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

Known issues section of Nexus 5

The known issues section of Nexus 5 was removed because none of the sources are considered valid. could an independent party check them one by one?

Musa I of Mali richest man to have lived

Some sources say [Mansa Musa http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/meet-mansa-musa-i-of-mali--the-richest-human-being-in-all-history-8213453.html independent] and Huffand Daily Mail are these enough to verify a statement that he was one of the richest men to have ever lived? including Henry Louis Gates saying it also gates and he is a historian. Many Thanks--Inayity (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Those are simply reproductions of the original claim, which on close inspection is not particularly reliable. The Independent's a reputable newspaper, but I think it's necessary to exercise a bit of judgement over newspaper stalwart Phil Space putting in something cute from some Website on a slow news day. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that this probably not reliable. Reliability is not all-encompassing; a newspaper that has a great news section might print horoscopes or crazy op-eds, or as User:Pinkbeast mentioned, include something on a "slow newsday" with less rigorous editorial standards than normal. Knight of Truth (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

When taking into account the original source "Celebrity net worth", I think the answer is no. This is a fluff piece for fun, not a serious claim. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately Henry Louis Gates is a historian and the second he uses it, it becomes notable. And please remember your comments MUST deal with RS, not opinions on what is "slow newsday" that is not an academic reply to the criteria of RS. Nor is fluff for fun a serious remark to the validity of a source, it is a personal bias-- and everyone has them. If there is a problem with RS you must have a serious discussion ABOUT the specific source and why that information is (in specific terms) not RS. Fluff piece, Slow day = are name calling, not refutations of a source. We are not discussing Horoscopes, or Op-eds, we are discussing if this source, used by many, including a senior world historian in the said article--Inayity (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yet when it comes to other historical figures you find this same kind of ref being used. Sure it is not scholarly, but it is Notable enough to be included (when used so widely) in the article. I cannot be washed out. --Inayity (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Gates quotes it as "according to" Celebrity Net Worth. Every other statement in the Gates article is definitive. Bit of a hedge? Pinkbeast (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

This comment is for house keeping purposes. This is why i proposed we edit the line to suggest it is according to some criteria. That way it is not a fact and mirrors a RS source and a person qualified to make the remark, even if with reservations. --Inayity (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Wealth is not an absolute value for every time and place. While on a desert island, Robinson Crusoe was the wealthiest person alive as far as Friday was concerned. Currently we see some Russian oligarch's having their wealth cut in half by simple currency fluctuations. By the way, RS/N has repeatedly found "CelebrityNetWorth" to not meet WP:RS. [1], [2], [3], [4] etc. Collect (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Nor is "ranker.com" a reliable source for any claim of fact at all. Collect (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Celebrity Net worth is not the only thing we are discussing. I see one editor trying to use this R/S to delete another source from a scholar. While networth might not be r.s the article by Henry Louis Gates IS!!!!!!!! --Inayity (talk) 07:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Henry Louis Gates is just referencing, in passing and not in terms of any kind of serious work, celebritynetworth. It's the same damn source. HLG is a tertiary source and not very relevant one at that. Look, Inanity, you've been told by something like five people here that this is NOT a reliable source. Quit haranguing them, wasting their time, and accept what others are trying to tell you. Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

And yes, what Collect says above is correct. You really can't compare the wealth of someone living in the pre-Industrial world to someone living today. If MM was so wealthy, why didn't he buy a laptop? Why didn't he drive a car? Poor guy couldn't even afford lightbulbs for his palace. And that's putting aside the fact that "lots of gold" is not necessarily the correct measure of wealth. If we measured wealth in terms of purchasing power of, say, wheat, or rice, or tin, or cows or whatever, we'd get a different answer. Note that celebritynetworth.com does not explain their "methodology". Most likely they just made this shit up. Because they're an unreliable source. On Wikipedia we don't include stupid junk that some lame gossip site made up, even if it was repeated by a trashy tabloid.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Wait a minute you cannot compare? So I guess historical economics just went down the toilet with that simplistic statement. We are not really discussing only Celeb (as you know I also do not think highly of it). What I am defending is the hedged statement which says "According to some criteria" I think that is a satisfactory statement. All over Wikipedia I see "Most influential people" and all kinds of similar material which cannot be quantified. But it is used. So Less about the details of how historical net worth is calculated, that is really not the point of contention. Noticed the celeb as a direct ref has been removed. We are dealing with Gates who is a notable scholarly surely he would not use a NONSENSE source and mess up his years of "credit"--Inayity (talk) 08:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Lastly please respect WP:CIVILITY and do not pretend to play parent I only see you edit warring and yapping on. I have been told? You should have followed Wikipedia policy and used the WP:TALK, discuss things like a professional. Now Henry Louis Gates has gone so low he is using Stupid Junk well shame on him, he might still know a thing or two. So where are we? --Inayity (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If you're referring to Economic History then no, it doesn't go down the toilet. In fact that is precisely what tells you that it's pretty much impossible - or at the very least extremely hard - to compare wealth levels across centuries. Your "hedged statement" looks like a bullshit excuse to insert a nonsense claim from an unreliable source. "Hedged nonsense" is still nonsense. Why not just go ahead and put in "According to the unreliable trashy gossip site celebritynetworth.com..."? That's pretty much what you want us to let you do here. Let you use junk source as long as you "hedge it". No.

Look, that's 3 people here, plus myself, plus at least 2 or 3 more people on the talk page telling you it's rubbish. So stop playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. What's incivil is wasting people's time with inanities. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Energy in Depth

Used by Scientific American. Sci Am also links directly to the source's website within an online Sci Am article. The source is also used by US News, Bloomberg News, CBS News, the LA Times, USA Today, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. Users @Randykitty: and @HG: nonetheless respectively contend that Energy in Depth is "unusable" and material cited to it is "very poorly sourced". Thoughts? In my opinion excluding Energy in Depth even when use is restricted to with in-text attribution may leave articles about publications and resources preferred by environmental lobbying organizations unbalanced, indeed, that's why so many editors of reliable sources like Scientific American see Energy in Depth as a "go to" resource: it provides critical balance from an authority, albeit an authority with a POV. This POV is affiliated with the energy industry, however my view is that if the partisan affiliation is fully disclosed to the reader, per WP:RS "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." I'll grant that adding critiques to articles is not to everyone's taste, indeed it isn't to mine, but these two editors have already rejected my stripping out the critique to just leave behind the undisputed facts the critique refers to as "original research" on my part. On a related note, I suggest we ask ourselves if black and white thinking about RS is appropriate or necessary: an appreciation of shading would mean sources could be used under specified conditions, such as with attribution.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• It is perhaps important to provide some background information on the disagreement about the use of Energy in Depth as a reliable source. EiD describes itself on their website as a "campaign". They're an industry lobbying group with an axe to grind. Note that Sci Am, LA Times, etc all cite opinions from this group, like newspapers, but not encyclopedias, do. They do not cite them as the source of well established fact. Brian doesn't mention it above, but he has been edit warring for a while now on the article about the scientific journal Reviews on Environmental Health. At first he wanted to insert information about personal opinions of the editor-in-chief, Carpenter, thereby suggesting that these had an influence on the contents of the journal: "The editors-in-chief are David O. Carpenter and Peter Sly. Carpenter has been vocal about what he sees as the cancer risks posed by Wi-Fi in schools,[ref] consuming farmed salmon,[ref] and fracking." (The references, indicated by [ref], can be found in the article history). Without actual evidence that the editor's personal opinions affect the contents of a journal, this suggestive language constitutes SYNTH/POV/OR, is UNDUE (in this article) and irrelevant, and therefore I removed this phrase. I told Brian that info about personal opinions (if well sourced) could be used in a bio (BLP) on the editor, but not in this article, unless a reliable source shows that it is relevant to the subject of the article, i.e. the editorial policy of Reviews on Environmental Health. Subsequently, Brian came up with a reference to EiD: 'Energy in Depth, a research and education program of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, has contended that Carpenter's editor-in-chief role "brings up questions as to the publication’s credibility."[ref]' I (and also another editor) have removed this, too, for the obvious reason that WP is not like a newspaper, but an encyclopedia, and including opinions from lobbying groups in this particular article is UNDUE and inappropriate. --Randykitty (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

My previous editing did not, in fact, contend that. It did allow for the possibility, which is what the facts allowed (no one disputes that both Energy in Depth and Carpenter both have views, it's just that you think that it's extremely relevant with respect to the first and so irrelevant with respect to the second readers should be kept ignorant of the second). You then decided it was IMpossible, presuming some sort of magic firewall. Not that this "background" is relevant if there is any point to having a RS noticeboard as opposed to just telling everyone to keep all RS disputes on article Talk pages, anyway. I would think that if we were all interested in resolving the RS issue, you wouldn't be trying to make an issue out of me, calling me an edit warrior when I've shown more patience than you have (this isn't my first rodeo, and it's a well worn play when someone doesn't have an argument on a content noticeboard to drag in all sorts of "background" that obscures the question raised on the noticeboard and makes a popularity contest of the editor who first went to the noticeboard). As for what is an issue: you haven't posited anything to raise doubt from an RS angle, beside saying they are biased, which RS policy explicitly rejects as rendering the source unreliable. The "newspaper" line is stylistic objection, not a substantive one, and it's a stylistic issue you created by rejecting a less critical presentation of the facts. You evidently think that balance is not appropriate here, because the subject of this article is too much above its critic for Wikipedia to treat them even handedly and have the counterpoint. Do you have any evidence that the subject should be above criticism fro this source when all those RS I pointed to are not engaging in any such elevation?--Brian Dell (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

What is the specific article you want to use the source in, and what is the statement or statements you want to cite to Energy in Depth? An industry lobbying group could be an appropriate source for some things but not others; please be specific. --GRuban (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking for input on whether it is EVER usuable. Specific contexts can then be discussed at the specific articles. It is not clear to me the point of a RS noticeboard if the answer is just "appropriate source for some things but not others" since most sources for which in-text attribution is best can be used inappropriately (by not having that in-text attribution).--Brian Dell (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is EVER usable. For example, in an article about an environmental controversy, an opinion from an industry lobbying group, properly cited as such, would be very important. For this specific issue, however, see below. --GRuban (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought I had mentioned that (but Brian didn't), this is the disputed article: Reviews on Environmental Health. --Randykitty (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• This same topic is apparently being discussed simultaneously at the BLP noticeboard, under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive215#Reviews on Environmental Health. I would strongly suggest centralizing discussion there, since there are clear BLP implications. Either way, these discussions should not be happening in parallel. MastCell ^Talk 17:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if we assume that there are "clear BLP implications", do you seriously think there should be a brand new discussion about this source next time it comes up and that next time one can't even conceive of a BLP issue, @Mastcell:? Or would there always be a BLP issue? The discussion should have never left the article Talk page if, as you seem to be contending, RS issues are not supposed to be discussed apart from narrow and specific contexts, no? Isn't the BLP issue also occurring in a specific context?--Brian Dell (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

