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

Oelemari Airport and other Surinamese articles

Hello. After a brief discussion at User talk:Nardisoero, Salvidrim (talk · contribs) suggested to re-route our discussion here. It does not reduce to the example below, but we can start with it. Thank you.

1. diff
2. Oelemari Airport

3. On 15 August 1960 a Northrop YC-125B Raider, registered PZ-TAD (Formerly N2570B, 48-632) stalled during landing at Oelemari and was reported written-off with no fatalities. The pilot was D.L. Walker. The airplane was leased by the Surinamese Government/SLM from Ambrose Aviation for equipment transport for landing-strip construction, under "Operation Grasshopper".

--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we have an article on Joe Baugher, and that he might qualify as an expert in the field of military aviation. But that seems a bit of a stretch here, since I don't see where that page writes the information it is being cited for here. --GRuban (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Continuing with Surinamese articles, here's another concern of mine, which I also raised at the article's talk page.

1. diff
2. Surinam Airways

3. Surinam Airways operated the following aircraft throughout its history:

• Beech G-18S
• Bell 47G Helicopter
• Boeing 707-320C
• Boeing 737-200
• Boeing 747-200B
• Boeing 747-300SCD
• Cessna UC-78C Bobcat
• Cessna 170B
• Cessna 206
• de Havilland Canada DHC6-100 Twin Otter
• de Havilland Canada DHC6-300 Twin Otter
• DHC-8-300
• Douglas C-47A
• Douglas C-47B
• Douglas DC-6A
• Douglas DC-6B
• Douglas DC-8 Series 50
• Douglas DC-8 Super 60 Series
• Douglas DC-9-50
• McDonnell Douglas MD-80
• Piper PA-18 Super Cub
• Piper PA-23-160 Apache E

There are now three references after the ″:″. My main concern is this one, which is of dubious origin. As I said, this has already been raised at the article's talk page, yet the editor that introduced this reference never responded to my comments.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Code of Canon Law as reliable source for Catholic canon law

On the grounds that the Code of Canon Law is a primary source, an editor has objected to citing it for information on Catholic canon law. See here and here. Surely, when merely stating the law, without making the statement part of a synthesis of any kind, the actual text of the law is the most reliable source to cite. Esoglou (talk) 09:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Original research plan and simple is the problem, not necessarily reliability. Esoglou is know for claiming that primary source are always OK then ripping out any secondary sources thus turning articles into original research. Everyone here are not legal experts much less cannon law experts. Spshu (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I would second that. I find reliable sources which are clear as to the conclusion of the disputed point. We are not canon lawyers and should not be drawing conclusions from it. Mangoe (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

For more on how to appropriately use primary sources, see WP:PSTS. You can cite the code of Cannon Law for a blunt descriptive statement as to the contents of the code (essentially a quote), but as soon as you start to analyze or interpret what the law means, or apply it to a given situation you need a secondary source. Blueboar (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Blueboar. What Spshu and Mangoe have written here actually supports what Blueboar said: we are not canon lawyers and should simply quote the law as stated in the Code, without adding original-research interpretations of our own. Esoglou (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Laws often mean something different from what an ordinary person would think from reading them, and therefore secondary sources are needed to interpret them. Simply quoting a law without a secondary source can be misleading. For example, the Statute of Frauds says that specialty contracts not made under seal are unenforceable, yet equity allows people to sue anyway, taxation means to assess costs, pretend means to make a claim, etc. TFD (talk) 05:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity about the statement in modern (post-1983) English (without using terms like "taxation" and "pretend" in what has become an archaic sense) in Code of Canon Law, canon 452 §2, "The president of the Conference or, when he is lawfully impeded, the vice-president, presides not only over the general meetings of the Conference but also over the permanent committee", which was cited in support of the statement in the article: "Some of the leadership functions once exercised by primates, specifically presiding at meetings of the bishops of a nation or region, are now exercised by the president of the conference of bishops: 'The president of the Conference or, when he is lawfully impeded, the vice-president, presides not only over the general meetings of the Conference but also over the permanent committee.'" This is what an editor objected to on the grounds that the Code is a primary source. Esoglou (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

GCatholic.org

Is GCatholic.org a reliable source for information on Catholic ecclesiastics who hold the title of primate? Or should it be classified as more or less a blog run by Gabriel Chow of Toronto? See the inconclusive discussion here. Esoglou (talk) 09:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There are undoubtedly far better sources for this kind of information than a personal blog. Use them. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources used in Iranian presidential election, 2013

I would like to ask a question about reliability of the sources used in the opinion polls section of the article on Iranian elections. The sources are all in Persian so I present them for non-Persian speakers.

• This source is Rasanehiran.com and the opinion polls cited here is conducted by IRIB, State TV -which is not independent. About section of the website is empty.
• [1] cites a polls conducted by Tebyan.net. Tebyan is one of the website of the Islamic Ideology Dissemination Organization which is officially under the control of the Supreme Leader of Iran.
• ie92.ir an unknown website. Here the website claims that it supports "the interests of the Islamic Republic".
• this one: Nothing about the website. Who is behind this website?
• iranelect.ir is not an official website and again nothing in the about section. Online survey.
• Tebyan see above.
• a forum.
• alef.ir is the website of Ahmad Tavakoli, a deputy of the Parliament. The polls here is conducted by "a reliable organisation" as is presented in the news article. The name of this organisation is not mentioned.
• Fars News Agency is another source.

