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

Sources on Estonian police battalion

Sources:

• Collaboration with the Nazis: Public Discourse after the Holocaust, edited by Roni Stauber; chapter by Yitzhak Arad

• "The report deals with the role Estonian auxiliarry forces in crimes committed outside of Estonia. ... On 7 August 1942, Estonian police battalion No 36 took part in the round-up and execution of all remaining Jews..." (somewhat loose paraphrasing, exact quote in the link)

• The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933-1945; edited by Geoffrey P. Megargee:

• "On August 7 1942, the Germans and their collaborators (including Estonian Police Battalion 36 ...) took away the remaining inmates (...) and shot them there": link.

• In contrast, Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity states: "There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews". ("Estonian defence battalions / police battalions". In Toomas Hiio; Meelis Maripuu; Indrek Paavle. Estonia 1940–1945: Reports of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity. Tallinn. pp. 825–876)

Article: 36th Estonian Police Battalion

Content: "In August 1942, the battalion participated in the murder of Jews in Novogrudok, Belarus."

The relevant Talk page discussion can be found here: Talk:36th_Estonian_Police_Battalion#Novogrudok. Courtesy ping to Nug & Jaan. I would appreciate additional input on this matter. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It's very interesting that the West German investigation in the early '60s could not prove participation in the killing as I wouldn't think that they'd have any reason to whitewash the Communist gov't of the time. I think that what we have here is reliable sources on both sides, so I'd suggest laying out the evidence like so: "The battalion has been accused of participating in the killings of Jews at X, on Y, (sources) but a West German investigation in the early 1960s could not conclusively link its members to the action(source)" and let the reader decide. RSN isn't meant to decide which evidence is the "best", and that's all I'm afraid that we could accomplish here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if there might be some clarification in the text of the second source, or possibly in any sources these themselves cite. I say this because the sources don't necessarily contradict. The first states the role the police played in the killings cannot be determined, whereas the second states that there is no evidence they participated in the executions. If the two sources are taking very different interpretations of "involvement", they might actually agree. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The talk page discussion mentions WP:WPNOTRS, and claims that we shouldn't use tertiary sources. However, WP:WPNOTRS doesn't really say that - it says secondary sources are preferred but tertiary sources are reliable also. In practice, we use specialty encyclopedias quite a lot, as they are often written by experts in the field they cover. I'd consider The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos to be a specialty encyclopedia that is probably quite a good source for information on its subject matter. And I'll also note that the three volumes of the The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos are quite extensively researched and do actually include sources for most entries. I don't have the first volume available at the moment (even I quail at buying the books - they are pricey!) but I do have the second volume here at hand and a glance through shows every article has a list of sources as well as most having footnotes. I'd suggest getting the book through interlibrary loan and consulting whatever sources are used for the entry snippeted above. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

And the work on Collaboration is also post-Cold War and the section by Arad would definitely be considered a reliable source for this subject, as Arad is a researcher in the field of the Holocaust in the Baltics. His work is most definitely NOT a tertiary source, it is in fact a secondary source also. He may be wrong, but its equally likely the commission was wrong also - especially if it based its conclusions on a West German commission from 1971, prior to the opening of many archives after the Cold War. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Your point about the West German commission not having full access to archival data is a good one, but none of these sources can be impeached as they're all post-Cold War and the commission doesn't even have any Estonian nationals as members. I'd need to see the sources myself, to see which way the preponderance of evidence lies if I were writing this article myself. But really, this is disagreement between reliable sources and should be discussed either in the main body of the article or a footnote, not a RS issue at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think we should take sides on either side - it appears to be a disagreement between sources ... all of which appear reliable. The ideal solution is to cover the controversy in the article. Both sides should be presented, and other sources brought to bear. A good start would be getting the Encyclopedia and seeing what sources it used. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I would first also cite this close study in Estonian, that, based on historical documents and interviews with historians also comes to the conclusion that there is no evidence to suggest the police battalion participated in the roundup of the Jews. And let me also point out that this is not a case of poor or missing documentation. The main discrepancy between the sources seems to be generality vs. specificity. The sources that claim the role of the police battalion may be generally reliable and use reliable PS but in this specific case either do not specify their sources or rely on indirect evidence, e.g. "The reports of this squad report many entries on "military action against partisans," a phrase which conceals punitive measures against citizens and the killing of Jews."

The dispute between the sources is not notable enough to warrant a passage in the article so my suggestion is to include it in a footnote. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The Ekspress source appears to be a general newspaper - at least I see articles on movies and other such topics on the main page of it. Google translate gives a very very rough translation which appears to be either a letter to the editor or an editoriak, which is supported by the translation of "PEKKA ERELT, EESTI EKSPRESSI AJALOOKÜLGEDE TOIMETAJA" which google gives as "PEKKA Erelt, Eesti Ekspress HISTORY sides of EDITOR". I'd suggest that the Ekspress is not exactly a scholarly secondary source here. Certainly, there appears to be a commission that does not think the brigade took part in the events. Unfortunately, an unsigned newspaper article is not a strong source contradicting the United States Holocaust Museum's encyclopedia of the various German labor/extermination camps, nor Arad, who is a scholar working in the field. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Pekka Erelt is the editor of the history section of the Eesti Ekspress. His article may not be scholarly but it is investigative journalism. Even if we do not consider his own discussion, we should not dismiss the quotes by professional historians Meelis Maripuu, Argo Kaasik and Enn Kaup in his article. And again, this is a matter of specificity. The core of this problem is trusting a general RS over specific investigation on this matter. And, again, the conclusions of the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity are not another opinion of 'a commission' but the conclusions of the commission established to investigate crimes by Estonian citizens. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It appears that the commission does not rule out the possibility that the Police Battalion participated in the massacre. If I'm Google translating it correctly, the opening para of the Estee Ekspress reads:

• Novogrudok, Belarus received notoriety among Estonians lately. Allegedly, the 36th Police Battalion took part in the mass murder of Jews committed there in August 1942. At least, Efraim Zuroff of the Simon Wiesenthal Center is certain of it. The wording in the report by the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity is more modest; the report, however, did not rule out the participation of the Estonians. (Not sure if "more modest" is the correct translation.) link

It seems to be an incident of significance & deserves more than a footnote in the article, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The Eesti Ekspress article was written in 2002, while the commission's work was still in progress, so obviously the commission "did not rule out the participation of the Estonians" at that time because it hadn't completed it's review of all the available evidence, including the 1960's West German investigation and post-war Soviet investigations. The commission's final report, published in 2006, concluded there was no evidence found relating to the participation of 36th Battalion. --Nug (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

