Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 207

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 200

←

Archive 205

Forbes article by credible contributor

There is a disagreement on the talk page for Avengers Age of Ultron about using a Forbes article by a contributor. One editor strongly objects to use of the article:

The budget figure cited in the infobox was referenced to a fake Forbes article. Forbes contributors are not part of Forbes editorial. They are not journalists but just unpaid, HuffPo-like writer-wannabes. Forbes itself disavows them, writing at each column, "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." There's no editorial oversight — just Forbes cynically exploiting unpaid would-be journalists with little or no training who will write for "exposure." Amateur journalists writing without editorial oversight are just personal bloggers and not WP:RS.

In response, a few points were made:

1. Forbes is not disavowing the writer or the post. The language about opinions expressed is a standard legal disclaimer that means the writer's opinion is their own and not that of Forbes. Similar language appears at the front of director's commentaries on DVD or Blu-Ray discs. Just as the studio isn't "disavowing" the director, neither is Forbes. 2. Forbes contributors are not always unpaid and can be compensated. 3. The contributors on Forbes are not able to generate content without oversight. They can only do so once the editors have selected them based on their qualifications: "Every single one was hand picked by those who can best evaluate their knowledge — our own editors and reporters." ()

Nevertheless, the editor quoted above also claimed:

we cannot use Forbes "contributors" since WIkipedia disallows user-generated content.

In response to this: 1. The fact Forbes editorial team and staff selects who gets to contribute negates the assertion that this is user generated content akin to IMDB, where anyone can participate at any time. 2. Even if it could be considered user generated content, the policy has the following two exceptions:

Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources. (See WP:NEWSBLOG.)

Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Such material, although written by an established author, likely lacks the fact checking that publishers provide. ()

The Forbes article in question was written by a professional journalist in the field of the film industry. Further, he was published by multiple reliable third party publications, including Variety, a film industry trade, where he was chief editor and correspondent in Europe for many years. In short, the Forbes contributor meets two of the exceptions to the policy, assuming it even applies.

All of these points have been ignored or dismissed without explanation by the opposing editor. It should also be noted that the article is not an opinion piece. It is a straight forward reporting of film spending and budgets in the UK and it contains links to the sources, which happen to be the actual budgets in question.

Is this Forbes contributor article an acceptable source? Depauldem (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Forbes/sites is not Forbes. So any reliability is based on the author of the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you User:Only in death. I thought the same thing. Pardon my ignorance, but do we still wait for others to weigh in? At what point can we say this particular source is ok to use as RS?Depauldem (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm with the OP here, and (also because) I agree with what Only in death said. These sorts of blogs are often subject to at least a minimum of oversight (when they generate controversy by stating a position at odds with those of the editors or management of the main site, they're often taken down), the site gives criteria by which the authors of these blogs are judged when deciding whether to give them a blog, and the blogs often take the form of journalism. This isn't idle musings or obvious opinions, but more likely professional journalism that simply wasn't picked up (or submitted) for more formal publication. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
As Only in death said above, Forbes contributor posts are editorially affiliated with Forbes. The fact that Forbes has not disavowed an author isn't sufficient to claim that there is anything resembling what we normally consider editorial involvement (selection of topics, editing, reliability of the brand on the line). Forbes contributor posts are also not like news blog sources, as those are written by people who are also employed by the publication in question rather than simply sharing a CMS. Take a look at this (old, but not superceded AFAIK) Poynter article on their model (see also this post laying out what Forbes considers editorial involvement. Contra MjolnirPants, there is no reason to assume these pieces are more accurate or professional because they appear on the Forbes network. If as in this case, the blog happened to be written by someone w/ experience in the subject, then we can use it as we might a self-published source from an expert. Protonk (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Protonk: For future reference, you should read a comment before "disagreeing" with it. Your comments about the reliability of Forbes bloggers versus random internet bloggers (while ridiculously wrong) don't contradict anything I said. You only actually disagreed with me when you tried to pretend I meant "full editorial involvement" when I said "a minimum of editorial oversight." How I managed to explicitly describe what I meant by that and yet still leave you able to completely misunderstand it is, I think, no fault of mine. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

How were those comments "ridiculously wrong"?

I read your comments above as (vaguely, and in a limited sense) making the claim that Forbes contributor posts are to be treated as more reliable than a blog post unrelated to Forbes. If that's not the case, why bother making either of these statements: "when they generate controversy by stating a position at odds with those of the editors or management of the main site, they're often taken down" or "This isn't idle musings or obvious opinions, but more likely professional journalism that simply wasn't picked up (or submitted) for more formal publication"? If it is the case, I'm struggling to see how showing sourcing which indicates the (lack of) editorial involvement is missing your point.

Finally, there's no reason to get shitty just because someone may have misinterpreted your comment. Hell, you may have misinterpreted my response. We're both just people here. I didn't slag you off or do anything like that. I just said "contra so and so...here's a thought." Protonk (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

How were those comments "ridiculously wrong"?

If you would like to debate the relative reliability of the blogs hosted by reputable news organizations vs random blogs found on the internet, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. I'll happily show you exactly why I stand by the claim that the former are far more reliable than the latter. But this isn't the place for that particular discussion, short as it may be.

I read your comments above as (vaguely, and in a limited sense) making the claim that Forbes contributor posts are to be treated as more reliable than a blog post unrelated to Forbes.

Well, the general statement "Forbes contributors blogs are more reliable than random blogs" happens to be true, but it was not my point. My point was that Forbes contributors' blogs are different than random internet blogs. They exists in a different realm, and operate under different rules. As such, it stands to reason they should be judged by different standards. A random blogger would be more or less just as reliable or unreliable, regardless of what subject they were writing about, or how exceptional the claims they were making are. A Forbes blogger on the other hand, has a level of reliability that varies with the subject and credibility of their claims. However, the problem is that none of that really matters to this discussion. You, Only in death and I have all agreed that the reliability of the writer is what we should be judging this usage of this source on. Also, both you and I seem to be in agreement that this writer is reliable for this claim. Returning to whether this source is on par with a random blog regresses the discussion here, instead of advancing it.

I'm struggling to see how showing sourcing which indicates the (lack of) editorial involvement is missing your point.

I already explained this, above. I explicitly described the exact level of editorial oversight I claimed these blogs have. Your assertion that they don't have a very different level of editorial involvement misses the point by arguing against something I never said. If this blog had the level of editorial involvement you described, it wouldn't be a blog, but a column, and would be taken as reliable as a matter of course.

Finally, there's no reason to get shitty just because someone may have misinterpreted your comment.

I'm not upset. I'm just blunt, and often that directness allows me to say something less verbosely than I can otherwise (annoyingly, I know) be. Say something I agree with and to which I have nothing to add, and you'll see me be just as straightforward and acerbic in agreeing with you. Please try not to assume bad feelings on the part of your fellow editors.

I didn't slag you off or do anything like that. I just said "contra so and so...here's a thought."

I didn't accuse you of "slagging me off," or doing anything of the sort. I simply suggested you read comments more closely before disagreeing with them and then explained why. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

"But this isn't the place for that particular discussion..." Did you just tell me that the Reliable Sources noticeboard, in a section asking about the reliability of a Forbes contributor by dint of their being one and not a random blogger, is not the place for that discussion? Because that's what we're talking about. You say: "A random blogger would be more or less just as reliable or unreliable, regardless of what subject they were writing about, or how exceptional the claims they were making are. A Forbes blogger on the other hand, has a level of reliability that varies with the subject and credibility of their claims." This is not what consensus has been for Forbes contributors at RSN. See here (2013), here (2014), here (2013), here (2014), and here (2015). The consensus across years has been: If they're reliable on the subject is a matter of them meeting our policy on self published sources, which is precisely the same as if they were on a random blog.
"I'm not upset. I'm just blunt, and often that directness allows me to say something less verbosely than I can otherwise (annoyingly, I know) be." You're not blunt. You're rude. And needlessly so. I mildly disagreed with you and your first response was to berate me for misunderstanding you. Part of being civil means not saying things like "For future reference, you should read a comment before "disagreeing" with it" or "How I managed to explicitly describe what I meant by that and yet still leave you able to completely misunderstand it is, I think, no fault of mine." when "I think you misunderstood me" would do. Is also has the benefit of being less verbose. Protonk (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

No, generalized discussions about the reliability of huge swathes of sources are not appropriate for discussion here. This is for individual cases. Also, I never berated you. I said you should read comments better before disagreeing with them (that's called 'advice') and explained why (that I can't see anything in my comment that would naturally lead to a misunderstanding). Anyways, since you seem upset and since I don't care to try to fix that, I'll say goodbye for now. If you decide you want to have that more general discussion, you know where to find me. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Forbes "contributors" are not Forbes editorial staff, but suppliers of user-generated content. To cite them as "work=Forbes" in citations would be deliberately misleading, since Forbes itself is legally obligated to distance itself from these contributors with a disclaimer saying their opinions are their own and do not represent Forbes. There are hundreds of such contributors, the vast majority of them unpaid, and there is no individual oversight of these writers or their blogs. This is completely different from newspapers and magazines in which staff or otherwise paid columnists have blogs. In some cases, one of these user-generated bloggers may have credentials that make their blog citable, and in that case the field should read something along the lines of "publisher=Forbes non-staff blogger." --Tenebrae (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

No, publisher=Forbes, that is just a statement of fact, not an endorsement. Pincrete (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Is this TED talk a reliable source for cost of Space Shuttle?

Source: Elon Musk. "Elon Musk: The mind behind Tesla, SpaceX, SolarCity ... - TED Talk Subtitles and Transcript - TED.com".

Article: Reusable launch system

Content:

The Space Shuttle external tank and the launch vehicle load frame were discarded, and the parts that were reusable took a 10,000-person group nine months to refurbish for flight. So the space shuttle ended up costing a billion dollars per flight.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinTime55 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Is there a better source than an off-the-cuff one-liner giving what is probably an approximate figure from a TED talk (delivered by someone who is promoting a new, different technology)? Surely there must be some independent, dispassionate, detailed analyses available for what was a high-profile thirty-year program.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I took these four from the infobox at Space Shuttle program, under the heading "Cost per launch", which says $450 million to $1.5 billion.

Notably, while the figure given by these sources has a range of values, the figure mentioned by Musk is within that range. Still, I think those are probably better sources. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, to answer my own question, yes—there are better sources in our article on the Space Shuttle program. Total program cost ($196 billion) divided by total missions (130ish) gives approximately $1.5 billion per mission...but that number has a bunch of one-time and non-launch costs built into it: research and development, facilities, training, etc. (Roughly a fifth of the total budget – about $40 billion – was spent before the first Space Shuttle was launched in 1981, for example.) NASA puts the marginal per-launch cost at $450 million. So it depends a lot on how you want to do the accounting. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, properly noting the total program costs part is pretty key; building a reusable spaceplane had never been attempted before and therefore a whole slew of new technologies, materials, designs, etc. had to be developed. All subsequent attempts at reusable space vehicles will inherently benefit from these R&D investments (Elon Musk doesn't have to go out and invent LI-900 thermal tiles, for example). Comparing total amortized costs from an early program to a later program seems inherently skewed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:BIASED, aren't these two sources (which were erased from an article) acceptable?

Hello,

In the article Antisemitism and the New Testament, I believe two sources were removed in violation of WP:BIASED, which states the following:

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs.

That's exactly what I was trying to do. I believe the article should show different viewpoints.

Here's one diff showing a source that was removed (what Tovia Singer wrote): . The exact source is . This is a very influential rabbi. The complaint is that he's not a scholar, but I see his statement as being consistent with the last sentence of WP:BIASED.

Here's another statement that was removed:

In Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 Jews appear to be called a synagogue of Satan.

The source is . In this case, the author of the source is a very influential Evangelical Christian pastor called John F. MacArthur. Can we say that the view of a Christian leader regarding the Christian Bible cannot be used on Wikipedia just because he's not a scholar? This guy has sold countless books. His views are mainstream Evangelical Christian views. Why should that view be suppressed? It's not a fringe view. He's one of the "Top 100 Christian Leaders in America" according to Newsmax Media .

Let me repeat: I'm invoking WP:BIASED to make the claim that these sources should be included to express other significant viewpoints to ensure neutrality. At the very least, I think John F. MacArthur's view can be included if we say, "According to John F. MacArthur, ...".

Please, what do you think? Thanks in advance for your time and help. Dontreader (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

A source is always reliable for an atributed quote taken from the source. However, reliability is not the be-all-and-end-all of inclusion. See WP:V - "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion." There are other policies and guidelines that also affect inclusion. In this case, the main issue is WP:UNDUE (does quoting this specific religious leader give his views Undue Weight). That falls under our Neutral Point of View policy (which has its own notice board). Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Blueboar. I see what you mean, but you mentioned WP:V and you quoted material. I looked it up, and I found that it belongs to WP:ONUS. I will quote more from there: "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." The problem, in my opinion, is that both claims and sources that I presented had been in the article for half a year or longer. They were both removed unilaterally by the same user without reaching consensus, around three days ago. That user took over the article and made it what he wanted it to be, with zero consensus and with heavy edit warring. So I think he is in violation of WP:ONUS, not the editors who included the material posted above without objections. Does that change your mind, or not? Many thanks again for your valuable time and help. Dontreader (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Dontreader Thanks for not notifying me you were raising this here: I have this page on my watchlist. anti-Semitism +New Testament gets 342,000 gits; at google books it gets 41,200 results. How do we harvest and glean this vast swathe of opinion, website 'stuff', commentary and research? We use the indications of WP:RS . WP:SCHOLARSHIP:

Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.

On this, they are available in great abundance. This is particularly true of a field like that covered in this article, which has an intense degree of academic controversy. Tovia Singer has no competence in the subject, is an activist engaged in converting Christians to Judaism (absolutely nothing wrong with that) and the website fails RS. John F. MacArthur is a Christian fundamentalist, who believes the world was created 6,000 or so years ago, has no formal training in the relevant scholarship and just preaches a popular evangelical fundamentalist line. Everything either of these chaps might say could be found in any of the several thousands books and articles on the topic written by Jewish, Christian and secular scholars in peer-reviewed publications. A subject as intensely controversial, full of apologetics and polemics like this, needs rigorously intelligent sourcing.Nishidani (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm ignoring the suggestion I hijacked the article, except to note this typical caricature.

