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

What criteria are used to judge newspapers as being RS?

The following discussion 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.

---

A thread above on the Daily Mail has led to discussions about RS much broader than that single newspaper. What criteria/rules of thumb should editors use to judge whether a newspaper is RS for the edit they wish to make?DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

If only we had a policy on reliable sources that editors could consult, and some sort of noticeboard where they could discuss the specific application of those rules to more difficult, specific, or nuanced questions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

ermmmm...is this sarcasm, perhaps?DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Does the publication have a reputation for fact checking, accuracy and editorial oversight? Is its reputation in the area of discussion for these particular facts? Which other sources are reporting these facts? Which other sources are reporting contradictory facts? Is the question a matter of WP:BLP? Is the question a matter of WP:MEDRES? How old is the publication? Are there newer sources that have more up to date analysis? Does it have a reputation for scandal and rumor mongoring? Is there a conflict of interest in this particular story that weighs against other criteria? When it makes mistakes, what corrective actions does it take? When it makes mistakes do other reliable sources cover the mistake? Are they covering it because it is a rare event or because mistakes are the stock in trade of the publication?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Which ones have this reputation, which ones don't. It feels a bit like we are asking everyone to reinvent the wheel each time. --ℕ ℱ 20:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks TRPoD. Now we have something we can work with. Do you think the country in which the newspaper is published is relevant - for example, might British newspapers be considered more RS for British matters?DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Locality could be a factor into expertise, which is one of many considerations when it comes to reliability. Locality can also be a source of bias, which does not affect reliability but can affect how an article should frame any claims. I've written an essay at Wikipedia:Applying Reliability Guidelines that goes into more detail. Rhoark (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Could the draft table below be used to summarize consensus on the "general" suitability of newspapers as RS compliant?

Newspaper	Country	Age (years)	Does the source have a good or bad reputation for -										Do other sources		Another column
			Checking facts	Accuracy	Editorial oversight	Reporting on this subject	Correcting its mistakes	Preferentially reporting scandal or rumours	Preferentially reporting rare events	Conflict of interest	9	10	Report contradictory facts	Report mistakes by the source	Category 1	Category 2
Daily Mail	UK	65	bad	bad	gooda	bad	good	bad	good	bad	?	?	Yes	Yes	?	?
Daily Express	UK	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.
Daily Telegraph	UK	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.
The Guardian	UK	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.
Notes here aThere is editorial oversight, but the editor is clearly biased against feminist issues

DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you are trying to find a formulaic approach to something that simply does not lend itself to formulas. Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Should I call a RfC for this?DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would be to anyone's benefit, including yours. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris I'm not sure I understand your point - why would calling an RfC not be to my benefit?DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris. I am close to calling an RfC on this but I would like to be aware of the possible consequences. So, I am repeating my question to you - why would calling an RfC not be to my benefit?DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the RS noticeboard. YOur post is actually a 'de-facto' RFC. Several people replied already. And going bureaucratic dose not change the fact that we cannot cast in stone what you want. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You ar forgetting the fact that a "source" has three components, each of which can be questioned independently: (publisher, author, text). If the reliability of a reference is questioned, this must be based on specific arguments. A policy cannot simply declare "LLanvabon Monday News" reliable to unconditionally trump any doubts. Yes, each WP:RS discussion is reinventing a wheel, because each time the wheel is different. Of course, we can reject triangular wheels right away, but even a quite round wheel may be wobbly. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment People seem to think there is a hidden agenda here - to set things in stone so that there is no point to this Noticeboard. There is no hidden agenda. What I am trying to achieve is some sort of general consensus which can be published as a reference guide so that editors can quickly see that a source might be challenged. Even if this is something like "Tabloid newspapers are generally considered as poor sources and better sources are almost always preferred". I don't understand the reluctance to do something like this.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@User:DrChrissy Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like you are trying to give individual newspapers a general "grade" without regard to the content and context of a particular reference in a specific article. I'm afraid such a contextless "carte blanche" grade is basically meaningless. To make statements like "The Anyburgh Daily Blah is hereby declared to be a Reliable Source, for any and all purposes and for all time" is an excercise in futility. Each individual reference is evaluated within its specific context. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I am actually more concerned about identifying non-RS. Some editors are already "carte blanche" dismissing sources by leaving edit summaries like "completely unacceptable particularly as a validation of other rumors. no no no no no", "the Daily Mail is a tabloid rarely suitable four [sic] sourcing but certainly not on an issue like this." and "Probably need something better than a HuffPo blog post for this." If these generalist concerns were available, especially to new editors, they would save editors much time and frustration, and lead to better sourced articles.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem with such proposed 'blacklists' is that they lead to arguments to the effect that anything not on the list can be used as a source for anything. That isn't the way it works, and we don't want to give credence to such simplistic thinking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

If they are identifying the Daily Mail as unreliable, they are most likely right. It is sometimes right, because even they can't be wrong all the time, but they are very frequently wrong, and deliberately so. Guy (Help!) 08:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

We really need a FAQ on this topic as it comes up again and again. The answer to "Is the Daily Mail as a reliable source?" is always "a reliable source for what"? I don't go out of my way to use it, and its hyperbole and ability to not worry about facts getting in the way of a good story is well known. [1] In that respect, it's actually worse than The Sun which at least is obviously a tabloid and makes no effort to pretend otherwise. However, it is the only British newspaper read more by women than men, and I am convinced it produces articles about fashion and shopping that are covered in more depth compared to other papers. In that respect, it is an important source when used with care to counteract our systemic bias. It is not surprising to me that a white, male 23-year old would find little of interest in the Mail. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It is exactly that sort of information that we need to encapsulate in something like "The Daily Mail is rarely considered to be a reliable source, however, it has a more acceptable reputation when reporting on womens' fashion and shopping".DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

No. That violates WP:BEANS. The salient fact is that the Daily Mail is usually only reliable on things that are not worth including in Wikipedia. And if we do use them as a source for some trivia, we are attracting clicks to adjacent content which is usually either grossly unreliable or simply creepy (the phrase "all grown up" for example is a hallmark of their obsessive sexualisation of very young women). Guy (Help!) 17:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Can we really "violate" what is just an essay?DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the point is that you shouldn't have hard and fast rules about whether 'x' is a reliable source, because somebody will use it in an argument in an edit war or AfD discussion : "Of course it's a reliable source, it's 'x'". Guy, if you look at my user page, you'll see I keep tabs on BLPs cited to the Sun, the Mail and the Daily Star, which incredibly (as I write this) appears as a citation in no less than 13 BLPs. Please help reduce the backlog. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I really do see the points that are being made here and I am listening. Maybe this is an issue more about editor's behaviour. I came to this issue because I wanted to write about the numbers of dogs eaten at an annual festival in China. I found several blogs which stated 10,000 (but obviously non-RS) and then found the Daily Mail article which also stated 10,000. So, I edited the entry only to be told that The Daily Mail was not a suitable source, So, I then researched further and found The Independent also reported 10,000. So where exactly did the Daily Mail gain such a poor reputation for reporting on the numbers of dogs killed at an annual festival in China? This is the context in which the source was used but I believe a much broader brush is being used in these decisions. I really don't care whether the Daily Mail or whatever newspaper is perceived in this way, but I do care that editors should be informed somewhere of how broad this brush is.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail didn't get a poor reputation for reporting on the number of dogs killed at an annual festival, if has a poor reputation on everything, especially anything relating to a regime which does not match its ideal (which is somewhat more libertarian than either Thatcher or Reagan). It probably didn't fact-check the number. The Indie might have, but also is quite likely not to have done. That kind of number has a tendency to be speculative and to originate with a group with an agenda. Guy (Help!) 08:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think a sort of report card, while not definitive, could be a valuable resource for editors. Rhoark (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I strongly agree this would be a valuable resource and I have never understood why it doesn't exist. While we should make clear that there is no definitive list and RSes are judged on a case-by-case basis, the specific questions "Does the publication have a reputation for fact checking, accuracy and editorial oversight?" can and should be answered in a table like this. It would be an especially valuable resource to people who just stumble on a paper they are unfamiliar with, which happens all the time. How are you supposed to know if the Weekly So-and-so has a reputation for fact checking? Well, maybe someone else knows. I don't think there's a reasonable objection to making public and accessible the community's consensus on how specific newspapers generally measure up in terms of these standards. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't exist because it would encourage a rules-based approach that lost sight of the actual content, so unreliable content could be supported because it's in a place that's usually reliable and vice-versa. It's not as if anybody will be unaware that 90% of what the Daily Mail writes is dross, after all. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure where you get your statistics from, but it would be interesting to know the demographics of the survey. Are 15-yr-olds aware of this reputation - especially the ones that are directed to edit on WP as a school exercise? How many US, Chinese, French (enter any non-UK country) citizens are aware of this reputation? We need to let them know.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, when I'm dealing with foreign papers, especially Indian ones, it's rarely clear what's dreck and what isn't. Even with American and British sources, there are simply so many different ones, and I never know how to find out if they fact check. Does the average person know that The Daily Beast is a quality paper? We see the Huffington Post cited all the time, and it's clear most people don't know anything about its editorial practices. What about The New York Post - it's a tabloid, but does that mean it doesn't fact-check? The answer is only obvious if you hang out at RSN. Again, there needs to be a disclaimer, and it needs to be made clear that consulting the table is not a substitute for judging whether the specific information cited is reliable in context, but information about the editorial practices of newspapers should not be kept secret. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

comment - everybody society's newspapers are "foreign to people from outside that society; just saying xD Lx 121 (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is almost certainly canny enough to stay on the right side of libel laws, which in the UK are largely the privilege of the rich and powerful, it being very expensive to fight a libel case. To that extent they may be reliable, the problem with them (and even more other tabloids), is the simplistic coverage. I don't see how WP could have a 'star' rating, as others have said, the context matters. A generally reliable paper like the Grauniad, consciously prints comments which are not mainstream and which are not the papers own analysis, to that extent such pieces are the opinions of the writer ONLY, as I'm sure do other notable papers. The Daily Mail would be as good a place as any for the opinion of Citizen X if that is the claim we are trying to support.Pincrete (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

You are a year or so out of date. See Defamation Act, 2013. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Guy, you're quite right I was out of date (ex-pat!).Pincrete (talk) 11:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

User DrChrissy - Circulation is all that counts ... as far as I can see. The mentioned "reputation for fact checking, accuracy and editorial oversight" simply isn't obtainable by objective measure or readily findable, and List of newspapers in the United States by circulation is clear. When we also get into the deal of is it an editorial or a column or reprinting outside material or was there good fact check on this one or is it misstating reality -- I think a bit moot, since the publisher (List of newspapers in the United States by circulation) printed it, it then is factually a relatively large distributed item and functionally for reference citeable in sense of available to for long time. Just sayin that no RS is "right", they're just a RS and useful more for WP:UNDUE context. Markbassett (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

That interpretation of WP:RS is not correct—science does not count circulation to decide what works, and neither does this noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a great question, DrChrissy. I would like to expand this question to two parts. What makes a newspaper a reliable source for:

• sourcing a claim's truthiness
• establishing a claim's weight or importance?

I've been lambasted in the past for citing newspaper articles to include a report on a lawsuit against Monsanto, in which my critics said that a particular newspaper has a history of critical reporting against Monsanto. On the other hand, i think there are biases that most people don't see because they're like the water to the fish, such as that the Wall Street Journal has a strong pro-business and pro-capitalism bias, and therefore their reporting would lend more than due weight to anything that promotes this political agenda. But their brand has the appearance of gravity and establishment acceptance, so they're rarely questioned on that basis. I think there is a danger that the "establishment" positions get strongly biased because they are establishment. Establishment does not mean consensus, but rather that which favors the status quo power structure.

As to the original question, i tend to have a profile of many news sources in my memory bank, and to update them as i learn more from experience with that news source. Some sources i just don't even go to, given their abysmal track record in regard to bias and distortion. Others, i take on a case-by-case basis. SageRad (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

That is disingenuous. The problem was is your advocacy, not just the sources you use for it. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Wat? JzG? People opposing the inclusion objected on the basis of the news sources being "crappy". That would not occur if it were reported in the WSJ or NYT or some other "establishement" news source, yet a news source that is named "AntiMedia" is not deemed worthy even though it's got an editorial board and the reporter who wrote the story about the lawsuit has authored 220 papers for that news source, and seems to be a genuine reporter on the job. So... there is definitely a power dynamic that involves establishment news sources being privileged, and also having a more establishment point of view, and therefore the establishment point of view gets de facto privileged here in Wikipedia, as well. Being "establishment" does not make a point of view more valid, but means that it's the point of view favored by the establishment, which means the people with the power in the status quo, and therefore it favors the maintenance of the status quo. This is a very strong bias that is built into society and it's mirrored and perhaps even amplified by Wikipedia. I think we should be aware of it. We should not be afraid to name it, describe it, and see what it is. Then we can decide whether to address it in some way, such as by not privileging establishment news sources above alternative news sources. We can judge based on quality of reporting, not based on point of view. We can cease to call every single alternative publication a "fringe" publication as that is a term that derides a publication solely for diverging from the establishment point of view. Judge based on quality, not on alliance with a sector of society. SageRad (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is certainly a reliable source. Like other newspapers they are sometimes wrong, but correct their errors. I think the main issue is weight. If something is only covered in the DM, then it is likely insignificant. Echo chamber stories for example may be reported there. For example an article might say, "According to the [right-wing] XYZ Foundation, [insert latest conspiracy theory here]." And the article would be accurate, XYZ Foundation actually said that. But there would be no reason for us to pick up on the story unless it hit mainstream media. The WSJ news reporting by the way does not have a pro-business, pro-capitalist bias, any more than other mainstream media, only the editorial page does. TFD (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It is of course not possible to give general formulae. But if the Daily Mail reports something on science, most probably the opposite is true. But often they are not even wrong. Kingsindian ♝♚ 01:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Kingsindian and The_Four_Deuces, i have noticed very bad, one could say counter-factual, reporting about climate change and fossil fuels issues from both the Daily Mail and the Wall Street Journal, and i mean reporting, not just editorial page. Here, in fact. is a report about the issue in regard to WSJ, based on a study recently published in the journal Public Understanding of Science. And, i continue to assert my claim that the WSJ -- both in the reporting and the editorials -- is pro-capitalist to an extent that is pretty much ideologically bound. It is a paper of the establishment in terms of socioeconomic class, and it cannot be expected to have the same perspective as a more populist news source. There are indeed perspectives embodied in different news sources, and it's not just the explicit opinions in the op-ed pages. SageRad (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not talking about "hot button" issues like climate change. The basic practice in many news media is simply to take a press release about some alleged study, often put out by a totally unqualified person, and report it as fact. There are many firms who specialize in hyping up such things, thus, you find every other day "X cures cancer" or "Y causes cancer", based on studies that show no such thing. The Daily Mail is worse in this respect because of it sensationalist tabloid structure, but many mainstream outlets are pretty bad as well. One good source about this matter is this. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

'

• In my opinion, asking whether a major news media source is reliable (or not) is the wrong question. The question that I think should be asked is: how much WEIGHT we should we give news reports? (and the answer to that will depend on specifics... context is always important.) Blueboar (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I would suggest "celebrity news and gossip" is almost invariably problematic for every single newspaper I can think of, and is worthy of the "weight" of a helium balloon at best. Any other claims should be weighed in accord with the strength and number of sources, not just saying "this is the only source, so it must be reliable, and I want this claim in the article" <g>. Lastly, if a source retracts an article as being libelous or inaccurate, then the cite linking to the original claim becomes extremely marginal at best. Retractions are generally done "for cause."

SageRad, thanks for pointing that out. I guess my view was outdated, as the WSJ pre-Murdoch was much more balanced. But that does not change my overall view. Certainly right-wing media will provide greater emphasis to certain views, but that does not affect whether or not their reporting is factual. Kingsindian, they do not report fringe theories as fact. They will say things such as "a recent study shows that x may prevent cancer." And of course the study, which was published in the academic press probably did say that. But WP:MEDRS guidelines would prevent us from using any newspaper as a source, and WEIGHT woiuld prevent us from using isolated studies. TFD (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Unfortunately, that is not correct. They say that "X may prevent cancer", when the study would be about something totally different and very narrow, like "if you inject rats with some particular ingredient from X it suppresses the gene Y which is linked to cancer in some obscure way" (I am handwaving here), and this is translated by a PR firm into "X prevents cancer". Examples are plenty on the site I linked. I am quite aware that WP:MEDRS exists, but I was talking about newspapers, like the Daily Mail, on science in general. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is editors who think headlines are the same as articles. Frequently, a full article in any newspaper gives the proper qualifying sense and detail (including the Daily Mail actual full articles) while the headline is written by ... a headline writer. The intent of that person is to hook a reader (e.g. the "hooks" given for clickbait sites). I rather think that using the "headline" for any claim is beyond iffy, but there are those who regard the headlines fondly <g>. Collect (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: I wish that were true. However, the body of the articles are often just as inaccurate, or as I mentioned earlier "not even wrong". The reason is that they are basically writing the press release put out by a PR firm. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Um -- I suggest you note that press releases are used by just about every major newspaper now - recall that staffing levels at newspapers in general are down more than 40% in less than a decade. Revenues for newspapers are down about 60% in the same general time period. For medical press releases see [2] back in 1998 - " Of the 1060 newspaper stories analyzed, 142 referred to journal articles; of these, 119 (84%) referred to articles mentioned in press releases and 23 (16%) referred to journal articles not mentioned in press releases (comparison of proportions, P=.03). Articles described first or second were referenced in more newspapers than articles described later in the press release (P=.01 by chi2 analysis." Yep - newspapers even back I 1998 relied very heavily on those press releases, an did not do too much work as journals not mentioned near the top of the release did nit get mentioned in articles.