From the Talk page: The report states on page 861 that the 36th Police Battalion was investigated in the Federal Republic of Germany between 1967 to 1971 and no evidence was found -- "no evidence found" does not mean that the commission established that the Police Battalion did not participate. What was the commission's conclusion? (As an aside, I would not put too much weight into a criminal investigation in West Germany in the 1960-10s, due to various reasons, which are too long to get in here). K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you put too much weight on a criminal investigation of West German Police in 1960-70? I could understand your concern if they where investigating their own countrymen, but they spent four years investigating a non-German unit composed of nationals from the then Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. The Commission states on page 862 of their final report: According to data gathered by Israeli police in September 1963, about 2000 and atleast 3000 Jews were murdered in Diatlovo and Nowogrodek on 6 and 7 August 1942 respectively. There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews. Contemporary researchers accuse the local German gendarmerie, one Lithuanian unit and a Belorussian defence battalion of these specific actions.^[163]. Footnote [163] cites Christian Gerlach, Kalkulierte Morde : Die deutche Wirtschafts und Vernichtungspolitik in Wießrußland 1941 bis 1944, Hamburg, 2000, pp. 701-702. --Nug (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Note re: "investigating a non-German unit composed of nationals from the then Soviet Union" -- presumably, the members of the Battalion retreated with the Germans and were residing either in West Germany or elsewhere in Western Europe; the Battalion's commander, Harald Riipalu, emigrated to the U.K, for example. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't see how that is significant, given that the majority of the Battalion where captured by the Soviets. Upon what basis do you dismiss investigations of West German police? As I understand it, there was an issue in the late 1950's to early 1960's in regard to the Police investigating their own members who may have committed crimes during the Nazi period, but I think it is too much to claim that this would have impeded investigations of foreign personnel in the late 60's to early 70's. --Nug (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Conclusions of the Commission

I tracked down the Commission's conclusions, and here's what the document says:

• "The study of Estonian military units is complicated by frequent changes in unit designation, in personnel and in duties, some of which are poorly recorded. However, it has been possible by careful use of Soviet era trial records, matched against material from the Estonian archives, to determine that Estonian units took an active part in at least one well-documented round-up and mass murder in Belarus. The 36th Police Battalion participated on August 7, 1942 in the gathering together and shooting of almost all the Jews still surviving in the town of Novogrudok.

"In the published records, this unit was described as fighting against partisans at the time. The Commission believes that although there clearly were numerous engagements between police units and partisans, "fighting against partisans" and "guarding prisoner of war camps" were at times ways of describing participation in actions against civilians, including Jews."

This is stated on page XXI: Conclusions of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity (PDF). So I really don't see the contradiction between the finding of the Commission, The Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos and Yitzhak Arad.

Does the statement "There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews" perhaps refer to the act of actually pulling the trigger? Unless I'm missing something, the sources agree that the Battalion in question was indeed involved. Ping those who have previously participated: @Nug, Ealdgyth, and Sturmvogel 66: to have a look. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems that both The Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos and Yitzhak Arad are paraphrasing this document you found, so obviously there would not be any contradiction. The basis of this appears to be the view that "fighting against partisans" was code for killing Jewish civilians. But it isn't clear how they arrived at that, as it appears to contradict the main body of the report itself, which devotes several pages to the activities of the Battalion and asserts there no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion. Are you able to access Gerlach's work and quote the original German here, perhaps that may shed further light, I've given the relevant page numbers above. --Nug (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

This document [I] found comes from the website of the commission http://www.mnemosyne.ee/hc.ee/ and is called "Conclusions of the Commission". Are you saying that the Commission is contradicting its own conclusions? There's got to be more context around this. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I said it appears to contradict the main body of the report itself, which explicitly states "There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews". Do you have access to Gerlach's work Kalkulierte Morde, pp701-702? --Nug (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have access to Gerlach. If I sent you an email, would you be able to scan and email the relevant pages from the main body of the report (assuming its in English)? I'd like to see more context around their conclusion. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

That is a pity, with you being able to cite more obscure German historians, like Sönke Neitzel and Wolfgang Schneider, in other articles, you may have also had access to Gerlach. I can scan the relevant pages, but I don't have easy access to a scanner, perhaps I could go to the local library over the weekend. --Nug (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I would look forward to it. BTW, Sönke Neitzel is not at all obscure. He is a leading German military historian; his 2011 book Soldaten: German POWs on Fighting, Killing, and Dying (with Harald Welzer) was a sensation in Germany. The book was published in English and is even available as an audio book. It's a fascinating read; I highly recommend it. See also this interview (in English):

• "Mindset of WWII German Soldiers": video interview with Neitzel discussing Soldaten, via the official YouTube channel of The Agenda (TVOntario).

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nug: any luck? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nug: final ping. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Finally back, have been caught up in WP:REALLIFE. I've managed to scan the relevant pages and will post a link here in the next few days. --Nug (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nug: Hi, do you plan to post here, or should I drop you an email? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that Yitzak Arad cites as his source the Estonian Institute of Historical Memory, which is the successor to the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity. The Commission was disbanded in 2007 and Arad wrote in 2011. You need to check what the Institute says. If they are cited correctly, then we have to prefer what they say over the Commission. I do not have full access to the Holocaust Museum Encyclopedia. The article may provide sources which can be checked. It was published in 2009, so it may be relying on the same info as Arad. This seems to be a case where an original conclusion was changed, but we cannot tell without looking at what the Institute says. TFD (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Finally got my scanner working and have the Holocaust Museum Encyclopedia from the library. If anyone wants the scans of the article ... send me an email and I will send pdfs. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration

I would be grateful if editors could find some time to comment on an RFC as to RS suitability at the talk page for the above article, thank you. The queried RS are

https://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2017/06/the-forgotten-truth-about-the-balfour-declaration/

& (for comparison)

http://www.balfourproject.org/balfour-weizmann-and-the-creation-of-israel-by-charles-glass/

Singersroom: question about Source for FAC

Hello everyone! I was wondering if articles from the website Singersroom would be viewed as acceptable for an article undergoing the FAC process. I have used this source for the GAN, but I have recently seen more sources coming under review during the FAC recently and I would like to check here. Since I plan on working on more music articles in the future, I was just curious about whether or not it would be appropriate to use this source. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

For any specific use we would need to know what Singersroom article was being cited to support what Wikipedia article content. I can make a few very general suggestions, but these should not be treated as the last word.

As far as I can see, Singersroom.com shows little evidence of editorial oversight, so I would treat it more like a promotional vehicle than a news source. Singersroom might be good for artist interviews (that is, artist's opinions as stated in interviews they did for Singersroom). For news items, another site would be preferable. I would not use Singersoom for opinions and editorials unless the writer has credibility separate from the site (where the majority of the bylines credit "Singersroom" as the writer). / edg ☺ ☭ 16:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Makes sense, I will just avoid it then in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Mail: where does reliability end and censorship begin?

