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

Known issues section of Nexus 5

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)

At issue is if these sources are sufficient to state that Davis graduated at the top of her class. [4]

• Texas Tribune
• New Republic

--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

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.

+

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.

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.

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

References

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

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." [5]

---

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.

---

The editor has went on to add the word "allegedly" to the sentence.[6] 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.[7] Input to this question is highly appreciated.--Oakshade (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

No.

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

Pit bull

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

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

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

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. 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. The repaso further incremented the number of Peruvian casualties in the battles of San Juan, Chorrillos, and Miraflores.

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 [8] and 1984 [9]. 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 [10] 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

At the article for Riccardo Patrese, there is an edit war taking place over a single source – [11] – 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.[12] 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)

Your are veering far off-topic. The book here is clearly an RS. That the entire purpose of a discussion here. As to the Jews -- the Jews are an ethnicity and a nation, not just a religion, and correspondingly saying they are Jewish does not in any way state that they have any belief whatsoever -- they may even be Jewish agnostics. See the List of Jewish atheists and agnostics. The Wikipedia entry for "Jew" indicates, inter alia, that Jews "also known as the Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious group ... The Jewish ethnicity, nationality and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation."

Other religions are in the "normal case" distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, or Buddhist, or Christian, or Hindu, or Aethiest nation per se. They are not an "ethnicity" or a "people" or a "nation." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion. They are also a nation. Dispersed (largely) for a couple of thousand years. And we don't require more than one cite to an RS, as the one here, to reflect ethnicity or nationhood. So you have to understand, as discussed above, that this is not a matter of reflecting his "belief" at all.

Epeefleche (talk) 07:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it was off-topic at all. I will reiterate: since the inclusion of the supposed RS is under dispute (currently two editors vs. one), it would be advisable to find a source where Patrese explicitly identifies himself as Jewish to lend better support to the claim in question, rather than him being name-dropped on a large list which seems to have plucked his ethnicity/religion out nowhere. Did they ask him about it? All I'm asking for is a quote from the man himself. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The question appropriate for this board is whether this book is an RS. It is clearly so. And even more clearly for the particular purpose for which the book is cited. The book is published by a decades-old, award-winning established bona fide publishing house. And the book is written by a bona fide journalist. And the very subject of the book is what you denigrate as name-dropping ... it's not name-dropping, but rather the entire focus of the book, and precisely what the book does in its entirety. The only issue here is whether this is an RS, and it indubitably is. Your comment that "Regardless of the source's credentials otherwise ..." and what follows is off-topic. This is an RS, and that's all that this board concerns itself with. Epeefleche (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

So far, I can find no other supporting source for the claim. Do books of this nature fact check each event listed? Yes - the events occurred. But is it a source that a specific person is Jewish? Nope. Result? The source is insufficient to add such a religious categorization here. Collect (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I suspect the counter is that we're not talking religion, but ethnicity. That aside, everything you say applies to his ethnicity. Bromley86 (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

We don't just decide if a source is reliable. We decide (or rather discuss) whether it is reliable for a particular claim. IMO, this source is too poor to support the claim made on its own. It is clearly lightweight (the information is listed in a section with the flippant title "Mazel Tough"). The book is essentially a long list of names and events. Books this generalised almost invariably contain mistakes. I've seen howlers in compilation-works of this sort from even the most serious of academic publishers. If the statement were unchallenged I'd have no problem, but the fact that it seems to be difficult to find another source is a red flag. The very fact that Jewishness is - or rather can be - ill-defined is part of the problem. How do we know what the criteria are for counting as "Jewish" in this instance? Paul B (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, so this is going nowhere. User:Epeefleche still has not managed to produce a quote from Patrese himself—all you keep doing is singing the praises of one source, which I maintain is insufficient to explicitly support the claim in question. Granted, it may fall under WP's definition of RS, but with it there is a content dispute which must be addressed. As it stands, I strongly dispute its inclusion within the Riccardo Patrese article as the sole source to him being Jewish. When has he said it? Why is there nothing searchable on it whatsoever besides one book, which has plucked something as profound as that from out of nowhere in 2007? If they are so bona fide and "reliable", and choose to focus on claiming sportspeople as Jewish, why do they not cite their own sources in doing so? Perhaps prematurely, I've taken it to WP:DRR/DRN. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

.. Well, that was just after other editors started weighing in, so maybe scratch that DR for now. I didn't anticipate an outside response. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Newsweek statistics article

