Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:RSN" redirects here. For "Wikipedia will be ready real soon now", see meta:Eventualism.
Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.
Before posting, please be sure to include the following information, if available:
Shortcuts:
  • Source. The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example: [http://www.website.com/webpage.html].
  • Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: [[Article name]].
  • Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y".
While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.
Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability.
If you are looking for a copy of a specific source, please ask at the resource exchange board.
Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178

Known issues section of Nexus 5[edit]

The known issues section of Nexus 5 was removed because none of the sources are considered valid. could an independent party check them one by one?

Wendy Davis (politician)[edit]

At issue is if these sources are sufficient to state that Davis graduated at the top of her class. [1]

--NeilN talk to me 16:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a wee bit of an oversimplification of the issue at hand. The cites given use her campaign website as the primary source for the claim "top of her class" for which I can find no reliable secondary sources. Since this is being used as a parenthetical bit of fluff, I suggest we would need sources which are secondary and not simply ones which refer to her official campaign biography which was shown to have a couple of problems in a minor controversy. Had it not been shown to have problems, I would not be as concerned, but it was and so it is.
The proper question is "If a campaign biography has been shown to have inaccuracies, can we assert in Wikipedia's voice that it is accurate for other matters?" again noting that the sources provided all appear to rely on the campaign biography, including copying of entire sentences therefrom. Collect (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
No, you have given no proof that the listed sources have used her campaign website without error checking. --NeilN talk to me 18:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The statement that Davis graduated at the top of her class at TCU is supported by Texas Tribune piece (initially published by the New York Times), the New Republic, and by TCU itself. This is more than ample sourcing to support such a relatively innocuous and uncontroverted statement. Frankly I don't understand why a trip to this noticeboard was necessary for such a clear-cut case. MastCell Talk 04:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Especially as Davis' life story has been heavily scrutinized for inconsistencies and no source has been presented challenging that text. --NeilN talk to me 15:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Except one should note, for example, that CNN ascribed claims to her autobiography, the wording of the various sources seems to be identical in too many places to have been independently verified, and the use of any campaign website or press release is iffy as a source. Other than that, we all know she was number one in her class, and the most notable alumna of her uni ever. Cheers -- does anyone understand that fluff claims do not belong on BLPs? Collect (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I find the position that a university website is not reliable for where a student places in the class of that university beyond bizarre. Yobol (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I will be adding back the statement tomorrow as Collect has not provided a shred of evidence the claim was not verified and was challenged. --NeilN talk to me 03:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The "university website" contains quotes from her campaign website, and even has misspellings to boot. Amazingly enough the "university website" appears to print press releases. Cheers. As for the suggestion that "top of her class" has been shown to be true, that is a matter for consensus at this point, but the fact is that there are zero actual independent sources for the claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Collect: No editor here agrees with your "zero actual independent sources" assertion. --NeilN talk to me 00:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Show me a source which does not have exact quotes from her campaign biography. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Show me where any source disputes this reporting by the NY Times, "Their daughter, Dru, was born in 1988 and, after Ms. Davis graduated from Texas Christian University at the top of her class in 1990, she set her sights on Harvard Law School." --NeilN talk to me 02:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Several sources generally considered reliable have reported the matter, including the website of the university that honored her as "alumni of the year". No reliable source has been identified which questions the assertion, and it is widely known that her political opponents scrutinize her claims intensely. I respect Collect's skepticism on such matters in general, but am unconvinced by Collect's arguments here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
If a reliable source says she graduated at the top of her class then we can say that too. Reliable sources are supposed to weigh evidence and determine whether it is correct. We should not question them except whether different sources are in conflict. TFD (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Sukkot section removed[edit]

This edit http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/high-holy-days-2014/high-holy-day-news-and-features/.premium-1.619440 has been removed on the grounds that

The article fails WP:V since it is accessible only to subscribers. The source itself is an online newspaper, known to be leftist, hardly a WP:RS for the origins of religious traditions. The article makes non-mainstream claims, admitting that they are speculative. The writer is a popularizer at most, whose credentials are unclear. As can be seen on this list of his recent articles he makes large claims, giving the impression his articles are more about sensation than academic reliability. The first claim has now been withdrawn. I have argued that this is an RS. The newspaper is perfectly acceptable and the writer's other articles if they are indeed relevant, do not justify the term sensational.