[3] 2003 "Maryland.—In a breakthrough discovery that may change the face of scientific communication forever, a researcher has found that, although journalists rely on press releases to bring important discoveries to their attention, they do not write news stories about every press release they receive. Even more striking is the discovery that press releases from scientific journals sometimes present incomplete information about scientific findings.

“I’m shocked, just shocked”, said the author of the article, which appears in the current issue of Science Editor. “I never would have guessed that journalists would have such blatant disregard for what they are told is news, and I never would have suspected that journals aren’t neurotically meticulous in their press releases.” ("fake" press release used for real article following)

(actual finding) Woloshin and Schwartz found that 23% of the press releases mentioned study limitations, and 65% quantified study results. (JAMA study)

In short - often the fault is in the press release sent out by the actual medial journal, and something an editor would not normally call back on. (read the full article - it also deals with specific newspapers)

[4] (covering the Guardian, Independent, Daily Mail, and Times) In 2008, researchers at the Cardiff School of Journalism, UK, discovered that 60 percent of the articles in British newspapers the Daily Mail, the Guardian, the Times, the Daily Telegraph and the Independent had been copied from wire reports and press announcements issued by various corporations, businesses and universities. Three out of four such stories had also gone to print without being fact-checked, a trend that seems widespread: in 2012, an audit sponsored by the European Observatory of Journalism found factual errors in approximately half of all news stories published in Switzerland, Italy and the United States

60% - and including the "elite" newspapers in the same group. [5] "Most newspaper articles (72%) were written by named journalists (the unnamed journalist category refers to labels such as ‘Daily Mail Reporter’) and in nearly a quarter of cases were there was no clear identification of who had written the story (as is often the case with Nibs). Only 1% of stories were directly attributable to PA or other wire services (see Table 2.4). At first glance, then, these data suggest that the newspapers give the impression that they depend on their own journalists rather than wires or other outside sources." then " Indeed, 30% of the stories in our press sample replicated wire service copy almost directly, and a further 19% were largely dependent on wire copy. In other words, nearly half of all press stories appeared to come wholly or mainly from wire services. " Even where a "journalist" gets a by-line.

DM gets a hit "So, for example, a story about the health risks of eating oily fish (‘Why oily fish might not be so good for your health after all’, Daily Mail Reporter, Daily Mail, March 24th 2006, p7) directly replicates facts and quotations taken from two Press Association stories, and another from the regional news wire Mercury." but not for being "inaccurate" but for copying inaccurate material from what Wikipedia would normally accept as a "reliable source."

"Despite the covert nature of much PR activity, we expected to find examples of PR playing an agenda-setting role. However, in many cases the influence of PR goes much further. We found that nearly one in five newspaper stories and 17% of broadcast stories were verifiably derived mainly or wholly from PR material or activity (Table 2.6) – which suggests that the practice is rather more typical than John Lloyd’s critique suggests."

"For example, a Times story headlined ‘George Cross for Iraq War Hero’ (Michael Evans, The Times, 24th March 2006, p27) is an almost verbatim repetition of a press release issued by the Ministry of Defence. " also from The Times "An example of a print story that mainly consists of information from a single source of PR material is an article in The Times about a new league table of UK Heart Surgeons (‘Hand on heart, who is the best surgeon?’, Nigel Hawkes, The Times, 27th April 2006, p16). The article is almost wholly derived from a press release issued by the Healthcare Commission," uzw.

In short - even a decade or more ago, newspapers were dominated by press release material - and the situation is worse today by far (noting that US newspaper employment is down over 40% - and the number of actual newspaper journalists is down much more as the total "newsroom" count includes the "web editors.") Back in 1998 [6] " Like most news organizations, Business Week has no choice but to put its trust in the fairness and accuracy of its reporters, because neither money nor time allows for writers' work to be formally fact-checked. ", then "At the same time, newsmagazines are curtailing their fact-checking budgets and requiring their writers to verify those details once double-checked by others. And at many newspapers, those traditional sentinels of accuracy, editors and copy editors, are expected to focus more than ever on presentation of stories, less on their content." then " One more fact-checking caveat. Most researchers rarely trust newspaper clips. Not formally fact-checked before publication, say magazine staffers, they're just too prone to contain errors. "We're not going to trust that the New York Times has been fact-checked," says Forbes' Kroll. " Clear?

[7] from Forbes is fun to read - managing to note a newspaper which ran a headline "Amphibious Pitcher Makes Debut" But wait, there's more!

[8] The Times again " Karol Wojtyla was referred to in Saturday’s Credo column as “the first non-Catholic pope for 450 years”. This should, of course, have read “non-Italian”. We apologise for the error." In 2015 they should have caught it earlier. And delightfully The New York Times "An earlier version of this column misidentified the sea that God parted in the Book of Exodus. It is the Red Sea, not the Dead Sea." Although I suppose Lot parted the Dead Sea ...

What we have left? No newspaper is as assiduous in fact-checking as it was even 15 years ago. Even "elite" papers routinely use press releases without actually looking t the studies puffed. Silly proof-readers are no longer used at newspapers - they rely on automated spill chuckers. And thus the theoretical belief that "good newspapers always check facts" is gone with the wind. Sorry to burst everyone's bubble - but papers that used to have a dozen (low paid) fact checkers now generally have zero. Their old group of actual proofreaders - gone forever. One newspaper (?) [9] offers zero money for "volunteer proofreaders"! In 1909, New York City alone[10] had on the order of 1000 compositors and proofreaders. Many "working" proofreaders get well under $25K p.a. (bottom 10% get under $19K) In New York. A person at the proposed new minimum wage for fry cooks there will make over $30K p.a.

I trust the points are clear - so will leave with [11] The New York Times got rid of all its remaining 125 Linotype operators and proofreaders (many did both due to cutbacks) - by 1990. In short - "elite" papers also run press releases. The main and substantiated difference is down to headline witing - and the job of the headline writer is the same as the "clickbait" writer - no more, no less. If anyone uses a newspaper article, note that the real journalist does not write the headlines. Until we have genuine amphibious pitchers in baseball. Collect (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry I did not read that wall of text fully. I of course know that many newspapers use press releases, and that there have been lots of cutbacks due to financial operations. However, whatever you want to prove by that, you haven't shown that "main and substantiated difference is down to headline writing". Standards may or may not have slipped at the NYT, but it would need a lot more direct evidence to convince me that they are anywhere close to the Daily Mail. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read the links as well - there is a large amount of extremely relevant material in them -- gist is that virtually all newspapers routinely run press releases, that essentially no newspapers do any fact-checking any more, and spill chuckers have made proofreaders redundant (unemployed) (except for people who believe in "amphibious baseball players). Headlines do not necessarily reflect the actual content of any article in any publication - including The Times and The Guardian, The Independent and others., and this is backed up by formal studies. Also that where there are inaccuracies, they are generally due to the person or group preparing the press release -- including press releases from some major medical journals etc. Three of the sources I gave, by the way, include comments on "headline writing" . See [12] for yet another cite to not read <-g>. The Sunday Times ran a headline "Only 100 Adult Cod Left in the North Sea, [13] which the BBC said "may be the most inaccurate headline in history." And one of my very favourites [14] "TITANIC SINKING; NO LIVES LOST" Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems like the Daily Mail is getting very specific ire because of it's right-wing position, as there are similar left-wing tabloid-oriented sites used as sources like The Huffington Post and Salon (website) (the latter seems to be even more provocative than DM). If we need further guidelines on tabloid-like sources, I don't see any specific reason to single out this publication. --Pudeo' 15:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Kingsindian, do you have any specific examples of where the DM stated as a fact something that was not in the source where no retraction was issued? Article headlines, titles of books, etc., btw are never reliable sources. TFD (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a marvelously unfocused discussion, more like a forum, which is not surprising, given the vague question. To TFD, that is not how it works. Most outlets cover themselves by simply quoting X and Y, as "he said/she said", together with some garbled analysis. Whether X is total bollocks and Y is the accurate one, they don't say. I don't claim this is unique to the DM, but they do have a large proportion of space given to total bollocks. Here is a simple example. Notice that it is not just the headline, it is almost the entire article. Here is another about the PR firm issue I was talking about. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

IOW the DM reports accurately, which is the criterion for reliable sources. Certainly there are all kinds of policies and guidelines to prevent some DM articles being used in some Wikipedia articles, just as there are for other mainstream media. But a blanket ban is unsupported by policy. TFD (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is talking about a blanket ban on DM, at least I didn't. Your characterization that "DM" reports accurately is not correct. If you devote a whole story to bollocks, quoting a single totally unreliable source (which is what the second link I gave is), that does not make it reliable. Selection of sources is as important as quoting what the sources say. You can always find some crackpot to say anything at all. Anyway, this is far afield. The topic in this thread is too vague to have meaningful discussion anyway. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The accuracy of reporting what someone said is independent of whether what that person said is accurate. Anyway if we are agreed there should be no blanket ban, then the only issue is when the DM should be used. TFD (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

IMO. there are zero "reliable sources" for contentious celebrity gossip. Period. No DM headlines, nor any newspaper headlines, should be presumed to accurately reflect the body of the article to which it is attached. From any source. Where a newspaper is clearly using a "press release" of any sort, we should also examine the source to which it refers as being of superior weight. And where any column is basically "opinion" we should always ascribe the opinion and cite it as opinion. The "failings" of the DM are substantially in the sensational headlines - but even the best newspapers run afoul in that regard (vide "amphibious pitcher" in baseball). Collect (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I actually did read user:Collect’s “wall of text” and I encourage all who have not to do so. The reason this question seems “vague” and the discussion “marvelously unfocussed” is that the question has no good answer, and yet it points directly at the heart of the hypocrisy about epistemological questions regarding news, that is Wikipedia. Which all gets stuck right here on discussions at this RS noticeboard.

Physicist Richard Feynman has a story about people arguing about the length of the Emperor of China’s nose. They make various guesses and then they do statistics. Finally they reach consensus, but none of it is any improvement, since none of them has actually seen the Emperor of China. All that is exactly the same thing you get when you reach a consensus about the reliability of some tabloid and a particular story in it, here on the notice-board. None of us really knows the truth about the report. We also really have no realistic way of judging the reliability of any given newspaper, nor does anybody do this for us. Reliability of various sources changes rapidly anyway, as they lose money and fire fact checkers (finding that they don’t really matter). So that leaves us up the creek without a paddle. Any consensus here on such matters, means nothing. It is worse than nothing, because it actually pretends to knowledge that simply isn’t available.

How did we get here? A lot of WP:IRS was written in 2005 by people who subscribed to the old journalism school that there existed reliable papers, and everybody knew which papers these were. “It’s a well-known fact that it’s a well-known fact” There was a day when the London Times was the paper of historical record (and all knew it), and the others were just tabloid crap, and so on. There was a day when the doctor actually euthanized the dying king of England so that his death could be reported in the Times, and not some afternoon tabloid. But we don’t live in that day. Or in the days when Woodward and Bernstein were setting the standard for the Washington Post.

But the stuff in WP:IRS got used to make the RS guidelines within WP:V. This, in turn, is a core content policy, a pillar of WP. So this newspaper thing was back-doored in. Because unfortunately, the “V” part of WP:V is trivial (all it means is: can you look it up and find it in the cite?). It’s entirely the unsung RS part of WP:V that is hard. And which is the part that now is shoveled like dust under the rug. And yet was written by the essayists at IRS in 2005-6 and now magically is “policy”. One that people on the noticeboard try hopelessly to follow, as though it was graven in stone on tablets from Moses. These old IRS essay people, however, were journalists with an odd point of view that was historical and not at all scientific. Does the newspaper have a “reputation” for reliability, they ask. This is risible. As for the fact-checking issue, that’s discussed up there in user:Collect’s “wall of text”. It’s kind of horrifying.

Meanwhile, the biomedical people took on the challenge and put in some useful guidelines in WP:MEDRS for WP biomedical content. Alas, most of these are unusable for yesterday’s news. Also, the information used on WP:MEDRS data is not available for historical events.

Wikipedia is a very strange place, not like any other, where the writer’s personal expertise on any given subject is not trusted. And yet, there comes a time in the epistemological chain when we reach the end, and somebody (everybody present) must take a flying guess, yea or nay. When it comes to pages like this one, the going opinion on which tabloids are reliable for which story, is put up exactly like the argument on the Emperor of China. The odd part is that if somebody actually did show up and claimed to be employed by a given newspaper and actually did know something about its reliability, we’d in theory give him no special notice, as his/her opinion on the matter would be worth no more than any odd person who turned up for the IRS debate on any given day, source, and topic, and gave an uninformed opinion on the matter. So here we are. It’s not very satisfying, is it? SBHarris 04:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the extensive commentary by Collect and Sbharris. "It's a well-known fact that it's a well-known fact" speaks to my trouble with the concept that there is a "mainstream media" that is acceptable and a "fringe media" that is not acceptable. I feel that this may be "somewhat and generally" the case but that there are enough exceptions as well as a deeper dynamic that troubles this very model and results in it being a rule that perpetuates an ideological status quo. I will explain what i mean by the latter more. I feel there is a sort of "consensus reality" that is no more the "real reality" than other perspectives upon reality may be called "real reality" and that it's perpetuated largely in the unspoken assumptions of what we call "mainstream media". It's as unseen as water is to fish. Fish live in water but may not be aware of it. We live in this mainstream discursive universe and hardly question it most of the time. Basic concepts that we think as as real as rocks and rain may actually be relative constructs that are reified into seeming real by repetition. Then, limiting sources to what is called "mainstream media" is actually limiting the reflection of reality that Wikipedia comprises, to that particular version of reality that is the not-so-visible mainstream "consensus". The argument i am making is somewhat along the lines of Chomsky and Herman in Manufacturing Consent. I know there are some who will say "Pshhh, take your Chomsky and jump in a lake" but this is a real concern and i come up against it here in Wikipedia sometimes, when a source that has done real reporting is rejected because it's not "mainstream" enough. I'm concerned not only with the factuality of existing reporting, but also what is reported and what is not. I suppose that discussion regards notability or weight and belongs at the NPOV noticeboard, but the two are so inextricably linked that they are naturally spoken together -- two parts of the same thing. The questions of *what* is reported and then *how* it is reported. Both shape the picture of reality that the reader absorbs, and both are subject to influence of the establishment power structure, to maintain a "consensus reality". SageRad (talk) 12:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Your comments seem off topic. Indeed the effect of weight is that articles will perpetuate the ideological status quo. That is the objective - that WP articles will read the same as what one would expect in a mainstream newspaper or academic textbook. TFD (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)\

I hear your point, but i also take issue with it. It's circular because what is "mainstream"? If it is what most editors use as sources then that's cool. They're the most seen, read, cited, relied upon, etc, because they are the most used, and therefore get the most play among most editors. However, if an editor finds a news source that is not the New York Times and yet has a record of being reliable, and another editor objects to inclusion because it's not a "mainstream news source" then what is the remedy? Or do we want this type of exclusion to be possible here? If it's not among "All the news that's fit to print" then we can never print it either, despite Wikipedia's innate strength as being a huge collaboration among many people with many different exposures to information? I hear your comment, but i think mine is very much on topic, and i think it's relevant to this discussion as well as much of my experience here on Wikipedia, with conservative editors blocking additions because they say the source is not "mainstream" enough and yet can never define what they mean by "mainstream" and it seems their working definition is "anything that i agree with" and therefore it leads to a strong-arming possible by status quo defenders, and that is not the mission of Wikipedia. The mission is to use verifiable and reliable sources to establish weight and accuracy. That is not synonymous with reproducing the New York Times, but rather richer than that. It's not a fringe or advocacy platform, but neither is it Archie Bunker's project. It's a product of collaboration of thoughtful editors. SageRad (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Sage, there's no conspiracy here. It's not as if mainstream media is some sort of picky, selective, high-standards bloc. My experience is that they will print anything they think will get eyes on their pages, so long as it's not actually false. End even then…

Looking at your efforts at TALK:Monsanto legal cases, the very minor case you are trying to get included has zero MSM mentions. You've put up one or two fringe bloggy things as RS, and all the rest of your argument is just that, argument. If the case had any merit at all, we'd have a tonne of good reliable sources, and there'd be no argument. But we don't, and so we're having this same discussion all over WP, as you try to find somebody who thinks the same way you do. My experience in this chaos of editors is that there are any number of open-minded, well-read, clever, resourceful and driven people. People much like yourself. But we're also a collaboration, and we have to get along together.