They were both removed unilaterally by the same user without reaching consensus, around three days ago

I removed both because a third party suggested explicitly for Tovia Singer, and implicitly for John F. MacArthur, that this page should not contain them.

quoting Tovia Singer is like quoting an Evangelical minister. User:Basileias (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2016

I.e. of 3 editors you were the only person insisting on this kind of sourcing.Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

1) Firstly Tovia Singer is not an activist out to convert Christians to Jews, he's a counter-missionary. 2) Tovia Singer may be like an evangelist, but he is also an expert in the field of anti-semitism and anti-Judaism. That is his area of life that he focuses on. We would allow Abe Foxman's quotes in an article on antisemitism, and it's the same here. Singer knows AS and the New Testament. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Singer has no qualifications in New Testament studies (it makes for painfully boring listening, which your opinion has obliged me to do, to follow his expositions on youtube). He is not peer-reviewed. He is described as an antimissionary activist, just as MacArthur is a missionary activist. Nishidani (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I was tagged (or mentioned) in this discussion. Some context around my comment (which I do not want taken as flippant), while it is entirely appropriate to source Singer, MacArthur and others like, there are others with greater qualifications in the area of NT study. Concerning Singer and Anti-Semitism, while I am sure he is a thorough study on the topic, again there are other with higher credentials. Hopefully this made sense, and I am not trying to be disrespectful to anyone here. Basileias (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, Blueboar, and all volunteers on this helpful noticeboard: I find it very inappropriate that the person that I have been edit warring with has jumped in here, although I'm not surprised because he's a troublemaker and he thinks he's above all the rules. He has indeed hijacked that article, which all of you can see, but I don't think he should be here because my conflict is with him. Can anything be done to discourage this behavior? He should not be giving his opinions here. If he is a RSN volunteer he should not address questions asked by people he has been edit warring with. I have the right to expect answers from neutral volunteers that I don't have ongoing problems with. Please warn him not to reply here again. And can my followup question be addressed, please? Thanks in advance. Dontreader (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

There are about 10 WP:AGF violations there.Nishidani (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

You know nothing, Nishidani. Just look at your initial complaint. You were upset because I didn't notify you that I was asking a question here. This is not a dispute resolution board, you fool. Now get out of my face. You make me sick. That's why I let you hijack the article. When I see you I want to vomit. I can't stand you. Leave me alone. I came here for answers, not to argue with you. Dontreader (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised you're not being blocked for that series of personal attacks, honestly. To answer the substance of your complaint, we are all volunteers here on this helpful noticeboard, including both Nishidani and you, and his right to give his opinion is no less than that of anyone else; in fact, as the person you are disagreeing with, knowing his opinion is highly valuable. Also, we discuss things here, and hopefully come to agreement, rather than edit warring. --GRuban (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

This issue used to arise frequently in evolution topics when creationists would try to add the thoughts of their preacher or rabbi or other favored source. That might be appropriate if the topic were "list of opinions regarding evolution", however, because the topic is actually what is known about evolution, it is only WP:DUE to use sources that scholars on the subject agree are accurate (and we know that from what secondary sources say). Exactly the same principle applies to Antisemitism and the New Testament. By definition, someone with a strong faith believes certain things—quoting the opinions of such a person is not very informative because there is no body of knowledge that could lead to their conclusion—their reasoning might be faulty. However, quoting someone who has studied the broad history and language usage of the period is an entirely different matter because their conclusions will be part of accepted knowledge—perhaps not accepted by all other scholars but at least some of the views of the person being quoted would be accepted by other scholars of the topic, and that is what makes them a reliable and due source. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Gorski again for article Vaxxed

On the article about the film, Vaxxed, Gorski, and his blog are being used as reference and text. This is a problem for this article in particular, because in my opinion, it requires, WP:OR, to determine who Gorski is, and what he represents, plus, he did not see the film and there are a myriad of excellent sources that point-to Vaxxed as being a fringe/propaganda film. Gorski blogs with a screen name in the ref used in the lede, which has been seized as any number of complaints when I tried to clear-up the ref which is attributed in the lede to Gorski, but bylined with Orca at the ref.--just messy and like I said, Gorski is not needed in this article.TeeVeeed (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

edited to add what I mean by "again" here. Source has-been discussed previously

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=gorski&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search&searchToken=6qhkefi1676738g80a1cn4iy6 TeeVeeed (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

and, the blog in question;

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=Search&search=sciencebasedmedicine+prefix%3AWikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&searchToken=3vsmsag55oaax5nsz1nzurdql TeeVeeed (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Gorski is a non-RS expert being used outside his area of expertise - namely, a movie he hasn't watched and its filmmaker. I've taken the liberty of removing the claim myself. Rhoark (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

(Which is naturally being disputed on the talk page.) Rhoark (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

This source has been endlessly discussed at WT:MED as well as WT:MEDRS, very very old hat. Opening this discussion here was part of the OPs flailing around in a PCSI topic that just led to them being TBANed at arbcom. The bottom line here is that alt-med advocates hate Gorski and say he is "just a blogger"; he is in fact probably the leading authority on quackery and per WP:PARITY is an invaluable source. This thread really should be closed. It is really a MEDRS thing and not a plain RS thing. Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Is the point then to hold the line against these hordes gunning for all the other uses of Gorski? If editors are so willing to defend to the hilt such poor judgement as his use on Vaxxed it signals that the rest perhaps need scrutiny too, but you can rest easy in that the product of my time by my interest is not equal to the task. Let's confine our attention to the single instance before us for now. Rhoark (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Since we are having a discussion about this, imho using Gorski as a source to counter quackery or medical claims = fine. Using him in the place where we would usually place a film critic = not so great. As he is not a film critic and he admits he hasnt seen the film.

Saying that, anyone with half a brain cell who reads a synopsis of the film and has even a brief understanding of its maker, knows that it is undeniably a work of self-justification, promotion etc. There will surely be either a film critic who shares the same views as Gorski, or a Gorski-like figure who has seen it. At this point I dont know why someone just doesnt send him a copy and gets him to watch it. You could probably get a copy from the distributor for $10 for public viewing. I am 100% certain Gorski is *aware* of this situation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

(1) Gorski did see the trailer, that's why he got so excited. (2) The film purports to be a documentary, that's why Gorski got SO-o-o-o excited. That said, Gorsky criticized film not for its artistic value, but for its propaganda of quackery and for actual falsehoods. Therefore: (a) the argument that he is not a film critic is irrelevant, and (b) he is WP:RS in the context of the statements he did about the film. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit conflict] The film is a documentary. Film critics should of course be used as reliable sources in reference to the quality of the film as art or in the way it presents information, but are unlikely to be reliable sources on the question of whether or not the information presented is itself factually accurate. For accuracy, you are going to need to look to the views of someone with relevant knowledge in the field, e.g. a scientist who has spent 10 years writing about the topic and is considered a reliable source for that topic e.g. Gorski. Similarly, for judgment over the quality of the film-making it is indeed a pre-requisite to have seen the film. To render judgment over the accuracy of the content it is only necessary to know what that content is. 109.145.86.92 (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

"Being Manly" blog

Is the "Being Manly" blog RS? Parkwells recently inserted large texts of content that struck me as being somewhat of a "royal fanboy" / "whitewashing" nature to Education of the British Royal Family. When I looked into it, it was apparently all sourced to the "Being Manly" blog. (We have a lot of fanboys who have recently descended on this article inserting favorable content sourced to blogs and palace websites because, as they've argued "it's her [the Queen's] 90th birthday" . I'd like to be cautious I'm not accidentally deleting really high-quality info in my hurry to move this fancruft off the page.) LavaBaron (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Rob Boddice is a published historian, unlike some of the other sources already cited in this article. Please leave the material up. I would hardly describe my additions as "large texts". I can also check for other sources.Parkwells (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Blogspot does not have editorial controls; "Being Manly blog" is not RS. LavaBaron (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Nonetheless, Richard earned an MA and a diploma in architecture, and started his career with an architectural firm. There are so many "royal blogs" that it is difficult to find a source for something so basic.Parkwells (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Just don't source blogs. Simple. Meanwhile, stop deleting sources to major, daily newspapers because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT like you did here among many other places. LavaBaron (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Generally speaking, blogs don't pass WP:RS. There's an exception in WP:SPS that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", but Boddice's focus as a historian is not, as far as I can tell, in a relevant field, so his blog can't be used. --Aquillion (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Even more generally speaking, the discussed subject is British Royal Family, not some tribal chief or Atlanta rapper. If you cannot find info in really serious sources, then it probably does not belong to wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Boddice's background is in "pain and emotion in modern history", AFAICT - and commentary about British Royal family educations seems outside his specific area of competence on an SPS. Sorry. Collect (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

TrouserPress.com

Ritual Tension was recently put up for WP:AFD here. The subject's notability and coverage in reliable sources being discussed. One of the factors in deciding if the page is to keep is the reliability of one of the page's sources, an article by Trowser Press. The source is not included in Wikiprojects Music's list of unreliable sources but I would like feedback from others on whether or not Trowser Press is reliable. Meatsgains (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Produced actual hard copy books etc. - meets WP:RS AFAICT easily. Collect (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Collect: Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Chrysler reception, rankings, ratings

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Chrysler#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction. Should the following content be added to the article?

Since at least the late 1990s, Chrysler has performed poorly in independent rankings of reliability, quality, and customer satisfaction.^[1]^[2]^[3] In 2011, James B. Stewart said in The New York Times that Chrysler's quality in 2009 was "abysmal," and cited that all Chrysler brands were in the bottom quarter of J. D. Power and Associates' customer satisfaction survey.^[4] In 2015, Fiat Chrysler brands ranked at the bottom of J. D. Power and Associates' Initial Quality Study, and the five Fiat Chrysler brands were the five lowest ranked of 20 brands in their Customer Service Index, which surveyed customer satisfaction with dealer service.^[3]^[5] Chrysler has performed poorly in Consumer Reports annual reliability ratings.^[6]^[1] In 2009 and 2010, Chrysler brands were ranked lowest in the Consumer Reports Annual Auto Reliability Survey;^[7] in 2014 and 2015, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, and Fiat were ranked at or near the bottom;^[8]^[9] in 2015 five of the seven lowest rated brands were the five Fiat Chrysler brands.^[10] In 2016, all Fiat Chrysler brands (Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep, and Fiat; Ram was not included) finished in the bottom third of 30 brands evaluated in Consumer Reports' 2016 annual Automotive Brand Report Card; Consumer Reports cited "poor reliability and sub-par performance in our testing."^[2]^[11]^[12]^[13] Chrysler has consistently ranked near the bottom in the American Customer Satisfaction Index survey.^[14]

More information References ...

References

[1]
Bradsher, Keith (May 7, 1998). "Risking Labor Trouble and Clash Of Cultures, 2 Makers Opt for Size". The New York Times. p. 1. Retrieved March 19, 2016. But its vehicles also dominate the bottom rungs of the annual auto-reliability ratings by Consumer Reports magazine.
[2]
Zhang, Benjamin (February 23, 2016). "Consumer Reports just called out Fiat Chrysler for its alarmingly bad quality". Business Insider. Retrieved March 18, 2016. On Tuesday, Consumer Reports singled out Fiat Chrysler Automobiles in the publication's annual Automotive Brand Report Card as having vehicles lacking in quality. "All Fiat Chrysler brands finished in the bottom third of the rankings, with Fiat coming last," Consumer Reports wrote in a statement...Consumer Reports' criticism of the Italian-American automaker is just the latest in a string of reliability concerns stemming from the company's products.
[3]
Stoll, John D. (June 17, 2015). "Fiat Chrysler Brands Get Poor Ratings in Quality Study; J.D. Power survey of buyers shows Chrysler, Jeep and Fiat brands among worst performers in industry". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved March 18, 2016. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV brands were ranked at the bottom of an influential quality survey released Wednesday, the latest sign that the Italian-U.S. auto maker is struggling to keep up with mainstream rivals at home and abroad.
[4]
Stewart, James (July 30, 2011). "Salvation At Chrysler, In the Form Of Fiat". The New York Times. Retrieved March 19, 2016. Quality was abysmal. Every model in the company's Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep brands ranked in the bottom 25 percent in the J. D. Power & Associates survey of customer satisfaction.
[5]
LeBeau, Phil (March 18, 2015). "Five worst auto brands for service under one roof". CNBC. Retrieved March 19, 2016. A new survey measuring the satisfaction of people taking their vehicles into dealerships for service ranks five Fiat Chrysler brands as the worst in the auto industry. The company's Jeep nameplate received the worst ratings among all 20 brands in the J.D. Power Customer Service Index...
[6]
Wayland, Michael (October 29, 2014). "Quality chief leaves FCA amid recalls, poor reliability". The Detroit News. Retrieved March 19, 2016. Chrysler historically has performed poorly in Consumer Reports' reliability ratings...
[7]
Jensen, Cheryl (October 29, 2010). "Survey Forecasts Reliability of 2011 Cars". The New York Times. Retrieved March 24, 2016. Some things didn't change from the 2009 survey: Scion finished in first place again — Japanese nameplates took seven of the top 10 spots — and Chrysler ranked lowest among all brands. Again...The rankings come from the 2010 Annual Car Reliability Survey...
[8]
Jensen, Cheryl (November 2, 2014). "In-Car Electronics: Thumbs Down". The New York Times. Retrieved March 24, 2016. ...Consumer Reports said in its latest Annual Auto Reliability Survey...Scores improved for Ford and Lincoln, but Chrysler's brands were near the bottom of the heap.
[9]
"Highlights From Consumer Reports' 2015 Annual Auto Reliability Survey". Consumer Reports. October 20, 2015. Retrieved March 18, 2016. The Fiat-Chrysler brands (Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, and Fiat) finished at or near the bottom again.
[10]
Hirsch, Jerry (October 20, 1015). "Tesla quality problems could signal challenges with Model X and Model 3". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 24, 2016. The 2015 Annual Auto Reliability Survey relied on data from more than 740,000 vehicles...Fiat-Chrysler products took five of the seven bottom spots.
[11]
Snavely, Brent (February 23, 2016). "Audi, Subaru score, FCA brands lag in Consumer Reports". Detroit Free Press. Retrieved March 19, 2016. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles brands had an especially bad showing this year as all four brands ranked by the magazine finished at or near the bottom...FCA's Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep and Fiat brands were all ranked 25th or lower. Ram was left off the list because the magazine only tested one model, the Ram 1500, and only ranks brands where at least two models have been tested.
[12]
Irwin, John (February 23, 2016). "Audi supplants Lexus in Consumer Reports' 2016 report card on reliability, road tests". Automotive News. Retrieved March 24, 2016. ...in Consumer Reports' latest annual report card on brand reliability and road-test performance...Fiat Chrysler brands finished near the bottom of the rankings.
[13]
Wayland, Michael (February 23, 2016). "Detroit automakers struggle in Consumer Reports ratings". The Detroit News. Retrieved March 24, 2016. ...2016 Brand Report Card...Four Fiat Chrysler brands were among the worst six ratings.
[14]
Picchi, Aimee (August 25, 2015). "The most hated car in America". CBS News. Retrieved March 25, 2016. This is a phenomenon with Chrysler that goes back since we've been doing this really, showing that they've hovered near the bottom.

Close

Issues with the reliability of sources have been raised in discussion. Participation from colleagues with expertise in identifying reliable sources is respectfully requested. Please comment at Talk:Chrysler#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Are these sources suitable for suggesting Iran/Persia has experienced civil war?

Background: An editor, User:NuturalObserver, changed the text" After Nader's death, Iran fell into civil wara" to "a number of popular uprisings began", with the edit summary " Iran has never experienced a civil war in its 7,000 years history. This is a fact and not an opinion. Please remember that wikipedia is not a propaganda platform. Individuals attempting to use it as such will be sanctioned." Another editor reverted this. NuturalObserver then went to the talk page to argue their case. Given that this editor made several similar edit summaries I posted a polite message on their talk page urging civility, and responded at Talk:Kurds with:

"A number of sources mention civil war in Iran/Persia, including one between Artaxerxes II and Cyrus the Younger, eg , , and . Looks like there are historians who argue that there was at least one civil war.Then there's Persian Constitutional Revolution which seems to describe a civil war and calls it one, and another article Attempts at Constitutionalization in Iran#Civil War and Legacy of the Revolution which has a section on civil war (hm, aren't these duplicates?). As for the Zand period, "The restoration of Iranian control over the South Caucasus proved to he shortlived. and came to an abrupt end with the assassination of Nader Shah in 1747 Iran sank into renewed civil war..." "Persia's sufferings did not end with Nader's death. The greater part of the next 50 years was taken up by civil war as his empire split."(note the word "renewed"If anyone is going to be sanctioned by the way it would be you for the personal attack." (Their talk page post had another call for sanctions).

