Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Additional notes: RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. Start a new discussion

Is ArchDaily a reliable source?

1. Link to past discussion of the source on this board: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 105#Opinions on "ArchDaily" as a RS.
2. Source: https://www.archdaily.com/
3. Article in which it is being used: Palace of the Parliament.
4. Diff in which it is used: [1].
5. Original citation website in the diff: [2]

I have to point out that ArchDaily has been used as a source in the Washington Post [3] and the Chicago Tribune [4]. In addition, it claims to have an editorial team and to check for errors[5]. Thinker78 (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

It is certainly reliable for the statement of how it rated the Palace of the Parliament. I don't read Romanian so I would want to be sure that the rating was made by the magazine, not by the writer. If it was made by the magazine, then you should be able to find the claim made in English. Also, you need to establish the significance of the rating by showing that independent reliable sources reported on it. TFD (talk) 06:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

If you use Google Chrome you just right-click on the page and click "translate to English". Thinker78 (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Original article, made by ArchDaily: https://www.archdaily.com/795913/white-elephants-over-budget-unsuccessful-and-embarrassing-architecture-projects-from-around-the-world . 81.101.159.55 (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

If the link doesn't work, please copy "link title" and then paste on a search engine.--81.101.159.55 (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

racked.com

Is racked.com as used on the page Goop (company) a reliable source? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• This is a fairly general question; is there a particular concern about content that's in the article? --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• I checked the four citations in that article, and they all appear to be generalized claims about the company that can probably be verified in other sources. I personally don't see an issue with Racked.com, however, as it is owned by Vox Media and has a publishing team consisting of a reporter, writer, editor, and senior editors. The articles cited may express some opinion at times, but they are professionally written. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Lyrics from St. Louis Blues

Resolved

Joseph "Diamond Jo" Reynolds contains this line, "W. C. Handy includes a reference to the Diamond Joseph Line in his song "Saint Louis Blues": "You ought to see dat stove pipe brown of mine / Lak he owns de Dimon Joseph line." It seems that a lyric book would be a primary source. Here are some links from a web search: [6] [7]

Do I need to find a secondary source that says this line is a reference to the Diamond Jo Line? Thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be best to support it, and anway there are lots of sources. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Those hits are for lyric books. They only confirm the words of the song, but I did not find one that explains the meaning. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, actually the first hit (for me, anyway) explicitly says "Dimon Joseph line: Diamond Joe line of steamers (the owner was Joseph Reynolds), an Iowa business." And it's a page created by the library of a respected university, so it should be WP:RS. Google doesn't give the same answers for everyone so this might not have come up on your search. 01:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Good work. I was careless: I didn't see the notes. This looks great. thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 02:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Book written by Haganah (later IDF) commander, Joseph Tabenkin

On 24 July 2018, our fellow co-editor, User:Huldra, deleted a source cited by us in a series of articles, namely: Khulda (see here), Saris (see here), Suba, Jerusalem (see here), Dayr Muhaysin (see here), Bayt Naqquba, and Qalunya, claiming in each revert that the source was "unreliable." A complaint was lodged on each of the Talk Pages. The source in question is taken from a book published by the "Tabenkin Memorial," in Ramat Ef'al (Israel), and written by Joseph Tabenkin, the commander of the Harel Brigade during Israel's War of Independence, and specifically during Operation Nachshon and Operation Ha-Har. A photo of the author from Wikimedia Commons appears on the Talk-Page of Operation Ha-Har. Here, in Israel, the author is held in utmost esteem. Although there is no Wikipedia article devoted solely on him and his exploits, he is still mentioned in numerous web-sites, among which are Palmah Information Center (Hebrew), and Yosef Tabenkin Dead at 66, and The Raid on Ramla , et al. The book is available in Israel's public libraries, including the Hebrew University Library, containing 176 pages with illustrations. Excerpts from the book, published in Hebrew, have been transcribed in English for our readers. It seems that our co-editor, based on her edit summary, had confused our "Yosef Tabenkin" with another by the name of "Yitzhak Tabenkin."Davidbena (talk) 05:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Tabenkin was a military leader during a war, and the question is whether he can be used as a reliable source of facts about that war. The answer is "obviously not". Not only are memoirs treated with suspicion by historians, being often inaccurate and self-serving, but the author had an obvious conflict of interest. If the memoir is published by an organization dedicated to the memory of the author, that makes the situation even worse; it is as close to "self-published" as a book by a dead person can be. Given Tabenkin's senior position, a case could be made for citing some of his claims as official claims with attribution, but that would require a consideration of whether he was writing on behalf of the authorities or only for himself. What we need to cite is sources by historians, as they have evaluated all the sources including memoirs on the basis of their professional expertise. Tabenkin's standing as a war hero in Israel and the availability of the book are both entirely irrelevant to the question of reliability. Zero^talk 09:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

