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

Source does not include Mike Singletary

[1]

Warren Sapp

At the time of his retirement, Sapp was one of only six defensive players in NFL history to make the Pro Bowl, be named Defensive Player of the Year and win a Super Bowl or pre-Super-Bowl NFL title. The others are Mean Joe Greene, Jack Lambert, Lester Hayes, Lawrence Taylor, Bob Sanders, Reggie White, Ed Reed, Ray Lewis and Sapp's former teammate, Derrick Brooks.

Primary vs. Third-party source conflict: Team (Iggy Azalea song)

"Team" is a new single released by Iggy Azalea. According to the writing credits on Tidal where the single was released: 12 writers wrote the song (See here for a third-party source). However, Azalea herself has said on Twitter that this is not accurate, specifically referring to the Wikipedia article of the song (See her tweet here). According to her, only 7 writers were involved.

It is likely that the 5 people she claims did not write the song, did not write the song's lyrics. But they have been credited as writers for other reasons which Azalea has most likely overlooked; 3 of them are credited for the sample of "Back that Azz Up" the song uses, while the other two are producers most likely credited for composing a melody (this is common practice in pop music). My view is that that I highly doubt her record label would release the single accompanied by incorrect writing credits. She has most likely overlooked that the writers of "Back that Azz Up" are credited because "Team" samples the song, and the other two producers most likely credited as composers of a melody not a lyric.

In such a situation which is the best source to use?

I can see this potentially causing an edit war at the article page especially with Azalea's tweet referring to it. Instagram Camera (talk)

Perhaps the best solution is to follow the Tidal for the credits listing and then cite the tweet in the context of text noting the discrepancy. I'm not sure whether the Fusion article meets RS / Undue.Martinlc (talk) 09:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

US Airways magazine

This source is a copyright violation scan of US Airways magazine. It says, about getting the "real" cheesesteak experience, "You must wait in a long line, along walls tiled with autographed headshots of celebrities, and have a surly staff serve you." It then mentions Jim's Steaks. Is this a reliable source for saying specifically about Jim's, "Jim's has been frequented by celebrities. Headshots, photos, and autographs of celebrities that have dined at the restaurant can be seen on the wall."

1) Is US Airways magazine a reliable source?

2) Should we link to the scan?

3) Does the source support the material? - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Given that my answer to 3) is "no", then the other questions are irrelevant. "Walls [are] tiled with autographed headshots of celebrities" could just as easily mean "the manager bought some decorations on eBay", so it can't be used to say "these autographed headshots are from people who actually ate here". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd also answer "no" to the first two questions: in-flight magazines from airlines tend to be promotional, and not a reliable source of information on their subjects, and links to copyright violations are not permitted by the policy WP:LINKVIO. Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• No to all 3 questions for the reasons given by Nick and WhatamIdoing. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

No to all three questions as well. If the source does not support the material, then the other questions are irrelevant. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 15:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with all this. However, I would add that online links are not required as part of a source. If a print source is reliable (not in this case) but is supported by a link to a copyright-violating scan, the link should be removed but the source should remain. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The Green Papers

This source [2], is currently being used on the political status for the 2016 United States Election. A number of editors though have questioned how reliable it is Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016#Delegate count as the delegate count differs from major sources like NYT/CNN/AP. So my question is should this source even be used? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd give it the snip if most sources disagree, unless it provides a good argument somewhere for why it has the true count - in which case we'd still cite both of the number. But I'd say we go with the count CNN, The New York Times, etc. report. 172.58.224.235 (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• The Green Papers have had a long history of being very accurate & comprehensive in their coverage of U.S. electoral results. Guy1890 (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Are scientists reliable sources for the philosophy of science, or do we need to cite philosophers?

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

---

Currently, there is disagreement on the argument from authority page over whether Carl Sagan's book can be cited. The page quotes his book The Demon-Haunted World saying "One of the great commandments of science is, 'Mistrust arguments from authority.'...Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else". It also cites a biology education journal that discusses an example of an appeal to authority that lead the scientific community into error, and concludes "we did not follow the scientific paradigm when we put our trust in an authority". However these were removed and disputed by an editor because the "Cited sources are not logicians, thus not reliable sources on the subject of this article". I contend that since these are sources that're about the method of science that address arguments from authority, they are reliable sources for how much weight these sorts of argument carry in science specifically.

So, are these reliable sources for the article? FL or Atlanta (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This page has a very long running argument evidently. I tried to help it out earlier. I will say (and this is not to be taken that I'm siding or not siding with any side on the page overall) that scientists are reliable sources as far as logical fallacies in science go. I have difficulty imagining someone suggesting we cannot cite scientists on science and not be trying to push a point of view. It sounds like one side might not like what scientists typically say about this so they wish to exclude them. As WP:RELIABLE says, "all majority and significant minority views" should be expressed - emphasis in original! So it is not a matter of "exclude this group, this group disagrees" but we let the reader know "this group says this and that group that". TheLogician112 (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Carl Sagan was an "expert in the field" regarding that specific topic - therefore his opinion, sourced and cited as opinion, is notable. The facts cited in the WP:RS journal can be cited as facts, and do not need to be treated as opinion. Usage in any article is, of course, subject to reasoned consensus, but there is no blatant defect in them that I can see. Collect (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It shouldn't even be controversial that reliable sources talking about these sorts of arguments in science are good sources for how these arguments should be viewed in science. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Are scientists reliable sources on the philosophy of science? No. Reliable sources on the philosophy of science are philosophers of science, their peer-reviewed publications, etc. They are the people who have received extensive training on the philosophy of science, familiarize themselves with the relevant literature on philosophy of science, subject their work to scrutiny from other experts on philosophy of science, etc. Scientists usually do not do these things, because they work in different fields; that is why practically every work of philosophy of science is written by a philosopher of science and not by a scientist. It's hardly unusual to think that the reliable sources in a given field of study are the people who work in that field professionally. Lord Mondegreen (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Both sources are talking about the philosophy of science, discussing how we should know things in science so this is a non-issue. Saying scientists needs philosophers to tell them how to do their job and that we should only listen to professional philosophers when it comes to this is absurd - you're advocating for philosopher kings who lord over scientists on the subject of science despite not even being scientists themselves. FL or Atlanta (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, since you agree that these sources are talking about the philosophy of science, I don't know in what way you could think it a "non-issue" for me to say that the relevant authorities on philosophy of science are philosophers of science.

I have not said that "scientists need[] philosophers to to tell them how to do their job," or any of the other ridiculous and hyperbolic things which you attribute to me.

How about approaching this discussion as a discussion, rather than as an opportunity to grandstand about philosopher kings and the like? Lord Mondegreen (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I was saying its a non-issue precisely because these sources are talking about the philosophy of science. So since they're reliable sources, they're reliable for claims about the philosophy of science.

And that is precisely what you are saying. If we can't cite scientists for how science should work, only philosophers, is that not saying we need philosophers to to tell us how science should work? FL or Atlanta (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I think they would be reliable sources on astrophysics, in the case of Sagan, or biology, in the case of Mertens. From this, it of course does not follow that they are reliable sources on informal logic and the philosophy of science, which are the fields implicated by the claim in question. The inference "They're reliable sources, so they're reliable sources about phil. sci." ignores the role of context in determining whether a source is reliable.

I am saying that, in making claims about informal logic and the philosophy of science, we should defer to logicians and philosophers of science. Suggesting that an article on Wikipedia, which has a policy of deferring to reliable sources, should defer to experts in the relevant field is hardly suggesting that those experts should be able to "lord over" anyone outside the context of editing Wikipedia articles. Lord Mondegreen (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The most preferred sources are of course experts in a particular subfield. There is no rule that says these are the only experts which can be cited in a particular article. Gamaliel (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Scientists talking about science, especially very well known and reliable ones, are reliable sources for what's valid scientific evidence. I couldn't think of someone more reliable than Carl Sagan here, especially when backed up by an article in a biology journal about the exact matter in dispute. 172.58.224.235 (talk) 06:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Carl Sagan is NOT an expert in the topic of the article: logic, which is a part of philosophy. Argument from authority is not science and is not philosophy of science. I am pretty sure he is not an expert in philosophy of science either. So I agree with Lord Mondegreen. Of course, Sagan is a very notable figure and an expert in a number of scientific fields like astronomy listed in the first paragraph of our article on him. He could be attributed in wiki-voice to sentences about the subject matters to which he is an expert, but not as an expert on "appeal from authority".

However, I did skim over the dispute about whether Painter's chromosome count is an example of a problem with argument from authority, and it is interesting. I am amazed at the amount of text spilled over whether this example is appropriate or not for our article. From what I read I feel like I see both sides and there is no "right" answer on whether it is appropriate to include it (but I have not read the WP:RS, so I might change my mind if I do read it.) Even if we could find zero logicians, philosophers or philosophers of science in WP:RS commenting on whether this is an appropriate example of argument from authority, I am not 100% convinced that means it could not be included as an example in the article, just as saying 1+7=8 as example of addition would be okay in an article on addition, even if we found no mathematicians in RS who cited that specific instance/example. However, if there is no consensus to include a specific example, I think that would kill it if it could not be found in RS in the subject of the article, as then it would be an editorial decision.

But this leads to another interesting problem. Let's say we had a consensus of editors who are incredibly bad at math and mistakenly believe some untruth about math, possibly one that is popular or some myth that is circulating. Let's say they wanted to include an example such as 1+7=9 that any mathematician knows is wrong. Those competent in math would be outraged and say, "no mathematician would ever include this example, because it is not true. Find me ANY RS that supports it." But the other editors are insistent that it is valid and put it in, over the expert's objections--after all we have no mechanism to establish subject matter expertise. And worse, the "consensus" group and one of the their friendly admins even bans the mathematician for being "incompetent" in math and being overly irate and uncivil. I honestly could see that happening. Originally, as someone who has studied both science and philosophy, I suspected that was happening here, but further reading on the dispute made me more partial to the chromosome example and the possibility of quoting Sagan as a prominent publicly known science figure (even though he is not an expert in logic/philosophy)--just as long as it is a valid example of argument from authority... But obviously there is a huge disagreement on that... --David Tornheim (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• And to sweeten this argument from authority argument, consider that most WP arguments are over which authority to argue from! Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• The fundamental problem with including the example this question revolves around is that it doesn't fit the criteria for a fallacious version of the argument. Painter was an acknowledged expert in the field speaking to his expertise, not stating a controversial opinion, not joking or drunk and the fact that his count was eventually overturned shows that it wasn't taken as being certainly true. The two who want to include it have both argued that appealing to any authority is fallacious, under any circumstances. Hence, they say, this illustrates the fallacy. Of course, their argument hinges upon cited sources, the irony of which seems to be mostly lost on them. Additionally, the citation to Sagan contains the quote "Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts." The connotations of this are, again, lost on those arguing for inclusion.