No editorial oversight has been presented in the "about" section of these websites. Noted that all of these polls were conducted online and their methods is unknown.

Here is the disputed section:

Poll source	Date updated	Ghalibaf	Jalili	Rezaei	Rouhani	Velayati	Aref	Haddad-Adel	Gharazi	Others	Undecided
Rasanehiran	11 May 2013	21%	10%	9%	7%	7%	5%	2%	1%	37%	1%
Akharinnews	12 May 2013	39.54%	7.21%	–	1.75%	24.74%	2.75%	7.68%	17.39%	–
Alborznews	13 May 2013	15.08%	1.00%	5.07%	0.05%	8.07%	1.03%	7.06%	18.06%	17.08%	9.03%
ie92	14 May 2013	18%	7%	12%	8%	7%	1%	1%	4%	40%	2%
Arnanews	15 May 2013	8.8%	9.3%	3.9%	0.2%	3.3%	0.4%	0.3%	0.3%	70.5%	3.1%
Iranelect	15–16 May 2013	47%	21%	14%	10%	–	–	7%	–	–
Kashanjc	16 May 2013	43.25%	1.25%	5.81%	1.97%	24.04%	2.21%	6.46%	4.17%	9.43%	–
ie92	17 May 2013	16%	7%	11%	7%	6%	1%	1%	5%	44%	2%
Iranamerica	18 May 2013	33.33%	11.11%	22.22%	11.11%	–	–	–	11.11%	–
ie92	19 May 2013	15%	7%	10%	7%	6%	1%	1%	5%	47%	1%
AleF	20 May 2013	19.8%	11.6%	4.6%	12.5%	13.2%	12.5	4.7%	1%	19.1%	1%
Farsnews	21 May 2013	20.1%	13.5%	10.9%	6.6%	7.4%	3.3%	3.1%	0.2%	31.9%	3%
ie92	22 May 2013	31%	17%	22%	13%	12%	1%	1%	0.1%	–	4%
Fararu	23 May 2013	18.84%	9.56%	7.49%	24.36%	3.86%	30.96%	0.93%	4.01%	–	–
Ghatreh	23 May 2013	17.57%	16.83%	6.38%	17.32%	6.9%	30.87%	1.16%	2.92%	–	–
Seratnews	23 May 2013	22.96%	40.47%	4.84%	10.14%	6.93%	9.97%	0.84%	3.84%	–	–
Ofoghnews	23 May 2013	20.00%	19.00%	6.00%	20.00%	8.00%	23.00%	0.1 %	4.00%	–	–

Steven Krivit as critique for another Energy Catalyzer Test

The source to be discussed: Rossi Manipulates Academics to Create Illusion of Independent Test, Steven B. Krivit, via New Energy Times. The article: Energy Catalyzer, section "Test" about the test results, posted to Arxiv: 1305.3913. The arxiv paper itself not-reliable (self-published, not reviewed), but it was mentioned by several reliable sources, eg Forbes or Popular Science, and created some additional public interest.

Krivit outlined some weak points of the paper in the source, so I tried to add this text to the article diff:

According to New Energy Times, authors of paper did all measurements at Rossi’s facilities and under his constraints. There was no any calorimetry done, heat power was extrapolated from temperature measurements. New Energy Times concludes that this was not an independent test, but manipulation from Rossi to create appearance of such test.

Why I think that S B Krivit is Relaible? Because NBC says: [2] "Steven Krivit, a journalist who covers cold fusion claims and editor-in-chief of the Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia (Wiley, 2011)". IRWolfie recommends me to go here to discuss reliability of Krivit: Talk:Energy_Catalyzer - "Test" section `14:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: IRWolfie- says at talk page about Krivit and his site: Newenergytimes is a random SPS by a non-scientist known for cold fusion advocacy. `a5b (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Krivit looks like a reliable source to me. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If you are discussing him, you should really notify him: user talk:StevenBKrivit. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Meantime (India)

This request is about the following article and whether the cited source for it can be a reliable source: For a Free Press CounterCurrents is a WP:SPS, but it has published legitimate articles from other RSs. Here's a good example from a past and archived discussion at this WP:RS noticeboard.[3] So the point is that the article appearing in CounterCurrents republished an article that appears in The Meantime published July 20, 2005. Is the Meantime a RS?

Further evidence: The Mean Time was a registered publication in India (The Office of the Registrar of Newspapers for India). This we know from public records:

• Title: MEAN TIME
• Registration number: 69702
• Title code: KARENG01713
• Owner: M/S.ALTERNATIVE MEDI
• Address: A PVT.LTD.,3/6 II FLOOR, B.S.A ROAD,MASJID STREET,BANGALORE
• Pub_city: KERALA
• District: BANGALORE
• VRF Dates: 8/3/1995
• State: KAR
• Language: English
• Periodicity: OP
• Publisher: P.C. HAMZAH

Furthermore, this notice of publication appeared in print: "New magazine launched" The Tribune (India), Tuesday, February 2, 1999. (Instructions: Scroll or simply do a "find" in browser for Hamzah. And another bio at a political party also says Hamzah published Meantime.Crtew (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If a given article has appeared in both self-published and non-self-published publications, then it is not considered self-published for Wikipedia's purposes. (Consider: The New York Times runs an article, and someone copies it onto his blog. It would be silly to say that the article is self-published.)