You've put up several submissions here, and they have all been knocked back. Perhaps you should read what many other editors have to say and accept their advice. --Pete (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: last sentence: pure rhetoric. Empty.

Re: Monsanto legal cases, fact is wrong: you say i've put up one or two fringy bloggy things. I've put up edited publications, including The Epoch Times, which is not the New York Times but is also not "Dave's Blog on Dave's Opinions". It's a newspaper published fifteen years now, and has won these awards and received praise from very distinguished newspeople. So on he facts, you're wrong here. Nullified your argument.

Lastly -- and most important -- you resort to the very circular argument that i am rebelling loudly against. You wrote "If the case had any merit at all, we'd have a tonne of good reliable sources, and there'd be no argument." Well, that's not inherently true. There is some filtering in the news media according to establishment versus anti-establishment events and information. Your assertion here is that because it's not printed in the New York Times ("All the news that's fit to print" -- think about the meaning of the word "fit" here for a minute) that it has no merit. You directly said that, right here. That's the circular argument. That's the power of establishment media to disappear things that disagree with it. If it's not reported, it didn't happen. Do you know who covered the civil trial regarding the death of Martin Luther King in the U.S.? The sole paper that was there for the trial was Publico, the Porugal daily. No U.S. paper was there. Was it insignificant? Would it have been unmentionable on Wikipedia if Publico had not attended? Fallacies. SageRad (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Your closing example is misleading in the extreme; the King civil trial was covered extensively by reliable sources (e.g. New York Times, CBS, etc), so obviously it is "mentionable on Wikipedia" regardless of Publico's coverage. More generally, you are free to believe what you like about "the power of establishment media to disappear things", but you cannot use Wikipedia to try to redress that perceived problem. What you're doing is the essence of tendentious editing (specifically, Righting Great Wrongs), and I think your reception here so far—right down to your refusal to listen to anyone's feedback—is typical for a tendentious editor. MastCell ^Talk 18:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: MLK trial, point taken. I had the facts wrong. Not intended to mislead. What i had heard was that the only paper that had a reporter in the trial every day was Publico, and i misstated that. Sorry and acknowledged. On the topic of whether i am doing "tendentious editing" however, i strongly disagree. I'm not using Wikipedia to redress establishment media bias, but simply saying that we do not need to slavishly follow the establishment media's lead in full exactitude, as we do have many legitimate media sources available that are not so establishment, and yet which are reliable and reasonably indicate weight.

As for your saying that i refuse to listen to anyone's feedback, that's just wrong. Where do you get that idea? I listen, i think about it, and i can respond with either "ok, i think you're right" or "no, you're not right because..." or "you seem to misunderstand me in this way..." etc. I'm in dialogue. I find that comment insulting and wrong. Can you really back that up? Can you really show that i do not listen and consider what other people say here? In fact, the very thing i am writing right now is based on listening to you and considering what you said, and responding. SageRad (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In the argument over SageRad’s position, I hope what I said above (which is different) has not been overlooked. To wit, if the NPOV expanded guideline WP:WEIGHT is not to be overlooked we need “reliable sources” and cannot simply trust WP editors’ opinions on matters of “commonly accepted fact.” But that also includes commonly accepted facts about what are reliable sources. To quote directly from policy on WP:NPOV: “Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.” Okay, fine, but finding the prevalence of belief among Wikipedia editors (or that subset who regularly turn up at the RS noticeboard) is very often exactly how we arrive at what we CONSIDER reliable sources, to begin with (!). In what world does that make sense? There are places where this little conundrum has been noticed, and my favorite place where WP tries desperately to avoid the contradiction in epistemology, is at WP:FRINGE, a guideline referenced at WP:NPOV. There, the editors of that article take on the problem in a bold statement and footnote (8): “A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. It must be shown that reliable sources treat the journal as a respected peer-reviewed journal. (footnote) A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. It must be shown that reliable sources treat the journal as a respected peer-reviewed journal.” Aha! So in order to tell if a journal is reliable, one must find out if it is peer-reviewed, and treated as a reliable peer-reviewed journal in OTHER reliable peer-reviewed sources. Thus, (to compress this thought) we simply need reliable sources that tell us (directly or indirectly) what other reliable sources are. If we have a reliable source that treat another source as reliable, we’re home free. Or not. For then we’d need a reliable source for which sources are reliable in judging primary sources to be reliable. And then a reliable source for THAT judgment. You go down this rat hole infinitely (it’s turtles all the way down), until finally you give up and go here to the RS noticeboard and find out what the consensus is, of random guys who show up here. Hmmm. That’s what we do for “yesterday’s news from Gaza” or whatever. The only alternative is simply to weight things for NPOV based on mass circulation numbers of the news source (but what do we do for CNN?). If some example of tabloid journalism has large circulation numbers, we have to trust it (or give it NPOV “weight”) to that circulation extent. By the way, the tabloid journalism article I notice is lacking in citations about the reliability of tabloid journalism, which it claims is low. And is heavily tagged as lacking citations. So indeed, how do we know reliability of tabloids are low? What reliable sources say they are low, and (more importantly) HOW DO THEY KNOW? The lack of citations and presence of citation-needed tags in this article is telling. Or at least I think it is. Funny, too. ;’p The alternative for science matters is to look for “commonly accepted textbooks” (if only we had a method of telling what those are—sales? But undergrad physics texts do better than graduate student texts). In medicine, where we’d like to do things at a level a little sooner and finer than it takes to get into medical student textbooks, Doc James and his crowd over at WP:MEDRS are trying to get editors to recognize secondary reviews over tertiary ones, and says that “The best evidence comes primarily from meta analysis of randomized controlled [human] trials.” This is often true, but not always. Where is the citation for it? In a reliable source? Would it be a source that uses meta analysis of randomized controlled trials? No? Then just what is the Gold Standard of Medical Truth by which this statement stands? (My reservations about this are on the basis of an academic background which I cannot prove to you, and which officially doesn’t count here anyway). Why (in light of official policy) do we have nameless anonymous WP editors, whose medical knowledge we do not trust, poking about the journals for “meta analysis of randomized controlled trials”? Do we only trust Doc James to do this? Why? Is it the “Doc” in this username? Does that help? Here is some irony: one of the papers cited in this very policy which now gives primacy to meta analyses [15] also gives some weight to Eysenck’s criticism that meta analyses of trials in medicine can give an impression of weight which hides bias, and sometimes the (supposed) reliability of meta analyses is NOT borne out by single very large trials, which are taken by the medical community as better. (For example, the meta analysis on magnesium for heart attacks looked good, but the ISIS-4 trial showed it was no good, so now we don’t believe it.) At this point, you’re all saying: “But that’s a matter for the particular subject”. Wrong. It’s a matter for the whole WP:MEDRS policy, which shouldn’t be trying to do what it is trying to do, without admitting that WP’s RS policy is mocked thereby. The point here is that we’re not (or should not be) prepared to argue the fine details of evidence-based medicine, as policy for reporting medical "fact" on WP, when the very wonks who push for evidence based medicine in the real world, cannot agree among themselves. Are we? I’ll be glad to argue it, but do any of you know anything about it? WP can report on points of view about this, but ultimately to go beyond that, must trust in the expertise of its editors (Doc James, I see) to see that that some point of view about “truthiness” (which is proxied by “reliability”) is translated into WP:MEDRS policy. This goes double in other areas: WP obviously is relying on some kind of expertise or judgment of its editors about sources, to resolve WP:RS questions here, about yesterday’s news, on a case-by-case basis. So why not just admit this? An editor (or group of interested editors) that can be trusted to tell if a source is itself “reliable” can just as easily be trusted to tell if the source’s statements of fact are reliable. No? One question about "reliability" ("likely to be true" = probably Truth) is no different than the other. Can I hear from those who think they are different? SBHarris 01:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The hatted text is amazing. It's turtles all the way down. SageRad (talk) 01:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Apparently pointing out a contradiction in RS policy in page-length terms is trying to make a "forum." I'm new here (though not to WP) and didn't realize that somebody already WP:OWNed this page.

So-- we let random groups of editors here vote or decide by consensus what sources are "reliable" (i.e. likely to print truth = truthy)? How is letting random editors decide what sources for facts are reliable, differ from letting random groups of editors decide directly what facts are reliable? Is it not the same thing? In both cases, WP doesn't officially trust editors' expertise. But if you need a reference instead of your intuition or education, you go down a rat-hole, because then you need a reference for the reliability of THAT reference, and so on. Would somebody like to explain? SBHarris 02:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Well put. Perhaps this discussion belongs on the talk page.

We cannot define a reliable source with any certainty, for the turtling already mentioned. We can, however, use the established wikimethod of finding consensus here, by indicating the source, the article, the material and any prior discussion. The opinions of editors and discussion back and forth soon highlights any problems with a source. Whether a source is reliable or not differs with the circumstances. I would not trust mainstream media to reliably identify a military armoured vehicle as a tank, for example. All too often I see personnel carriers, self-propelled guns, scout cars and the like labelled as tanks.

Going hand in mouth with reliability is the question of notability. A supposedly mainstream topic that receives no mainstream coverage is unlikely to be notable. Discussion here, with the random editors who show up. is likely to bring out all the pros and cons of a source, as relevant to the topic. --Pete (talk) 05:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The questions begging to be asked are *still*:

• Is "mainstream media" really the phrase we want to use to identify sources that we'll accept for establishing the facts and notability of everything under the sun?
• Even if so, what counts as "mainstream media"?
• Who decides what comprises "mainstream media"?
• What if one editor thinks a source is decent and another editor thinks it's fluff? How do you then reach consensus?

As you and i know, these are real questions that play out in real discussions here on Wikipedia. And they resolve somehow, but do they resolve justly, or just by some people continuing to insist "my way or the highway" as i've pretty much seen most of the time here on Wikipedia on any page that's called "controversial" (which means there is a status quo vested interest in maintaining a specific version of it)? SageRad (talk) 11:00, 22 August 2015 (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.

Regavim (NGO) research on Susya article (Hebrew source)

The following text was remove from Susya under the claim "not RS".

According to others, Khirbet Susya didn't exist as a permanent village before 1986. Travelers from the late 19th century report founding ruins (while nearby Semua is reported as inhabited), British census from 1945 doesn't mention Susya and a reseacher, Yaakov Havakook who stuied the area between 1977-1982 writes Khirbet Susya was used seasonally during the grazing months for the winter and abandoned again in the summer.

Except for the leading statement which is a conclusion based on the documents it provides, every thing else is based on historical documents such as traveler journals, British census from 1945 and a book which is quoted also by the human rights organizations. In the discussion on the talk page editors argued against it that Regavim is "party to the conflict" and "copy-cat human rights". Rabbis for Human Rights, which represent the Palestinians is repeatedly used in the article, along with B'tselem and activist David Dean Shulman, both very active on this conflict. So, (1) Is it reliable to simply cite historical documents that can be verified or even appear already in the article? (2) Is it reliable to conclude Susya wasn't a permanent village but only seasonal one? (There is no evidence that contradict that. some historical maps show Susya, some don't and British censuses from 1922,1931,1945 as well as a Jordanian from 61 (p.22) don't even mention it). Settleman (talk) 08:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

References

I have already discussed this on the talk page, but I will give my viewpoint for outside editors. The "seasonal" claim was discussed on the article talk page, and might be admissible if phrased adequately. The objections initially came basically because the source was in Hebrew and was not translated. There are still issues to iron out here. This statement, on the other hand, is a different matter. The "historical documents" etc. are WP:PRIMARY sources, and require a reliable secondary WP:RS to interpret them, which this Regavim source is obviously not. This editor or Regavim interpretation of censuses etc. is obviously a no-no, because of WP:OR and/or WP:RS reasons. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Regavim is a settler-Jewish rights organization committed to the denial of Palestinian rights on the West Bank. Rabbis for Human Rights is a Jewish organization committed to human rights for all parties, Jewish and Palestinian. Settleman, per his name, identifies with the Regavim movement, and he has just (see the talk page) unilaterally removed large amounts of documented RS information regarding that shady organization. He's a POV pusher, and probably a banned editor in an early wiki life. Regavim does not check facts unless they conduce to Jewish supremacy claims. Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Scrap this. Regavim is referred to by NYTimes, Jewishpress, dailymail and is very common in Israeli reporting. It is unquestionally biased and therefore attribution is required. But beyond that, by default they are RS and if someone claims they aren't, they need to prove it. Settleman (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "by default they are RS" -- you've got that precisely backwards. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy that enables us to evaluate the reliability of a source based on its political agenda. An NGO that supports policy (a) is not inherently more or less reliable than an NGO that supports policy (b), even if we really, really approve of policy (a) and really, really dislike policy (b). Both are NGOs, with a political agenda, neither can be used for unattributed factual claims, and either one can be used for attributed claims. Brad Dyer (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

As I explained on the talk page, just because NYT quotes someone in some context does not mean they are RS in other contexts. NYT probably quotes Ban Ki Moon, Netanyahu, Ayatollah Khamenei, or Osama Bin Laden in various contexts. That says nothing about their reliability. Also, the NYT did not quote Regavim on historical matters. Anyway, I will shut up now and leave this for outside editors. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is a whole article based on a report by Regavim. They take matter to court and won cases. Not liking their politics doesn't make them unreliable. And now I will shut up :) Settleman (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

So an Israeli organization is supposed to be reliable because they win cases in the Israeli court system? I think you've got some problems... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Brad Dyer nails it. Just cite Regavim saying something like: "According to NGO Regavim.... " And remember that even the Red Cross is biased.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not what we're going to do. One could turn our articles into vast echo-chambers for anything an organization says. If what's in question is a factual claim of some sort, then there's no reason to include the claim unless there's a proper reliable source for it. Otherwise "according to" ends up being a mechanism for including as much crap as you please. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am sorry, this is not pomo Wikipedia. We do not say "sources differ on the shape of the Earth". Please find me WP:RS quoting Regavim on historical matters and I will gladly quote it as you say. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

KingsIndian, you are inventing/demanding new standards not applied to other, reputable NGOs. (The practice of applying one standard to Jewish countries and another to the world at large has a name.) However, since you asked: [16].E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The only argument against Regavim is - they are pro-settlers so can't be trusted. They are quoted often on Israeli papers ynet, i24news and Haaretz. The funny this about this conversation is, Regavim provides all the sources on which it bases its arguments. Census, journals etc. The year 1830 repeated in so many pro-Palestinian websites, has no ground whatsoever. Yet, you prefer to reject the secondary that provides its primary sources and accept the one that doesn't. Very interesting. Settleman (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: in your universe, a person become RS only if he got arrested by the IOF, right? Like Arik Ascherman. LOL Settleman (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what the "IOF" is. You're digging quite a hole for yourself here... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: I am sorry, I don't find in that Telegraph article, Regavim being quoted for historical matters anywhere. Can you tell me where exactly it is? Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Kingsindian, history does not have and scholars do not recognize an "exact" point at which "historical matters" start or end.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming my reading that it does not talk about history at all, primarily the early 20th century censuses/photographs/whatever for which this source is supposed to be used. The article is talking about EU support to Palestinian villages in the last few years and how it might possibly conflict with Oslo accords, which is a legal matter, and has nothing whatsoever to do with history. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Regavim is a legal NGO, it brings land rights related law suits, parallel to, for example, the American NGO Natural Resources Defense Council. such cases hinge, in part, on the history of the law and of the ownership of the resource in quesiton. In other words, Regavim's recognized expertise is precisely and centrally about the history of land use in the region.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

You can see my comment here about how RHR completely misrepresent (or in other words, lie about) their source for '1830s' claim. Settleman (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I agree if Regavim would make an historical claim without providing its primary source it will be suspicious but they do provide it. I think they are as RS as any of the other organization and activists supporting the Palestinians (which I proven to falsify sources). If bias makes them non-RS for current events, the rule should apply equaly to all. Damn, we're going in circles. Settleman (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion on the talk page has led to Regavim being used with attribution for now, so not much else to do here. Further discussion, if any, can happen on the talk page. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Panorama (TV series) as reliable source

The following discussion 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.

---

In the article Murder of Anni Dewani, investigative journalism on the BBC series Panorama (TV series) is being listed as a source. There is a dispute over whether it is considered a reliable source. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion is underway at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and issues of the reliability of the source are being deferred to this noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The relevant section is found at Murder_of_Anni_Dewani#BBC_Panorama. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Robert, for opening this thread, as I wasn't sure how to. The Panorama episode entitled "Who Killed Anni" (broadcast Sept/2013) is an unreliable, biased, agenda-driven, and ultimately untrustworthy source. I could, ad naseum, dissect the program minute by minute to demonstrate this. But I shall not impose upon the reader more than necessary, and will take it one example at a time to make my point.