Looking again, I don't think my first source is one that should be used. The second source ia by Kurt Noll . There's a post on my talk page User talk:Doug Weller#RE: Civil War in Iran that accuses Noll of ideological bias and not having the credentials (well, it says he has them but I think that's a typo). The third source is an old one by Cyril Elgood. The complaint about that is that Elgood puts it forward only as a hypothesis, although I don't see where he says that. My fourth source is an academic press book, Women in Iran from the Rise of Islam to 1800 edited by 2 academics and the editor again says that Gulty Nashat only puts it forward as hypothesis, although again I can't find that, only statements such as "For example, in the civil war breaking out between Artaxerxes II and his brother Cyrus the Younger from 409 to 405 B.C.E., their mother, Queen Parysatis, constantly communicated". The editor has stated that you can't trust ancient Greek historians. My last 2 links are to a book by Arsène Saparov who the editor calls "a highly controversial individual with questionable records". And then there are our 2 articles, which seem to be about the same subject, which suggest civil war at the beginning of the 20th century. Doug Weller talk 14:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

OT as about the editor - to be fair, after I left them a polite message I noted the other edit summaries and told him such threats had to stop pointing out that I was "able to" block him if they continued. Only adding this as I had forgotten it and my post above suggested I only left one message. Doug Weller talk 14:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

This is the argument I made:

"The claim that there was ever a civil war in Iran (Persia) is simply not corroborated and remains an unsupported and highly controversial claim. As I said, creative interpretations of certain historical events (regardless of by whom) simply does not carry a value. It is true that there are few researchers (with ideological motives) who have put-forth the notion of a civil war as a possible theory to explain certain events. In fact, Guity Nashat and Cyril Elgood, have both acknowledge this in their books - that it is merely a hypothesis as it lack evidence. Arsène Saparov for example, is a highly controversial individual with questionable records, and K. L. Noll (an ideologically oriented individual) does have the needed credentials in the subject matter to make comprehensive conclusions. These individuals are simply not well versed to hold any authority on the subject of Iranian history (the exception being Guity Nashat). Furthermore, one of the individual you referenced, use to work very closely with soviet researchers in-order to artificially engineer history for certain former soviet countries in the caucasus region. Not to mention that these individuals have been selectively hand-picked to advance a false proposition. It fails to take into account that the vast majority of historians disagree with that view. Ancient Greek historians and soviet researchers cannot be regarded as reliable sources, just as Iranian historians cannot be used as a reliable and neutral source on Greek history.

Regardless of who is used as a reference, one ought to differentiate between facts and opinions, which the statement: "after Nader's death, Iran fell into civil war, with multiple leaders trying to gain control over the country" does not. It asserts that "Iran fell into civil war" as a historic fact. This is flat out wrong. The opinion here is falsely passed on as a fact. We have no evidence whatsoever that would point to a civil war in Iran. Do remember that when you are referencing from a book, various important factors - such as the context and data, are ignored. A direct quotation itself is not an evidence. We have no corroborated evidence of a civil war in Iran - that is a fact".

The crux of my argument is that facts must be clearly differentiated from opinions, and a selectively picked quotation from controversial, biased, and ideological authors, does not mount to evidence. The statement: "after Nader's death, Iran fell into civil war" suggests a irrefutable historical fact. This absolutely not true. There are countless different interpretations, and the most controversial of all, is selected. When talking about a historical event, one must adopt an accepted historical narrative not a controversial one that is disagreed by the vast majority of historians and merely site the few in minority and use their interpretation as a historical fact! That amounts to rewriting of history.

I made a suggestion accordingly to change that statement to "a number of popular uprisings began", and limit the authority of the user that reverted my alternation because the bias and lack of knowledge of this individual in subject matter was self-evident. Therefore, it would make no sense for someone with a creative and biased interpretation of history, to be able to revert the alternations of those who seek to correct the narrative according to contemporary historical narrative. This comment was removed by the editor: Doug Weller for being "impolite". Furthermore, the editor justified this by stating that "there is also no freedom of speech on Wikipedia" and that my comments will be removed if it is to the personal distaste of the administrator. Accordingly, that editor creatively interpretes whatever I write, avoids an academic discussion, and threatens to block. He made several threats, some on my personal page others in reply. Such individuals should not be given the authority to administrate. The editors conduct must be reviewed.

Kind regards NuturalObserver (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

In general, I'm cautious about trawling for sources using search terms, as one is always guaranteed to find some sources and little opposing opinion. But in this case the query is quite neutral, and the sources Doug found range from "reasonable" to "excellent". The opposing claim - that there never was a civil war in Iran/Persia - is so extraordinary that it would need quite substantial support to accept. I note that NuturalObserver has not provided a single source for his claim, instead relying on unspecific and sometimes borderline WP:BLP violating (highly controversial individual with questionable record) criticism of the sources. While we do discuss the weight and acceptability of sources, Wikipedia does not do original research, and does not accept any personal attacks. I'm a big fan of freedom of speech, and indeed would favour more relaxed (or at least more consistent) standards on Wikipedia. But this website has a particular purpose, and that purpose is not served by incivility, personal attacks, and unsubstantiated negative criticism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes I absolutely agree Stephan Schulz. Unfortunately, Doug Weller has used a very general subject "are these sources suitable for suggesting Iran/Persia has experienced civil war?" and purposely diverted the discussion elsewhere. The original subject was not that "Iran/Persia has experienced civil war" - no. The topic is concerning a very particular timeline in Iran's history - Zand period. As I stated, and as Doug Weller accepted, the authors that was used as reference, use the term civil war suggestively as a hypothesis. The statement that "after Nader's death, Iran fell into civil war" is merely one interpretation of many. In fact, it is not a contemporary historical narrative. That is what I saying - that opinions must be differentiated from facts. Iran fell into civil war in the Zand period is merely the opinion of the editor - not a historical fact. However, that statement suggest that it is a historical fact. This must be corrected.

Kind regards NuturalObserver (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

You're misrepresented me. I was responding to your edit summary "Iran has never experienced a civil war in its 7,000 years history. This is a fact and not an opinion. Please remember that wikipedia is not a propaganda platform. Individuals attempting to use it as such will be sanctioned." and deliberately not confining my response to the Zand period. And I never accepted that anything was suggested as a hypothesis - I explicitly said above that I could not find where the two authors suggested it as hypothesis.

As to the Zand period, we have Afsharid dynasty#Civil war and downfall of the Afsharids as well as other articles discussing civil war around that period, eg when Karim Khan died. This source mentions civil war when he died, and inter-dynastic warfare (a synonym for civil war) when Nader died. Looking at sources again, I find The Greenwood Encyclopedia of International Relations: F-L "A brief peace followed Nadir’s assassination, under the Zand dynasty (1750-1794), but broke down in renewed civil war won by the Qajaris under Aga Muhammad Khan (d. 1797). Persia was thereafter ruled by the Qajar" There are others. Doug Weller talk 16:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Doug Weller has provided solid sources using the phrase "civil war". Obviously, it should be called civil war. If NuturalObserver can point to a source that dissents, we can discuss its stature and appropriate weight. Otherwise all objections are original research. Rhoark (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Reliable source confirmation for new page

Detroit Mercy Law clinics

www.metal-archives.com

EthniCelebs.com

Wahhabism

Media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis

YouTube as a reliable source for citation?

Forbes

Source: Aitken, Roger (2016-04-23). "Digital Gold 'Done Right' With DigixDAO Crypto-Trading On OpenLedger". Forbes. Retrieved 2016-04-28.</ref>^{[unreliable source?]}.

Article: Ethereum.

Content: The source is used/reused three times on the page. The first instance (below) includes the full citation, and was added to the article first. The other two uses are cited by the use of the same "refname" (<ref name=forbes20160423/>), and were added to the article later.

Digix

(i.e., only the single word "Digix" in a bulleted list of "Distributed applications" that utilize the Ethereum platform

Ethereum itself is not a marketplace, but higher-level software could theoretically utilize Ethereum to establish an online marketplace platform
Development was funded by a crowd sale in August 2014

Issue: An editor has tagged all three of the above instances with {{unreliable?|reason=blog post|date=April 2016}}

Would appreciate another opinion from an editor who better understand Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. N2e (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It comes down to forbes.com/sites - sites is effectively a blogsite hosted by forbes where third parties post articles with almost (if not zero) editorial oversight. Reliability is dependant on the author of the post in question, rather than inherited from being published by Forbes. In some cases this means experts writing outside their fields cannot be taken as reliable sources. In this case, Roger Aitken certainly has the journalistic and professional pedigree to be considered a reliable source on financial issues. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Forbes is not quite user-generated content. (If you think I'm wrong, link to your Forbes blog where you say so.) There is an application and vetting process for contributors, which they assert reduces the need for fact checking by picking people who will get it right themselves. Make of that what you will, but It does not engage in much oversight of content before publication. The editors do get involved in retracting errors after the fact. In the final analysis, it is reliable for some claims, but where there's controversial claims, BLP, or a very new article, there's good reason to be skeptical. Rhoark (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm with Rhoark on this. Furthermore, what he has said above represents the usual outcome when forbes.com/sites/ ends up here (which happens fairly regularly). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Cool Hunting

fullfact.org

Netflix as a source

www.thefamouspeople.com

thefamouspeople.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

I just undid the addition of source http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/galileo-galilei-123.php to article Galileo Galilei because for this web-based article no author is given, no sources are listed, and anyone can add content ("Did We Miss Something In ...? Why Don't You Add It"). That's probably a no-brainer, but here's the problem: in article space I count 50 occurrences of references to similar articles on that site. Would it be OK to mass-remove them all, pointing to this section? - DVdm (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Ugh - the site does not appear to be plagiarizing, but it also gives no indication of how they write the bios. Lacking any named editor or writers, this is a "limbo source" I suppose. I can not say it is specifically "unreliable" but it sure does seem an odd duck. Collect (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

What's a "limbo source"? - DVdm (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

<g> A source which is not blatantly not "reliable" but one which gives no reasons why it is "reliable" either. I think such sources are in a limbo of sorts. Collect (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The "Society for the Recognition of Famous People", aside from being a bit of an oxymoron, doesn't seem to exist anywhere else but this website. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Note: see also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2015 Archive May 1#thefamouspeople.com -- is it spam? and a reply by Ronz. - DVdm (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Question: please advise on what to do with BLP Shana Muldoon Zappa:

Remove entire minisection Personal life per unsourced opening sentence (as second sentence doesn't make sense without the first)?
Remove source from opening sentence and tag with {{cn}}?
Stick {{better source}} to the citation?
?

There's bound to be many more similar examples. For instance Aidan Quinn#cite ref-11 - DVdm (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd consider the for deletion, unless better sources that clearly meet WP:BIO can be found.

BLP places a very high standard on such content, and I'm not sure if any of the current sources should be used. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Maybe later. Meanwhile feel free to AFD if you like. - DVdm (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Human interest story as a reference

François Asselineau

George N.M. Tyrrell

Erowid as a reliable source

Encyclopedia Brittanica?

stephenfollows.com

link appearances in WP

Don't know if this is worth looking into, but the recently created user Lars Prestegarde (talk · contribs) (hereby pinged) seems to be here to add content to various film related articles, with every edit (that I checked) including a link to a private website https://stephenfollows.com/ - DVdm (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The site is the blog of a film producer who does a lot of analytics on industry activity. I have been searching through his work for factual information not represented on wikipedia, or using his findings for existing uncited claims on relevant pages. Although I cannot vouch strongly for his reliability, he appears to meet the criteria of being a published expert in his field. Lars Prestegarde (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Yes, I noticed that he at least appears to meet the criteria. But does he? I was not sure about whether this is appropriate. After all, these are all wp:primary sources, and your activity seems a bit wp:SPAish. I hope you don't mind my wondering. - DVdm (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a blog partly sourced to WP & IMDB. Not RS. SPECIFICO talk 17:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

SPECIFICO I replied to you re this on my talk page. The info sourced from WP & IMBD is for analytics of fairly uncontroversial information such as box office gross for films. The vast majority of the information on the site is original research or statistical analysis - I don't think it is fair to say the whole body of work is unreliable based only on what is, as far as I can tell, a rare use of IMBD ratings or wikipedia-sourced figures. Lars Prestegarde (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Original research on a self-hosted blog is an even worse source. Could you tell us whether you have any personal or professional relationship to the blog or its author? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Stephen is a widely recognized expert in film production and the UK film industry in particular. His work has been cited in Forbes, The Financial Times, The Guardian and the BBC among others. If he is being used as a source for film related pages, he is RS. Depauldem (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

For full disclosure: I am working for Stephen's production company, and he has asked me to see if his findings are represented on wikipedia. Perhaps 'original research' is the wrong term if that comes across even worse, it is mostly just statistical analysis of existing data or surveys of industry professionals. If in doubt, please review the additions I have been making from the research and you should find it is just tidbits of data from the key findings of the research, no opinions or interpretations etc. Stephen (via the website in question, presumed to always be his work) is already cited on wikipedia on the many of the pages I have been checking, so past precedent suggests his findings are deemed credible. Lars Prestegarde (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

You are not doing us a favor by disclosing that, you are obligated to disclose that per the WP:PAID policy and you have been violating that policy up until this moment. Not good. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, I have added the disclosure and provided some more information in response to your request on my talk page. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I was not up to speed on the disclosure rules. Lars Prestegarde (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The citations to your employer's blog have been tenuous, many of them, e.g. about Hamlet, for which numerous better sources would exist if the text were to warrant inclusion. SPECIFICO talk 23:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Depauldem: Per this statement that you know Mr. Follows, please disclose the nature of your acquaintance with him and whether you also know User Lars Prestergarde? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know Lars. I have emailed Stephen a few times, but I have not met him. As an analyst in the industry, I follow his work. Depauldem (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's my take on the source. Definitely an SPS. So is he careful, and is he an expert? If you take him at his word and read the bottom of this post by him, he says he takes pains to fact check things. So that is good. His work has been cited by name in the NY Times here (his work on marketing for the Oscars), in the UK Evening Standard here (his work on gender/age disparity), in the Telegraph here (his work on movies shot in the UK), and in the Guardian here (his work on gender bias in film crews). And lots of other blogs. He seems to be a hustler (I mean that in a good sense) and see this blog from a film club he was part of as a teenager in the 1990s) and a serious person.

I think this site could be considered reliable.

btw while this was under discussion I went through and removed all the citations to his site - if you check the link I put at the top of this post you should find nothing, but who knows what has happened since I removed them all.

All that said, I really don't like him tasking folks to add citations to his site in Wikipedia. Meh to that. But as long as it is done appropriately by posting suggested content and refs on the Talk page of the relevant article, with disclosure... if independent editors working on those articles find the proposals valuable, then no harm. And if that improves articles, that is a good thing. Jytdog (talk) 02:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on this @Jytdog:. It is unfortunate that the citations are removed as I had just come on to move the content to talk pages; I gather I can still find old versions of the pages to speed up the process though, so I will look into that. Additionally, I worry that if you have removed ALL citations to the site, you will have removed all the established ones from back through the years - I am by no means the first person to be citing the website. Perhaps that was your intention, but I thought I would highlight this in case it wasn't.