But whether it's reliable depends on what you're trying to say with it. It might be a reliable source for statements about a reporter in India. It would not be a reliable source for statements about Einstein's theory of relativity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this article on academic databases ?

I want to see if this article is indexed in academic databases:

• "The Past as the Future? Nostalgia and Retrogaming in Digital Culture."

Is this considered a reliable source considering who published it? I want to be super sure

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Try search on scholar.google.com like this. Looks like a crappy source, if you ask me. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The journal Fibreculture says it is peer reviewed. I'm trying to see who has indexed this journal. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Fibreculture is a valid, peer-reviewed journal. The link above provided by User:WhisperToMe gives editorial information that includes a board, and its members hold university affliations.Crtew (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources in English versus sources in foreign language

Good morning,
I have a general question about sources in English versus sources in foreign language. There is a the moment a (civil) discussion about the name of a roman dish, Carciofi alla giudia. Another user supports the inclusion of an alternate spelling ('Carciofi alla giudea', with "e"), and brings as support several non-Italian sources. On all the major Italian culinary works the first spelling (giudia) is used, and in Rome the second spelling is unknown. My questions are:

• Should an English source be preferred to a local one in order to define the spelling of a word in another language?
• Should the English sources be preferred to the local ones in order to determine the common name of a foreign (and local) object, in a case like this?

In other words, should wikipedia act in this case as a world encyclopedia or an English encyclopedia? I would appreciate the indication of some guideline, if present. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The spelling in English could be different from the spelling in Italian. This could occur for a variety of reasons, such as the Italian spelling changing after the dish became known in the English-speaking countries. Another possibility is regional differences in the Italian spelling, and the dish becoming known in English-speaking countries through contact with one region, while Italian books being published in a different regional spelling.

In any case, in the absence of an explanation to the contrary, Wikipedia documents the English name of things. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be best to provide both? That would also satisfy readers' appetite for more info. :-) Crtew (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be an alternative name. Relevant guideline would be MOS:LEADALT - include it in parentheses. That's the general Wiki philosophy, by the way - if there are two alternate views with reliable support, don't choose between them, give both. --GRuban (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It's an Italian dish so it has Italian name. This is in contrast to spaghetti bolognese, which isn't really an Italian dish at all, or to lasagne, which has a name that is naturalised in English. The article should be under the correct name, and you could add the alternate name as GRuban suggests. I would word it Carciofi alla giudia (also sometimes carciofi alla giudea). Or you could simply leave out the incorrect spelling, on the grounds that it is... incorrect. 20:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! We decided for the alternate name solution. Alex2006 (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the Weekly Standard a Reliable Source?

On a factual matter, is the Weekly Standard reliable? Neosiber (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Need more information... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This change. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Daily_Caller&diff=next&oldid=556654504 It was a change by an anon. I don't consider the Weekly Standard reliable, but I thought I should see what the board thought. Neosiber (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Reliable in context. It's another example of conservatives saying waivers were funnelled to unions, and it's not synthesis because the MSNBC report connects this to the cancellation of the program. - Cal Engime (talk) 07:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

No it is not a reliable source. Even if it were, it is used inappropriately. Here is a link to the May 16, 2011, Standard blog used. The information used is actually taken from a direct quote from a Republican Policy Committee report, which is the actual source. It is used to support the text, "After this and other reports of preferential grants to labor unions." The rest of the sentence is "the Obama Administration announced it would be canceling the waiver program in September, 2011." That is a clear case of synthesis. Notice that the program was cancelled after the Standard published the excerpt from the report. TFD (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Global times as in Kennedy tragedies

Recently I was just curious about an issue in the Chinese article of Kennedy tragedies. The Global Times Source(Chinese) claims three versions of Kennedy curse which is like what I described in Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2013_May_21#The folk explanations of the cause of Kennedy tragedies?. One of the versions seemed to copy the report of Weekly World News. As I have asked in the Reference desk, most replies says that claim of this source is not sensible at all, and not even worth noting. So does not it really worth any mentioning, or is it like "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.", that wikipedian's ideas and a lack of further evidence does not undermine the reliability of this Global times source?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what is your question, so I'll break it down one by one:

1) Assuming you were asking if Global Times or Weekly World News can be used as reliable sources on the topic of John F. Kennedy, curse, Occultism or Judaism, the answer is no. None of the above sources are shown to be notable/expert publications for the above subject matters, especially since the exceptional nature of the claim that "Kennedy was cursed by Jews/Devils/etc." requires the support multiple high quality sources. Try to find a better source to support the curse claim.

2) Assuming you were asking that if the view that Kennedy's misfortune is caused by a literal curse deserves some mentioning, the related wiki policy should be WP:FRINGE. In general, the WP:NPOV policy states: a) If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. b) If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. c) If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

I hope this address your question(s). Jim101 (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Not even to mention it as an example of media influence? And is the judgement whether a viewpoint is significant minority biased to different language? e.g. What is considered not significant enough in English world may not be considered so by Chinese world?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 09:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

In addition, how do we judge if a source is a "notable/expert publications for the above subject matters". Every news website can focus on hundreds of events every year, does this mean that all news site are not reliable (at least for any exceptional claims)? How should we decide whether a claim is exceptional?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you clarify whether you are asking whether this material is reliable as far as this English-language Wikipedia is concerned, or for a Chinese-language one? If it is the latter, they may well have their own policies and guidelines regarding sourcing, and we can't answer your question here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I just want to know about the reliability issue, because I think the way of how to judge the reliability of a source is alike for all language wikipedia.