These aren't memoirs - Tabenkin in his post-war career was a part-time historian and in the 80s devoted a significant chunk of his time to research. The book should be perfectly fine for an attributed statement in relation to all of the cited articles.Icewhiz (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

On what basis? What's the publisher? You objected to using an actual historian with works published by actual academic presses because of a supposed bias here, but a part-time historian who is actually a primary source qualifies because he devoted a significant chunk of his time to research? Are you at all concerned with even the appearance of being impartial on this board? nableezy - 12:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I said attributed use - he's certainly a reasonable attributed source for what the IDF thought/considered.Icewhiz (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

And I again compare that position to what you said about an actual historian with actual scholarship on this topic. A so-called part time historian qualifies in your mind but an actual historian does not? nableezy - 17:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest he's reliable for some things, like his own opinion on things that he was involved in. I'd suggest he wouldn't be reliable for speculations about others' motivations, for example. So I'd say he's a primary source. Whether he could be a secondary source for event he wasn't involved in is an interesting question, but I get the impression that's not what's at stake here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised at the incredulous allegations that a person who took part in that war is seen as an invalid witness of events, when even the US Civil War diaries, written by officers who took part in that conflict, are viewed as reliable sources. The real reason, it would seem, for their disapproval of using Joseph Tabenkin's war accounts is that it clearly points out the reasons for the Haganah offensive, which in military terms was a just offensive. However, some editors seem to have an agenda to paint Israel as the aggressor, based on their history of edits in articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The issue at hand has, therefore, little to do with its reliability as a source (as it is), but rather an objection by them to point the blame, as it were, on blockage of the Tel-Aviv - Jerusalem highway, just as it is described by Tabenkin, and just as it has already been mentioned in articles on Wikipedia: See, for example, Battle for Jerusalem#Food rationing and Operation Nachshon#Background, to name only a few. When the author mentions orders that had passed down from the military echelon to destroy Arab villages along the Tel-Aviv - Jerusalem highway which had been used as a base of operations to intercept Jewish convoys, this is NOT coming from a Primary Source, but rather a Secondary Source. This is precisely what our edit entails. Davidbena (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say he wasn't reliable. I said he was reliable as a primary source. Like I am a reliable primary source about how flipping hot my tube journey was this morning. ("Boiling"). Useful for getting an impression. Not scientific though. You'd want a reliable secondary source. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

So, if it's a matter of citing also a Secondary source, saying exactly what Tabenkin said, we have it here: Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins, O Jérusalem, Robert Laffont, 1971, p. 369 ISBN 2-266-10698-8 --Davidbena (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I would say he is reliable for his views, not for those views being facts.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

In other words, you would support citing the same information in his name, such as: "According to Haganah commander, Joseph Tabenkin, etc., etc." This would also be acceptable to me.Davidbena (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I was replying to the OP, and this was indented correctly. But yes that is my basic point.Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Totally agree with Slatersteven. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Everybody is reliable for their own views. But whether or not to include that view in an article on history is another question. For statements like those in the diffs above, eg this, a secondary source should be used, not a primary one. This covers a time-period and place with no dearth of reliable sources, so the "according to primary source" formulation is entirely unnecessary. nableezy - 14:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

True, and if they are published then they may well be worthy for inclusion, but that is less of an RS then an Undue question. So the question is is this a history or a memoir, the other question is is it SPS? It is an SPS, which must raise some concerns. But (if) as claimed he has some reputation is Israel as a historian it meets the SPS criteria (a recognized expert expressing an opinion). But it would only be his opinion, not an uncontested fact. So it all boils down to what is his reputation as a historian, or is this just an SPS memoir?Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

On that diff from Nableezy, I think the way the source was used was wrong, but it would be right if it said that "Israeli military believed..." sourced to someone who was in the Israeli military. I'd also contend that "a village" is poor. A village is inanimate. People from, or villagers from would be more accurate. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