And failing that, reject this request as blatant POV-pushing. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the source may be used with attribution. So shoot me. I'm not going to apologize for presenting an argument. Now, do you have any reason for thinking this source should never be used besides the fact I think it may be used? Why is it OK for Scientific American to use this source but not WIkipedia? Or for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management in its Q&A on fracking or for John R. Duda, Director, Strategic Center for Natural Gas and Oil at the National Energy Technology Laboratory to use but not WIkipedia? Why substitute a Wikipedian's judgement in the place of the editorial judgement of all these RS?--Brian Dell (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Bang. Per request. It looks like you're trying to use the source to say that a respected scientist is incompetent and biased. That's a pretty rough thing to say about someone, and for us to say it, it should come from one or more comparable scientists, not an industry lobbying group - which may include some scientists, but will also include some marketing and PR people, and it is not clear which is slinging mud about him here. --GRuban (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons

At Talk:St. John's Park#Article, including lead, should be free of original research/syntheisis there is question as to whether Wikimedia Commons photo of a No Trespassing sign is reliable/verifiable reference used to support the statement:

it is not legally accessible to pedestrians

Reference in question: Beyond My Ken (January 5, 2015). "File:St. John's Park no trespassing sign.jpg". Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved 2015-01-12.

Djflem (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Djflem's statement of the situation is givs the wrong impression. The actual argument is this: the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey owns some property. On the fence around the property, they have placed a "No trespassing" sign. Thus the PANYNJ has "published" the sign to the public, and it can therefore be cited to show that the property is not legally accessible. The photograph I took of the sign is then in the nature of verification of the existence and placement of the sign, to show that I have not made it up out of whole cloth.

So, "Commons" isn't what's being cited as a reliable source, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is being cited as a reliable source for their own regulations, as publicly displayed in the sign, and my photograph is offered as verification of the objective reality of the sign.

That seems pretty straightforward to me. BMK (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, here are the diffs from 13 days ago, when Pburka first explained this to Djflem: [5], [6]. BMK (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The existence of a 'no trespassing' sign on a property is in no shape or form evidence that the property is in fact not legally accessible to pedestrians. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is that? In any jurisdiction I'm familiar with, the posting of a "no trespassing" sign serves as legal notice that the owner does not want anyone on the property without permission. Without such a sign, or alternately one sayong "Posted: Private Property", it's possible that the police, prosecutors and courts will not aceept a criminal complaint of trespassing, and that a civil complaint will fail due to lack of proper advance notification. Given then, I'd say that the sign is very much evidence that the labelled property is legally inaccessible. BMK (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Aside from that, I think you're rather missing the crux: that by posting the sign, the Port Authority is publishing their intention concerning the property, that no one should trespass on it. Since the property belongs to them, they certainly have the right to limit who can and cannot be on the property, and the article can cite that. BMK (talk) 02:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

A sign may very possibly indicate what the owner wants. It isn't however evidence that what the owner wants is legally enforcible (or even evidence that the person responsible for putting up the sign is in fact the owner for that matter). Any assertion that a sign is proof of legal rights is WP:OR plain and simple. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I very much disagree, especially since, in this case, the Port Authority is a bi-state governmental agency with its own police force to enforce its will. What your arguing, then, is a stop sign placed on a city street corner is not indicative of the city's assertion that you mist legally stop there. I think there's no way that makes sense, and no way citing it as proof that a stop is required can be considered to be OR. BMK (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Police forces are supposed to enforce law, not will - though whether they always do so in practice is perhaps not best discussed here. Anyway, you are citing something (a sign) for something it does not state, based on that sign in combination with your interpretation of other sources. That is synthesis plain and simple, in my opinion. And since there is no point in engaging in a "yes it is, no it isn't" style dialogue here, I suggest we wait for further opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

In this case "will" = 'law" or, at least, legally enforceable regulation.

But I agree, let's see what others say. BMK (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with others that a sign can certainly be a reliable source--when it is visible from a public place, it is published, and could be reliable if it meets the ordinary criteria. Just think of informational signs placed by the National Park Service, for example. There seems to be no dispute that the sign is placed by the Port Authority. The case here, then, is solely whether "no trespassing" equates to "not legally accessible to pedestrians" without editor synthesis, which is a question of WP:OR. In my view, a simple "no trespassing" signs is too ambiguous to support that statement. "No trespassing" can mean "do not enter except when the gate is open," or "do not enter after hours," for example. "No trespassing" simply asserts that passage across the area is not free, which is altogether different than "not legally accessible." For the latter claim, a different source is necessary. Knight of Truth (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

So, I pick up a book which I want to use as a source. The title page says near the middle of the page "The Bastion of Truth" with "Edward Rudick" under it. At the bottom of the page it says "Harper & Row" and underneath that "1972". Note that the title page does not identify what any of these phrases or numbers mean, but because I'm intimately familiar with the conventions of book publishing, I cite it as a source with "title=The Bastion of Truth", "author=Edward Rudick", publisher="Harper & Row", and "date=1972."

Are we seriously saying that my real world knowledge of publishing conventions which allows me to translate the meaning of the title page is an example of OR? If not, how is it any different from my knowledge of signage convention that "No Trespassing" means "Don't come in here"?

Really, I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'm just sensing that the concept of "OR" is being stretched far beyond its intended purpose, which is to prevent original research of editors from being published in Wikipedia articles. There is no "original research" involved in the example here (any more than there is "original research in finding sources by researching online or in a library), only the reading of the sign and the reporting of it existence ith the application of everyday common "Sky is blue" sense. BMK (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

When I say "original research," I mean you're adding a meaning to a source that is not evidently there. It is not a "sky is blue" issue because, as I said, "no trespassing" does not universally mean "no access without express authorization." Many places that are perfectly legal for the public to enter (within certain restrictions imposed by the owner) have "no trespassing" signs posted somewhere. It would be different, say, if we were looking at an "employees only" or similar, more specific sign. Without specifics, it is a legal interpretation that in this context "no trespassing" means that the area is entirely off-limits to pedestrians, and it is not for editors to provide such interpretations. Knight of Truth (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, "no trespassing" does universally mean "no access without authorization" That is exactly and precisely what it means. The authorization can be express or implicit. I can't imagine how anyone would get the impression that it means anything other than that. BMK (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

That's just my point. If "no trespassing" does not mean an area is inaccessible (e.g. if there is routine authorization under circumstances), then the sign does not support the statement as written. Knight of Truth (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with AndyTheGrump above. Someone putting up a sign does not indicate that the terms on the sign are automatically legally binding or even true. I have myself run into situations where companies or agencies have attempted to insist that an area is not legally acceptable because of a place sign, despite the sign being in obvious contravention to the law-- case in point, many years ago, when taking photographs of an oil refinery in rural Illinois from the shoulder of a state road, security attempted to force me to leave for trespassing, pointing out the "NO TRESPASSING" sign. Of course, a private company cannot simply assert authority over a public roadway, the sign was inoperative, and taking its existence as indicative of a legal fact was incorrect. Simply taking a picture of the sign in this case and attempting to use it as proof of a legal statement is synthesis; the picture of the sign is evidence (assuming we can accept that the picture is actually what it purports to be) of the existence of the sign and could also be construed to be evidence that the agent who put it up is asserting it's legally true (this is a stretch), but the sign is not, ipso facto, a legal fact. The sign is meant to indicate a legal fact, but does not demonstrate it. siafu (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that you are taking into account that the entity posting the "No trespassing" sign is a governmental agency, with its own police (who are peace officers) to enforce its edicts. That makes it a bit different than a private company or citizen posting such a sign. Their postings have the force of law. BMK (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Taking a picture of the sign to serve as verifiable proof of a fact is, as I explained, WP:SYNTH and also could be construed as WP:OR. Also, having one's own police force does not make it different: many universities have their own police forces, who are bonded peace officers, but this does not suddenly empower them make new laws. siafu (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you're entirely ignoring the inconvenient fact that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is a bi-state governmental agency empowered to do exactly that, make regulations that have the force of law and which can -- and will -- be enforced by their police officers.

What I've seen in this discussion is very interesting, editors bending over backwards -- in their own versions of OR (or, as the rest of the world would call it "unfounded speculation") -- to interpret a sign issued by a government agency in every possible way except the most reasonable, logical and common sense one: that it is announcing that no one is allowed to tresspass on the property, and that the governmental agency will enforce that warning.' For those of you of that rather peculiar state of mind, I wish you luck when you ignore a similar sign in your area and climb over a fence to play Frisbee. BMK (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps both parties would be willing to consider more literal alternative wording, such as:

but access is prevented by a gated fence and a "No Trespassing" sign.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not a gated fence, just a fence, but the point is a good one. In fact, the fence does not surround the property -- it can't, because it has a bunch of exits from the Holland Tunnel and the cars need to get out, so it can't be fenced off completely. This is exactly the reason why it needs to be described as legally inaccessible, because it is, in actual fact, very easily physical accessible to anyone willing to cross two lanes of traffic. I know, I've done it, and took pictures from there -- and was warned for doing so and told to leave. To say that the exit plaza is "not accessible to pedestrians" is somewhat deceptive, which is why I opted for "not legally accessible to pedestrians", which is more accurate. BMK (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Great info BMK, and congrats for getting pictures of public property despite the discouragement. A 'No Trespassing' sign (for which the Commons photo is surely a reliable source) doesn't make anything 'legally inaccessible'. We don't know what the law is in force, and it has surely never been tested in a court. We can say that the Port Authority prohibits access, but we don't know if it has an enforceable bylaw, regulation or common law right to stop you going there. These are the kind of loopholes that vigilante litterpickers and guerrilla gardeners exploit. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Cambridge University Press and Washington Post on Islamophobia in Steven Emerson article

There is a debate on the Steven Emerson article on if two sources are reliable in claiming that Steven Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia. The sources are:

1. Hammer, Julie; Safi, Amid (2013). The Cambridge Companion to American Islam. Cambridge University Press. p. 8. ISBN 9781107002418. Retrieved 22 January 2015. Islamophobe[s] Steven Emerson (the discredited "terrorism expert" who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma city bombings committed by Timothy McVeigh)
2. "9 questions about Birmingham that Fox News was too embarrassed to ask". Washington Post. Retrieved 22 January 2015. Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia in the past.