As an additional point, I would like to say to anyone who considers these people experts; why then, are there degrees in logic which have different criteria than degrees in science? If being a scientist makes one an expert on the philosophy of science, why then are there degrees in Philosophy of science? More to the point, why do those we refer to as philosophers of science or logicians have these separate degrees? Why do we refer to people with degrees in physics, biology or astronomy as physicists, biologists or astronomers, instead of calling them logicians or philosophers of science? The obvious answer is, of course, obvious and correct. Because they are not. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• This is an issue for WP:NPOVN and not WP:RSN, as far as I can see. The real objection people are raising to its inclusion seems to be that it is giving it WP:UNDUE weight. Nobody denies that these are Sagan's opinions; the question is whether the article should cover his opinions, which is a WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE issue rather than a question of whether his book passes WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, of course you should cite scientists, especially Sagan, who wrote prolifically about science, religion and philosophy. Most professional scientists are necessarily highly knowledgeable in the history of their subdiscipline, and many scientists know and publish on the history of science and philosophy beyond their specialization. Another reason to cite scientists is that they will tend to have a different and valuable perspective on the philosophy and history of science. -Darouet (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC) Amendment to position: just because Sagan has decried the invalid invocation of the argument from authority by scientists does not mean that particular quote should appear in the lead section of the article Argument from authority. -Darouet (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Darouet: I just wanted to point out that, as Aquillion mentioned above, the issue here is a matter of weight. The article has plenty of reliable sources from logicians and philosophers accurately describing the argument as only being fallacious when made under certain conditions. The proposal to include this seems to be based on the assumption that Sagan (while likely quite knowledgeable on the subject) is an expert on equal standing to that of logicians and philosophers, and as such, the statements Sagan made in a popular science book can be used to demonstrate the supposed contentiousness (or possibly wrongness, I can't speak for other editor's private thoughts) of a claim made in academic and scholarly books by quite literally every logician who's cited in the article (and a number of others who just weren't needed). Also, I'm not arguing with you, I'm rather agreeing with you. Just in a more wordy, detailed way. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: thanks for your comment and I get where you're coming from. I agree that this edit attempting to add Sagan's comment in the lead is totally wrong because it gives undue weight both to Sagan's views as a whole and to the point he is making in the context of the larger article. That said, when thinking about other applications, scientists are likely to take more seriously what other scientists write on philosophy, religion and the history of science, and less seriously what logicians and philosophers write. But this discussion is pointless here since we seem to be agreeing. -Darouet (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

lol it looks like the philosophy majors are out in force today. On science we trust scientists. They're natural philosophers. If a philosopher - who's work can't be put to the test and which gets thrown into a journal to be forgotten and never actially does anything - disagrees with a scientist, who's work we can actually test and which makes predictions, we should go with the scientist every time. Include both but the scientists take precendece for the article. 172.58.224.134 (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I take it we don't need to give much weight to a comment that straight up tells us to ignore the opinions of scholars in the relevant field. Lord Mondegreen (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

This conversation is useless if we attempt to apply it globally: there was a specific dispute regarding the lead at Argument from authority and I think it appears to be resolved? -Darouet (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Not even close. I can't speak for another editor's thoughts, but I'm pretty well convinced that this argument will never be over unless the article is changed to say that appealing to an authority is always a fallacy. That is the stated position of the editors pushing for the example and it is the impression that would be given by including it. Frankly, I'm rather reminded of the Creation–evolution controversy. There's literally no way to convince someone who's unwilling to be convinced. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

All of the accusations you give here have already been answered - no one's trying to make it say its always a fallacy. The only topic to discuss here at the RSN is whether these are reliable sources for that page. It isn't a place to discuss the text on the page, or any issue with it specifically. The only question is whether these are appropriate sources for the page. FL or Atlanta (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Documents uploaded to ScribD

Key issue here is document uploaded to ScribD. Secondary issue is a second insufficiently cited ref, used inappropriately.

As an occupational lung disease, it is most classically associated with aerospace manufacturing, beryllium mining or manufacturing of fluorescent light bulbs (which once contained beryllium compounds in their internal phosphor coating).

References

--Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• In my view the first source, which is a document at ScribD uploaded by account that claims to be "US army" is not reliable. Like Wikipedia, anybody can create an account on ScribD and upload whatever they like. The source is not particularly helpful as there are far better ones one that describe the various ways that beryllium was used. The second source is in my view useless as a) there is not enough detail to allow anyone to go find and read it to see if actually verifies anything - and more importantly, its sole purpose seems to be to argue with the content and other source. This all was all in the lead (only) of Berylliosis, a medical caused by exposure to beryllium, so I had just deleted it. Others have disagreed.

  Anyway, please do comment on the reliability of documents uploaded to ScribD, and what the heck should be done with the 2nd source. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

  I think the Army document can be authenticated by calling the phone number provided in said document. I don't see a reason to discard it based solely on the fact it's uploaded to Scribd without first making that check. The general case of Scribd, I agree, is unreliable without some authenticity checking. --Izno (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Glad you agree on ScribD, generally. But no, some editor calling the number cannot authenticate the source; no editor here has authority to authenticate anything - the publisher itself has to be reliable and scribD is not reliable - it is a wiki. Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Clearly, Scribd is often used to provide documents that are copyright violations, no question. But it is often the case that these documents have been published before in some medium (often behind a paywall). If you see a document on Scribd and can verify that that is the same as the original published document, then the reliability is based on that original source, not what Scribd puts up. Of course, you 100% cannot link to the Scribd version but you can still form a valid citation to the original document and publication from it. --MASEM (t) 19:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm with Masem except with one (major) caveat. If one can verify that the document on ScribD is the same as one which was reliably published, then there's nothing wrong with using it to determine if it can serve as a source for such a claim. However, I'm having trouble imagining how the ability to verify such a document in that sense is in any way different from the ability to access the original document. So what exactly would one need the ScribD document for? (Someone could, for example, copy the abstract, title and authorship from one paper which is publicly accessible, then fill the body with anything they wanted and upload that to ScribD. In that case, you'd need to get behind the paywall to verify it, and I would not put it past anyone, even our esteemed colleagues here on WP to try such a dirty trick if it advanced their deeply held views.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You have nailed it, MjolnirPants. If the source is the document on ScribD it is not reliable. You have to cite the actual publication, not this secondary instance of something that may be "it" or maybe some doctored version of "it". I could upload a contract from the City of New York deeding to me the Brooklyn Bridge and stick fancy seals on it and everything. It is a wide open vehicle for mischief. As a publisher it has absolutely no reputation for fact checking etc. it is just a place for people to upload whatever junk they want - authentic, fake -- we have no way of knowing. Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the Scribd account "Army" which has uploaded it, they have uploaded seven thousand similar pamphlets. Now either this is a genuine Army PR account, or that is an implausibly complicated scam, merely to confuse Jytdog with seemingly accurate reports of beryllium hazards.

Sometimes, when you hear hoofbeats, it's just a pony and not a zebra. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Or perhaps it's someone who enjoys uploading fake documents. Or perhaps it's part of the setup for an augmented reality game. Or perhaps it's an archive for a fiction writer who wants to do some world building. Or perhaps it's just some guy who like uploading Army docs and who may or may not have some fake ones mixed in. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Can we simply use a different source? Say this book by the National Research Council? Gamaliel (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

yes - when i removed this i replaced it with well-sourced encyclopedic content in the body of the article (this is an article about a disease, not about the metal and its uses; the "argument" in the 2nd source above is silly and OFFTARGET and was only in the lead):

Berylliosis is an occupational disease. Relevant occupations are those where beryllium is mined, processed or converted into metal alloys, or where machining of metals containing beryllium and recycling of scrap alloys occurs.

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• would also appreciate comments on the 2nd source in my OP way above, which is, in my view, insufficiently described to allow anything to be VERIFIED from it. Besides its function being just to argue in a bizarre way. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I have not read the GE paper (I'm not in the US) but it is very widely cited in other RS sources dealing with the broad topic. As there is a direct quote from it, then I assume that some editor in the article's past history has read it. Certainly it should be easy enough for anyone with decent library access to get hold of it. I also note that it is NOT a requirement, per Wikipedia:SOURCEACCESS, that this source is available easily, immediately or on-line.

As to its relevance, then it shows that GE removed beryllia from the tube phosphors in 1949, on safety grounds. I was unaware that beryllia had ever been used in these phosphors, but I am familiar with the hazards of tube cleanup after breakages (which means mercury these days). The idea of this phosphor containing beryllia is something that I'm very glad they got rid of. It's entirely relevant to berylliosis.