That one part gave me pause as he might be usable for the portion on what the Haganah commanders decided, but even then that is well-covered in scholarly secondary sources making any use of a primary source superfluous (see eg Benny Morris (October 2008). 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. Yale University Press. p. 119. ISBN 978-0-300-14524-3.). nableezy - 15:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

This isn't quite a primary source. It is a possibly biased secondary source (which we can make clear via attribution). As for no lack of sources - for some of these lesser known villages - there actually are fairly few sources. Using Tabenkin on 1948 Arab–Israeli War would not be necessary - using him for lesser discussed villages can fill in holes.Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I've looked through Benny Morris on each of these villages, and compared his numerous comments to what the reverted edits stated. The content of the latter is generic, subsuming, as one would expect from a memoir by a soldier, complex details into the village/villagers whereas Morris is nuanced, with roving bands of irregular going around villages trying to get support, and different reactions from the villages affected. Suba, Jerusalem, for example, had a made an agreement with Jewish neighbouring villages not to be involved in attacks (p.75). The destruction of (Saris was planned in January before the real heat of open warfare developed, for strategic reasons, apparently regardless of the behaviour, whatever that was (and attitudes could change over time) of the villagers; The Nachson Operation was planned to treat Khulda and all other villages along the Khulda-Jerusalem route as enemy assembly points, whatever the individual village realities were (p.233)-it's not therefore as Tabenkin has it that the villagers had invariably taken part in operations against the Jews . At Qalunya, villagers chased off an armed band (p.97) early in the piece, not wanting to get involved, for example. In one case, a single motor-cyclist from one of those villages spied out Jewish positions, and passed the information to Arab irregulars, but that doesn't translate into the village/villagers. In other words, using a self-published memoir that fails to provide the complex factors at play, of the kind Morris's archival masterpiece supplies (in part) makes it effectively unusable as reliable history. These matters are covered quite thoroughly in, esp. Israeli historiography of the highest quality, and we should only cite Tabenkin if those secondary sources consider some specific detail in his work important.Nishidani (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

He was a commander for one of the parties to the conflict that he is writing about. I think the general consensus here is that he is indeed a primary source for this material and should not be used for facts. nableezy - 17:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The 1948 Arab Israeli war is one which is covered in numerous academic sources, in English. I cannot see any reason to add a (self-published?) memoir in Hebrew, not unless it has been quoted by any of those historians.

(Also, I totally disagree that Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins are good RS..they were not historians. Eg, their book on the India/Pakistan breakup is shockingly bad....eg they take what Lord Mountbatten said as God given truth...evnen though there was absolutely no backing up of what he was alleged to have said. That is a mistake no historian worth their salt would do. With such shitty methods, I would not be surprised if they took 100% of what Tabenkin said as the God given truth, too.)

Also, Icewhiz is wrong saying that there is not a lot of material regarding many of these 1948 villages: there are new books published about them all the time. (However, it is an understandable mistake by Icewhiz, as he has not been editing their history much: I have.) Huldra (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

First, in response to Nishidani's comment, Joseph Tabenkin's book makes it clear on pp. 154–155 (ch. 4) , in generic terms, that a decision had been reached on 14 April 1948 in the military echelon "to utterly destroy all Arab villages along the Tel-Aviv - Jerusalem highway which had been used as a base of operations to intercept Jewish convoys." This information in each of the aforenamed articles is vital, as it gives us (1) a "motive" for the operation, and (2) "when exactly the orders filtered down in relation to other events." The illustration on p. 74 shows the order of advance throughout each of the villages named by me above, in the original post.Davidbena (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Second, in response to Huldra's comment, Tabenkin's book is NOT a memoir, but a factual account of events in the Haganah military campaign, known as Operation Nachshon. The book was NOT "self-published" as Huldra wrongly assumes, but was rather published post mortem, two years after his death, using his own writings. The information therein contained is anecdotal and will help readers understand the logic behind the operation, specifically for each of the villages named, and which were visited by troops of the Palmach during the 12 days of engagement in April of 1948. It does not surprise me that some editors who take a strong anti-Israel bias would want to expunge this vital information. As for Huldra's complaint about the book written by Dominique Lapierre, I suggest to all editors here to look at what Wikipedia has to say about his seminal work, O Jerusalem!, wherein he refers to the same events.Davidbena (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