Also while I'm here I'll add for completeness that I have no relation to Depauldem as he said earlier, and similar to him I know Stephen only via an exchange of emails regarding freelance data crunching I do for his company from time to time. Lars Prestegarde (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's unfortunate that any of Lars' edits have been removed. They added insignificant content which appears to have been chosen for the sole purpose of insinuating links to Follows' website. The content needs to be noteworthy and it needs to be verified by the source, not merely mentioned by the source or found on the source from aggregation of other websites. If Lars' future edits are similar to what he's shown so far, he will eventually be blocked. SPECIFICO talk 11:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand your perspective on this User:SPECIFICO. If I hadn't found high quality sources like I list above citing his work and found evidence that he does fact check I would have agreed that the source is generally not reliable but I think Follows' analyses are being accepted as useful and important in some ways. I'll add here that I don't edit in film topics and it may be wise to get folks from Wikipedia:WikiProject Film to weigh in here. I will ping their talk page. I do agree 100% that any time any ref is used, it needs to be because the content supported by it helps flesh out some part of an article and contributes to our mission to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge. We don't cite refs to promote the reference itself. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Jytdog, here is an example of using the reference solely to promote Follows, when far better sources are available in the published mainstream media . SPECIFICO talk 00:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I see your point. You are saying again there, what you are saying here. I am hoping that other folks will weigh in on the reliability of the Follows site, since really now it is just me and you. You are very much "no" and I am yes maybe. Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm a bit probably no, but indeed some users of the Wikiproject Film should have a look at this. - DVdm (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why we should be making such an effort to accommodate Lars, who is clearly WP:NOTHERE, who has not been forthright in this matter, and who can easily find sparsely-followed articles with relatively few followers on which to plant numerous links to his boss. Is that a good use of other editors' time and attention? SPECIFICO talk 15:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

To be "up front", I just allowed a citation to Follows' website to remain in the Actor article. When I read the web page, and after reading the above discussion, it is obvious that Follows is an expert in the industry. As for the factual reliability of the page, my opinion is "yes and no" – "no" if the cited info comes from the Responses section and the post is from other-than Follows, and yes if the information is obviously authored by Follows. I seldom edit film industry articles and have no affiliation with the industry nor with Follows. He has uncovered some interesting facts about the Academy and its Oscar awards. If the Follows web page resides in a "gray area" of RSdom, then I must lean toward acceptance rather than rejection. Stick to sources! Paine 22:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I am with @Ellsworth. Depauldem (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Tractors Wikia as a reliable source?

Dispute over sourcing at Columbia University Rape Controversy

Maine Department of Education List

Hello - There is currently a dispute on the European Graduate School webpage pertaining to the accreditation of this university. It appears on a published list of unaccredited institutions and diploma mills on the state of Maine's Department of Education website. In the discussion at this page, a number of editors (including one who appears to be connected to the school) are arguing that the Maine list is "no longer valid" because a different page on their website simply refers readers to Wikipedia's own list of unaccredited schools. Despite this alternative link, the Maine list is still very much live on their website. It also states on its landing page that "The Maine Department of Education has compiled the following list of post-secondary schools that are not accredited. The Department updates this list regularly, but non-accredited schools change frequently. Please conduct individual research before choosing a post-secondary institution." This strikes me as a very clear case where the Maine source is reputable and should be included. It's from a state government website with regulatory authority over the validity of college degrees, and it is also used on several other WP articles about universities as a valid source for suspect accreditation status. Nonetheless a handful of editors are arguing very aggressively that it does not meet WP source standards and are trying to remove it from the article. Any advice and input is appreciated. Kizezs (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The Maine source you mention doesn't say that it has anything to do with Wikipedia. We can take it as authoritative information provided by Department. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Since the EGS has recently been accredited by a European body the relevance of the US state recognitions is less of an issue.Martinlc (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

EGS has not actually been "accredited". It is not that simple. The are licensed by Malta which means they self-accredit, and they are 'registered" in a swiss canton but not by the main swiss national body that actually accredits universities. It is funky. Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The licence to award qualifications granted by Malta within the EU qualification framework gives EGS's the same validity as all other awards in Europe. Martinlc (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The Malta license is a separate issue from the reliability of the Maine source. It also does not carry the university accreditation that is being claimed here. Rather, it is a temporary 5 year license that allows them to offer a list of 8 specific classes in Malta. See: This does not meet the EU qualification framework standards to obtain reciprocal accreditation in the United States. Kizezs (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I have been trying to hold the middle policy/guideline based position on this article against rabid advocates for the school and advocates that claim it is a diploma mill, like the OP here. I have already explained all this there. The point of great frustration for this editor, is that the main page of the Maine website now looks like this. (Linked by OP and called "a different page" above) The page has been captured on the wayback machine, and if you go through the versions you can see that up to this version in May 2014, they maintained their own list of nonaccredited schools, but as of June 2014 (in this version) they had stopped maintaining their own list and no longer have a link to it (which is still how they do it today).

Yes, like many webmasters, who ever runs that site didn't actually take down pages you can no longer navigate to within the site, but that you can find by googling. That is how you get to the Maine "E" page, that the OP links to. That page is about 2 years outdated and is just moldering there. I don't use such pages when I edit. And i don't think such a low quality source is useful on a hotly contested article. I don't consider it reliable. Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Jytdog's reasons for excluding Maine as described above appear to be doing exactly that though - he's using an inferential reading from comparing old and new websites that is never explicitly stated by any of the sources, then using that to discredit and exclude a source that appears to easily meet WP:RS. Meanwhile the Maine list's statutory authority is very clearly stated at this link. Kizezs (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

No it is just basic research literacy. Lots of webmasters take down links but don't actually remove the page from the publicly-accessible portions of their servers. Jytdog (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Jytdog. And WP:SYNTH doesn't apply here, because it only applies to statements put in an article, not to the process of reasoning used to decide whether a source is acceptable to use. If, based on Jytdog's argument, all mention of the Maine source is excluded from the article, that couldn't possibly violate WP:SYNTH, since there would be no synthesis in the actual article text. SJK (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Are self-published sources reliable if given attribution?

An editor removed "self-published" templates with this edit with the edit summary, "no need for continual "Self-published" tags if you make it clear who is saying what." One example is a sentence that says, Nitschke has stated that nitrogen has a lower risk of an adverse reaction by the body than helium. Nitrogen has been advocated as a replacement for helium not because of reactions to helium, but due to a "temporary restriction on the availability of disposable helium in Australia (and New Zealand), helium has been difficult to procure." This is sourced to a newsletter written by Nitschke. Are self-published sources reliable as long as attribution is given? That's not my understanding of WP:SELFPUB. PermStrump(talk) 07:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

A self-published newsletter should generally not be used, and especially not to convey scientific/medical information as in the above example (this is more an NPOV/weight issue rather than one of reliability since strictly the source is reliable for what "Nitschke has stated ..."). Alexbrn (talk) 07:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

It's reliable for his opinion, which is what the article is giving, especially as he's an acknowledged expert in published reliable sources. The relevant policy is just above the one you link to:

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Bromley86 (talk) 07:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The persons quoted are experts in their fields, so this is acceptable according to WP:SELFPUBLISH. No need for scare tags. Ratel (talk) 08:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Is a person notable enough (in the context of a particular topic) that it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to note their opinion on that topic? If the answer is yes, then whether the source is self-published by that person or not doesn't matter much. Nitschke is notable as a doctor who advocates for euthanasia, so citing his opinion on euthanasia-related issues is appropriate; given that appropriateness, it doesn't really matter whether his opinion is cited to a self-published newsletter or anything else, so long as it is qualified as his opinion. Of course, for NPOV/balance, one should avoid excessively citing his opinion to the exclusion of other persons whose positions on euthanasia are notable; but assuming his opinion is being cited in a due proportion, I don't think it matters whether it comes from a self-published source or not. Citing the self-published opinion of a person notable in the context is very different from citing the self-published opinion of some random blogger that no one has heard of. SJK (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

SJK: Nitschke is notable on suicide, which is a separate article. This topic is "suicide bags" which I guess he's notable for trying to sell and promote them, so IMHO citing his self-published website and newsletter is pushing linkspam and I would think his financial interest would make it less/un- desirable as a source for content that directly relates to a product he sells. Also, his medical license was revoked, so is his newsletter (in which he advertises the sale of nitrogen tanks and suicide bags, other related products) a reliable source for a statement that says using nitrogen to kill yourself has a lower risk of adverse reaction? (My question is directed to anyone.) PermStrump(talk) 15:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia usually plays blind when discrediting self-published sources as a blanket policy. There are some, probably many subjects where the foremost expert in the field is the operator of a self published blog or in a paper mode, a self published magazine or newsletter. That even could go to scientific information. The structure of scientific research gives us a basis for evaluating these sources. Peer review is the method in academia. When one's research is duplicable, respected and quoted, that would make it reliable regardless of the publishing method. That should hold true in other subjects and in wikipedia. Within a given subject, if a source is often quoted and referenced, we should respect that. Conversely, there are major corporate media with editorial boards and the appearance of being journalists, whose content is controlled by forces which use their credibility as a means of propaganda to advance an agenda. In many countries, the government, the largest entity in the country, assumes that role and use their position of power to control the propaganda. It is a common objective. In those situations, where does truth come from? The little guy on the street. It can happen anywhere. Remember the scientists who were trying to convince the public there was nothing wrong with smoking. Wikipedia should tally the frequency of disproven content and discredit the reports of that source. Once deemed credible, a news source becomes the target of corporate take overs, with an ultimate propaganda objective. This could be an evolving situation. We have billionaires buying local newspapers to try to control the news in their home town. Cash strapped newspapers are highly vulnerable. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. We accept the credibility of the sites who are better at deception, the ones who look like they are professional and slick. We don't know who is making decisions, particularly as time passes. Behind the facade of a name, it could change. A source is only as reliable as their last post. When the information from a source stops being reliable, whatever the name or (former) reputation, we should notice and stop allowing that source's bad information from infecting wikipedia if we are not diligent. Wikipedia is the ultimate in peer review, but that function does not work if we are blind to reality. Trackinfo (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Permstrump: I don't think Nitschke's primary motivation in selling suicide devices was making money. His primary motivation was that he believes (rightly or wrongly) that he was doing the right thing. He wasn't getting rich off them. Now about his "medical license" being revoked. Firstly I should point out that "medical license" is US terminology, and isn't actually correct in Australia – the official term in Australia is medical registration (even though some Australian journalists incorrectly use the US term in media articles.) Furthermore, his registration was never cancelled; it was indefinitely suspended. He appealed his suspension to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory and the Court overturned it. He then enterred into a negotiated settlement in which conditions were imposed on his registration to not advise patients about committing suicide, or supply them with means of comitting suicide. (I'd also question whether he still is selling suicide devices, since it appears the conditions agreed to in his settlment with the Medical Board would prevent him from doing that.) This all happened because a suicidal depressed man contacted him, and Nitschke offered the man advice about how to commit suicide (which the man followed) but never any professional help for his depression. I think Nitschke's behaviour was reprehensibly unethical, but nonetheless doesn't give us any reason to doubt his factual claims about the efficiacy of different methods of suicide – while some breaches of medical ethics are relevant to one's veracity as a reliable source (e.g. research fraud or pushing quack therapies), others aren't (e.g. drug abuse, sexual misconduct), and I believe this case falls into the later category rather than the former. SJK (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to respond at Talk:Suicide bag#WP:SELFPUBLISH to keep the conversation all one place. I should have directed the conversation there in my original question, but didn't think about it until after-the-fact. PermStrump(talk) 23:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Quite a few incorrect assumptions here: Firstly, Nitschke does NOT sell suicide bags or exit bags, secondly he decided to walk away from his medical career rather than agree to limitations on what he could talk to people about, thirdly he never offered advice to Brayley about how to commit suicide (Brayley just wanted to let Nitschke know of his predetermined plans), and lastly I do not see why Permstrump is moving the query about WP:SELFPUBLISH back to the local talk page, when this is the place to discuss it. Is it perhaps because they are not getting their way here? Ratel (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Ratel, I do not see why Permstrump is moving the query about WP:SELFPUBLISH back to the local talk page, when this is the place to discuss it. Is it perhaps because they are not getting their way here? Seriously? I couldn't have been more transparent. I linked to the talkpage thread here and I made a comment on the talkpage. Then I tagged the editors who replied here in my response on the talkpage (except Ratel, who I'd just pinged in a comment directly above <5 minutes earlier, so I didn't want to be annoying with another ping when I knew you'd see the comment). Like I said here (and on the talkpage), I redirected the conversation to the talkpage, so that it wouldn't be split on two pages, making it easier for more of the editors that are interested in the topic to participate. There's a policy somewhere that suggests this and it was meant to be a helpful move, not deceitful. Editors need to cut it out with the ridiculous accusations against me or submit an AN/I, because I'm done wasting my time responding to unfounded accusations. PermStrump(talk) 02:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Justia.com

CelebrityNetWorth (copied from talk page, outside opinions desired)

This discussion does not belong on the talk page of CelebrityNetWorth as it relates to the site itself and is not germane to the article on the site. The user 130.65.109.103 seems to be adding net worths to a variety of biographical articles with only this site as the source. I do not believe CelebrityNetWorth is an RS. Thoughts? Intelligentsium 23:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

This web site seems to meet the criteria for Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

This edit suggests that it is not a reliable source.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, User:Mcfar54 accepted this edit, suggesting that it was an RS.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, it doesn't seem that the site's methodology is scholarly or rigorous. They claim to calculate net worth "by applying a proprietary algorithm", which excuses them from disclosing what data they use to arrive at that figure. Furthermore, reviewing a few of the pages on celebrities it seems quite likely that a significant portion of their information is in fact derived from Wikipedia. The fact that a pending change was accepted by an editor is not an endorsement of the edit beyond the fact that the edit is not vandalism or blatantly inappropriate. Intelligentsium 03:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

After reviewing their About us page, it also seems like their contributors are amateurs rather than professional journalists and analysts. Intelligentsium 03:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it is most likely not a reliable source, however the edit was accepted for not being vandalism. Mcfar54 (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that for net worth for Safra Catz, their page comes up with the same figure as our forbes.com citation.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It's quite likely that CNW simply copied the Forbes citation, especially as they mention Forbes on that page. Forbes definitely is a reliable source of course, so when Forbes is available that is the source we should use. Intelligentsium 03:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but CNW covers a lot more people that Forbes does. Take another look at the article. Note the high Alexa ranking and read their "About Us" page. These guys are not amateurs.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

A high alexa ranking is perhaps the epitome of what Colbert calls truthiness - a lot of people repeat it because it's true, and it's true because a lot of people repeat it. However high it's alexa ranking is, I'll bet Wikipedia's is higher... I read the "About Us" page; not just amateurs, their team appears to consist of bloggers, marketers, and college students rather than professional journalists, much less respected finance journalists. I am beginning to question whether the site CNW is even notable.

How about a compromise: I believe a good rule of thumb for net worth is, if a person's net worth can be found in Forbes (or a similar respected publication), it's probably OK for inclusion in an article. Otherwise, it's most likely unnotable (at best) and at worst plain wrong. Intelligentsium 02:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I think their TOS tells us everything we need to know (the "we do not guarantee that any of the information is correct" part, especially). It would also fail WP:USERGENERATED, since visitors can correct articles theirselves. It's not clear how they verify information. Nymf (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, I'm not sure to what extent it's user-generated - the submit a correction link seems to link to an email form that someone will review rather than a direct edit link. However they seem to operate a totally unverifiable "black box" model which they call a "proprietary algorithm". On their About us it's not clear that any of the staff are qualified to do this kind of research. They seem to operate a Buzzfeed-like business model, though it doesn't seem CNW try to present the appearance of professional journalism that Buzzfeed does. Intelligentsium 14:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

In the end, most of the site is just a guess. They claim they start with publicly available info and then they figure out taxes, agent fees etc. Problem is, most of that isn't available, but just a guess based on norms. And not everything is publicly available. I'd have to say, as a general answer, I wouldn't call the site reliable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

(Outdent)

Then what makes Forbes a reliable source? What makes Forbes' net worth assertions not just guesses? I do not see Forbes providing any guarantees of their assertions about net worth. And Forbes's reporters do not have to divulge their sources (or any other reputable newspaper for that matter).

