement like you're proposing I think it would be fine.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 01:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I concur. For the limited purposes given, such a source would be acceptable. BusterD (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn and BusterD: Thanks for the feedback. I will post on the article's talk page that the source is OK to use, but only in for that particular bit of information. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Tel Dan Stele

My post from questioned source was suddenly deleted with no prior discussion by Doug Weller. I posted a well supported translation of the Dan Stele from this website which I found online which is in turn from a self-published book on Amazon which I now have. I did not delete anything from the Wikipedia article itself. My aim was to post a well supported alternative translation of the inscription. Any quality encyclopedia article about controversial subjects will provide the dominant viewpoint but they always mention the minority viewpoints in order to avoid the appearance of bias.

The author of this book (Olmsted) is suggesting that these texts were composed in a different language (Akkadian, the language of Babylon and Assyria) than what has been assumed (some form of early Hebrew). This is revolutionary! People need to know about this alternative approach since it seems to allow for the translation of All the early alphabetic inscriptions.

I have been following these inscriptions for a long time in the popular magazine “Biblical Archaeology Review” and with the exception of the Dan Stele and inscriptions found prior to 1940, they have not been translatable using Hebrew. Even the first inscriptions, Proto-Sinaitic found in the Sinai desert, have not been translated. Of course this make the existing Dan Stele translation very suspect in my eyes. How could this be translated when all others cannot be? Olmsted critiques these Hebrew language derived translations and finds them to be severely flawed with letters ignored or inserted to make the desired words. In the case of the Dan stele no letter by letter translation was actually provided. Instead it is a “connect the dot” translation (Olmsted’s term) in which some isolated words are recognized and then phrases are invented to connect them. So Olmsted’s translations are actually a better quality than any existing ones.

I think we need to take the author’s explanation about why his book was self-published to heart. He wanted to make these inscriptions available to everyone without copyright restriction so he published these under the same Creative Commons license as Wikipedia which no commercial publisher would do. I have lots of books with ancient inscription translations which I would love to post on Wikipedia but I can’t because they are copyright protected. So despite his translations being well supported with every letter included in the translation, Wikipedia is punishing an author with the same vision

SalamisDragon (talk) 10:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Alternative viewpoints should be included, but only where they are significant and represent informed debate within the relevant scholarly field. Nowadays everyone can create a website and promote their personal views. We don't include all of these, otherwise we'd find every page filled with idiosyncratic ideas. There's nothing to suggest that this author, David Olmstead, is important or qualified enough to be mentioned in this case . Where non-professional alternative views have achieved widespread discussion, and achieved a significant public profile, we might mention them in an article, but would usually discuss them in detail in a separate article. See, for example, Olmec, in which fringe ideas get a mention in a section called Alternative origin speculations, but are mostly discussed in a dedicated article on alternative views. Paul B (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the Funding subsection of article Americans for Prosperity:

Of the $140M AFP raised in the 2012 election cycle, $44M came from a donor network organized by the Koch brothers.

Sources:

1. Gold, Matea (January 5, 2014). "The players in the Koch-backed $400 million political donor network". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 9, 2015. Americans for Prosperity , the Virginia-based nonprofit that finances grass-roots activities across the country and ran an early and relentless television ad assault against President Obama during the 2012 campaign. More than $44 million of the $140 million the organization raised in the last cycle came from the Koch-linked feeder funds.
2. Gold, Matea (January 5, 2014). "Koch-backed political network, built to shield donors, raised $400 million in 2012 elections". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 1, 2015. A key player is Americans for Prosperity, the Virginia-based advocacy organization that finances activities across the country and ran an early and relentless television ad assault against Obama during the 2012 campaign. More than $44 million of the $140 million the organization raised in that election cycle came from Koch-linked feeder funds.
3. "Americans for Prosperity". FactCheck.org. Annenberg Public Policy Center. October 10, 2011. Retrieved April 22, 2015. In the 2012 election cycle, AFP reportedly raised $140 million — with more than $44 million of that coming from a donor network organized by the Koch brothers.

The proposed content is a neutral, reasonable paraphrase summarizing a key finding of investigative journalism by neutral, highly noteworthy, highly reliable sources, including The Washington Post, a newspaper with an international reputation and multiple Pulitzer Prizes for investigative journalism. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you asking a question? If so, what is it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Is the proposed content a reasonable summary of the sources? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

As you probably know, it doesn't strike me as a reasonable summary of the parts of the sources which are reliable. FactCheck is sufficiently biased that their opinion "organized by the Kocks" should not be accepted. "Linked to the Kochs", as in the other sources, seems reasonable, but that doesn't seem notable, as, if anything donates to AFP, it is linked to the Kochs by that donation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

FactCheck is biased? They've called out both Democrats and Republicans on factual errors. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I thought this was strong enough, The Washington Post and FactCheck.org, to include without in-text attribution. Any further comments on bias in sources? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The Washington Post would seem to think that referring to a "donor network organized by" the Kochs is appropriate, given that those words are used in both articles linked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