Back again as an example of experts, how can we expect a columnist to be an expert about the Kennedy tragedies?[4]--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This noticeboard is intended to provide help with issues concerning the reliability of sources cited on the English-language Wikipedia - it is not a forum for general discussions on abstract questions regarding reliability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll just make the question clear again. Sorry for not have stated it earlier. Is the Global times source a reliable source? Why? Does it worth any mentioning? Why? In regard to your concern on reliability of sources cited on the English-language Wikipedia, I would say I would like to know if it is reliable so it should be cited or not.

As I was still confused about the idea in the first reply. how is "notable/expert publications" determined? Is that columnist article which is currently cited in the article expert?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The Global Times isn't currently cited as a source in the English-language Wikipedia article on the Kennedy tragedies. As Jim101 has stated above, it is unlikely to be seen by us as a reliable source for the article, should anyone propose to use it - though as always, it is better to ask a specific question, stating what the source is being cited for. As for the remainder of your question, I suggest you read WIkipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Out policies regarding sourcing are explained in detail there, and there is no reason to repeat them all here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I just curious about if there is a good reason. If I see such sources and claims(as I did in Chinese WP), should I just say "it is not a reliable source" and remove it?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

In second thought, perhaps it is not so difficult to argue.--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

BIG claim needs solid source, is it among the solid ones?

diff Is the following reliable enough for the claim it's supporting? "1986–1992: CIA and British Recruit and Train Militants Worldwide to Help Fight Afghan War". History Commons. Retrieved May 10, 2013. :

"In the 1980s, the Afghan jihad had been financed by Saudi Arabia^{other ref} as well as other countries including the United States of America.^{ref: History commons}"

Feel free to weigh in. (Give me a {{tb}} when you reply kindly) Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been looking over this source (History Commons). Let's assume that somebody has objected to it (which is probably why you are here, I assume), and take it off the table right away. It contains many references within that article that could verify the fact. First and up top, you'll find Ahmed Rashid, who is a well-known and respected journalist and wrote Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia (among others). So a person who faces objections to the History Commons source, which I do not evaluate here, would learn a lot and have a number of good sources to reference for the claim made. It would take some more work, but the cited source above is chockfull of good, reliable sources.Crtew (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• What Crtew says, but there are no shortage of sources for this, it is common knowledge that the west supplied arms and munitions to the Mujahadeen. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Seconded. See also Rambo III and The Living Daylights for examples of how positive the Mujahadeen were perceived (and portraid) in the West back then. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Darkness Shines (I just want to note the moment for historical purposes)! ;-) Crtew (talk) 11:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

History Commons sounds like Wikipedia! About Us Just like we tell students: DO NOT use such a source for research! I find it reasonable for anyone to object to this source (even though I find the references used in the article you point to to be good ones, see above).Crtew (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

What I asked was is this source alone sufficient?
Do we need more sources? Are there such sources? If yes, where (link)? Thanks for commenting, Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This source is not sufficient at all per WP:SPS and shouldn't be used. But it provides a decent set of breadcrumbs to useful information that can be used to document the fact. Somebody would have to go through sources and verify, for instance, Rashid's book made the claim. Crtew (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd recommend almost any of our references for our article Soviet war in Afghanistan; most of them are much better sources, and most of them mention US support for the mujahideen. --GRuban (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources for Megan Fox's apology to Michael Bay

Can anybody help find reliable sources to help verify that Megan Fox had to apologize to Michael Bay to get the role of April O'Neil the upcoming Ninja Turtles reboot? I had added a source from Radar Online, but I have come to learn that Radar has a low reliability factor per Wiki standards. Or can the Radar Online source be used in this instant? Sarujo (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

No offence, but .... is this really crucial information for the article that we simply can't live without? --GRuban (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Use of Tiffany & Co. press release about store opening in local community

Resolved

 – An alternative source was provided for the fact needed that should satisfy all parties. Crtew (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The article for Red Bank, New Jersey includes a mention of the fact that Tiffany and Co. has a store on the main street of Red Bank, New Jersey, a small Jersey Shore community with a population of 12,000 people. Another editor removed the material and its source, stating that "A press release by Tiffany for advertising purposes on WebWire is not an RS". The source in question is an official press release from the firm available on WebWire titled "Tiffany to Open Store on Red Bank’s Historic Broad Street" that describes the company's plans used to reference a sentence in the article

"Store openings have included Tiffany & Co. in November 2007."