This topic has been dealt before with:

and perhaps elsewhere.

However, the External links tool reports that CNW is already in use on dozens of BLPs.

--130.65.109.103 (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, Forbes has an established reputation for reliability and editorial oversight. They're staffed by professional journalists that specialize in financial analysis and reporting. An EMT and a MD can both put a bandage on your cut arm, but that doesn't make them equal. Telling me where it's already used isn't helpful. Just because someone used it or it hasn't been questioned doesn't make it legit. Examiner.com was used in dozens of articles before it was blacklisted. In the previous discussion you linked: First one, 3 experienced users said no, not a RS and none argued for it. The second discussion doesn't support using it either. The third one isn't really helping either. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware CNW was so widely used on Wikipedia. Thanks for the discussion links; it seems this has already been discussed on several occasions and the consensus definitely seems to be that this is not a reliable source. I consider possibly inaccurately reporting an individual's net worth could be a fairly serious BLP issue or even a gross privacy violation where such information is not material to the article (i.e., if it is due to relatives or because of irrelevant individual investments). I am especially alarmed that the site boasts reporting the net worths of public individuals worth only a few thousand dollars - i.e., when the individual is not even particularly wealthy. I'd like to assess consensus to to mass-remove net worths cited only to CNW, where a suitable alternative source cannot be found, or where such information is not obviously pertinent to the article. Intelligentsium 17:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd support the removal. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd support mass removal as well. No independent evidence of its accuracy. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, if that were the case, then CNW would have gone under long ago under a flurry of invasion of privacy lawsuits by these very wealthy people. I wonder why that has not happened yet. They have had eight years to sue CNW into oblivion. They better get cracking. You know, there is a basic reality here: you can typo a notable person's name with the suffix of "net worth" into a Google search and got some results. Why does Google provide such information if it harms the reputation of Google?--130.65.109.103 (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Is your argument really, "They're reliable because they haven't been sued yet"?? You can also type "vaccines cause autism" into a Google search and get results - not everything that you can find with a Google search belongs on Wikipedia. Reliability and Verifiability are central pillars of the Wikipedia philosophy. Maybe some of the net worths reported by the site are accurate. Maybe they're not. But there's more than enough information available from known reliable sources, like academic journals, newspapers, books by respected publishers, and online articles by professionals in their field. Not only is it inappropriate, but unnecessary, to rely on dodgy sources when we've got all that available. Intelligentsium 18:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I have to wonder how many years will have to pass for CNW to build a reputation of reliability. Forbes seems to get a pass because it is old.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
How many years irrelevant in context of wikipedia. Forbes seems to pass in wikiedia not because it is old, but because we can find independent authorities which vouch for Forbes. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

"Alexa rank" != "reliable source." See also prior discussion and another prior discussion. Collect (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

not reliable and support mass removal - look at their own disclaimer here: "All information presented on CelebrityNetWorth.com is gathered from sources which are thought to be reliable, but the viewer should not assume that such information is up to date or completely accurate or final. CelebrityNetWorth does not assume responsibility for any errors in the information it presents on this site. All information on this site is based solely on public information and is subject to change without notice." Our mission here is to provide articles that communicate accepted knowledge. This is just celebrity gossip. Please don't cite this. Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

not reliable and support mass removal shorouq★kadair 👱 04:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super ninja2 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 8 May 2016‎ (UTC)

Support mass removal - generated by who-knows-who, mystery 'algorithm', has no place in BLP articles --SubSeven (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Google maps

An editor is insisting that Google maps is a reliable source for the statement in the Lead of the Iran article that the modern country Iran is "also known as Persia". I disagree with that statement as well, but this is RSN, so we'll stick to the source.

If one types "Persia" into Google Maps, it displays the map of Iran. It doesn't call it Persia, but it does outline the modern state. Here's the result; you can type in Persia yourself to confirm. The editor claims that this indicates that Google Maps is therefore support for the statement, in the Lead, that Iran is also known as Persia.

I maintain that it's not, and that the maps search engine is just clever enough to figure out what you want. C.f. Albion and Loegria leading to maps displaying modern England. Again, this is purely to do with the Lead, and the situation has come up because the article is really short on support for Persia being a common alternative name for the modern country of Iran. It seems obvious to me, I've explained it to him, but he doesn't get it. Or maybe it's me that doesn't get it. Anyway, opinions? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem here is in defining context... while the area is almost always referred to as "Iran" in a modern political context, it is sometimes referred to as "Persia" in a geographical context... And frequently so when discussing the region in a historical context. In other words... The article isn't wrong in saying it is "also known as Persia"... But it needs to expand on that fact, and better explain the contexts in which it is called by these different names. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Blueboar. The first sentence of the Lead of country articles only deals with common names of the country, rather than geographical regions, etc; I think I should have been clear about that. So it's used in this context:

Iran (/aɪˈræn/ or Listeni/ɪˈrɑːn/;[11] Persian: Irān – ایران‎‎ [ʔiːˈɾɒːn] ( listen)), also known as Persia (/ˈpɜːrʒə/ or /ˈpɜːrʃə/), [12][13][14][15][16] officially the Islamic Republic of Iran (جمهوری اسلامی ایران – Jomhuri ye Eslāmi ye Irān [d͡ʒomhuːˌɾije eslɒːˌmije ʔiːˈɾɒːn])

And the question here is about the validity of Google Maps as a citation when it doesn't actually say Persia anywhere, it merely returns modern Iran if you search for Persia. Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

If the "also known as..." is correct, I'm certain that we can find a better source than Google maps. If we can't, that should tell us something. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Although, this matter has been discussed in Iran talk page, but because it has been also mentioned here I prefer to say my reason such that Google Map says "Iran known as Persia" or "Persia known as Iran". Using Google Map, when you are looking for Persia Geographical Region, it shows you Current Iran Map which means where you're looking for as "Persia" is the same country of Iran which means Persia = Iran. Although, other related references have been mentioned in Iran talk page about this matter. Meanwhile it has been expanded in etymology section of current Iran article. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bromley86: To add to this debate, in the past it used to be possible for any user to edit a location on Google maps. This has changed in recent times, and this link between Persia/Iran may be a legacy of that change. I have since notified Google regarding the error, so hopefully they will respond and change that. It is still not worthy of Wikipedia to use google maps to decide what a country is called, and what it isn't. Vormeph (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I just can say that speaking without reference means nothing. Personally, I always rely on references for my claim and avoid misleading to achieve my purposes. Anyway, as I mentioned previously, "Google Map is not included in 5 current references in Iran article." since there are better than Google Map, generally it's possible to ignore this one. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Aidepikiwnirotide: Good, then I suggest you start looking for other sources to back-up your claims. :-) Vormeph (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

They have been mentioned previously (at least five references) just they need an open eye. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Google Maps isn't a suitable source for the claim here, not least as it marks its (Australian version at least) map of the search result for "Persia" with a very prominent "Iran" only. It actually supports a claim that modern Iran is not called Persia in current English language maps. Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

A redirect definitely doesn't indicate that the alternate term is correct: "Amlerica" redirect to the United States. "Zrussia" redirects to "Russia", and "Sweoden" links to "Sweden". Nblund (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

No My gosh there are five sources there now! Google Maps doesn't pretend to be a reference work. Btw we have an article on Name of Iran. Jytdog (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

a listserve

Hello, Can you tell me if this can be used as a reliable source or not.

http://listserv.oclc.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind9912&L=publib&D=1&F=P&P=17100

The article is Censorship in Cuba

And the content its supporting is "An article published on 19 November 1999 by Maria Elena Rodriguez, a journalist for the Cuba-Verdad Press, described the burning and burying of hundreds of books donated to Cuba by the government of Spain" currently footnote 25

It would appear that it's referring to an article on https://www.cubanet.org/ (where exactly, I dont know) and I dont know whether that is a reliable source either but as I have only got the link to the list serve and that is what is being cited it seems that is the one to investigate/challenge.

Many thanks for your help. What do I do if your opinion is that its not reliable ? PS If you think it is reliable thats fine by me too, this, procedural thing, is after all a learning curve. Thanx again. Hmcst1 (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I would say a listserv is not reliable; people submit all kinds of crap to them. You can go from that source however as you started to. It references two things, 1) two reports on cubanet (their archives are here btw, you can navigate to the year and find those two reports) and 2) it says the story got picked up by the Spanish newspaper ABC (website is here). ABC would be the better source. Your local library could probably help you find the article in ABC. You should be able to find the Maria Elena Rodriguez reports in the cubanet archives. Either is better than the listserv. Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

In general, mailing lists are not reliable sources. There may be exceptions – mailing lists are heavily used by academic communities, so in those cases a poster may be a noted expert in a particular discipline, whose statements should be given substantial weight. However, there is no evidence any of those possible exceptions apply here. SJK (talk) 11:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Orangecounty.com

Is this a reliable source? http://www.ocregister.com/articles/movie-530330-gravity-space.html--HerbSewell (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Source: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/movie-530330-gravity-space.html

Article: Gravity (film)

Content: "Visors in space reflect sunlight, and thus would be opaque, in contrast to their transparency of the helmets in the film."--HerbSewell (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it is fine in the context of the film article, but I would attribute the statement to Dr. Clarke Gabel, clarifying he's a film critic for the Coalition for Accuracy in Hollywood Movies of Anaheim. I.e., he's not a part of the space program. I'm not a regular here, so you might want to wait for a second opinion. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 05:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Check that source again, 009o9. "Dr. Clarke Gabel" is a fictional character who heads a fictional coalition. He can't be a source for anything. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

As I've said several times now, I wasn't using that "fictional character" as a source, so your objection is irrelevant. Are you going to refer to me by the name as this character, or start repeating yourself to make your point again?--HerbSewell (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The editor responding to your question did not catch that this was a fictional character and suggested you attribute the claim to him. Explaining this was wholly relevant. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. For the same article and content, is this source sufficient to insert the content without attribution? http://seradata.com/SSI/2013/11/review-gravity-downsides-space-cadets-overall-pull-obvious/ Seradata has been used several times as a source. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=Search&search=seradata&searchToken=191abc00nofaomiqa3j8j2waf --HerbSewell (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like seradata is cited by a couple of RS publishers , , and . If it is just being used for support (convenience link) I'd say it's fine. I would not try to use the website to establish notability for an article though. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 06:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The source here is not Seradata, the company, it is a blogger on Seradata's site. Who is that blogger? No help here. As for the examples of others citing Seradata, the aren't citing the blog, they're citing the company. Foreign Policy is a reliable source for some material. In the example, they're citing Seradata's database, not the blog. The second source, Gawker is itself a blog, not a reliable source. Further, it doesn't cite Seradata at all. Someone in the comments section does... The question here is whether the blog on Seradata's site is a reliable source: Does it have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? The link from the site's logo is a 404 page. I can't really find anything to indicate what kind of oversite, if any, the blog has. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

If had looked at the section enumerating the team behind seradata.com, you would have found that it did give a bio for David Todd. "David has been Editor of SpaceTrak since being the database’s 'midwife' in 1997. He also writes for and produces the widely read Hyperbola Space Intelligence News blog, and provides consulting services to the space and insurance industries. David holds three engineering degrees including a Master of Science degree in Astronautics and Space Engineering. During his degree studies, David also won the British Airways prize for Air Transport Engineering and a Guinness Peat Aviation Fellowship, and is currently a Fellow of the British Interplanetary Society." Did you try doing that?--HerbSewell (talk) 03:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Rather than discussing what would have happened had something that didn't happen had happened, please explain how you feel this blog entry has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The question as to whether or not the content matches the source is discussed, per WP:BRD on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Rather than discussing what would have happened had something that didn't happen had happened

A simple "no" would have sufficed, but I suppose if you make almost no effort to look up the information you're challenging me to provide, I can't fault you for it, but it probably would have saved time if you just made the attempt to find the information you were asking for. Let's just pretend I didn't ask the question, because I was clearly asking too much.--HerbSewell (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

As far as the reliability is concerned, I don't see why it's any less reliable than another blog post that was used for content in the same section.--HerbSewell (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The Chicago Tribune "There have been no fatal suborbital manned flights and three fatal orbital space shots, including the space shuttles Challenger and Columbia with 14 deaths, and a Soyuz flight that killed one, according to the Seradata SpaceTrak database." Isn't this the database they are referencing? David Todd has 78 pages of article results dating back to April 2009. Sorry, I missed the parody in the OCRegister, they usually are not like that, I would not doubt that a "Coalition for Accuracy in Hollywood Movies" would be a thriving organization. All this over, "Visors in space reflect sunlight, and thus would be opaque," in a film article? 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 05:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to the cutline, not the interview itself.--HerbSewell (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, all of this over a visor in a film. Why? Otherwise articles like this start to gather entries from "Dr. Gabel" and people like him who want to identify and point out what they see as mistakes in films, often based on original research. (Dig in to the article and talk page history and you'll find several "Dr. Gabel"s have taken shots.) When several notable scientists are discussing errors and their discussions are discussed in Slate, Wired, the Washington Post, the BBC, UCLA and Time, it's noteworthy. When it's a fictional character in a satirical interview (or the photo caption for same) or stretching a blog entry to the breaking point, it's Dr. Gabel trying to turn a trivial change made to make expensive stars* visible into a glaring* inaccuracy. *(Puns totally intended.) As the new source pretty much explains, they used clear visors so the audience could see the expensive actors they cast. (Heck, I'd rather see Foster in undies rather than "space diapers". Those aren't "mistakes" those are "we're-making-a-Hollywood-movie-not-a-documentary" changes to make the film marketable. A scientifically accurate Jurassic Park would be nothing but scientists in a lab failing to extract enough dino DNA from amber. It would air on PBS at off hours or some third rate cable channel. The movie they made instead made millions. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment: No, "Foster in undies" IS a mistake (and not only because Jodie Foster isn't Sandra Bullock ;) - this is about WHO that is reporting the so-called mistake. It is about what KIND of source. Let it be clear that about the only real reason the "clear visors in Gravity is a mistake" claim has been rejected (by me and others) is because we don't have such a so-called reliable source saying it! And this is not about "Dr Gabel" and this is not about Orange County Register. Really, this isn't even about Barry Koltnow! This is entirely about the source being an entertainment piece, an opinion blog. That simply isn't a credible scientific source. The OC Register could conceivably get Mr Koltnow to interview, say, a respectable astronomer like Neil deGrasse-Tyson, and suddenly the source would be reliable, despite it still being the same newspaper and the same reporter. CapnZapp (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected: Bullock, not Foster. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

TheJoeKorner

1. TheJoeKorner, http://www.thejoekorner.com

2. All NYC Subway car type articles, example [R62 (New York City Subway Car)]

3.

| lines = {{NYCS const|car}}

*This line is a part of the page's infobox. This site is a forum, which I have read does not qualify as a reliable source 72.226.15.68 (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

It is not a forum and it is reliable.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The reason I would like to report the site is because it does not allow for the changing of the services assigned line in subway car articles as they are somehow linked. It says , but I remember when you could change the route bullet using the NYCS Bull small "x" thing, and I have tried it and my edits were reverted back to the const template. This is very frustrating, and I am happy to discuss any issues on my talk page or the article mentioned's (R62) talk page. Thank you. 72.226.15.68 (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

For context: Several IP editors are unhappy that the R62 (New York City Subway car) article is being referenced to a source that is not a primary source, and the referenced data is not very well known, nor do most people care about this information. Also, the "bullet" refers to {{NYCS-bull-small}} being used in {{NYCS const}}.