There has been a discussion at Talk:The State (2017 TV series) regarding a review published in The Daily Mail, where a review was removed from the article on the grounds of the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220#Daily_Mail_RfC. I actually support the Daily Mail ban in cases where it is being used to relay facts—after all, story fabrication was what motivated the ban—but I am concerned that the ban is being used as a pretext to censor opinion. I would never have supported the ban if I had known it was going to be used as a cover for censorship.

We know the DM cannot be trusted for facts but I don't see how we get from this point to not trusting it for an author's opinion. As an analogy, Facebook and Twitter and other self-published media are not considered reliable secondary sources but we permit the use of confirmed SPS as a primary source for the author's opinion. I don't see how The Daily Mail situation differs from this scenario. How exactly is it not reliable for the opinion of the journalist or columnist who authored the article?

I think its usage should not be curbed in a primary source capacity because no evidence was presented at the discussion that the opinions of the DM's journalists are being fabricated through the publication process. I would like to get further opinions on this. Betty Logan (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

A Daily Mail discussion in May on WP:NPOVN includes relevant-looking opinions by three of the five editors who "closed" the Daily Mail RfC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• It's a moot point. While the DM is reliable for opinions published therein, unless those opinions are covered by decent sources they would be WP:UNDUE anyway. Alexbrn (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

It is RS for it's own views. Whether theses views are relevant is another matter.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree with Betty Logan. Daily Mail was founded in 1896 and its standing as a 114-year archive of historical record cannot be challenged. If, in recent years, its news coverage has become unreliable, then only 21st century news coverage should be excluded from citation. Book, film, television, theatre, dance and other reviews should not have been, in all certainty, included in the ban, which could not have been meant to be so all-encompassing. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 14:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

William Beach Thomas. That's a century ago. - Sitush (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Just as a note, with the DM and other tabloid sources removed, we have a statement is Before the drama aired, Richard Kemp, a former advisor to the UK government on counter-terrorism, warned that it would be a "recruiting sergeant" for ISIS, a view prominently reported by several tabloid newspapers. However, the idea that the drama made ISIS glamorous or attractive was rejected by most reviewers. There are now a couple things wrong with this. First, without going to DM or the ilk, I can't find a source to support Kemp's view from an RS. If we use DM or the others, yes, its there, but the DM ban suggested they may be misreporting this, unless a true RS source can be found for Kemp's view, that needs to be removed. The Guardian article does talk to the DM and other tabloids critiquing the work as ISIS recruitment, so the rest of the statement still fine, but in such a case, where DM is part of the story, then it is completely reasonable to include the original DM source to show that reference, that's still in line with the DM "ban". --MASEM (t) 15:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: Kemp re-tweeted his central comment, with a link to the article [1], so I must assume he was reasonably happy with how he was reported.

If we're serious about wanting to report on the "Reception" the series had, that includes how it was presented in the populist press, including details such as their citing Richard Kemp as an authority figure decrying the series. Jheald (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

We're still then at the issue is if anyone else noted Kemp's reaction, outside of the tabloids. --MASEM (t) 01:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

If this is a wider "trope" why do we need to use the DM anyway?Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

If the DM is not a reliable source, while it is a reliable source for its own opinions, it is not a reliable source for the opinions of other people. Fakenews and hoax websites frequently falsely claim that people have said things they did not.

Masem, I do not think that if a reliable source mentions and uses an unreliable source that opens the door to us using the unreliable source. Reporters are trusted to determine what in the unreliable source is accurate, while editors are not. Only what the reliable source reports is reliable, so there is no need to use the unreliable one.

TFD (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

MapReader also removed: "with the Daily Mail going so far as to give the first episode a zero-star review.". That was a Daily Mail writer's opinion, not the Daily Mail quoting someone else. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

How do you know that the writer actually wrote it and that someone else wrote it and DM put another name on it? Since DM is not reliable, we cannot rely on their claim of authorship, or that they have not revised the original text. TFD (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

It's one thing for faking/rewording interviews, etc. However, the DM ban never touched on whether they were actually stealing content and publishing it under their name, which would quickly put them in legal problems. That's a wholly different issue that is unproven and so we shouldn't be assuming they are doing it - eg content that is coming from an writer employeed by the DM should be assumed it is that work until we have evidence that shows otherwise. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? That the Mail has been accused (rightly or wrongly) of routinely plagiarising content is surely not in dispute—Roy Greenslade has been tracking it for years (just google his name and "mail plagiarism" and take your pick of the articles—here's a recent one in which they made the mistake of ripping off a Murdoch-owned paper who had the resources to fight back). The Mail have (unsurprisingly) challenged this article, so I'll let you judge for yourself whether it has the ring of truth. ‑ Iridescent 17:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has concluded that the Dail Mail is unreliable for everything not just some things. TFD (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not what the conclusion said. "The Daily Mail may have been more reliable historically, and it could make sense to cite it as a primary source if it is the subject of discussion. These seem to be good points, but should come up very rarely. Editors are encouraged to discuss with each other and apply common sense in these cases." (emphasis mine). In the specific case of the DM publishing their opinion that a program is akin to ISIS recruitment, as criticism about the program which was noted by other sources, including the DM's criticism article as a source is common sense, so that a reader, trying to understand what this point was, can read the original article(s) that created this controversy. --MASEM (t) 23:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Signed reviews published by the Daily Mail are reliable for "opinion cited and ascribed as opinion." Authorship ascribed by the newspaper is as reliable as the ascription by other newspapers, and saying that they would lie about who wrote a review fails the (fill in the blank) test. The only area where they, and other media, routinely fail is in the area of "celebrity gossip" where even the New York Times fails. Collect (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The issue is that for interviews, we depend on the reliability of the source to establish the reliability and relevance of whoever they're interviewing, and to give us a context for their statements (including their expertise.) I don't think the Daily Mail would lie about who their source is; I do think they might interview a source with no expertise, or interview a source who is far outside the mainstream and then present him as mainstream, or quote someone out of context or in a way that otherwise misrepresents some aspect of the topic, or otherwise "massage" a quote or interview to produce a story. We wouldn't normally quote someone from a WP:PRIMARY source like a social media page or their blog, certainly not on anything controversial, unless we had a reliable source to provide context and establish relevance - and since the Daily Mail lacks reliability, it's no better than doing that. Therefore, I'm opposed to using DM interviews or quotes unless they're referenced or confirmed in a higher-quality source. (And in that case, we should just use the other source.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Interviews in the Daily Mail aren't reliable sources for anything other than writing specifically about "claims made by the Mail". The Daily Mail is notorious for fabricating interviews (a couple of high-profile examples [2], [3]) so anything claimed by the Mail that isn't corroborated elsewhere should be taken with an extreme pinch of salt. ‑ Iridescent 16:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