The exact quote these sources cite are

"...and has been criticized for his inaccuracies, Islamophobia (references) and for saying that..."

User:ChrisGualtieri is arguing that since the Cambridge University Press book has a footnote referencing ThinkProgress that the book is not a reliable source in this context. He further argues that the Washington Post piece is a blog and therefore not a reliable source. [7] [8] [9]

As of yet, he has not been able to explain why the Washington Post piece, which was written by a paid foreign correspondence reporter for the Washington Post in their World Views published section is a Blog, but he continuously asserts that it is in fact a blog and thus not a reliable source. Please advise, are these reliable sources? Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course they are. ChrisGualtieri often questions reliable sources such as these, based on a misguided and extremely narrow interpretation of our content policies, asserting that BLPs should contain only "facts" and not opinions. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Cwobeel claims all that is required is a source for inclusion, he adds this material because he thinks that calling someone a bigot is a problem only if it is unsourced. It will take more than a label cited to "Think Progress" in a Cambridge University Press book to stick. I explained that the WaPo source should be in the body and not both in the lead to label someone a bigot. The WP:BATTLE tendencies here are repulsive and using Salon and other poor sources to directly attribute someone as a bigot and writings as a form of hate speech is unacceptable. Just because someone makes an accusation doesn't make it true or fitting for a BLP - by that logic you can go and drag up a string of nasties at almost any historic or political figure. How many times did MLK get called a nigger? Might as well reference a single sentence in Oxford and slap that on the article. It would be crude, but that is a parallel to which we see here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Could this be closed as the wrong forum. This is a BLPN issue and BLPN#Steven Emerson is still in progress? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

look at the differences above User:ChrisGualtieri, YOU were the one who SPECIFICALLY and REPEATEDLY argued that these sources were not reliable sources. The WP:BLPN#Steven Emerson is dealing with other things, but right now on this board I'm bringing up your REPEATED assertions that the Cambridge Guide to American Islam, and the Washington Post were not reliable sources. Again, your differences and arguments are above. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I explained and this is a BLP issue because it labels a person as a bigot. How is that not a BLP issue? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not here to discuss that, I'm here to discuss your claims and repeated assertions (cited in differences above) that the sources themselves are not reliable. You are welcome to discuss the fact that multiple reliable sources have documented the fact that Steven Emerson is criticized for being an Islamophobe on the WP:BLPN, but HERE we are discussing your interpretation of WP:RS and your statement to me to re-read WP:IRS in reference to these two articles. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

And comparing Martin Luther King to Emerson is a massive stretch, and your use if the n word to illustrate your point is atrocious, to say it kindly. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• (Copied over) For the CC source, the line being used is it for the entire book. Not another mention or aspect of Emerson and it has to use a Think Progress source for that twisted gem. I'd be willing to consider it being a suitable source if actually discussed Emerson more than citing Think Progress which was itself cherry-picking. Obviously Emerson ain't so discredited when his group and work was being cited by the United States Congress and was cited on a panel consisted of former Ambassador Dore Gold, Steven Emerson, and Jonathan Winer in 2003.[10] Or in mentioned cases in 2001.[11] Official meetings in 2005.[12] Since that "gaff" Emerson has "testified and briefed Congress dozens of times on terrorist financing and operational networks of al-Qaeda".[13] He is a recognized expert by the United States Government[14] A single sentence which is so thoroughly disproven by over a decade of continued work and council at the highest levels of the United States Government - discredited? Hardly. The man may make mistakes, but he is not the bigot or disgrace that trivial mention makes. Is that trivial mention in a book really acceptable to call him a bigot - when it cannot even spare a full sentence about his actual credentials? The answer is a resounding no. For the WaPo blog - it is just weak and uses Twitter to mirror it, gosh is it weak. I placed that up against the American Educational Trust and the United States Congress volumes. His work can be cited as inspiring Islamophobia, but calling the person a bigot is an issue and I agreed with the original editor who highlighted it on BLPN. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

wikipedia doesn't have a merit system when it comes to inserting sourced criticism. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: I just checked each of those linked URLs you provided; it appears you have seriously misunderstood that information when you concluded "Obviously Emerson ain't so discredited when his group and work was being cited by the United States Congress...". In reality, anyone can offer to appear or be called as a witness at a hearing by contacting a committee holding a relevant hearing, and Emerson wasn't "cited by the United States Congress", his statements were simply recorded in the Congressional Record as required by procedural law. He's not a "recognized expert by the United States Government"; he is simply whatever he claims to be, as the Committee asks him how he should be described in the record -- and much of the flowery descriptions of him in your links are word-for-word copies from his personal website profile. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, while Cambridge University Press is a reliable source in and of itself, regarding the passage of the book that is cited to a non-reliable source thinkprogress, what can be verified from the reliable source is that thinkprogress says... (attributed opinion).
  The Washington Post does publish blogs, but generally are vetted through an editor, therefore unless a blog can be found not to be vetted, and as Washington Post is generally seen as meeting criteria set forth in WP:IRS the blog can be seen as meeting WP:NEWSBLOG.
  This is in no way saying these sources should be used in the article in question, just my opinion on these two potential reliable sources. BLP issues should be discussed at the appropriate noticeboard. G'day.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I agree with RightCowLeftCoast that ThinkProgress cannot be cited in Wikipedia as a reliable source for assertion of fact, only attributed opinion. Information asserted as fact in a ThinkProgress article can't appear in a Wikipedia article unless it is first vetted by a quality reliable source, preferably an academic source. The scholarly work published by Cambridge University easily meets that requirement. Remember that we Wikipedia editors cannot use sources of lesser or unknown quality, so we depend on these higher quality academic sources to sift through all relevant information resources (even articles in ThinkProgress, primary sources, personal interviews, website data, etc.), rigorously research and vet it, and submit it for review and publication in a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy — only then can we assert the information in Wikipedia's voice as factual. These requirements have been met by the two sources listed above; applying attribution is not required, and could actually mislead readers into thinking the factual assertion is mere opinion. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - while the Cambridge University Press is considered a reliable publisher, the actual source in question, The Cambridge Companion to American Islam, is co-authored by the controversial professor of Islamic Studies, Omid Safi. [15] [16] [17] [18]. The book mentions Emerson in passing, characterizing him as a discredited terrorism expert and an Islamophobe. [19] The same contentious material further discredits Emerson by inaccurately stating that he falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing which is an inaccurate accusation. Emerson actually said, ``This was done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible, Emerson said on CBS. ``That is a Mideastern trait. [20] The bigoted label and false statements in RS are why the contentious statements are unacceptable per BLP. Atsme☯^Consult 05:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Those sources don't demonstrate anything particularly controversial about Safi; rather, they show that his views are pretty mainstream and uncontroversial. In both cases the briefness of the mention in the source is either explicitly or implicitly alluding to other sources that have given a more in-depth discussion (eg. googling brings up Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance), so we could either cite Cambridge and the WaPo, or other sources. I might suggest "criticized as Islamophobic", but don't find such a change necessary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • the actual source is in question — No, it is not — and I checked your links. My favorite was your citation to the screed against "Barack Hussein Obama" that you found by searching Google Books for "Omid Safi is anti-Semitic". You do realize that book is published by Tate Publishing & Enterprises, right? That's the vanity publisher someone goes to, and pays to publish crap, after all legitimate publishers refuse it. You cite that to discredit the oldest academic publisher in the world? That brought a smile to my face. The book mentions Emerson in passing — No, it doesn't. The description is actually cited, which means a little more than "just passing" thought went in to it. incorrectly stating that he falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing... — No, it's not incorrect. From the source you linked: It looked to him like the work of Muslim terrorists, he said. Ooops? He also said, "Oklahoma City, I can tell you, is probably considered one of the largest centers of Islamic radical activity outside the Middle East." Maybe he was talking about those Jewish-Hawaiian Islamic radicals, not the Muslim ones; I guess I won't know until you produce a full transcript. But the source you provided supports the book, rather than show it was incorrect. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but the "oldest academic publisher in the world" published a book that was co-authored by a controversial professor of Islamic studies who inaccurately stated what Emerson said. I can't see how that could possibly be acceptable in a BLP. It was passing mention using a (not very collegiate) bigoted slur describing Emerson as an Islamophobe, and further defames him with an incorrect statement - the discredited "terrorism expert" who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma city bombings committed by Timothy McVeigh, citing Think Progress as their source. Forget the smile I brought to your face - that book should bring tears to your eyes. Watch the Emerson interview and read the transcript from that 20 year old CBS interview so you'll at least know what he said. As for your criticism of the sources I used, it brought a smile to my face. Have a good evening. Atsme☯^Consult 08:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Books, academics, op-eds and blocks are reliable sources for their own opinions, which seems to be the main dispute here. As long as you clearly report and attribute opinions in the text (not a footnote) and the opinion is otherwise notable and part of balance coverage, I don't think it is helps the editorial discussion to delve into reliability any more deeply. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Entertainment agency websites as sources for birth dates

During the last few weeks, there has been much edit warring over the inclusion of birth dates in K-pop band pages. Please understand that I am not posting here to determine whether or not birth dates should be included in band articles, which is another related discussion. I am posting here to get input from more editors on whether the entertainment agencies are reliable sources for this information. Some K-pop band members are independently notable and have their own articles, with their birth dates sourced from their agency. Note that band members's profiles (including birth dates) are also published by the Korean media, but the original sources are the agencies.

Drmies maintains that entertainment companies are not reliable sources, as can be seen in these diffs from A Pink: 1, 2 (my reply), 3. See also this diff from Talk:Girls' Generation. A quote from that last one:

"And yes, I am sticking to my guns on the sourcing thing: we have a policy, and it's found at WP:BLP. It applies here. A Hollywood star from the 1930s, you can bet that someone has looked into it, and has written it up in a book or a reliable publication. In this area, we are dependent completely on the production companies, and that's just not a good thing. If we can't trust Allkpop and those kinds of sites, then we certainly shouldn't automatically trust the owners of these groups, their contracts, their social lives and their bodies ("We Got Married"), their sexualities, and their public image. Why would you trust them? Don't you know that youth is a very marketable commodity?"