My reading of WP:SELFPUB is that a rather bland factual statement in a press release about a planned store opening which has been used solely to support a statement in the article about the planned store is appropriate for inclusion in an article about the place where the store will be opened, as the claim is not exceptional, is not about a third party, is about an event directly related to the company, is rather clearly authentic and the article includes several dozen other sources. Can this source be treated as reliable? Alansohn (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the source is reliable—and this is a bit of a WP:SKYISBLUE thing, since anyone can confirm through tiffany.com and Google Street View that the store is quite plainly there—but I would prefer one that says the store was actually opened (not just planned), and in November. - Cal Engime (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually press releases are not reliable sources and Jimmy Wales himself has written about this issue. However, journalists use press releases and incorporate them into their copy, and so if you search for the facts you need in newspapers/news media that use the press release, then you're spot on and nobody can challenge your source(s). If the person didn't remove your citation, you could put a citation needed template after the reference and the fact (since it's not a BLP and until you complete your search). But since the fact is contentious (at least to the person who removed it), then you're on shaky ground and the source shouldn't be used. However, the best place for you to search is through the trade press. Tiffany, I assume, is in the retail industry and jewels. Crtew (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason offered by the editor in question as to why he removed the statement that Tiffany announced it was opening a store in Red Bank, New Jersey was not that it was contentious, it was the claim that the press release is by definition not a reliable source. The question of whether or not the source is reliable is what I'm trying to determine both for the purposes of understanding the situation here and in other similar situations. Alansohn (talk) 02:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

See NOTE #8 in WP:SPS about press releases. Crtew (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Note #8 doesn't say anything about press releases beyond the fact that they are self-published, which I don't believe has been in dispute here. For SPS's purposes, a business is considered an "expert source" on its own actions, just like a person is always considered an "expert source" on the person's own actions. You may cite a store's press release about basic, non-controversial facts about the store, e.g., its location, just like you may cite a person's blog for basic, non-controversial facts about the person, e.g., the person's hometown. The press release is a reliable source for this statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it better to have a source that all Wikipedians will acknowledge is reliable rather than one that has no "independent reviewers" and a conflict of interest? The source below satisfies those standards. Crtew (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The sourcing policies do not require editors to use the best possible sources at all times. You are only required to use a source that (at least) meets the rock-bottom minimum. You may use a better source, but you are not required to. This source is useable for the statement being made. It is reliable, and RSN concerns itself with whether a source is reliable, not whether a source is the best possible source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It's surely not worth the spat they're having over this very PR issue at WP:ANI right now. In that case, I would wear a belt and a pair of suspenders! Crtew (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

There was no spat from this perspective as Nightscream has already acknowledged that the source was always reliable as used in the article. The consensus is clear here that the press release is reliable and verifiable as a source so there is no further confusion regarding its use as a source in the Red Bank article or in using similar sources in the future in case anyone were to make a claim that a press release was not a reliable source. Alansohn (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Further search tip: Tiffany made the announcement that it had opened the store in Red Bank in its Q4 report for 2007 released in March 2008.Crtew (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The source you're looking for is: title=Tiffany remains 'cautious' on U.S. market |publisher=NationalJeweler.com |date=March 24, 2008 |accessdate=2013-05-27 |url=http://www.nationaljeweler.com/nj/high-volume-retailers/a/~14589-Tiffany-remains-cautious-on-U.S.

Good luck, Crtew (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the source for updating the article. Alansohn (talk) 02:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. If the source is found to be acceptable by those assembled here, then that's good enough for me. :-) Nightscream (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Ancestry.com

Hi, is Ancestry.com an acceptable source for a deceased person, bearing in mind WP:BLPPRIMARY? Article is Harry Noon‎, I have an IP who says he is the subject's son-in-law wanting to use it to verify date of death. GiantSnowman 15:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Largely, no. The amateur-provided data can't be used directly as cites in articles per WP:SELFPUBLISH. Ancestry.com does make lots of public records available, but a lot of that public record data isn't necessarily very accurate, especially from the early 20th century. It also contains a lot of outright lies about things like professions - on immigration forms, immigrants would put down good-sounding high-skill jobs or whatever they thought might not get them turned away, even though they did not have those skills. There was also a lot of fudging of names and addresses. Such sources also could not be used to establish notability. Zad68 15:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Adding - not to discourage the use of ancestry.com as a resource entirely, however. You can use ancestry.com to find leads to acceptable sources. For example, an ancestry.com record might lead you to a newspaper article, which could be used. Zad68 15:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Notability is established; literally all we are looking for is a RS for date of death. GiantSnowman 15:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

More information about the actual ancestry.com record would have to be provided, and what data source that record is using for the date. Zad68 15:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that ancestry.com is not really a source of information, it's just an aggregator of information. All the ancestry data it carries comes from somewhere else, and a lot of it comes from stuff individual amateur family genealogists type in about their own families from verbal family histories ("Hey Mom, when was Great Aunt Tillie born? 1904? OK I'll type that in."). If that's the kind of source the editor is talking about, then it really can't be used. Some of the data it carries does come from legit WP:RSs - "Look I found a newspaper article that says Uncle Bob died in 1953, I'll type that in and make a note about the newspaper article." If that original source of info is available, that can be used. Zad68 15:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Great, I will let Wilbur56 (talk · contribs) know. GiantSnowman 15:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Ancestry.com is not rs. However, if one cannot find a reliable source for a death, even an obituary, then you need to question their notability. TFD (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

TFD, that is very much nonsense. Plenty of very notable people are missing birth/death dates. For example, we do not know when Audrey Tautou was born - if you believe she is non-notable then I suggest you take her to AFD, where you will be rightly laughed away. GiantSnowman 08:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