All of the examples of Daily Mail's journalistic shortcomings (plagiarism, fabrication) appear to concern its news coverage. Are there any examples of alleged journalistic failure regarding its opinion pieces (columnists, reviewers of television, film, stage, dance, exhibitions, galleries, etc)? —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. See past editions of Private Eye. They're in hock to a lot of friends and reviews etc reflect that. - Sitush (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there evidence to support the accusations or even suspicions that any Daily Mail entertainment reviewer took bribes to write a positive opinion when no other publication would find anything positive to say, or that any Daily Mail reviewer was threatened with dismissal if he or she did not write a complementary review when such a review was clearly not warranted? —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

In the UK the Daily Mail (for all its questionable relationship to truth) is not a fringe newspaper -- it single-handedly accounts for almost 25% of the UK national newspaper market, and is a significant opinion-former. If the DM takes strongly against an artistic work, that is a significant element of the popular critical response, which we should be reporting. Similarly, if the DM moves strongly behind a campaign on an issue, that is also part of the story.

So on an issue like eg the Liverpool Care Pathway, the DM is certainly no WP:MEDRS. But removing the links to the DM's populist reporting on the subject (see article history), which to a large extent triggered the issue and gave a platform to the LCP's most vocal critics, makes it a lot more difficult for readers to understand how the issues were presented in the popular press, and the media storm that ultimately forced the NHS to disavow the practice.

With respect to The State, the DM's reporting and review was noted at the time by El Pais in Spain [4] and repeated in detail by e.g. Marianne in Paris before the series began showing in France. In the UK its key allegation of "glamorising ISIS" became a touchpoint that most critics felt they subsequently had to address, even if only to reject it. As with the LCP, if we want to our readers to be able to look into the subject further, and assess for themselves the reporting in the more populist sheets (tabloid self-serving stirred-up moral panic ? -- or no smoke without fire ?), it's helpful to link to the articles in question, to allow them to easily access the texts to read what was actually said, as we would for other primary sources. Jheald (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I firmly believe each article from the Daily Mail should be taken on each merit, not implement a blanket ban as has happened. After all, we have a number of GAs that are heavily reliant on Daily Mail sources and there was no problem with them in regard to reliability in reviews and they were accepted as reliable for inclusion. We should look at each separate article and see if it is an opinion piece or a reasoned review of events that are being covered. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Weight requires that we present opinions according to their significance in reliable sources. So anything that appears in the Daily Mail fails weight, unless a reliable source takes notice of it. Many Americans for example believe the world was created in 6 days, but we don't give it weight according to how many people hold the opinion, but by how prevalent it is in the writing of experts. TFD (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:WEIGHT applies here. WEIGHT determines whether we cover something in an article, not where we draw information from. In this particular case there were plenty of reviews of the program outside of the DM, so "weight" is something of a red herring. The subject is covered and the only question here is whether the biggest selling newspaper in the UK has a voice in the national discourse, no matter how reliable or unreliable it is for factual reporting. Given the fact that other media outlets actively challenged their critique of the program I would wager it does, and Wikipedia is therefore remiss not to cover it. There are other instances where someone notable may pen an article, such as Ed Miliband's defence of his father, where I think the DM quite clearly qualifies in a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE capacity. Betty Logan (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

WEIGHT applies because we do not mention any opinions that have not been covered in reliable sources. So an opinion only covered in the Daily Mail has no weight and cannot be mentioned. And it can only be used as a primary source for its own opinions generally for articles about itself. TFD (talk) 10:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Betty Logan and also find the removal of the Daily Mail citation in the context absurd. Not only is it being cited for its own opinion, but the Daily Mail is actually a part of the story in this case, and its view is directly challenged in the next sentence. Furthermore, its view is presented as a kind of minority or fringe one. It doesn't make sense to remove it in this context. -Darouet (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

In agreeing with this and Betty Logan, I would say that even if one considered it a fringe view, the fact that more reliable sources like the Guardian clearly wrote their reviews/commentary on the program aimed at countering the "ISIS propaganda" claim, even if not mentioning DM by mail, means we would be remit in not including the major papers, even if they are tabloids, to include this facet. The fringe view became part of the discussion, not standalone and unnoticed by anyone else. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

But would we need to quote the source they were commenting on? Also in the Daily Myth the only tabloid making the claim?09:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• In the thread above, collect opined that "Signed reviews published by the Daily Mail are reliable for "opinion cited and ascribed as opinion." Authorship ascribed by the newspaper is as reliable as the ascription by other newspapers, and saying that they would lie about who wrote a review fails the (fill in the blank) test." But as is clearly documented at WP:DAILYMAIL, they regularly cut and paste material from other websites (including interviews, signed reviews, news items, and pretty much anything that catches their eye), edit it a bit to insert total fabrications to make make it into more lurid clickbait, then publish it using another name as the author. So if the Daily Mail publishes a signed review, we have no idea whether the review was modified, whether the author listed is the actual author, or even if the whole thing was made up out of whole cloth. The Daily Mail is unreliable for everything except claims such as "The Daily Mail said X" with a citation to where the reader can read The Daily Mail saying X. Even using The Daily Mail as a source about itself, something that we allow even on unreliable sites like InfoWars.com, should not be allowed in the case of The Daily Mail. The claim "Alex Jones founded Infowars" can be cited with a link to Infowars making that claim, on the reasonable assumption that they are not lying about themselves. The claim "The Daily Mail is owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust and published in London" cannot be supported in the same way -- with a link to The daily Mail saying that -- because The Daily mail lies about everything and plagiarizes everything and we are not allowed to guess whether or not any one particular claim is a lie or is plagiarism. If you can find the claim in another source, use that other source. If the claim is found only in The Daily Mail, don't make the claim on wikipedia. We have no way of knowing that it is true. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Neverthess, "Reception" in a film or tv series article doesn't just mean how the item was received in the quality press. It shouldn't ignore also how the item was received in the populist press. And the best source for how the Daily Mail received it is the Mail itself. Jheald (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. that is a proper use. The way to handle this is to say "The Daily Mail called the film 'Better than Saving Christmas but not a good as Battlefield Earth' " with a citation to where The Daily Mail said that. We should not say that "Professor Eustace P. McGargle, writing in The daily Mail, called the film..." because we have no idea whether the name on the review is fake, or whether, if it is the name of a real person, what The Daily Mail published is what they actually wrote. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: that sounds reasonable. -Darouet (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment As others have said, the original proposal was not for a blanket ban on Daily Mail articles being used as reference. As the Daily Mail is a national newspaper with a high circulation it is inherently a source for notability on certain subjects. Just because you don't agree with the editorial line (and I certainly don't) and just because you believe it shouldn't be used to establish current facts of serious situations, the fact remains that due to it's circulation and importance as a media outlet, it certainly can be used to prove notability of cases. In a lot of cases, this might not be needed (for example a film that is reviewed by many journalists), but in some cases, the Mail may write about a figure, or institution, etc that is not normally covered by other media. IN this case, the Daily Mail is a source of notability for subjects.The discussion linked by the OP here was one based on the reliable sources noticeboard and the discussion centred on the use of the DM as a RELIABLE source, not a NOTABLE one. Egaoblai (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• From WP:N - the guideline covering notability - second paragraph "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." - the list of things on which the Daily Mail can be considered 'reliable' has been demonstrated to be very small. If something was only covered in the Mail and not elsewhere, it would not demonstrate notability. This is clarified slightly further down with "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity" - that the mail is popular and widely read is no indication that what it covers is notable. If it covers something that is notable, it will be covered elsewhere, and from experience at a higher quality level. Although I believe we are off-topic here as notability guidelines do not apply to content within a notable article. Just wanted to correct your statement above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

While you are right to say that determining notability does not rely on fame (a popular phenomenon that was never written about for instance) I think there is a distinction between reliable (as a source for facts on a subject) and reliable (as a source for notability). I support the notion that DM is not reliable for facts, but it must surely be a source for notability given it's position as a national newspaper. My understanding is that if a national newspaper has written about a subject, this alone is grounds for notability, regardless of whether the source is reliable or not, as notability is based on a general notion of importance. If we take away the ability of DM to be used a criteria for determining notability, then we are in effect creating systemic bias as well as a chilling effect on the encyclopedia which means that subjects who have appeared in a national newspaper are not deemed notable. Whether you agree with the paper or not, I find it very hard to see how the subjects it chooses for coverage are not notable. Imagine a case where someone wants to make a page about a historic church in their village. Now an editor comes along and says "well what makes it notable?" and the person points them to a DM article which said the church was voted Britain's most beautiful church by it's readers and this was followed by an article on the church. Are we seriously saying that in a case like this, the response of Wikipedia would be to say that this wasn't sufficiently notable, that a news source read by a huge population of the country was not sufficiently notable for this Church. To make it even clearer, let's say the church was also mentioned in another media, but an over zealous editor remarks that the church is not notable because it only has this one mention, and the DM mention doesn't count. This sounds like a ludicrous outcome to this proposal.Egaoblai (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The reason why 'reliable' is part of the notability guidelines is that an unreliable source cannot be trusted to demonstrate an accurate picture of the situation. That the DM covers something is not necessarily an indication of the notability of the subject, only that the DM is covering it for its own agenda. This applies in general however to almost everything on wikipedia. If an article only has a single reliable source, often it will be deleted at AFD due to a lack of demonstrated notability. If an article has a single unreliable source, it will be deleted if further sources cannot be found. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I actually agree that the DM can be used to establish notability, but there's an important caveat to that; If only the DM is reporting on something, then that's not enough. Not even close. Even the most well-respected reliable sources cannot make something notable simply by writing a story about it; there's a reason all the verbiage in WP:NOTABILITY uses plural forms to refer to sources. But if someone were to find something written about in an RS, and the only other source covering it were the DM, I think that's enough to at least argue that it's notable, though whether that argument succeeds or not depends on other factors. I certainly wouldn't hold that extensive coverage by the DM establishes notability; outlets with identifiable ideologies can harp on endlessly on certain issue for the purpose of furthering that ideology. That doesn't make it notable, it just shows that the source in question wants it to be notable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Did Jimmy Dore call Hillary Clinton a fascist?

The following discussion on The Young Turks, was used as source by a columnist that Jimmy Dore called Hillary Clinton a fascist:[5]

Jimmy: You say we have to vote for Hillary because we might get a fascist.

Cenk: Yes.

Jimmy: The definition of fascism is what?

Cenk: There we go. People say it's when business and...

Jimmy: ...government...

Cenk: ...merges.

Jimmy: So this is a fascist versus a fascist and a racist.

I think what he meant was that by Cenk's definition Clinton was a fascist. I see no reason to present the columnists misrepresentation of the discussion, even with inline attribution.

TFD (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• In short, I am of the view that Dore clearly called Hillary Clinton a fascist. See Talk:Jimmy Dore for my detailed view.
• Also, Dore's final quote is actually: "so our choice is a fascist, or a fascist and a racist?" CowHouse (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• There is no doubt that the Daily Banter says that Dore called Clinton a fascist

Agreed with TFD that the Daily Banter shows itself as an unreliable source - a tabloid really - by misrepresenting what Dore actually said as well as the context in which he said it.

On another level of policy analysis, this is in-the-moment political gossip about [(bernie vs hilary) vs trump], and we are an encyclopedia, NOTGOSSIP/NOTTABLOID and NOTNEWS

On yet another level of analysis, someone would need to bring much stronger sourcing than a political gossip blog to show that mentioning this is DUE

On yet another level of analysis, writing stuff about living people based on crappy sources like this is not what BLP is about.

So no. Not reliable, and also NOT, NPOV, and BLP issues Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Saying that one person called another a fascist is definitely something we would want to cite to a high-quality WP:RS. I don't think The Daily Banter - essentially a blog - is usable for that, nor is it high-profile enough for us to cite it as a primary source for its own opinions. We'd have to find another source presenting that interpretation, or at least highlighting it as the opinion of The Daily Banter. --Aquillion (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Amazing Lanka

Many topics surrounding Sri Lanka are sourced by this website, http://amazinglanka.com/wp/. This website seems to biased and lacks much in neutrality, example; http://amazinglanka.com/wp/kanniya-hot-water-wells/. Would this website count as reliable and be approved to use as reliable source? Xenani (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

If you read the site's self description [6] then you can see that it's a self-published website, which according to WP:SPS "are largely not acceptable as sources". You certainly couldn't use it for anything controversial or involving living people. If you want a more detailed answer you would have to identify the exact use are asking about, as described in the text below the big yellow banner when you edit this page. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your issue about it being biased and lacking in neutrality I suggest you read WP:NEUTRALSOURCE, but even if this can't be used a reference it might be allowed as an external link. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Somebody disputed this!

Hi

Can this book From British author Hargrave Jennings be deemed as an unreliable source by arguing that the publisher is an "on demand publisher"? Thanks.