You have described this source as both "insufficiently cited" and "used inappropriately", yet it is not clear what the problem is on either count. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes this is what you said elsewhere. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never good reasoning in WP. Besides the way the citation is being used to make some OFFTOPIC argument about whether and when Be was used in fluorescent light bulbs, the problem is that there is insufficient information in the citation to even go find it. What is that? An internal GE specifications document? Some little piece of paper that comes inside a light fixture when I buy it? I have no idea. Andy, this is a scholarship 101 thing and goes to the heart of why we provide citations. " While you should try to write citations correctly, what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source." (from WP:Citing sources) Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

And what is your actual, this-is-about-providing-great-content reason for wanting to hang on to some half-cited, badly-used source when there are scads are perfectly decent sources that could be used, as Gamaliel common-sensically noted above? You are just arguing this to be WP:POINTy. Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure, accessibility is not required, but common sense is. Should we really be citing decades old technical reports from a manufacturer when there are more current sources available digitally? And that citation is completely inadequate. Accessibility is not required, but citing your source sufficiently so people know what the heck you are citing is. I was only able to figure out what that source was after finding a proper citation to the same report somewhere else. Gamaliel (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You've heard of General Electric, right? GE's technical report TP-111 is an unambiguous and sufficient identifier for the document, even if it's not an easy route to finding it. We should cite "decades old technical reports from a manufacturer" because it is being used to cite that same manufacturer's actions 25 years even earlier. What better source would you expect? Besides which, I had already added the 1946 J. Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology paper on the same subject, part of what Jytdog chose to describe as "crappy, OFFTOPIC content". Andy Dingley (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• ScribD is not reliable due to zero editorial control or verification of docs that are posted there. Documents hosted there *may* be cited but only if their authenticity can be verified elsewhere - in line with our policies regarding sourcing/citing/verification etc. Something just sourced to a document uploaded to ScribD is an obvious no-no. We would be very unlikely to use Wikia hosted material, or megaupload etc as a source for anything, the same applies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• ScribD is pretty much covered, so I'll address the second source. I would not generally accept this as a reliable source. It's a primary source with no signs of editorial oversight. So, at most, you could write the article to say "According to a 1978 technical report, GE has used relatively inert phosphates since 1948." However, this is still not reliable for making any claims about today and the sentence in the article, the way it is written, is an example of original research. The quote from the document doesn't make any claims on the likeliness that a person will encounter the older beryllium lamps, especially in the year 2016. So this source is certainly not reliable for the statement in the WP article and it's also not reliable for any claims made regarding the present. I hope this helps make it clearer.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Michelle Goldberg

Do we have reason to believe that Michelle Goldberg is an expert on anti-semitism, anti-semitic tropes, the Zeitgeist Movement, the Zeitgeist film series, or the movie producer Peter Joseph? Some editors here insist that her comments on the Zeitgeist film are factual and must be in the article. I am concerned that her remarks are non-factual (pure opinion) and border-line libelous about a living person, and we should not be repeating them in WP. The remarks are particularly obtuse because the films do not mention Jewish people or Israel, and the real experts on antisemitism (the ADL) make no similar pronouncement. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I would've thought this would've been resolved a long while ago since it's a fairly blatant and obvious smear. She doesn't appear to be a notable journalist or pundit, and her claims about this film or "movement" -- which are being presented as fact, clearly in violation of WP:V and WP:RS, stating an opinion is one thing, stating it as fact as another -- are not backed by evidence. I don't know similar this situation is to that of David Icke, who was also -- and from time to time continues to be -- hysterically attacked as being an antisemite, based on his claims about the Rothschild family, his outspoken criticism of the State of Israel and Zionist ideology, and some positive comments he once made in passing reference when the subject of American "patriot" militias had been brought up. He also that Queen Elizabeth, Dick Cheney, every member of the Bush family and the entire population of European royalty and aristocracy are reptilians from another dimension feeding on our fear and sacrificing babies in Satanic blood rituals. In spite of the fact that many of Icke's beliefs and theories are so utterly bizarre and over-the-top, he was never taken seriously by the media, mainstream, tabloid and otherwise. But the few people who accused him of being a genocidal antisemite (might as well have just started calling him Hitler II) believed he constituted a terror threat and used that to try to get him banned from entering whichever country he was headed to on his lecture tour. In spite of the massive amounts of funds used to promote these claims and allegations regarding Icke, they were all total failures and no longer carry any credible weight. While the article on Icke is still a rather biased and condescending mess, it's nowhere near as biased as it was a few years back.

With this Zeitgeist thing, it's the total opposite. If there is some kind of consensus that it is apocalyptic antisemitic propaganda, apparently most media outlets don't know that because they're not repeating these claims and allegations, let alone repeat them as fact.

The undue weight being given to Goldberg's sensationalistic and tabloid claims, especially considering that it is absolute hearsay, and hearsay from an utterly non-notable "journalist." Judging from the low quality of her sloppy articles, to use her as a credible source on Wikipedia is an embarrassment to this project and makes about as much sense as using David Duke as a credible source regarding the history of the so-called "white race."

What I'd like to know why anyone would be aggressively pushing so hard for this one particular source to be used, when no other sources bother to even acknowledge the existence of such allegations. This is a textbook example of WP:UNDUE. Laval (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Michelle Goldberg is a well known journalist writing in a well known publication. Its reliable. The paper in which she wrote this story is notable Tablet (magazine). She is a major journalist, she has written for many major media outlets. I think people may be confused in regard to the article. Its just a journalistic piece. The information has been in the article for years. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Do we have reason to believe that Michelle Goldberg is an expert on anti-semitism, anti-semitic tropes, the Zeitgeist Movement, the Zeitgeist film series, or the movie producer Peter Joseph? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

We do have reason to believe that the Tablet thought she was an appropriate person to review the film and that the article merited publication.Martinlc (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You are arguing 'reliable source' when really you should be arguing 'due weight'. Goldberg is a journalist writing for a magazine with editorial oversight, as such they would be considered a reliable source. Thats the end of the discussion for the Reliable Source noticeboard. However Goldberg is not a particularly notable journalist and the Tablet is described by wikipedia as "Tablet magazine is an American Jewish general interest online magazine sponsored by Nextbook.[1]" - neither of which make them particularly qualified for their opinions to be mentioned specifically in articles. Just because something can be reliably sourced does not make it necessary to include it. Either way thats a consensus discussion for the article's talk page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The question is whether her opinion of "antisemitism" is qualified by any expertise, or is Goldberg simply salting her article with colorful invective and opinion, as many reviewers do. In short, is her statement an item of "information" that is of Encyclopedic quality from an expert, as the editor claims in the edit note, or is it merely throwaway opinionated barb. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

[3] Not sure why the question is being raised so aggressively about her journalistic chops or ability and it seems some editors are picking a side against her in an unreasonable emotional way perhaps because of the information she is presenting. She is well known and respected and her piece on the Zeitgeist movement has been included in the article for years. There are some editors that routinely try to alter or put a positive gloss on Zeitgeist/Venus Project articles. That has been a long standing problem. Goldberg is an important thoughtful professional writer with vast experience and is highly respected and she has written for many world wide literary publications of note.. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• I just want to point out that there are very few experts on "anti-semitism, anti-semetic tropes, the zeitgeist movement, the zeitgeist film series or their producer, Peter Joseph." If we limited our commentary of those subjects to those who are acknowledged as experts in that particular field, we'd likely not have any material on them beyond a stub or possibly a short article about anti-semitism. The suggestion that one would need to be an expert on a particular film series to be a reliable source for its article, or the suggestion that one would need to be an expert on anti-semitism to be a reliable source for any mention of it is so far beyond ludicrous that is falls squarely into "desperate argument" territory. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• On the contrary, there are a number of recognized experts on anti-semitism. And they are recognized. Declaring someone antisemitic is a cottage industry in some quarters, but most sources do not recognize the diagnosis until someone like Dershowitz or the ADL offers a diagnosis. Only WP listens to non-experts like Goldberg. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Ahem, "A number" and "very few" aren't mutually exclusive. My point was that if claims of anti-semitism could only be sourced by -for instance- the ADL, we'd have almost no material to go by. There aren't tens of thousands of people working for the ADL and other similar groups seeking out anti-semitism and identifying it. Furthermore, the presence or absence of anti-semitism in a work is not something it requires expertise to find. Hell, there's a huge chunk of the internet devoted to extracting and picking apart the underlying meaning and themes of almost every narrative work ever produced. Sometimes, one of those themes will be anti-semitism, and sometimes, that particular work will not register on the ADL's radar. So saying someone needs to be an expert on the particular work, or on the particular theme to discern that theme in that work is ridiculous. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much the same question has been asked by the same editor at RSN before. This is largely a weight question as pointed above and given that few publications have written about the movement, this opinion has quite a lot of weight. Imagining that someone need some professional expertise to express an opinion as to whether a created work is anti-Semetic (sexist? racist? demeaning to Scots?) is absurd.

Incidentally the passage which the editor appears to be objecting to reads, it seems like the world's first Internet-based apocalyptic cult, with members who parrot the party line with cheerful, rote fidelity." Goldberg also wrote that the Zeitgeist movement is centered around a doomsday proclaiming film saying the 2007 documentary was steeped in far-right, isolationist, and covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories". Anti-semitism is only one of the criticisms here and how logically can her opinions be 'factual', they might be unfair in some editor's opinions, but the counter if there is undue weight is to find equally notable journalists writing positive things. Do they exist? Pincrete (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete makes a good point. Are there any RS's stating that the Zeitgeist films are not anti-semitic (or isolationist, or far-right, or whatever)? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