However, this source is not self-published, but rather, from data taken from internal Metropolitan Transportation Authority spreadsheets. The source is also not a forum, but I assume the OP IP thought it was. Finally, the IP editors ignored the hidden comment

please ONLY change this line by editing the NYCS const template and ONLY when the source given at the bottom of the article changes

; they could have easily changed the information by editing {{NYCS const}} but instead edited the article directly, which is largely why their changes were reverted. epicgenius (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what is being asked of the community here. What is the question? Jytdog (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The question is whether or not the source for this series of articles, thejoekorner.com, is a reliable source. 72.226.15.68 (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The source is not even used to reference the rolling stock. So, the original wording of this complaint seems to be irrelevant. We cans till have a discussion on whether to include this website, though. epicgenius (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah i went to the R62 (New York City Subway car) article to see if i could figure out the underlying dispute and got completely lost in the weeds. The IP wants to change the count of the cars on some subway line, or change the template that makes the circle or diamond subway line symbol, but ya'all are referencing the JoeKorner website, to say he can't, and the JoeKorrner website is just an EL. Inscrutable. Wikipedia has some really inbred corners. Sorry to say that, some places where i work here are like that too. :) Jytdog (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

If the info in the infobox is ultimately being sourced from the MTA's own published data, why is that not being used as the source rather than a third party unreliable website? Primary sources are generally classed as reliable for info about themselves, and I would expect the MTA to know what it has got. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to state, that as a principal, we should not be referencing *any* website that uses webframes and flashing backgrounds circa 2000 geocities homepages. The goggles do nothing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

It was brought to the reliable sources notice board because the information from the website may be primary information, it is being distributed via second hand (third party). 107.150.180.158 (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

TheJoeKorner is not used as a source for the car assignments in the infobox. Therefore, it shouldn't really be dealt with here. It should be at Template talk:NYCS const. epicgenius (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Only in death. MTA's published data would be a reliable PRIMARY source and it would be ideal. You may use the JoeKorner website if it is for relatively non-contentious info, and all the involved editors agree that it is reliable. But it is not ideal. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing that the MTA source is an ideal source. But this info was not contested until recently, when the train depots that hosts the trains for the 1 route got a trainset of R62 cars. This is what the OP is contesting, but unless they can provide a source otherwise, we should treat all trainset assignments about in-use New York City Subway cars with a grain of salt. epicgenius (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

TheJoeKorner, regardless– of whether he is still in touch with the MTA, should not be used as a source. The MTA must provide its own car assignments, as TheJoeKorner is still a self published source. 107.150.180.158 (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

MTA probably doesn't care about this type of stuff as much. (Not like the Hong Kong MTR, where everything about the system is visible online.) If and when the MTA publishes the data, we can change the source to MTA. Joe Korman is reliable for now, though. epicgenius (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hemp Line Journal

Hello, I'm wondering whether this is a reliable source or not. It seems to be from some journal called Hemp Line Journal (I have no idea if it has any association with Journal of Industrial Hemp?), and I've so far only found the study on two sites, namely ratical.org and sativa-power.de, however, the study in question is cited by numerous hemp books that were published in the 1990s (Google Books lists its citation in several books, if you search "Hemp Line Journal", and the study is from 1992), so it seems to be a legitimate source. I haven't found the study republished by PubMed or anything like that, but perhaps that's because the study didn't reach their attention or something. So I wonder if I can use it here on Wikipedia? HempFan (talk) 11:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hempfan, if you look at the instructions for this page, you have to tell the community what content you want to generate from the source, and provide the source. There is no blanket answer. (Although I can tell you that the source fails WP:MEDRS so if you want to write some content about health based on it, that will not fly. But let us know what content you want to support with that source. Jytdog (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Right, sorry about that. This is the content I wrote with the source in mind: Hemp protein is also very similar to human blood plasma, and generates anti-bodies as a result of its immunoglobulin protein content, and thereby improving the immune system. Which I added in this article/stub. I think the source is fine for that purpose, if it was actually a serious accredited journal at one point. The study seems like it knows what it's talking about, or serious enough anyway, although I'm no expert on antibodies so to say. How does it fail WP:MEDRS? HempFan (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd revert what you've written without looking at the source, basically due to the phrase "and thereby improving the immune system". If that is in your source, it is almost certainly not WP:MEDRS. Thinking further, it looks like somebody has been indulging in WP:OR. As the source is from 1992, and isn't a review, I'd say it doesn't meet our requirements. But I'd wait for more experienced and knowledgeable editors to respond as well. -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

That is a health claim, and that source fails MEDRS. We look for review articles published in the biomedical literature, generally indexed by pubmed (although some good journals are indexed by say Scopus that aren't pubmed indexed). here is what you get at pubmed. I don't see that "The Hemp Line Journal" even has a website, so we can't see where it is indexed. Jytdog (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, I'm no expert on antibodies, but reading up a bit on the article Albumin, it seems very much in line with what the Hemp Line Journal article/study says. Case in point, from the albumin article: Albumins are commonly found in blood plasma and differ from other blood proteins in that they are not glycosylated. Substances containing albumins, such as egg white, are called albuminoids. (unsourced by the way). So the question is if the two protein types in hemp actually are globular proteins, and have that blood plasma function as the Hemp Line Journal says. Also, immunoglobulins redirects to antibody, so it doesn't seem like it's a too far-fetched health claim. I'd use a better source from PubMed if I could, but I haven't seen this claim reproduced elsewhere for now, and this Hemp Line Journal study is the closest I've found to peer-review material on hemp protein properties (I don't know if it was peer-reviewed). I'm not trying to write original research, just citing sources. HempFan (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

So the question is if the two protein types in hemp actually are globular proteins, and have that blood plasma function as the Hemp Line Journal says. Well, as Jytdog and Roxy pointed out, this sources is not a WP:MEDRS source, so you can't use it for the claim you wanted to use it for. That's pretty much the end of the story. I'm commenting to offer you some advice: If you find a claim from a non-RS, and then do research yourself to determine whether or not that claim is likely true, you are engaging in Original research, even if you're using Wikipedia to do it. Nothing you discover by way of that original research can be added. Even if you were to find a MEDRS source which says hemp contains albumins, and another MEDRS source which says that injesting albumins boosts one's immune system, you would not be permitted to state that injesting hemp improves one's immune system. With any subject, there is the possibility of hidden variables, which can make a conclusion drawn from two well-supported facts wrong. This is especially true in medicine. In this case, the condition of the albumins in hemp might be unusable, or there might be additional chemical contents of the hemp that could render them inert, or there could be too many albumins in hemp for your body to process, leading your body to stop processing them at all or any of a number of other factors that could make your conclusion wrong. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, got it, I won't use that source then. HempFan (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Nutritional Outlook

Premananda Satsang Book 6

So a devotee of a swami would like to add some content about their teachings to the Wikipedia article, most of which is about his conviction as a rapist. I've found no reliable sources that summarize the teachings. The devotee has suggested a passage from a book where the swami summarized his teachings. The book is "Premananda Satsang Book 6". The book was apparently published by the Sri Premananda Trust (the swamis' estate) and you can get copies from the ashram in India or from various devotees.

See Talk:Swami_Premananda_(guru)#Premananda_Satsang_Book_6 for the content, which is a list of teachings.

In my view this is not a reliable source. Rather than just declaring that on the Talk page, I am getting input from the community here. Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Is there an ISBN for the book? If there is no ISBN, there is no way to actually verify the information. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I looked and found none. I asked, and was told by the proposer that there is no ISBN. Jytdog (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider it a reliable source then. If there is no ISBN, there is literally no way to check the accuracy of the book. I mean, someone could publish an edition of the book, claim it to be the accurate version and no one would be able to verify that fact. Best to leave out sources like these. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with that. Am just looking for confirmation from the community. I'll be surprised if anybody says "use it" but am checking. Jytdog (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the article is a bit unbalanced – he was a religious leader as well as a convicted criminal. I think the content on his crimes is fine, but maybe the article could say a little bit more about what he taught in his capacity as a religious leader. While ideally a secondary source would be used to provide this info, in the absence of a secondary source, I think it could be acceptable to use a primary source, even a self-published source. It can be acceptable to quote a person's own words in their biography even if those words were self-published. Now, about this particular book – I think we have insufficient evidence it actually exists or really says what is claimed to accept it. But if stronger evidence of its existence and contents could be obtained, I think we should be willing to consider quoting from it. I also think it might be worthwhile to refer to the site maintained by his followers. I think that might be a sufficiently reliable source for the purpose of establishing his own teachings. SJK (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

If the only notability of the Swami is for his crime, then the page has no right to exist and it should be AfD'ed. For the subject to be notable there should be at least two good reliable sources that establish the notability.

Coming back to the issue raised, anything the Swami wrote or taught is WP:PRIMARY source. It can only be used to supplement what is covered in SECONDARY sources, but cannot be used as the main source on its own. This particular PRIMARY source is essentially self-published, and so it is doubly prohibited. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3 you or anybody is welcome to nominate the article for deletion. The discussion on this one would be interesting. I think it would pass, but others may differ. Jytdog (talk) 05:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

François Asselineau, ad.

François Asselineau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thanks for the different replies about François Asselineau

One more, request -it was archived before replies-:

The following website leplus is the user-contributed/user-blog part of Le Nouvel Obs and is referred to at least 5 times on the page; this source shows some severe inacurracy in its quotes (of Asselineau), inaccurracy that was noted in the article TP. Should it be considered reliable though? Yours,--S.P.R. Lewitt (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: the archived case is here. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks, I had seen it but the section was archived before any reply to that very question.--S.P.R. Lewitt (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, user generated content is not reliable. Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

OK. Understood. I will leave a message on the TP of the article about this issue. Thanks a lot again--S.P.R. Lewitt (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

This leplus.nouvelobs.com article is referred to in the article François Asselineau as "The collaborative website Le Plus of the magazine L'Obs observed in an article edited by their news director Louise Pothier that ...", which explains it all: the author Louise Pothier is not just any external user, she is a professional journalist employed by this website, as he page says on the L'Obs website http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/journaliste/13660/louise-pothier.html ("Chef des infos du Plus, je suis également en charge de la rubrique médias.") Oliv0 (talk) 07:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

That source says it is by "Par C. M. Féministe" and edited by the person you name. But actually posted by some anonymous reader. Jytdog (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, in fact this is what is also said in the quote from the article above: "edited by their news director", and the citation used 5 times in the article starts "Pothier, Louise; Merlin, Caroline (23 September 2014)..." showing both as authors. Oliv0 (talk) 08:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

If a SPS like that is used, it needs to be attributed yes, but we only use SPS by someone who is an authority. Read WP:SPS. There is no reason to use user-generated content like this, especially not cited five times. That is not what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I also see the article starts with "LE PLUS", as if the website or their journalist and news director Louise Pothier was taking some responsibility for authorship, while WP:SPS seems to mean the opposite of this, no selection or editing, though indeed as the WP article says, it is a "collaborative website". Also note that this Le Plus article is mainly used as a secondary source in order to select for the WP article the most relevant information about his conspiracy theories within the primary sources given inline by Le Plus: an interview of François Asselineau at the popular TV program On n'est pas couché on Dailymotion, and one of the many videos explaining his views made by François Asselineau for Youtube. Oliv0 (talk) 09:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

This is user generated content by some random person and you cannot use it as a source. Cannot. Especially not in a WP:BLP article. I am going to the article now and removing it. Do not add it back and until you have consensus that it is actually OK. Right now you do not have it. I am not going to respond further; we can see what others have to say. Jytdog (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Folks we could really use more input here. I am going to cross-post at BLPN. I just removed this source from the article per BLP - you can see how it was deployed there, especially the paragraph at the bottom. Jytdog (talk) 12:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog is absolutely correct. If you can verify that user generated content is accurate, then you can cite whatever source you used to verify it. So there are no cases in which user-generated content is useful on Wikipedia (except of course, for every word written in article space in all of wikipedia, naturally).
Don't let my little note confuse you: That was a joke (probably a bad one, but still). As a source, we NEVER use user generated content for stuff like this. We produce such content, but we do so with the strictest standards on the web, and we still can't cite other wikipedia pages. So if WP isn't an RS, then no other such source could even be considered. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: The specificity of this case is that the objected weak secondary source (and the one I replaced it with) added no content to the primary sources and only served to avoid WP:SYN / WP:CHERRYPICKING, meaning they show the relevant parts in the primary sources, which else could be easily manipulated towards non-WP:NEUTRAL and WP:UNDUE. Because we are speaking of a politician with meagre electoral results and little notoriety but very active on the web, so there are a lot of promotional primary sources and a few critical secondary sources; if we remove the few secondary sources, only the {{ad}} part will remain. Oliv0 (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Oliv0: If removing information which is poorly sourced leaves nothing left but information which doesn't meet WP's standards for inclusion, then the article should be deleted. The best heuristic for notability is "do we have enough reliable sources to create an article for this subject?" If the answer is no, then the subject probably doesn't meet our notability guidelines. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleting the article has been tried many times, which has always been considered a disgrace that could only stem from that frwiki with bizarre notability rules. :) (Nobody noticed yet that the main defender of the article there, Lawren00 had a big COI.) Now that François Asselineau has been deemed notable on frwiki, the article would certainly not be deleted here. Oliv0 (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

To be blunt, the fact that another language wiki has an article on the subject doesn't establish notability. If notability cannot be established using reliable sources, then notability is not established. If you can scrape together enough reliable sources to make for a stub article, then I'd take that route. With time, eventually enough news sources will cover the subject to expand the article then. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Youtube interview with show manager at Epcot

Library of Congress using Wikipedia as a source

There is a longstanding dispute at Laura Branigan over how best to indicate her contested birth year - a footnote sets out the current consensus, but one editor in particular continues to bring forward sources in an attempt to set out the "true" position and change the article wording. Anyway, one of the sources is this, in which the Library of Congress appears to have used an earlier version of the Wikipedia article to give its apparently preferred birth year (as shown at Additional Information: Birth Date). Is this a matter of concern? Am I right in assuming that normally we would consider the LoC as a WP:RS? Does this have any wider implications? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

One would expect Library of Congress to be a reliable source, although in creating name authority files the information is usually based on the first published source found (so if this includes an error the error is reified). It is surprising to see Wikipedia being used by them as a source. In this case LoC's use of WP does not confer any additional or definitive weighting the the WP entry at that date - it would presumably have followed whichever date was in the revision at the point in time it was viewed. It is worth noting in the article though, since its inclusion in the LoC entry will mean that it will be propagated widely.Martinlc (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I say we cite the LoC for the birthdate and all scream "wheeeee!" as we spin round and round, down the drain... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Consider the advice of Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Conflict_between_sources Rhoark (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

At the time Wikipedia was cited it had used references that have since then been questioned and proven not a strong argument. Ultimately, Wikipedia can't reference past Wikipedia edits to prove that previous Wikipedia stance is now right after it being determined that it is not a month or two ago. To me, it is fair to say like with any source/reference, reading it and researching how they came to the conclusion is a far better way to know. I never trust a reference til I can trace its path to its source. Anytime a website makes a User-generated content page a source, that right there takes down usefulness of the source a peg, and in context here, (thank god they gave a date) we can see what was likely changed because of Wikipedia. The birthdate. Devilmanozzy (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Census documents from FamilySearch

Iran–Iraq War

Coconut Cures: Preventing and Treating Common Health Problems with Coconut

Bruce Fife (2005), Coconut Cures: Preventing and Treating Common Health Problems with Coconut, Piccadilly Books, Ltd., p. 151, ISBN 978-0-94-159960-3{{citation}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)

Used in Yogurt in this edit.

Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The author, Bruce Fife, is a naturopath and therefore a charlatan-quack. The book is an advertisement for selling his publications and services, containing a long list of ludicrous, unproven health claims. Searching PubMed for any published record by Fife on topics he favors, there is not a single peer-reviewed article. The Coconut Cures book is not a WP:SECONDARY source, but rather WP:OR, and does not satisfy acceptable sourcing for a food or medical topic like yogurt per WP:MEDRS. Reviewing Fife's book titles, keep in mind consumer advice from the FTC: "take a dose of skepticism". --Zefr (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

This is easy to solve by just bringing a better source. I did so here, using Don Tribby. Yoghurt. Chapter 8 in The Sensory Evaluation of Dairy Products. Eds. Stephanie Clark, et al. Springer Science & Business Media, 2009 ISBN 9780387774084 Page 191 Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, Jytdog. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

For the record, and so people don't think I'm a complete dip, I posted here to head off an edit war. See Talk:Yogurt#Disputed_source. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Zefr: First off, do you have a reliable source saying that Bruce Fife is a charlatan and quack, we cannot just assume that anyone who would write on food items or benefits of food would just be anything that we assume them to be. The link you provided for The book is an advertisement is a website posting by someone Kerry Wennersten, anyone is free to recommend anything in their personal capacity, it has nothing to do with the content of the book or the authenticity of the author. We cannot associate the author and the book with anyone who positively reviews it or recommends it. Second link you provided have an article by Bruce Fife. I know many authors who write books and who also write for newpapers and websites, i am not sure how this makes you or anyone else to discredit his book. Please keep in mind that the content being sourced has no ludicrous claims in it, just don't go by the name of the book, you are looking at the name of the book and not the content, there is no miracle claims in the content in the article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

User:SheriffIsInTown there is a good source there now that nobody can argue with, so there is no reason to continue the dispute. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I will like this discussion to continue to decide whether this source is reliable to use in food related articles because I can see that this source can be used in other food articles and I had a couple in mind where I wanted to use it after reading it. I found a Google Books url and added it on top of this discussion for further reference. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Certainly not; this is a WP:FRINGE source that cannot be used here, as it fails all our tests of reliability. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Orangemike: I had Kefir and Filmjolk in mind and not Coconut! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

See Zefr's advice above: this Fife guy is not a reliable source for anything whatsoever. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Legal issues on Decentralized autonomous organization

Brad Pitt considered for Apollo 13?

Issue on Northern Ireland 'flag'

The long standing position on Wikipedia is that Northern Ireland does not have a specific flag - it did at one stage (The Ulster Banner) but that is now associated with Unionism and has been excluded by various orders in Parliament from official use. There is currently a campaign over several articles by several SPA editors to reinstate it. As part of that argument they have advanced a recent video Northern Ireland Flag flown on horseback during the Queen's 90th birthday celebrations on 15th May 2016 - from 59m:50s, YouTube Mirror as evidence of official use. The video shows it briefly with horsemen in historical costumes there is no supporting material. It has been reverted by three experienced editors. Probably the best summary was: "A video is rarely a reliable source. That one certainly is not. It does not describe the flag or its significance, and interpreting it yourself is original research. Furthermore it is a copyright violation not an official news report, so not a reliable source or otherwise an appropriate link as we should never link to copyright violations" by User:JohnBlackburne. The discussion can be found here. No attempt is being made to reach consensus either, we simply have a series of editors inserting the material. Supporting evidence on the 'official' status can be found on the same talk page.

There are at least two questions that need attention:

Is the video a reliable source to establish official use of the Ulster banner in any way?
Is the insertion of a reference to its use at the 90th Birthday celebration valid in respect of sourcing or weight?

Nothing is ever easy on issues here and of course we have the general 1RR restriction on Troubles articles. So some experienced and independent views would be appreciated ----Snowded ^TALK 20:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It is a primary source that the flag appeared to have been used. As with primary sources, the problem is that it is left up tio editirs to interpret that this was an officially authorised and deliberate use intended to reflect that the UK authorities considered the flag to represent modern Northern Ireland. Such an interpretation would need significantly stronger sources since there are alternative explanations which appear to be more likely. Unless the issue has been noted in otehr sources, inclusion here is UNDUE.Martinlc (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Snowded misrepresented how the source is used in the article. The article just says "used at royal events", nothing like what Snowded has inserted here in this claim. Yes, it is a primary source, but no interpretation is required other than saying that the flag was used. As policy states "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source". Even Snowded admits this to be the case from that source that the Northern Ireland flag was used in this royal event, hence supporting the text to that effect in the article.IrishBriton (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Snowded has misrepresented the usage of the source in the article. All the Flag of Northern Ireland article states using that source is that the flag is "used at British Royal events" (As even Snowded admits is true). The video clearly illustrates this use at a British royal event, and video is perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia. The post above is full of irrelevant spurious material by mentioning many other issues which do not refer source in question such as status of being "official" or not. Snowded is also in a minority in objecting the inclusion of a perfectly valid source, most likely due to his own political biases, and is against the majority consensus in favour of using the source. IrishBriton (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the video is a primary source for the simple fact that the flag was flown at this event. The point about copyright above is well made. However, ITV itself has made the whole event available to view online here , for another 22 days. After that, it will be archived, and per WP:Identifying Reliable Sources "audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet." In this instance, ITV is the reliable third party recording, broadcasting and archiving this event that was organised and staged by another party - the organising committee of The Queen's 90th Birthday Celebration. No interpretation is required that the flags of the four nations were flown at this royal event, simple observation will suffice, and I note that the video has been added to Flag of England, Flag of Scotland and Flag of Wales without controversy. I would add this to Snowded's query here: if the officially-printed order-of-event and programme should indicate that the four flags were in fact flown to represent the four constituent countries, would that support language to that effect being added to the articles? Miles Creagh (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

To work things out here at RSN we need the actual statement and the source. Here is one of the ways it was used (dif) (the underlined parts are what were deleted here)

It is still in common use;^[1] especially by loyalists/unionists, by some local government authorities under unionist control, to represent Northern Ireland internationally in some sporting competitions, and during some British royal events.^[2]

References

[1]
Flags monitoring project 2006. p.25. Quote: "the meaning attached by people to these regional flags can vary. This is particularly true of the Northern Ireland or Ulster flag which would have been extensively used by loyalists since 1972. Also, it has no official status as a flag for Northern Ireland."
[2]
Northern Ireland Flag flown on horseback during the Queen's 90th birthday celebrations on 15th May 2016 - from 59m:50s, YouTube Mirror

In my view, the youtube video is out per WP:ELNEVER. The itv.com source is kind of OK but

it cannot be used to generalize - the proposed content is plural, and this was one event.
there are issues of UNDUE that always arise when using sources like this. It would be much better to have some secondary source noting that the use of the flag was at all significant. this report on the horse pageant from The Telegraph doesn't mention it, for example. In fact, per this google search, the only site that noted the use of the flag in the horse pageant is... our article. ack.

So this is making a mountain out of a molehill, and I would leave it out. There must be better sources describing the general use of the flag at royal events. And let me just say, what a bummer to make such an ugly dispute from such a sweet event. Jytdog (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, this is helpful. I agree that the youtube vid is out, and that the itv.com source is ok. I also agree that it would be optimum to have secondary sourcing. For instance, the article currently includes in this section the statement that - "When flags representing the "Home Countries" of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are flown at official ceremonies, Northern Ireland is sometimes represented by the St. Patrick's Cross, for instance on the barge Gloriana during the 2012 Thames Diamond Jubilee Pageant.^[1] - sourced to a guide to the flags flown at the Thames Pagaent published by The Flag Institute. Is this the sort of secondary sourcing you have in mind?

References

[1]
Bartram, Graham (2012). "A Visual Guide to the Flags used in the Thames Diamond Jubilee Pageant" (PDF). The Flag Institute. p. 5. Archived from the original (PDF) on 8 November 2012. Retrieved 6 April 2016.

Miles Creagh (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Well that is still a one-off. I have this notion that may be wrong, that royal stuff has protocol up the wazoo. Maybe if this is true much of it is oral tradition, but are there published protocols for how N Ireland is represented flagwise at royal events, generally? Or any reliable sources with general statements? Jytdog (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking less of a general statement, and more something like this, from the Flag of England article:

In May 2016, the St George's cross was flown from horseback^[1] during The Queen's 90th birthday celebration at Windsor, alongside the flags of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales

References

[1]
St George's cross flown on horseback during the Queen's 90th birthday celebrations on 15th May 2016 - from 59m:50s, YouTube Mirror

-— Preceding unsigned comment added by Miles Creagh (talk • contribs) 05:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

~~Yikes, the Saint Patrick's Saltire is not the flag of northern ireland, is it? Seems like that content is inaccurate.~~ But yes that content is completely supported by the source. Yes. Now you all just have to work out the UNDUE issue, which is more difficult. As I said in my view, this is kind of a one-off and not really encyclopedic; a WP:NOTNEWS kind of thing. I wouldn't use it in either article. That's my view. Jytdog (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC) (it actually was the UB not the saltire. Jytdog (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC))

No, the Saint Patrick's Saltire is not the flag of NI and yes, I agree the ITV video supports that content, i.e. a simple statement that the flag was flown at that event alongside the other flags of the Countries of the United Kingdom. As to UNDUE, it does seem like a lot of vexillology articles include observational-type information about particular - even singular - uses. I do agree a secondary source offering interpretation and establishing significance would be optimum here though.Miles Creagh (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The event in question was organised by the Royal Windsor Horse Show to honour the Queen, as such it was not an official event and there have been no citations to support or comment on its significance, There are orders in Parliament that do not include the UB in the list of flags which may be flow and the context of those orders is disputes over flags - something that is not the case in the other three countries of the UK. The real problem here is original research in that clip from the video is being used to provide evidence to support statements that the UB is the official flag of Northern Ireland: a sectarian position. No one disputes it is used in some limited contexts along with several other symbols. Hence my identifying two questions that need to be resolved. I don't think that the video can be used in any way to support the official status question (but I brought that one here for some independent views). If it is used to say it was used at an event then we would need to day that the it was organised by the Royal Windsor Horse Show to avoid people drawing the wrong conclusions and then we have to ask how relevant it is if there was no commentary in any other source? ----Snowded ^TALK 05:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

No, the event was held at the Royal Windsor Horse show arena, it was organised by - oddly enough - the organising committee for The Queen's 90th Birthday Celebration, (Patron HRH The Prince of Wales, Chairman Sir Mike Rake). Can you provide the diffs where the video is "being used to support statements that the UB is the official flag of NI"? I haven't seen that at the various articles at all. Thanks! Miles Creagh (talk) 06:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I think Miles is advocating for a very limited statement here akin to the statement above from the other article, which is different from how it was used before. The specific content for which the source is being used really does matter. Snowded do you object to that? Jytdog (talk) 06:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the specific wording I suggest would be simply: "In May 2016 the Ulster Banner was flown from horseback during The Queen's 90th birthday celebration at Windsor, alongside the flags of England, Scotland and Wales." Miles Creagh (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

There are still significant issues with UNDUE, but unless he has changed his mind Miles ambitions for the source are not so limited. His opening statement here and other comments on the Flag article indicate otherwise. We have a concerted attempt here to re-establish the UB as representing Northern Ireland by a small group of largely SP editors against a long standing position supported by references and this video was put forward as supporting that position. Ideally any statement on the one time use should indicate it was at a historical pageant or the reference to the other country flags should not be included. So either ""In May 2016 the Ulster Banner was flown from horseback during a historical pageant at the Queen's 90th birthday celebration at Windsor, alongside the flags of England, Scotland and Wales." or ""In May 2016 the Ulster Banner was flown from horseback during The Queen's 90th birthday celebration at Windsor." Either wording avoids the danger of misinterpretation. However I suspect Miles is not prepared to withdraw the assertion that this is evidence for wider use of the UB on other articles, That is his position on the two RfCs on the flag article and in the reference given in the opening link on my comment. If I am wrong on that great but lets have it on record. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

you are getting into some nitty gritty details there. The first version you propose seems reasonable to me. Deals made on noticeboards are pretty much "binding" so the use should be limited to that sentence, in the body of the article. I would struggle with that being added to the lead as it is not generalizable. This seems to be a reasonable compromise. Miles can you live with that? Jytdog (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

There's seems little doubt that the consensus (if such there ever was ) around "no flag" for Northern Ireland is currently shifting across the encyclopaedia. But that's a broader set of issues involving multiple sources, most of which are not in dispute. We are concerned here with a single source, and a single proposed statement. What do you think would be the sourcing for the interpretation that this was "a historical paegant"? Why not just use the official name, also used by the ITV source, "The Queen's 90th Birthday Celebration"? Also, what would be the justification for omitting reference to the other country flags? They are clearly visible in the video and all part of the same sequence, no? (I do agree that the lead is probably not the place for this, however). Miles Creagh (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Your opening sentence (which is inaccurate) emphases why I brought this matter here for independent editors to examine. We are concerned with two issues here not one. The first is if the reference can be used as a reliable source to support any enhanced status for the UB as representing Northern Ireland as a whole, the second is the specific quote. I've suggested a compromise on the latter point and I'm looking for formal clarification on the first (the more important issue). ----Snowded ^TALK 07:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, let's allow other editors to examine the bigger issue, here and elsewhere. We won't resolve that here. We can and should work together to resolve the question of the specific source and quote. In that regard, it would be useful if you could respond to my questions about what would be the sourcing for the interpretation that this was "a historical paegant", and what would be the justification for omitting reference to the other country flags, which are all part of the same sequence? Miles Creagh (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The same source as you - observation of the video. Personally I don't think the source supports any inclusion of any material. if it is used then the phrasing must not be used to make a wider statement - hence my giving you two options. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Miles, Snowded's first proposal that I mentioned was: "In May 2016 the Ulster Banner was flown from horseback during a historical pageant at the Queen's 90th birthday celebration at Windsor, alongside the flags of England, Scotland and Wales." sourced to this in the body. That mentions all the flags. That seems reasonable. Do you accept this? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The UNDUE issue appears insurmountable. If the only people ever to note the appearance of the flag in the show are wikipedia editors, it cannot be said to be of sufficient significance to merit inclusion in the article.Martinlc (talk) 09:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

There is also the commonsense requirement to not twist the facts in that displays like that are seen by millions of people and she is the sovereign. It shows that saying outright that it is deprecated or unofficial is not altogether right even if the opposite would just be wrong. I don't think one can just remove it but straight factual description should be okay. As far as documents saying it is unofficial or must not be used are concerned it means I think one would have to qualify a little as in describing that as the main position but not a definitive position. Basically it gives proof of something that cannot be ignored whatever UNDUE says. Dmcq (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

What people saw on television is not encyclopedic content. It is your interpretation that it shows that the flag's use is not deprecate or unofficial, rather than, say, historical. It should not be hard to find reliable sources which are aware of the debate on the flag's status and which have noted its appearance here. And if it is hard, then it doesn't belong on the Wikipedia page. Martinlc (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, yes that is perfectly acceptable to me. Miles Creagh (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Miles, great. User:Dmcq it would be invalid to use the source for anything other than the narrow statement that is under discussion; you cannot use it the way you are discussing. If you don't intend to use it that way, then making the claim you did above is just inflammatory and gets in the way of reaching consensus. Please clarify if you intend to use the source the way you are discussing. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with a straightforward statement like you put forward. I do have a problem with removing it based on that people did not write about it. I explained why. And there's no getting round that a straightforward statement of the facts will qualify the sources saying it is unofficial and deprecated. It doesn't have to be used for anything more in the article but that will be the implication. And we can't write any suppositions about it implying anything or not implying anything. That is why there is an argument over it and why some people are so intent on removing it and others on keeping it. Dmcq (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Your answer is unclear. Are you going to use sourced content to make some claim refuting "unofficial and deprecated" or not? The only valid answer here is "no"; if you say "yes" I will shift my support away from allowing use of this source because it is primary and highly liable to abuse, and using it to refute a claim refuting "unofficial and deprecated" would be abuse. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I thought I had made myself extremely clear that I support what you said and no more but also no less. I was pointing out that even though it isn't written to refute a claim and is written about as neutrally and factually as possible, it will in the real world affect the claims in the citations saying it is unofficial and deprecated to make them less definitive. Dmcq (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

If we had a biography about a person and there was lots of citations saying they had died when they were 95 but a picture showed them under a reliably sourced banner saying Happy 100 years and giving their name would it be right to exclude the picture because the citations said they died earlier? No we have to put in both and just report neutrally what the picture shows. Dmcq (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

You have actually made yourself clear now.