References

-Casktopic_say 06:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Casktopic: It depends upon what claim is being made. Can you give the article and context please? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Well it was published in 1892, and an anthropological text that old is likely to be extremely out of date and not a valid source for facts. It might be a valid source for the author's opinion, assuming his opinion was notable/noteworthy (ie, of historical interest) - but it would have to be attributed and the publication date should be made clear. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Two things:

• The citation is very wrong. Should be:

Hargrave, Jennings (1892). Phallism : a description of the worship of lingam-yoni in various parts of the world, and in different ages, with an account of ancient & modern crosses, particularly of the crux ansata (or handled cross) and other symbols connected with the mysteries of sex worship. London: Privately printed. OCLC 225528163.

• Before anybody comments, the proposed content for to be supported by this must be stated. This is a book from the age of orientalism in western scholarship and some things in books that came out of that era are horrible. But generally what folks wrote above is generally correct. Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC) (fix garble Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC))

Could you explain why this must' be stated? We really need to know the specific context... which article are we talking about, and how is the source being used? Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes we do need to know those things. I don't understand the 'why" part of your question Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood your use of the word "content". Did you mean that the context must be included, here in this discussion... or that the content (taken from the source) has to appear in the article? If the latter, I wanted to know why. Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Why must the content be specified? Because the instructions on this noticeboard (which few people seem bothered to read) say so:

Before posting, please check the archives for prior discussions of the source.  If after reviewing, you feel a new post is warranted, please be sure to include the following information, if available:
Links to past discussion of the source on this board. 
Source.  The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example: [http://www.website.com/webpage.html]. 
Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: [[Article name]].

Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y".

— InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 21:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Not the OP, but for those asking I believe this is the content they are trying to use the citation to support. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Outdated scholarship and the publisher is not reliable enough. It better to remove it. Unless there was lack of scholarly content about this subject, I would be fine with accepting this source and information, but we have more modern and more reliable sources. Capitals00 (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• On-demand publishing for a historical book is not unusual. No one expects all outdated academic texts to be re-published regularly. This is one of those individual merit situations. The context in which it should be used etc. For example, in a discussion about the historical anthropological thinking, this would likely be useable as a reference/example of the scholarship at the time. It should not (unless by some miracle there has been no change) be used to reference current thinking. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

whowhatwhy.org

1. Source. WhoWhatWhy, specifically https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/08/02/dallas-mayor-jfk-assassination-cia-asset/

2. Article. Earle Cabell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

3. Content. Documents declassified in 2017 show the Cabell was a CIA asset beginning in 1956.

Russ Baker's website WhoWhatWhy recently reported that John M. Newman found a four-page document (two cover sheets, a "Personality (201) File Request", and a signed secrecy agreement) in the latest dump of JFK materials that proves former Dallas mayor Earl Cabell was a "CIA asset". The clear implication is that Cabell was a spook that played a role in a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. The article attempts to lead the reader by stating that the 201 document is "a 'personality' file opened on actual or potential agents, assets, or informants", however, the CIA opened 201 files on nearly anyone in which they had some interest (e.g. my first two hits were for war criminals Shūmei Ōkawa [7] and Werner Best [8]). Regarding the secrecy agreement, we don't know why Cabell signed it but there is a good chance that it had something to do with having a brother who was a prominent CIA official. There is a place for primary source documents, but we shouldn't be cherry-picking them from the walled garden of conspiracy theorists.

Anyhow, this one is a no-brainer to me (i.e. Baker's book and/or website pushes the theories that the Bushes killed JFK and RFK, and perpetrated 911; Newman's three books claim the CIA covered-up Oswald's role in killing Kennedy), but the material keeps making its way into the article so I'm posting here for feedback. -Location (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Because war criminals are never CIA assets.... Abductive (reasoning) 03:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

No, the source is not unreliable because of that. The source is unreliable because a) it ignores the mountains of evidence in the official findings of the JFK assassination and b) cherry-picks primary source documents then distorts what they actually mean in order to further one version of the CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory. It is disingenuous to claim that WhoWhatWhy merely re-posted publicly available primary source material. -Location (talk) 05:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It's so refreshing to see some left-wing conspiracy theories, for a change. Yeah, no this is not reliable. Not even close. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

From a cursory look:

I couldn't find any statement of their policies to ensure accuracy and correct errors...

Looking over a few other articles, I'm seeing rather shallow, biased reporting garbed in a presentation of investigative reporting.

I certainly wouldn't want it used for any BLP info, and it looks like there's too much fringe info and viewpoints from the publication to use without qualifying that information from it is likely fringe opinion. --Ronz (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Cabell is long dead. Anyway, the website in question has posted primary source material from the recently declassified government files. No doubt other sources are available that are more reputable. Abductive (reasoning) 03:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

AllMusic

Posting here for the hell of it, and cause User:Chris troutman dropped me a note saying AllMusic might not be an RS because it had user-generated content; he said he got this from this noticeboard. I'm not aware that AllMusic did that, but I haven't seen any discussion of the source here so I don't know. I never cite from their website, I think, only from what I get through Google Books, but it's a valid point. What do y'all know? And when are we going to come up with a centralized list and a stamp of approval that we can put in the infobox of the publication's article? Drmies (talk) 04:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• IMHO AllMusic should be approached on a case-by-case basis, so neither a universal stamp of approval, nor a universal stamp of disapproval. I didn't understand how and why "infobox" entered your question, but I'd suggest to keep that topic out of the equation – unless if your question is about one infobox specifically.

I could give some fairly recent examples where editor consensus led to removal of AllMusic from an article, and other examples where editor consensus decided for inclusion. As these examples may be quite unrelated to your question, I see no point in looking them up: so please be specific:

• Which page of this website would you like to use (a.k.a. Source)? It is a very extended website, with huge differences between pages: some, for instance, having a named author, others dominantly commercial, etc.
• For which Article do you want to use that webpage?
• For which Content do you want to use that webpage?

--Francis Schonken (talk) 05:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be about "Lorena's Holly Tucker ... the Waco singer ..." ([9]) at Waco, Texas#Music: I'd defer to her own biography for confirmation of the place of birth ("... Waco native ..."; "... Waco, Texas native ..."). The three third party sources currently used in the Waco article (one of them being AllMusic) say the same, so the situation shouldn't be problematic afaics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• This is not a reliable source. It can be edited by others and it's content (other than biography page) are garbage. I have objected the use of allmusic as source before.[10] Just don't use it as source for anything. Excelse (talk) 08:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Would you have any problem with how AllMusic is used as a source here (currently references nos. 19 and 23)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Generally, I think it should be avoided for biographical information. Their statements about accuracy seem a bit contradictory. They strive for accuracy and provide a means for accepting corrections [11], but they disclaim accuracy [12]. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Is Endometriosis.org a reliable medical source?

Would you consider the Endometriosis.org website to be a reliable medical source for information on endometriosis?

