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.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of 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, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453

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?

Media as RS for their own controversies (GamerGate)

Something that occurs to me after reading about all this GamerGate stuff -- is it appropriate to consider pieces of media reliable sources for controversies that they themselves are the subject of? Extending that, what about pieces of media owned by the same company (for example if a Gawker property is subject of a controversy are other Gawker properties RS)?

It seems...inappropriate to consider something an RS for a topic when it has an express business interest in taking a particular bias in it's coverage, which is always going to be the case when it's the subject of a controversy (in the case of GamerGate, Kotaku [for example] needs it to not be about ethics in journalism and alleged misbehavior of some of it's writers as much as possible because it makes them look terrible, and so have an express interest in not representing it as being about those things, as potentially does Gawker as a whole). Schadrach (talk) 12:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It depends on the particular situation. See our policies on questionable sources (note the footnote about conflicts of interest) and on using such sources as sources for statements about themselves. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Since every other uninvolved RS says it's not about journalism ethics, I don't see why Kotaku and Gawker can't be RS as well on it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

As DrFleischman says, it depends on the situation. Ultimately, a reliable source is one that has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Generally speaking, Wikipedia prefers third-party sources. WP:V says to "base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources" (emphasis mine). And as DrFleischman points out, WP:V cautions against using sources with an apparent conflict of interest. OTOH, sometimes, first-party sources can have an excellent reputation for reliability. Consider, for example, the US government's 9/11 Commission report is a highly respected (if not definitive) source about the September 11 attacks. When in doubt, you can use in-text attribution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

DrFleischman and Quest are correct. In this case, media outlets that were targeted by GamerGate prior to writing anything about the controversy (Gawker as a whole, for example) cannot be considered third-party sources for the subject, but any that wrote about it before being targeted (Washington Post, etc.) were third parties at the time of writing, and are thus better sources to use. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 05:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

That logic falls apart when gg makes the same baseless claims against NYT / Guardian / BBC anyone else who writes about them in a manner they dont like. The allegations of being not a reliable source have to have some basis or third party confirmation before they are given credence in knocking established publications from the RS category. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

All three of those sources you listed were uninvolved before they wrote about GG, so no, it doesn't. The issue isn't general reliability - it's that they weren't written by a (then-)third party. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 06:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Kotaku was "uninvolved" before GG made demonstrably-false and discredited allegations about one of its employees. The fact that GamerGate has attacked something does not render it unreliable for our purposes. If anyone *besides* GamerGate considered the accusations to be meaningful or well-founded, we might have a different discussion. But literally everyone not in the tank for GamerGate (ranging from Columbia Journalism Review to PBS NewsHour) has examined the claims made against Kotaku and found them to be specious nothingburgers. So we helpfully quote all those other sources refuting the claims, along with Kotaku's own report on its investigation. We are not solely basing the statement on what Kotaku itself says. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate didn't exist before the "gamers are dead" articles, which Kotaku among others ran. (The related Quinnspiracy stuff was much smaller and under a different hashtag.) Kotaku's been the primary target of Gamergate boycotts. Whatever the truth of the specific allegations that spawned Gamergate, pretending Kotaku is reliable about a consumer revolt AIMED AT BOYCOTTING THEM AND PUSHING AWAY THEIR ADVERTISERS is bullshit. 209.6.166.24 (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank TRPoD for pointing me here. Anyways, I'm probably using this for the fivethousanth time, but "Employee X of Gawker media did not do y. [1] Source: Gawker Media". Gawker Media and its network of news/blog sites, depending on which day of the week it is, should not, under any circumstance, be considered reliable, being described as a tabloid. Additionally, the only instance where Gawker should be cited, is for the section on Operation Baby Seal (in which gamers and others are emailing Google and Amazon themselves to report proven violations of their ad systems). If anything, Gawker media should be blacklisted as a reliable source on Wikipedia, if anything, given their low, low standards of "reporting", bloglike nature, and otherwise low quality "news". Clickbait. It's nothing but clickbait. --DSA510 Pls No H8 21:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:RS please. Furthermore, for all it's faults, Gawker is still a reliable source than Breitbart, Youtube videos, 4chan posts Gamergate love to spam.--137.111.13.200 (talk) 03:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

More reliable doesn't mean reliable, and Gawker has a long history of posting false and defamatory articles, getting sued, and settling out of court. 209.6.166.24 (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

India News Co.