Author Elon Gilad

Article SukkotTheredheifer (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The claim that this material was removed on those grounds is misleading, since much discussion followed after that first post of mine on Talk:Sukkot#Another_.22source.22_removed. Not posting a link to that discussion was not nice. I suggest the discussion should continue there. Debresser (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
As a side comment, the complaint that sourcing behind a paywall violates WP:V is utter nonsense, and is simply an invention of the editor's imagination. Choor monster (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Here is the material that was removed, apologies for not adding it before.

The origins of Sukkot are both historical and agricultural. Based on its timing and the fact that it is frequently referred to in the Bible as "the holiday of ingathering," meaning harvest, it is believed that the holiday evolved from ancient agricultural religious practices. Over time it was formalized, centralized and given religious significance.[1]

+

Sukkot became a significant holiday during King Josiah’s reign. However, the tiny city of Jerusalem would have been unable to house the great influx of pilgrims coming to worship in the Temple. Unable to find lodging, the pilgrims would have had to erect temporary dwellings – little huts that became known as sukkot. The holiday gradually became associated with the sukkot themselves, which took on a national-historical meaning correlated with the Exodus, as is reflected in the (late) biblical passages. [2]

As was the norm with all Jewish holidays during the Temple period, the holiday centered on animal sacrifice at the Temple. 70 bulls were sacrificed during each Sukkot, as well as numerous other animals. After the temple was destroyed by Titus in 70 CE, the Jewish religion went through a major change, and the temple sacrifices could no longer be observed. Thus further emphasis came to be ascribed to the sukkah, the four species, and prayer.[3]

Theredheifer (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Are journalists/writers not reliable sources if they have written about paranormal subjects?[edit]

There's an odd case at the Summerwind article (scrutinized because it's in AfD).

There is a charge that three writers, Corey Schjoth of the Huffington Post, Bill Wundram of the Quad-City Times and Chad Lewis of Wisconsin Trails / Milwaukee Journal Sentinel are not reliable sources because they have "written about" paranormal legends such as UFO's, Vampires, Bigfoot, ghosts, etc.. Are these writers, or any other for that matter, not reliable sources solely based on fact of them having written about such topics in the past? --Oakshade (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

To get the best input from this noticeboard you should probably give more context, i.e. what specific text do you wish to cite to what work by what author? - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
It's really a meta-discussion question, but this is an example: An editor has challenged the below statement because "Chad Lewis other works include articles about UFOs and Bigfoot." [2]

In 1916 it was purchased by Robert Patterson Lamont, who employed Chicago architects Tallmadge and Watson to substantially remodel the property and convert it into a mansion.[1][2][3]

  1. ^ Wundram, Bill (October 29, 1995). "Summerwind: More ghostly than ever". Quad-City Times. 
  2. ^ Schjoth, Corey (March 25, 2014). "Haunted Travel: Wisconsin's Most Notorious Haunted House". Huffington Post. 
  3. ^ Lewis, Chad (2014). "Travel - Wisconsin's 10 most haunted places". Wisconsin Trails / Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 