• The site has a team of editors working on articles: http://endometriosis.org/about/team/
• And an international peer review board of medical experts who both contribute & verify the publications: http://endometriosis.org/about/peer-review-board/
• The articles within cite sources, example: http://endometriosis.org/treatments/progestins/

It seems like in the example article they cite mostly primary sources(studies) but also some secondary sources (is THIS a secondary source?) so would this site be considered a tertiary or a secondary source? If I want to update & improve the article on endometriosis can this website itself be used as a source? I guess I want to know if the complied info from this website can be used at all. Thanks. Dinosaurseatpancakes (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Patient organisations are not reliable for medical claims. Simples. -Roxy the dog. bark 14:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Does anybody else have any thoughts? Their review board has 23 doctors. Seems lazy to me to just disregard this site regardless of it's merits just because it can be categorized as a patient organization. Is there truly a good reason to assume all patient organizations have biased information no matter their methods? Dinosaurseatpancakes (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The subject is beyond my area of expertise, but I do have a couple thoughts on this. First, the reliability of a source depends on context but we don't have a specific source or content outlined in the above instructions. Second, why would we use a patient organization rather than some better source? I would think there would be various sources written by physicians, researchers, or other academics; or the citations noted in the website's articles. Third, Center Watch doesn't link to this website in its list of patient organizations (i.e. [13]), but I guess that begs the question as to whether Center Watch's links matter. Fourth, check out Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). -Location (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe, but there are more important issues.

MEDRS is clear that we look for recent reviews from good quality journals, statements from major medical/scientific organizations (e.g WHO, CDC, FDA, NIH, NHS, NICE, etc), and good textbooks.

There are many, many recent reviews in pubmed. NHS choices has good content, as do other major bodies. And it is covered in textbooks.

We generally avoid university/hospital websites as well as patient advocacy organizations because they are very uneven, even at the same organization. Many so-called patient advocacy groups turn out to be astroturf when you dig into them (see for example this Bloomberg] article about how Alexion Pharmaceuticals set up and used patient advocacy groups to drive sales of its drug (the most expensive drug in the world). :{

So really - why would we cite it? It is not a classic MEDRS source, and there is no lack of classic MEDRS sources.

This kind of thing is generally driven by people who a) think "Its on the web so let's use it and this is so much easier than working through the literature", or b) who have some connection to the organization and are actually looking to use WP to drive traffic to its website (which is WP:REFSPAM) Not saying either thing is happening in this instance.

All of our articles need improving and updating - please use high quality sources to do so - recent literature reviews in good quality journals and statements from major medical/health organizations. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks I will take all of this into account. As someone who has lived with endometriosis for two decades you could say I'm frustrated with the state of the endo article on WP. It is a hot mess. I personally don't consider WP a reliable source but I'm certain a large number of the younger generation of women would take it for granted. I would like to see a more coherent article with less omission and bad info basically. I'm just not sure where to even begin. The biggest problem with this illness is literally lack of up-to-date information and lack of interest within the medical community itself. The amount of specialists who can actually treat it properly is scarce and I have no doubt some of them are in it for the $$$(some have their own clinics). It may look like there's lots of good info to go around but from a patient's perspective there is not even enough research or guidelines for GP's. Because of this some patient orgs have been on the forefront of compiling the newest research with the help of specialists when the general medical community has not. Not that this has anything to do with WP, just that the article is a mess. Dinosaurseatpancakes (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of the quality of our article on Endometriosis, there may be a better article on the German Wikipedia. Does anyone know German or feel like using the Google translator? See de:Endometriose, which is marked as their equivalent of a Featured article. One of the editors there, User:Hic et nunc, is a physician as well as a German wiki administrator and he has provided laparoscopic photos for the article which suggest he may be familiar with the disease. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

You're right, I'm a gynaecologist in Germany and familiar with the disease. The question if Endometriosis.org is a reliable medical source can easily be answered: Yes, in my opinion.

They provide evidence based information in a language that can be understood by patients. That doesn't mean that these information are of less quality. There are only a few web based sources with a peer review board. And this board is excellent.

They review studies as they would do for a journal but publish the information understandable.

Of course there are many scientific sources. But are we really able to evaluate the published studies and reviews? And is this our goal? I don't think so.

The editors and the peer review board of Endometriosis.org do this. And the list of the scientists in the peer review board is like a who is who in endometriosis.

The only difference is IMHO the preparation of the provided information in a simple language.--Hic et nunc (talk) 06:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Patient organisations are not reliable for medical claims. Changing the policy this way will just open the floodgates. No. -Roxy the dog. bark 07:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The policy is quiet right. But I think that endometriosis.org is more than this and different from other patient organisations. Of course you can find information on other sites like PubMed Health and NHS. But I didn't find a mark like "This site is peer-reviewed for accuracy" there.

And if you look here you see resources for further finding and reading of scientific papers like in a scientific journal... --Hic et nunc (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for all the input. I personally think this source is reliable. There are 23 doctors, most of whom are specialists on their review board. In my country alone there are maybe only a handful of actual endo specialists & experts. The website is indeed directed at patients but it does not assert itself as a patient organization. It appears to be an information portal made by it's editors who have listed ties to several different(and notable) health organizations. I know many would be quick to dismiss this source as invalid and using it could attract deletionists. This is why I wanted to have this discussion to serve as food for thought. I understand the reasons behind WP policies but I take issue with any policy's blind enforcement without consideration for individual merits of sources. Too black & white. In the case of endo, patient orgs are key in pushing for more research and legislative changes in the first place. Without them it would not happen since they are the no.1 interest group. Both medical journals and patient orgs can have their biases and issues but a few bad apples doesn't have to mean the whole tree will rot. Endo knowledge has only recently gained more traction despite being around since the 1800's. I dare say, partly a result of bias against women's issues in medicine. I'm glad to know there are experts on WP and of the excellent German article. Unfortunately I only know finnish and am indeed a lay person when it comes to editing medical WP articles. Still, I would like to attempt to improve the endo article. Readability, WP:WEIGHT, salvaging info/removing, clear statistics etc. Sources like this can really help the non-expert. Dinosaurseatpancakes (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Not reliable We can and should use better sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• Sources are evaluated in context - what is the information to be used in the article this site would be used to reference? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

As I realize that, it is reliable source. It has a team; it has an international peer review board, consist of experts on the subject. Do we really understand relibility of the sources? SwordOfRobinHood (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Possibly okay with major caveats As far as I can tell, this is a (very conscientious) patient advocacy organization. They appear to do a good job of summarizing research without overselling specific studies. They claim to be financially independent, and I don't see anything that gives me a reason to doubt that claim. To my mind, they could be comparable to a site like WebMD or the Mayo Clinic: they can be acceptable for non-controversial information, but they should be avoided when claims are contested. Peer reviewed research is always preferable, but this is an okay source if someone simply wants to quickly make improvements or fill out missing information in an article. (see IRS:OTHERSOURCES) Nblund ^talk 16:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Not reliable: per Policy. How much emphasis does this need? -Roxy the dog. bark 17:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

No policy prohibits the use of a source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Blowing the lid off the CryptoNote/Bytecoin scam (with the exception of Monero)

Hello, I was trying to edit the CryptoNote web-page, and was informed that my source (a web-forum) was black-listed as unreliable. I think an exception should be granted in this specific case: since the forum post goes into great detail, with references.

