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

Are they reliable sources

http://www.sps-automotive.com/en_sps/track/07Nt_zonda.html http://twinrev.com/cars/Fastest-Production-car-supercars-20.6km-Nurburgring-lap-times-under-9-03.30-7119945 http://www.mobisux.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3096509 http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/nordschleife http://www.zeperfs.com/en/classement-ci1.htm I have verified nurburgring laptimes in those site all the laptimes existing there seem to be correct.

Chinese tank pages and Chinese news sites

Type 99 talk page

Hi. I'm a new user here so I'm not very familiar with the rules but it seems like the the Type 99 pages has been embroiled in a back and forth and edits. Thus I seek clarification about a particular contentious source here.

Documentary This biographical documentary/interview of the Type 99's lead designer by CCTV has labelled propaganda and thus unreliable. I find it disturbing because although the documentary was filmed to achieve some kind of propaganda purpose, the source was not cited to support propaganda but to support other sources in explaining the development of the Type 99 tank.

I understand that CCTV has been in the news for continuous gaffes and being a state mouthpiece in general. But shouldn't this film be treated as a primary source first and foremost? The separation of fact and fiction would be harder than other news media but until contradictory information appears, must we not take the state media at face value? Shouldn't prefixing an "according to" or "it was claimed by" be sufficient, as seen by other claims on the page made by non-Chinese sources?

China doesn't have freedom of the press. I would say that Chinese sources about topics prone to government interference are sort of like self-published sources published by the Chinese government, because nobody other than the Chinese government has editorial control. Such self-published sources are unreliable for most purposes. Ken Arromdee (talk) 05:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Peter Dale Scott

1. Source. Peter Dale Scott's essay "Launching the U.S. Terror War: the CIA, 9/11, Afghanistan, and Central Asia; Bush’s Terror War and the Fixing of Intelligence".
2. Article. Safari Club
3. Content.

a) "Jimmy Carter discussed public concerns over secrecy in his campaign, and when he took office in January 1977 he attempted to reign in the scope of covert CIA operations."

b) "Thus even as Carter's new CIA director Stansfield Turner attempted to limit the scope of the agency's operations, Shackley, his deputy Thomas Clines, and agent Edwin P. Wilson secretly maintained their connections with the Safari Club and the BCCI."

After explaining that the War on Terror should be called "Bush's Terror War", Scott writes: "This essay will demonstrate that before 9/11 a small element inside the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit and related agencies, the so-called Alec Station Group, were also busy, 'fixing' intelligence by suppressing it, in a way which, accidentally or deliberately, enabled the Terror War." He heavily cites not only himself but 9/11 conspiracy authors Anthony Summers, Kevin Fenton, John Farmer, Jr., and an article in 911Truth.org by truthers Rory O'Connor (filmmaker) and Ray Nowosielski.

Regarding the content in question, the only statement in the article that mentions Jimmy Carter, Stansfield Turner, Theodore Shackley, or Thomas Clines states: "Then senior CIA officers and ex-officers (notably Richard Helms), who were dissatisfied with the CIA cutbacks instituted under Jimmy Carter’s CIA director, Stansfield Turner, organized an alternative network, the so-called Safari Club. Subordinated to intelligence chiefs from France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and (under the Shah) Iran, the Safari Club provided a home to CIA officers like Theodore Shackley and Thomas Clines, who had been marginalized or fired by CIA Director Turner." Edwin P. Wilson is not even mentioned in the article. Thanks! - Location (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Not rs. The main determinant of rs is the publication, whether or not it has a record of fact-checking. If it does not then it then the articles it publishes should generally not be used. It is best anyway to avoid claims that only appear in obscure or non-mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Is Breitbart reliable for its own opinion.

My understanding is that a source is generally always reliable for its own opinion, but numerous people at Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian#Censoring_any_criticism appear to contest that. Is Breitbart reliable for the statement: The conservative website, Breitbart, was critical of Sarkeesian's ability as an art critic. sourced to "Let's Stop Pretending Anita Sarkeesian Is an Art Critic". Breitbart. Retrieved 2015-11-03. Thanks, Second Quantization (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart is generally considered a questionable or unreliable source, especially when it comes to claims about living persons. The publication is also not known for its opinions regarding art criticism. It would not be appropriate to source claims about a living person to a non-expert questionable/unreliable source. Woodroar (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart is about as unreliable a source as it is possible to be. Per WP:RS a reliable source has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Breitbart has a reputation for fabrication and defamation; and should never, ever, be used to source what seems to be criticism of a living person. Daveosaurus (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Not a reliable source as the above users have already stated. It is especially not reliable when it comes to BLP's. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying we can't rely on Breitbart to reliably report their own opinion despite WP:NEWSORG ("Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author")? Second Quantization (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Plenty of people have their own opinions, but that doesn't mean we must include them, especially when the sources aren't experts. In addition, claims regarding living persons require a higher standard for sourcing, fact versus mere opinion. Woodroar (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that this is not a statement by Breitbart about its own opinion but by Mytheos Holt about his own opinion. Not that that changes the arguments above greatly. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Opinion sources are generally usable for opinions cited as opinions. Those who think that a source can not be used for its own opinions are mistaken. For material about celebrities in any nation on earth, it is hard to find any truly reliable source for contentious facts or claims of fact. Mao was a reliable source for the opinions of Mao - yet I would not use him for claims of fact about his reign (yes - I know he is dead, but I am referring to written opinions here). If the issue is "what is art criticism?", then we may consider whether the person (apparently Mytheos Holt) holding the opinion is notable enough for his or her opinions about what is or is not art criticism (in the case at hand whether the person holding an opinion can state that the material is not construed by him as art criticism), but that has nothing to do with whether the opinion is printed by the NYT or the Daily Mail - the opinion at issue belongs to the person voicing it, not to the publisher. One might note this is exactly the same position I cite for all such matters and sources from RT onwards. Collect (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

A lot of ink was spilled on pretty much the same question last year.[1][2][3][4][5] Rhoark (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Do we have an FAQ section, we really need an FAQ section --ℕ ℱ 02:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Even bothering to mention somebody's opinion of somebody else's art criticism as posted on breitbart.com is a violation of WP:UNDUE anyway. A reputable art critic, published in a reputable, reliable source: that might be relevant to the article. But breitbart.com is not known for discussion of artistic issues any more than Juggs is known for tofu recipes. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Being reliable for its own opinion does not justify injecting it into every article it has an opinion about. You would need to show that the opinion was signficant. Similarly, you can post your opinions on your Facebook page, and that will be a reliable source for your opinions, but that does not give you licence to then post those opinions to articles about every subject on which you hold an opinion. TFD (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Give In to Me

There is a dispute over whether to include Slash as a featured artist on this song. The single cover (not to mention the Discogs entry) indeed has Slash listed, but some users disagree. (I brought the issue here because that article's talk page doesn't see much activity.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources on Presley

Recently multiply removed from Toilet-related injuries and deaths:

[[Elvis Presley]] was found dead on his bathroom floor on August 16, 1977. According to the medical investigator, Presley had "stumbled or crawled several feet before he died"; he had been using the toilet at the time. Elvis biographer Peter Guralnick writes, "It was certainly possible that he had died while 'straining at stool.' "<ref>Peter Guralnick, ''Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley'' (1999), p.651-652.</ref> Elvis' personal physician, Dr. George Nicopolous, wrote in his 2009 book, ''The King and Dr. Nick'' that "We believe Elvis died from a normal physiological event brought into play called 'Valsalva Maneuver.' This ... caused the heart to stop when the body strained. When Elvis compressed his abdominal aorta by straining, his heart, in response, went into arrhythmia and quit working suddenly." According to Guralnick, "the large intestine was clogged with fecal matter, indicating a painful and longstanding bowel condition. The bowel condition alone would have strongly suggested ... that drug use was heavily implicated in this unanticipated death ..."

Is this use of Guralnick and/or Nicopolous proper? (I ask here rather than on the article's talk page because there have recently been similar removals and replacements elsewhere.)

Pinging @Excelse, Onefortyone, and 182.77.82.62:. -- Hoary (talk) 07:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Several problems here:

• Onefortyone is misquoting the medical examiner, who merely conjectured that Elvis was using the toilet at the start of the ordeal based on the location of the vomit. The source then reads "it looked to the medical examiner as if he had 'stumbled or crawled several feet before he died'". We're definitively writing that Elvis was on the toilet and did stumble and crawl based on the conjecture of the medical examiner. That's a misinterpretation and misuse of Guralnick.
• It's Guralnick's own conjecture that Elvis died "straining at the stool" and is actually counter to the opinion of the medical examiner. Guralnick isn't an expert, and he's merely spreading a rumor based on zero scientific evidence. His opinion shouldn't be taken seriously or used to source text in an encyclopedia.
• Nicopolous seems to be OK to back up the claim that Elvis had a bowel condition, but it's not cited properly (I had to go searching for the page number) and it's being improperly mixed with Guralnick in violation of WP:SYNTH to come to the conclusion that Elvis died on the toilet.

In conclusion, Guralnick needs to be thrown out completely in this context and the bowel condition sections belongs elsewhere. This passage does not belong in this article. --Laser brain (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Apart from Guralnick and Nicopolous, several other independent sources say that Elvis died on the toilet, among them studies published by university presses. See [6]. Do you really think that these sources are not reliable enough? Onefortyone (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying that you're misinterpreting them or cherry-picking because you want to write that Elvis died on the toilet. The preponderance of what you've provided indicate that he was on the toilet (again, this is popular extrapolation from the medical examiner's conjecture and repeated across sources) and that he stumbled or crawled several feet before dying. So, he didn't "die on the toilet" and there is no scientific evidence to that effect. --Laser brain (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Not much about the source, I even failed to find many of these quotes if they exist or not. It is more about the information which is indeed unreliable. When we give such undue weight to these theories, we must also give similar weight to theories that the singer died from bone cancer, but that is clearly not going to take place. Excelse (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Excelse: I have found the quotations in the sources given without a problem, although I've come across a couple of page number mismatched. This may be attributable to different versions of the book. The real question is whether the sources are reliable (probably yes) and whether they're being used appropriately (likely not). --Laser brain (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

user:Laser brain, I couldn't find the quote at google books though.[7] Information is being incorrectly used. That's what we can say. Excelse (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Mainstream biographers are of the opinion that "Elvis died on the toilet". See Greil Marcus, Dead Elvis: A Chronicle of a Cultural Obsession (Harvard University Press 1991), p.154. If you have a problem with the fact that Elvis had a heart attack while straining at stool (a phenomenon called the Valsalva maneuver) and, after suddenly having risen from his wallhung ceramic toilet, stumbled or crawled several feet before he died, his pyjamas still being around his ankles (as is common when using the toilet), what about this version:

Elvis Presley presumably died while using the toilet in his bathroom. "Most sources indicate that Elvis was likely sitting in the toilet area, partially nude, and reading when he collapsed." See Joshua A. Perper and Stephen J. Cina, When Doctors Kill: Who, Why, and How (Springer Science 2010), p.211. One plausible cause is "a phenomenon called the Valsalva maneuver (essentially straining on the toilet leading to heart stoppage — plausible because Elvis suffered constipation, a common reaction to drug use)." See Frank Coffey, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Elvis (1997), p.247.

This wording, including direct quotes from some reliable sources, should cover the opinion of most medical examiners. Interestingly, the people around Elvis tried to hide the real cause of his death. Here is a statement by Billy Smith, Elvis' first cousin, cited in Alanna Nash, Elvis Aaron Presley: Revelations from the Memphis Mafia (1995): "we never really wanted to say this, but Elvis was actually sitting on the toilet, with his pajama bottoms down. His colon was bothering him. And he fell over, and, best I understand, he crawled several feet. So this was not an instantaneous death. Or a painless one. They know that from all these little hemorrhages he had from the waist up, where the blood vessels had burst after he fell. That goes along with a drug death." (p.719) Onefortyone (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Mainstream is not actually buying this theory. You need to have a source for it, one source saying that it might be "plausible theory" is not authentic. Excelse (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Query: did user Excelse present irrefutable arguments for his massive removals of content? No, he didn't. Where are his reliable sources contradicting my edits? I have cited many independent sources supporting my view. And this is what counts on Wikipedia, not the personal opinions of some Elvis fans who don't like the circumstances of Elvis's death. Furthermore, it should be noted that it was another user who added some additional details to the article on 'Toilet-related injuries and deaths', quoting Elvis's personal physician, as the history of the article shows. See [8] and [9] These passages were also deleted by Excelse. Onefortyone (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we're making headway here. My main issue is that we not repeat various non-medical opinions or misquote sources. I like "Mainstream biographers are of the opinion" because that's precise and it doesn't suggest that the biographers are medical experts. --Laser brain (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Joshua A. Perper and Stephen J. Cina are medical doctors. Nicopolous, Elvis's personal physician, wrote in his 2009 book, The King and Dr. Nick that he and another physician believe that Elvis died from a physiological event called "Valsalva Maneuver" while sitting on the toilet. Guralnick, one of the most important Elvis biographers, has studied all official medical reports about the death of Elvis before drawing his own conclusions. Therefore, his conclusions are of much importance. Onefortyone (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

"did user Excelse present irrefutable arguments"... You have been asking this same question on three different forums. If you are going to count how many "added" similar content as you, I would say that number is effectively very low compared to those who have removed these few opinions claimed to be facts by you. Not to mention that your sources/information are so unpopular and fringe that they are not recognized by anybody else other than you. Billy Smith was also pointing to Lamar Flike, "Lamar means well, and we never really"... especially when quote ends with "And he fell over, and, best I understand, he crawled several feet." Not that it seems to be any authentic. Lamar Flike says on the same book that "Elvis had that reading chair in the bathroom" and "From what I understand he was sitting there and the load hit him, and he fell forward. Some people say he was on the commode, not in a chair. If he'd fallen forward from the commode, he would have been directly in front of it. But he was in the middle of the room." Now debunked? Excelse (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, it is understandable that the people around Elvis, for instance, Lamar Fike (not Flike) from the Memphis Mafia, tried to hide the real circumstances of Elvis's death. Therefore, the opinion of the singer's first cousin, Billy Smith, is of much importance, as he says, "Lamar means well, and we never really wanted to say this, but Elvis was actually sitting on the toilet, with his pajama bottoms down." And most Elvis biographers are buying his version, as the many reliable sources I have cited show. I am aware that these sources are "unpopular" among Elvis fans. However, what counts on Wikipedia is what is written in the mainstream biographies, not the view of a fan like Excelse. Onefortyone (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Questionable sources in Operation Keelhaul

Sources in question

[2] Hornberger, Jacob (April 1995). "Repatriation — The Dark Side of World War II". The Future of Freedom Foundation. Archived from the original on August 11, 2007. https://web.archive.org/web/20070811230525/http://www.fff.org:80/freedom/0495a.asp

[3]Skousen, Joel. "Historical Deceptions: Operation Keelhaul". World Affairs Brief. Archived from the original on 15 February 2013. Retrieved 2014-07-04

https://web.archive.org/web/20130215214414/http://worldaffairsbrief.com/keytopics/Keelhaul.shtml

Article

Operation Keelhaul

Content

The term [Operation Keelhaul] has been later applied – specifically after the publication of Julius Epstein's eponymous book – to other Allied acts of often forced repatriation of former residents of the USSR after the ending of World War II that sealed the fate of millions[2] unwilling to return to the Soviet Union.[3]

I would like to remove these two sources as fringey - for example, the article Future of Freedom Foundation refers to the forced repatriation as "one of the worst holocausts in history" and "Allied holocaust." The word holocaust appears 7 times on this page.

Instead, I'd like to use a reference from Nikolai Tolstoy (1977). The Secret Betrayal. Charles Scribner's Sons. ISBN 0-684-15635-0., along the lines of what's used in the Victims of Yalta Wikipedia entry:

Tolstoy estimates that overall two or more millions Soviet nationals were repatriated.

zeroto60times.com

From what I can tell https://www.zeroto60times.com (Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/zeroto60times.com, search results) is just another scraper site. They appear to use bots or crawlers to scrape data from any websites they can find and put it together on easily-referenced tables, which generate traffic, which is for the ads. The ads and offsite links look sketchy to me, if not malware. Their About page claims they're better than other similar sites, but I don't see how. There's nothing naming the authors of the content. They say they average data from different "credible" sources to produce a "unique" result, but they don't cite their sources, or explain what their criteria for credibility is. Anyone know of a reason we should keep citations to this site? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Site Fails WP:RS They refer to using reliable sources, but mention none. I can only conclude that they are at best a secondary source and therefore there is a better source available. There is nothing particularly credible about the site and therefore I can only conclude that it is not a reliable source. NealeFamily (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above user, not a reliable source. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Domestic Violence - reliable sources

An IP address editor added a 2014 British Psychological study found here http://www.bps.org.uk/news/women-more-aggressive-partners-men to the domestic violence article, some months ago now and was recently removed with no real explanation or logic? The study conducted by the British Psychological Society examined intimate partner violence and concluded that women are more likely to be physically aggressive in domestic scenarios than men. I'm neutral on the topic, and realise this is a primary source, but it appears the British Psychological Society is a reputable organization. Can some neutral editors have a look at the source and make a neutral, objective judgement. I'd rather post the question here, than get anywhere near the chance of an edit war. Thanks ahead of time.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we use Marco Merlini as a source for relating Mary and Artemis

At Mary (mother of Jesus) I removed a statement linking the two because I thought Merlini to fail WP:RS - partially because I think that the version of "archaeomythology" he represents and the journal is fringe, but he mainly because he has no qualifications for such a statement. An IP hopper has twice replaced it. As it read now, it says:

"The continuing association of Mary and Artemis is shown in a paper by Dr. Marco Merlini <ref>http://www.archaeomythology.org/about-the-institute-of-archaeomythology/governance-of-the-institute-of-archaeomythology/marco-merlini/</ref> "A Post-Byzantine fresco of the XVI century from the most important monastery, the Great Lavra, depicts a very unusual Annunciation. Not a Christian saint or martyr but a pagan goddess, Artemis, attends at the fatal encounter between the archangel Gabriel and the Virgin Mary"<ref>The Journal of Archaeomythology Volume 7 2011 "The Pagan Artemis in the Virgin Mary Salutation at Great Lavra, Mount Athos" by Marco Merlini</ref>"

The link to the Institute of Archaeomythology, established by a student of Marija Gimbutas, seems to be there to establish Merlini's credentials. These are:

2008 Doctorate cum laude, ” Lucian Blaga” University, Sibiu, Romania.
1976Masters Degree in Political Science, University of Turin, Italy.
Degr ee of Csi (Centro studi informatici):“Statistica e programmazione.”
1974 Degree cum Laude and Honorable Mention in Political Sciences, University of Turin.

More detail is at this site which states that his PhD was in “NeoEneolithic Literacy in Southeastern Europe: an Inquiry into the Danube Script”. Nothing to do with art history or classical mythology.

It's hard to deal with an IP hopper for obvious reasons, but instead of reverting again I'm bringing this here.Doug Weller (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Striking comment as the IP has taken it to the talk page but I'd still like comments here. Doug Weller (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Merlini's cv says this about him: "Marco Merlini, Ph.D., is a cultural manager, journalist and archaeo-semiologist. He is Executive Director of the InnovaNet and EURO INNOVANET research institutes and is General Director of the Prehistory Knowledge Project in Rome, Italy. He is the Coordinator of M.U.S.E.U.M. — the network of the archaeological, historical and prehistoric museums of European capital cities — and the “Virtual Museum of European Roots.” He is also Director of Communications of the Institute of Archaeomythology and is the author of La scrittura è nata in Europa (2004) and numerous articles on the Danube script." I don't think that Dr Merlini is making a relationship between Mary and Artemis, this is purely factual both goddesses are in the painting the relationship was put there by the artist. Ephesis was the major centre of Artemis worship, it became a centre of Mary worship and mythology. Merlini's paper is about a fresco at a prominent Orthodox monastery and the quotation made merely establishes the fact that such a fresco exists and that it contained both Mary and Artemis. (The article can be downloaded here http://www.academia.edu/3035438/The_Pagan_Artemis_in_the_Virgin_Mary_Salutation_part_I or here http://www.archaeomythology.org/publications/the-journal-of-archaeomythology/2011-volume-7/2011-volume-7-article-9/) As to the rest of Merlini's article, that has not been incorporated. I used the factual quote not his conclusions (good or bad). There are photos in his article which show that the facts are accurate. I'm sorry I wasn't able to read the link for the suggested alternative reference as Google wouldn't give it to me. The Wikipedia Mary article contains mostly Hagiography and quotes from the Bible as though it is a factual document. Here and there extra information is in the article such as the fact that Jesus was estranged from his family and rejected them and they him. The Mary of popular worship is a myth. To be even more blunt, a "virgin story" was created in order to fulfil a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14. Personally I find Artemis a far more interesting figure but that's a POV I haven't put in the article. This article is at least twice as long as it should be and the last person to try to do an overall edit was Editor2020 and that was only partial. I'm not a Wikipedia habitue but have attempted to add a little salt here and there. Hopefully against a tide of irrationality, and without being offensive, people can draw their own conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.51.71.17 (talk • contribs)