Exhibit A: the two very short clips linked below contrast each other to demonstrate an instance where Panorama tries to cover up very damning inculpatory evidence against Shrien Dewani. Namely, evidence that Shrien Dewani had secretly passed a large sum of cash to the men who murdered his wife, Anni. The implication made in Panorama's 2013 episode that there is no particular reason to suspect Dewani ever did so is entirely CYNICAL and DISINGENUOUS. We know this because in a previous episode of Panorama (one which is reasonably fair and balanced and which, as such, the producers would apparently now like to sweep under the carpet) they have a pretty good suspicion that he had done exactly that. See for yourself how Panorama, from the first Dewani episode to the next, suddenly developed a convenient case of amnesia: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4yXmg92NvfgqhcVYMbb0oHfNhMFNkGEd Lane99 (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

So basically you think the 2013 programme is unreliable because - in light of new evidence - it offers a different version of events than the 2012 programme did? You can't have it both ways, claiming that the 2012 programme is reliable because you agree with it, because the 2013 one isn't because you don't disagree with it. The programme makers didn't "develop amnesia," but rather in 2013 they clearly reassessed the case in light of evidence that wasn't known when they made the 2012 programme. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

IIRC, it was also the case that the 2013 programme featured a more thorough examination of the forensic evidence collected at the crime scene than the 2012 programme, in particualr having a British ballistics specialist's opinion on the nature of the single gunshot wound to Mrs Dewani. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The discrepancy in the programs that I have linked to has nothing to do with "new evidence" as to whether Shrien Dewani had secretly passed a large sum of cash to the men who murdered his wife, Anni. Panorama 2013 makes no reference to any "new evidence" on this point. So Nick Copper's claim is false, and therefore his remarks and position should be disregarded.Lane99 (talk) 02:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. In 2012 the purpose of the money in the envelope was unknown, but by the 2013 it was known that it was for the surprise helicopter flight. Ditto the CCTV footage of Mbolombo's colleagues actually discussing the flight arrangement. Stop cherry-picking/misrepresenting the facts to suit your own motives. Also bear in mind that the discussion here is whether Panorama as a whole is a reliable source, not just the particular edition of Panorama that you disagree with (as opposed to the one you do). Nick Cooper (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Whether you are confused about this issue or deliberating attempting to drag the discussion down a rabbit hole, the derailing effect is the same. Bringing it back on topic, I claim that Panorama 2013 is biased and agenda-driven because it misleads its viewers when it suggests there is no reason to believe Shrien Dewani ever secretly gave a large sum of money to his wife's killers. The video clips I linked above prove that Panorama 2013 knew full well there WAS good reason to believe Dewani had done so, even as they were telling their viewers there was not. That is flagrant bias, at best. Lying, at worst.Lane99 (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Interjecting -- it appears the material is being used in a section about Panorama which is of no specific great utility to the main topic of the article at hand, but likely relevant to the article on that programme. As the programme uses different writers, investigators, etc. its use as a "reliable source for fact" may not be consistent, and I still want a spaghetti tree. Collect (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Today is 18 August, in most of the world. Spaghetti trees are only in evidence on 1 April (and maybe on 31 October). Robert McClenon (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

And I thought it was hilarious! More seriously, in coming to this discussion completely impartial, I was amazed to see the only source of complaint about the Panorama programme was the wordpress.com article. (The Telegraph only reports the family criticised the programme, but in itself, does not substantiate the criticisms.) To my mind, the wordpress.com source is a blog and not acceptable as a RS. The section criticizing the Panorama programme should be deleted unless a better source/s can be found.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has any issue with the Telegraph report about the family's complaints being included. Lane99, though, wants to push a particualr interpretation of the case via the Wordpress blog, and is a vociferous advocate of Shrien Dewani's guilt on various fora (e.g. here, here, here, and here). Nick Cooper (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I was actually going to delete the wordpress.com section as per WP:BRD but obviously couldn't because the page is protected. I suggest that as soon as possible, the section is deleted and then if anyone wishes to re-enter this, the WP:ONUS is on them for why it should be included.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

BBC sources on Panorama is more reliable than a wordpress source. Period.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Panorama has been aired since 1953 and is a highly regarded documentary show. One users personal opinion based on a Wordpress source doesnt seem to credible towards the notion that this programme was biased.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Would you care to justify those statements with reference to Wikipedia policies, BabbaQ? My understanding of Wikipedia policy is that reliability of a source is not based solely on who published it. Reliability must also be judged on the quality of the work itself, and whether the author/editor/creator of the work is biased or has conflicts of interest.

Please Note WP:RELY where it is stated: ″The word ′source′ as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book); the creator of the work (the writer, journalist); and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). Any of the three can affect reliability.″ afd (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Although I find BabbaQ's dogmatic handwaving charmingly anachronistic, I'm with you, afd, in assuming Wikipedia does not permit sources to simply rest on their laurels but, rather, allows that all content be subject to scrutiny for accuracy and bias.Lane99 (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what "source of complaint" precisely means. In addition to the wordpress.com source, an examination of the Panorama2013 program itself shows it disingenuously attempts to covers up incriminating information against Shrien Dewani. This indicates bias, unreliability, and trustworthiness. Also, I feel you downplay the victim's family's contributions to the question at hand. They have not merely "criticised the programme". The Hindocha family have formally complained to the BBC that the program was not impartial, and that they were not afforded their right to reply to the allegations contained in the program.Lane99 (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

An "examination" tainted by your outspoken views on the case. More impartial observers may very well come to a very different conclusion. As already noted, though, this is a discussion of whether Panorama - as a long-running and highly respected current affairs programme - is a reliable source, not whether your own bias makes you think a particular edition of it isn't.

The Telegraph article reports that a member of the Hindocha family wrote letters of complaint to the BBC Director General and the director of news and current affairs prior to the 2013 programme being screened, so presumably before any of the family even seen it. There is no evidence that they availed themselves of the BBC's formal complaint proceedings, nor indeed any external regulator. The Telegraph report states that the family complaints were on the ground of sensitivity, particular the re-use of previous interview material, and that it would "cast doubt on the case against [Shrien] Dewani," which is hardly surprising given their consistent support for that case, which obviously ultimately failed. In short, the family disagreed with a programme casting doubt on Shrien's assumed guilt, because they were already (wrongly) convinced of it themselves. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

To "Collect" above, if I am putting this reply in the correct place: on my behalf, Robert McClenon was generous enough to start this thread. An examination of the Panorama2013 program reveals it to be extremely biased. I never said, nor meant to suggest every episode of Panorama is biased, and don't have an opinion on that. Although if one can point to instances of particular episodes of Panorama being biased, I don't see why the question of whether Panorama is, generally, biased does not then begin to become worthy of discussion. I, myself, though, have only said the 2013 Panorama episode entitled "Who Killed Anni?" is biased and unreliable, and therefore should not be featured prominently on the "Murder of Anni Dewani" article.Lane99 (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

At this point, it appears that we have at least one editor, Lane99, who says that the 2013 Panorama episode is biased and unreliable. Other editors disagree. There doesn't appear likely to be a consensus here or at DRN. I will wait briefly for comments here, but will then reopen the discussion at DRN, but probably only for the purpose of having a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your shepherding, Robert. Yes, at least myself, but I believe, among those commenting here, not only myself, considers the episode biased and unreliable.Lane99 (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2015 (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.

Kids Company - Reliable source

(This discussion was started on 14 Aug 2015 at assistance/Requests Kids Company and moved here as the more appropriate noticeboard)

Hello. I hope I'm in the right place. On the Talk page. A research study by the the London School of Economics into Kids Company is being decried by an editor DeCausa as not from or not a RS. This is not about the figures referenced by the Talk link but about a particular edit stating:

"In 2013, a research study by the London School of Economics identified 'imited and unstable funding' as a major source of stress and anxiety for staff and 'a massive challenge for the sustainability' of the charity. It also found that an increase in bureaucracy and excessive management could jeopardise the charity's effectiveness and presented a challenge to its ability to sustain focus on the needs of its clients".

...that has now twice been reverted by the editor who has been a substantial editor of the article over the last 10 days. In a substantive exchange on the Talk page where indicated above, on 12&13th August, the Editor claims an article by The Telegraph and an article on the Times Higher Education website crticising the research study (because London School of Economics was paid to conduct the research) makes the report a unreliable/questionable source. My question is two or three-fold;

(1) When an organisation is considered a reliable source, say Reuters, can articles published by them still be considered untrustworthy/questionable? Equally, if a RS like Reuters published a single unreliable article, would Reuters then automatically be deemd an unreliable source (I hope not) or would the balance of reliable articles they produce keep them in good stead as a RS?
(2) Do articles criticising research necessarily make that research automatically unreliable/questionable. In this case, LSE has robustly defended its own impartiality and that of the article - in the same Telegraph article source saying, "University departments are regularly commissioned by charities, businesses or the government to undertake pieces of research, "This is a standard practice. "With all funding arrangements, academic impartiality and integrity remain of paramount importance. "The findings and analysis of this report were based on the evidence and data collected by the researchers at the time".

Although the Times HE and the Telegraph suggest the LSE report is questionable they produce no evidence to back such claims whilst LSE is unequivocal in its own defence.

In the unlikely case that the LSE research is now considered questionable/unreliable, I would like, at least, to include the response from LSE included in the Telegraph. I hope this all makes sense and look forward to your response. The preceding entry was orginally posted by Selector99 01:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the notice board you're probably needing is WP:RSN. On the substantive point, firstly, it's worth noting that the RS criticized the report because it omitted key issues which were central to the ultimate downfall of Kids Company. It's the quality of the research and not just the payment that has raised the question of whether it is itself RS itself. Secondly, my answer to your specific questions would be as follows. (1) Yes to the first sub-question. A source can and often is WP:RS for some things but not others. Each use of it must be considered on its merits. For example, a noted military historian who writes about World War I is clearly an RS for a discusion of military tactics during the war. However, if in passing, he were to make some comments about Wilfred Owen's poetry not being very good, that probably wouldn't be RS. A judgment has to be made as to what the scope of expertise the RS has. Another example, is if a noted historian writes a series of highly acclaimed books but then writes one that is severely criticized as being poor quality research. His earlier books may be RS, but the latter one may not. An example of this is Hugh Trevor-Roper, an eminent historian of Nazi Germany whose pronouncements on the Hitler Diaries are not RS. As far as the second sub-question is concerned, it depends. I think you are focusing too much on who is the author rather than looking at each work separately. The "S" in "RS" is actually the work and not necessarily - although it is clearly relvant - the author per my Hugh-Trevor Roper example. (2) Not necessarily. It's a matter of consensus whether they do or don't. The preceding reply was posted by DeCausa 07:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, DeCausa, sincerely for that prompt, considered and detailed response. You will understand my seeking further response from an unconnected, third-party, editor. The preceding reply was posted by Selector99 10:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, in advance, for your input and comments. Selector99 (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I enter this discussion from outside, and am not particularly conversant with the issues themselves, especially being American and rather far from awareness of the objects of discussion. In particular, I have visibility only to the printed material avail here on WP and in the references given therein, none to how the English media in general (or on video) are presenting the affair. It seems to me that some of the questions that have arisen about WP:RS may hinge on who is saying what and how, and how that is presented in the media, so I have chosen to remain distant from that kind of froth.

First, my impression is that the London School of Economics looks like a very solid RS from the outside. Barring some history of malfeasance I am not aware of, I see no reason that it should be challenged as unreliable in general. In this specific case, it also looks to me that its study, like most studies, did not have the scope "everything about Kids Company", but rather a more limited look at things. Naturally, the media story about the financial collapse has a wider scope, and with typical media imprecision, some commentators began to ask why LSE didn't scope everything out, glossing over the fact that it wasn't their job. (These are the ITV commentators referenced in the World Academic Summit article.) Notably, that WAS article and its companion here, the Telegraph article, do not themselves level accusations of unreliability against the LSE study. Only WAS mentions the ITV commentators, and those are the glossers. As subtext, I perceive some typical media frenzy, probably involving many unmentioned players, the net effect of which is to whip up emotional reactions to a sizable incident, the demise of Kids Co. Now, both WAS and the Telegraph feature prominently the fact that Kids Co funded the LSE study, but no more. LSE is not criticized for that, nor is the study itself. If someone in the media is trying to imply malfeasance by LSE or to undermine the study, they do not say so explicitly in the referenced articles given here. Therefore I cannot agree with user DeCausa that the study is questionable, and coming from an RS, it also should then be considered reliable here. I also disagree with DeCausa's analysis of the study itself, particularly in regard to the statement that Kids Company supported 36,000 children and adults. I wonder if the editors have considered that this is (according to the Telegraph), the number claimed by Kids Company at its closure, whereas the LSE report was done in 2013. But wasn't Kids Company supposed to have grown in the two intervening years? Something's fishy with those numbers, and I don't have the interest to sort it out, but I think we would almost surely have unreliable editing going on until the base facts are cleared up.

With regard to RS in general, I would hold up any media outlet and "news report", done for a continuous, hourly, or daily release, to intense scrutiny with regards to its reporting. Such reporting is by its nature designed to bring what facts can be obtained immediately to its audience, but it is not by its nature equipped to do more than a cursory job of vetting, and is never privy to the luxury of taking a longer or wider view of anything, nor of providing any kind of perspective to the events they describe. By their nature, they are highly questionable as to reliability. Only the highest standards of journalism are acceptable as reliable, and then only as to immediate details and perceptions of the moment. There is no question that there can be no scholarly rigor or balance in any of it; that's not its function. Nor can such sources be considered competent to make any judgements as to the reliability of a report such as the LSE's. For this, the ITV commentators are completely unsuitable. They may reliably report that some actual expert has judged the report to be reliable (or not), but they may not take that job unto themselves. So far, there has been no expert criticism of the LSE report presented here on WP (that I have noticed). The LSE report did list primary findings, and classified them as primary, and regardless how it arrived at the findings (a matter on which we and DeCausa have no business speculating), they stand as primary and as reliable so long as the report itself is not successfully challenged by experts (not media).

Please be aware that I'm not stating that the LSE report had its facts correct. I am saying that the report is reliable and should be used on WP as such. If the report is wrong, there needs to be expert conclusion of wrongness (for whatever reason, conflict of interest, or otherwise), not media innuendo. Then that expert conclusion can also be used as RS.

We are an encyclopedia. We take the long view. We do not report the news, even though we can stay up to date. Some things are given to immediate update (Voyager 1 is now x miles from Earth), and others are not. We can sift this, and wait for confirmation. A WP article should not attempt to keep pace with media's breaking stories. We need to provide perspective on what we talk about, and we therefore need to wait for reliable experts to provide us with the sources that enable us to provide perspective. I would suggest that the unfolding news story might be linked into the article in raw form by providing a kind of addendum section with minimal WP text and references to media reports, simply indicating that there is a story going on presently, and letting the media talk for themselves rather than for WP. (But dump the ITV commentators, who are guilty of overreach.) Evensteven (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Evensteven, for your considered response. It's apparent that you have spent some time familiarising yourself with the Kids Company article and I am grateful for that. That said, the important issue is Wiki guidelines and I think you do well to make reference to these throughout. Also, I absolutely agree that the media are great at finger pointing whilst saying very little or even nothing at all. Selector99 (talk) 08:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem here, which is slightly unusual, is the source has become part of the news story, and not in a good way. If we use this source we'll have some text in the article that is cited to it and some text that, in terms (and supported by RS), says what a poor source it is. The scope of the study was supposedly to give an account of the efficacy of Kids Company's work and Kids Company quoted it multiple times as evidence of its efficacy. But, as the BBC has said, "the charity failed to build a serious evidence base behind its work. That made it hard even for lots of very sympathetic funders to back it. We do not know how many young people used the service, let alone how many got qualifications, jobs or were spared prison because of its work. Even the most-cited academic assessments of the charity's work are not useful to this end." The highlighted text is a link to the LSE report. It isn't just that the report has been deprecated by The independent, The Times Higher and the BBC. The report, on its face, has made a number of statements which subsequent RS have contradicted. For example, it says that an increase in the level of management would be a risk to the charity - yet poor management governance (i.e. too light) has been covered by multiple RS as a major problem. I think the maximum we can do with this source is use it to say the LSE report said XYZ, but, so as not to be WP:UNDUE, include the criticism of it with that text. DeCausa (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, on the face of it, that's seems reasonable. But under the skin, it has greater problems. First, the fact that the source has become part of the story is not a particularly unusual thing. It's a fairly normal technique applied in the media when the opportunity arises for them to sell stories based on it. Second, I don't argue with your assertions regarding the actual scope of the study, nor of how the management of Kids Company is a prominent feature of the story, with questions arising before the story became so big and originating outside the media. Nor do I argue with many of your other assertions regarding the far-reaching impacts of the whole mess. They're almost self-evident. But third (to continue my list), the base problem is what we are calling RS. You are citing several news media outlets as RS, and I am objecting to that. What? I don't consider the BBC to be an RS? My answer is yes and no. I'm willing to admit that the BBC is about as good as it gets in Britain (I have had access to some of it across the years, even so far away as I am). But I see many problems confronting journalism these days, and I think many of them erode the confidence we may have placed in even the best institutions in the past. Today, we ought to be more skeptical, and we have grounds to be. Even the BBC has been guilty of presenting stories as though they (the media) are experts in the fields they are reporting on, not just experts in the field of reporting. Those are not at all the same thing, and we must not treat them as the same thing. Now, I don't have anything like exposure to the mass of coverage of this story that I presume is going on in Britain. In fact, what I have is **only** the snippets I have looked at here, as provided by the given sources. That means that I am not an expert on the story, but I think that's a good thing in this case. It allows me to see what is presented on WP, and only that, so I can get a good notion of how well-backed-up the article is wrt the story. And what I see is that these sources are not experts wrt the LSE report, nor do they do any reporting about that report that is based on expert opinion. I think we have to take the media sources as reliable reporters, giving the benefit of any doubt about their journalistic practices. (I'd let editors who know more about them judge that aspect of things.) But just because they have credentials in reporting does not make them expert enough that we need to take what they say about the story as more than simple commentary not coming from experts. Criticisms of the LSE study, or of the charity's management, or assertions of malfeasance or conflict of interest on the part of LSE in connection with funding of the study, or any of the other basic facets of the story, all those essential underlying facts need to be founded on something more expert than the media themselves. Until the media dig up those sources for us and report on them, the media have given us nothing worthy to be called RS on WP. Perhaps we can dig up the requisite sources ourselves, but the media criticisms cannot stand as expert until they have experts telling the same criticisms. In other words, we must hold the media to account for the sources of their information the same way we hold WP editors to account for their sources, because we are both in the business of reporting. And we cannot accept the media themselves as a source any more than we accept editorial opinion on WP. That's my criticism of what I see here at present in a nutshell. I don't doubt there's a great deal more to the story, and maybe even dirt lying in some corners, but I don't believe any of it as fact until I see something better to back it up. Until then, I see innuendo. And I am afraid the media is much given to that these days. We need to be cautious of it. Evensteven (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It could be said that BBC News cannot be considered an RS for this article as the corporation's high-flying and long-standing executive, Alan Yentob was also chair of trustees at Kids Company. It could be argued that BBC News is over compensating in response to allegations of a conflict of interest. But I'd never say that.

It could also be argued that the Spectator is no longer a RS for this article as having shown its hand earlier in the year, it had little choice but to subsequently back its own play so its attempts to slur the LSE can't be trusted. But I wouldn't say that either.

Instead, I agree with Evensteven and with what I've previously said that outside of suggestion and innuendo, there is no evidence presented by any news item proving the LSE research study is not RS. That's my bottom line. As such I don't think citations from the research require qualification, particularly the quote I'd like to include. There is no conflict between the citation's comment on the pitfalls of "excessive management" and later calls for "improved management". The two are quite different things and, frankly, I think it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Selector99 (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• comment - the London School of Economics is a major, globally recognised academic institution. if they publish a study of something, that is news. if it generates discussion/dispute, if the study is contested, that may very well also be news; especially if the disputants have some decent credibility in terms of their credentials and/or arguements.

one can debate whether the lse study is correct in their analysis of this organisation, BUT the fact a that the study was conducted & published, BY the lse, AND that this study received significant press coverage and discussion, merits inclusion in the article in any case. NOT to include it would be biased.

same goes for the bbc :p

Lx 121 (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

i would also note... that at the present time, the article mentions the existence of the LSE report, but then provides NO information about what it contains.

which is bloody ridiculous; it's like reading a global-ban decision coming from the wmf:office :p

our job is to INFORM USERS about the subject (of an article); if our internal arguements & procedures prevent that, then we have FAILED.

Lx 121 (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that voice of reason, Lx 121. I tend to agree that a few news organisations pointing fingers at the LSE, without saying much, before quickly moving on does not somehow make the LSE or its research, 'the accused'. Perhaps it'd be better if LSE was actually the accused. Then we'd, at least, take them at their word instead of attempting to dismiss them as unreliable based on jack all. Selector99 (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it would be helpful to have some material on what the LSE study actually says in the article. And I agree that any contesting of the study would be news and reportable. However, there has been no contesting of the LSE study by anyone other than the inexpert media, who cannot be RS for the contesting, which has been my point. As soon as someone reliable actually contests it in some way, then they can be sourced here. Evensteven (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, ALL, very much for contributing to this discussion. For my part, I now consider the matter closed - if not resolved. Be well! Selector99 (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

References for Cultural appropriation

Cultural appropriation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

ok, so we are having a discussion about the suitability of references for the article cultural appropriation.

first, i would like to request a review of the references currently in-use; both on their own merits, & as a comparison "baseline" for the proposed additions.

second, here is a list of references that are being considered. i do not suggest that ALL of them merit inclusion; my goal has been to compile a list of everything relevant, & then thin it out. the other 2 users who have been involved in the conversation have provided only limited consideration of the matter, resorting to mostly "blanket objections". after repeatedly pointing this out to them, one suggested that i should "take it here". so here i am, & here it is.

bear in mind that the article is about a concept in sociology, & that pretty much the whole concept of cultural appropriation is a matter of various opinions. most of my work has been in the "criticism of" section; with some additions to the lead section, the addition of henna skin markings to the list of disputed cultural elements, & only minor edits elsewhere.

the list:

1. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2463427
2. http://www.columbiachronicle.com/opinion/article_ae0970c2-e576-11e4-af8e-9fcf13a46af7.html
3. http://www.technicianonline.com/opinion/article_3c0b1d70-3ede-11e4-8ade-0017a43b2370.html
4. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/15/you-can-t-steal-a-culture-in-defense-of-cultural-appropriation.html
5. http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/05/cultural-appropriation-in-fashion-stop-talking-about-it/370826/
6. http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095652789
7. https://books.google.ca/books?id=2dGY1Iy3K0EC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=cultural+appropriation+disputed&source=bl&ots=YoYC28ZhQF&sig=Xmnf6R1Q4h7vb2FkL2O8beGFquI&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y
8. http://www.dailybarometer.com/forum/crosses-in-fashion-just-another-cultural-appropriation-fad/article_9d9c4fd8-9aaa-11e3-b78a-001a4bcf6878.html
9. http://lanfiles.williams.edu/~mbrown/Brown-CopyrightingcultureCA98.pdf & https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/204721 Brown, Michael F. (April 1998). "Can Culture Be Copyrighted?". Current Anthropology 39 (2): 193–222. JSTOR 10.1086/204721.
10. http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/5-things-white-people-cultural-appropriation/
11. http://rcnjwc.blogspot.com/2013/04/cultural-appreciation-or-cultural.html
12. https://sweetfernstudio.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/henna-body-art-and-cultural-appropriation/
13. http://ubeempress.com/2015/05/20/an-exploration-of-orientalism-asian-cultural-appropriation-as-found-in-american-music-and-why-being-a-non-asian-poc-doesnt-excuse-you/
14. http://freethoughtblogs.com/heinous/2014/08/19/cultural-appropriation/
15. https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20141023205519AAgtj5Z
16. http://youarenotdesi.tumblr.com/
17. http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/06/cultural-appropriation-wrong/
18. http://www.autostraddle.com/top-ten-instances-of-open-and-unapologetic-celebrity-cultural-appropriation-in-2013-210371/

'bearing in mind the nature of the article they are being used for, please indicate which references are & are not suitable, & explain the reasoning?

thank-you in advance, for your time & attention in this matter,

Lx 121 (talk) 06:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

You're asking a lot, but you can start by crossing out the forums and blogs. You also need to understand that just because something is a reliable source that doesn't mean it should be in the article. WP:NPOV, and seections such as WP:UNDUE, obviously apply. Doug Weller (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

As I stated before, numbers 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 aren't RS just from looking at the URLs. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

just for the record, are you saying that "just from looking at the URLs" is the standard you are using, to judge the quality of the sources you are disputing? i ask this, because you've repeated that same statement at least 3 or 4 times in various places; did you ever go & actually read ANY of the sources? Lx 121 (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources for what? It's impossible to tell what prose you're trying to use these sources for because of your refusal to use inline citations. As to whether they're reliable sources for statements of fact in general, I agree with EvergreenFir that many of them are not. Dyrnych (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

since you are one of the users involved in the content dispute, previous to posting in this forum, i invite you to actually read the sources you are objecting to. if you do so, you should not have any trouble understanding what "prose" they relate to.

& for the record i have not "refused to use inline citations", i have OBJECTED to YOUR instant removal of material AND SOURCES from the article "because there are no inline cites", even when the article was tagged accordingly. there is no policy to support this action. AND that dispute is not really germane to the conversation here. i address it now, only because you have chosen to bring it up, & i wish to to clarify the recordLx 121 (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The text they are trying to add with those refs can be found here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Lx 121 made numerous other edits that also lacked sources, and this list appeared to me to be just a dump for sources that could support any of the claims that they added to the article. Dyrnych (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Most of these are not RS. # 2 is an editorial in a campus newspaper, so is probably only a RS for the opinion of its author. Same issue with #3. #4 is, again, an editorial, so really only an RS as far as the author's personal opinion (which, as with the other editorials, I doubt is encyclopedia-worthy). #5 is (you guessed it!) another opinion piece. #6 is an RS, but it's a reference source - so should really only be cited for basic information about the article subject (definition, meaning of the concept, etc). #7 might be a RS - it depends what it's being cited for. #8 is obviously not a RS, it's another opinion piece, written by someone whose opinion is very unlikely to be notable or worthy of inclusion. I'd go on but I think the theme is clear here - for the most part, these are not RS and should not be used in the article. There is a crapton of well-written academic scholarship on this subject out there, that's what the article should be primarily based on and referenced too. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

ok, so of the list, which items are' you ok with, then? & have you any opinion on the sources already in-use" on the piece? & if you could please provide some examples of the "crapton of well-written academic scholarship on this subject out there" that is "rs", giving examples for both pro & con items, i would be very much grateful, & you would be helping to resolve the dispute!  :) thank-you Lx 121 (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The scholarly term "bafflegab" is well-suited for the agglomeration and mélange found in this article. In some cases, people wear costumes because they find it is fun to dress up as someone else - just as sometimes a cigar is actually just a cigar. This article, unfortunately, seems to demur. There is a real topic - unfortunately this article does not address it in anything near a scholarly and neutral manner. Collect (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

hello again; just to note, for the record, users: EvergreenFir, Doug Weller, Dyrnych, & myself of course are all involved in the editorial dispute, & have an edit-history on the article.

i was looking for uninvolved third party opinions. otherwise, we are merely recycling the same arguements from before, in a different location.

as regards the merits of the article as a whole, i agree it's got problems, that's why i started trying to present a slightly more balanced view.

as regards the matter of opinion vs fact, the entire concept is subjective; this is SOCIOLOGY, & if you can draw a hard line between opinion & fact, you should write a doctoral thesis about it. the entire topic of "cultural appropriation" is a DISCUSSON OF OPINION & INTERPRETATION. if we're going to eliminate that, the article will revert to a stub.

as regards the terms of my request, i am seeking some 3rd party consensus, on which of the "contested" sources CAN (& cannot) be considered "rs".

& while we're at it, let's have a look @ the existing "standards" of the sources used on the piece?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation#References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation#External_links

because, if NONE of the sources provided in the list above qualify as "reliable", then CLEARLY some of what's "in-use" now, has got to go...

Lx 121 (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I have an edit-history on the article? As I can't remember any, I just checked "edits by user" and can't find any. How am I involved in the editorial dispute?

If you're trying to make the point that a bunch of the references in the current article suck (and they do), make that point. Don't post a bunch of different, equally terrible references. Dyrnych (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

i count 7 edits to the article by you (plus 10 comments on the current talkpage), from june to now; only 1 of the edits relates to me or to the present dispute. granted, that's not as many as user:corbievreccan with 88, but it's enough to qualify you as an "involved party". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_appropriation&action=history Lx 121 (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. What does my involvement on the article have to do with the validity of my opinion? Dyrnych (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

well, for one thing, i think i've successfully answered your questions just from above^ "I have an edit-history on the article? As I can't remember any, I just checked "edits by user" and can't find any. How am I involved in the editorial dispute?" -- Lx 121 (talk)

The edit-history question wasn't mine, it was Doug Weller's. I'm not sure what happened there. I very obviously have edited the article and its talk page, not that that has any particular relevance. Dyrnych (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• & i provided so many references, in the hopes of finding some that we could all agree on; or at least some that can't be "disappeared" by dispute. (the ones related to "cultural appropriation" claims for henna skin-dying are lower-priority, & a separate point, but it should be added to the list of claimed "appropriations"). if you'd rather, we could go through the items one-by-one instead? Lx 121 (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

And I still want to know why I'm said to be involved in the editorial dispute. Doug Weller (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

well, you did insert yourself into the conversation on the talk page; & i think it's fair to say that your comment was not strictly "neutral"; but i stand corrected. i had mistaken you for someone with a longer history on the article. & we are MASSIVELY off-subject here. i started this section to get some uninvolved 3rd-party opinions on the suitability of sources for use on the article. so far what's happened is that the main participants from the discussion @ the article have all piled on, & we've had an "existential" discussion about who is & is not an "involved party". (almost) zero progress on the refs list. would it help if i posted the links individually? Lx 121 (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Oxford University Press vs a management specialist's newspaper column & a recipe web site at Jollof rice

There seems to be an ethnic-related dispute here. Not too long ago it stated the Jollof rice was of West African origin[17] - the sources being a recipe website (not an RS) and "A West African CookbooK" by Ellen Gibson Wilson. At first glance that might not seem a reliable source, but the author, although not an academic, was specialist in the area[18] and her book has been mentioned in other reliable sources, eg[19]. But in the infobox it stated that Ghana was the source, and in May User:Yamaguchi先生 removed that as contentious and unsourced. Ah, looking at the next edit I realise that there was a lot of edit-warring over origin and that next edit was User:Smartse's semi-protection of the article. That didn't stop the argument and User:Jamie Tubers stepped in using a column in a Nigerian newspaper[20] as a source.

I got involved when an IP edited another article on my watchlist and changed the text sourced to Vanguard. I noticed that the text was (minor) copyvio and in any case seemed too specific. The IP and I worked it out on my talk page and looking at sources it was obvious that the origin is disputed (and IMHO impossible to determine as it was almost certainly made before written history of the area). Using an OUP book I changed the region to West Africa and added "According to the The Diner's Dictionary: Word Origins of Food and Drink "Jollof rice is a subject of great debate in West Africa. Every country has its own version, and abhors "inauthentic* variations."<ref name="Diner's Dictionary">{{cite book|last1=Ayto|first1=John|title=The Diner's Dictionary: Word Origins of Food and Drink|date=2nd edition 2012|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0199640249|page=188|url=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NoicAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA188&dq=Jollof+rice+west+africa&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDIQ6AEwA2oVChMI5s-b5tmoxwIVpbPbCh1odQAj#v=onepage&q=Jollof%20rice%20west%20africa&f=false|accessdate=14 August 2015}}</ref>"

Jamie Tubers then reverted me, removing the statement that the origin is a subject of debate and replacing the website and the newspaper as sources. This was after I tried to work this out at Talk:Jollof rice#Origin and sources where I had another editor supporting me and Jamie Tubers opposing me, in part because he thinks "West Africa" isn't specific enough and in part he says that the newspaper would have made sure that the column was accurate before editing. I'd pointed out that the columnist's qualifications are in management and administration[21] but that evidently didn't matter to him. Rather than revert again I've come here. Doug Weller (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I am not an expert in West African cuisine, nor do I have a special interest in the Jollof rice article. With that said, as a Wikipedian I find the use of WHATS4EATS.COM as an encyclopedic source disturbing. WHATS4EATS is a personal website belonging to self-proclaimed "Content Manager and Social Media Strategist" Brad Harvey, see: http://www.whats4eats.com/about and https://www.linkedin.com/in/bradchef -- none of the articles appear to be peer reviewed, the photographs are scraped from Flickr, and there is no possible way to verify any of the backstories presented for each dish. In my opinion, utilization of this website as a source for encyclopedic content is inappropriate.

When I raised my concerns regarding this source with Jamie Tubers approximately 2 months ago, he responded that the source should be sufficient. [22]

If the origin is disputed, and we have reliable sources which have established the same, I believe this is how we should present the article to our readers. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 18:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Why aren't all the sides of the dispute presented in the article accordingly, with appropriate referencing provided? Basic foods rarely originate in specific places, but rather regions, sometimes concomitantly. There shouldn't be an issue in finding good references to note this. Heck, I found 365 with just a simple search! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

User:FoCuSandLeArN Because of ethnic nationalism and disagreement or ignorance concerning our sourcing guidelines and policies. That's why I think we should simply state the reason and that it's origin is disputed. If you can get people to agree, great! Doug Weller (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't seem controversial to me. If consensus is reached here or in any other venue, we can just be bold and write a preliminary paragraph to that effect, to later implement it in-article. If this is something the community rejects as a change, then so be it, but hard-headed decisions have no place on Wikipedia. Per Yamaguchi's comments above, if there is in fact such a kerfuffle around the geographical origins of this food (which seems absurd given geographical boundaries are artificial) then let's find appropriate sources for the contesting views and present each in their proper light, given a food website is obviously not a reliable source for anthropoligical statements. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIR, West African "national boundaries" have no relationship to where any food is found. Ivory Coast, Gambia, Senegal, Ghana, Togo, Benin and Nigeria are not "natural nations" but were arbitrarily carved in the 19th century. "Jollof rice" is a one pot stew which is found across the "national boundaries" and arguing about specific nations is actually silly. It is likely common to every country which has members of the specific ethnic group or tribe named. Was this really a serious issue? Collect (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Here is another good source that support's The diner's dictionary summary cited by User:Doug Weller:

A second dish that marks the connections in West Africa’s culinary geography is a ubiquitous dish called Jollof rice. ... Jollof rice appears prominently in most West African cuisines, such as Wolof (Senegal), Sierra Leone, Ghana, and Nigeria. Ironically, it is not called Jollof rice in Senegal (home of the historical Jollof empire), where that country’s elaborate version is called thiebou dienn(or phonetically cheeb u jen) and where it incorporates smoked or fresh fish. Cheeb u yapp is the same rice dish made with meat.

— James C. McCann (31 October 2009). "A west African culinary grammar". Stirring the Pot: A History of African Cuisine. Ohio University Press. pp. 133–. ISBN 978-0-89680-464-7.

Pages 134-135 have further discussion of the dish's origins starting with "Jollof rice’s point of origin and its most authentic form are points of substantial debate.", laying out some popular theories, and ending with "Specialists may never agree.". The author is a professor specializing in history of food/cuisine in Africa, and the excerpt is from a chapter showing that despite its political, cultural and linguistic diversity, West Africa shares "fundamental elements of a common cuisine", of which Jollof rice is cited as an example. Using newspaper columns to favor individual regional claims fails WP:BESTSOURCES. Abecedare (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Journal of Astrobiology & Outreach for information about honey bees

Please see background here. DrChrissy (talk · contribs) is arguing for inclusion of this source to support this content about how honey bees are affected by geomagnetism. The journal is edited by Chandra Wickramasinghe who is well-known for his WP:FRINGE viewpoints and the paper hasn't been cited by anyone else. DrChrissy wants me to provide evidence that it isn't a reliable source for information about bees which is obviously not possible and I'm struggling to carry on explaining that politely, since it is so blindingly obvious to me. Your thoughts would be appreciated. SmartSE (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The The Journal of Astrobiology and Outreach is an obviously unreliable bit of junk.

1. It's published by the OMICS Publishing Group, which is widely recognized as a predatory publisher.
2. The journal lists "UFO Sightings" and "UFO news" among its "Highlights".
3. The journal's editor-in-chief, Chandra Wickramasinghe, is something of a crank.
4. The paper was submitted on July 2 (a Thursday) and accepted on July 7 (the Tuesday immediately after). A five-day peer review process (just 3 business days) is...remarkably rapid turnaround. In my experience, that's faster that most journals make the decision to even send a paper out for peer review.
5. The paper at hand isn't an astrobiology paper; even if the journal were otherwise credible (ha!) this paper would fall outside its expected sphere of 'expertise'.

DrChrissy is wasting our time. Again. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

User:TenOfAllTrades That is outrageous! I did not post this thread and I did not suggest it be posted. Please strike your comment!DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh wow, how did I miss it was published by OMICS?! SmartSE (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Ditto. The paper appears to be proposing a new and not yet accepted theory (as detailed on the article talk page). A JSTOR search for example gives ~ 60 articles on colony collapse and honeybees of which zero propose geomagnetic disturbances as a possible cause. Certainly the proposed edit gives far too much weight to such a brand new theory. The Journal of Astrobiology & Outreach seems a very strange choice for publishing this paper, make of that what you will. Is the Journal itself reliable? It fails my "smell test" not least because of the significant grammar and spelling errors in the section describing the peer review process, the UFO sightings section and the peer review process that lasts less than a week. QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Looking more closely at the article talk page discussion, I am gobsmacked by DrChrissy's defense of this paper:

"I have searched the journal for other articles on the behaviour of bees. I can not find any. Therefore, there is no evidence that it is an unreliable source in this context...." [23]

Literally, he reasons that because the journal has never published anything on this topic, we cannot presume that it would be unreliable in this (new for the journal) area. I have trouble believing that DrChrissy is doing anything but taking the piss at this point. It would probably be sensible to expand his existing topic ban(s), though this isn't the noticeboard for it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

User:TenOfAllTrades The last edit summary you left was a personal attack on me and uncivil. Please desist.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Garbage source (obviously). Do not use. If the proposed material for inclusion is really accepted knowledge, it will be possible to find it published somewhere reliable instead. Reviewing the discussion on the article's talk page and here I too suspect there is a vexatious aspect in the push for inclusion - but this is not the forum for pursuing that. Alexbrn (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Note - this source is being edit warred into was added to a second article, Magnetoception Jytdog (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC) (correct, per REDACT Jytdog (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC))

Jytdog you are seriously misleading the community here and I hope an admin sees this. I entered the disputed source into Magnetocepton once. This was reverted. I have not attempted to reinsert the disputed source since that reversion. I am not edit warring this into a second article.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog has apologised at my Talk page for this totally false accusation - I feel he owes the community here an apology for misleading them.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for missing it, that DrChrissy did not include the contested source when he edit warred the content back into the article; it was included in DrChrissy's first edit. In any case, the current content at that article about geomagnetism is still supported only by primary sources. This is under discussion at two article talk pages now: Talk:Colony_collapse_disorder#Geomagnetism and Talk:Magnetoception#Bees. My apologies again for mischaracterizing the 2nd diff as including the contested source. Jytdog (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The publisher is not rs. That in itself does not mean the article is reliable. However, adding original studies that have not been reported in reliable sources is a violation of weight. TFD (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

MeasuringWorth

I'm not sure about the credibility of this site, but the about page reads, "There are two missions of this site. The first is to make available to the public the highest quality and most reliable historical data on important economic aggregates, with particular emphasis on "nominal (current-price) measures, as well as real (constant-price) measures ... The second is to provide carefully designed compartors (using these data) that explain the many issues involved in making value comparison over time." Kailash29792 (talk) 04:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

What's it being used as a reference/citation for? Fyddlestix (talk) 04:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Fyddlestix, Kalidas (film), which is currently a FAC. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Crisis and Consolidation in the Formative Period of Shi'Ite Islam

I wonder if it is a reliable source for this edit. I was only able to find this review about the book. Some users are concerned about the publisher and/or the author's theological background. Here is the author's webpage on Princeton University's website. I appreciate your input on this matter.--Kazemita1 (talk) 09:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I lack any knowledge of the field or subject, so treat this with caution. A quick search turns up "JESUS, THE QĀ'IM AND THE END OF THE WORLD, Gabriel Said Reynolds, Rivista degli studi orientali, Vol. 75, Fasc. 1/4 (2001), pp. 55-86." Page 75 contains this content "These doctrinal developments are more evident in the writings of Ibn Ani Zaynab al-Nu'mani...he records a large number hadith... The most important one... is a hadith that was already present in orthodox Sunni collections wherein the Prophet Muhammad declares that he will be followed by twelve caliphs (alernative versions have... qayyims)... from his descendants..." As I say, I can't judge if this supports the edit being questioned as I lack the expertise. It does however appear to be an RS. Thanks - QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• You didn't link "this edit", although I'm assuming it was this. First, I'd like to address the principle objection raised to this source: Darwin Press is not a self-publication or vanity press. However, although I would consider this source generally reliable, I cannot offer support for the linked edit. It is overbroad to be supported by a single author, and suffers from significant problems of tone and neutrality. So, although I would consider the offered book a reliable source for some potential edits on this topic (and without that book onhand, I decline to speculate as to text that would be acceptable), I believe the other editors' removal of this content was the correct outcome. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Squeamish Ossifrage. That was indeed the edit I was referring to. I ended up rephrasing/trimming the quote in my new edit of the article. I also used the source proposed by QuiteUnusual.--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Amazon as a reference

Please see List of Dragon Ball Z chapters--where what could have been a reference list is basically a collection of spam links. I know we accept Amazon for release data and stuff like that (and I don't like that at all), but in this case Amazon is really all it is. (Of course, that it's all Amazon also means we're not dealing with a very encyclopedic topic, but hey--it's manga, and that's untouchable.) I know that Tintor2 has edited this extensively though I don't know if they're responsible for that. Anyway, I think that this is way over the top. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

If I remember well (though that was some years ago), the official Viz Media site lacked the series' release dates so I had to use Amazon.com.Tintor2 (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

A Spy for Wellington: Sir John William Waters (1774-1842)

There is an article called John Waters (1774–1842) at the moment the article is based on text copied from the copyright expired DNB (the ODNB (2004) confirms the DNB article is accurate).

A new editor, Águas added some additional information but did not cite a source, and because without an additional source the changes to the paragraph appeared to be supported by the inline DNB citation, I reverted the change and started a discussion on the talk page (see the exchange at Talk:John Waters (1774–1842)#Father). Águas has a source that supports the additions:

• Griffiths, Barrie (1999). A Spy for Wellington: Sir John William Waters (1774-1842), Cefn Cribwr's Forgotten Hero. Cymdeithas Cynffig. LCCN nb99138564. OCLC 44152729. {{cite book}}: External link in |publisher= (help) — Length 38 pages.

Is it a Wikipedia reliable source? -- PBS (talk) 10:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Cracked

Is Cracked.com a reliable source for the article Seedfeeder, for which it is currently being used as a reference? Everymorning (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It is a reliable source for the claim "The Cracked.com article included a gallery of the six "most terrifying sex illustrations on Wikipedia", and for the claim "Cyriaque Lamar of Cracked.com called the images 'goddamn hilarious' and also compared them to airline safety pamphlets. Lamar acknowledged their educational value but criticized them for being too pornographic for pedagogical purposes." because Cracked.com a reliable source for claims about what is on a Cracked.com page. If anyone tries to use the page as a citation for, say, claiming that Liza Minnelli is turning into a werewolf, it would not be a reliable source for that claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the author of the cracked.com article is listed as a "senior editor" on the site. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Guy Macon. This isn't really a reliable source issue since the cite is for commentary -- see WP:RSOPINION. I also don't have a problem with including the statement, because in my opinion it is true. Calidum 01:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the heavy metal music article include a paragraph on the gender, race and sexual orientation of heavy metal musicians?

There is a new RfC asking if the heavy metal music article should include a paragraph on the gender, race and sexual orientation of heavy metal musicians. It is posted here on the RS/Noticeboard because Reliable Sources are one of the matters under discussion. To view and/or participate, follow the link here.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 17:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Can I use this as a source

• Webpage in question: Akurusu.com, Sales Data of Super Robot Wars series
• Where I want to use it: Draft:List of JRPG franchises
• It uses wikimedia software.
• Unlike normal wikimedia websites, it seems no one can edit the website, other than the the admin.
• I see it just like any other uneditable webpage, therefore I consider it reliable.
• I cant find compiled data like this anywhere else . --Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments/Replies

• It does not fall under the "crowd-sourced" prohibition.
• The question is whether their is reliable editorial oversight. I would have said that the hurdle for this type of fact is fairly low.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC).

• It is a Wiki - and allows "users" to edit pages (even has a "create account" button). "The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Users, Gutsy Janitors. " appears to be quite a large potential group - it is exactly like a "semi-protected article" on Wikipedia. The user who created the page (who is not the "admin") states the data is mainly from http://geimin.net/ . Collect (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Daily Mail as a source for a sexual assault stat

This statement is included in Male_rape#United_States: The Department of Justice's report (2008) leads to a conclusion that in the U.S. more men are raped than women.

The citation links to this Daily Mail story which includes this quote:

More men are raped in the U.S. than woman, according to figures that include sexual abuse in prisons. In 2008, it was estimated 216,000 inmates were sexually assaulted while serving time, according to the Department of Justice figures. That is compared to 90,479 rape cases outside of prison.

The Daily Mail sites this DOJ report, but the report doesn't say more men are raped than women. The 216,000 number in that report is the total number of sexual assaults in prison, for both genders, and no breakdown by gender is provided. The numbers for rapes outside prison appears to come from the Uniform Crime Report for 2007, but that source only includes rapes reported to police. I haven't been able to find outside verification for this stat, so is the Daily Mail alone sufficient? Nblund (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

No. The Daily Mail alone is never sufficient for anything of any importance. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. VQuakr (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Further evidence that the Daily Mail is a fundamentally unreliable source - they either didn't read the report properly, or they don't care. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

No newspapers of any level have a good record on "celebrity news and gossip" at all, and the fact is that almost all now have no fact-checkers on staff at all either - for any news.

In fact, most newspapers rely heavily on press releases - from the Guardian on down.

What we have here is a press release almost certainly on behalf of "Study author Allen J. Beck told New York Review of Books that the work shows almost 200,000 were sexually abused in detention in 2011." who is the chief statistician for the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The pdf cited says on page 3 "Given that the monetary benefit of a 1% reduction from the baseline in the prevalence of prison rape is worth $157 million to $239 million, implementation of the standards would have to yield a 0.70-1.07% reduction from the baseline level of prison rape in any given year (i.e., from a total of 216,600 incidents to 213,689-214,488) in order for the upfront costs and the benefits to break even, without regard to the value of the nonmonetary benefits" which does, indeed, use "rape" for that figure and not "sexual assaults" but then on page 20 states "the vast majority of prison sexual assault victims are male" which does, indeed, support something on the order of "more males than women in prison are raped." Thus the Mail was not as far off as a person saying the report said nothing about relative male/female rape levels in prison.

Other BJS press releases make clear the DM was using primarily information from the press releases - [24] includes much material about the extremely common use of press releases by essentially all major newspapers requiring us to look at the contents of press releases in future and not try singling out any particular newspaper. They all do the same thing. Collect (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Collect: the quote doesn't say "more men than women are raped in prison" it says "more men are raped in the U.S. than woman[sic]". I don't think this is supported anywhere in the BJS article or the New York Review of Books article. Nblund (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

You stated above that the report made no statement that more men than women were raped in prison - the report belies that claim. Page 20 states clearly: the vast majority of prison sexual assault victims are male, which you stated was not in the report. I suggest saying that the report on prison statistics did not address total statistics on rape is obvious - but with the headline being ambiguous at best (I can read it as referring to male and female rapes in prison quite readily - More men are raped in the US than women, figures on prison assaults reveal would seem to refer to prison assault statistics.) In short, the actual article is quite clear and conforms to the press releases from BJS. Collect (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I did say that, and it doesn't seem like anyone else read the DM headline that way. Nblund (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Where there is a clear error in a statement used in an rs, we should not use it. In this case the DM reporter incorrectly cites one primary source and incorrectly compares it with another. But extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources. In this case we would want a review paper that says most social scientists agree that there are more men raped in prison than women raped in society. TFD (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The actual article accurately reflects the BJS press releases. It is clearly misused if one seeks to have it claim something it does not claim - the report only deals with prison assault rates, and the press releases are clear. Collect (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

We really need to stop dealing with this again and again and ban the Daily mail as a source for anything, ever. Time for an RfC on the subject? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Yup. And of course the Daily Mail statistic would be meaningless anyway, even if it were only intended to refer to rapes in prison, since they take no account of the fact that only 6% or so of U.S. prison inmates are female. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Blame the BJS press release, Andy. The DM seems actually to have followed what the BJS itself wrote in press releases. Should newspapers use press releases that much? No. But they all do. And none do much fact-checking (see the reliable source discussion thereon) (per published studies - the biggest remaining fact-checking pub seems to be Vanity Fair (magazine)) Collect (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

If we have evidence that a newspaper is good/bad at fact checking, this can be used in our criteria of whether newspapers are RS[[25]]. I agree with User:Guy Macon that this issue is wasting a huge amount of time. If consensus is that a source is always unreliable, have done with it and publish a blacklist which editors can refer to.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The DM refers to "assault", whereas the actual figures include non-contact sexual abuse and willing sex with staff. TFD (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "More men are raped in the US than woman [sic]" should be enough to disqualify the article. I wouldn't cite any news source that fails to even hire a decent proofreader. Esquivalience ^t 03:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read my post on 14 August[26] about reliable sources - most newspapers have zero proofreaders - thus articles about an "amphibious pitcher in baseball", etc. The New York Times long ago fired all of its proofreaders, for example. Collect (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Saving money by not proofreading is on thing. Purposely publishing things that the newspaper knows are not true (which the Daily Mail has done repeatedly) is another. And "the DM seems actually to have followed what the BJS itself wrote in [the] press release" doesn't let the Daily Mail off the hook. It is a hallmark of bad newspapers that they give a carefully cherrypicked source when they can find one. The Weekly World News (which publishes things that the newspaper knows are not true for humor) once ran a headline that read "SCIENTISTS FOUND LIFE ON THE MOON WHEN WE GOT THERE!" supported by a NASA paper that causally mentioned that there was human life on the moon -- when we got there. Another time the headline read "BULLDOZER UNCOVERS ANCIENT UFO. PICTURES INSIDE!" and indeed they had pictures inside -- pictures of the bulldozer from the front, side, etc., all 100% authentic; "Here is the bulldozer that uncovered the UFO." The WWN does it to be funny, but the DM does it with the intent to deceive.

The Daily Mail has one and only one use for us on Wikipedia: If you see something in the Daily Mail, search for a reliable source that says the same thing and use that source. If you can't find a reliable source, assume that it is a fabrication. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The WWN never makes things up. The most famous instance was probably the time one of their reporters called up every US Senate office, and asked whoever answered if the Senator was actually a space alien in disguise. He got a lot of hangups, a few laughs, and five staffers who admitted to the secret. The Five then posed together on Capitol Hill for the story. Choor monster (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the press release said, it is pretty hard to interpret it the way the Daily Mail did. Anyway, statements of this kind should not be sourced to sensationalist tabloids. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Read the BJS press releases - you will find that they seem to be aimed at "can we get someone to publish this?" rather than "dry facts" as a rule. This was shown to be the practice for medical press releases - even some published by The Times et al. This is a real problem covering almost every newspaper out there now. Collect (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this is a moot point, but I'm still not sure how you're getting that from this sentence. More men are raped in the U.S. than woman, according to figures that include sexual abuse in prisons. -- its not clear to me how you're reading that is saying "More men are raped in U.S. prisons" They even include a comparison to rapes occurring outside of prisons that comes from a completely different data source. Nblund (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

That is simply an unexplained synthesis by the Daily Mail, which has a poor record on unexplained syntheses. It's not valid. The underlying data does not support the claim, and the source (The Daily Mail) does not have the expertise to do a synthesis on the data. The underlying question is, does the higher rate of male rape in prison offset the higher rate of female rape in the outside world to the extent that more men are raped in the U.S. than women? The source asserts the answer but does not support the claim. The source's tabloid history on fact-checking does not give it the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, the source does not reliably support the claim in the article. SageRad (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Nblund - the line "Department of Justice's report (2008) leads to a conclusion that in the U.S. more men are raped than women." is just the odd way it appears between the DOJ PREA report of 200+ thousand, overwhelmingly men, versus FBI/UCR stats of 90+ thousand rapes outside, overwhelmingly women. Reading a bit closer comes to the conclusion that the numbers of males and females raped are roughly similar and both are appalling.

• N+1 also covered the 'more men than women' and the story of comparing different statistics got discussed at The Guardian here.
• Slate.com also discusses these here and concludes it's surprisingly close, about 38% men in the NCVS numbers.
• MS magazine has a collected set of 25 facts about rape here with obvious talk about numbers and definition issues
• Supporting refs are also in wiki at Prison rape and Rape by gender and Male rape

It seems that the FBI focus is (reasonably) on what they can prosecute -- which is a fraction of what the other stats having different focus 'count'. It's hard to get stats or even agreed on what acts and circumstances count (see statutory, drunk, allegation, adjusted estimates, improper touching). But it's not a contest on who gets more when counted one way or another, the general conclusion is that it's doubly appalling -- dismissive of the women and not caring about the prisoners. Markbassett (talk) 04:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Is the Volokh Conspiracy a reliable source for information about legal proceedings?

Resolved

Please see the discussion at Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Wa_Post_restraining_order_article. The Volokh conspiracy is a blog run by legal experts and hosted by the Washington Post (with editorial independence[27]). Can this article opinion piece[28] be used t source that a restraining order against a BLP, is in the process of being vacated? (see diff:[29]) Brustopher (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this here, Brustopher. The one factor that you left out, and in my mind the most important factor, is that this is labelled as an opinion piece by the Washington Post. It's not a news article, but an op-ed, discussing the actions and opinions of multiple living persons. Woodroar (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Apologies. I felt mentioning it was a blog conveyed the opinion piece aspect. Will strike and reword Brustopher (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact that it's an opinion piece, that the person who's writing the piece is actively involved (filed a brief) in the case he's discussing, and the general tone of the article suggest to me that this is not a RS for facts - possibly it could be used as a RS for Volokh's own opinions and statements, but not much beyond that. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

As someone who has done both, I can tell you there is a world of difference between simply "filing a brief" in a case and being allowed to submit an amicus brief. Amici to a court case are not "directly involved" in the underlying dispute in any sense. They are experts in the issues involved (in this case, the First Amendment issues), and judges read amicus briefs to better inform their own legal analysis. Amici aren't parties to the case. Eugene Volokh is the most respected and authoritative commenter on First Amendment issues in the last 20 years. Here, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan says she reads Volokh's blog every day. Frankly the idea that Eugene Volokh is not a reliable source on First Amendment issues is ridiculous, and it smacks of a brazen attempt to keep information unfavorable to certain editors' POVs out of the article. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be removed on the basis that it is a BLP violation. What aspect of BLP is this violating? --Kyohyi (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Because it's an opinion piece that supported a statement about the actions of another living person. There's really nothing in here that doesn't touch upon the actions or opinions of other living people. It would be different if this were factual news reporting, but it's an op-ed. Woodroar (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Taking for granted that it is an opinion (and their brief an opinion), it is a discussion of the legalities of the original restraining order, and not making new accusations towards individuals that have not already been identified in the existing legal documents. (though there's a BLPPRIVACY aspect we must consider in terms of names). Writing legal opinions on why a previous judgement may be wrong under constitutional/case law terms is not a BLP issue, and if there is anything that is truly a BLP violation as we would call it like the BLPPRIVACY bit, we don't have to include it but be aware that that information is in the public awareness. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Except being an opinion piece is not a BLP violation. The only BLPPRIVACY violation I could see is if we include Zoe Quinn's former name. Which the edit that was removed did not. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

An opinion piece can easily contain BLP violations which we would not include (normally) even if we cite them to the opinion writer. If a journalist, even a respected one, said "I think John Q Smith is a murderer." out of the blue, etc. and proceeded to write several hundred words to insult this John Smith, we'd consider that a BLP violation. Yes unlikely that would be published by any respectable sources, but still a possible case. This is not to say that this specific piece here does anything like that. Quinn's real name is a part of court records, but not widely known so per our own policies we do not disclose the real name, and you're right that at the face value that appears to be the only thing that would trigger BLP. My take is that this is for all purposes a RS, with a few WP things we just need to be careful of to avoid including. (Note that I do have other issues, non-source related issues with including this, as it gets off track on the topic, but that's not an RS/N aspect). --MASEM (t) 15:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Look at it this way: would we include an opinion piece from a medical expert discussing his own or other doctors' patients? How about this expert's claim that a team of surgeons violated their Hippocratic Oaths, with an additional claim that other medical experts agree with him? Because that's essentially what this opinion piece is about. Woodroar (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable. I am completely uninvolved in GG or any of the ancillary articles, nor do I care to be involved. Volokh is an established expert in the legal field, especially in the free speech/First Amendment field, and his opinion that an injunction against speech will not stand is significant. There should be no hesitation at all in including it as a source. I agree completely with Starke Hathaway both as a lawyer and a WP editor. It seems to be an attempt to push a POV by omitting the information. GregJackP Boomer! 15:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Just to comment and clarify from above, I would support the source as an RS for the reason of the weight of Volokh's reputation, I just question the need for that amount of detail on the GG page as the restraining order considering the larger picture, at the present time. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Eugene Volokh [...] is an American law professor, the Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law. So this is an opinion piece squarely within the expertise of a credentialled expert, published under the auspices of the Washington Post. As a source, this is certainly reliable. Moreover, the text at issue is a simple statement of fact, not even opinion. Guy (Help!) 15:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Reliable I concur that the Volokh conspiracy should be treated as a reliable source as relates to legal proceedings; certainly to Volokh and his co-writers' opinions as to said legal proceedings. Firstly, I do not believe it is self-published; it is hosted by the Washington Post and is almost certainly subject to their editorial review. Secondly, even if the blog was self published, our guideline states that "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." Volokh, and his co-writers (Somin, Kontorovich, etc.) are established experts (they are academics, authors, people who have been invited to testify before congress as experts—especially regarding First Amendment issues). Thus, I think that there should be no issues using the Volokh conspiracy as a reliable source about the facts of proceedings and about the opinions of the authors for use as supporting scholarly or expert opinions in articles. -- Avi (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:SPSBLP: these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Editorial independence: We are not Washington Post employees, and we have sole editorial control over the blog." I find it difficult to square the SPSBLP policy with their "Editorial Independence" statement. The writers are clearly experts and should be considered reliable for their statements and analysis of law and legal proceedings, but caution should be exercised when making claims about living people. In this particular case I don't see a problem with the original edit, but the entire thing is moot now. The article no longer talks about the order at all. — Strongjam (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Not reliable Op-eds are not reliable for facts, per policy. It does not matter whether the author is an expert. There are many experts who write partisan opinion pieces and that does not elevate their writing above that of any other. Canada's former Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff for example is a renowned expert on human rights and international studies. That should not mean that when he gave campaign speeches they should be given more credence than his opponents'. TFD (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• General comment If it ever occurs to anyone present to wonder how the Gamergate Controversy article got into its current state, it may be instructive to observe the frantic wikilawyering and WP:ALPHABETSOUPing that has taken place to ensure that Brianna Wu's "expert" opinion on video games (Wu has produced precisely one game) is retained while Eugene Volokh's expertise is kept out. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • That's bullshit. Wu is cited in that article for her opinion on a controversy where she is involved. — Strongjam (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Bullshit, eh? Well, I'd hate to be the purveyor of bullshit. Good thing I can link to an entire section of a talk page archive wherein you, Strongjam, personally make several comments to the effect that Wu is an expert. Bullshit indeed. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Indeed and I argued we could cite her opinion on sexism in the industry. Not for making assertions about living people. Soooo, not the same thing at all. — Strongjam (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

This should have been at the top of the section:

Source: Volokh, Eugene (24 August 2015). "'You are also ordered not to post any further information about the [plaintiff]'". The Washington Post. Retrieved 24 August 2015. Article: Gamergate controversy#History (addition to the end of the third paragraph of that section) Content: "In mid-August 2015 during an appeal against the order, Quinn filed a document to the trial court asking for the order to be vacated."

...Just to help stay on topic for this noticeboard. My assessment is that the source is reliable for the content in the article (passes this noticeboard), however I would not insert it in the article for WP:UNDUE reasons (meaning: gives undue weight to one sideremark that thusfar can only be found in one reliable source). The fact that Volokh published against the restraining order is imho more important than cherry-picking half a sentence from that publication, but that is not really a topic for this noticeboard (back to article talk page, or to WP:NPOVN). --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, Volokh did not publish against a restraining order, there was no court order directing him not to speak on the issue. The only restraining order in place is only against Eron Gjoni, preventing him from speaking on the issue. Anyone else is free to discus the matter at will. GregJackP Boomer! 00:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oops, the last sentence of the third paragraph of Gamergate controversy#History ("Quinn sought and received a restraining order against Gjoni, who has since been working on a 'sequel' to his initial screed about Quinn.") has been removed too ([30]) – I was of course referring to the same restraining order (there is no other restraining order in this context), and Volokh published rejecting it ("against it", not in the sense of "trespassing it"). Sorry for the perceived ambiguity in my earlier comment. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

References

• Got it. Sorry I misunderstood. GregJackP Boomer! 07:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Up-dating my wiki entry.

What is more reliable than the horse and his mouth? I could, of course, ask scholarly friends to enter information on my behalf, but I just attempted to add and update information for my own entry: David B. Axelrod.

Among the notes at the top of my entry--which threatens that it may be removed because I am not sufficiently "notable," is a request for more external links. These I provided with care, but then was told that there were too many links and that some were "promotional." I am pasting those links below.

Would someone with suitable skills and authority please vet them. I understand that you don't want self-promotional ads. I do not want to put them on the website, but am unclear what references and external links will satisfy your requirements.

Please communicate with me to guide me so that my wiki entry satisfies your requirements. Thank you.

LIST OF PROPOSED EXTERNAL LINKS:

• Listed with Poets & Writers, Inc.
• Member since 1976, PEN International.
• Elder, DaoUSA Temple.
• Florida Book Award, Gold Medal for non-fiction.
• Florida Book Award Gold Medal winner.
• Interview originally aired on WUFT Gainesville, FL, public television. Florida Book Award Gold Medal.
• Llewellyn Worldwide, publisher.
• Seminar teacher/trainer, "The Healing Power of Poetry."
• Interview with Dr. David B. Axelrod conducted by David F. Hoenigman
• Performance in Vienna on YouTube
• Library performance on YouTube
• An interview with Dr. David B. Axelrod.
• video performance
• Commentary by X. J. Kennedy
• [31]
• [32]
• David B. Axelrod, collected poems
• Aaron Kramer and David B. Axelrod
• Patrick Bizzaro and David B. Axelrod
• David B. Axelrod, Big City Magazine
• [33]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Axelrodthepoet (talk • contribs)

• • Mr. Axelrod, sorry, but this list is unacceptable. You can have one, for your own website. If any of the others are useful as a reference, and if they're reliable, you can bring them in as references to verify text in the article--but I don't really see that in here, it's just linkage. The warning doesn't call for external links, it calls for references to reliable sources. Please see WP:RS: there isn't a single one in the article, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I suppose Drmies misunderstood the question: the question I see is that Axelrodthepoet asks assistance from this noticeboard to help sort out which of the links above can be used as reliable sources for David B. Axelrod. I don't see why that would be an inappropriate or unacceptable question. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Pay attention, Schonken. Drmies was quite clear. The listed things are unacceptable. That's what "this list is unacceptable" means. I don't see why Mr. Axelrod's question would be inappropriate either--who said it was? Let me give them a piece of my mind: they clearly can't read English. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Some of the links are broken, but some are relevant. Please allow Axelrod to include the live links as external links. It helps to establish notability. If notability is not found, then the page must be deleted, but Axelrod must be allowed to make his case. Allow a man to have his day. SageRad (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Let him make his case using reliable sources. That's a much more fruitful approach, and it agrees with our policies. One would hope that actual decent sources could be found but there aren't any in this list: have a more careful look please. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

David, this may be a more fruitful approach: It would be entirely appropriate to include those links or a well-curated subset of them in any Wikipedia discussions about the notability of the article's subject. It would not be appropriate to simply add that or any other similar list to the "External links" section of the article. However, some of the links may be appropriate to use as references for specific information that should be added to the article. Since you're the subject of the article it is probably not a good idea for you to edit the article yourself but I'm sure that everyone would welcome you making suggestions on the article's Talk page. It may be very helpful if you could make explicit suggestions about precisely how these links could be helpful in adding specific information to the article. ElKevbo (talk) 04:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd propose to continue the discussion at Talk:David B. Axelrod#Refimprove. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have gone through all the above sources and this Florida government press release (and this state funded magazine piece, which expand upon that) is the only independent, reliable source in the bunch. However the Florida Heritage Award is unlikely to suffice, by itself, to establish notability under WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG, especially given that the book on Merlin Stone that won the award has two other authors. Unless more sources are forthcoming, the article should be deleted. Abecedare (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Update: The article is at AFD. Abecedare (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Is Forbes a Reliable Source for Net Worth of Biographies?

I contend that it is not.

Instead, it seems that Nasdaq.com provides more accurate data concerning shareholdings--and since most hi net worth individuals place most of their wealth into their own company shares, the Forbes data is in the realm of science fiction. If nothing else, it fails to update in an accurate and timely fashion.

For example, I attempted to edit the net worth figures for Steve Wynn and Elaine Wynn, predicated upon this year's sharp dive in their Wynn Resorts shares. According to the Nasdaq.com and its SEC Form 4 data, both Wynns have been reducing their shareholdings, along with an associated radical drop in share price. The Forbes data simply does not begin to reflect this massive drop in their respective equity participations.