TFD said "date of death", which is missing for Ms Tautou for a good reason. TFD is right that we may question notability. We can question lots of things here without prejudging them. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Date of death is, as far as we should be concerned, of the same importance as date of birth. Either way, we do not know when Amelia Earhart died, is she not notable? GiantSnowman 15:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's take care that we're not talking past each other. Of course Amelia Earhart and Audrey Tautou are notable and deserving of Wikipedia articles, and they both have an uncertain or unknown birth or death date. However, those are both certainly exceptions; most notable people of the last 200 years have well-documented milestone dates such as those. I think that all that TFD is saying is that if the date isn't easily found in secondary sources, it's reason to ask the question about notability, although the answer might certainly be, "Yes, definitely notable" as in the cases GS found. Zad68 17:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Ancestry.com is not reliable because the information is uploaded by users. Regarding the sidebar about notability, the lack of a reliably sourced death date does not reduce an already-established notability. Binksternet (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, really good point, the particular footballer Harry Noon whose article this question is based on played for fully professional League One teams and clearly passes WP:NFOOTY #2. I don't think anybody is trying to take that particular article to AFD. Zad68 18:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussing Verifile Accredibase as a reliable source, new developments

the question of using Verifile Accredibase as a reliable source should be discussed again, mostly because of their euclid report 2011. at the time, it was accepted, but since then:

• the web site (official) of the permanent mission of comoros to the united nations says that "Verifile Accredibase is not a reliable source"
• the web site (official) of the permanent mission of central africa has a letter to UK saying page 2 that "Verifile Accredibase a private uk label is to be dismissed"
• the Verifile Accredibase contains at least one gross error: that their is no university in comoros (also on website of permanent mission to un)
• in the euclid talk page, it is almost sure that the Verifile Accredibase business owner Mr Ben Cohen tried to push his report from his ip address from Belford where Verifile Accredibase is...
• there is no panel of experts but just Mr Ben Cohen who is from Israel. euclid talk page satinmaster pointed out concern is islamophobia
• that report is also a broad attack against all intergovernmental universities like the UN University.
• what we do know for use that EUCLID is an intergovernmental organization (int domain and WIPO) and their treaty is on the United Nations.
• what we do know for sure is that Verifile Accredibase published a report written by the business owner after article in journal of OIC (Islamic)
• the now have the letter from the United Nations (December 2012) saying that they and UNESCO recognize Euclid as being accredited

so Verifile Accredibase does not meet reliable source wiki cretiria because:

• it is really online self-published source with fancy business name
• there are no references in report to support claims just opinions
• the context seems be law suit between euclid and verifile...

if you look at "Self-published and questionable sources" definition: Verifile Accredibase "rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions" publishes "contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions" "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media...are largely not acceptable"

conclusion, WIKI here should discuss and agree not considering Verifile Accredibase as a reliable source because it is just one person (business man from Israel) with an personal agenda against these governments and even the United Natiosn... Muez1981 (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I took the liberty of deleting one of these two identical sections, hope that's all right. For some context, the time this was previously discussed was January 2012 and then, as now, the article was EUCLID (university), specifically Accredibase criticism. The EUCLID/Accredibase issue seems to be a big deal, enough for each of them to maintain their own page on the issue: Accredibase's; EUCLID's.--GRuban (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Now for analysis - it does look like Verifile Accredibase is an expert source on the topic of university accreditation. Here it is being cited as such by two major sources, the New York Times [5], and the International Business Times [6], and two regional papers, in England Business Weekly [7] and in California The Bay Citizen [8]. It looks like the article section with the two agencies hurling mud at each other should stay. --GRuban (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

progarchives.com

~644 pages use this unreliable source. Help purging its citation would greatly improve the encylopedia.Curb Chain (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Music Enthusiast Magazine

I recently added a reception link to the Deep Purple album Now What?!, which was a professional album review from Music Enthusiast Magazine. One of the fellow contributors, a Walter Gorlitz, took down the link to the album review, later saying "http://musicenthusiastmag.com does not appear to be a site that supports professional reviewers. I could be wrong though and you could request a review of the site at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I reverted your recent additions based on that assumption".

So, I am appropriately providing a link to the online source for you to look at [9]. Similarly, the album review in question is located at this address: [10].— Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyWorld1015 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't look very good at first sight. There is no "Who We Are" or similar tab. I clicked on a number of reviews and they are all by a "William Clark". It looks like it could be his personal website. For rock reviews we are looking for mainstream magazines like Rolling Stone or more specialist magazines in particular genres, or even in newspapers like the New York Times. It is not compulsory that all reviewers be professional journalists, but normally they will be. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There is an editor adding reviews from musicenthusiastmag.com (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Way_Life_Goes_%28Tom_Keifer_album%29&diff=557339267&oldid=557095579 ). I have removed them since it's not a professional review site. I can't seem to find any information about the site. Is this a valid source for reviews? I suspect that the interviews might qualify as primary sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I obviously don't think it's at all reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Caller as a source

I had updated The Daily Caller's wikipedia page, only to be told by a user named Neosiber that "Wikipedia had concluded The Daily Caller was an unreliable source" and that I was vandalizing the page. He cited these links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_145#The_Daily_Caller_is_not_a_reliable_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_71#The_Daily_Caller

I'm admittedly new here, but I see nowhere, including on the links he supplied, where "Wikipedia says so." Several commenters chimed in to disagree and asked him to provide a concrete declaration that The Daily Caller was an unreliable source. If anything I feel that he is vandalizing the talk page by using it to attack the outlet. Furthermore, even if The Daily Caller is an unreliable source, which I don't believe has been decided by Wikipedia, to say that I can't use the website to cite something on it's OWN Wikipedia page seems absurd. What is a better source for a Wikipedia entry than the actual subject of the Wikipedia entry? I'm not interested in getting into a back and forth with this guy, who has now resorted to patronizing me and sarcasm on the talk page, so I wanted to bring it here.