The editor has went on to add the word "allegedly" to the sentence.[3] Are the publishers and authors of these sources unreliable because the authors of these sources have also written about topics such as Loch Ness Monster, Vampires, UFOs and Bigfoot?--Oakshade (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
For anyone else reading this, I don't know where that diff came from, but most of those changes are not me. There are 6 intermediate changes there. However, I also have a problem with taking articles about ghost stories and UFOs and using pieces of them to cite items as facts as though we know what parts of the article are unverifiable retelling of a ghost story and what parts of those articles are verifiable facts. In the context of a ghost story or legend, those sources are reliable for retelling the legend, but may not be reliable for verifiable facts about history. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
If an author's previous writing about the paranormal shows that they are credulous about such matters, that's generally an indicator of unreliability (for anything). Itsmejudith (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
If an author's previous writing shows that they are credulous about any topic, yes they would be un-reliable. But what about the writers simply having written about paranormal topics? Does that in itself make them un-reliable journalists/writers/authors as the charge is?--Oakshade (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Are you asking if this work by this author is considered a reliable source of facts regarding who the architects of record were for the Lamont Mansion? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The real issue is what content supported by what reference in what article with what weight is being proposed. Without these specifics its generally not fair to evaluate a source. A writer who is a generalist, that is writes about multiple topics may not be the best source for an expert opinion on any specific subject. However, unless we know more about the content and its source I don't believe we should be making any definitive comments about sources. Id' take this back to the talk page (is there one) and try top get input there.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC))

It was brought here because discussion on the talk page and edit warring threatening 3RR was going around in circles. The specific content that became the center of discussion is what's listed above, but it also affects the entire article as these and other authors who have written about paranormal topics - no surprise as this topic is a reportedly "haunted" house - are most of the sources. It really came down to the validity of generally discrediting journalists/writers solely because they have previously written about such paranormal topics as UFOs, etc. --Oakshade (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This edit warring is continuing with a single editor now removing all of these sources.[4] Input to this question is highly appreciated.--Oakshade (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

No.[edit]

solely based on fact of them having written about such topics in the pastWikidgood (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Pit bull[edit]

It seems that there are sourcing issues on the article Pit Bull. I am leaning toward sources like Veterinary Associations. There is POV warring using a very old and misinterpreted CDC study and the article is not really about pit bulls so much as support for the POV that pit bulls are nature's killing machines. I understand this is different from the sourcing issue but I would appreciate some consensus building advice. I am not sure if posting references here will work and have the refs show up properly so I will come back tommorow and repair if the refs are not working rights. I think this is kind the ideal type of RS https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Pages/The-Role-of-Breed-in-Dog-Bite-Risk-and-Prevention.aspxWikidgood (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You haven't even discussed this on the article's talk page, so you're not following good practice. Don't misuse boards. Your concerns will get an ear (or more) at the talk page. Please ping me there, since I have over 5,000 pages (plus their talk pages) on my watchlist. (I recently pared it down when it reached 10,000!) -- Brangifer (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
As a matter of fact I posted on the talk page and you ignored it. I have every right to pose a question to this or any other notice board. You are continuing with your opening salvo of vague renarks tantamount to a personal attack. Actually, it is a personal attack to accuse me of misusing a notice board. Before that you accused me of "drive-by tagging" after I tagged POV on a section, not the whole article. I had been aware of the POV problem with that articles for weeks if not months. Please stop making personal remarks and allegations of misconduct and discuss constructive edits. You also do not "own" the pafe despite that your UID resonates with the article title. A third personalizing remark, for which however I will reserve you WP:AGF is your speculation regarding my mental state or emotional purchase for the issue or something along those lines. It is not polite to make a remark like that, it is like "cross talk" in a meeting abouta topic in which you "take personal inventory" of someone. So to reiterate, I have the right to ask for RSN pointers and you do not have the right to accuse me of misuse of the notice board. Aside from your accusations and allegations and innuendos, do you have anything to say about sourcing? Wikidgood (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
My sincerest apologies for the mixup. I somehow missed your comment on the talk page. I had your user contribution history open, but hadn't refreshed it for a few minutes, and during that time you left the comments there. Then I saw this comment pop up on my watchlist and made the obviously mistaken conclusion that you hadn't used the article's talk page. My bad! Sorry about that. We can work things out on the talk page. You are of course welcome to seek advice here. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
NO PROBLEM.Wikidgood (talk) 02:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