Examples of company pages that list birth dates:

• A Cube Entertainment (A Pink) - currently used as a source for birth dates on A Pink and Jung Eun-ji
• S.M. Entertainment (Girls' Generation) - used as a source for birth date on Im Yoona
• S.M. Entertainment (Super Junior) - used as a source for birth dates on Leeteuk, Yesung, Kangin, etc.
• DSP Media (Kara) - used as a source for birth date on Heo Young-ji

I couldn't find any more examples because the vast majority of South Korean singers' articles have no references at all for the birth date. If references were added they would most likely be from the company website or secondary sources such as Naver or MelOn (which get the info from the companies).

I have never posted on a noticeboard before so please let me know if I've made a mistake or not posted in the right place. Myself (and some other editors) are trying to raise the quality of K-pop articles and are receiving much opposition. A few more opinions on this issue would really help, since many K-pop editors think Drmies is manipulating Wikipedia guidelines because he dislikes K-pop. --Random86 (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that these sites have significant incentives to lie, or at least to repeat as fact performers' own misrepresentations of age. If the only site for a birth date is a site such as this, the date should probably not be in the article. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. Birth date is one of the many entries we generally trust our subjects when they put it on their own web sites, so having it on company pages doesn't seem any less trustworthy. If there are conflicting dates from alternate sources, then we can discuss them, but automatically assuming that a company is unreliable is not correct. --GRuban (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with GRuban. Although these companies may have an incentive to fudge, they also have an incentive to avoid controversies, and the best way to do that is to just tell the truth. If there are no conflicts in published dates, I think it's OK to just use the given date. Note: for US artists we can cite a neutral authority control like the Library of Congress Name Authority File or the Getty Union List of Artist Names. If an authority control for Korea has these artists that would be a good source. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian, Alex Hern, Wikipedia as the Topic

Hello.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/23/wikipedia-bans-editors-from-gender-related-articles-amid-gamergate-controversy

This is the article. My question is, The Guardian is clearly reliable. Beyond reproach in some peoples eyes. The issue here is, some of the facts in this particular article are... wrong. My question is, despite the inconsistencies, can this article still be considered reliable for reporting on the currently ongoing ArbCom case in the Gamergate article? I'm curious about an outsider's perspective. I understand reliability can be questioned based on several factors, with the publication only one of them. Would this article, if it is unreliable, bring into the question of the reliability of the author perhaps? Would love to see some opinions from people "outside" the Gamergate controversy bubble preferably, as it is being debated in the Talk there as well. Ries42 (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It's op-ed and cites obvious partisans. It's a reliable source for the existence of an opinion, but not as a representation of truth. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Not clear that it is an editorial (I can't see anything saying "editorial" on it, can anyone else?). Therefore we can use it. We should avoid using the bits that are incorrect (for one obvious thing, the decision isn't done, so no one has been sanctioned by it yet), and the ones that are clearly slanted ("throwaway accounts"/"every feminist active in the area"). --GRuban (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

As in all cases (and the The Graudian is actually fallible[21] <g>) there is a wee bit of opinion in what could have been purely factual reportage. Where there is the slightest hint that a claim is one of opinion, we are better off citing it properly as the opinion of the one holding it than to run the risk, howsoever small, that readers will take it as absolute fact uttered in Wikipedia's voice. (I consider such statements as " who were all actively attempting to prevent the article from being rewritten with a pro-Gamergate slant " and "The conflict on the site began almost alongside Gamergate, a grassroots campaign broadly targeting alleged corruption in games journalism and perceived feminist influence in the videogame industry" as containing issues which seem to be opinion as much as fact, or possibly more so. The value of using "opinions as opinions" seems to far outweigh the position "but it is fact because a reliable source stated it as fact" at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Collect. --GRuban (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• A reliable source that has shown to be in gross error is not reliable. Editors like to justify sources as "reliable" by its publisher and not the content itself. This is proof of such a case. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with ChrisGualtieri here. The primary source of the "news" is the MarkBernstein blog post, which is riddled with errors. It seems that the Guardian writer made no independent effort to verify Bernstein's claims or get any statements from other involved parties. The article also fails to report that Bernstein himself is topic banned from GamerGate controversy. How low journalism has fallen! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with ChrisGualtieriElmmapleoakpine (talk)

While I agree that this is partly a re-hash of the blog post, that doesn't make it useless as a source. If there are factual inaccuracies in it, we should not duplicate them. However, the existence of factual inaccuracies does not necessarily render the whole source unusable. If we took that approach, we would probably be safer just not using journalistic sources at all. There are certainly statements in the source that are wholly accurate, so it depends what you want to use. Formerip (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

72.227.98.109 (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)I thought wikipedia wasn't about the truth. Now that the Guardian has done to Wikipedia what they've been doing all along, suddenly we need a special rule about a reliable source only being a reliable source when somebody (who) decides what the source reports is true? So in the future, when the Guardian reports something, what are you going to do to fact check it before you site them? A Guardian article exactly as wrong as this one about any number of other subjects would have been cited by you guys, and if somebody complained that it was factually inaccurate, you would have told them Wikipedia isn't about the truth and left it in.

This is not an unprecedented phenomenon. People have at times stretched WP:V to justify absurd levels of credulity, but deciding a source is not reliable is the safety valve. It does not take a second reliable source to establish the first one did not check its facts. In fact, as WP:OTTO shows, its dangerous to delegate verification, even to a group of superficially reliable sources. Rhoark (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It's alleged the article is "wrong," and thus not from a reliable source. The article was updated and corrected today. It now appears to me to be fully accurate. Hipocrite (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No, not fully accurate. It still contains the claim "The editors, who were all actively attempting to prevent the article from being rewritten with a pro-Gamergate slant, were sanctioned by “arbcom” in its preliminary decision." ... even though it seems to contradict this claim later by saying that the article was corrected because "a quotation suggested that no pro-gamergate editors had been banned from the site." --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

What's the specific factual claim that's being made that is unarguably in error, please? I don't see it. Hipocrite (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The claim that all the editors being banned were actively trying to prevent the article from being rewritten with a pro-Gamergate slant. Hard to describe that as "fully accurate" as you claim it is. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a language hiccup - they write that they attempted to correct for the "suggested that no pro-gamergate editors had been banned from the site," which resulted in some broken language up top. If we were to use it for a source that all the editors banned were anti-gamergate, that would be torturing it, but I don't see that it's unarguably in error, just chopped up by the correction. The "all" language used refers to, I believe, the 5 editors topic banned. Hipocrite (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

What you call a language hiccup seems to me to be an incomplete correction of severe errors in the article. If the "all" language refers to "the five editors topic banned", then it is part and parcel of the problem, because there are not just 5 editors proposed to be topic-banned. There's a big difference between "there were 5 people arrested for being dangerously handsome last night, all of whom were named Gertler" and "there were a thousand people arrested for being dangerously handsome last night, 5 of whom were named Gertler" in the picture it paints. Plus, there is no mention of "5 editors" before the "all", but there is a mention of "more than 10 editors" in the subheadline. Add to that that they still have language talking about the bannings as a done deal (Caption: "Wikipedia editors have been banned from topics relating to gender and sexuality.") It was a sloppy article to begin with, and it has been sloppily semicorrected. The willingness to correct themselves is laudible and is the sort of thing we look for in a WP:RS, but this piece remains far from "fully accurate" in important ways. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Don't worry, my handsomeness isn't that dangerous.

In general (as I said on that talk page), the best thing to do in a situation like this is wait a bit until more sources become available. If there were a large number of distinct sources saying the same things that this article says, we would eventually be required to put them in the article, even if we feel it's wrong. However, in this case the issue does not seem pressing enough to require that we put it in the article eventually; we can wait until we have other reliable sources, which will hopefully correct any errors when taken together. This is why WP:V is important; when there is only one source (even an otherwise-reliable one), any errors in that source can become magnified. But if we have a wide range of sources to draw on, we can say things more concretely. -Aquillion (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Japan Today?

I recently removed a false citation of the online newspaper Japan Today from the article Ainu people. In that case, JT was named inline as the source, but the actual JT article stated that it was a reprint of an article from a magazine that explicitly admits to not fact-checking. (I added the details on the talk page.) I'm still a little concerned about other articles citing this source, though: JT has explicitly borrowed over 400 articles from Metropolis, which doesn't fact-check. I don't know how to search all English Wikipedia articles for this citation (a lot of articles include the text "In Japan today, it is ..." and the like), but Ethnic issues in Japan currently cites it 4 times, and Interac (Japan) three times. Their "About" page says they translate articles from Japanese sources, but they don't indicate how they mark translations off from their own material -- this is concerning because an accurate translation can't be edited for fact-checking purposes -- and they don't indicate that fact-checking is what they do. The first translated article I found on searching (again, they don't make it easy) is taken from a Japanese blog (WP:SELFPUB), but doesn't specify such in its translation -- it just makes itself look like a normal newspaper article. I'm also wondering what their advertising policy means when it says "Japan Today offers the following advertising services to companies seeking to reach foreigners both within and outside Japan: [...] advertorials (separate coverage may also be made by a foreign reporter)" (『ジャパン・トゥデイ』では、国内外の外国人に訴求されたい企業様に向けて以下のような広告商品をご提供しています。 [...] 記事広告（外国人専属記者による別途取材も可）, "Japan Tudei" dewa, kokunaigai no gaikokujin ni sokyū saretai kigyō-sama ni mukete ika no yō-na kōkokushōhin o go-teikyō shiteimasu: [...] kiji-kōkoku (gaikokujin senzoku kisha ni yoru betto shuzai mo ka)). (Unlike their translations, advertorials appear to at least be marked as such.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

A publisher does not conifer truth and accuracy. Something of dubious origin does not become "reliable" because of re-publication or by mirroring in another (better) publication. And that better publication does not certainly become the true "origin" of such material by the act of mere reprinting. In such cases, the origin should be cited for transparency at minimum. The true origin or any faults with the material can not be diminished or diverted by arguing that it was "republished in a more reliable source" under said circumstances. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Japan Today is a blog, and while they sometimes carry reporting, much of what's posted there is personal opinion. It's absolutely not reliable, and shouldn't be used as a source except when it is quoted as a noteworthy blog (for example, a product review). Shii (tock) 07:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Um, Shii, it calls itself an online newspaper, it looks like a newspaper, and it has editors. I think that's different from a blog. It's true that it carries a lot of material sourced elsewhere – wire service stories, press releases, and translations of material from Japanese newspapers, magazines, and blogs. It's a low-budget operation. The same is true of many other online newspapers, which are essentially aggregators. In practical terms, if the original source is indicated, I think it should be treated the same way as other aggregator-type newspapers. The reliability of any particular story depends on the original source.