Newsweek recently published an article about a study examining the content of twitter comments using the hashtag #GamerGate. One editor has claimed here to have found errors which should justify disregarding the article as a reliable source. The editor seems to mainly be contending that newsweek is drawing conclusions from the data that they think are flawed, and that not enough of the data has been published in the article for the articles analysis of the data to be independently verified. Is Newsweek reliable enough that we can trust that they have in fact used this data responsibly? -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Newsweek does not have to publish behind-the-scenes raw data so that individual Wikipedia editors can "factcheck" them to see if a random Wikipedia editor would come to the same conclusions through original research. Nor does Newsweek need to supply reporters' notes, raw unedited interview tapes, addresses of quoted sources or anything like that in order for Newsweek to be considered as meeting WP:V. Editors recreating journalism and research personally from scratch is not required (or encouraged) by WP:V. There may be other concerns (weight, etc.) when adding material, but Newseek is perfectly verifiable as a source for details about the journalism Newsweek has published.__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

To be specific, the article in Newsweek presents enough data to factcheck a few things, and without getting into details, they give us an exact idea of how much topics X and Y are mentioned in 2M tweets, and then make a broad conclusion about X being much greater than Y based on tweet count that is a very controversial result even if it is "true". But as been pointed out, with the known valus of X and Y, that makes up < 1% of the 2M tweets, begging what the rest of that data is, and whether that small set is sufficient to make such a controversial conclusion when they do not make it clear what is in the remaining 99% of the tweets, so making a conclusion on those questionable numbers, while technically right, would be rejected by your average statistician or, in my case, a scientific/data mindset eye. --MASEM (t) 02:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

So says you. Newsweek has a better overall reputation for fact-checking and accuracy than thee or me. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I am saying that Newsweek has provided enough data to determine what they based their claim on (we are not guessing their numbers they are printed in the report). They have conclusded two things: X > Y , and then based on that, a broad general claim that X is much more prevalent than Y, which, even prior to this publication, has been unproven, questionable assertion. X>Y is not in question (numbers don't lie), but the conclusion from the small sample size to make the broader claim is a problem. --MASEM (t) 03:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

They don't have to provide data. That's not how WP:V works. Your premise is that the stuff they didn't report, but that they saw and evaluated and you admittedly haven't seen, might contain material that somehow disproves their overall conclusions. Well, that's possible, as possible as the idea that they made up all the numbers from scratch, or fabricated every quote..........but if they have a reputation for almost never doing that, then they are generally acceptable as a reliable source. Two million tweets doesn't seem like a particularly small sample, and they seem to be basing their overall interpretations on more than one source. Offering only potential scenarios where they could be wrong is unlikely to invalidate what they reported or their overall journalistic reputation. What's important here is that they saw the data, not that you have. Wikipedia is built on material verifiably sourced to reliable sources, not material independently verified by individual editors with access to the same source matter as what scholars and researchers used to form their conclusions. __ E L A Q U E A T E 03:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Elaqueate is dead right here. We are not scientists trying to recreate experiments. The "reliable" in RS means that they have a reputations for reporting accurately. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me make the point clear: we are not questioning their data counting methods to the point X>Y; as a normally reliable source, this is right in line. Then they make a secondary statement on this data that is very slanted in a larger heated debate to prove one side of the debate. That's an opinion, not a fact, when they make that. And that opinion, based on the lack of details of their data collection, calls that secondary conclusion into suspect. X>Y is absolutely true, but a conclusion that goes beyond what X>Y says is not affirmed and there's several reasons to question how they came to that since they required no other data to make that statement. --MASEM (t) 04:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Absolutely reliable per ElequeateTwo kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Reliable for the actual non-anecdotal claims. The main gist is in the graphs given, showing over 90% of tweets are "neutral" ("Brandwatch found most tweets were neutral in sentiment.") This avoids any problems with relative importance of the statistics furnished. Collect (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue here is whether individual editors are better equipped to make a determination of what the statistics do or do not show than the source is. A source is either reliable or unreliable; we shouldn't be cherry picking information we like and ignoring what we don't. If this is a reliable source, we should be able to trust that any conclusions it reaches from the data it's evaluating are sound. The source considers the data they found significant enough to suggest something important about the overall sentiment of gamergate tweets. And I'd hardly call the analysis of such a large number of tweets 'anecdotal.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If Newsweek had not provided enough details of their methodology for us to assess how they came to that conclusion, I would agree we should take the conclusion at face value given Newsweek has been a reliable source in the past. But there's enough details to beg how they went from their facts to their conclusion that is not tied to their normal reliability but the specific writer's judgement. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You are still arguing that you are better equipped to evaluate this data than the source is, which seems to be explicitly contrary Wikipedia policy and to the advice of the uninvolved editor who's commented on the source here. You're essentially performing original research by claiming that you can see the 'truth' of what the statistics this source has published really mean and that the conclusions it reached are flawed. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If the analysis to call the Newsweek conclusion faulty required expert statistical knowledge, then yes, that would be a problem (hence why I referred to SNYTH before). But this is a very simple determine to show that they are basing a very controversial statement on an otherwise very small fraction of the overall sample size, which doesn't require expertise in statistics to know that's a very iffy conclusion to be making. As such, when it can obviously demonstrated by simple math (within the allowance SNYTH gives), we can question such conclusions. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is a very specific type of original research. What you're doing isn't synthesis, but it is OR, because you're using the data from the source to draw your own conclusions which are not supported by the source. It's your opinion that the degree of outright negative comments does not constitute an overall hostile environment. The source knows the study's methodology better than you do, and is better able to judge how many comments flagged by it as 'negative' it takes to constitute an overall negative or harassing environment. The source found that the data provides evidence of harassment. Reliable sources > your opinion. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Requesting opinion on document from StoryNT