My primary concern/ requesting comments on this issue[edit]

I first thought about opening a thread on RSN actually re RS(medical) because some people seem to think that the ONLYlegitimate refs for bio med articles are things like BMJ and JAMA. But I insist that it is OK to use sources like Rueters and mainstream newspapers, including third world newspapers, for things like "Hospital Researcher Announces New Vaccine". I think the area of disagreement is that some people think that we have to worry about false hopes being raised by hucksters. That is a concern but it doesnt IMHO mean that you have to wait six months for a peer reveiwed journal article when it is a fact of history that, say, a Thailand Hospital research team has a vaccine in testing phase with animal trials. So I was hoping that there would be a similar refinement on dog bit related pages where we distinguish between an article in a newspaper stating thatthere will be say a city council ordinance on pit bulls in a place like Denver, that does these things, and we allow that as RS for that kind of thing. But we do not take it as RS if a newspaper, especially a sleazy rag or something between a sleazy rag and NYT, Wash Post or AP/UPI?Reuters blasts a headline identifying a dog as a "pit bull" becauses some old boozer down the street told the press that such and such a dog is a "pit bull". For encyclopedic statements aboutwhat is and is not true about a breed identification we need a source which is (a) secondary (b) preferably peer reviewed. If it is not (b) or if it is (advoccy), then we can present it if we identify it as a statement of an advocacy group, and/or if we balance it with a contrasting view, a criticism or at least a label that it is controversial. Does this resonate? Wikidgood (talk) 04:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Secondary concern[edit]

I think advocates are essential sources for perspectives and so I think there is need of good Wiki policies and guidelines which prevent people from reverting any advocate as not RS just because they are POV. A good example is that RT Russia Today is very slanted but it is probably RS for things like "Putin has a black dog". Similarly, Interpretermag (not sure I spelled it right) is vigorously anti Putin but is probably RS for much. But some editors claim that some sources are NEVER RS for ANYTHING and I suspect that problem will look large on pit bull in the coming weeks. Wikidgood (talk) 05:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment I have read the lengthy text above and find it quite hard to see what is being asked. When posting to this board editors are requested to post (a) some content and (b) its source for evaluation. What seems to be being asked is for general guidance giving permissions for certain classes of source for as-yet unspecified content. That's not what this board is for, and general discussions about sourcing or neutrality should take place on the respective WP:PAG Talk pages. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I think as much was implied and the obvious reference was to the ongoing edits. I aksi\o had some particulars in mind for here but since I have ironed out the differences with the above users there is no further need to go into it here.
FYI I don't think that there is a hard policy regarding the specific-edit/specific-source framework you suggest although I know that is usually how it works. But if there are sourcing issues that are not being worked out on the talk pages, it seems less confrontational to take them up here rather than going the rout of arbitrations and edit war reporting and all of that stuff. You are free however to ignore threads on RSN which in your opinion don't follow some etiquette you prefer. I agree however that my more general concern is more effectively taken up on the RS talk page. It would have been nice if you addressed my substantive concern with the distinction between sourcing which should be from peer reveiwed journals rather as opposed to sourcing whihc can be journalistic but you are free to do what you wish.Wikidgood (talk) 02:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


War of the Pacific[edit]

The current version of the article War of the Pacific states:

... However according to Peruvian historians, during the war, both sides commonly ordered a repaso (or repase), a method "to completely kill the dead" by executing all soldiers, regardless of injuries, of the opposing army left in the battlefield.[1] After the Battle of Tacna, Chilean troops went as far as to enter field hospitals and execute all soldiers of the opposing Peruvian and Bolivian armies.[1][2][dubious ] The repaso further incremented the number of Peruvian casualties in the battles of San Juan, Chorrillos, and Miraflores.[3][dubious ]
References

I considered the sources unreliable. 1) (Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán) it is a primary source. The sources 2) and 3) are available only stripped. The names of the books, "El expansionismo de Chile en el Cono Sur" (Chilean Expansionism ...) and "Historia del patriotismo, valor y heroнsmo de la Naciуn peruana en la guerra ..." (History of patriotism, bravery and heroism of the Peruvian nation ...) don't seem very RS.

Thanks in advance. --Keysanger (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

P.S.: M.F. Paz S's book "Narracion historica de la guerra de Chile contra el Peru y Bolivia" can be found in archive.org. --Keysanger (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Humberto Cayoja Riart
Those sources are fine as the content is attributed to Peruvian historians. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Just saying that someone is a "historian" does not make them a professional academic historian reliable source. At what point do we distinguish "propagandists"?Wikidgood (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
As soon as you get a source saying they are "propagandists" I suppose. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Seems prima facie obvious. As suggested by another editor, above. Just sayin'Wikidgood (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
This source, a Chilean nationalist website says it: Este mapa aparecido en la obra "El Expansionismo de Chile en el Cono Sur", del general boliviano Humberto Cayoja Riart, nos demuestra hasta dónde ha llegado el reivindicacionismo boliviano, que ahora va en Taltal, mucho más al Sur del límite que alegaban antes de la Guerra del Pacífico. El autor acompaña la imagen con el siguiente párrafo: "El litoral boliviano: Ley Nº 405 de 15 de agosto 1968. En todos los mapas y cartas geográficas de Bolivia deberá incluirse obligatoriamente el territorio del DEPARTAMENTO CAUTIVO como parte integrante del territorio nacional, EN BASE A LA RIGUROSA VERDAD HISTÓRICA, A LA DOCTRINA QUE CALIFICA Y DESCONOCE LAS USURPACIONES DE TERRITORIOS POR LA FUERZA". It is also a propagandist. --Keysanger (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Fuck me, Chilean nationalist website says Peruvian historians are propagandists, stop the press. And I see no issue at all in citing a book published the year the war ended, it is not a primary source, just an old one. Perhaps you ought to read WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV Darkness Shines (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Cayoja is not a historian and he is not Peruvian, he is a frustrated putschist Bolivian colonel in 1981 [5] and 1984 [6]. You said it "As soon as you get a source saying they are "propagandists" I suppose". So, he isn't a RS, he is a propagandist. You said it. --Keysanger (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
In [7] you find a prolog to cayolas book, and the author Agustin Saavedra Weise says about the book:
El libro del Gral. Cayoja es un llamado de advertencia y un compendio de sus preocupaciones geopolítico-estratégicas surgidas al legítimo calor de las siempre conflictivas relaciones bilaterales chileno-bolivianas.
It is not a history book, it is a book about the Chile-Bolivia relations, written by a putschist, nationalist Bolivian Colonel. It doesn't belong into Wikipedia. --Keysanger (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán

What about the primary source? It was written 1884, the year the war finished. Do you also think it is "fine"?. --Keysanger (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Carlos Maria Muñiz

I think, the best opinion about Muñiz and Paz Soldán is given by Emilio Rosario in Un balance historiográfico a la guerra del Pacífico, (ABSTRACT: Throughout the years many studies has written a considerable number of texts of the «War against Chile». Next, we show a detailed study of what has been realized from 1880 until 2008.) In part 1. Una revisión a la crónica de los vencidos (1884-1910) he says:

Si algo podemos concluir hasta aquí es que tanto las memorias y diarios como los primeros trabajos avocados a la investigación histórica elaborados por la llamada crónica de los vencidos sirvieron para ir bosquejando la imagen discursiva con la que se explicaría la Guerra del Pacífico en adelante, una historia de carácter decimonónico, estructurado a partir de acontecimientos donde tendrían un lugar por demás sobresaliente las batallas y sus héroes, destacando en medio del fragor de las confrontaciones armadas la acción patriótica de los ejércitos que estos conducían valerosamente. Es así como esta estructura dual del individuo magnificado dirigiendo a las masas en la batalla llegará a establecer el derrotero de las futuras investigaciones históricas, cubriendo con su velo de entrega y valentía heroica durante largo tiempo las bases estructurales del real acontecer histórico. (Bold by Wikipedia)

Also the Peruvian historian Carmen Mc Evoy take the same line in Historiadora peruana expone en Igualdad:

Por mucho tiempo la historiografía peruana estuvo entrampada en una visión “traumática” de la guerra. Una visión que anteponía la humillación y el dolor, un enfoque tremendista de la derrota, a la asimilación racional y analítica del acontecimiento dentro del marco de la construcción republicana peruana. (Bold by Wikipedia)

So, you can use it if you want to eulogise the heroism, bravery, etc, of the Peruvian people, but not to describe the history of the War of the Pacific.

--Keysanger (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I think there might be a WP:WEIGHT issue as well, however that is not the purpose of this board, given that it specifies Chilean actions, but not the other parties of the conflict, especially if we are to hold true that both sides committed similar acts.
As for the issue with these sources, are there more contemporary sources that validate the sources in question here? If so, those could be used instead.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Riccardo Patrese / Jewishness[edit]

At the article for Riccardo Patrese, there is an edit war taking place over a single source – [8] – that User:Epeefleche claims is RS, and sufficient to include the statement that Patrese is Jewish. User:Spatres disagrees with this and is now claiming to be Patrese's son (possible WP:COI? I'm not sure). My take on the matter is that the source is only a list-based collection of tidbits rather than comprehensive prose; it only name-drops Patrese once amongst a sea of other sportspeople; elaborates no further as to him being Jewish; and no other sources are readily available to support the book's claim—I'm quite sure the book does not cite its own sources. User:Epeefleche claims that "The RS book does not need to supply any more that it supplies, and one RS book is sufficient". Surely this cannot be the case? If so, then that is ludicrious. WP:BLP states that editors must "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." I contend that the book is not RS by itself, and further refs are needed to corroborate the claims that Patrese is Jewish. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • As to whether the book is a reliable source, it is published by Ktav Publishing House, a publisher of children's books and young adult books, award-winning, been publishing many books and for decades. Plus, the author is a sports editor at The Express-Times of Easton, Pa.[9] The book itself has been covered by RSs. Seems to be clearly an RS. An SPA repeatedly deleted the ref to the book and the related text on the basis of uncited contrary personal knowledge. But this does appear to be an RS, which trumps asserted contrary personal knowledge. Epeefleche (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of the source's credentials otherwise, I maintain that it should be withheld from the article until another one can be found—one in which Patrese's Jewishness is explictly mentioned in prose rather than being name-dropped in a huge list. However, I absolutely disagree with the edit warring by User:Spatres. It would be advisable for him to familiarise himself with WP's practices regarding COI, NOR, etc. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
When I get a chance, I'll see if any of the other sources that say the same thing appear to be RSs, and if so add them as well. But this comprehensive book is all about doing exactly what it is cited for here -- it is about listing, briefly, Jewish athletes. It is by a decades-old award-winning publishing house, by a bona fide journalist - just the sort of thing we look for in an RS. As to the question for this board, I think it is clear that the book is an RS. Tx for your note on the SPA; agreed. Epeefleche (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Surely a quote from Patrese himself, via interviews or whatnot, would be ideal in this situation. I have yet to find anything of the sort, at least via Google. Granted, by some weird WP logic it may count as SPS if a statement originates directly from him, but I would be much more willing to believe the man himself over a book that seems to have plucked it out of nowhere—no matter how long the journalist or publishers have been around. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, I echo what User:Sparkie82 has quoted from WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources". Another strike against using that source, IMO. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)