I'm also fairly dubious about the idea that a reporter's statements about Japanese history are nothing more than opinion. Sure, it would be preferable to cite a renowned historian about how the Ainu were treated in Edo-period Japan. But this is what reporters do. They read books by historians and report their findings. In practical terms I think it's going to be difficult to exclude statements by reporters about matters that have also been discussed in books by historians. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It's really not a newspaper in the way we understand that on this noticeboard. It's a blog that copies and pastes a lot of stories. Shii (tock) 04:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

That is correct, it is an unreliable online publication, like everything operated by GPlus Media.

When they first started the "newspaper", they had subscribed to the English language version of the respected and reliable Kyodo news wire serve (like an AP service), but they subsequently dropped that and turned into more of a gossipy forum.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Oneindia.com

I want to know whether Oneindia.com is a reliable source or not? It is an online news portal owned by Greynium Information Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and offers news in English, Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu, Gujarati and Kannada languages.(source) Several reliable sources have used Oneindia.in as sources for their news stories. Examples [22] [23] The Hindu has called it "one of India's leading portals".(source)

Thanks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems to have printed their reports correctly, there was no doubt before either. It is reliable. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed it is reliable, but as for the doubt, so many reviewers have questioned its reliability before.--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 17:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• There is no such thing as a reliable publisher - evaluate all claims and sources by the depth and accuracy to what other sources report. Use and citation by others indicate reliability and prominence. There is no easy answer or blanket "reliability" to be given. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• • It is just my opinion but looking at it it seems like a diverse and comprhensive news organization. Seems reliable to me. Over 26,000 results appear in Google News Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Safety of electronic cigarettes

Postgraduate Medical Journal

1. A 2014 Postgraduate Medical Journal stated that e-cigarettes have concentrated liquids that are packed in colorful containers and combined with flavors that appear to be made to attract children. The flavors include Gummy Bears and bubble gum. It was concluded that it is recommended that e-cigarettes be kept in a safe place, where children and pets do not have access them.
2. A 2014 Postgraduate Medical Journal stated that the proponents of e-cigarettes assert that nicotine is "as safe as caffeine".it has become clear that this is not true.
3. A 2014 Postgraduate Medical Journal stated that proponents frequently assert that e-cigarettes is only water vapor.this is not true.

• McKee, M. (2014). "Electronic cigarettes: peering through the smokescreen". Postgraduate Medical Journal. 90 (1069): 607–609. doi:10.1136/postgradmedj-2014-133029. ISSN 0032-5473. PMID 25294933.

Is the [ Postgraduate Medical Journal] reliable to use at Safety of electronic cigarettes for the claims above. According to WP:RS/MC, Being a "medical source" is not an intrinsic property of the source itself; a source becomes a medical source only when it is used to support a medical claim. It is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge. For the non-medical claims above I think this source is reliable for the claims. For example, stating that there are flavors that include Gummy Bears and bubble gum and claims made by advocates or proponents are non-medical claims.

According to WP:RSOPINION, Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. I prefer to include in-text attribution to the source as above for the non-medical claims. QuackGuru (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

There has already been a long discussion on this source link QuackGuru has not informed the other editors involved of bringing this here. The source is an Editorial and he is seeking to use it on a medical page, in a medical section. AlbinoFerret 05:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

In terms of reliability, an editorial in a journal (much different than a newspaper) would be a hazy middle ground between a primary source and a review article. The article is still doing a review in a secondary source fashion, but authors tend to be able to be allowed more flexibility it stating their own opinions, and generally it's just the editor determining if it's appropriate for publication.In a review, a statement needs to be much more concretely supported by sources, is peer-reviewed, etc. Seeing some of the stuff that gets into editorials in journals though, I wouldn't consider them reliable to the point of in text attribution, but definitely for a opinion. You can still have fringe opinions in editorials, so weight would really need to be considered for including the opinion in the article. If we're talking about in-text attribution, we really should be reaching for those designated as review articles and not editorials. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If there are important aspects of this editorial that should go into the article, then it should be sourced from some more reliable review articles. And if these aspects cannot be sourced from other secondary sources... then there is a problem. Because then both weight and reliability speak against using those aspects. --Kim D. Petersen 18:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not saying there's anything inherently unreliable about the source that would preclude its content from the article. It's still a kind of secondary source that can take the position of a WP:NOTEWORTHY opinion (i.e., some scientists think X) unless there are other sources brought to the table that establish it as a fringe idea. Basically, it's reliable enough for inclusion, but it needs to be stated not in Wikipedia's voice and probably closer to how it's currently presented as the opinion on behalf of the journal. The "not true" bit in the last two lines though is begging for an explanation, so either the why behind that not true needs to be added (still in the statement of the opinion from the source if it has it), or else a review is needed to back the claim up if fact is going to be asserted.

I should also point out I was thinking more about letters to the editor in my above post. Since this is actually an editorial, it's a bit more reliable towards asserting fact, but still not enough for Wikipedia's voice. Definitely reliable enough for saying there's a significant minority (at a minimum) when determining weight though without competing sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Well there is a consensus consisting of every editor, including Doc James with the only exception being QG, for not using that source at the article. So it doesn't really matter. And general consensus on E-cig articles is that only full reviews are used for medical information. So why QG brings it here is rather curious. --Kim D. Petersen 20:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Kim D. Petersen wrote "And general consensus on E-cig articles is that only full reviews are used for medical information." I agree we should use review articles not editorials for medical information. That's not the issue here. I want to use the source for mundane claims there are not specifically about medical information. I think there is no argument being made not to use this source for non-medical claims. Consensus is based on the arguments not a vote. So what is the reason not to use a reliable source for non-medical claims when there was in-text attribution to the journal? The text was not asserted as fact. QuackGuru (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

In terms of non-medical vs. non-medical, 1. (just added formatting to your original post) would be non-medical and is pretty mundane as you say, and 3. could be hazy since it is about chemistry, but it relates to health. 2. definitely would be medical content though. At RSN, we don't really care what the consensus is at the article; we're here to just give outside input on reliability. How(if) you all use the source is more of a weight question that's better left for elsewhere. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

How about only the proponents claim for 2? A 2014 Postgraduate Medical Journal stated that the proponents of e-cigarettes assert that nicotine is "as safe as caffeine". I striked the last part for both 2 and 3. I think the proponents view brings balance to the article. QuackGuru (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

That would still be a medical claim. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

1) A 2014 Postgraduate Medical Journal stated that e-cigarettes have concentrated liquids that are packed in colorful containers and combined with flavors that appear to be made to attract children. The flavors include Gummy Bears and bubble gum. It was concluded that it is recommended that e-cigarettes be kept in a safe place, where children and pets do not have access them.

3) A 2014 Postgraduate Medical Journal stated that proponents frequently assert that e-cigarettes is only water vapor.

1 is non-medical and 3 is the assertion of the proponents. I shortened 3 from the original wording. Is the Postgraduate Medical Journal reliable for these claims? QuackGuru (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Find another source for your information - just as has been repeated again and again on the talk-page. You can't just dismiss consensus... that would be gaming the system. [never mind the fact that it isn't the "postgraduate medical journal" that makes these claims - but Martin McKee] --Kim D. Petersen 23:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if you could get around consensus, which you cant. 1 is a medical claim because it is warning of dangers of ingestion of a chemical. AlbinoFerret 23:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it would be the opinion of the journal, hence the distinction between an editorial versus a letter to the editor. The latter would be strictly the opinion of McKee, but the former is commissioned and approved of by the journal itself. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: now that is a curious assertion. Do you have any evidence that this is the case for BMJ editorials - because it certainly isn't the general case - here for instance is the JAMA description of what an editorial in medical journals is[24]:

Editorials in medical journals are short essays that express the views of the authors, often regarding a research or review article published in the same issue. Editorials provide perspective on how the current article fits with other information on the same topic.

And considering that - i'd like you to expand a bit on that. --Kim D. Petersen 00:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

In fact for the Postgraduate medical journal the description is[25]:

Editorials should deal with contemporary issues of importance to clinicians. Their content can be clinical, social, political, legal or related to research issues. Although they may be controversial, they should attempt to provide a balanced view. Editorials provide a personal view and, as such, will not be routinely submitted to peer review.

The underlined part is mine. So please expand how these represent the view of the journal? --Kim D. Petersen 01:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Read at the end under Footnotes. The source said it is a "Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed."[26] QuackGuru (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't change that editorials are "personal view[s]", as has already been stated on the talk page. And internal peer-review is not real peer-review QG. (not that it would've changed it if it had been through real peer-review) --Kim D. Petersen 01:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Opinion of the journal, which is why they have the internal peer-review. Remember that editorials generally are intended to reflect the view of the publisher, not just the author. If it was just a letter to the editor (journals have those too) it wouldn't be peer-reviewed. That being said, the section Kim D. found on personal views is interesting. That seems to suggest the journal blurs the two a bit and also calls what's normally letters to the editor editorials too. However, that they specifically state the editorial was both commissioned and internally reviewed suggests the journal's approval in the form of what we'd typically call an editorial in most journals I'm familiar with at least. If it was volunteered and not reviewed, it'd be a letter to the editor and the opinion of strictly the author. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: According to both JAMA and the PMJ the major difference between editorials and letters is length, with editorials being essay length. For both publishing companies, editorials are not the views of the journal. So you will have to demonstrate that editorials (in medical publishing) is the view of the journal. I've done my part in demonstrating that it certainly isn't the case in the PMJ (or the JAMA line of) journal[s]. Therefore we cannot state this is the view of the journal, and we have to treat it as the views of its author - since that is what is verifiable. --Kim D. Petersen 07:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

One more case where we should stick to citing opinions as opinions. Opinions from notable persons are citable as opinions from notable persons. Opinions in editorial columns are still opinions. And if there is a consensus that the opinions are not from a notable person, and are not an official view of a publication, than it is a matter of editorial discussion as to whether to use the opinions. The gist is at the end of the column where it is clear that the author is opposed to tobacco companies "reinventing themselves as legitimate businesses" which is not a "medical statement" but a strongly political statement. Usable if cited as opinion ascribed to its (non-notable) author, not to the publication. And subject to the consensus of other editors. Were this a column by a notable person I would more strongly suggest consensus ought to allow its use. Collect (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• I remind all that Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion... yes, the source may reliably verify that the author of the source has an opinion on E-cigs... However, that is not the real issue here. The issue is whether the article should mention that opinion in the first place. That is a question of DUE WEIGHT and editorial consensus. Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Consensus from uninvolved editors is that the source is reliable and we should cite opinions as opinions. QuackGuru (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

A policy statement from the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology

See Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes#In-text_attribution_again.