David, you need to stop this nonsense about strong anti-Israel bias. You've done this here and on an article talk page, while you have consistently pushed fringe political POVs in a number of articles. Kindly refactor the personal attack above and we can discuss this like grown ups. Just complaining how the mean anti-Zionists wont let you use a source that each of the uninvolved editors agrees shouldnt be used for facts is both petty and dishonest. As Zero told you elsewhere, such attacks are beneath you. nableezy - 22:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

It is for the impartial judges here to decide whether or not there may be a suspected "strong anti-Israel bias" by some editors, and that by simply looking at the edit history of all contributing editors. If you mean that I have "pushed fringe political POVs" in a number of articles, I would care to know which articles you are referring to (although unrelated to our current discussion). Perhaps you mean on the Talk Page of Talk:List of military occupations#Discussion. Anyone reading there will see that my primary motive is to bring a more neutral point-of-view, and which accurately portrays both sides of the argument.Davidbena (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Primary source, based on the information presented. I would use it with caution if at all. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Is this Original Research?

I was looking for the Metropolitan area of Trivandrum city. It's hard to find. Then i came across this source here: http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/dchb/3214_PART_B_THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.pdf. It's published by the Directorate of Census Operations of Government of India. So it's a reliable source and it has the Metropolitan area data of the city in it. The only problem is that they listed the area of each census towns separately. The total area is not in the document. So you need to add the total area manually. Is that original research? I have no connection with the source. So is there any way that i can use this source in the article, by using reference notes or something? Thanks in advance. AG47 ^Talk 17:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard might be a better place to ask. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay thanks AG47 ^Talk 09:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Who Killed Osho by Abhay Vaidya, published by Om Books International 

In this diff another editor makes the assertion that the publisher of a book is not a reliable source.

Links. I searched and found no past discussions of either the book, Who Killed Osho? or the publisher, Om Books International.

Source. Abhay Vaidya (15 March 2017). Who Killed Osho. Om Books International. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) Pages50-53 and 81-83.

Article. George Meredith (sannyasin)

Content. The exact statements in the article that the source supports:

1. His father was an army officer under the British Raj; his parents divorced when he was about four years old.

2. Brought up in the Church of England, Meredith had a "conventional upper middle-class" upbringing, attended public school, and was rugby captain at St Thomas' Hospital in London.

3. As Member of the Royal Colleges of Physicians of the United Kingdom, Meredith had a medical practice in Lewisham and had served in 1974 as the medical head of a Kuwait hospital.

4. Abhay Vaidya describes the youthful Meredith as, "disillusioned with the Cold War, attracted by Communist ideology, and his readings in radical psychiatry and the break-up of families all around".

5. He found the Rajneesh's discourses about God refreshing, and admired his "deep understanding of the human mind".

6. Meredith believed the "meditations, therapies and advice" of the Rajneesh helped with "the search for meaning and an alternative to mainstream religions ...[he] found shallow".

7. Meredith "took sannyas" on April 24, 1978, and was then named, "Swami Devaraj".

8. by 1989 Meredith (then called Amrito) had become part of what Abhay Vaidya calls "The 1989 Coterie: Jayesh, Amrito & Anando".

9. According to Vaidya, "The suave and handsome British doctor Amrito was a key member of this coterie."

10. Vaidya describes Amrito's "seriously dubious reputation of engaging in questionable medical practices".

11. Some have suspected that Osho's "heavy medication" near his life's end had caused his death.

12. his second wife was Wendy (also called Devena), with whom he had a son, Deveda.

Given the principle that "Many sources are reliable for statement 'X,' but unreliable for statement 'Y' ", I believe the above statements written by a reputable journalist are reliable. I acknowledge that insofar as the premise of the book is that the Rajneesh (Osho) died under circumstances that have never been fully explained, some parts of the book are not neutral, so not reliable.

The immediate question I'd like help with is whether the publisher is not reliable, as the other editor has claimed. I have been unable to discern whether it may be a vanity press. I value any help offered. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Grand'mere Eugene: I'll answer briefly, but since I'm already involved in the discussion in question, I hope an uninvolved editor will come along to reply as well. It seems to me the point in your final paragraph is the key one: If the publisher is a vanity press, that would certainly undercut both its value in establishing notability and its reliability in supporting factual statements, to some degree. However, as I stated in the discussion, the book is treated, rather explicitly, as a valid enterprise in reviews in the Hindu and the Hindustan Times, which I believe are both legitimate newspapers. I think it is unlikely that a book produced at the author's expense would have attracted such serious attention from major newspapers. Of course, if there is evidence that it is a vanity press, that should be considered, but I haven't seen any.