That page is the definitive source on the scam. Third-party news organizations did not cover it because CryptoNote was not notable at the time. The scam actually innovated with strong privacy: in order to hide it, if nothing else. As a result, a fork of the original scam inherited that privacy, and grew to be notable.

Here is the content I was prevented from posting:

... On August 15, 2014; user rethink-your-strategy on the BitcoinTalk forums: pointed out that the dates on the white-papers appear to have been faked. It is believed that the documents were back-dated as part of an elaborate pre-mining scam.

Edit: removed the domain name, because it is black-listed here as well.

Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist. To save your changes now, you must go back and remove the blocked link (shown below), and then save.

Note that if you used a redirection link or URL shortener (like e.g. goo.gl, t.co, youtu.be, bit.ly), you may still be able to save your changes by using the direct, non-shortened link - you generally obtain the non-shortened link by following the link, and copying the contents of the address bar of your web-browser after the page has loaded. Links containing google.com/url? are resulting from a copy/paste from the result page of a Google search - please follow the link on the result page, and copy/paste the contents of the address bar of your web-browser after the page has loaded, or click here to convert the link.

If you feel the link is needed, you can:

Request that the entire website be allowed, that is, removed from the local or global spam blacklists (check both lists to see which one is affecting you). Request that just the specific page be allowed, without unblocking the whole website, by asking on the spam whitelist talk page.

Blacklisting indicates past problems with the link, so any requests should clearly demonstrate how inclusion would benefit Wikipedia.

198.48.133.157 (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

References

WP:NOR

Forum posts, particularly for contentious claims as this would be, are not acceptable. We'd need other reliable sources to cover it from their perspective. With forums, there's no indication that the posters are experts in their field nor any fact-checking. --MASEM (t) 05:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Forum posts have rudimentary fact-checking: especially for such outrageous claims. Other users will call out obvious bull-shit. I understand why the forum as a whole was black-listed. I am asking for the specific forum thread to be white-listed. 198.48.133.157 (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Not going to happen. Unusable source. Alexbrn (talk) 05:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

IMO, the source taking the date of the cryptonote papers at face-value is worse. The sources is a blog, which in turn cites another web-forum. (both accessible with the wayback machine). We have a rare case where self-published information is the best source. Any "credible" organizations looking at it years later are just going to rehash what my source said. Would it help if I came up with sources saying that this history is generally regarded as true? (I briefly tried searching for "crypotonote history" articles, and did not find anything promising).

Responding to myself: reference 8 does not actually appear to disagree with my claim. When I was going down the rabbit hole checking the source: the forum thread mentions 'buddhacoin', with a date of 2013 (post date of 2015). The may imply the authors started (unpublished) work back then (It may be a fake post to establish history as well). 198.48.133.157 (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I feel that that specific link is needed under WP:NOR. Quoting Wikipedia:RS:

With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing. However, newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt.

198.48.133.157 (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

According to Eisenstein ("Folgerungen aus den Capillaritätserscheinungen" page 12) All internet forums are rubbish. Now you will note I have cited this this to an RS, so it must be true.

The simple fact is that citing a source, and actually representing what it says are not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

If you check the CryptoNote talk page, you will see that two other people tried to reference the same source. The Cryptonote papers themselves are "self-published", so are not considered credible. As I explained in the OP, Cryptonote was not considered notable at the time, so received no media coverage. However, the protocol was innovative enough that a forked version (Monero) became large enough to be notable. We are not allowed to mention the colorful history of Monero in the WP article without "Reliable Sources" to back it up. I am telling you: that forum post is the most reliable source you will get. I have seen no serious attempts to debunk it (the bitcoin.it wiki cites a post in the same thread (page 9) that comes close). 198.48.133.157 (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

And what people are telling you is that forum posts are not reliable except on rare occasions where they can satisfy other criteria (eg,a valid use as a primary source, an identified expert on a subject and so on). If the *only* available source is an unreliable forum posting, then it wont be used. We are not required to make any attempt to debunk it, the source is required to fulfill our reliable source criteria. This does not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Since the link itself is not viewable on this thread as yet, I am going to post a Google search of the article/post so people can find and read it: [14]. Anyway, if the anonymous (lengthy!) post has any validity, what needs to happen is that the conclusions or the concept(s) get picked up by more reliable source(s)/media and those would be usable as citation(s). For instance, here is a source with an actual named author that discusses the post: [15]. Since most cryptocurrencies are still fairly underground, I'm not sure many mainstream sources are going to be discussing this. Disclaimer: I don't know a whole lot about cryptocurrencies. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Ted Cruz

Given that Ted Cruz has now said that other people have access to his twitter account can it be used as an RS, as it may not be him posting it?Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn't be using Twitter posts for anything unless that Twitter post was noted by others, and in a case like this, we can follow what they say. I would suspect they would say something like "A post made to Cruz' Twitter account said that...", rather than "Cruz said on Twitter that...". --MASEM (t) 13:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe but the germ of this was the above DM discussion (it must be this person they put their name to it). We can use blogs and social media that is verified,but here we have a verified social media account that has posts by third parties.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The way the situation sounds, it seems to be more that these are people in Cruz' employ (or in this case, was in his employ) to post for him, rather than being an "open relay" concept. Knowing that Cruz doesnt have full control, but it remains within full control of people paid by Cruz, we just should be aware that it's not necessarily Cruz behind the Twitter posting but still likely representing his views/takes for the most part. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

In general Facebook, Twitter, and other social media of most "important" people (pols, celebrities, business leaders, etc.) are run by a media team (which may be a bored intern or even an outsourced outfit). They can be construed as being endorsed by the person - if they are not retracted by the person. Trump is an "outlier" in that he actually posts to his own twitter (at least he is purported to), however it has been claimed that also in his case some of the messages are from a media team. In any event - if someone retracts a social media post - we should treat it as possibly not made by himself (either due to the account being compromised or staff ineptness - even though at times it is also a way to do "account owner bungleup").Icewhiz (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

RFC: "Exemption from WP:V" at Wikiproject Days of the year

There is a discussion underway at Wikiproject:Days of the year regarding whether to require direct sourcing per WP:BURDEN. At least one editor thought that a notice should be posted here to ensure we get broad consensus. Toddst1 (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)