• Brandon, T. H.; Goniewicz, M. L.; Hanna, N. H.; Hatsukami, D. K.; Herbst, R. S.; Hobin, J. A.; Ostroff, J. S.; Shields, P. G.; Toll, B. A.; Tyne, C. A.; Viswanath, K.; Warren, G. W. (2015). "Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: A Policy Statement from the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology". Clinical Cancer Research. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-2544. ISSN 1078-0432.

1. Nicotine is regarded as a possibly lethal toxin.[27]

2. A policy statement by the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology has reported that "Third-hand exposure occurs when nicotine and other chemicals from second-hand aerosol deposit on surfaces, exposing people through touch, ingestion,and inhalation".[28]

Is the policy statement from the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology reliable for these claims? QuackGuru (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The subject of the article is not "Nicotine". Unless you have a claim that nicotine, at the levels found in e-cigarettes, is "possibly a "lethal" toxin it is inappropriate to use in an article om e-cigarettes. There are lots of substances that can be lethal when taken in large quantities, even water. Using claims about nicotine at strengths above that found in e-cig's leads to original research by synthesis when followed by claims about e-cigarettes and the nicotine, at lower levels, in them. AlbinoFerret 20:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

On point 2, there shouldn't be any problem with that source (not even sure why it needs to be asked here). It's titled "Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems . . ." which is exactly in the scope of the article. That's exactly the kind of secondary source we're looking. Point one though is rather mundane as written. The source is reliable for an obvious fact, but unless there's addition context (i.e. levels in e-cigs) it probably won't pass when weight is considered. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason is because of this discussion. link AlbinoFerret 04:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like in that discussion you and others are misunderstanding what a secondary source/review is considered. If a reputable scientific organization in the field states something in the context of summarizing the scientific literature, that is in the same ballpark as a review article in the sense that it is contributing towards summarizing scientific consensus. In almost any other article there wouldn't be any question on this being the kind of source we're looking for in determining where the science community stands. I can't say whether it's just a good-faith misunderstanding or WP:POV problems, but just a friendly reminder for everyone to check their POVs at the door before editing and just summarize what the sources say. Sometimes those sources are going to say things someone doesn't agree with, but in the science realm we need to accept inconvenient things like that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Note. If this source is reliable I think it is safe to say a lot more policy statements can be added to the page. QuackGuru (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

That really depends on each case and how they would be presented, so I would be careful with that approach. In a topic like this I'd make sure it's from highly reputable organizations to avoid just having a list of all the organizations in their statements (and avoid just ending up here again). I'd also be careful about weight as some organizations might be more speculative, while others will specifically state their statement is based on the current understanding of the literature. There will probably be some variability between those two. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Environmental impact

• Chang, H. (2014). "Research gaps related to the environmental impacts of electronic cigarettes". Tobacco Control. 23 (Supplement 2): ii54–ii58. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051480. ISSN 0964-4563. PMC 3995274. PMID 24732165.

See Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes#Environmental_impact. Is this source reliable? QuackGuru (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I would say yes. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems like another WP:SNOWBALL case. That's exactly the kind of source we'd be looking for in such a statement. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret tried to hide text from a reliable source from the page. He eventually deleted some of the text.[29][30][31][32][33] QuackGuru (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

World Lung Foundation

• "WHO Right to Call for E-Cigarette Regulation". World Lung Federation.

I noticed a lot of text and sources are being deleted from the Safety of electronic cigarettes. Is World Lung Foundation source reliable? QuackGuru (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a press release being used to make a medical claim. AlbinoFerret 23:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

So what is unreliable with using the source for the statement clearly attributed to the World Lung Foundation? QuackGuru (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Its a press release being used to make a medical claim. AlbinoFerret 23:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It is the position of the World Lung Foundation. I think they are the experts. The same source is currently being used at another e-cigs page for a long time. It was added to the safety page because it has relevant information about safety. QuackGuru (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Unless someone is trying to claim the World Lung Foundation's statement is not what the World Lung Foundation actually said, it's plenty reliable. We don't use press releases because they typically don't have the expertise to reliably report on studies, but they're perfectly fine for documenting with an organization says. This is exactly what we'd be looking for in terms of a statement from an organization. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If it were just used as a statement of the orginazation, on the Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes page that would be fine. But the way its being used is to state a medical claim on the Safety of Electronic cigarettes page. There is long standing agreement on the e-cigarette pages to only use reviews for that purpose. AlbinoFerret 01:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a statement of the organisation and this organisation is reliable for the claim. There is no special agreement to delete sources. The agreement on the page is that you don't have consensus to delete statements from organisations. QuackGuru (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is in play here, just because its reliable its not automatic to include it. AlbinoFerret 01:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You deleted it because you claimed it was unreliable. I think you are now acknowledging it is reliable. Because you wrote in part "its reliable". QuackGuru (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Wrong, I still think its unreliable, especially for the use you want. What I am saying that even if someone finds something reliable, it does not guarantee inclusion. AlbinoFerret 02:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what you're seeing as unreliable here Albino. It's a pretty straightforward statement by what appears to be a reputable medical themed organization [34]. The question at this point would be weight as to how to include it, not whether it's reliable anymore. Weight's not really a question for here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That would be wrong. While a source is deemed reliable in one context, it doesn't follow that it is reliable in all context. --Kim D. Petersen 13:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease

• Bam, T. S.; Bellew, W.; Berezhnova, I.; Jackson-Morris, A.; Jones, A.; Latif, E.; Molinari, M. A.; Quan, G.; Singh, R. J.; Wisotzky, M. (1 January 2014). "Position statement on electronic cigarettes or electronic nicotine delivery systems [Official statement]". The International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease. 18 (1): 5–7. doi:10.5588/ijtld.13.0815.

AlbinoFerret thinks the page is now POV. Is the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease reliable? QuackGuru (talk) 05:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Reliable for their statement, but it doesn't appear they are a medical/scientific organization per se but more of a health advocacy group. Sort of a gray area, so I'd stick to more reputable orgs. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

World Medical Association

"WMA Statement on Electronic Cigarettes and Other Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems". World Medical Association.

Is the World Medical Association a reliable source? QuackGuru (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The WMA is reliable but the source is tertiary and articles should be based on secondary sources. Presumably before publishing their statement they consulted review studies and those are the sources we should use. TFD (talk) 07:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep, and that is the generic problem with the sources above as well. --Kim D. Petersen 13:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Is David Dean Shulman RS for labeling settlers as 'fanatics'?

On this edit, it says "described as 'fanatics' by David Dean Shulman". He is a WP:BIASED peace activist which was disputed before as WP:RS. As a Is he enough RS for labeling even when attributed to him? Ashtul (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

A book published by University of Chicago Press is a source of the highest quality. We should rely more on sources of this type and not find reasons to dismiss academic work. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Shulman's book got rave reviews. He is one of the world's foremost authority of Indian languages, is a long-term field worker and researcher on Palestinian rights, fluent, apart from naturally Hebrew, in Arabic. He is referring in his book to Hilltop youth, whom every source I am familiar with calls 'fanatical', something widely recognized on the right as well as the left of Israeli opinion. Even some conservative settlers denounce them. Shulman as a source was discussed way back on RSN. If you read his book, which is a sober, if shocked account of the systematic killing of animals and poisoning of fields, and his bewildered sense of struggling to come to terms with what he can't avoid calling 'evil', you'd find far less accommodating terms than 'fanatic' (like 'terrorists' which the government itself uses to describe some of their behaviour). It's actually quite objective, but of course is to be used with attribution.Nishidani (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Words like "fanatic" can never be more than an opinion, but there is no reason it can't be used in quotation from a notable attributed source. The book is not being used as a source for the truth of the label, but only of the fact that the attributed person uses it. This is perfectly within the rules. Zero^talk 13:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I would add that Shulman does not call 'settlers' fanatics, but, quite specifically uses the term of a fringe, and notoriously violent group at Ma'on.Nishidani (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"Fanatic" here appears to be an opinion properly sourced as an opinion, not (I trust) implying specific criminal acts. I would note,moreover, that "fanatic" in the sports arena is not even considered much of a pejorative, but simply implying "strong feelings" (though I would state it can not be used as a "fact" in Wikipedia's voice, to be sure). Collect (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Collect on the Wiki voice issue. --Inayity (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Collect regarding sourcing as an opinion. However- I don't know how notable his opinion is as it relates to the article. It seems prejudicial in the way it is used in the article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's an easy one

Is this book:

• Ruiz, Enrique (2009). Discriminate Or Diversify. PositivePsyche.Biz Corp. p. 279. ISBN 9780578017341.

a reliable citation for the statement, "The gathering during Hajj is considered the largest annual gathering of people in the world"? (See [35])

Ping: User:Debresser Shii (tock) 14:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems irrelevant. At Pilgrimage and Hajj there are two additional cites used for this assertion [36] [37], and looking on google turns up quite a few alternate refs as well. This source makes mention of the claim in question, but does not seem to comment on its justification; might as well remove it. siafu (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

A self-published work, and I see nothing in even his own bio that suggests that he's a particular expert in the attendance of hajj relative to other worldwide events. So, unneeded (as noted above) and inappropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure why this ref is needed surely stronger ones exist. self-published by a expert in Hajj would be cool, but is this guy one?--Inayity (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Are "page cites" required?

There is a Wikipedian who believes you can cite a book without a page number and that's okay. He does not possess the books because he sold them a long time ago: he just cites them anyway.

I think this is absolutely not the case, and that page numbers and references to text in specific pages are required ( templates should be installed if no page numbers are present). See Talk:Chinese_Canadians_in_British_Columbia#Re Oppenheimer.... WhisperToMe (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a question of citation style, not whether the book is a reliable source. A source can be a reliable basis for an article even if the article uses a poor citation, or indeed, doesn't cite the source at all. As far as sourcing goes, the two questions here are whether the source is reliable (is that in dispute?) and whether the article text is faithful to the content of the source. Anyway, for book citations, the content guideline suggests: "Specify the page number or range of page numbers. Page numbers are not required for a reference to the book or article as a whole. When you specify a page number, it is helpful to specify the version (date and edition for books) of the source because the layout, pagination, length, etc. can change between editions." Knight of Truth (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

So, that's quite different from what he reports of this discussion on Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia#Oppenheimer et al. which I encourage you to read and compare to what you and GB Fan have said here......only about citation style, nto about iron-clad insistence on page-cites for everything ... or he will delete it i.e. CENSOR it.Skookum1 (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Knight has responded to you at 16:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC). He is correct that not having the page doesn't make the source unreliable but he has said: "I do think citations should be as specific as possible for the statement cited (which, for general concepts, may preclude page numbers, but will at other times include even line numbers or the like)." and "Certainly, I don't think it's best practice to cite works you don't have on-hand, because there is great potential for accidental improper synthesis. How do you separate your interpretation from the author's words, if you have only your memory to rely on?" WhisperToMe (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I would say in general a page number is generally needed. To determine if a source is reliable, you need the specific content being cited. Shorter sources like journal articles, etc. generally don't need a specific page. However, people shouldn't be spending time going through a whole book to find a single page to verify the content. In most cases, just a specific sentence or paragraph at most is being cited, so page numbers should be included in that case. Page numbers aren't needed so much if the entire book is being cited for a broad concept and discussed by the whole book rather than something suited to a single sentence. That's an example where things get iffy, but the general rule I like to see is that a person can verify the sourced content with source in hand in a matter of minutes. If they can't do that, more information like a page number is needed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, and especially thank you for the clarification in regards to the general idea of the book not needing a page number, while specific facts do need page numbers. I think this is important information to relay. R.E. journal articles, it's good to know. I still prefer to cite exact page numbers from journals to help people find the sourcing content quicker, and to assist slow readers or people with dyslexia, or people with English as a second language. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know there isn't any requirement for any citations to have page numbers. It is always preferable to add as much information as possible to citations but the only thing that is required is enough to identify the source. If the source can be identified then it is possible to determine if the source verifies the information. -- GB fan 21:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:V: Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate).

If a page number would have been appropriate (which it almost always will be for a book, following any reputable guide to referencing), then the cite fails WP:V without it. Formerip (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

So you are saying that if a book is referenced without a page number you can not verify the information that it cites? IMO, it will make it harder but the information can still be verified even if the whole book has to be read. -- GB fan 11:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Asking somebody to go through an entire book to find a fact on one page is putting a big burden on them. Some people are fast readers and/or can use an index to find the pages by getting the key word, but some things don't show up in the index and some books don't have an index. Some people are dyslexic, have English as a second language, and/or have little free time, so they need as much information as they can get in locating the passages that confirm the text. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

That passage from WP:V ONLY concerns direct quotes/ NOT anything else. See my final comments on the parallel discussion launched by him on the OR board, something I say repeatedly and also with increasing frustration on his "la la I don't hear you" re-assertions on the talkpage when he continues to not just demand them, but order me to get the page-cites "ASAP". Impatient as well as rude and AGF, wot? Thing is, he's also maintaining his SYNTH version of WP:V applies to talkpages, and to even simple mentions of something a source says that I know it says and tell him; he wants even those mentions of sources deleted from the talkpage unless I page-cite them....do you get an idea what I've been dealing with this last few months? that's only the tip of the iceberg, but a very pointy and sharp one right now....Skookum1 (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen the behaviour you're talking about, so I can't comment on that.

I have to say you're wrong on the point of fact here, though. It doesn't only concern direct quotes. The wording is very clear: "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged" (my bolding). Formerip (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As noted below, he's used mention of this discussion on the CCinBC talkpage to assert that he did get support for his position about page cites but I see nothing like that in your response or in GB Fan's rather more explicit "no page-cites are not needed" [paraphrase] below; re your "the two questions here are whether the source is reliable (is that in dispute?) and whether the article text is faithful to the content of the source. Anyway, for book citations,"

the source is reliable. It's him maintaining that my account of what's in it is not reliable is the gist of his escalating demands for page-citing, as laid out in a bit more detail below); i.e. he maintains, to my face that *I* am not reliable and what I say about what's in a book shouldn't be believed.... I don't keep books "in hand" for years (they're heavy and airlines charge quite a bit for excess baggage as you know) but I also know what I've read and don't make things up. And actually, yes, rather than accept the source outright he went and sourced reviews on it to write book review article In the Sea of Sterile Mountains apparently in order to discredit it, as indeed the POV academic crowd did..including whining it had no line-cites; even though it has far more information in it than the sum of all the "scholarly" papers he's using to construct his ethno-POV soapbox-article.

anything I've put in by way of "the article text" IS faithful to the content of that source; and in fact most things I mention are in several sources.....all of which he knows I don't have on hand so can't page-cite..hence the demands for page-cites as a dodge to defray their inclusion in the article; he's demanding sources for e.g. Golden Village (Richmond, British Columbia) and Metrotown as being concentrations of Chinese commerce and populations in Greater Vancouver, which they famously are (and in spades); without seemingly ever once looking at those articles to see what sources are already in Wikipedia (and which nobody else has ever warred over page-cites about).

What he's pretending your answers to him said, vs what you actually did say, is yet more evidence that he only hears himself and/or doesn't actually understand what was said..... and another case of him SYNTHing complete untruth about something in the course of his asserting his fictional and biased version of history and how Wikipedia allegedly operates i.e. requires; there are no rules here, but he sure loves asserting that there are and making up more.Skookum1 (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

To actually respond to what's relevant (seriously stop posting walls of text focusing on other editors) how is one supposed to verify the source is reliable for the specific content in cases like this? Page numbers generally are needed for books. That not only allows people to check what was said, but also prevents people from making claims that aren't quite mentioned in the book. If it's not apparent where a source makes a claim, it's generally fair game to delete the content because the cite doesn't match the claim made on Wikipedia. FormerIP's post above is pretty concise on what why we need page cites in most cases as well, and I will agree with WTM that page cites should be included to verify content, especially because this appears to be a contentious topic. Just cite your source (i.e. page) when you are discussing specific content. That shouldn't be anything controversial at all, so there's no reason to bring in all the other drama to this board as well. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

This is that Wikipedian mentioned in the lede of this oh-no-not-yet-another-board-essay as a way to reject good faith and demand page-cites when they are not needed. This has included WTMs' demands that I must provide page cites even for talkpage mentions of sources and events that he is also determinedly finding ways to keep (or try to keep) from conflicting with this chosen POV-theme for "his" article; he orated endlessly and repetitiously at the OR board recently, asserting that WP:V requires page-cites for anything or HE will delete it, including apparently his threats to delete the talk page mentions of issues and events absent from or in conflict with the prejudicial biases of the selection of "scholarly" sources he insists are all that matters; he holds in disdain the many local histories I mention and items in them, again demanding page cites, and last night (in my time zone) ordering me to get the page-cites that he's demanding; he wants me to put more time into his demands and is escalating his attacks on anything I bring up. This is yet another bureaucratic side-discussion where he is IMO CANVASSING for support to get me out of his way; I know BC and BC wiki-space like almost no one else, and have a lot of support and respect for my knowledge of BC history and sources about it outside Wikipedia as well as inside it (see the barnstars section of my userpage).

But not to him, he went to the OR board to get support for the notion that my 59 years of life and over 45 years of in-depth readings of BC history and media was not valid i.e. he didn't have to listen to it because that is "original research" in his instruction creeping rule-mongering world of "scholarly"

He makes SYNTH arguments about so many things in so many ways it's obnoxious and highly disruptive and AGF.....yet because of my resistance to his POV agenda and control-oriented demands that *I* do what *he* wants an ANI which was started by @Moonriddengirl: was turned directly against me while his own ongoing misconduct and disruptiveness

I've never encountered anyone so hostile to things he doesn't know or are which in the way of the thesis he's developing on the page in question, and in various others, and in good two dozen lengthy and SYNTH-y arguments on various talkpages and boards while continuing to TRIVIA/UNDUE expansions of material, fighting off, again even talkpage mentions of events he hasn't heard about....and which his preferred collection of bias sources with their glosses and generalizations of half-truths either avoid or just don't know about. They're all "of a kind" and the article is increasingly an ethnopolitics soapbox and not a good article, and is at conflict in its tone and conclusions/assertions with many (many) other BC articles. His cite-obsession and SYNTHographical ramblings include attempts to justify capital-W "Whites" rather than the WikiCanada standard "European Canadian" or the more specific uses like British, American, Maritimer, German, etc as the paradigm of his selection of sources is "White/Chinese" in a very recognizable theme of anti-"white" bias most easily summarized as "cruel nasty exploitive white bigots vs earnest hard working decent and suffering Chinese"; way too common in modern academia; and for those thinking I'm just an "angry old white man" who's anti-Chinese, that's a crock and I'm not alone.....

as an example, see the CCinBC talkpage about a geographer named Mike Kennedy who, like me and many others, doesn't like at all the ideologically driven fabrications and distortions of current (recent) trends in BC historiography; and the way said authors either don't know the facts, or don't want to admit to anything that gets in teh way of their biased constructs about BC's complicated past. And THAT is exactly where WTM is coming from too - this discussion about page-cites is only looking for validation (which he hasn't gotten though on the talkpage he's pretending he has) of his efforts to block any mention of facts and issues and to exclude sources I know them to be in, with the page-cite game only IMO a ruse; he knows I don't have the books on hand (I live in Cambodia for now) and yet keeps on telling me to get them and page-cite them. Not just insistently, but actually as though he's Editor-in-Chief...which he's NOT. He's No 34 on list of all-time wikipedians but his user summary is opted out of; from what I have experienced I suspect that most of his edits re board-wars and long SYNTH-y essays and given what I'm seeing of his work on articles of "his" I've seen and tried to cope with and input on, I'm aghast at what else must be out there on Wikipedia written by him.

the POV quality of his sources is rank in many cases, and I'm kept too busy responding to him, and defending myself from a campaign to block me (yet again for no good reason other than revanchism and the semi-literate culture used to avoid discussing issues rather than personalities and writing styles that is becoming a hallmark of character assassination and personality-attacks in that place called ANI that is more full of projections and accusations and AGF/NPA behaviour than anywhere else in Wikipedia. And there, a block campaign was launched by someone with a very determined axe to grind re some other POV stuff to do with the Ottawa shootings where I worked hard to keep propaganda-style content and actual censorship edits, and false edit comments, from overtaking the article (as also at various other POV issues in various areas over my 9 years here)....