FactCheck.org is biased against organizations which try to hide their donors' identities. You can argue whether that bias is reasonable, but it is bias. The other sources say "Koch-linked", at least in the quoted text HughD supplied. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Article titles are usable, at most, as the opinion of the editorial staff. They are rarely usable even as an expert opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Possibly. But since the words "donor network organized by" appears in the body of the text in both Washington Post articles, I can't see the relevance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Very well. I suppose we could trust <strikeout>editor name redacted</strikeout> to use quotes which do not support his point of view. My observation is that opensecrets.org is only reliable for the information they glean from primary sources, not for their interpretations of that information, but that obvious fact is not supported by reliable sources as identified by Wikipedia, so I'll withdraw my objection. If the Washington Post also takes credit for it, I suppose we have to consider the statement reliably sourced. I'm not saying that reporting it is due weight, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This Washington Post story is written by a staff reporter and is plenty reliable. It says the funding came from "Koch-linked feeder funds". I would go with something like that. Being a "consumer advocate" as FactCheck.org claims to be is not any better or worse than being a "pro-business advocate." We should really avoid advocates of all kinds as sources. CorporateM (Talk) 07:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and suggestions. Hugh (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The blog "Patently-o" is being used for a source on a U.S. Supreme Court case in Bowman v. Monsanto Co.. The article from the blog is written by Shubha Ghosh, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin. The blog itself is published by two other law professors, Dennis Crouch and Jason Rantanen. WP:SPS states that if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. In addition, fn9 on that page goes into detail on self-published blogs as being characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents. That's the case here. See also WP:USERG and WP:Attribution#Using questionable or self-published sources, Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, a reliable source will probably have covered it; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to independent fact-checking.

If the material is really relevant, it would have been picked up and published in a reliable, secondary source, not in a blog without editorial control in place. GregJackP Boomer! 18:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Speaking as an intellectual property lawyer, Patently-o is highly reliable. It has an immense readership in the patent law community, and that by itself insures its accuracy, since any misstatements will be called out quickly. Both its readership and its writers are law professors and practitioners with a high level of expertise in the field. bd2412 T 18:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• I know nothing about the blog or patent law, and I would defer to bd2412 and those more knowledgeable.Minor4th 18:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• reliable for data and commentary on patent law matters. The instance of the source under question was added to the Bowman article by PraeceptorIP in this dif. PatentlyO is a widely read and respected patent blog per this from the ABA Law Journal's blog, this, and this. PatentlyO is cited sometimes in the formal legal literature. For example, it is cited twice (footnotes #186 and #310) in an article that the OP proposed we use on the Bowman Talk page. PatentlyO is used 14 times in WP - 8 times in articles, for what that's worth. Jytdog (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• I am perfectly willing to defer to BD2412 as a legal practitioner in the field. GregJackP Boomer! 20:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The blog is written by an academic that is highly-cited in the field; appears to be one of those rare cases where a self-published blog meets the requirements for an expert source.

However what I do notice at-a-glance is stuff like: "The decision was reported nationally and internationally by various news sources including the Washington Post,[18] Bloomberg,[19] the Los Angeles Times,[20] The Guardian,[21] and France24.[22]" We really shouldn't have "In the News" content on Wikipedia, as oppose to merely using them as sources. Except of course when a source itself talks about the media coverage. The text in question for this cite is: "A co-author of an amicus brief on behalf of Bowman filed by the American Antitrust Institute expressed relief that the loss was on a narrow basis rather than providing a broad affirmation of the lack of patent exhaustion for self-replicating technologies.[23]" I also question - purely on an editorial basis and not based on any scrutiny of sourcing - whether we need to include that someone "expressed relief". It may just need copyediting to better communicate what the editor is trying to get across. CorporateM (Talk) 07:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Corporate M, please copy edit that quote from Ghosh. I agree that "expressed relief" may be inept (and an unnecessary editorial comment on what he actually said). Check Patently-O for his remark. I think he was originally concerned that the Bowman Court might opine broadly that gene technology products were all outside the exhaustion doctrine or maybe that label licenses could be the basis of patent infringement suits against those who disobeyed them; and then he was relieved that the Court stayed away from that and stuck to GMO seeds. PraeceptorIP (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the LA Times et al. "in the news" material is inappropriate. Perhaps someone should delete it. PraeceptorIP (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

On another note, Patently-O is the most widely read IP blog and probably most cited. The two professorial bloggers (Crouch and Rat'n) are highly professional and competent. Guest contributors invited by Crouch are often highly regarded professors, such as Merges and Duffy. The user comments tend to be not at the same high level. PraeceptorIP (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

the patently-o/ghosh source was added by PracaetorIP in this dif with a blockquote from Ghosh that included: "As a co-author of an amicus for the American Antitrust Institute on behalf of Bowman, I was relieved to read Justice Kagan’s rejection of the broad exception to the exhaustion doctrine for self-replicating technologies adopted by the Federal Circuit. " In this dif I summarized the Ghosh content, and picked up on Ghosh's own use of "relief". Jytdog (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)