1. Source: Word document available from [13]
2. Article: HMAS Southern Cross
3. Content: See this diff

I have just reverted these two edits from JLSperling1 (talk · contribs) to the article HMAS Southern Cross, which were attributed to this document.

The document is available from "StoryNT", which appears to be a Northern Territory government project to collate and present online user-submitted stories and documents. I am concerned that this document (and documents from StoryNT in general) do not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, particularly as the project is soliciting user-submitted content, and does not appear to exercise any editorial control or fact-checking of submissions. The Disclaimer/Conditions of Use document includes ominous statements like "... although the Northern Territory Library (NTL) endeavours to monitor the quality and integrity of the information on this site, it does not guarantee that the information is complete or correct." and "The information in these collections does not constitute endorsement by NTL, as the sources are outside our control." Submissions to the project are usually released online after 1 working day.

In regard to the source in question, although framed as a document about the ship in question, the content focuses more on the activities and experiences of one of the sailors. The author appears (based on surname similarity) to be a descendant of the sailor in question. The content added to the article was from after the sailor's service aboard the vessel, so is likely to be of unspecified secondhand origin.

Was I wrong in reverting this content, or are my concerns about the quality of the source valid? -- saberwyn 08:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Technically correct, but it seems a shame to lose the information. Perhaps as a External Link? Incidentally, I'd assume the newspaper article[14] included in the document is reliable and calls into question the reliability of the Miramar Ship Index entry on this particular ship. That entry says 1D, presumably where the 1 diesel engine fact was sourced. However, the SMH article says "engines", which would support the selfpub document's assertion. It also gives the total length and cost, which may be useful in the WP entry. Further, there are a number of articles on Trove written on 4th September 1933 (published 5th/6th September) which refer to the launch of the Southern Cross, e.g.[15], including this one written on the 4th that specifies "launched today"[16] This is further evidence of the unreliability of that Miramar entry, which has the launch date as 4/7/1933. Likely this is a September-is-the-seventh-month sort of data-entry error.

BTW, what's the current source for the armament? Because, if it's unverified, it seems sensible to change to that suggested by the unreliable source (unreliable>no source when there's no reason to actually doubt the information). Bromley86 (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Cosign by ARX sources

Hi - wanted to get opinions on whether the following sources can be considered reliable for the article I'm working on User:Drcarver/CoSign_by_ARX:

1) Source: Legal IT Professionals

Content:

Digital signatures, which are based on Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) technology...are the result of a cryptographic operation that creates a ‘fingerprint’ unique to both the signer and the content, so that they cannot be copied, forged or tampered with. This process provides proof of signer identity, data integrity and the non-repudiation of signed documents, all of which can be verified without the need for proprietary verification software.

2) Source: Bio-IT World

Content:

Industries of focus include life science (particularly research and clinical trials

3) Source: EngineeringNews.co.za

Content:

Cosign is used in...Africa

4) Source: DataManager.IT

Content:

In August 2014, CoSign became the first remote / server-side digital signature solution to receive Common Criteria EAL4+ certification

Drcarver (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Are Rotten Tomatoes reviewers automatically reliable sources/reviews?

At The Principle there is a small dispute about inclusion of a poorly written review from NYC Movie Guru, a website run by Avi Offer with no obvious editorial oversight which looks more like a blog. The reviewer is listed on the Rotten Tomatoes page as a critic however. Should the review be included because RT consider the source a critic? Sam Walton (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It is obviously a reliable source for the writer's opinion. However whether or not that opinion was significant enough to include is a matter of weight. There are for example a number of critics listed that appear in fringe political publications. That's fine for Rotten Tomatoes, because they represent a small number of critics overall, and therefore have the correct weighting for the aggregate. But that does not mean that the reviews in the World Socialist Web Site should automatically be included articles about every film. TFD (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I am unconvinced that a minor "documentary" is sufficiently notable under Wikipedia guidelines at this point. I realize some YouTube "documentaries" do have articles on Wikipedia, but that does not persuade me that those "documentaries" should have articles either. We have a lovely Pandora's box once we open the floodgates - and "true believers" in the documentaries always seem to appear. Collect (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)