I also think every one of the statements you quote above is sufficiently non-controversial that using this as the only source for each of those claims is reasonable. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• I can't find any evidence that this is a reliable source. The publisher's domain is actually blocked at the office due to phishing, which is hardly a good sign. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• I too would suggest caution with this book. 'Om Books International' may or may not be just a vanity publisher, but it does not have any reputation for fact-checking or editorial control either. It's essentially a book retailer/distributor, which recently started publishing its own line of books. The articles in The Hindu, and The Hindustan Times, both appear to be lightly edited press-releases, with not a single sentence of critical appraisal evaluation; note too the common language in the pieces, as in:

The Hindu: the result of nearly three decades of reportage and is based on extensively recorded audio and video interviews with Osho’s closest followers and a mass of official documents, testimonies and press reports.

The Hindustan Times: the result of nearly three decades of reportage and investigative journalism and is based on extensively recorded audio and video interviews with Osho’s closest followers and a mass of official documents, testimonies and press reports.

Worldcat finds only two libraries holding the book (and that includes the LoC). Given the lack of quality reviews or any other "we can trust this source because..." indicators, I would avoid using this source. Abecedare (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• If no one objects, I will removing the source from this article soon. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Neurotree

Is Neurotree a reliable source? If not, it should be removed from at least the BLPs in which it is being used now, such as Richard W. Tsien, Amy Bastian, and Ed Connor. Honestly I was surprised to find that no discussion of this website had previously taken place here when I searched the archives. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 18:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article says "Neurotree and Academic Family Tree are volunteer-run; accuracy is maintained by a group of volunteer editors". I have not looked deeply into this but that doesn't sound like an RS to me, however it would depend on the volunteers qualifications. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Is Middleeasteye.net a reliable source and does it back this text?

This is about two sets of edits by User:Cirflow :[8] - both use the same source although the first confusingly uses a 2017 source to back an alleged 2018 kidnapping. The second edit say:

"*In 2017 Mayor Faiz Jahwary was ousted from power and coerced into resigning from his post with the ultimatum of also forcibly joining the region with Iraqi Kurdistan.[9]

The source has been discussed before[10] and the editor is still David Hearst.[11] It probably is reliable. My question is whether it reliably backs the text (I never can decide where this sort of question goes, there's nothing in the headers at NORN which suggests it belongs there). I find nothing in the text that suggests he resigned nor do I see anything about an ultimatum. NRT News which may or may not be an RS (the content of its article doesn't help) says he was dismissed but reinstated after a few months.[12] There have been problems with this editor using blogs, Facebook, etc as sources and adding unsourced material, so I'm looking here for others to help me decide if the text here fairly represents the source. I don't think it does. Doug Weller talk 10:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a very small and highly partisan outfit. While Hearst is a recognizable name, there are questions regarding the independence of this website from the Qatari government.[13]. It would be a stretch to say they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.Icewhiz (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: There are obviously numerous issues with User:Cirflow 's edits (i just reverted them). First, the sentence is not supported by the source. Second, about the reliability of Middle East Eye, Icewhiz provided a link pointing to a BBC article about the conditions Saudi arabia and its allies (mainly the UAE) are trying to impose over Qatar. One of these conditions is Qatar to stand down from supporting Al Jazeera and some other medias like Middle East Eye. The Saudis and they allies claim that Middle East Eye is close to the Muslim brotherhood, however, considering the fact that these countries are engaged in a dispute, this may be true or wrong (btw, i disagree with Icewhiz when he says categorically that the source is "highly partisan", as far i have seen, this is only a Saudi/UAE claim, correct me if i'm mistaken), we cannot know for sure. Therefore, i would suggest to use at least a second reliable source for such claims when the only cited source is possibly questionable. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

If you peek at their front page, their editorial line is quite visible. Regardless of how they are funded, they basically present an Islamist POV.[14][15] Other outlets mainly use them to relate to Islamist positions.Icewhiz (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The two links you posted just above are for one Emirati and for the other Israeli papers, both are quite hostile with Qatar who is siding with Iran (and Turkey) for now because of their dispute with Saudi Arabia ... More, i did not say "Middle East Eye" is reliable, i said we cannot know for sure and in such cases, additional sources are expected. Anyway, this source does not support Cirflow's edit and thus i reverted him, i think this is the bulk of what Doug weller was expecting. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The JC is not Israeli.Icewhiz (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Technically you're right, but judging from this it's not what i would call a neutral reliable source, even if they're based in the UK (and i don't consider for example PRESS TV as a reliable neutral source either). Anyway, as i said above this is not the point. The point is that the source cited by Cirflow did not support his edit.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

PRESS TV is run by the Iranian government - a country without freedom of the press.[16][17]. The JC harks back to 1841, is managed by an independent trust, and covers a wide diversity of thought. There is nothing in their about page that indicates bias - unless you consider "Jewish" being biased.Icewhiz (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm suspicious of any newspaper/media that includes in its name a religion, whatever this religion is. Maybe it's because i live in France, a laic country, for 40 years ...---Wikaviani (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

And btw, Middle East Eye also claims to be an independant media and is also based in the UK, not sure why you believe the JC when they say they're independant, but you don't believe Middle East Eye. according to me, these two sources are both questionables. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

In response to the original question, the source states "Faiz Abed Jahwareh, was removed from his position - allegedly over corruption charges", so it clearly does not support the edit. As for the reliability of the website, the sources provided by Icewhiz are absolute bunk. The BBC article is a reiteration of demands by a Saudi-led group who blockaded Qatar and expelled its citizens, and there is no editorial input over the list of demands by the BBC itself. The other two links are insanely biased and clearly not reliable. Firstly, the National is an Emirati paper that is funded and heavily influenced by one of the governments that is involved in the blockade of Qatar. Both countries were embroiled in a diplomatic rift when that article was published. The UAE is also deeply hostile to Islamist organizations because it perceives democracy as the primary threat to its hereditary monarchy. Your other link, JC, is outside the realm of reliability and neutrality as it likens Hamas to the Nazis and the Islamic State, refers to David Hearst as a "Hamas cheerleader" and parrots Israel's official position. Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are vehemently opposed to Hamas and other Islamist groups as well as to those who provide a neutral platform for them, so they shouldn't be taken at their word. I'm unsure the Middle East Eye should be considered a reliable source or not (although Freedom House claims it provides "independent coverage of the region"), but there is no universe where those three sources should be considered as credible sources on the MEE's reliability or editorial independence. Elspamo4 (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The assertion on the JC based on an editor not liking an analogy between Hamas and the Nazies is odd. I will note that Hamas has been painting swastikas on some of their incidenary implements of late,[18][19] besides its long standing rhetoric regarding Jews. However, here is another source - Isa Blumi (not Jewish AFAIK - , not aligned with the gulf states AFAICT) - a historian published by an academic publisher (University of California Press) - who says In Middle East Eye, a Qatari-funded online "news" outlet.... even more confusing in this piece supposedly about Yemen is the overy criticism of the "Little Sparta" UAE....[20] - quotes around "news" in the original. For the most part this online blog / news-portal is simply ignored by serious writers, with the exception of some op-eds that present the Islamist narrative/opinion in English - which are notable for the position espoused.Icewhiz (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

All this discussion about the above sources is off topic. Doug Weller's concerns were about whether Middle East Eye supports the claim or not. The source does not support the claim and i think we're done here. cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I missed the talk but I agree. I removed the kidnapping as evidence was weak, and since you say MiddleEastEye has become invalid due to Political turmoil i agree too. Cirflow (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Young Earth creationists, cryptozoologists, and assorted other pseudoscience at Mokele-mbembe

Currently Mokele-mbembe swarms with Young Earth creationist/cryptozoology pseudoscience sources rather than available reliable sources from academics. I've rewritten the lead and attempted to gut the rest (which remains entirely propped up by sources from figures like this guy and assorted other cryptozoologists, such as the infamous "living dinosaur" writings of Roy Mackal), only to have it reverted by an editor with a history of pro-cryptozoology edits, who demanded discussion while ignoring talk page threads I had opened ([21]). Barring what I've managed to rewrite to date, the rest would be right at home on CreationWiki. I've mentioned this at the fringe theory noticeboard as well, and the article has gotten a bit more attention since, but as this article describes the best known fixation among the Young Earth creationist/cryptozoology/evolution-is-a-lie crowd, more eyes from reliable source-minded editors would do the article a lot of good. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Just how many forums are you going to raise this on?Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

BuzzFeed (yes, I know - again)

Buzzfeed seems to be a frequent topic here. Unfortunately, I could not find anything definitive in the archives. The most recent reference of use seems to indicate that BuzzFeed should not be used as reliable secondary source in a BLP. So - apologies for bringing it up again.