As an aside, I would note that the "footnote" on one of the noticeboard entries says that The Daily Caller has now been accused of paying sources to frame a senator, but that entry does not note that virtually no one believes those allegations, and writers from The Atlantic, Slate, Washington Post and Politico have said that publicly. I know that noticeboard is closed, but I wish there was a way to allow that to be amended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.205.84 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read the notes at the top of this page. We need to know what exactly the Daily Caller is being cited for, and what text it is being used to support. And yes, we can very much decide that a source isn't reliable for something on a Wikipedia page about it. We don't hand over editorial control of pages to article subjects. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The About page is quite substantial. I'd say it's at least on par with Huffington Post, though there may be reasons individual authors postings might not be allowed on some articles on a case by case basis. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope. WP:RS doesn't work like that - we need to know what it is being cited for. How difficult is that to understand? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I was editing and got kicked out because other edits were taking place at the same time. The sentence was "Months after the initial report, police in the Dominican Republic announced that three women had acknowledged that they had been paid to lie about having sex with Menendez, and that the lawyer for the women had accused The Daily Caller of colluding with Univision, Telemundo and CNN to set up the senator, a charge which all outlets denied. And the articled cited was here: http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/22/lawyer-behind-menendez-prostitution-allegations-recants-blames-news-organizations/

Also, it seems you are making decisions on a case-by-case basis, which is completely understandable, but which in no way supports the charge that "Wikipedia has decided" it's an unreliable source, per Neosiber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.205.84:15:33, 29 May 2013‎ (talk • contribs)

Unless I'm missing something, the source you cite doesn't actually state that "three women had acknowledged that they had been paid to lie" - it says that this was 'reported' to Figueroa. It seemingly doesn't state that "police in the Dominican Republic announced... that the lawyer for the women had accused The Daily Caller of colluding with Univision, Telemundo and CNN to set up the senator..." either. The passage seems to be conflating two different statements, neither of which seem to be entirely borne out by the source. Frankly though, this is all rather confusing. (and can you please sign your posts with four tildes thus: ~~~~) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me like the ip editor is misusing the external sources (WaPo, et al). These are all opinion pieces, basically. It doesn't fit with the sourcing policies of WP to use non-RS to counter other non-RS, so it doesn't matter whether other opinion writers think the DC did something or didn't. If that were acceptable, then it would also be acceptable for someone to put the fact that Secular Coalition for America's awarded Daily Caller the title of "Most Unethical News Publication". But it's not, so we don't. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 17:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Erik Wemple and David Weigel (the WaPo and Slate bloggers, respectively) are used in over 500 Wikipedia entries. Some of them aren't using them as a direct source, but the majority are. These include pages for Benghazi, Arnaud de Borchgrave, The Cycle (TV program), Gawker, Toure and Ari Shapiro (Wemple); and Republican Presidential Primaries 2012, Jennifer Rubin, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, James David Manning, Chris Coons and Ron Paul newsletters (Weigel). As all of these cite the blogs that Wemple and Weigel write, then I would assume they are treated as the same non-RS as the blog entries of theirs that I cited? 70.192.207.199 (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You are really getting ahead of yourself. Slow down. There is absolutely no need to put your assertions back into the article before talking it out on the article talk page, where I have already engaged you. There is no justification for placing this material back into the article yet, and since I voluntarily adhere to 1RR rather than 3RR I will repeat that I would like you to self-revert your re-addition of that material until some consensus is reached. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 19:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: if the anon IP is claiming that this edit [11] is justified on the basis of discussions here, he/she is entirely misguided: the material added isn't the material we were supposed to be commenting on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a whiff of FORUMSHOP here too, as I suggested on the talk page. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 20:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump, I'm not claiming that, and in fact never responded to your post above, which I do agree with. Apologies for that. So is your position that The Daily Caller can only be used as a source on a case-by-case basis? I had started this post looking for resolution on the claim that "Wikipedia had decided" it was not a reliable source. UseTheCommandLine introduced the new topic of Wemple and Weigel. It is my position that the topic of whether they were reliable sources had already been "fought out," so to speak, on the article talk page, which was why I added that back in as a source. It was never meant to be part of this conversation here, which remains unresolved (to me) about whether TDC is a reliable source to use in entries. Thank you. 70.192.207.199 (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Most sources are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with stronger sources required for stronger claims (see WP:REDFLAG). We seem to be getting hung up on this point, but it should be common sense; we need a sense of how a source is being used to help determine whether it's appropriate. For instance, given the Daily Caller's role in the Menendez fiasco and its overall track record, I would hope that any responsible editor would avoid it as a source for contentious material about living people. However, it may be cited, cautiously, to illustrate its own viewpoints in articles where those viewpoints are particularly relevant. For those of us who got lost reading this thread, could someone re-state exactly what content the Daily Caller is being proposed to support? MastCell ^Talk 22:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe this requires either additional attention on the talk page in question, a DRN case, or attention by an administrator. I am unwilling to break my 1RR rule here, but have been unsuccessful in my attempts to get the ip editor(s) to talk out the underlying issue. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 23:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

flickr and "travel-around-japan.com" as reliable sources

[12] in [[Thomas Blake Glover] relies on these two sources. Do they meet WP:RS?