MjolnirPantsEven if there were/are, their purpose would be to 'sit alongside'/counterbalance this one, not to invalidate it. We print the good and the bad in proportion to the coverage and weight, not decide who is right.Pincrete (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: The purpose of the RSN is to establish whether a particular source is reliable for a particular claim. Since the claim is Ms G's opinion of the 'movement' and film, the answer must be yes, she is RS. We cannot answer general questions about the merits or judiciousness of her judgements, which is what the phrasing of this RSN asks us to do. Pincrete (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The Southern Poverty Law Center is also an expert in this field. It's not like the world is crawling with so much antisemitism that you need nerve gas to take them all down. The problem is the Zeitgeist film and Zeitgeist movement are large enough that SPL, ADL, JDL, and many others would name it if it were true -- and they don't. Instead, we have one lone journalist who has no credibility in spotting antisemitism calling it from her perception of "tropes" in a work that does not mention Jews, Judaism, or Israel. This is what we normally call a "fringe opinion." And thank you, I have stated my objections: we do not need them (incorrectly) restated by others. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow. First I'm going to assume the reference to gassing antisemites is just a coincidence and not a tacky and deliberate reference to you know what. Second, you can't infer something is a fringe opinion because of the absence of opinions (known to you) from selected authorities. Something is a fringe opinion if it differs from the academic, mainstream consensus in a fundamental way, not just a simple disagreement or an opinion on a new subject that hasn't been talked about much yet. Gamaliel (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, well The Southern Poverty Law Center is also an expert in this field. It's not like the world is crawling with so much antisemitism that you need nerve gas to take them all down. What this means is unclear to me but it certainly invalidates any coherent argument pro or con. The movement is broadly reported as being a conspiracy cult type of movie. Goldberg is only one voice in that direction. Alex Jones information is part of the first movies presentation and the movie goes to all the familiar places of The Fed, Banking families, hidden meetings, etc. etc. Its hard to say what the thing is about because a lot of it is done for shock value and effect but that is just my opinion which does not count here. Goldberg pretty cleverly over views it in an intellectual critical way. [4] she certainly has a high pedigree as a writer for many significant publications. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Goldberg is a well-known journalist, and she goes into the stuff in detail to describe the anti-Semitic tropes. The WP page (permalink) attributes the opinions to her, which seems fine to me. For a categorical statement that "X is anti-Semitic", one would hope to find some more sources. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Goldberg actually describes the antisemitic tropes? No. Antisemitism is an objective phenomenon, right? Like any other objective phenomenon, either everybody can see it, or Wikipedia requires an expert. But the Zeitgeist movie lays no blame for the Crucifixion of Jesus, does not mention blood libel, ritual murder, or anything else on the Wikipedia page on antisemitic tropes. Zeitgeist does not mention Jews, Jewish, Judaism, or Israel. So it's not right out there obvious like blue sky and wet water. Even Goldberg admits it is "covert" meaning it's hidden. Goldberg asserts she can see something the rest of us cannot see. Her recognized expertise is other subjects, like Christian nationalism, pop culture, and sexism. But nobody here can point to Goldberg's expert status in spotting "covert" antisemitism. In this case, the statement is poorly sourced, and Wales says of that: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It obviously uses a classic conspiracy theory approach to how the world is run and that include Jewish conspiracy concepts and blaming certain groups controlled by that religion. Example, [5] so its not like no one but Goldberg is pointing that out. Anyway, argument for excluding this Goldberg article is defeated and I move this discussion to be closed. Keep. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Once again, no one can find a quote in the the Zeitgeist movie that mentions Jews, Jewish, Judaism, Israel, or any synonyms, and yet Goldberg calls it antisemitic. The Kinney review says that it shares some ideas with 1890s ideas that sometimes shared ideas with antisemitic ideas -- and that is as close as it gets. If another source exists, trot it out. But Goldberg is not an expert, and yet she claims to see things that are hidden from others. And apparently they are very well hidden, because even the professional anti-antisemitics (e.g., Alan Dershowitz, Southern Poverty Law Center, Shurat HaDin‎, Anti-defamation league, Jewish Defense League) cannot find it. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

What do these experts say about the movie or movement? Or are we being asked to interpret their silence as proof that Ms G is 'wrong'? Anti-semitic ideas (racist, sexist, anti-American etc.) are NOT objectively verifiable, the notion that unless we all can see they are anti-s, they don't exist, is patently absurd. Do I take it that you have no objection to Ms G's other criticisms of Zeitgeist, or is this being used to seek to invalidate all her opinion? Pincrete (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC) … … ps a 'movement' is not a living person!

Is there any doubt the movement came from the original movie? The original movie is based on conspiracy theory [6] The classic idea of conspiracy people is blaming the Rothchilds, the Bush family, Mosad, the Fed, etc. etc. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is significant doubt, as everyone familiar with the page and the sources knows by now. Both originated from the Venus movement but one did not come from the other. After all this time working on the page, why would anyone sincerely ask that question? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Or are we being asked to interpret their silence as proof that Ms G is 'wrong'? Yes, of course, if Zeitgeist were in any way antisemitic, every RS mentioning Zeitgeist would mention its antisemitic overtones. The infamy would overshadow anything else. In this case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course, if Zeitgeist were in any way antisemitic, every RS mentioning Zeitgeist would mention its antisemitic overtones. That is one of the most ludicrous statements I've ever seen here. Not only is it OR, it's a straight up informal fallacy. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I wholly concur with MjolnirPants. If Ms Goldberg is 'wrong' (though an opinion, can be many things, but it cannot be wrong), it is up to RS to contradict it, not us. Have they? From my limited contact with this article, some time ago, I recall the biggest problem is the lack of RS saying ANYTHING about either movie or 'movement'. Pincrete (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

As ever, this is opinion which must be cited and ascribed as such. I note that the "anti-Semitism" bit seems to be in reaction to her position that the movement appears to be one predicting "communism" which is likely thus related to her opinions here. Collect (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Would you care to clarify that last remark? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Resolution: Goldberg's statement applies to the first movie, not the Zeitgeist Movement. Previous editors tried to tie that remark to the movement by the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, inserting the language that the first movie "inspired" the movement. But that is contradicted by the Orlando Sentinel source.[7] The Movement was inspired by Jacque Fresco, not Joseph's first movie. I have therefore removed the statement. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

And I have restored it. a) a movement can have more than one 'inspiration', most do … b) an Orlando Weekly feature does not take precedence over a Tablet article … c) it is clearly stated as Ms G's opinion … d)it is fairly explicit in the 'Orlando' source that the movement would not exist without the films having 'carried the message', this last point alone would justify her 'inspired by' the films. What Ms G actually says is that the movement was 'sparked by' the film. I have amended the text accordingly. Now there is no contradiction with the source(s) as to who 'inspired' the movement. amended Pincrete (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thus Grammar, having failed to convince anyone that Ms G is not a RS for her own opinions, having failed to convince that she is not competent to evaluate anti-semitism, you simply OR a claim that she is wrong on a minor technicality Why exactly is Ms G. not allowed to do WP:OR or to interpret sources, isn't that what a columnist does? and just remove her anyway. Pincrete (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

You can't bring something to a noticeboard and then declare your own resolution. Gamaliel (talk) 05:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

GrammarsLittleHelper, firstly, there is no requirement that the ADL, SPLC or other outfits comment on every anti-Semitic thing out there: some are too marginal or unknown the bother. You can't deduce anything useful from their non-comment. Secondly, Goldberg's piece mentions that Jews are not specifically mentioned but it contains anti-Semitic tropes nonetheless. You may or may not agree, that is fine. If you have other RSes which take a contrary view, you can add them to the article. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

psychovision.net

Would the French film website 'psychovision.net' [8] be considered a reliable review source (for a related movie article reference)? Thank you for your thoughts. Carnymike (talk) 08:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:V and "page numbers" when citing Kindle e-books

Hey, I also posted about this here, but I might get more traction here. See Xiaopin (literary genre)#References for an example of my problem. This could get kind of icky if I (and other users!) keep doing it without some discussion, consensus and standardized guidelines. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no explicit policy on how to cite, only widely followed conventions. Page numbers are clearly getting outdated and they are a problem already for books with multiple editions or reprintings. Giving chapter/paragraph locations is certainly a good idea. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: You are right on all that, of course, but do you really think the formatting I gave in the above citations was ideal? An advantage of page numbers is that can give almost all academic citations in the form "Authorslastname YEAR : pagenumber." It's not so different in the form "Authorslastname YEAR : chapternumber, paragraphnumber.", but with Kindle I have an even more precise method ("Loc"s), and when I give both I wind up having to give an excessive amount of repetitive information in cites that are only slightly different from each other because the individual sentences are only one or two "Loc" numbers apart from each other, in the exact same paragraph. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think there is any point in giving Kindle locations. Kindle is a proprietary product, not an industry standard. Chapter/paragraph should be enough. Giving a quotation would be even better, when appropriate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Most of the authoritative style manuals (Chicago, APA, etc) specifically say not to use location numbers (see here). They recommend giving the chapter or chapter section title only, with a paragraph number if you want to get really precise. The problem with loc numbers is that someone with a non-kindle edition of the same book will have no way at all to find the content. It's much better to use a less precise but universally accesible system. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Also check your software/book settings, in theory there should be a way to have the reader or reading software display the corresponding page number (from the physical book) rather than loc numbers. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem with loc numbers is that someone with a non-kindle edition of the same book will have no way at all to find the content. That's why in the example linked above I gave the loc number and the chapter number and the section within the chapter and the paragraph number withing the section and the paragraph number within the chapter. That's why I came here -- it's a mess. Also, that blog is quite old, and talks about an "upcoming update" for Kindle that would apparently address the issue, which is now five years old, and apparently was already out of date when I first started using Kindle... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK, there was a Kindle update that introduced page numbers, but only books that support page numbers will show them. clpo13_(talk) 18:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

That might be the case, but if it is then none of the books I have purchased support page numbers, and the only way I could verify it is by buying a book that I know does support page numbers... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It's hit or miss. Generally, if it is a physically published book by any medium-to-large size publisher, there will be page numbers because the electronic copy which is used to make the print book will also be used to make the ebook, and it will retain the page breaks. For self-published ebook authors, it all depends on what software they write in (there are templates, for example, for Microsoft Word that will place page breaks at appropriate locations for hardcover or paperback books) and what formatting options they use. The only 'default' option is the loc and chapters. You can check any book by doing a search for a common word like "the". If the results give you location and page number, it (obviously) has page numbers. If you can't access the page number any other way, just do a search for the passage you're citing and get it that way. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Genius as a source?

I recently came across some edits by Karmaclub, who appears to be an employee or paid editor for the lyrics website Genius per edits like this one.

The problem here is that anyone can annotate Genius, so I'm really concerned about it being used to back up claims like this one, where it's used to back up claims that Lennon was inspired by Lewis Carroll. Obviously he was, but I don't think that a wiki-style annotation website would be the best place for this. I ended up replacing it with a Rolling Stones article that makes the same claim. There are also some slightly questionable links like this one where it's used to back up producer credits for an album.

My question is basically this: because anyone can annotate Genius, can it be used as a source for anything? Could it even be used as a source for even the most basic of claims such as producer or lyrics mentions? If the answer to either is no, would it be a valid external link?