This source is not reliable for the way it is intended to be used. This article is apparently highly contested and this primary source and content based on is apparently going to be abused to make arguments broader than what it can bear, and it is not reliable for that purpose. Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Exactly what abuse would there be in putting the statement you wrote into the article? In the case of the 100/95 year old exactly what would be served by removing the picture and is it a commonsense reason? Dmcq (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

You made that clear in your answer to my question. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

"for the way it is intended to be used". And what is that? User:Snowded has indeed misrepresented how this was intended to be used. The only intent I would see for it would be to say that the flags of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales were displayed. A simple statement that they were displayed at this royal event is all the source would be used for. Jonto (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

this is the problematic statement by Dmcq: it will in the real world affect the claims in the citations saying it is unofficial and deprecated to make them less definitive. it is not coming into the article if this is how it will be used in the article; and that is the statement of intent. Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

This is my concern - what is purported to to be bald statement of verifiable fact is, in this context, being used to imply that other, sourced, statements in the article are incorrect. There is no other reason for its presence in the article, and since the interpretation is not supported by the primary source, and has been made by no secondary source, it should not be included. There are sound policy reasons (primary, undue and notnews) for considering it unencyclopedic. Martinlc (talk) 08:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes that is the primary concern. However usage or approval of a symbol by the monarch has very high weight for showing that it is not a deprecated symbol of the state and has some sort of function, and having it displayed like that to the world should count as far as I can see as publication. We can't interpret it exactly but it was done and I can't see how burying the fact now we know about it is in line with the aims of the encyclopaedia. Dmcq (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

If the Queen waved the flag the case would be arguable. But as it is we are required to believe that the organisers of an event, which is not a state function, but which included some royal representatives, must have considered the current status of the flag and decided that it should be used, reflecting policy and the preferences of the Queen. This chain of reasoning is too weak to support a statement that use of the flag is endorsed by the Queen, or the state. The College of Arms is the body responsible to determining the approved use of flags and in the absence of a statement for them that the flag may be used then it is better for the article to remain silent.Martinlc (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The government refers to the Flags Institute, not the College of Arms in its regulations even though the College of Arms is the official one. Endorsed would be a bit strong a sit requires interpretation but it seems strange that nobody would have checked up on it considering the amount of checking that goes into everything else like that and how they are sticklers for getting things right. Personally I have a suspicion that some section of the army supports the Ulster Banner whatever the civil side of government says about it and that's why it was there but that is just my feeling. And then again perhaps they did think about it and decide that overall it was the right thing to do. We don't know. But it certainly wasn't just some street or town party sort of thing where one might expect odd things to happen. Dmcq (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The government may refer to the Flag Inistute but the Queen folows the Coleg of Arms, who have advised "You are correct that the present position is that there is no Flag for Northern Ireland. The Flag for the former Government of Northern Ireland (Stormont) featuring a Cross of St George surmounted by a crowned six-pointed star charged with a red hand is sometimes seen but has no official status today. The College of Arms is the official body with oversight over all matters relating to the registration and flying of Flags. Any new design once selected would need to be submitted to The Queen through the College of Arms and would then be officially recorded here." I know this is a primary source but I think clarifies that the Queen and those associated with her had no intention to alter the status of the flag through its appearance in this event. Martinlc (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that people are getting off topic. The only question for this noticeboard is whether it is a reliable source to state the flag was used -- that is how it is used in the article at present -- and that is something requiring no complex interpretation and an acceptable use of a primary source. Other concerns are none of the business of this noticeboard. This was not helped by the initial misrepresentation of this use by the User:Snowded who seems to have a politically-motivated hatred of the Northern Ireland flag. Jonto (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

True but part of RS is whether the source supports the statement which implicitly raises the question of whether the statement should be made in the first place. There isn't an UNDUE or NOTNEWS or PRIMARY noticeboard so this may be best forum to review content in the light of WP policies.Martinlc (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The question is always whether a source is reliable to be used in a specific way - see the instructions at the top of this page. The limited use proposed by Miles is fine but Dmcq's proposed use is not, so the source cannot come in. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I was pointing out a real world fact about its appearance in that article whereas in the way it would be presented there is absolutely no such problems in articles about the other countries of the UK. Please don't talk about me as proposing to use it to push a point of view. Dmcq (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I am just reacting to what you wrote here - the thing I quoted. I didn't say you are pushing any POV. Jytdog (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

This board is certainly a terrific resoure! I have another source-related question to ask here. In this section of the Flag of Northern Ireland article is this edit beginning "In 2013 US diplomat Richard Haass..." supported by this source, an article from The Irish Times which pictures this flag, identifies it as "the Northern Ireland flag" and indicates there was at that time (December 2013) a proposal to replace it with a new flag? Miles Creagh (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

We know it is often called the flag of Northern Ireland, but I don't see that has much to do with whether it is currently the flag symbol for the country Northern Ireland. Wouldn't sources that deal with that question or have some sort of weight in the question be better? Dmcq (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is is often called the flag of Northern Ireland. In fact, that is how it is most commonly known and per Wikipedia:Commonname "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article". But I was hoping for specific guidance here on the use of The Irish Times article to support a specific edit about the Haass proposals of December 2013. Miles Creagh (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Your quote from the article title policy is backward - just because we should use an objects most common name for a title does not mean that if an objects most common name appears in a title it is specifically about that. And yes that citation is perfectly okay for supporting something about the Haass report but I'd have thought there were better ones. Dmcq (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

And one more query. Would page 226 of "Flags and Arms Across The World", by Whitney Smith (McGraw-Hill, 1980) support the inclusion of this flag in the pictorial table of flag icons at the Countries of the United Kingdom article? (Link is to my Google-plus page, to which I took the liberty of scanning the relevant page. The cite would be to the Smith book, obviously.) Miles Creagh (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Further to the above query - does this article in todays's edition of The Guardian, which pictures four flags and identifies them as flags of the countries of the UK, support the inclusion of this

flag in the table of flag icons at Countries of the United Kingdom?Miles Creagh (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

For uninvolved editors - take a look at the Flag of Northern Ireland article to see the many citations as to why the UB is not the flag of Northern Ireland and why a 1980 source cannot be used to support a political position given all that has happened to Northern Ireland since. Jonto, you have been warned about personal attacks on Troubles related articles once already I suggest you retract that or it will be easy to link to the admin who picked you up on the issue last time. We have a very very long standing consensus position on wikipedia that there is no flag for Northern Ireland (although there has been one in the past). ----Snowded ^TALK 21:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

A lot of nonsense - there has never been such a consensus. Not once in this discussion have you been on topic as to how the source actually is used. Jonto (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

In what year do you contend the UB ceased to be the flag of NI and how are you sourcing that? Miles Creagh (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Multiple discussions on the relevant page - regardless of minor disputes as to when it ceased to be, there is no question that it has so ceased ----Snowded ^TALK 22:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

This is the Reliable Souces notice board, but you're not bringing any sources to support a pretty major contention? WP:SOAP. Miles Creagh (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Is the American Heraldry Society a reliable source for heraldry?

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Heraldry Society. United States heraldry and List of personal coats of arms of Presidents of the United States, at the very least, depend heavily on this society as a source. It's the only source for Armorial of the Vice Presidents of the United States and is used in quite a few other articles. Doug Weller talk 12:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

While I have only performed a brief examination into the society, my impression is they should be treated in a manner similar to local historical societies and considered suitable for use as a source on topics within the organization's limited range of expertise. The point of confusion seems to be the AfD. There is no requirement that a source satisfy Wikipedia:Notability before it is considered reliable. The AfD was about the fact there appear to be no third-party sources that provide more than passing references to the society and is not an inquiry into bad information or lack of academic/intelectual integrity by the society. --Allen3 ^talk 14:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Allen is s correct... The issue of whether the organization is notable is separate from the issue of it reliability as a source. A notable organization can be an unreliable source... And a non-notable organization can be reliable.

As to the reliability issue (and just the reliability issue) I would place it on the reliable side of the line. Not "highly reliable" ... But "reliable enough". Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I came here at the notification of Doug Weller. I am ambivalent as to whether or not the AHS is a reliable source. I'm, frankly, not even that passionate about its deletion (I was the nominator of the AfD). I will not object if the article is restored. I accept this is an extremely niche topic and that, if we apply normative standards of reliability, we may end up culling most of the articles about it. I'm certainly open to any and all suggestions. BlueSalix (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, note, I am considering AFD'ing American College of Heraldry. Any thoughts? BlueSalix (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess I would ask whether there are any reference works in the field of heraldry, broadly construed, which might indicate their notability within that field, or, alternately, any list type articles which might be notable enough for inclusion here which might mention them. John Carter (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm very aware that reliable sources don't have to have their own articles or satisfy our notability criteria, and that the opposite is true, just because it has its own article doesn't mean a source is reliable (although I've seen people make that argument). However, the AfD turned up what seems to be a case of a source without reliable sources discussing it, which does raise the issue as to whether it is a reliable source, right? @Blueboar and Allen3: what are your reasons for considering them a reliable source? Not all local history societies are reliable sources. I'm aware of one US local history society which holds a number of clearly fringe views on history. Some are very good, some are ok, some are not very good at all. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess the first question I might raise is whether they have a publication with an ISSN or similar which indicates that they are in some way a "legit" society. If they are, they probably qualify as being RS widely construed, although their works might not be considered optimal and almost certainly wouldn't necessarily be considered grounds for notability. Having said that, there exists a second, more directly relevant, point as to whether their work might be minority or fringe in some way. I have a very strong suspicion that a lot of them might present minority or fringe views, particularly if it relates to local fringe beliefs, like maybe the Kensington Runestone. Or articles about specific groups as they exist or have existed in their particular area, which might be markedly different from the norm, and might also be written in a way more reflective of local biases than reality. Local history journal articles on Freemasonry, and some churches, and other membership groups come to mind as possibilities here.

Regarding this particular topic, I have to wonder how many US presidents might not have known or cared about whether their personal coat of arms even existed, and/or who found out what they were or created them, and possibly other things as well. This might well be a case where the source might be minimally reliable, but not one we should be using over better, more widely known or reputed sources, and it might even be the case that, if material can only be based on sources from this group, there might be a question whether it should be included in articles at all. John Carter (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Intersection of BLP and RS

A lead with only a quotation from a dictionary

I have looked around for a more appropriate forum for this question, but my search has been in vain. Hopefully, you would still provide me with some feedback.

My concern is with a short stub article that has a single line as a lead, which happens to be a quotation from a dictionary. I would appreciate views regarding my position. I do not think to start an article with a dictionary quote is good practice.

The way I read this unofficial guide (WP:QUOTE) is that quotations should be used when they "explain things better and less controversially." Not only is Wikipedia not a dictionary (WP:NOTDIC), but dictionaries as sources should be used only with care, as this non-policy essay explains: (WP:DICTDEF). But more importantly, as a matter of policy, the lead is (WP:BETTER) the "summary of [the article's] most important contents" (WP:LEAD), and "The article should begin with a short declarative sentence," not with a quote. And while quotes are not prohibited from the lead (WP:LEADCITE) (I have used them many times), "Citations are often omitted from the lead section of an article, insofar as the lead summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article," (WP:WHENNOTCITE). If an editor thinks a citation belongs in the lead section, they "should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." (MOS:LEAD).

I believe that starting an article with a dictionary quote relinquishes our duties as editors to explain and describe the issues we claim to know. It may be seen as a quick and lazy way of tackling the problem. As I mentioned above, I still think that quotes in the lead can be useful at times, but not here.

Thanks for your thoughts.

71.63.91.85 (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a policy WP:NOTDICT and that would be my main problem with having a dictionary definition in the first sentence. Articles should be on topics rather than just dictionary terms. There is possibly an article there but there should be some source that talks specifically about soft targets to show it is a notable topic in itself rather than just being a term in another topic. Dmcq (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

In the case in question, the opposite end of the target spectrum, hard target, is currently a disambig page with a link to the "soft target' page. That being the case, I tend to wonder whether we are choosing one term out of two available to describe a concept relating to both. Targets of terrorist attacks or similar would seem to me to be the more neutral title which could easily include material on hard and soft targets and not give any sort of priority to one term over the other. John Carter (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Dmcq and John Carter, thanks for your thoughts, which go beyond my initial inquiry. If I read you correctly, Dmcq is suggesting that the current lead fails to adhere to the WP:NOTDICT standard by confining the article to a term definition (assuming that the lead set the tone of the article). I think that John Carter is saying that if there is going to be a single article on the topic of targets it should be something like Targets of terrorist attacks because such an article would comprise both, the hard and soft targets. I am not sure about this, however, since soft and hard targets can also refer to issues unrelated to terrorism. Yet, I think that by bringing attention to the lack of an article on hard targets you showed the need for reworking the article either by extending it into a new article or writing a single one with both topics, the hard and the soft.
As a whole, I take your inputs as supporting my opposition for beginning the article with a dictionary quotation. So, I will next remove the quotation from the lead sentence hoping this step will encourage others to rework the article as suggested above, and perhaps add one for the hard targets. Thanks for your input. Cheers, 71.63.91.85 (talk) 11:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI- Change of mind. I decided to wait for a response from the editor who has resisted my change to the lead before. 71.63.91.85 (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

We can't have an article that's a simply dictionary definition, but there is no bar against using a dictionary as a source, especially to get a handle on a term with a sort of hazy definition. On some occasions, a well-chosen and short quote from a dictionary may be far better than making up a definition ad hoc. Neutrality^talk 18:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality Thanks for joining. This is a borderline issue (almost a policy/rule violation), in some respect, and bad practice in two others. Nobody is contesting your argument about including a quote. Yes, quotes can be written in the lead, but as it is implied in the WP:WHENNOTCITE, their inclusion is not a given. They should be justified by proving we can't do it better, and as I said, that is like relinquishing our tasks as editors. In addition, as we have discussed, dictionaries are to be used sparingly, when strictly necessary. For most issues, as a source, dictionaries are not above wikipedia. So, why use it to open the article? Those were the bad practice points. The borderline charge is what Dmcq referred above. If the lead sets the tone and direction of the article (WP:LEAD) and you are quoting from a dictionary, and that is your entire and sole lead, you are in fact defining the article as a dictionary entry. And finally, policy requires that if a quote will be included in the lead, it should be done through consensus (MOS:LEAD). The only thing I am asking is that we construct a better lead, and use the dictionary as a support, and not as a defining source. 71.63.91.85 (talk) 03:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

edited to add what I mean by "again" here. Source has-been discussed previously

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks