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

Donetsk People's Republic article

Guys, we have problem here[1], can you help a little bit? Some ukranian according to profile (seems not objective) moderator doesn't want to fix a mistake (propaganda) in article. DPR Poll Support discussion.

Does this have to do with whether or not a source is reliable? Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, for some reason in article used reprint from so called "reliable source" (UNIAN) which took it with mistakes (or distorted it on purporse) from "not reliable" source (DPR site).

Up from archive, cause nobody answered and bot got rid of it. :s User:bazik210 18:22, 01 Match 2016 (UTC+3)

Goodreads

This site is already considered to be unreliable on Wikipedia, but I thought that it would be a good idea to have an official RS/N thread to refer to when it comes to this site. There was mention of this in this thread, but an overall thread about the site would be helpful for future reference.

Goodreads is a social media/networking site that allows users to post reviews of work. Users can also edit entries on books and submit updates to material or even create new entries entirely, which makes it popular with self-published and indie authors whose work might not be collected in libraries and end up in WorldCat. While the site says that only "librarians" can edit entries, it really isn't difficult to become one. I used to visit the site and became a librarian after a fairly short period of time.

An example of why the site can't be seen as reliable even for primary details would be things like Scott Sigler's book Nocturnal, where two versions of the book exist - a podcast "rough draft" and the final version, which was released in print. The two works share some basic similarities with the plot (detective discovers that he's part of a race of monsters that prey on San Fran), but they're otherwise completely different stories with some fairly major changes that would make any reviews for one version irrelevant to the other. Various librarians repeatedly merged the two together thinking that they were essentially the same thing, which led to user confusion with reviews and it eventually became necessary for some of the site's mods to fix the mistake. Material like rumors and hoaxes have also made its way into records as well, mostly because of good intentioned people believing the material to be fact. It's usually fixed, but this makes the website similar to Wikipedia in terms of reliability - you can't use Wikipedia to back up claims in anything except the most rare situations.

Now I am aware that there are places that list Goodreads, mostly because people add it thinking that it's the equivalent of WorldCat or even Google Books. There are some of us that have made a concentrated effort to remove the links as we see them, but there's always someone trying to add it for various details, ranging from basic information to review claims. I'd like to have some sort of basic thread to pull back on when trying to explain that it's not reliable because it's ultimately a self-published source. Amazon did buy the site, but they did not take away users' ability to edit data, so it's still a SPS at best because of its social media site nature. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Happy to endorse everything you've said here. We shouldn't be using it. Doug Weller talk 12:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Does that opinion invalidate Wikipedia's Goodreads template? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I would think so, @Tokyogirl79: thank you for this I will mention it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• I wasn't even aware that we had that template. My argument is really only about using Goodreads as a source in an article, so I think that its merits as an external link should be a separate discussion. Offhand I'll say that I don't link it, partially because it's become so synonymous with people trying to promote their works on here. I do still use the site (albeit rarely) and if all you're looking for is a place to socialize, it's good for that reason. In any case, I think that what we need to consider is whether or not it's in heavy enough use to where it would be comparable to sites like IMDb. For example, IMDb is not a reliable source for the same reason Goodreads wouldn't be, but it's so heavily mentioned in various media and sources on the Internet that it's reasonable for it to be found in the EL section. I'm just not sure that Goodreads is really at that level as a whole, but again - that's kind of a different conversation since that essentially revolves around popularity rather than reliability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with your reasoning Tokyogirl79. It's not a reliable source.- MrX 01:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree but not entirely, if the subject of the article is a book, Goodreads is a weak source. Conversely, when the article topic is not a book, Goodreads can be a decent source for simply documenting that a book exist(ed).WP:SELFSOURCE Like many websites, portions of Goodreads is user generated, as is metacritic.com, rottentomatoes.com. Musicbrainz.org is completely user generated and is integrated into the WikiData project. The key is that we are not using the unmoderated portions. So referencing a user generated review would be wrong, but providing a citation with the basic properties (title,author,etc.) is reasonable, even if the author provided this data because, there is no reason to believe it would be falsified and end readers would eventually expose fraud. Finally, I don't know about the past, but Goodreads is publishing evidence of its editorial control, and entering/changing primary information in the database requires an internal review before the user is elevated to Author status.See: Join the Author Program

Why not make everyone a librarian?

"Initially, we allowed everyone to be a librarian. Anyone could edit book and author data, add cover images, or combine books. However, we found that while 99% of the people did a good job, occasionally we had someone who messed things up. So we created a new status that we bestow on those interested in helping keep things nice and tidy, which has worked out well."

If the subject is the author of a book or some such, then how do we use Goodreads to determine that they wrote such-and-such book? The example Tokyogirl179 gave above explicitly addressed this issue, as if we had used the source to verify that "a book existed" we would still be wrong, as there were two books that existed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Goodreads did not sell books because the links are fairly subtle, in the middle of the page. Unlike Google Books, Goodreads provides a link to Worldcat so the reader has easy access to a library copy. If we are going to only allow book references to come from the NYT and sources that the mainstream media prescribe, we have lost the battle.

Beyond that, having a few editors decide this, out of 27 million, without investigating the current policies of the website or contacting them seems like WP:CONLIMITED to me. 009o9 (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Since it has been mentioned here, I also find the complete ban on IMDb to be specious and subjective. IMDb hosts complete awards sections.[2][3] These are obviously not self-sourced and in many cases the awarding bodies do not maintain the archives, or only maintain the winners and not the nominees. In fact, I found an error in a CV, that is correct on IMDb (verified with the awarding council), yet the NYT and every other MSM agency who has written about the subject, still presents the incorrect information on the presumtion that the NYT or other publication must have checked the background. The key here is the Wikipedia article's subject/topic, if the article is biography about an actor, then the IMDb bio and aggregate page should be avoided; however, an inline concerning a part in a film 15 year ago that doesn't go to WP:N should not bring out the AfD squad or a bot to remove all references. Citing awards would be much less cumbersome if there was not the prevailing opinion that all 100% of IMDb is unusable in all cases. BTW: over the years, I've only found one instance where IMDb was incorrect, my attempt to correct the entry was met with resistance, so it is likely that editorial control has improved since the WP opinion about IMDb was originally formed. I guess I should take this to WP:CITEIMDB and WP:RS/IMDB 009o9 (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oops, just realized my disclosure signature was not turned on, I do take "paid work" in entertainment genre, I don't take work in the books genre because I've found that Wikiproject too opinionated and full of unwritten policies/guidelines. My interest here is mainly in biographies. 009o9 (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
• Sorry, this is going to be very long. Believe it or not, this is the summarized version. For the sake of making the section not so long, I've collapsed this:

The TL;DNR of this is that Goodreads hands out librarian privileges extremely easily and errors do happen on the site, either because of deliberate or accidental actions. The same goes for IMDb. As far as overall RS guidelines go, they're strict out of necessity and I do think that you need to be more careful not to be very lenient with sourcing, as you're a paid editor and there are a lot of editors that actively dislike paid editors. That there's been far too much rampant abuse from places like Wiki-PR has only served to convince many that the practice needs to be banned, so unfortunately you have to be more cautious than even a COI editor, another type of editor that is frequently the subject of bias on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Although as far as the guidelines go, this is typically how things are decided on Wikipedia. Now if we were arguing a complete and total standard, we'd need more of a consensus. Heck, it was tough getting enough people to agree to see bestseller lists like the NYT as a source to give notability and I had to fight for that. However in this case there are already policies in place that cover user-edited sources like Goodreads and IMDb, so this isn't deciding a new policy, but rather just confirming if something falls under a pre-existing one. To argue that IMDb would be usable as a RS would require that you re-write existing policies, which would be very, very difficult and require a lot of opinion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79 You are right, this is not the forum to debate it in. FYI, the data I'm interested in from IMDb is Awards and Events. Neither locations are user editable, submissions are reviewed by the editorial staff. Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, I know - I wish that we could use it for that. Not all awards sites archive their past winners, which is frustrating when you have newspapers that don't publicly archive either. Out of everything this is usually one of the aspects of the site that's more dependable since the average user can't add these (I've tried in the past and couldn't), however the whole IMDb issue keeps it from being usable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Daily Mail again

Is the Daily Mail a suitable source for this addition to John Noakes? The detail is reputed to be a quote from Peter Purves. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It is neither a contentious claim nor one remotely of "celebrity gossip", and the claim is sourced to a specific person. Fairly reliable in such a case. Not on the order of "person had sex with unicorns" or the like, and pretty much a "vanilla claim". Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Lightweight claim and the source supports it directly. I concur that this is acceptable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, Noakes doesn't even like unicorns. So many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the source or how it is used, but the wording of the sentence should be changed. In the context of our article it looks like, if not outright claims that, Purves reported that Noakes "had refused to speak with Baxter" (my emphasis) over some extended period of time, whereas the source is actually talking about a very specific event (the 50th anniversary at Buckingham Palace) at which Purves and Baxter were civil to each other but Noakes refused to talk to Baxter. It may indeed be accurate to infer that Noakes had refused to speak to Baxter over an extended period of time, but inferring is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, good point. I'd probably prefer, at this stage, to avoid seeing "remove wanker comments" in an edit summary again. But I may try and adjust it. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Every time the Daily Mail comes up as an RS question, there is a confusion between distaste for the style, content and ideology of the paper and its validity as a source. It is an RS.Martinlc (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Best we tell User:Hillbillyholiday. Personally I love chips. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

It may surprise y'all to learn that I have recently undergone something of a Damascene conversion on this subject and no longer regard those at the Mail as a gaggle of rebarbative maledicent misoneists given to plumeopicean stultiloquence and vilipensive honeyfuggling. I take it all back, it's clearly a trustworthy publication. Please, use it freely with my blessing. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 12:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah great. Thanks for telling me. I'll get in some bread and dripping to go with the chips. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

No worries, Mister EotW. Please excuse my latest Mail-related meltdown. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 07:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC) ..and do go easy on the chips

Taking that story as an example, yes it's completely trivial. But it was a real event that has been reported and checked, subject to the IPSOS code of conduct, quoting real people, with editorial oversight. If there were a wikipedia page for images of faces seen in food this article would be usable as an RS. You seem to be confusing the desirability that the Mail didn't exist with the technical question of whether the stories it recounts carry greater weight as sources than random individuals on the internet.Martinlc (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Is WP:RS black and white? Or is there some kind of hierarchy for the UK press? I tend to use the Daily Mail as a last resort, although it's photographs are often excellent. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm late to the party, but I note the source supplied at the top of the thread includes the phrase "Peter Purves dishes Blue Peter dirt" in it's title - that's a "no" from me. John Noakes clearly loved Shep (that's obvious from anyone who's ever owned a pet) and doesn't like Biddy Baxter, we don't need the specifics. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

""Headlines" are not "articles." The headline is written by a headline writer - and very rarely by the article writer at all. They are designed to get people to read - not to be n accurate precis of the article. Thus, I suggest, and have suggested, that "headlines" are not, in themselves, reliable sources other than for the fact the headline existed. Collect (talk) 13:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Some questions for Collect. Obviously all sources need to be judged for accuracy, reliability, etc. -- sometimes good sources can get it wrong, sometimes poor sources get it right, and yes, standards are dropping across the board -- but does WP accept, say, the National Enquirer or RT as a source? Would you agree that there's some kind of cut-off point: that when a source has been caught falsifying stories time and again, it simply shouldn't be accepted as reliable anymore? Isn't it, in part, the function of this board to determine when the line has been crossed? Wouldn't you agree that the Mail has indeed crossed the line? Wouldn't banning the Mail for BLPs be a net-positive? Wouldn't it stop these interminable arguments? Have you read this? --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

All of those are valid questions. See also rule #21. MastCell ^Talk 18:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, RT is a valid reliable source for some items (see prior discussions thereon) - specifically such material official statements from those quoted as Russian officials. The Daily Mail is not a good source for contentious material in the "celebrity gossip" area, but neither are any newspapers good sources in that area. The claim that the source has routinely falsified stories is erroneous here - once one removes the "celebrity gossip" retractions, the DM has pretty much the same record as other popular newspapers (yes - I checked the formal records - and even The Guardian has been caught with their pants down). In short - the Mail has not "crossed the line" although some here seem to think anything other than "correct opinions" should be debarred. And if we start saying "some newspapers are more equal than others" we should recall the fact that a very large number of stories in all newspapers originate in press releases. [4] provides the sourcing for my claims. Collect (talk) 19:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

But of course some newspapers (and some sources) are better than others. The process of evaluating sources, and choosing the best ones, is called editing. Wikipedians who perform this function are called editors. The Daily Mail is not uniquely bad, but it is emblematic of a particular type of low-quality yellow journalism that editors with good judgement typically avoid. As I alluded to above, when Wikipedians take to these noticeboards to defend the Daily Mail, it says a lot about their understanding of our sourcing policies. MastCell ^Talk 22:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Even the "best" newspapers routinely use press releases, and not even The Guardian is immune to the "celebrity gossip" illness. And you are welcome to diss those who find the Daily Mail covers some topics better than The Times does, but I find your tone here to be disputatious for the sake of being disputatious. Is there a reason you wish to call into question the motives of those who use the Daily Mail? The big problem with all popular sources is the handling of "celebrity gossip" and I suggest that all "celebrity gossip" is the problem. Can you name a source you find to be very reliable for "celebrity gossip" for contentious claims? Collect (talk) 23:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't question the motives of editors who defend the Daily Mail as a source. I question their judgement.

It's not about "celebrity gossip". The Mail has a justifiably atrocious reputation for its scientific and medical coverage; its coverage of international affairs is sensationalist and often completely false; it fabricates human-interest stories and legal coverage (including fake quotes), and so on. Again, it's not the only terrible, tabloidy source out there, but it's emblematic. When you, as an experienced editor, defend this kind of thing, you discredit yourself, you set a bad example, and you call your judgement into question. MastCell ^Talk 00:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

"Celebrity gossip" is indeed the problem -- the victim of false gossip has no protections in the US under two prongs of tort practice. In the first place, the victim is a "public figure" and we hold public figures to be open season 12 months of the year; and in the second, periodicals ("news sources") are have court licenses almost equivalent to 007. In consequence, NOTHING said about a public figure in the popular press is reliable. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

No, the Daily Mail is not a good source for that material. That newspaper cannot be trusted in this context. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Please read the relevant policy WP:NEWSORG. News organisations we don't like are still WP:RS. Are you doubting that the interview took place? That the journalist didn't record the works?Martinlc (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

and also see WP:VERIFIABILITY not truth. The Mail has published these comments. If there is a policy debate it's around WP:UNDUE.Martinlc (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

This isn't the place for discussions of UNDUE. And it's been quite a while since I've seen someone say "verifiability not truth"... I repeat that the Daily Mail is not sufficiently trustworthy for this sort of thing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree- UNDUE is a content dispute that should be resolved on the page. But I don't see why you see this source as untrustworthy. Are you implying that the paper din't speak to the person, or that they didn't say what was reported? I mentioned TRUTH because it appears that editors are taking the line that because they don't believe material as reported it must be false.Martinlc (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Because they have a long and sordid history of getting things wrong. I don't have a view about the "truth" of this particular episode, but I'm skeptical enough about the source in general that I think in general we shouldn't use it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

If you don't have a negative view of the truth of this episode as reported then you would have to accept that it is an appropriate source for the edit. Like it or not the Mail is a mainstream newspaper with a corrections column and membership of IPSOS.Martinlc (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

"electronic harassment" term/take 2

I didn't get back to the recent discussion Roger Tolces before it was archived. I have been in email contact with him. He confirms what is popularly believed, that he coined the term. He says he called it that in 1973 and was at the time testing people for electronic implants. He has a very detailed definition of what he means by the term on his website, which does coincide with popular use. What else would be needed to put both in the article? To me it seems it should be the starting point, if he was the start of it, no matter how anyone sees the issue.Jed Stuart (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

What kind of source? Has he given this statement in a published interview? Has he written a book? Does he have his own website (per WP:ABOUTSELF, it would be RS for his own words)? However, given the evidence shown in the previous thread, at most, the article would say that he's claimed to have coined it or that he's one of the term's possible originators. That can be construed as self-serving, which would render it unusable under ABOUTSELF. A third-party source would be best. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

He must have made the statement in the Coast to Coast AM interviews, as he says that those interviews starting in 2003 popularized the term. I am not a subscriber though so I can't check that. He has his own website: bugsweeps.com where his definition is. So far I have not found anyone else claiming to be the one to coin the term or anyone defining it in the way he does.It is no big deal to him, he said. I am thinking it is though as the term has been used in the mainstream media.'claimed to have coined the term and defined it as... etc' would seem to be appropriate.I suppose I could try and get him interviewed by the print media, if it is too thin a case for inclusion. He prefers radio which is not so easily verifiable.Jed Stuart (talk) 05:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

So far it seems that he is not actively claiming that he coined the term, so perhaps it would be more accurate to say "Roger Tolces acknowledges that he coined the term" or "Roger Tolces takes responsibility for coining the term"? At this point this still comes down to my having had email confirmation of that. Could I get him to sign some form of legal statement that he did? In Australia that would be a Statutory Declaration. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Please read our policies about original research, thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Franz Kurowski for a GA article (WWII)

Source: Kurowski, Franz (2007). Oberleutnant Otto Kittel—Der erfolgreichste Jagdflieger des Jagdgeschwaders 54 (in German). Würzburg, Germany: Flechsig Verlag. ISBN 978-3-88189-733-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

Article: Otto Kittel

Content: Two types of content (the article is largely cited to Kurowski):

(1) non-notable details and potentially unverifiable statements, such as:

• Bf 109 suffered damage and Kittel returned to base, resisting the urge to chase more and risk his life. His motto was to get back in one piece and avoid risks: "Take the safe route and avoid ill-considered and wild offensive tactics".
• Kittel was frustrated. The ground crews kept up his spirits
• JG 54 Geschwaderkommodore (Wing Commander) Hannes Trautloft congratulated Kittel and said the following: "..."
• Many more

(2) Military statistics:

• On 3 May 1943, Kittel resumed his combat career with three victories.
• Kittel had achieved a one kill per day average to reach 94 victories on 4
• Witnesses from Kittel's formation reported that a Shturmovik had been shot down by Kittel before he himself was killed during the air battle having scored his 267th and final victory. Etc.

More info on the author:

According to the historian Ronald Smelser and Edward J. Davis, Kurowski is a "guru". Gurus, in their definition, are "authors popular among the readers who romanticize the German army". In addition, the gurus are:

“authors, (who) have picked up and disseminated the myths of the Wehrmacht in a wide variety of popular publications that romanticize the German struggle in Russia….. who insist on authenticity in their writings, combine a painfully accurate knowledge of the details of the Wehrmacht, ranging from vehicles to uniforms to medals, with a romantic heroicization of the German army fighting to save Europe from a rapacious Communism. There is little in the way of historical context in the writings of these men.”

Franz Kurowski, a veteran of the Eastern front, saw his two major works released in the U.S. in 1992 (Panzer Aces) and 1994 (Infantry Aces). Smelser & Davis write: "Kurowski gives the readers an almost heroic version of the German soldier, guiltless of any war crimes, actually incapable of such behavior... Sacrifice and humility are his hallmarks. Their actions win them medals, badges and promotions, yet they remain indifferent to these awards."

Kurowski's accounts are "laudatory texts that cast the German soldier in an extraordinarily favorable light", Smelser and Davies conclude.

References

If you are curious about the book I'm citing, here are two reviews: Tracing the Resurrection of a Reputation: How Americans Came to Love the German Army by a professional historian ("The book is a fascinating immersion into a simple but important question: How did the German soldiers who fought on the eastern front during World War Two become hero figures to so many Americans?"), and another one, surprisingly nuanced, from feldgrau.net, one of outlets for "romancers" that Smelser and Davies critique. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

It sounds as though it's not exactly history, that it's historical narrative, like Little House on the Prairie. Is the publisher, Flechsig Verlag, reputable? Is it a vanity press? Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Here other titles published by "Würzburg : Flechsig"

• To the gate of hell: the memoir of a panzer crewman by Arnim Böttger; Geoffrey Brooks; Charles Messenger (In English)
• Duel under the stars: factual report by a German night fighter, 1941 - 1945 by Wilhelm Johnen
• Panzer Regiment 11 Panzer Division 65 and Panzerersatz- and Training Division 11. Part 2 , as firefighters at the focal points of the Eastern Front - from October 1941 to May 1944 by Michael Schadewitz

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

That only shows that they specialize in certain subject matter. A vanity press is a publishing company in which the authors decide what will go into print rather than going through a professional selection process.

But let's say it is a regular, third-party publisher. The issue here seems to be whether this book is really nonfiction. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This may help -- Kurowski has a German Wikipedia article. I had it google translated and, while it's somewhat difficult to read, statements like "historical revisionist tendencies", "right-wing publisher", "far-right", "journalism of gray and brown zone"; "inspired by British Holocaust denier David Irving", etc, appear prominently. ''The Myth of the Eastern Front" is also mentioned. The article is well sourced to various historians. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this isn't a reliable source. Smelser & Davis' analysis of Kurowski's works is convincing (I've read the book). Moreover, I can't remember ever seeing him used as a reference in high quality books on the war, despite being very prolific, and the English-language editions of his books seem to have mainly been published by firms which provide little if any editing or fact-checking of works. Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

While the source The myth of the Eastern Front reminds us that we need to be cautious, I think to reject Kurowski completely as unreliable on the basis of that source is a tad bit over-zealous, and frankly, lazy. Kurowski may well indeed be a "Romanciser" of the German military, that does not mean that he is completely unreliable, particularly in regard to factual operational matters and events.

To recap what was quoted above, the historian Ronald Smelser and Edward J. Davis, say Kurowski is a "guru". Gurus, in their definition, are "authors popular among the readers who romanticize the German army". In addition, the gurus are

"authors, (who) have picked up and disseminated the myths of the Wehrmacht in a wide variety of popular publications that romanticize the German struggle in Russia….. who insist on authenticity in their writings, combine a painfully accurate knowledge of the details of the Wehrmacht, ranging from vehicles to uniforms to medals, with a romantic heroicization of the German army fighting to save Europe from a rapacious Communism. There is little in the way of historical context in the writings of these men.”

Lots of veterans have written books on WW2 topics, Brits, American, Russians, and no doubt there is a certain degree of romanticising by these authors too. However these historians do acknowledge that the "details of the Wehrmacht, ranging from vehicles to uniforms to medals" are "painfully accurate". We just need to assess each claim per WP:BIASED and leave out the bits that heroicize the '"German army fighting to save Europe from a rapacious Communism". --Nug (talk) 10:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Kurowski is an extremely prolific author, with over 400 books to his many pen names. He has written several series of children's books, and he has published a lot of his "popular history" (mostly on WW2 topics) with a number of known revisionists and extreme right-wing publishers. He's always writing to please his different audiences, not to give a factual history. It's not enough that there are some correct facts in the books to be considered RS, we need to be able to have reasonable trust in all factual statements. By that standard, Kurowski is not a reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:BIASED says we don't have to have "reasonable trust in all factual statements" of a source. It is not all or nothing. It depends upon the context. Historians Smelser and Davis acknowledge that authors like Kurowski have a "painfully accurate knowledge of the details of the Wehrmacht, ranging from vehicles to uniforms to medals". Is it really that difficult to identify and exclude Kurowski's "romantic heroicization of the German army fighting to save Europe from a rapacious Communism" while keeping those details of the Wehrmacht that have been acknowledged to be accurate? --Nug (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that you cannot know when that knowledge is used and when it falls victim to the story. WW2 is one the the periods in history with the broadest and deepest academic coverage. There is no reason to go to questionable second-rate sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

That simply isn't the case with respect to the Eastern Front, it is precisely because that academic coverage isn't as broad and deep compared with the Western Front that authors like Kurowski are able to find a market to fill that gap. When it comes to broad outlines of who was involved and what equipment was used in which battles and where, I think it highly unlikely Kurowski would actually fabricate such things for sake of the "story". --Nug (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Kurowski was criticized by other historians, see for example: "Military historian Jürgen Rohwer began a critical examination of the data published by Nazi Germany on successes (sunken tonnage) of submarine commanders in 1957. Afterwards, Kurowski belonged to the authors, who held on to the details of the Nazi propaganda regardless of the research results." (Please see source and exact citation on De Wikipedia article above). So his numbers of "victories" are not to be trusted.

On "authenticity" -- Smelser & Davies extend it only to "details of the Wehrmacht, ranging from vehicles to uniforms to medals". They do not extend this to operational history or actions of individual soldiers. He could be considered a reliable source on Wehrmacht uniforms or medals, but otherwise sounds like "militaria literature" to me, not a work by a historian. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Also from De.wikipedia: "In his 2001 book Bombs over Dresden Kurowski included a 16 pages long "eyewitness reports" of low-flying aircraft hunting civilians. In fact, that was a made-up account. Lars-Broder Keil and Sven Felix Kellerhoff criticized Kurowski in their book German legends. (Please see citation on De.wikipedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

From the responses so far:

• Darkfrog24: "sounds like it's not exactly history, that it's historical narrative; Is this indeed non-fiction?" Is that a no?
• NIck-D: not WP:RS -- "can't remember ever seeing him used as a reference in high quality books on the war"
• Stephan Schulz: not WP:RS -- Kurowski writes "'popular history' (mostly on WW2 topics) with a number of known revisionists and extreme right-wing publisher"
• Nug: considers Kurowski to be a WP:BIASED source, but okay to use for "broad outlines of who was involved and what equipment was used in which battles and where", as potentially an only source available on the subject
• K.e.coffman: not WP:RS, as the original poster

Question: does this constitute consensus that Kurowski is indeed a non WP:RS source for WWII articles, and I can take it to the article's Talk page? Or would I need more? K.e.coffman (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

RS can be like the Bechdel test; it's not always either-or. I'd say that while there maybe some case in which it is appropriate to cite this source, not in general no. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Infinitely more. You've been asked for sources at Talk:Otto Kittel. You haven't given any. What evidence do we have that Kurowski and the information provided by him is unreliable in relation to Otto Kittel? None has been given. This isn't a controversial book about a controversial subject. It is about one man, a pilot. It is good enough for him. Using one source, who criticises Kurowski's work on broader, controversial topics, cannot be used to infer his work on Kittel is biased. It is beyond absurd. The opinions of a few editors on Wikipedia is not enough. One editor described that it as lazy analysis, I'd go further.... Dapi89 (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

We are discussion a particular source — Kurowski, Franz (2007). Oberleutnant Otto Kittel—Der erfolgreichste Jagdflieger des Jagdgeschwaders 54 (in German). Flechsig Verlag. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help), — not other sources on Otto Kittel. Could you clarify? ("...You've been asked for sources at Talk:Otto Kittel...") K.e.coffman (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Your post doesn't make sense. Please read mine again.

No criticism has been made of Kurowski's work on Kittel by anyone. You are the only person doing so. You have been asked over and over again to provide specific criticism of this work on Kittel by others. Thus far, you have failed to do so. No source, no go. It is that simple.

The specific pieces of the article you have criticised in your opening address are non-controversial. It's barely believable that one could even attempt to cite total unreliability for this man's work on Kittel using them as an 'example'.

Are you really disputing these things, such as Kittel was frustrated. The ground crews kept up his spirits, On 3 May 1943, Kittel resumed his combat career with three victories, Kittel had achieved a one kill per day average to reach 94 victories on 4, as made up facts, or some sort of evidence of bias? Are you saying that they're wrong? Are you saying they show Kurowski is guilty of hero-worship? Do these passages show he is a closet Neo-Nazi? What is it you're trying to show via these quotations?

These complaints and accusations are really odd, at least, certainly the way you present them. Dapi89 (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

From WP:Identifying reliable sources guidelines:

"The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

• The piece of work itself (the article, book)
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
• The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."

In this case, the "creator of the work" (Kurowski), has been seriously criticized. In this context of the article in question, his account also appears to be semi-fictional, as Darkfrog24 pointed out.

I would like to hear other editors' opinions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Where a single citation is removed because it is unacceptable, either the statement is removed or (if the statement is uncontested and material to the article) the unacceptable cite is replaced with a CN (citation needed) flag. The statement should not be left unsupported until another editor finds and flags it for proper maintenance. That is simple etiquette. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, this another evasion tactic, it is not an answer. You are not offering any evidence that Kurowski's work on Kittel is unreliable.

If we looked hard enough, we could find criticism of the most celebrated and respected authors. The fact that one other book has taken a swipe at him about other unrelated topics is not good enough.

"His work appears to be semi-fictional"? Does it ? According to who? You?

The canvassing for the opinion of other editors belies your ultimate problem: it isn't the opinion of Wikipedia editors that matters it sources. I've repeated this request for evidence on over 10 occasions and you have not delivered one iota to this discussion. You seem to think you can prove a case without proof itself. It's time you learned otherwise. Dapi89 (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2016

Is being awarded the Guinness World Record a significant award?

Hi all, I have a question that arose from an Afd discussion I have been having with a very experienced editor. The question is: Is being awarded a Guinness World Record a significant award? Thank you. Xender Lourdes (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you're asking if a Guinness World Record is enough to guarantee WP:Notability. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. A quick search shows that Chandran Superman doesn't show up much of anywhere outside his Ice Bucket Challenge video and facebook page. Has he written any books? Have any books been written about him? Did he perform at a famous event? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I would say not notable if the subject isn't showing up anywhere. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe that does not fully address the question asked. Suppose X were already notable. If X were ALSO awarded a Guinness World Record, should WP mention it? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Xender is posting here because the article on Chandran Superman is up for deletion, but yes, if a person is in the GBoWR, that merits a mention in the article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Darkfrog24 you are right. It was for the Chandran Superman, now deleted, article. I believe your replies and those in the Afd gave me great inputs. It has been such a learning experience participating in Afds, including this one. I have spent a short time here on Wikipedia and am amazed by the vastness of this place. Comatmebro, Sfarney and Darkfrog, thanks for the replies. Xender Lourdes (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem! Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Same thing happened with me in my early days. This place has a huge learning curve. You're very welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Popcorn Time

Background: Popcorn Time is a program/website/repository that was shut down by the MPAA. Subsequently, various more or less "legitimate" forks were released, some of them with allegations of containing malware (I mention it just to show it's best to be careful before legitimizing any of these).

Now, popcorntime.sh has appeared, and it stands out because some of the original project's resources (site, repositories and even the Twitter account) now direct to it. This is being used by some editors at Talk:Popcorn Time#popcorntime.sh to justify treating this new website as the "official successor" of the original popcorntime.io.

However, some sources were presented by one of these very editors that seem to strongly contradict this claim:

• TheNextWeb states that "nobody seems to know who is behind the updated app" and that "the original team [...] claimed to have nothing to do with the revived app" and even that "It’s entirely possible (though unlikely) that the MPAA could be trying to use the app as a honeypot to track movie pirates."
• TorrentFreak, just dryly states that "the official GitHub repository was updated with a new working version and now points to PopcornTime.sh as the new home, as does the official Twitter account", but without affirming that this means the new site is official. In addition, it notes that "The code used to update the old application [...] uses four nameservers [...] which are all controlled and owned by the MPAA"

(emphasis mine)

The other editors seem to argue that because the sources do not rule out it may be official, it might be treated as official: they say "Not Knowing who is behind the new website do not say it is not official" and "Torrentfreak not knowing who the developers are (since they chose to stay anon) doesn't imply a negative, either. "Evidence of absence" and all that stuff.".

Teemome in particular also states "Since other third party references (separate from the new website) state that it is the successor (the statuspage.io, the old popcorntime.io facebook and twitter, etc), then we can use those as a reference and consider it true." as if implying that websites and accounts previously run by project members are "third-party references".

So I have some questions:

1. Can TheNextWeb and TorrentFreak be used as a source to state that the people behind the new site/software are unknown, and the original team actually disclaims any connection?
2. Should things like "the statuspage.io, the old popcorntime.io facebook and twitter, etc" be used as reliable references for anything, and in particular to claim that it's true that popcorntime.sh is an official successor of popcorntime.io?
3. Can the fact that we clearly don't know for sure if people behind popcorntime.sh are the same as the ones behind popcorntime.io be discounted when deciding whether to state (to simplify) "we don't know" or "chances are they are official"?
4. Should we, based on the sources, indicate popcorntime.sh as the official site of Popcorn Time in the infobox and everywhere else in the article, as is the case now?

LjL (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

1. TheNextWeb is RS. TorrentFreak is a blog but may or may not meet SPS.
2. I do not think that, given the RS that suggest otherwise, the sites themselves are RS for that piece of information in this case.
3. Both those conclusions sound OR to me. They're also not necessary. You have the facts: Say that it reemerged under a new URL and that Owen Williams of The Next Web has speculated X, Y and Z. Speculation is acceptable when it is the sources who are doing the speculating. However, I think it would be best to find more independent sources that agree with Williams.
4. Given the sources that you have listed, no we should not. However, if more sources should emerge—this feels like a situation that could change in the next few months—it wouldn't be that hard to put it all back. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The biggest problem I have with this, is that it's incredibly difficult to base it on secondary sources as wikipedia requires (to be a tertiary source) and avoid primary sources (I'm trying hard, but there's a severe lack of them). When I say "primary sources", I mean things like known accounts of old popcorntime.io developers posting comments "yeah, we know who it is/yeah i'm working on it". However, nobody is willing to give an official answer to the press (Torrentfreak, in this case), since doing so would open them to legal problems.

Ok, let's talk about actual referenced stuff. In the TNW article, it says "the project still uses private keys that match the original team’s for distribution". Because the application updates are signed, so due to cryptographic encryption, only the people working on the original project can push out this update. This is a very strong indicator that popcorntime.sh is actually the successor of popcorntime.io- a non successor fork would not have access to the signing key.

The only other alternative is (warning, I confess that this paragraph is my own thought process, and can be considered "original research") that the MPAA also got the update signing key, and released the new Popcorntime, but wild conjecture and conspiracy theories aside, their lawyers would never allow this in a million years: the MPAA doesn't have the rights to all the movies on Popcorntime, so they would be legally liable; in addition, they can't persecute users, since it would be entrapment for them to provide this service that is easier than regular torrenting. (end "original research").

The problem with everything I've said, of course, is that I can't find secondary sources for all of these. I do confess that most of the content I have here are sourced from primary sources. I'm not really into linking reddit comments by the developers or stuff like that on wp... so I'm not sure what the best way to present this information would be.

As a last note, one argument I can make is that "since the keys, the facebook page, the twitter account, the website code, etc are the same between popcorntime.io and popcorntime.sh, you can consider the latter the successor of the former". The Torrentfreak and TNW article do corroborate this, and state that the only thing that's changed between the two is the website domain, and the fact that the programmers' identities are now hidden. Therefore, just the articles from Torrentfreak and TNW may perhaps be considered enough to call the .sh website the successor. This would be based on just a reading of the facts from these articles, and skipping over their guesses and speculations on who the developers are. Teemome (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I find that your conclusion, not just your process, falls under WP:OR. It sounds like you're saying that you're taking raw facts from TNW and TF, skipping their own conclusions, and using those facts to draw your own. That fits Wikipedia's definition of original research. You've got to find the conclusion itself published somewhere. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a lot less WP:OR-y when you go through the primary source comments and stuff ex-popcorntime.io developers wrote, they basically lay it out as such. Oh well, no big deal.

Conveniently Torrentfreak just published a new article today which does outright state that Popcorntime.sh is the successor, (https://torrentfreak.com/popcorn-time-fork-claims-official-relaunch-after-mpaa-shutdown-160225/) so I guess that settles that. Would that count as a good source? Teemome (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

No, mainly because it doesn't state what you make it seem it states. It says there are two things, Butter and popcorntime.sh, and that most of the original team is now working on Butter (not on popcorntime.sh). It also states that "no one is really able to say absolutely definitively which forks are totally trustworthy and which ones aren’t, since everyone is keen to hide their identities and remain unaccountable" and that "it’s no longer possible to publicly point to a set of trustworthy developers and use their credentials to give credibility to a project", which runs directly contrary to the concept of naming an official successor.

I will also add that when you said, above, "the project still uses private keys that match the original team’s for distribution". Because the application updates are signed, so due to cryptographic encryption, only the people working on the original project can push out this update, I'm afraid that makes very little sense, because if the MPAA seized these people's assets, then it's perfectly plausible that they seized their private keys as well, and encryption doesn't magically stop that. LjL (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You're arguing different points than me:

1. Whether popcorntime.sh is trustworthy or not
2. Whether the MPAA is involved or not

I'm just talking about:

1. If popcorntime.sh is the successor to popcorntime.io or not

I'm not talking about if it's "trustworthy", it might contain 1000 viruses (I'm being facetious when I say this, it's an open source project, which tends to not contain malware... but let's assume it's not trustworthy right now). I'm also not talking about if the MPAA, which only received an injunction in a Canadian court for the popcorntime.io and some other domains- the rest of the assets are not known to be taken.

Torrentfreak and other sources are basically stating "the popcorntime.io project shut down, and the popcorntime.sh project replaced it, although we don't know who is running it now or if it's trustworthy". I'm focusing on the second part of that sentence "the popcorntime.sh project replaced it", while you're focusing on the third part "although we don't know who is running it or if it's trustworthy". The Torrentfreak article is pretty clear on this: from the sources, quotes include: "The variant of Popcorn Time most closely linked with the edition shut down by the MPAA last year has announced its official return"" and "we now have the first official statement from the people behind the reincarnation"" and "Noting that an explanation is long overdue, the team (located at popcorntime.sh)".

From these quotes, we have legit WP:SRS sources that state that popcorntime.sh is a "reincarnation" of popcorntime.io, which is all I'm trying to argue for right now.

Teemome (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

There are a number of Popcorn Time forks, which all in some way "replaced" or were "reincarnations" of the original. None of them could be labelled "official successors", because they weren't necessarily run by the same people. This is not necessarily run by the same people, either, and that's what your source states: it never states it's an official successor, and in fact suggests it may not be (by stating we don't know who's running it), so we can't call it an official successor. It's that simple.

To address your individual quotes:

• "The variant of Popcorn Time most closely linked with the edition shut down by the MPAA last year has announced its official return"" ← "most closely linked" doesn't mean "official successor"
• "we now have the first official statement from the people behind the reincarnation"" ← yes, the people behind the reincarnation, which may or may not be the same people who were behind the original thing
• "Noting that an explanation is long overdue, the team (located at popcorntime.sh)" ← this refers to the reincarnation's team (see the paragraph that comes before this one), and it's not saying it's the same team as the original one

"Official successor" is a strong statement to make; one that is not backed by the sources at all. LjL (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It's already been stated that the people behind the .sh version are staying anon, so talking about the people is useless. You're being too hung up now on the "same team" idea: nobody is stating that everyone from the popcorntime.io team is on the .sh team, even the statement the .sh team put out states "Most of our old teammates have left the ship to focus on a new technology", so clearly it's not the exact same team and yet successors can be determined.

If I may make an (imperfect) analogy to basketball, you can look at, say, the Los Angeles Clippers, between 2011 to 2015. The team was forced to change owners after the NBA basically sued Donald Sterling over racism, changed coaches, changed a lot of players, but it's still considered the same team.

For this, you state "None of them could be labelled "official successors", because they weren't necessarily run by the same people." which implies that successors can only be considered such, if it's run by the same people. That's not the case, however; this has already happened before in August 2015: https://torrentfreak.com/original-popcorn-time-team-backs-popular-fork-150812/ Where some members of the old project declared the .io fork the "official" successor to the 2014 Argentine Popcorntime. The old team clearly has the right to do this, as history has shown, so even though we don't know which programmers are working on the new project doesn't affect the succession status. Software projects hardly need to have the same people working on it for it to be considered successors, that shouldn't be considered a requirement.

Lastly, I disagree with your interpretation of "reincarnation" as referring to "any fork", which doesn't make sense from the definition of the word, which stems from a classical religious context- one person can't be reincarnated into multiple animals. There is a clear 1 to 1 connection when you are talking about reincarnation. When Torrentfreak uses the word "reincarnated", it clearly implies a 1 to 1 connection from the old popcorntime.io to the popcorntime.sh project. Teemome (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

From the Verge article "Popcorntime.io, probably the most popular iteration of slippery movie piracy app Popcorn Time, is back — sort of. Earlier this week, part of the team apparently behind popcorntime.io announced a comeback" source http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/26/11119290/popcorn-time-io-movie-streaming-piracy-back-online This is about as clearly stated for a secondary reference source as you can get. Is there any more discussion needed? Teemome (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Because the New York Times and other newspapers use TorrentFreak as a source, I'd guess it fits WP:SPS expert criteria. The question seems to be whether its content is being interpreted correctly. Teem, can you post a link to the exact page you're citing? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Clarification, did you mean a Torrentfreak source or a direct primary source?

The Torrentfreak article is here: https://torrentfreak.com/popcorn-time-fork-claims-official-relaunch-after-mpaa-shutdown-160225/ Teemome (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a new article from the Verge, here: http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/26/11119290/popcorn-time-io-movie-streaming-piracy-back-online Teemome (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Cancer quackery

A recent blog post from Edzard Ernst notes that a "journal" is soliciting for papers supporting cancer quackery. This is the same journal the Burzynski Clinic used to publish some of its bogus trials of "antineoplastons" - it is open access and very likely predatory. Journal of Cancer Therapy is clearly not a RS, and it's likely that others from the same publisher, Scientific Research Publishing, are equally problematic. There are over 250 links, we should check these carefully I think. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

122 are in mainspace. --Izno (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of SCIRP, can anybody make heads or tails of what this is supposed to mean? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

After careful analysis, I think the core message of the author is "Look! I can do equations in LaTeX! Shiny!" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Scientific Research Publishing

JzG believes that Scientific Research Publishing should not be used as a source on Wikipedia, due to supposedly being a predatory open access publisher. Even if this was the case, that does not necessarily affect the reliability of its content; researchers write the papers, not the journal, and the reliability of the science itself is not in question. Instead of trying to discuss this and gain consensus, JzG has now begun to unilaterally remove this journal wherever it is used as a source, thereby leaving many articles with unsourced statements, including featured ones (such as Smilodon, which is what brought me here). So I'd like some discussion of where we go from here. Either this gets blacklisted as an unreliable source, in which case we need to deal with the many resulting unsourced statements left, or JzG reverts his removals. FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I do understand that predatory open access publishing is a relatively new field, and it is entirely understandable that people who don't watch the fringes of our biomedical articles (where this is rife) might not be aware of the problem.

This is a publisher which we identify in our article, based on good sources, as having substantial problems with editorial oversight, and being probably predatory. Its publications have been used by the Burzynski Clinic to publish its "studies" on so-called antineoplastons (even the clinic's own lawyer openly acknowledges that these studies are a farce), and this draft listing a bunch of publications on treatments for non-existent diseases all published either in SciRP or Ross, another predatory publisher.

Predatory publishing clearly excludes any journal from being a reliable source. The editorial oversight that is supposed to act as a gatekeeper for good science, is replaced by the scientific publishing equivalent of a wallet biopsy. Any paper whose authors can afford the fee, gets published, and that makes the source no better than any other self-published venue. A self-=published document may be correct, as may a paper published in a predatory journal, but we exclude them because there is no editorial oversight and our own policies forbid us from being the ones to make a determination as to whether a primary source is reliable or not.

How do we know which are the fraudulent papers paid for by researchders whose work is rejected elsewhere, versus those whose authors have simply been scammed?

And when that publisher is actively soliciting papers promoting cancer quackery, as this one is, then there is no remaining doubt of which one might reasonably give them benefit. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

There are many assumptions in your statement, which is why we need a wider discussion of this before taking any unilateral action. I would even propose that all removals be reverted until we gain a consensus here. FunkMonk (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

While being published in a vanity press or predatory journal does not necessarily mean that the information in the study is false, it does mean that it's not verifiable in the sense that we mean here. What would it take, FunkMonk, to convince you personally that a journal is predatory? What do you see as your standard? Confirmation that SRP lacks of editorial oversight? Confirmation that it will publish anyone who can pay? Criticism in other reliable publications? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

This issue is not about me being "convinced" or not, but whether we blacklist this journal or not, and what we do with the resulting unsourced statements afterwards. I couldn't care less about the journal itself, I'm worried about the articles. Simply removing sources, but not the statements they support, leaves misleading articles, and is simply irresponsible. If it is indeed policy not to use "predatory publishers" (is it?), we need this stated somewhere clearly, and filter them automatically when they're added, like we do with spam-sites. FunkMonk (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

All content is supposed to be verifiable from reliable independent secondary sources, so if the text depends on an unreliable primary source then we should simply remove it per WP:PRIMARY as well as WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 14:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Why is that not what you actually did, then? In years to come, who will know that the statements left were sourced to an paper that has now been delinked? FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:V say any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source. If claims are uncontentious, leaving them without a source is not optimal, but not a serious problem. Backing by an unreliable source is worse than no citation at all, because it gives a wrong impression of reliability. In this particular case, I have looked at some papers published by Scientific Research Publishing, and there is no evidence of even basic fact-checking - several are pure nonsense. The journals are not reliable and should not be mistaken for good sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

"Backing by an unreliable source is worse than no citation at all" Sorry, but that simply doesn't cut it for featured articles. Either there's a source, or the statement is removed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

An FA should not have unreliable sources. How do we know if an individual unreliable source is promoting some quixotic idea rejected by the mainstream? Primary sources are only to be used with caution, for uncontentious facts. If the fact is contentious or if you otherwise consider it must have a source, then using an unreliable source is simply not a valid option and the text should be, as you say, removed. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

No one said a FA should have unreliable sources. I said they should not have unreferenced statements. This means that such statements should be removed, not left, if their source is deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

No assumptions at all. We have an article describing predatory open access publishing, the facts are as stated in that article. SciRP is in Beall's list, pretty much the canonical authority. There's nothing left to assume. Guy (Help!) 14:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You mean the Wikipedia article? That's not a Wikipedia policy page. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article tells us about the publisher. WP:RS tells us not to use the publisher, as it's the academic equivalent of a vanity press. This does not seem to em to be contentious. Guy (Help!) 14:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

As suggested by someone else here, it is subjective whether "predatory publishing" is vanity publishing. The apparent link between the two should be made explicit. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Why? It is a distinction without a difference. The source fails WP:RS, whether it fails it for one reason or three is irrelevant. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Actual reliable sources describe it as a predatory publisher. Personally I never draw the fine distinction between predatory and 'vanity' that some do, either way the author pays a fee to have their work published. Publishing not based on merit or peer review means it cannot be used as a reliable source and is ripe for removal.

While this might unfairly label some legitimate papers as unreliable, this is not a problem of wikipedia's making. This is the problem of the author choosing an unreliable publisher to get their work out. Papers sourced solely to such journals/publishers fail our requirements for RS.

As for removing sources cited to papers from such unreliable sources but leaving the statements they are supporting, this is an editorial decision. The editor could have removed all the info. Unless its something particularly contentious, leaving it and asking for a better source is an option available. We do have a citation needed template after all. Info *may* be removed from articles. It doesnt necessarily have to be in all cases where sources may be found that can support it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. We have sympathy for the victims but we are not qualified to work out which are victims and which are knowingly exploiting lack of peer-review. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

In that case, to not leave a mass of unreferenced articles, JzG should at least leave a "citation needed" tag after every sentence he makes unsourced. And the journal should be listed somewhere or blocked. FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind doing that where the cite is not redundant, but most of the facts I have seen don't appear to be disputed. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

What do you base that on? In the case of Smilodon, the article refers to specific theories[5], not common knowledge or some such. FunkMonk (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that if a statement required a citation before, simply removing the citation without providing an alternative, or tagging with "citation needed", is close to vandalism. I have never heard before that citations are only needed where facts are disputed - I thought this was an encyclopaedia.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, If you are not familiar with WP:V, then I suggest you read it. And of course it does not say "only when facts are disputed". In general, removing bad sources is a step in the right direction. Removing dubious unsourced content is also a step in the right direction. But nobody can or should force a volunteer editor to make more steps than they do voluntarily. Otherwise, why not demand perfect FA's immediately.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming WP:V does not state - "only when facts are disputed". I was actually referring to an editor's previous comment, not he policy. It takes no additional effort, and no further steps, to remove the material associated with a reference if this is not a RS. It simply requires an adjustment when selecting the material to remove - I don't think this is too taxing on editors. It also takes little effort to simply place a tag on the contested reference/content. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The suggestion that users can just remove sources for being unreliable without discussion, and then leaving heaps of unsourced statements for years to come, is rather baffling. Not sure what the "why not demand perfect FA's immediately" statement has to do with anything. An article does not remain an FA for long if it has unsourced statements, so these are better off removed entirely. How hard is it really for the volunteer editor to remove a sentence preceding a source? Am I missing something? It is not about "forcing" anyone, but about common sense and courtesy. By simply removing citations, the volunteer editor is leaving even more clean-up work for other volunteer editors to do (if the removal is even noticed by anyone), and yes, forcing these to do the job for them, since the quality of the article is otherwise compromised. FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem with this discussion is saying "x" is always or never a reliable source, full stop, is misleading. Even highly reputable sources can contain factual errors, and in those cases it would not be appropriate to cite the source. As FunkMonk suggests, if you do not believe the facts in source are reputable enough to give a solid verification to a claim, and you don't replace it with an alternative source or at least tag it with or (thus immediately flagging it as a problem), why would you believe anything in the accompanying text is correct either? This is especially important for any featured article with a scientific emphasis. In the example given here, this edit is problematic as it gives the reader the impression that the information is cited to the next inline citation along, which is (probably) wrong - so such an edit is dangerous because it gives the impression of falsified sources. To give another example, on numerous occasions I have wandered round BLPs and taken out statements cited to The Sun, and by and large I have not left the accompanying text in (usually because doing so violates WP:BLP anyway). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Some points that might deserve consideration. A predatory publisher essentially produces self-published sources, in relation to the author. However, the standing policy is: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. So in cases where on a scientific subject professional scientists have published peer-reviewed articles, their subsequent non-reviewed articles should in principle be considered reliable.

Secondly, we should remember that it is perfectly all-right to use even a questionable source as a source about that source itself. A Wikipedia article, even when addressing utterly uncontentious content, should ideally consist of statements of the form Source X claims fact Y anyway. So, when statements of the form Object X has quality Y are changed into Scientist Z stated/concluded/suggested in xxxx that object X has quality Y, it becomes irrelevant whether said scientist published this opinion in a questionable source — unless, of course, it was some silly hypothesis that should be disregarded by us because of Undue Weight, the reason why he could only publish it in a questionable source in the first place. Simply explicitly mentioning in the main text the author(s) and the studies involved, thus solves the problem.--MWAK (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we should treat these as self-published sources. Publications become reliable because of their editorial oversight, and inclusion in Beall's list generally implies that a publisher has liittle or no oversight or that it allows what oversight it has to be trumped by fee-seeking behavior. But I would go farther than that. A paper on arXiv, for instance, is self-published (the editorial controls at arXiv are too weak to confer reliability) but neutral: many good sources are self-published at arXiv and then later peer-reviewed, there is no profit motive complicating the issue, etc. On the other hand, no self-respecting academic would knowingly publish at a predatory publisher: reliable non-predatory academic publishers are plentiful, confer more respect on one's publications, and are generally cheaper (often free to authors rather than charging publication fees). Therefore, publication in a predatory publisher such as SRP is a symptom that something is wrong and that one should treat the source very carefully if at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

FunkMonk insists on reinserting the cite to this source demanding that if I remove it then I must also remove all text purportedly supported by it. This is surreal. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, JzG you've done similar at Suillellus luridus. I would agree that if you are going to remove the source, please remove the fact. In this case it is pretty trivial though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: if one is searching for SRP publications used as sources on Wikipedia, as well as searching for their domain name in the URL, another possibility is to search for "10.4236" in the doi. Google claims to find about 231 of these. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Past Life Regression Article

I added “Medical doctors in Brazil, India, Portugal, Singapore and Germany have written about using past life stories to help in resolving emotional issues and medical conditions” The book quoted (Dr Peter Mack, isbn = 878 0 9567887 8 8 Inner Healing Journey: A Medical Perspective 2014) is edited by a medical doctor and contains chapters written by other medical doctors. It is not claiming past life stories resolve a specific condition but they give their personal experiences and views of using it and the healing that resulted. The objection is that "WP:MEDRS applies to this update because its an article about a subject people will have an interest in". My point is WP:MEDRS does not apply because no medical information on resolving any medical condition is given.

A sentence was removed “The technique is not taught as part of any medical internships” this is part of the rambling from an internet site from a critic with no evidence to support it. I added “The technique is included in a textbook (U. James, isbn = 978 1 910272 45 9, Clinical Hypnosis Textbook: A Guide for Practical Intervention, Radcliffe Publishing, 2015, Ch 21} for 10 UK medical schools and for medical doctors doing a MSc in Clinical hypnosis at the Robert Gordon University”. The author of the book is professor Ursula James of Robert Gordon University. She is one of the leaders in her field and the text book used as a reference book widely. It is mandatory reading for medical doctors on the MSC course. It has chapters written by psychologists and therapists and chapter devoted to past life regression and its use. It is a secondary source book about past life regression. see http://www.amazon.com/Clinical-Hypnosis-Textbook-Practical-Intervention-ebook/dp/B013K8JP8Q/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454379922&sr=1-1&keywords=ursula+james+hypnosis

This request is to overturn the deletion by KateWishing (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Tomlinson (talk • contribs)

Textbooks are sometimes tertiary sources, not secondary, but it's still good for use. Radcliffe Publishing is not a vanity press, and the observation that this technique is indeed taught as part of at least one medical program is appropriate. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The wording of the statement seems to give the impression that a substantial number of medical doctors have actually endorsed it, and that does probably run the risk of running afoul of MEDRS. It might rectify the issue if the statement was attributed to those specific doctors in-text.

The claim that the text book is "used by 10 UK Medical schools and for medical doctors doing a MSc in Clinical hypnosis at the Robert Gordon University.", needs better sourcing. It looks like it comes from the publisher's blurb on Amazon. I don't know that a statement like that is really subjected to rigorous fact checking, and it probably isn't kept up to date. It also doesn't really seem like a great way of assessing the quality of medical information. Nblund (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The major problem here is that past life regression is pseudoscientific nonsense, and we have to be careful not to imply that it has any objective merit. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I wonder what the article is called, Past Life Regression redirects to Orbs (band)...

(Don't think MEDRS applies to anything mentioned above, there's no statement that could reasonably be preceded by "A Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials found that ..".) Prevalence 16:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all your views so perhaps this can be used “Medical doctors in Brazil, India, Portugal, Singapore and Germany have written about their personal views of using past life regression to help in resolving emotional issues and medical conditions” and "The technique is in a chapter in a textbook used in at least one medical school in the UK and for medical doctors doing a MSc in Clinical hypnosis at the Robert Gordon University”— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Tomlinson (talk • contribs)

Not directly related to the RS issue, but: although you haven't signed your statements, it appears based on your account name that you wrote the forward for this book, and that you have a close affiliation with the organization that produced it. (edit: it also appears that you wrote the chapter in the textbook) That connection might present a conflict of interest, and it's probably better to let another editor decide whether or not this particular source is noteworthy enough to warrant mention.

The book is subtitled "a medical perspective", and it seems to emphasize the medical credentials of the individuals involved. The statement that they used the technique for "resolving emotional issues and medical conditions" also seems like it suggests that this book is offering medical advise. The wording you are proposing seems like it gives the impression that a large number of doctors in multiple countries have written about using this practice, but it actually seems like a pretty small number.

Also, to reiterate: the second statement still appears to be coming from the publisher's blurb. I think it's a primary source in that respect, and is potentially dubious. Both of these statements seem like they might suggest that this is widely practiced or accepted among physicians, and that poses a big problem that may go beyond and RS issue into a problem of promoting a fringe viewpoint. Nblund (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I wonder what it is about the subject of Past Life Regression that causes new information on the subject to be dismissed so easily? A simple google search on the author of the Clinical Hypnosis book “Professor Ursula James at Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen” would have found on the university website http://www.rgu.ac.uk/news/clinical-hypnosis-introduced-to-support-students/

'Clinical Hypnosis is an exciting area of medical practice and we are delighted Professor James has joined our team. We look forward to working with her to develop new courses for the university as well as innovative ways of alleviating stress and improving student performance. Professor James currently heads a team which teaches clinical hypnosis at 11 medical schools in the UK including Oxford and Cambridge. As well as authoring a number of books including The Clinical Hypnosis Textbook'

Her book has been written specifically for training medical doctors in hypnotherapy at university and I would have thought this counted as a suitable reference book to quote from. Also considering the previous quote that it replaced which had been used for a few years was “The technique is not taught as part of any medical internships” and was from an internet site called the Skeptic Dictionary and was part of a critics rambling with no evidence to support it.

Turning to the other book used as a reference “Inner Healing Journey: A Medical Perspective.” Its got 11 patient case studies by 6 medical doctors( two are psychiatrists) of how they have found past life regression assisted in healing when the traditional medical approach was unhelp. An internet search on the author of the book “Dr Peter Mack, singapore” would have found that he is a practicing general surgeon trained in regression therapy which uses past life regression and he explains how it works in great detail in his books and website see http://www.petermack.sg/articles With a little more diligence and internet searches they would have found the book was sponsored by “Society for Medical Advance and Research with Regression Therapy” which has 11 medical doctors from around the world and two psychologists all who have been trained in using past life regression. see http://www.smar-rt.com/members.htm They may done more searches and found a link to the EARTh Association of Regression Therapy http://www.earth-association.org/recognized-training-programs-recognized-trainers/ and found it creates a worldwide standard and has recognised 11 schools programs and has over 200 members from around the world.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Tomlinson (talk • contribs)

So is all this “psudo science” or something that needs to be taken seriously and included to a balanced views in the article on Past Life Regression. As I have a vested interest its best I withdraw but ask for an editor to pick it up and update the article. While the books mentioned and Dr Peter Mack’s website may be a useful starting point I’m willing to help if asked. Andy Tomlinson (talk) 11:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's pseudoscience. The lack of references in credible sources speaks volumes: the websites you list are all basically selling it. The appeal to anecdote (aka "case studies") used in place of robustly designed trials is also a dead giveaway. That's how chiropractors claim to cure colic and homeopaths claim to cure... well, anything. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Professor Ursula James, the author of the Clinical Hypnosis textbook, also claims to have been taught healing magic by the spirit of a 16th-century prophetess.[6] She is not a credible source for medical information. KateWishing (talk) 17:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a book of fiction that she wrote and as the universities she teaches in are not interested in her personal activities why should Wikipedia. Andy Tomlinson (talk) 17:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

catalogue of open source software confer notability

Several editors have attempted to argue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuleap (project management) that http://www.dhbw-stuttgart.de/fileadmin/dateien/KOS/pub_kos.content_1.2015.band1.pdf confers notability on Tuleap. I don't believe it does. These editors appear to be active editors of open source software and I believe that they are grasping at straws here. By extension, if it is significant coverage, then every other product listed in the catalogue is inherently notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Obviously not, it is a directory listing. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a reasonable source to show that the software exists, but does nothing to show notability.- MrX 13:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but has somebody clicked on the link? It's not a catalogue at all. It's a collection of student group theses, published as a report by the Kompentenzzentrum Open Source (KOS) (a research center on open source by the department of Business Informatics at DHBW Stuttgart). The individual reports compare and evaluate open source tools for different purposes. People may be confused by the Word "Katalog", but the "Katalog" in question is just a scheme of evaluation criteria applied to the tools. This is certainly only gray literature, but it is an independent academic reference, and the fact that the KOS has published it as a report means that it has passed at least the scrutiny of the grading professor. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I did click the link and I read it, in German. It is just a catalogue. Knowing that it was only students makes it all the less notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

In that case, we may need go agree to disagree. Let it be on the record that this native German speaker does not think it's a catalogue, and is somewhat confused as to why other people would think that. Also note that the reports, while written by students, are ordered and paid for by industry, and go through quality control of the KOS and its professors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

itv.com

How reliable is itv.com as a source? To give an example, Katie Hopkins' recent brain surgery was added here citing the website. I followed this up at Talk:Katie Hopkins#Surgery (and relation to WP:BLPSOURCES) as a search for better sources brought up little more than the "usual suspects" such as the Daily Mail which I would, by and large, avoid like the plague on BLPs, tabloids and similar "gossip" publications, and finally itv.com? While ITV itself can produce high quality work (I am impartial to a bit of Morse and Lewis myself), I'm concerned that the website typically focuses too much on celebrity-focused sensational gossip, and a story that is genuinely worth reporting will appear in high-quality publications such as BBC News or The Guardian. What does anyone else think? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd say ITV_News is reliable enough to use. It isn't user-generated, it's professionally written and it has editorial oversight. NYTimes and BBC are clearly better, but Wikipedia itself has many articles that are themselves celebrity-focused, so ITV News has its place here. If you just want a better or additional source for this particular fact, the matter is also covered in several other sources. I will add, though, that I don't usually work BLP. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Er, did you look at the search results you supplied? I got stereotypical WP:BLPSOURCES violating tabloid fodder; I especially note the Irish Independent source claiming Lily Allen called her a "massive twat" - wholly unnecessary for a BLP I think. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I did. Considering that Hopkins gave The Sun a direct interview, I'd infer that she at least considers them worthwhile. The "massive" comment is a direct quote attributed to one of Hopkins' critics. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Two sources needing feedback

I would like, please, feedback on whether or not these two sources are good:

• http://www.abeatingheart.ca/say-dog-meat-toronto-marching/
• http://www.pawsforthenews.tv/1news/1featured-news/it-is-legal-to-consume-dogs-and-cats-in-canada/

The content it supports is:

"...In Canada, it is legal to sell and serve cat meat if the animal is free of disease and an inspector of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency witnesses the killing of the cat..."

Many thanks.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Both sources are valid. This is the law in Canada...Anna does not know anything about Canada, so she is a little confused...please forgive her -:) IQ125 (talk) 12:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey, come on IQ125. A quick search produces many sources that say that Canada allows the consumption of dog meat, including CBC News and The Toronto Star. Cats are harder to corroborate. But if it is the law in Canada, laws are public knowledge. The law itself would be citable as a source.

However, A Beating Heart's About Us page shows that it is a personal site run by a non-expert. It's not RS. Paws for the News doesn't seem to have an About Us page, so I can't tell if it has editorial oversight. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Darkfrog24. I agree. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Both are correct citations, you can eat doggies and kitties in Canada...YUMMY -:) IQ125 (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Jaime Alguersuari

Jaime Alguersuari (ex-Formula One racing driver, now retired) posted a photo on Twitter / Instagram of himself kissing another guy with the caption "Yes I am gay hahahah" (he is on the left in the photo: [7]) An editor has updated Alguersuari's page to state this as fact [8] but many people seem to be treating it as a joke. Alguersuari is a bon viveur to say the least. I know Twitter and Instagram are poor reference material but I've got nothing else to go on – it doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere else yet. Should we wait for a proper interview or something? What's the form regarding self-published stuff like this on social media? Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll be brutally honest and say that I haven't seen anyone take it as a joke, leading me to believe it is cast-iron fact. Considering that the source comes from Alguersuari himself, this makes it more credible than a secondary source in my honest opinion. Spa-Franks (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of comments on that Instagram post suggesting it's a joke. That's the problem with this kind of source. You seem easily convinced. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT: Wikipedia has a policy specifically for things like this, WP:TWITTER. If this is Alguersuari's official account, then it is RS for things that he says about himself. However, it sounds like you're not sure if people have been interpreting what he said in the caption correctly, that you can't tell if he was kidding or not. For that, I would say yes, wait for corroboration. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's basically what it comes down to. I can't tell if he's joking or not, although Spa-Franks is convinced. Someone saying he's gay followed by a big "hahahahaha" doesn't seem like a very serious declaration to me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

In normal usage, "hahaha" indicates that one ought not take the prior statement with any credulity at all. Collect (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

"hahahah" indicates he is laughing, therefore his tweet was implied to be a joke. This information should not be added to the BLP until/unless it is reported by an independent reliable source. Meatsgains (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, this source notes "the Formula One driver might not be gay after all." Meatsgains (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, everyone. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Library of Congress

I have been using LCCN entries for people as sources for their birthdates for a little while now, assuming it was reliable. But now, when I was looking up Chuck Cleaver's entry on there [9] to see if his birthdate was listed there, I noticed that one phrase, sourced to "Wikipedia website", appears in his LCCN entry, leading me to suspect that LCCN entries are not reliable sources, at least not for BLPs. I would like to know what others think. Everymorning (talk) 01:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Freeze

Was the character created for the TV show and loosely based on an obscure one-off comic villain, or created for the comic and renamed/popularized by the TV show?

The line between these two is extremely blurry, there is a dispute between me and User:Darkknight2149 over how our article should be worded on this point. A problem is that the majority of sources that discuss the problem in detail can be interpreted either way. No "full history" of the character can completely neglect either the fact that a similar character first appeared in the comics in 1959 or the fact that said character was essentially a one-off until the TV show renamed and popularized him. Thus, Darkknight2149 and I have interpreted this source differently. A lot of sources are also written "semi-in-universe": within the universe of the comics "Mr. Zero" and "Mr. Freeze" were later determined to be the same person. So a lot of sources simply say "the character first appeared in 1959". It is my view that sources saying the character first appeared in 1959 cannot be used for the claim that the character was not created for the TV show and loosely based on a one-off villain from the comics, because they are taking the in-universe retcon that the two are the same person as a matter of fact.

In my opinion, the only source already cited that explicitly states one way or the other is this Escapist video, which says the TV show created Mr. Freeze, loosely basing him on an obscure character with a different name. Darkknight2149 appears to be of the opinion that a source saying the character first appeared in 1959 under the name "Mr. Zero" is adequate to dismiss the assertion that the character was created for the TV show.

I proposed that we say the sources are divided on the issue, with some saying the character first appeared in the comics in 1959, and others saying the character who appeared in 1959 was a loose inspiration for the character who was largely created for the TV show. I am not yet sure what Darkknight2149's opinion on this proposal is.

Sorry to post this on RSN, but since the sources (or lack thereof) are the problem here, in that they can almost all be interpreted either way, I thought it reasonable. It's my opinion that taking a source that says "First appearance: 1959" to reject the claim in a reliable source that the character was created for the TV show is borderline OR, but posting this on ORN would have been a worse option.

Any thoughts?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Based solely on what you're saying here, saying that the sources are split on whether this is one character or two etc. seems like the way to go. However, if you need more direct options for help, why not post a request for more voices at the talk page for Wikiproject Comics? That may be a good place to get editors with the expertise you need. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: Okay, I took a closer look at your conversation and the sources that DK offered and I think I know something that might help. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The nature of Nippon.com

I can't quite get a handle on the nature of the nippon.com website. It clearly isn't a conventional news site nor is it merely a blog as it has an editorial board. The website does not appear to be an online extension of a dead tree magazine or journal either.

The page/article/editorial (what is it?) that I'm using as a source is written by an apparently reputable academic, so it's reliability per se seems established. I'm trying to figure out how to properly cite it - none of "cite news/editorial/blog" appear to me to be a comfortable fit. Help! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

References

You could ask user:Hijiri88, who is in Japan and usually well informed on such things. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Hijiri88... -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: @Dodger67: Emailed both of you. That's all I'm gonna say on-wiki for the time being. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources at NamePros

There is some difference of opinion regarding the reliability of sources for this article per WP:BLOG. Can visitors to this noticeboard please comment on whether or not the following websites are considered as reliable sources for the history, desciption and services of the domain forum, NamePros?

• DomainerIncome.com
  • From the About page of the website it appears to be the work of one person.[10] However they do accept advertising.[11]
  • At present the DomainerIncome.com site is used to ID the founder, founding date of the forum and to support this text:
    • "NamePros started to see success around June, 2003, four months after its launch. Ron James dismissed the idea of adopting a subscription business model, favoring free services."
• DomainGang.com
  • There is no indication on the About page that the site has any editorial staff [12]
  • This page [13] is being used to support this text:
    • "Bodis, a domain parking company, acquired NamePros in January, 2012. Speculation circulating around blogs and other communities point to a sale price in the range of $200,000 to $300,000 USD. Rumors of the sale began as early as January 11. By January 19, Matt Wegrzyn, owner of Bodis, had publicly confirmed the acquisition. Matt Wegrzyn hinted that improvements to the website and its services would follow and stated that Bodis continue to keep NamePros an open community. Former owner Ron James noted that Bodis had better resources and would be capable of supporting NamePros' continued growth."

Any comments or insights? Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The Coast

The Coast is a weekly publication in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Is this article suitable to support the following claim on the Frankie MacDonald page:

In 2016 CTV Atlantic meteorologist Cindy Day made online comments perceived by some to be insulting towards MacDonald and a Change.org petition was launched demanding that she be fired.