I'm just concerned about this. Even if there is some sort of oversight, I don't think that it'd be nearly strict enough to be really considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Also, if we're going to be using it to back up very basic claims then my thought is that there has to be some sort of better source for this, like Allmusic (for basic credits), articles from places already deemed RS, and so on. I've asked Karmaclub to not add more links to Wikipedia until that point. In all fairness they're correcting links rather than inserting them as far as I can see, but there's still the problem that they're making a ton of edits surrounding Genius, to the point where I initially mistook it for spam. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

You're right to be concerned. Wiki-style crowdsourced projects should never be used as citations, even when they are "right". Revert the edits (or remove the sources and add cn tags) and if Karmaclub fights it report them on ANI for disruptive editing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• There are a lot of them, so I could definitely use some help on this. I think that there are about 50-100 at least. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • In fact, there are over 600 of them. And I am working thru them now (slowly). Staszek Lem (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source because anyone can edit or change the information. This is part of the reason why WP is not considered a reliable source. I wouldn't just go through and tag everything and/or remove the claims. I would try and find other sources to substantiate the information. No one is saying you have to do it all, but it could be a gradual pet project to replace those sources with stronger/reliable sources. If you get any push back from the editor then I agree with Hijiri and you should report the editor for disruptive editing and conflict of interests concerns.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not posting any new links to Genius.com. I am correcting bad links to outdated URL's (changing RapGenius.com to Genius.com). That is 100% of the scope of the project. Feel free to QC any of my edits...that's what you will find. Karmaclub (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It is not about you, it is about Genius. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

BTW, both rapgenius.com (redirecting to rap.genius.com) and genius.com are crowdsourced repositories of lyrics and used in wikipedia as refs to lyrics. Lyrics pages like this one do not have evidence of copyright. As such, they are clearly copyright violations and therefore must be blacklisted. Does anyone know how to do this? Staszek Lem (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• added to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_additions Staszek Lem (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

For your reference: Rap Genius Website Agrees to License With Music Publishers Karmaclub (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• OK. I am withdrawing my objections regarding copyrights. Please add this information into "genius.com" article. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

spiked-online.com

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/11139#.VwO64I-cHxM is used as a source for the following claim about Luke Harding:

Harding's accounting of the events leading up to his failed entry into Russia and their possible justification have been called into question by numerous sources who state that Harding has aggrandised his perceived importance to the Russian state and its security services and attributes quotidian and unrelated occurrences to them.

As near as I can tell, this is, at best, editorial commentary by Richard de Lacy on what appears to be a red-top "news site" which includes vast amounts about sex and "adult entertainment" and the like, and interesting views on paedophilia etc. Is this a valid fact source for the claims made? Collect (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Probably not. The Richard de Lacy article was also referenced in a piece written for Newsweek by Assange (who actually was involved in the snowden affair) who rips into Harding about all manner of inaccuracies, self-promotion etc related to his book about Snowden. But that has its own issues as while I would consider comment by Assange on Harding's book about Snowden relevant, I wouldnt cite him for his opinion on Russia's treatment of Harding. Richard de Lacy is described as "a freelance translator, based in Moscow, and specialising in ice hockey and football. He has lived in Russia for most of the past six years and has contributed to various sporting journals and blogs." So he is a freelance sports journalist who has written an editorial about another editorial he thinks is bogus... I dont think more needs to be said regarding the weight of that source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

LifeZette / Ingraham Media

LifeZette seems to have an editorial board (including Editor-in-Chief Laura Ingraham). It is currently cited as a source for one of (perennial US Presidential candidate) Rick Santorum's favorite songs.

I am not seeing much non-promotional mention of LifeZette online beyond the interest in Laura Ingraham building her brand. I'm also wondering if Ingraham Media might actually be less a news/opinion source than the front end of some publicity operation, in which case should it be used as a source for data even as fluffy as this. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Editing dispute on subject. Discussion here.

I acknowledge the content of this edit is super-trivial, but I am concerned that low-reliability sources like this one are used to inject PR into Wikipedia. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

third party archive

I've noticed that this link https://business.highbeam.com/411456/article-1G1-208423917/key-releases-260909 is being used as a source on Wikipedia articles. It claims to be an archived copy of a page from Music Week magazine to substantiate album sales claims, but I find it hard to believe it is. It isn't even a reproduction of a page, simply a lot of text claiming to be so. It could have been written by anyone and I think is impossible to verify it. Should we be allowing this as a source? 90.205.153.185 (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

GigaCatholic - http://www.gcatholic.org/

Normally I wouldn't have touched this website, since as a WP:SPS I would not immediately assume it was reliable. However, it appears to be generally accepted as reliable on wikipedia for information on the Catholic Church. I now have to ask for opinions on whether we stop using it as a reliable source on wikipedia.

Apostolic Prefecture of the Falkland Islands has been on my watchlist for a while, this is a parish covering British Overseas Territories in the South Atlantic. On April 2, an Argentine editor began editing the article to remove any reference to South Georgia and other BOT, claiming these are under the diocese of the Bishop of Rio Gallegos. There is a long discussion on what was essentially one editors WP:OR trying to dispute what the website said.

Having failed to remove the content, he has now badgered the website owner to change the entry to say what he wanted. If a website can change information due to lobbying like this to influence content on wikipedia, I have to ask how we can ever consider it reliable as a source? Please note in Talk:Apostolic Prefecture of the Falkland Islands the editor concerned openly admits to contacting the website owner to change the content to what he wanted. WCM_email 07:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Oops. Well, that rather defeats the reliability and independence of the source. However, the editor's effort to alter that web page does not disqualify it as a source -- until the effort to change it is successful. At that point, things are seriously awry. As to the earlier changes on the website, those also present some problems in reliability if the source is now contradicting what it said earlier. Without a very good reason for changing the narrative, such as new information, a scholar who reverses himself calls his own reliability into question. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Exactly my point, the editor claimed it was unreliable, until that editor had successfully lobbied the owner to change it. There was as I can see it no good reason to change the content. To my mind, this is tantamount to wikifiddling. WCM_email 07:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

As there is no source currently supporting it I have removed it. Gigacatholic is considered reliable due to the reliable information it provides on Catholic issues. Any website is subject to revision on new information received. Commenting on a websites editorial practices which you are not a party to is pointless. For all we know they checked out the claims and found their previous information was wrong. Removing Gigacatholic as a source would still leave the information currently unsourced however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

No it can no longer be considered reliable if it can be influenced in order to change content on wikipedia - and thats precisely what has happened. And the WP:PRIMARY source still supports the current content, since the islands were known as the Falkland Islands Dependencies in 1952. The editor concerned is ignoring that and insisting that Argentine declarations over the territory take precadence. WCM_email 08:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

WCM, I tend to agree with Only in death's comments: if this is considered a reliable source (and I have no expertise on sourcing in this topic area), then if it revises its content surely the new material should be considered reliable? However, what do the other sources on this topic say? The church's official website (which seems to have been updated in around 2013) says "This Apostolic Prefecture, and the three Missions Sui Iuris that make up the Church in the South Atlantic [St. Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha], are under the direct jurisdiction of the Holy See" [9]. There's also a contact page which could be used to ask them. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

If it revised its content as a result of external pressure in order to influence content on wikipedia then that calls into question its reliability. For information I have been in contact with the church and they have confirmed that South Georgia is within their diocese. But thats not something I can use as a cite on wikipedia is it? WCM_email 11:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Urgh, not really - though it obviously settles the matter! I wonder if the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism can suggest any offline sources which also cover this which can be used in the absence of clear and reliable online sources? Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

First of all, please forgive me my typing errors because English is not my native language. I need to clarify the tendentious comments WCM, he not telling the truth in saying that I claim that Georgias and South Sandwich Islands are under the diocese of Rio Gallegos. I make clear that I am strictly neutral when edit in Wikipedia. They can see that I have almost 89,000 editions in several projects of the encyclopedia. WCM also not telling the truth when he said that I pressed the webmaster of GCatholic for him to change the content of what I wanted. At the beginning of the discussion with WCM I told him I would contact GC requesting information, also I did it with the website of the Apostolic Prefecture of the Falkland Islands. The second still did not answer the first answered me and changed the content of your website freely without me suggest what to put on, just gave the same information I put in the discussion of the article. WCM bases its entire opinion that the Falkland Islands Dependencies did not exist in 1952, however it is easily verifiable that is not right and I showed it effortlessly. WCM rejects my speech because of my nationality.

The encyclopedic article Apostolic Prefecture of the Falkland Islands said that these islands belonged to the apostolic prefecture. I wanted to check and found that the source was GCatholic. This web site does not mention where the data obtained. I also checked that can not be found on other Internet websites say the same. I verified that the papal bulls do not mention these islands. The other source is used in Wikipedia Catholic Hierarchy. This website does not mention to these islands and bases its information on the Annuario Pontificio. I also verified that the diocese of Rio Gallegos claims jurisdiction over those islands. In view of that, the information can not be maintained while certainly not clarify the matter.

As for the reliability of the source, as I said there are two websites that are updated daily with respect to changes in the Catholic hierarchy: Catholic Hierarchy and GCatholic. Both are widely used in the various Wikipedia projects. Obviously no one is infallible and they make mistakes, as do all websites. In both cases I have mentioned them and they have responded mistakes and sometimes I changed the information. When both websites differ it is necessary to verify the information from other sources. In general the information provided verifiable, but in some cases it is not, for example when it comes to these islands, and others like Bouvet Island.--Nerêo (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

My comment was the Falkland Islands Dependencies did exist in 1952, as such the language used in the 1952 Papal Bulls does include them. I can't in good faith accept your English is that bad you managed to completely flip the meaning.

As regards his claim that he has not asserted these are part of the diocese of Rio Gallegos [10], he claims he is neutral but his editing is very much down to POV.

The facts are he got a source to change its content so he could change an article on wikipedia. Thats wikifiddling. WCM_email 15:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

His view only expresses his interpretation of the papal bull of 1952, you are not supported by any source. The bishop of Rio Gallegos interprets the papal bull of 1961 gives jurisdiction over the islands in the South Atlantic. Who should we believe him? Pending the matter is clarified, you can not give priority to their point of view.