Resolved

I wish to know whether this is a reliable source in the context of establishing Sarbajit Roy's notability, the article is facing a RfD. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It may depend on which report you intend to rely on. For example, this one won't do the job because it is yet more self-publicity from Roy. Same with this and this. The man is clearly capable of getting his press releases into a fairly minor news agency service but that isn't going to do much for WP:GNG given what we already know about him. - Sitush (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Need third party uninvolved opinion. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Notability requires "received significant coverage in reliable sources". Passing mentions of a person do not do that. TFD (talk) 05:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Is the source good? As the subject's name is in the report title which is significant enough. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear that this is a reliable source for any purpose and there is good reason to reject it outright as a reliable source concerning Roy. The website describes the India News Co as partly transcribing content from TV stations[1] and providing material for the use of "news professionals", but there is no indication of its clientele or of relioable news sources using India News Co content. The website has a narrow focus as summarised on that page, and little content - just 12 pages of "slugs". The website says India News Co was established in 2004 but the domain was registered in 2013.[2] It is particularly disturbing that the registrant's address, Apt. B-801, N/P CGHS Ltd., Plot 28, Sector 4, Dwarka, New Delhi,[3] is the same as that used by Sarbajit Roy in 2013.[4] It seems likely that the website is under Roy's control and used for purposes of publicity and authentication. NebY (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

IndiaNewsCo is currently used as a reference in three articles.

• National Technical Research Organisation, added 21 August 2013 (though with an access date of 21 August 2012)[5] by TheWikiIndian, blocked April 2014 for personal attacks on Sitush over IAC and after apparently posting on behalf of IAC.[6]
• Right to Information Act, added 12 August 2013 by TheWikiIndian.[7]
• Anna Hazare, added 14 August 2013 by TheWikiIndian.[8]

I haven't attempted to check the content those references are used to support. NebY (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@NebY: good detective work there, thanks. It looks like another of Roy's stooge sites, like this one. However, the redirect has been deleted and the page is create-protected, so this thread is now redundant. - Sitush (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Great sleuthing NebY. And if the subject ever returns, we should be extra-careful not to take any source, url or claim at face value. Abecedare (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

People should also be wary of clicking on any links. Several domain names associated with this farm have been found to be phishing sites etc and, of course, Roy claims to have written India's first virus. - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks NebY after my faux pas with Hindustan Today I wanted to be a little careful and the agency didn't look perfect so I brought it here. Regardless of the outcome of the said discussion, I feel the subject is notable enough, for a stand alone article, and I will be more careful if/when I appeal the deletion. Thanks one more time. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Mbendi

A reader noted that there are quite a few links to Mbendi Information Services.

Examples: Bartogay Lake Tazlaul Mare oil field

Some articles have no other information sources other than an Mbendi link.

Is this a reliable source, or is someone trying to use Wikipedia to legitimize a marginal resource?

I see a reference to this site in the archives but no conclusions were drawn.

A list of articles containing "Mbendi"--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

the Bartogay Lake page on MBendi is clearly a Wiki [9] - it has 'update' tabs on it. Accordingly, the page shouldn't be used at all. Their Tazlaul Mare oil field page on the other hand appears to be a press release [10], and clearly shouldn't be used for anything contentious. As for the website as a whole, I can find no obvious indication that it has "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy", or indeed that it has any reputation at all, and accordingly wouldn't recommend it as a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to follow on from Andy's statement, I wouldn't use Mbendi for anything. The press release/article can be found on a more reliable site, Rigzone. Bromley86 (talk) 12:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Andy, and thanks @Bromley86: for fixing those two.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Barelvi

Is this reliable to use in the Barelvi article? It seems to be the site of the movement :http://www.alahazrat.net/islam/waseela.php" (it is to be used to add that they have a practice called "Waseela")