In 1859, Glover crossed from Shanghai to Nagasaki and worked initially for Jardine Matheson buying Japanese green tea. Two years later, he founded his own firm, Glover Trading Co. (Guraba-Shokai). His first major success was as a supplier of ships, guns and gunpowder, which he sold illegally to the rebellious Satsuma, Chōshū and Tosa clans in Japan during the 1860s.

His business was based in Nagasaki, and it was here that he had his home constructed, the first Western-style building in Japan. His former residence in Nagasaki, now a museum, is laden with masonic symbols. Although there are no official Masonic Lodge records or the like to prove that Glover was a Freemason, he is often associated with the secret society by both Japanese and foreign writers.

I suggest that the first paragraph is fully unsourced, that flickr is not a reliable source for statements of fact, and query whether the tourist website is sufficient for the remaining claims - noting that the last sentence is not remotely found in the tourist site. Last I checked, a claim requires a real source, which appears lacking. Disparate opinions are sought. Collect (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The first paragraph is fully unsourced, and also contains a contentious biographical claim that Glover had illegal dealings with rebels. That really should not stay in the article unsourced.

For the second paragraph, it's unacceptable to use an editor's personal interpretations of a public-provided image. First, the flickr description of the image is of unknown quality. Second, the image itself would be a primary source, and any interpretation of it, such as the claim that the markings are on it are "masonic symbols", would be absolutely unacceptable original research. The website travel-around-japan.com is clearly WP:SELFPUBLISHED, as seen here, and so also does not meet WP:RS. The second paragraph also ends with unsourced contentious claims that need to be sourced properly or removed. Zad68 17:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Might someone be so kind as to check the "new sources" which appear to cover the really trivial bits, and still not to cover the problem bits? The editor has filed a formal complaint at AN/I that my edit was "wikihounding" :( and thus having a third party vet this would be appreciated. Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the content and sourcing changes that appear in this diff, and they do seem to check out, kudos to Ubikwit for finding good sourcing (as far as I can tell). The sources provided appear to be high-quality and although I cannot see all the source text behind the Google Books snippets, just from the context the keywords appear in, I do not have reason to doubt that the sources seem to be represented appropriately by the article content.

Is there a specific bit of content that you're thinking does not check out? Zad68 18:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Check out the Glover Garden article as well where the same offending type of source remains in situ. I did find one poor use of a source in the Glover article -- I have an annoying habit of asking that sources support claims as written <g>. [13] shows my understanding of what the cite actually says (I went and looked at far more than a snippet, btw). I assume, perforce, that "smuggling" is "illegal" but that the added use of "illegal" is fully unneeded. Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Believe me, I'm 100% on board with the asking that sources support claims as written! I'm a particular pain in the behind about that when doing spot-checks of sources when I do GA reviews. In this case, I think we're all in agreement that the book is a good-quality source. Also I can see that, for example, the book does mention "gunpowder" on page 156 but I don't have access to that whole page, and the Satsuma are mentioned on the surrounding pages, so I could only get as far as my "doesn't look like it's a problem" response. As both you and Ubikwit have full access to good sources, it sounds like you're on the right path to improving the articles by using them accurately, and double-checking each other's work. Zad68 19:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Is Wikionary a reliable source for Wikipedia?

For example, there is a template that includes a lot of terms that are from Wikionary and are not in Wikipedia, e.g. arrogance, swaggering, jerk, drama queen, self-absorbed. Is this kosker? (See template below). This template is included in many, many articles.

A related question is that many articles are included in the template that do not mention narcissism in the article itself. e.g. Walter Mitty, Nepotism, Valley girl, Diva, Mr. Toad, Tantrum, Empire-building, Metrosexual, Don Juanism etc. When I bring this up on talk pages, the editors says there are plenty of sources, even if they aren't in the article. He uses google search to prove it. e.g. for Walter Mitty, he says that this proves it: [14] and [15]
This is the justification for including Messiah complex in the narcissism template: [16]

Also, Jay Gatsby is called a narcissist based on [17] Farrajak (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS specifically excludes Wikis as reliable sources. A link may be approriate - but is not usable as a source for a claim of any sort in an article otherwise (just as we bluelink to Wikipedia articles in some (too many) cases,

What about in a template? Do templates have to be reliably sourced? Is a link to wikionary ok for including a word in a template? Also, should articles be included in the template that make no mention of narcissism in the article? (Are templates considered part of the article, or external links?) Farrajak (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of these templates are for navigation, thus the name navigational templates, meaning to link between wikipedia articles, not pages in external websites, including sistersites such as wiktionary.