We can consider GCatholic as a reliable source always as his "rival" Catholic Hierarchy not opine otherwise. If both websites differ, we must verify the matter in other independent sites that do not refer to them, especially the Pontifical Annuario if available your inquiry.--Nerêo (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikileaks

All that was said and concluded about Scribd (above) could be said and concluded about Wikileaks. If there is any editorial oversight on the content on Wikileaks, it is not in evidence and cannot be examined or verified. Does Wikipedia put any credibility in the documents on Wikileaks? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikileaks presents WP:PRIMARY sources of information, we would generally look to see them analysed in WP:SECONDARY sources before commenting. Use of WP:PRIMARY sourced information is acceptable in some cases but discouraged in favour of WP:SECONDARY sources. Its not that there is any comment on credibility but we don't tend to use primary sources of information. WCM_email 09:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Unlike Scribid, the content posted on wikileaks is reviewed by them before it is posted. A user can't just go to wikileaks and post a document. More specifically, concerning the Sony hack files, Sony itself has confirmed the authenticity of the documents. Depauldem (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Print liner notes as sources

In many physical albums there are text that describes who did what on the album (who wrote the lyrics, describes performers, who mastered it et.c.) are those considered reliable sources or not? An editor claims that if a release is on Discogs then the liner notes are not reliable as Discogs is considered to not be reliable. // Liftarn (talk) 09:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Odd circular log, but as you suspect, it's not true. I see you have posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums as well. Since community-generated content is not reliable, that means that Discogs.com is not considered a reliable source. The liner notes from which its content is gleaned is a reliable WP:PRIMARY source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Independent or not, what say you?

Article: BLP William Lane Craig. Content: "William Lane Craig is a philosopher..."

One user disputes that these sources calling him a philosopher are truly independent. Allegedly, the sources calling him a professor of philosophy are not to be trusted as independent because the individual himself might have written them. No evidence for the charge has been provided, and yet they remain resolutely skeptical.

Sources: University websites listing him as a professor of philosophy, and/or in the philosophy department:

• Houston Baptist,
• Biola,
• Saint Mary,
• Birmingham

1. Do these sources constitute independent sources calling him a philosopher, or should one remain skeptical? BabyJonas (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Philosopher is not a protected term and perhaps the best operational definition would be someone who studies and teaches philosophy. There would seem yp be np grounds for not following these sources.Martinlc (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The guy's a greasy, weaselly fast talker who thinks way too much of himself. (Though supposedly he's a really nice and charismatic guy when he's not debating or writing.) That being said, none of that prevents him from being a philosopher, it just prevents him from being a very good philosopher. I think an aptitude at something is generally not required to be a professional at it, even though it helps. If you doubt that, just go to any fast food restaurant, unionized construction site or government function. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Additional sources from HighBeam Research-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Forbes article by credible contributor

There is a disagreement on the talk page for Avengers Age of Ultron about using a Forbes article by a contributor. One editor strongly objects to use of the article:

The budget figure cited in the infobox was referenced to a fake Forbes article. Forbes contributors are not part of Forbes editorial. They are not journalists but just unpaid, HuffPo-like writer-wannabes. Forbes itself disavows them, writing at each column, "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." There's no editorial oversight — just Forbes cynically exploiting unpaid would-be journalists with little or no training who will write for "exposure." Amateur journalists writing without editorial oversight are just personal bloggers and not WP:RS.

In response, a few points were made:

1. Forbes is not disavowing the writer or the post. The language about opinions expressed is a standard legal disclaimer that means the writer's opinion is their own and not that of Forbes. Similar language appears at the front of director's commentaries on DVD or Blu-Ray discs. Just as the studio isn't "disavowing" the director, neither is Forbes. 2. Forbes contributors are not always unpaid and can be compensated. 3. The contributors on Forbes are not able to generate content without oversight. They can only do so once the editors have selected them based on their qualifications: "Every single one was hand picked by those who can best evaluate their knowledge — our own editors and reporters." ([11])

Nevertheless, the editor quoted above also claimed:

we cannot use Forbes "contributors" since WIkipedia disallows user-generated content.

In response to this: 1. The fact Forbes editorial team and staff selects who gets to contribute negates the assertion that this is user generated content akin to IMDB, where anyone can participate at any time. 2. Even if it could be considered user generated content, the policy has the following two exceptions:

Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources. (See WP:NEWSBLOG.)

Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Such material, although written by an established author, likely lacks the fact checking that publishers provide. ([12])

The Forbes article in question was written by a professional journalist in the field of the film industry. Further, he was published by multiple reliable third party publications, including Variety, a film industry trade, where he was chief editor and correspondent in Europe for many years. In short, the Forbes contributor meets two of the exceptions to the policy, assuming it even applies.

All of these points have been ignored or dismissed without explanation by the opposing editor. It should also be noted that the article is not an opinion piece. It is a straight forward reporting of film spending and budgets in the UK and it contains links to the sources, which happen to be the actual budgets in question.

Is this Forbes contributor article an acceptable source? Depauldem (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Forbes/sites is not Forbes. So any reliability is based on the author of the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you User:Only in death. I thought the same thing. Pardon my ignorance, but do we still wait for others to weigh in? At what point can we say this particular source is ok to use as RS?Depauldem (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'm with the OP here, and (also because) I agree with what Only in death said. These sorts of blogs are often subject to at least a minimum of oversight (when they generate controversy by stating a position at odds with those of the editors or management of the main site, they're often taken down), the site gives criteria by which the authors of these blogs are judged when deciding whether to give them a blog, and the blogs often take the form of journalism. This isn't idle musings or obvious opinions, but more likely professional journalism that simply wasn't picked up (or submitted) for more formal publication. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• As Only in death said above, Forbes contributor posts are editorially affiliated with Forbes. The fact that Forbes has not disavowed an author isn't sufficient to claim that there is anything resembling what we normally consider editorial involvement (selection of topics, editing, reliability of the brand on the line). Forbes contributor posts are also not like news blog sources, as those are written by people who are also employed by the publication in question rather than simply sharing a CMS. Take a look at this (old, but not superceded AFAIK) Poynter article on their model (see also this post laying out what Forbes considers editorial involvement. Contra MjolnirPants, there is no reason to assume these pieces are more accurate or professional because they appear on the Forbes network. If as in this case, the blog happened to be written by someone w/ experience in the subject, then we can use it as we might a self-published source from an expert. Protonk (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Protonk: For future reference, you should read a comment before "disagreeing" with it. Your comments about the reliability of Forbes bloggers versus random internet bloggers (while ridiculously wrong) don't contradict anything I said. You only actually disagreed with me when you tried to pretend I meant "full editorial involvement" when I said "a minimum of editorial oversight." How I managed to explicitly describe what I meant by that and yet still leave you able to completely misunderstand it is, I think, no fault of mine. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

How were those comments "ridiculously wrong"?

I read your comments above as (vaguely, and in a limited sense) making the claim that Forbes contributor posts are to be treated as more reliable than a blog post unrelated to Forbes. If that's not the case, why bother making either of these statements: "when they generate controversy by stating a position at odds with those of the editors or management of the main site, they're often taken down" or "This isn't idle musings or obvious opinions, but more likely professional journalism that simply wasn't picked up (or submitted) for more formal publication"? If it is the case, I'm struggling to see how showing sourcing which indicates the (lack of) editorial involvement is missing your point.

Finally, there's no reason to get shitty just because someone may have misinterpreted your comment. Hell, you may have misinterpreted my response. We're both just people here. I didn't slag you off or do anything like that. I just said "contra so and so...here's a thought." Protonk (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

How were those comments "ridiculously wrong"?

If you would like to debate the relative reliability of the blogs hosted by reputable news organizations vs random blogs found on the internet, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. I'll happily show you exactly why I stand by the claim that the former are far more reliable than the latter. But this isn't the place for that particular discussion, short as it may be.

I read your comments above as (vaguely, and in a limited sense) making the claim that Forbes contributor posts are to be treated as more reliable than a blog post unrelated to Forbes.

Well, the general statement "Forbes contributors blogs are more reliable than random blogs" happens to be true, but it was not my point. My point was that Forbes contributors' blogs are different than random internet blogs. They exists in a different realm, and operate under different rules. As such, it stands to reason they should be judged by different standards. A random blogger would be more or less just as reliable or unreliable, regardless of what subject they were writing about, or how exceptional the claims they were making are. A Forbes blogger on the other hand, has a level of reliability that varies with the subject and credibility of their claims. However, the problem is that none of that really matters to this discussion. You, Only in death and I have all agreed that the reliability of the writer is what we should be judging this usage of this source on. Also, both you and I seem to be in agreement that this writer is reliable for this claim. Returning to whether this source is on par with a random blog regresses the discussion here, instead of advancing it.

I'm struggling to see how showing sourcing which indicates the (lack of) editorial involvement is missing your point.

I already explained this, above. I explicitly described the exact level of editorial oversight I claimed these blogs have. Your assertion that they don't have a very different level of editorial involvement misses the point by arguing against something I never said. If this blog had the level of editorial involvement you described, it wouldn't be a blog, but a column, and would be taken as reliable as a matter of course.

Finally, there's no reason to get shitty just because someone may have misinterpreted your comment.

I'm not upset. I'm just blunt, and often that directness allows me to say something less verbosely than I can otherwise (annoyingly, I know) be. Say something I agree with and to which I have nothing to add, and you'll see me be just as straightforward and acerbic in agreeing with you. Please try not to assume bad feelings on the part of your fellow editors.

I didn't slag you off or do anything like that. I just said "contra so and so...here's a thought."

I didn't accuse you of "slagging me off," or doing anything of the sort. I simply suggested you read comments more closely before disagreeing with them and then explained why. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• "But this isn't the place for that particular discussion..." Did you just tell me that the Reliable Sources noticeboard, in a section asking about the reliability of a Forbes contributor by dint of their being one and not a random blogger, is not the place for that discussion? Because that's what we're talking about. You say: "A random blogger would be more or less just as reliable or unreliable, regardless of what subject they were writing about, or how exceptional the claims they were making are. A Forbes blogger on the other hand, has a level of reliability that varies with the subject and credibility of their claims." This is not what consensus has been for Forbes contributors at RSN. See here (2013), here (2014), here (2013), here (2014), and here (2015). The consensus across years has been: If they're reliable on the subject is a matter of them meeting our policy on self published sources, which is precisely the same as if they were on a random blog.
• "I'm not upset. I'm just blunt, and often that directness allows me to say something less verbosely than I can otherwise (annoyingly, I know) be." You're not blunt. You're rude. And needlessly so. I mildly disagreed with you and your first response was to berate me for misunderstanding you. Part of being civil means not saying things like "For future reference, you should read a comment before "disagreeing" with it" or "How I managed to explicitly describe what I meant by that and yet still leave you able to completely misunderstand it is, I think, no fault of mine." when "I think you misunderstood me" would do. Is also has the benefit of being less verbose. Protonk (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Forbes "contributors" are not Forbes editorial staff, but suppliers of user-generated content. To cite them as "work=Forbes" in citations would be deliberately misleading, since Forbes itself is legally obligated to distance itself from these contributors with a disclaimer saying their opinions are their own and do not represent Forbes. There are hundreds of such contributors, the vast majority of them unpaid, and there is no individual oversight of these writers or their blogs. This is completely different from newspapers and magazines in which staff or otherwise paid columnists have blogs. In some cases, one of these user-generated bloggers may have credentials that make their blog citable, and in that case the field should read something along the lines of "publisher=Forbes non-staff blogger." --Tenebrae (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Evening Standard

Source:

• [13]

Context:

• proposed DYK (Template:Did you know nominations/Sweetings): "...that according to chef Fergus Henderson, drinking a Black Velvet at Sweetings "puts you in the mood for romance"?"

Question:

• Can an article in a free newspaper writing of a restaurant be a regarded a reliable source?

Thank you for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The Evening Standard is a RS per our rules. The reference in the DYK is from an interview (not a paid advertisement) so thats not a problem either. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Only in death, thank you for your comment (or declaration). I only would like to understand it. Why do you think that a newspaper whose only source of income is advertisement can be described as a reliable source, that is a source independent of the topics it writes of? Borsoka (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Advertising income is not an indication a news source's reliability is in question. Otherwise we would not use a large variety of sources. Conversely it does not make news organisations who do not rely primarily on advertising more reliable - otherwise we would end up sourcing everything to the Daily Mail. Is the source/news article promotional in tone? No, no more than any other interview with the subject of an article. The source is being used appropriately for what it is referencing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Sincerely, I am surprised that WP can be used for allegedly commercial purposes through citing free newspapers. I am pretty sure that this can easily destroy our community, but I may be wrong. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Tonyortega.org

This concerns the page R2-45

Tony Ortega used to be the editor of Village Voice. He wrote many articles about the Church of Scientology that were published there and in other papers. Eventually, he was dismissed from the Voice reportedly because he was spending too much time on Scientology articles rather than the work the Voice preferred he do. He now runs a personal web page, tonyortega.org, on which he posts a personal blog about Scientology, called The Underground Bunker. There is no editorial oversight in evidence on that sight -- just Ortega. An audio recording has appeared there that is allegedly part of an L. Ron Hubbard recording. The editors on the R2-45 page want to use that recording to support the claim that Hubbard advocated murder of his enemies and the Church uses threats of murder to intimidate people, and it is based on rather thin evidence. These are criminal accusations that have never been tried in a court of law. The links the editors want to use are this and this. Ortega's text suggests Ortega does little fact checking but merely reports whatever is said to him that confirms his bias. Question: Ortega may be an expert on some aspects of Scientology, but does everything he posts on his web page become true and reliable in the eyes of Wikipedia? (There are also copyright issues in this link, but I am not sure this is the place to bring it up.) Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

If a high-profile claim like this was considered reliable, wouldn't it have been reported by news sources subsequently? Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a reliable source and could be cited with WP:ATT but not stated in wiki-voice unless corroborated by other sources. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a case where whether or not it's true, it's not appropriate for wikipedia because it's such sensitive information and it's not public knowledge. WP:WELLKNOWN "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." PermStrump(talk) 13:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Tony Ortega is both a professional journalist and a published author, so there's no reason to suggest that he is not a reliable source despite that nasty bit of Scientology-style dead agenting from Grammar'sLittleHelper. In this case, it would be reasonable to attribute the material in question to Ortega ("According to journalist Tony Ortega...") when discussing it - pretty much as JzG says. It's important to note that the source of the material is not Ortega personally, but a US Government (FDA) document that has recently been released under FOIA. So in answer to Nick-D, no, it wouldn't have been reported previously by other sources because it's something that was not in the public domain until Ortega reported it. Prioryman (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, that got personal in a hurry, but we're going to try to keep this conversation out of the ditch. Ortega himself puts guarded phrases around the FDA document: "At least, that’s what Berner told FDA inspectors when he was interviewed in 1970." So in the end, it is not a government document of anything but an interview -- it documents what the interviewee said, not the truth of what the person said. The statement is 'not "According to journalist Tony Ortega..." The larger question here is, when does a journalist pass into the WP status where everything he writes on a blog is reliable -- even though he has no fact checkers and no editors? Has any other journalist passed into this status on any other subject? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Involved, but concur with Jzg. Ortega's discussion of Wikileaks tape meets RS, can be summarized with proper attribution. But also concur with Sfarney that it would be extremely inappropriate to state as fact in wiki-voice that 'Hubbard advocated murder of his enemies'. Feoffer (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

A question, please. How does an anonymous recording fragment on a wiki-type site become the reliable? The pedigree is totally broken. There is nothing verifiable and visible tying it to Hubbard, is there? When we designate a reliable source, it is more than X is an expert, therefore X is reliable. Even for scientists, we require peer reviews and editors to keep things on the straight and narrow. For news, we require -- not just a witness -- but a professional journalist with an editor and a fact-checking team. A self-published source can witness to nothing but itself. WP:RS I do not understand how we could make an exception in Ortega's case. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Fortunately the question of the "anonymous recording fragment" doesn't really arise, because the original lecture is available from Bridge Publications for the (low! low!) price of $395 [14], so you can check it out for yourself if you don't have a copy. It's eminently verifiable, especially for those of us who do have copies. We shouldn't rely on WikiLeaks for interpretation, that's true, but there is no problem with stating the verifiable fact that WikiLeaks published the excerpt online. You'll see that I've rewritten the article to address the various objections you've raised above. Prioryman (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

That is not how we work at Wikipedia. If you or I bought the tape and verified the quote, that would be only WP:OR, and we couldn't use it. We need a journalist or scholar with a reputable publication who has verified the original tape -- that is, a secondary source with editors or peers who provide oversight to his work and confirm his conclusions. And that is why Tony Ortega's blog does not serve our purposes. Ortega is apparently working from that fragment found on Wikileaks that has no pedigree tying it to the original. In that link in question, Ortega apparently does not notice (or does not care) that the documents he obtained from the Food & Drug Administration are not evidence of a conspiracy to commit or threaten murder, else the FDA would have referred the matter to the FBI. That is the difference between a hobbiest blog and a professional journal. One is a low-budget operation with no oversight, the other has a budget and a staff to do things properly and reliably. That is the reason for WP:RS and WP:V. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the lecture, you have a major misunderstanding of WP:V. See the section WP:PAYWALL. What we have here is effectively a paywalled source (in the sense that it would cost you $395 to buy the lecture) but as Wikipedia's policy makes clear, that's no reason to reject it. There are academic journals and textbooks that cost far more to access but that's why editors use research collections and national libraries to source articles. As for Ortega's blog, as WP:SPS says, "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." As he's a published author and professional journalist with a long and voluminous record of non-self-published writings about Scientology (via the Village Voice and his subsequent book), and a recognised expert on the subject (regular media appearances as a commentator on Scientology), he clearly meets these criteria. He is not simply a "hobbiest" [sic] by any (honest) description. Prioryman (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• WP:PAYWALLApplies to secondary sources only, because that is all we are expected to use. The recording you are proposing for editors to purchase is a WP:PRIMARY source. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
• And when Ortega writes about general issues on Scientology, maybe we can use him. However, when Ortega makes specific allegations of criminal conduct, the whole subject gets more complicated. There are WP:BLP implicit accusations of the current church executives -- as when Raymond Hill (talk · contribs) wrote that R2-45 is "church policy". For an issue like that, we need more than the personal blog of Tony Ortega -- who apparently does not distinguish between a criminal investigation and a Food & Drug interview, or between a 3 minute recording downloaded from an anonymizing server and the real thing from an authentic source. TonyOrtega.org fails on a number of points required by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources. We must ask why this issue -- if truly real and truly a concern -- has not been covered by a WP:RS. This should be a big story, but none of the editors have found coverage by a reputable publication. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about this. Saying this has BLP connotations is a stretch, or at worse, WP:CRYBLP, but Ortega is... borderline as a source. He is an expert, but we still need to be cautious of using his blog as a source, especially without clear attribution. Is the factual content of these recordings in question? Really? I don't understand why. Claiming that paywalled content is OR is just nonsense. Nothing about PAYWALL is limited to secondary sources. There are definite OR and notability arguments to be made against the article, but I'm not at all persuaded by arguments based on Wikilinks being non-credible when we have other sources, or speculation on what the FDA hypothetically would've done 45 years ago. Grayfell (talk) 04:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I rewrote the article to take account of Sfarney's objections. If you look at the current version of the article, you'll see that WikiLeaks isn't used as a source for the lecture itself but only for the entirely uncontentious statement that WikiLeaks published an extract from the lecture back in 2009. Ortega is also now clearly attributed in the article. The accusation by Raymond Hill that Sfarney highlights was made on the article's talk page ten years ago (seriously, dredging this up as if it was a current issue is just BS). Speculation about the FDA is irrelevant, as you rightly note. As for Ortega, if an Oscar-winning director is happy to use him as an expert in an Emmy-winning film adaptation of a Pullizer Prize-winning author's book, I don't have any particular qualms about citing him as an expert source. I'd say his bona fides have been pretty well vouched-for by this point. Prioryman (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• BLP is not at all a stretch. Threatening murder is criminal act, not pattycake. If such threats were organizational policy, it could be successfully prosecuted as a conspiracy among all the members of the organization. That is the way it works, and has worked for a long time in the laws of many countries including the US. Do you really mean that accusing scientology of THAT is a not BLP vis a vis the identifiable executives?
• Ortega's blog is speculation. He has nothing but an ancient complaint to the FDA to support it. How is that RS that we can use?
• Let me draw to your attention the fact that even though said recordings and books have been around in public view for more than 50 years, no one can find an RS that covered it. The only source found is a blog WP:SPS.
• The simple fact about the FDA is the record of the accusation decades ago, and no arrests or prosecution. In the opinion of the FDA, there was no probable cause for belief that a crime was occurring or about to occur. That FDA interview has no more fact value than the any police report about UFO sightings or anything else. It is an interview with someone who can allege anything they believe to be true. It is most definitely not a statement by the investigator that he found the allegations to be credible or worth pursuing even though the allegations are supposedly based on published documents.
• The genuineness of recordings up for grabs. If the recording is important to support the article, then genuineness needs more than an anonymizing server -- as always, we need a RS. But if the recording is NOT important to the article, then sure -- who cares? But on the other hand, who cares? We cannot settle on both sides of the question. If the claim is outrageous, the source must be rock solid.
• Oscars are awarded for entertainment value. That has no standing here.
• There is an additional issue with these links. Rather than split this discussion into the multiple issues, I put it here. Both Wikileaks and tonyortega are unacceptable because they include a recording that THEY (Ortega and Wikileaks) claim is a part of a copyrighted work. As such, we cannot use those links. WP:V#Copyright_and_plagiarism "Do not link to any source that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations. You can link to websites that display copyrighted works as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement. If there is reason to think a source violates copyright, do not cite it. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright." Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a whole series of tendentious claims, and a pretty good (or bad) demonstration of WP:HEAR in action. Let's take them from the top:

• WP:BLP applies to living persons, not large organizations. Obviously. See WP:BLPGROUP.
• Ortega reports that the info about R2-45 emerged during interviews by FDA inspectors. It wasn't something that was complained about to the FDA.
• Whether or not the FDA took any action is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The article reports the contents of the FDA's reports, but rightly refrains from making any judgement about the truth or otherwise of what their inspectors were told about R2-45. That's not our business. (See WP:TRUTH.)
• Go get a copy of the lecture from Bridge Publications if you want to verify it yourself. If you don't have a copy, that's your problem, not ours. WP:PAYWALL is categorical that you can't reject sources just because they're paywalled.
• Oscars are not awarded for entertainment value but for excellence in various disciplines associated with film. The documentary in question was by a director who has specialised in, and has won an Oscar for, making documentary films. Documentaries are by definition non-fiction works and aren't produced simply for entertainment.
• Ortega's hosting of the FDA reports isn't a copyright violation because US Government documents are not eligible for copyright protection. WikiLeak's hosting of a short clip of the lecture is unlikely to be considered a violation as it's both de minimis and for the purposes of commentary - both requirements of fair use. If they hosted the entire lecture I'd agree with you, but clearly they haven't done this.

You really need to stop the tendentious argumentation as it's both a waste of time and arguably a violation of the current arbitration sanctions in the topic area - if you continue you're likely to find yourself on the receiving end of a topic ban. Prioryman (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

In case anyone is confused by the comment immediately above, (1) the copyright violation on tonyortega.org is a 3 minute except of a copyrighted recording -- not a government document, as clearly shown by previous discussion. (2) WP:BLPGROUP specifically states: "The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." The criminal accusation in this case would apply to specific living people (the church leaders), requiring the absolute highest of sources. As shown above, tonyortega.org is not the highest of quality as a source, for multiple reasons Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Except that (1) no living individuals other than Ortega are named in the article - L. Ron Hubbard has been dead for 30 years - and (2) the episodes described by Ortega were respectively 64 years ago (the lecture) and 46 years ago (the FDA report). It's far from clear that anyone involved is even still alive. Also, WP:BLPGROUP makes clear that large organizations aren't covered by BLP. The Church of Scientology claims to have six million members. Finally, as I said above, a short extract for the purpose of commentary is likely fair use. If there's good reason to believe it's covered by fair use, we have no good reason to remove the link. Prioryman (talk) 05:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Historical source accepted and quoted by Makushev, Gegaj and Hammond is not accepted by a wikipedia member

https://books.google.it/books?id=jG9cAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA305&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

The source is not accepted because ostensibly the date of the first mention of the Ducagini de Arbania (late VIIth century) seems to be too removed back in time (I would add "according to whom?"), ignoring the fact that the chronicle is perfectly coherent as a historical account both in space and time in all its details, reason for wich Makushev, Gegaj and N.G.L Hammond all accept the source as valid.

I would like to add that inbetween the date of the source and the mention of Albanians at the beginning of XIth century, there is another source just recently discovered wrote by the historical ecclesiast and priest Daniele Farlati that specifically mention Albanians as inhabitants of Epirus Nova in the IXth century:(http://i68.tinypic.com/34674ae.png)

"Leo Sapiens, qui sæculo nono rerum in oriente potiebatur, in sua expositione de nominibus urbium & locorum &c. incolas Epiri novæ appellari ait Albanitas.". Herakliu (talk) 09:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia article does this relate to?Martinlc (talk) 10:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Albanians Herakliu (talk) 10:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you not cite the people who quoted the historical source? Those sound like more solid secondary or tertiary sources anyway. PermStrump(talk) 13:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

A history book from 1867 is not useful as a secondary source today. It ignores 150 years of progress. It might be useful as a primary source. Look for more current sources. If the claim cannot be found in current sources there might be a reason for that. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It is not a historical source, nor used in scholarship. The manuscript is made up of legends. Also, the above "IXth century"-source is obviously not that, Farlati living 1690–1773. I'm afraid the user is inclined towards pseudohistory.--Zoupan 20:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Setting boundaries heavily underpinned by a single webpage cite

Wiki-psyc reshaped personal boundaries last year (including renaming it as setting boundaries). The changes were heavily underpinned by a cite to a single webpage - http://bpdfamily.com/content/setting-boundaries.

The http://bpdfamily.com/content/setting-boundaries webpage does not have any cites. It is also more of an annex to the main subject of the website - borderline personality disorder. Setting boundaries currently gives huge weight and credibility to this single reference - it underpins the current name of this article, the first three sentences in the lead and much of Setting boundaries#Process.

I can find nothing relevant to the author of that web page, "R. Skip Johnson", in Google Books or Scholar.

R. Skip Johnson is simply listed here but without any named position for http://bpdfamily.com. It does not say that he has any relevant academic or clinical expertise.

I believe http://bpdfamily.com/content/setting-boundaries does not pass WP:RS especially as so much weight is given to it. There are 38 other different cites given in setting boundaries, many from contributors with relevant academic and clinical knowledge eg John Townsend (author), Charles Whitfield, Robin Skynner and Henry Cloud. --Penbat (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

"Setting boundaries" is not an expected title for a Wiki article. Nobody looking for the article on personal boundaries would be able to guess it. The name is weirdly similar to the page from the bdpfamily practice site, as though the editor wanted Wikipedia to be a promo piece for the practice. In my opinion, the name should be changed back. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. There is a WP:RM specifically on the title issue at Talk:Setting_boundaries#Requested_move_4_April_2016. I am suggesting here that the cite underpinning the title & lead etc is not WP:RS (and also probably WP:UNDUE).--Penbat (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

HitFix

Is it a reliable source for musical commentary?--MaranoFan (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Perfectly fine to use. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Provided as always that opinions must be cited and ascribed as opinions, of course. "Commentary" is the key word here. Collect (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Pbs.org

Hey, is this source reliable enough to be used for establishing the notability of the characters presented there? Is it creditable for selecting the "Best Dressed Iranians"? Please consider that the characters are those of opposing the current Iranian government (they are not selected among all Iranian) and the website has noted to "battles over hejab and the Basij" which shows the level of discrimination. Mhhossein (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Public Broadcasting Service is a high-quality news outlet. It is a reliable source. But it is not necessarily an authoritative source for rating fashion. It can be used as one source among many. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Frontline is a noted, high-quality news and documentary outlet, so it is certainly a reliable source; however, I agree with Kautilya3 that a U.S. television news program shouldn't be considered the sole source for fashion in Iran. Preferably, we'd have some Iranian sources to cover their own fashion culture. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks here that Frontine (unquestionably an RS itself) is hosting content from the Tehran Bureau. Don't see a problem with using this source. Gamaliel (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliel: As you know, Tehran Bureau is not based in Iran. Does it change anything? Mhhossein (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it should be relied on as the only source, but I don't see anything here that disqualifies it from being use as a source under the WP:RS policy. Gamaliel (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

"Fashion articles" are fluff at best, presenting opinions about fashions, and are not a valid source for factual claims of any ilk no matter the publisher. Even The New York Times Fashion section is fluff, ask any editor there <g>. Collect (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Audited Accounts for Financial Filings of Movies

Are audited financials considered primary or secondary sources when they are being used as a cite to budget spending by a movie or show? The debate stems from the talk page for Avengers Age of Ultron. At issue are the audited financial statements of the production company set up to produce a certain film. The audited financials in question were also reported in a Forbes Contributor article (held to be reliable based on the credentials of the writer) and Politico.

But the language on the reliable sources examples page notes: "Accounts and Notes to the Accounts in an annual report, which have been independently audited, can be considered secondary sources about the organization, and have some level of reliability. The process of audit provides a degree of editorial oversight although the statement by the auditors may contain caveats which should be borne in mind when using the material." This begs the question, can we cite the filings as reliable secondary sources? The "Full Accounts" for these productions (in this case Avengers Age of Ultron, production company Assembled Productions II) lists the production spending for various periods of production. For example, the period ending May 15th 2015 shows that Avengers AOU had a cost of sales (the production spend) in the amount of 62.7 million GBP. Can we cite these amounts as coming from a reliable secondary source--i.e. the audited financial accounts hosted on a UK government website? Depauldem (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)