Issue at hand is the article on Astrophysicist Guinevere Kauffmann. A month ago BuzzFeed posted a hit piece on her, accusing Kauffman of Racism and bullying based on anonymous sources and the purported existence of email of unclear origins. The allegations basically center around Kauffmann admonishing her grad students in a blunt and not nice fashion.

Buzzfeed is basically the only source for that. (Kauffman since gave an Interview to Nature, which then also published an assorted editorial). I protested the Buzzfeed link and anything sourced by it, since I consider them a clickbait mill without any shred of journalistic ethics. An IP disagreed, vehemently, bringing up Pulitzer Price nominations and similar claims. So, where do we stand with Buzzfeed these days? Wefa (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Buzzfeed's image/listicle-heavy main site, needs to be distinguished from its Buzzfeed News division. The former is clickbait-y and seldom/never appropriate as a reference for BLPs, while the latter has a good reputation. This is especially true for the latter's investigative pieces which have won or been nominated for some of the top awards in the field (see How BuzzFeed built an investigative team inside a viral hit factory).

So yes, the article is a reliable source for the subject though, as always, due consideration has to be given on how it is summarized and how much weight it is given. Abecedare (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Please evaluate Assim al-Hakeem

Hi,

I made significant revisions to Assim al-Hakeem here ([22]), including adding some secondary sources (much needed), only for it to be reverted because it includes a few additional primary self-published sources. The article already had primary sources, but I simply added a few more to expand and drastically improve the content. WP:BLPSPS allows this, as far as I know. I cannot discuss it with the reverting user since they have a history of reverting my edits and the discussion is often dragged out and contains arguments (currently, I have another dispute with them which will be resolved hopefully). Please take a look and resolve it asap. I believe my edits have improved the article drastically and do not want them to go down the drain. Thank you, – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 04:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Women in STEM fields

An IP has added a link from a conservative political group to Women in STEM fields ("The narrative falls apart"), referencing a brand-new primary source. I maintain that 1) the first link is a textbook case of an unreliable source; 2) the second link is a WP:PRIMARY source -- and a new one at that -- so not useable by itself. Thoughts? --Calton | Talk 14:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Is that being used a reference? If so then this is not really the place but rather Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard, and even then I think such a link was to be included it would be in a further reading section and not external links. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:DOB and thanking people for birthday wishes on Twitter

There's a dispute about Joseph Garrett and his date of birth. We have a source for a general age, cited to the BBC. Various editors have tried to add an unsourced birthday, resulting in the article becoming semi-protected. There's a discussion on my talk page about this now. If a verified account on Twitter posts "Thank you everyone that sent birthday messages. :)", is that proof that his birthday was on that day? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

No it is proof of when he thanked everyone. Whilst it may be his birthday it may just be the day after when he had finally sobered up enough to say it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Well given he doesn't state what day it was, and there are birthday wishes from the 13th,14th and 15th, no. If a verified twitter account says something like 'it's my birthday today' then yes. Primary sources are valid sources for non contentious information about themselves, but it does have to be a clear statement. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• I made a little program that outputs links to Twitter searches for tweets around one's birthday for each year: https://jsfiddle.net/Wumbolo/xafLvqy2/64/ Change the variables to match the Twitter username and the "probable" date of birth, click run and if Twitter asks you something like if you want to redirect a search results page, click yes. There's a diff variable which allows you to check for tweets ranging +/- the "probable" DOB you specified. Enjoy! wumbolo ^^^ 13:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

This reads like OR.Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Searching for sources is not OR. wumbolo ^^^ 14:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• Given that a twitter account holder who is concerned about identity theft might well give a false date of birth in their profile (and thus receive happy birthday wishes on that false date)... I don’t think Twitter can be considered a reliable source for date of birth... not even as a primary source. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Good point, it is what I advise my mentorees.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Blueboar: is it also unreliable if the account holder explicitly tweets "today is my birthday"? wumbolo ^^^ 14:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I would say the tweet is reliable for “X tweeted that his birthday was on <date>“... but not for “X was born on <date>“. Today isn’t my birthday, but nothing prevents me from posting a tweet saying it is. Blueboar (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)