& is this a reliable source: https://www.academia.edu/7643961/Anti-Americanism_in_Indonesia_and_Pakistan" (to be used to add a link to Nahdlatul Ulama in the see also section of the Barelvi article with the headline "similar traditional movement". Lagoonaville (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Lagoonaville:, this was already being discussed at Talk:Barelvi#Usage_of_proper_terms. You've been reverted by three editors on this point now and the issue was already discussed at that talk page. That doesn't mean the majority view is necessarily correct, but out of politeness you should have informed at least one of us that you would take the discussion elsewhere so that all views might be heard. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

We are well aware of your thoughts on this matter. I would like to hear feedback from the users on this noticeboard. Lagoonaville (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

No clue about the discussion on the articles in question, but here are my takes on the two sources:

• Academica.edu has no editorial oversight and appears any user can upload to it. No way of verifying the truthiness of anything posted there. Not reliable.
• Alahazrat.net could be used as WP:SPSSELF without issue if it is indeed their official page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The first source is not necessarily representative of Barelvi opinion or scholarship, and the second source is just an unpublished opinion. You seem to be pushing an agenda contrary to the advice of several editors. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

What is the Barelvi opinion on this matter? Can you provide a source that is contrary to this? Lagoonaville (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is on you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

EvergreenFir is right: it is your responsibility to prove the reliability of your source. I have not added a source, so I'm not obligated to defend something I haven't presented. As I asked on the Barelvi take page: would a post on a local Anglican-affiliated website (of unproven official authority) be a good source for establishing a certain official Church of England doctrine? Clearly not. It doesn't make sense to me to use your source (Alahazrat.net) to prove a Barelvi doctrine. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

If the information is accurate and backed by other sources why wouldnt it be? This website is dedicated to barelvi movement. Lagoonaville (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

1. Who says it is accurate? It isn't reliable, so we have no means of determining accuracy other than "one editor likes it."

2. Anybody can create a website and dedicate it to anything. What is the proof that it is official? We already had non-official attempts at representation of the Barelvi movement throughout the whole User:Msoamu fiasco a few years ago. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• • • Sources insupport of barelvi practicing tawassul or waseela***

'"Barelvi Islam is closely tied to the devotion to pirs and belief in their powers of intercession (wasilah)"'. State and ideology in the Middle East and Pakistan. Page 84 [11]

"Darul Uloom (Pretoria) was the first fully-fledged Barelwi madrasah. It was established in 1989, at a time when the Deobandi-Barelwi confclit in South Africa was at its peaks. During the 1980s, Deobandi attacks had heightened against popular Sufi practices such as the visitation to shrines of Sufi saints, the celebration of Muhammad’s birth (mawlid), and against beliefs in the intercession of saints (tawassul)"' Muslim Schools and E'ducation in Europe and South Africa).page 76 [12]

"According to Barelwi scholar, Muhammad is no mere mortal. He possesses ‘ilm al-ghayb (knowledge of the unknown) and is the primary focus for tawassul (intercession) with God". Encyclopaedia of Islam.page 88 [13]

'"Barelvis believe in the wasilah (higher standing or great religious status) of dead saints and their brakkah (spiritual power, blessings, holiness), to be found in their shrines". Islamic Fundamentalism in Pakistan, Egypt and Iran. page 399 [14]

• • • Source in support of Barelvi & Nahdlatul Ulama being similar movement

"The only reformist school which has vindicated the full Sufi heritage, is that of the Barelwis who have been joined by the Naqshbandis; their practice of Sufism may be compared to that of the Indonesian Nathdlatul Ulama.” Varieties of Religious Authority: Changes and Challenges in 20th Century Indonesian Islam. Page 8 [15] Lagoonaville (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Ethiopianorthodox.org

I very much doubt that Ethiopianorthodox.org is the official website of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church (or for any church therein). According to Special:LinkSearch, Abuna Theophilos cites the website as a source (diff), although that particular webpage gives a 404 error, even on archive.org. The site also appears in the "External links" section of Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and Anaphora (liturgy), and was linked in a discussion at Talk:Ge'ez language. However, I think its use on Wikipedia might be more widespread than Special:LinkSearch indicates. I, for one, cited it as a reference in Gigi (singer) (diff), before I had questions about the website's provenance, and I vaguely recall either seeing it or citing it myself in other articles (probably about church holidays).

The website's copyright notice reads "©2003-Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church" which suggests that it's official, but their "About Us" page (link) indicates that the website (or its webmaster) is based in the UK (as opposed to Addis Ababa) and, more importantly, makes no mention of any affiliation with the Patriarchate, nor with any church in Ethiopia or abroad. By contrast, a different website, Eotc-patriarch.org does present itself as the official website (at least of the Patriarchate), but does not present any English-language material (though it apparently did so in the past). My guess is that Ethiopianorthodox.org is maintained by laypersons; this page alludes to a controversy and suggests that interested parties consult a Holy Synod publication -- as opposed to saying "we are the Holy Synod and here's what we have to say about it" had it been an official website.

I am not sure how harmful it would be to continue using this website as a reliable source. My working assumption is that the webmasters have the best of intentions, but I'm not sure if or how that helps us. Some of the material (such as the citation I added to the Gigi article) is ostensibly reprinted from official church documents, which themselves would be reliable sources. (It turns out that when I cited the website at the Gigi article, I cited the original title, authors, and publisher as the website presented them. I think that this is the way to go, if we are going to allow the website as a source. I've since gone back and added |via=Ethiopianorthodox.org for clarification.) However, this raises issues about linking to (possible) copyright violations (see WP:ELNEVER): WP:NUSC says that Ethiopia has no copyright agreements with the United States, but in this case, the website that is re-using the content is apparently based in the UK. And we have to assume good faith that these documents are being reprinted with their original, unadulterated text. Any other content on that website would, unfortunately, fall under WP:SPS. But if we prohibit this website, I'm not sure we can easily find English-language, Church-related material elsewhere on the web. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• I've left notifications about this discussion at WP:ETHIO and WP:OO. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Electronic cigarette health claims

Source 1 of 2 ("Hajek 2014")

Hajek, P; Etter, JF; Benowitz, N; Eissenberg, T; McRobbie, H (31 July 2014). "Electronic cigarettes: review of use, content, safety, effects on smokers and potential for harm and benefit" (PDF). Addiction (Abingdon, England). PMID 25078252.

Article

Electronic cigarette, with talk page discussion archived at [16]

Content statements (first two of four)

A. "Electronic cigarettes are likely to be much less harmful to smokers than cigarettes."

B. "Health care professionals should support smokers wishing to switch to electronic cigarettes and emphasise the importance of stopping using cigarettes and nicotine."

Source 2 of 2 ("Polosa 2013")

Polosa, Riccardo; Rodu, Brad; Caponnetto, Pasquale; Maglia, Marilena; Raciti, Cirino (2013), "A fresh look at tobacco harm reduction: the case for the electronic cigarette" (PDF), Harm Reduction Journal, 10 (10), doi:10.1186/1477-7517-10-19, PMID 24090432{{citation}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Article

Electronic cigarette, with talk page discussion archived at [17]

Content statements (last two of four)

C. "Smokers switching to electronic cigarettes find them helpful and will likely achieve large health gains."

D. "Even if they are effective for only a quarter of smokers, electronic cigarettes could save millions of lives over the next decade."

EllenCT (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that the objections to the material above were due to WP:WEIGHT and WP:ASSERT basis, and not due to a question of reliability, so a discussion about reliability is unlikely to solve the actual objection to the material. Yobol (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

So you agree that the sources are reliable and the statements fairly represent them, but you believe that WP:WEIGHT and the WP:ASSERT essay can somehow overrule the WP:NPOV pillar policy requirement that all points of view be represented, and the WP:LEAD guideline directive to summarize major controversies in article introductions? EllenCT (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

First, WP:WEIGHT and WP:ASSERT are part of WP:NPOV so your question makes no sense. Second, NPOV issues are not appropriate for discussion on RS/N. As this has been discussed already on the talk page, I will leave it to others if they want to waste their time further discussing it here. This will be my last comment about the topic here. Yobol (talk) 03:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yobol does not explain why WP:WEIGHT might apply, and I don't see anyone other than Yobol having raised WEIGHT and ASSERT issues. Claiming that WP:ASSERT applies implies that the statements are opinions instead of facts, which strongly suggests to me that this is a question of reliability of the sources and their support of the statements, appropriate for this noticeboard. EllenCT (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Both sources are review articles in journals. Nothing to really address here in terms of reliability sources, although it does look like caution is needed in separating fact summarized in the reviews from the opinions and conclusions made by the authors. As Yobol mentioned, seems like the current statements picked are a matter of weight and not really the purpose of this board. Especially since we're dealing with statements that all appear to be pro-e-cig (or really whenever you are saying something is a positive or negative) that's an obvious question for weight. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC United States same-sex marriage map

I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas. You are welcome to join in on the conversation; reliable sources are also welcome! RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

is this web page reliable?

[18]

All the specs in that site of the motorcycle are been used to expand and as a source to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_GPZ305 wikipedia article

Thanks Orendona (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Times, Washington Post and Guardian Reliability regarding GamerGate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing because this appears to be a content dispute about interpretation of particular sources and not about the reliability of the sources per se. The three sources are considered widely reliable on a range of issues. User appears to be taking issue with one particular point which is better discussed on the talk pages of related articles. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

---

These sites, used as a reliable source in the Gamergate_controversy, claim or insinuate, in these articles

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/23/felicia-days-public-details-online-gamergate The Guardian Quote: The publication of Day’s details is being seen as further strengthening the criticism that Gamergate’s partcipants are pursuing an anti-woman agenda, None of you fucking #gamergate tools tried to dox me, even after I tore you a new one. I’m not even a tough target, he tweeted. Instead, you go after a woman who wrote why your movement concerns her.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/24/gamergate-targets-felicia-day-after-she-expresses-fear-of-being-targeted/ Washington Post Quote: Day was worried that if she spoke up about Gamergate, she would be viciously harassed by the same torch-bearing misogynists who have targeted feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian and developers Brianna Wu and Zoe Quinn. Well, she was right.

My emphasis. The 'vicious harassment' attributed is based on the same as the Times and WP: a post who claims no affiliation.

http://time.com/3535619/felicia-day-writes-about-gamergate-gets-information-hacked/ Times Quote: Supernatural actress and avid gamer Felicia Day took to her Tumblr to talk about #GamerGate on Thursday and, perhaps unsurprisingly, was immediately harassed. Though #GamerGaters claim that they are

that the movement GamerGate is reponsible for harassing and doxxing her, something that the Gamergate article in Wikipedia reflects. However, they are based on a commentary (which one of the articles link: http://imgur.com/UAcmAg1) that do not claim affiliation to any movements, nor makes reference to a movement. At the very best this is rumor mongering and at worst it's straight dishonest, and spreading lies isn't the characteristic of reliable sources. --Zakkarum (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not a forum. If you wish to ask whether Wikipedia contributors consider a particular source is reliable for a particular statement, do so, providing all the necessary details. Otherwise, find somewhere else (off Wikipedia) to express your personal opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

But I just did that. The evidence, the quotes the news used, and everything that is asked is right there. I posted this here to find out whether Wikipedia contributors consider a particular source is reliable for this topic. The quotes they use and the source they claim did everything. --Zakkarum (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

You have not stated what specific text the sources were being cited for. Instead you made a vague statement about article content and then went on to accuse well-established and reputable news providers of 'rumor mongering' and 'spreading lies'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The whole point of reliable sources is that they have publishing standards and editorial oversight. Do you really believe that The Guardian, Time, and the Washington Post didn't do due dillegence on stories they released? Parabolist (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I did specify the quotes. I will make it more clear now. And yes, Parabolist. They all point to one comment, and the comment doesn't reflect what they say. You can check it yourself. --Zakkarum (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope. I asked what specific text in the Wikipedia article the sources were being cited for. You have not told us this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you are asking for the quotes the sources gave. Well, as I said, it's used as source 47, 48 and 49 in the article. One unsourced claim is also implied that it relates to the article but only Day was singled out for harassment. and o the draft it's sourced on the same comment. The other quote is After actress and gamer Felicia Day made a blog post noting her concerns over GamerGate and how she has avoided discussing it due to fear of the backlash, her address was posted in the comments section. which is under the article Further harassment and threats, which implies (and the sources outright say too) was made by GamerGate. --Zakkarum (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Maybe you should consider that if all of these incredibly experienced and reliable news organizations came to the same conclusion about a topic, that they might actually be right? This is the second topic about Gamergate on this page and they both are media conspiracy nonsense. Parabolist (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Your question is confusing... are you asking if the three articles linked are RS? If so, of course they are. You don't get much more reliable news than those sources. But we seem to be saying they are somehow reliable in this one instance for some reason I cannot quite glean. If that is the case, please briefly explain further. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Parabolist:I'm not saying these entire media outlets are wrong, but that in this topic, regarding the image they are using, it is. The comment they use as a primary source doesn't not imply any affiliation yet it is used as proof. How is that reliable? Did you even check the stuff? If so, care to explain how the comment they used lead to GamerGate? We are here to discuss the reliability of sources, not to attend your conspiracy theories that if everyone reposts the same hoax, it's the truth. --Zakkarum (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I'm questioning their reliability in this issue, since the three articles base off a comment that declared no affiliation, yet the sources put one affiliation. Attributing something to someone that doesn't exist isn't quite reliable. --Zakkarum (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Zakkarum:- Sources do not exist in a vacuum. Everything has context. I HAVE looked at the stories here, and I have seen Day's original post. It is extremely obvious to see the connection. Journalists are not wikipedians, they're capable of making conclusions based on research and evidence, that's the entire point of secondary sources. Parabolist (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Zakkarum, neither the sources cited nor our article state that anything was 'made by GamerGate', if only for the very good reason that 'GamerGate' isn't a person, and nor is it an organisation with a defined membership - there is no such thing as a 'GamerGate affiliation'. The sources state the facts - that Day made a blog commentary on the issue, and promptly had her address posted. I don't see any reason why Wikipedia should refrain from suggesting that the two events were self-evidently connected, any more than anyone else would. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump:The sources do claim that. It's even on the title. gamergate-targets-felicia-day-after-she-expresses-fear-of-being-targeted. That's the washington Post. The guardians says The publication of Day’s details is being seen as further strengthening the criticism that Gamergate’s partcipants are pursuing an anti-woman agenda The Times quote is also there, and they use twitter quotes who claim the same thing. So they say the harassment was made by gamergate, and it's used in the wiki article to prove that point. Felicia Day also didn't say she was harassed or doxxed, even though the three journals say she was. The article uses the sources as an example of "other harassment and doxxing". When you use that in the article, not only the source showed it was unreliable, but putting the source under the "Further harassment and threats" section of an article about GamerGate implies what? That this is a harassment linked to gamergate, even though that link doesn't exist. --Zakkarum (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BDSM enthusiasts' websites as RS's for BDSM page?

Hi, folks.

I deleted some long-unsourced material from BDSM page. The material had been tagged for 2 months or more, but no RS's came forth. (There remains still more unsourced and tagged material.) User:RobinHood70 wants to restore the deleted material, using as sources amateur websites maintained by BDSM enthusiasts, and acknowledging that "I take it as a given that some sources will be less than ideal for the simple reason that BDSM is not often covered in mainstream non-fiction literature."[19]

The sites User:RobinHood70 proposes as sources are:

• http://www.xeromag.com the author of which describes himself here.
• http://www.evilmonk.org the author of which describes himself here.

Although I am sympathetic to the problem, my own view is that WP is not a fan cite and that if the material does not receive coverage by RS's, then the material does not belong in an encyclopedia. That is, we don't lower are standards to justify material; we have a standard and include the material that meets it.

The exact statements being restored are:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BDSM&diff=635567721&oldid=635560808
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BDSM&diff=635560808&oldid=635349778

(Other material being restored properly sourced there is no issue with.)

Thanks for any input.
— James Cantor (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)