A more detailed discussion of the matter can be found in the TALK sections of each listing

Revised Wiki Data2 (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Is Forbes a Reliable Source for Net Worth of Biographies? Yes, although its estimate, as any other, should be attributed. As for "hi net worth individuals place most of their wealth into their own company shares". And even if the generalized claim were true, it couldn't be applied to any particular individual without specific reliable, secondary source saying so because there are numerous exceptions. Abecedare (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Slate, WGN, International Business Times

We have a RfC here regarding the Josh Duggar scandal. Two editors with colorful block histories have joined others from Wikiproject Christianity to declare that public statements by Duggar's brother-in-law that give insight into Duggar's character and personality should be omitted because Slate, International Business Times, and WGN-TV are not reliable sources. This is such a new and novel argument to me that I feel the RS crowd would be able to offer expert input. BlueSalix (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Note: This statement, "Two editors with colorful block histories have joined others from Wikiproject Christianity to declare that..." is not only non-AGF, but block histories have absolutely nothing to do with editing the article. Bringing up such appears to be an attempt to poison the well with a borderline personal attack. As far as editors from editors from Wikiproject Christianity: also non-AGF. Further, considering the tone of the comments by the other editor above, the notification seems very much to be an attempt at canvassing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Normally you are correct that a colorful block history such as yours would not be meat for an edit discussion, however, since your recent ... unusual ... behavior has become the subject of multiple active inquiries that are currently ongoing, a simple "heads-up" is a common sense and polite note for those seeking to protect the encyclopedia. BlueSalix (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, BlueSalix, I thought we wuz running an encyclopedia. Why do we need someone else's insight into someone's character? Drmies (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea about the character of any other editor, and no ability to comment on others characters. That is entirely beyond my bailiwick. BlueSalix (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

BlueSalix, I'm talking about the content that editors seem to want to put in the article. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Because this is a biography, not an autobiography, Drmies. We don't limit biographies to press releases issued by the subject of the bio. The uncle of Duggar's children has publicly called for Duggar's children to be separated from his immediate custody. This is, therefore and objectively, a notable episode in the subject's life. The only question that remains is whether or not WGN-TV, Slate, IBT, etc. are RS to establish the factuality of this event. BlueSalix (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I am one of the involved editors, though I don't know if I am supposed to be one of the ones with "colorful block histories" or one of the ones from Wikiproject Christianity. Anyway, I would like to point out that the Slate source was, in fact, from the XXFactor blog. Per WP:BLPSPS, is this "subject to the newspaper's full editorial control"? StAnselm (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

While not an expert at this, I took a look at the Slate site. On the twitter feeds page of the staff Emily Bazelon and Jessica Grose are listed as the editors of the DoubleX sections the link is a part of. AlbinoFerret 02:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Are jewishencyclopedia.com (the Jewish Encyclopedia) and newadvent.org WP:Reliable sources?

* Diff of contended content: [34]

Per the Talk:Child marriage#Recent sourcing; see WP:Reliable sources discussion (WP:Permalink for it here), I'm querying whether or not the jewishencyclopedia.com (for example, this source) and newadvent.org (for example, this source) are WP:Reliable sources.The latter source was taken to this noticeboard before, and compared to the Jewish Encyclopedia; see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Newadvent.org.

I will also alert the relevant religion-based WikiProjects to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 06:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I alerted the WikiProjects here, here, here, here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You were wise to ask at WT:JUDAISM, because this was discussed in the past, and the consensus is that the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia is reliable but in many respects outdated, so should be used with care.

I never saw the newadvent website before, but it looks privately published, no advisory or editorial board, something like a blog.

By the way, I am not sure if the following will be relevant, since I don't know what the stone of contention is here, but take into account that Christian sources are likely to represent Jewish subjects in the light of their own faith, which is often very different from the original Jewish understanding. Just saying. Debresser (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the problem of newadvent being used the way it was - referencing a statement that begins "According to the Catholic tradition..." I would think it's an RS as far as "the Catholic tradition" goes. That's precisely the point at which it is reliable. StAnselm (talk) 07:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed - I've used both, and they are normally pretty sound on historical issues like this, and their respective traditions and groups of writers etc. The New Advent CE website merely reproduced the old book (100 yr+ now) which had editorial boards etc. Johnbod (talk) 11:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure. As reliable as a James Bond film is as a source for Cold War. BlueSalix (talk) 08:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

A better comparison would be an encyclopedia on the James Bond franchise. Yes, inappropriate as a source on the Cold War, but appropriate as a source on pop culture depictions of the Cold War (i.e. Jewish and Catholic beliefs about a topic), or for plot summaries of the James Bond films (i.e. Jewish and Catholic doctrine in itself). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The Jewish Encyclopedia is used as a source in more than 2000 articles, so we can say that quite a large number of editors have judged it as reliable. That's a very strong consensus. As always, sources reflect the state of knowledge at the time they were written, and a modern source of sufficient quality is to be preferred over one more than a century old. We should also note that the Jewish Encyclopedia reflects a particularly Jewish viewpoint that means it shouldn't be used, for example, as a source on facts about Christianity. It could be used as a source on Jewish views on Christianity, though. The Catholic Encyclopedia is somewhat similar: it is reliable for what the Catholic viewpoint was at that time. For history it is important to distinguish between documented history and earlier events which are mostly known through legends. Zero^talk 11:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Reliable for what? I know it has been relentlessly refspammed into articles on Judaism, but this is not an article on Judaism. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a passage dealing with historical Jewish religious law, which is the sort of thing the JE is good at. Johnbod (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Both Jewish Encyclopedia and newadvent.org are reliable. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22: the content in the diff, that cites Jewish Encyclopedia, doesn't clearly state for a 21st century reader that there is a difference between "might be given in marriage by her father" and the consummation of that marriage (that knowledge would have been part of common knowledge in late 19th century Jewish culture – like a contract with a future start date). The newadvent.org link to support "All marriages below the age of 7 are void" is in fact a link to the public domain Catholic Encyclopedia 1907 article "Canonical Age" reprinted on newadvent.org website. That page as well as most others on newadvent.org have complete citations to the transcription sources. The article in newadvent.org does not support the statement that "All marriages below the age of 7 are void". The page states: "The marriageable age is fourteen full years in males and twelve full years in females, under penalty of nullity (unless natural puberty supplies the want of years)." A search for the word "seven" on that page shows this. This separate edit is the problem – not newadvent.org, i.e. the Catholic Encyclopedia article reproduced on newadvent.org. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: newadvent.org pages have complete citations to the transcription sources. The assertions that it is "privately published, no advisory or editorial board" is irrelevant because the pages reproduce what is in print and have complete citations to the transcription sources. It is not self published content but reproduction of previously published content. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia is reliable for matters of Canon Law between 1917–1983, but since the Code changed drastically in 1983, nobody should be citing it for canonical matters in the Church beyond that date. Likewise for liturgical matters, as the Missal was more or less the same until 1962 and then changed drastically. Elizium23 (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser and BoBoMisiu: The following might be highly relevant on the Jewish issue. I think I know the answer, but I'd like Debresser to back me up (or correct me) on this. Not only were "the contract" and "the consummation" separate, but in fact there are two separate marriage statuses involved.

• Originally there is erusin, commonly translated as "betrothal". The father (or others in some situations, details unnecessary here) might create a marriage contract for his minor child, but the status at that point never goes past erusin. The consequence is that to terminate that marriage status requires a divorce. At the same time, the girl still lived with her parents, and sexual relations were not permitted. (I would point out, in parallel, that betrothal with legal teeth, as opposed to modern "engagement", was common in Europe in pre-modern and early-modern times, even outside the Jewish community.)
• Only later is there nissuin, the "actual" wedding. Only after nissuin do the husband and wife live together and have sexual relations. This did not happen until at least puberty.

If the article implies that a full Jewish marriage can take place before puberty, it is not correct. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

+1 for what StevenJ81 said. This two-step approach to Jewish marriage, which is still done these days but with no time gap between, has often been used mischievously by antisemites to portray an invented view of traditional Judaism condoning the sexual abuse of children of pre-school age. --Dweller (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Steven, which article implies so? I would like to look it over, as you suggested. Could you please provide me with a link? Debresser (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser, see Child marriage#History. I was just wondering if it really said so, and was mainly making a general point here. However, the article itself is actually not very detailed on this point, and that in itself is the problem. You should probably look over there directly.

• Part of it is speaking about marriage at a young age, post-puberty. That's a separate subject, and a valid subject of inquiry, but it's not the issue I'm really looking at here.
• More to the point: the article mentions that while the practice was discouraged, "girls ages 3 through 12 (ketanah) might be given in marriage by her (sic) father, and the marriage was valid, necessitating a formal divorce if separation was desired." True, of course, if by "marriage" you mean erusin. But in the context of the rest of the article, the implication is of a full marriage, the way most people define that word.

— The idea that the "marriage" referred to here is erusin, and not a full marriage according to the common meaning of the word, is never mentioned in the article.

— Similarly, the idea that the full marriage cannot be completed without the girl's consent is not mentioned, either.

Therefore, I think the implication of the article is currently misleading. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Upon reliability: depends upon their use. They are reliable for their own views and for rather uncontroversial claims, but they do not trump recent peer-reviewed academic sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I would word it even stronger: they should never be used except (1) to illustrate the historical views of something at the time they were written, , with the article making clear the fact that it is very unlikely to still be the current view, or (2) for the basic plain facts about the biography of a person or the basic description of a place or the like, with care taken to see that they have not been contradicted or basically changed by later work. Their evaluations of importance or influence are no longer reliable. And we need to re-vist every article using them as a source. It was an incredible foolish mistake showing the naïveté of the early years of WP, to ever have accepted them as the basis of WP articles . DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with both of the above comments by Tgeorgescu and DGG. As someone who has a bit of an interest in seeing us use more PD reference sources, where appropriate, the best way to proceed would be to see what other current reference sources say on the topic in question, and, in general, to use the sources they cite in their bibliographies to source the information. For some topics, like child marriage, the article will fall into multiple disciplines, and it is certainly possible that they can be covered in a variety of encyclopedia-type sources for various topics, which may have markedly different ideas as to which content is relevant. But depending on the length of the relevant discussion in overview content directly related to the topic as a topic unto itself (as opposed to, say, from the Catholic perspective), the way to proceed would be to more or less reflect the weight and other variables in those directly relevant broad overviews; Yes, I suppose, unfortunately, we could, maybe, theoretically, ultimately have spinout articles on "Child marriage in" Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, and whatever else. For a lot of these "social" articles which have significant religious input, it might even be argued that we should. But the best way to proceed would be to find the most current reliable reference overview material on this topic and see what weight it gives the material sources from these works, and more or less try to roughly follow their lead according to our own policies and guidelines. In some, rare, cases, like some articles by Louis de la Vallee Poussin, older reference works might contain what are still considered by at least some experts the best things ever written on subjects, and we certainly should make an effort to use those sources for the content still relevant. And we definitely should try to compare the articles using them as sources to more recent reference works or overviews on the same topics and see if the material sourced from them is still considered relevant enough as per WEIGHT for inclusion today. John Carter (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@StevenJ81 and Elizium23: I agree with both of you. The article is misleading and may not reflect 21st century understanding. Consent is also a requirement in Catholic Church – and there there are other requirements, for example, persons "who lack the sufficient use of reason" or "who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed over and accepted" "are incapable of contracting marriage (c. 1095)". Pastors should "dissuade youth from the celebration of marriage before the age at which a person usually enters marriage according to the accepted practices of the region (c. 1072)". In addition, a person younger than 18 year of age is a minor (c. 97 §1)". Marriage of a minor normally requires authorization of the local ordinary if it "cannot be recognized or celebrated according to the norm of civil law" or "when the parents are unaware or reasonably opposed (c. 1071 §1)". While the 1983 Code of Canon Law sets the minimum age for a valid marriage at 16 for males and 14 for females, it permits each conference of bishops "to establish a higher age for the licit celebration of marriage (c. 1083 §§1–2). Edward Peters explains that canon 1083, "authorized episcopal conferences to recognize the concrete circumstances of marriage in their own territories and to raise the ages for licit marriages within a given nation" to more than the minimum age for a valid marriage ([35]). –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu, DGG, and John Carter: Both sources present a historical view of the subjects and may divide, what in the 21st century plainly should be in a single article, into several articles. I have skimmed many contemporary reference works that obviously use early 20th century, i.e. public domain, sources that I can recall reading – those contemporary works also include the incorrect information from the older sources that they repackaged. A 21st century copyright date is not a guarantee of reliability either. Also, neither Jewish Encyclopedia nor Catholic Encyclopedia are self published material, they used scholars of their time who referenced older works, i.e. the same process that is used today but over a century earlier. You may not find what you are looking for in context; what you find will likely be dated; but, it will also likely be reliable. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@John Carter and DGG: At minimum, one should confirm that citations from JE 1906 are still worthy. But I also think you overstate the case a bit. DGG says, "for the basic plain facts about the biography of a person or the basic description of a place or the like, with care taken to see that they have not been contradicted or basically changed by later work." That is often true of other subjects within Jewish law and tradition, as well. To me, some subjects within Judaism feel like WP:BLUE, because they're obvious and I live with them daily. But to a general audience, they're not really "BLUE", because they're not as obvious-and-well-known. So in cases like that I feel completely comfortable starting with JE 1906, if I find it accurate.

I think it's one thing to say, "Be very cautious in relying on a citation from JE1906." It's another to go as far as to say that you can't use a citation because "it is very unlikely to still be the current view." Just because it's in JE1906 doesn't mean it's wrong. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Somewhat analogously, just because I base a statement on my own opinion doesn't mean its wrong either, but we can't use it in an article. But there's a difference--at least the JE can be used to indicate something was thought to be the casewhen it was written. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

(e-c) @BoBoMisiu: and @StevenJ81: It certainly can be the case that material on what is "historical views" of a topic is included in current articles on those topics. In some cases, like I suppose some practices which have become less commonly practised over time, the history section of such an article can, reasonably, constitute the bulk of the article or at least a large part of the article. And such dated sources for now-dated material are still relevant. I myself don't know enough much about the specialist sources on this topic, but there do seem to be rather a lot of sometimes comparatively recent marriage encyclopedias as per here which can probably be used to indicate what material related to this topic belongs in which article here. Like in a lot of other cases I know of, such sources will, unfortunately, support a number of spinout articles on various topics many of us would find remarkable, and, maybe, unjustifiable. But, if there is sufficient notability and content for them, and if those sources indicate that the historical material available in these older sources is still relevant, I can't see any particular objections to at least initially using them for the material which is discussed in those reference sources which can be sourced form them. John Carter (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@BoBoMisiu: I don't want to belabor the point, since it's a side-discussion on a page about RS. But to summarize:

• A Jewish woman who has reached puberty is competent under Jewish religious law to enter a full marriage, or to ratify a betrothal her father made when she was a child. (The question of when she has actually "reached puberty" has its own ambiguities; for this purpose, let's just say she has done so, and leave it at that.)
• In the real world, it would be entirely inappropriate for numerous reasons for someone under the modern age of consent to enter a marriage. Among other things, dina d'malkhuta dina ("The law of the land is the law") would apply, meaning: If the law of the land in a place you live says that a person must be 16 (say) to marry, Jewish law would also demand that that you must be 16 if you marry in that jurisdiction. No mainstream branch of Judaism would ever condone a full marriage below the secular age of consent.
• So what happens if a young woman nevertheless enters a marriage between the age of puberty and the secular age of consent? In certain very isolated circumstances, something akin to annulment is possible under Jewish law. (It's probably easier to get an annulment from the Vatican.) Otherwise, even a marriage like that would require a divorce to dissolve, since under Jewish law the young woman is legally competent. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Not rs It is unreasonable to use sources more than one hundred years old. One should always use the best, most relevant and most up to date sources for every article. Why do schools use current textbooks, when they could just reprint books that were no longer under copyright? TFD (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm with DGG and those that agree that ": they should never be used except (1) to illustrate the historical views of something at the time they were written, , with the article making clear the fact that it is very unlikely to still be the current view, or (2) for the basic plain facts about the biography of a person or the basic description of a place or the like, with care taken to see that they have not been contradicted or basically changed by later work." And that we need to revist the articles that use them. There's probably still an article that's almost all just a copy of the Jewish Encyclopedia. I didn't know that it was and started to put fact tags on it, only to be told in no uncertain terms that fact tags were not necessary as it was from a reliable source. Sadly I didn't make an issue of it. Doug Weller (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: You wouldn't remember the name of that article, would you? I can at least try to find more recent reference works which discuss the topic, and what they say. John Carter (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

A number of articles were created by copying from out of copyright articles. For example, the War of 1812 was created in 2001 by copying a 1910 Encyclopedia Britannica article.[36] There is an interesting article about it here. It was a good way to add a lot of important articles very quickly but certainly the project has moved beyond that. TFD (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Steven There can be both erusin and nissuin with a halakhic minor. See Rambam, Hilchot Gerushin, 11, 3. After all, nissuin is not only bi'ah, but also by bringing her into the house e.g., or standing under a chuppah. See Rambam, Hilchot Ishut, 10. Debresser (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

David Bedein on Arutz 7

I have made the following edit on Susya article -

Several NGOs such as Rabbis for Human Rights have made a claim that "There are documentary evidence of a settlement in the area dating back to 1830". According to Dr. Seth J. Frantzman, co-author of “Bedouin Settlement in Late Ottoman and British Mandatory Palestine: Influence on the Cultural and Environmental Landscape, 1870-1948" he did not 'come across' a village at Susya while he could identify other villages established in the late 19th century or early 20th century. He added that there is no evidence from records he checked at Ben Gurion University which support the existence of a village at Susya during the Ottoman Empire period or British mandate period. According to David Bedein, a request was made to advocates of Khirbat Susya to provide documentation which would support the claim Susya dates back to 1830 but "No one could provide any such evidence".

The article Susya is filled with biased sources of NGOs and activists, and other editors who have no issue introducing material from blogs or text that declares it was rejected by Haaretz have decided that even after proper attribution it isn't RS because Arutz 7 as 'radical settler mouthpiece' isn't RS.

David Bedein is a journalist whose work was published by the Jerusalem Post, FrongPage magazine, JewishPress, LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL and has a blog on The Times of Israel. He is also a director of the Center for Near East Policy Research. There is no doubt the guy is biased but attribution takes care of that. Thanks. Settleman (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)