....and yes, no wonder "some people" want me blocked, I insist on fairness and the complete truth and know propaganda and distortion when I see it; while they want me gone because that's NOT what they want in Wikipedia, rather information control and suppression of fact in the way of their respective agendas........including in the case of Chinese Canadians in British Columbia; I get accused of "walls of text" in that ANI while his (incredibly) lengthy and unreadable expoundings of weird-logic and selective-cite SYNTH go unaddressed and unrestricted; it was said to me I should edit in other topic areas where I will not encounter such people and one (too typical) somebody-else-that-knows-nothing-about BC denounced me for OWN behaviour on BC topics; nothing could be more misdirected and a-factual; telling me to abandon my province's history and social geography to people from beyond whose only sources are online and have no direct experience of the place is utterly absurd; while not telling it to someone constructing and bureacratic-board warring, as again here, to continue his campaign of rule-mongering and fact-avoidance and anti-collaboration and very obvious "OWN" behaviour is ludicrous.

I have contemplated taking the many issues concerning his obstructive and imperious/demanding and ordering-me-around behaviour to boards on the problems I find in all his work (including an atrociously bald writing style with bad syntax and clumsy construction, but what's going on is SYNTH/OR, TRIVIA, UNDUE, ESSAY, POV and more all at the same time; his AGF towards anything I say is reflexive by now; but has escalated since a discussion on my talkpage where he disputed my removal of "Anglophone schools" from BC education sections and proceeded to lecture me, a real live British Columbian, on what he thought was OK, and even though two other editors joined me in seemingly getting him to understand how wrong he was, he never conceded defeat though conceding he should use "English-language schools" and "French-language schools" but still not getting that those "English-language schools" have French-immersion programs and are not really "English-language schools".

He spoke throughout that like a college professor telling us (all three were Canadians) what was "actually" the case, even though he's never even been to the country and only just started "invading" Canadian wiki-space a few months ago...three or four very long months now, all the while disputing word-usages and page-cite-demanding and advancing the POV of his choice of sources while ignoring dozens of sources I've assembled on that talkpage; probably archived now because of his ongoing nit-pickery about words using SYNTH/out-of-context and often highly illogical "logic".....

Following that non-admission-of-error, his latest onslaught began against a slew of edits in the last 48 hours on the CCinBC article; so many that I can't keep up; that he would order me to go buy the book in question, which I already have read several times and know well (I don't keep mental notes of page numbers when reading/digesting as I'm reading as an historian, not a wiki-bureaucrat) as I have dozens of other books - hundreds really - about BC that he doesn't even want to give a nod to, except to demand page-cites when they're not necessary, as GB Fan encouragingly notes above...but in the comment on the CCinBC talkpage just now that clued me into the existence of this yet-another-side-discussion of his, he makes no concession AT ALL to what GB Fan has said....he hears only himself, and turns things said in edit comments and talkpage mentions back with complete distortion or miscomprehension of what was said, juxtaposing his SYNTH and misapprehensions on what was being changed or had said, and never listening and always arguing.

Yet I'm the one in hot water because of his onslaught of half-truths and rule-happy things like this discussion - "it's OK if I demand page-cites for anything, right?". No it's not, and it's not OK to keep on with this behaviour, and not OK to imperiously tell off a Wikipedian experienced in the subject area and who has built a great deal of the BC content in Wikipedia that he is worthless and tht anything he says cannot be taken in good faith; he doesn't say that directly but the message has been clear; including in his coming here to look for yet more support for his SYNTH extrapolations of guidlines into iron-clad rules in order to censor what he doesn't want to hear and doesn't want in "his" article(s).

Yet another hour of my time spent on all this (I type fast, this didn't take me hours though indeed hours upon hours and days upon days have been spent trying to get him to listen to commonsense....or resist attack from those he's found "support" from in the vicious bearpit of hate and pomposity called ANI.Skookum1 (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Though I stand by what I said above, that cited page numbers are not required for a source to be reliable, I do think citations should be as specific as possible for the statement cited (which, for general concepts, may preclude page numbers, but will at other times include even line numbers or the like). Certainly, I don't think it's best practice to cite works you don't have on-hand, because there is great potential for accidental improper synthesis. How do you separate your interpretation from the author's words, if you have only your memory to rely on? It goes without saying that no-one should claim article ownership, and articles are usually not made better when information is removed that is cited poorly but nevertheless accurately reflects the source.Knight of Truth (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

If it's not a BLP issue, the way I deal with it is to just put a "pageneeded". That way the information stays up and there is time taken to either get the specific pagecite or find an alternate source which says the same thing. I'm perfectly fine keeping up the information cited from the book. I started this to underscore what best practices are on Wikipedia, and that possession/access to the works is very important. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Multiple Landmark Worldwide sources

At least one editor at Landmark Worldwide would like to use the following sources to support the given statements. Others (including myself) disagree. Please provide commentary to assist us in resolving these questions. Thank you. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Note, the most recent discussion of these sources is found at Talk:Landmark_Worldwide#Recent_addition_of_sources. --Tgeairn (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Tidskriften Analys & Kritik

Source: A&K staff (8 June 2004). "Irrationalism, mysticism och ockultism: Landmark Education lägger ned verksamheten". Tidskriften Analys & Kritik (in German). University of Zurich and University of Düsseldorf. ISSN 0171-5860. Retrieved 23 January 2015.

Article: Landmark Worldwide

Content:

Landmark closed its offices in Sweden as of June 2004.

Discussion:

1) This is listed as being published by "University of Zurich and University of Düsseldorf" in the citation. The linked article is published in the "Journal of Analysis & Criticism", which was published by "Steve Hall".[38]

2) There is no indication of editorial oversight or of reliability of this source.

3) It looks to be a "blog" type entry. Some other entries are sourced, but this one is not. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ad 1. The link points to a journal issue of Tidskriften Analys & Kritik, which is Swedish not German. Here is the record in The European Library (derived from the Swedish National Library - it has its own record but deeplinking is not possible). It is as far as I can see not an issue of the Journal of Analysis & Criticism (has there ever been a journal published under that title?). Neither is it the German journal Analyse & Kritik (Düsseldorf and Zürich). Here is the webpage of Analyse & Kritik. None of the aforementioned journals has ever been published by Steve Hall. So their seems to be a lot of confusion here.

Ad 2. Possibly true.

Ad 3. True, but also renowned journals as for example Nature have 'blog'-type entries.

I am not certain if the source suffices to support the statement. Is the statement that Landmark stopped its activities in Sweden after the Swedish television had broadcasted the Landmark documentary films (Kalla Fakta, 2003/2004) controversial at all? This website provides the same information. Theobald Tiger (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the full statement from the article is "Following these articles and programs on the private TV channel TV4, Landmark closed its offices in Sweden in June 2004.", which is unsupported by the source and not supported by the FRI post either. It may be possible to source that Landmark does not have an office in Sweden, but we don't have sources for this cause-effect relationship. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Scribd.com

Source: Case Financial (2000b). "Pacific Biometrics, Filings Form SB-2". Scribd. Retrieved 23 October 2008.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)

Article: Landmark Worldwide

Content:

In 2001 Landmark Education formed Tekniko Licensing Corporation, a Nevada corporation, which purchased Tekniko Technology from Giles' company.

Discussion:

1) The scribd copy of a document doesn't appear to support the text at all.

2) It's scribd.com - not a reliable source at all.

3) The document appears to have a url at the top (http://www.secinfo.com/dRqWm.5wzh.htm). This url is already linked as a different source in the article, and the editor insists that this is a separate and different document. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ad 1. I agree that both the secinfo-website and the scribd-document (the last is a part of the first) do not support the current text. The source merely states that Giles is the owner of Tekniko Licensing Corporation. Here is a vacancy for a Tekniko Administrative Manager (2005), which clearly states: "The qualified candidate would be accountable for managing all administrative aspects of one of Landmark Education's wholly owned subsidiaries, Tekniko Licensing Corporation." So there must have been a transfer between 2000 and 2005.

Ad 2. Generally this is true, but it is in the context a form of hairsplitting.

Ad 3. It is misleading to say that the editor (Astynax) has insisted that the Scribd-file is a separate and different document.

The text is not properly backed by sources (though I think it likely that the information is correct). Theobald Tiger (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

DIKE staff

Source: DIKE staff (2000). "Landmark Education renamed". Digitales Informationssystem in der Evangelischen Kirche in Hessen und Nassau. Mühlheim am Main. Archived from the original on 8 February 2007. Retrieved 22 October 2008. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)

Article: Landmark Worldwide

Content:

Subsidiaries: The Vanto Group, Landmark Education International, Inc.

Discussion:

This is an anonymous passage from an anti-cult editorial website, which states "The personal opinions of the individual authors do not represent the opinion of SINUS". It is not a reliable source. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The source does not support Landmark Education International, Inc. being a subsidiary of Landmark Worldwide. That Vanto Group is a wholly owned subsidiary is openly acknowledged by Landmark Worldwide. As far as I am aware Landmark Education International, Inc. is a former name of Landmark Worldwide. Theobald Tiger (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Cultic Studies Review

Source: Kronberg, Robert; Lindebjerg, Kristina (2002). "Psychogroups and Cults in Denmark". Cultic Studies Review. 1 (1). International Cultic Studies Association.

Article: Landmark Worldwide

Content:

Other observers have noted relationships between the training programs and religion or a spiritual experience

Discussion:

1) This citation claims the journal was published by the International Cultic Studies Association, which did not exist at the time of publication. The actual document shows that it was published by the AFF (a predecessor to the ICSA).

2) The Cultic Studies Review did not have (and did not claim) an editorial review, and the TOC of the issue clearly shows which articles were peer-reviewed (this one was not).

3) A copy of the article is found here, and does not support the cited passage in any way. The source says "we have also had many inquiries about the American psychogroup, Landmark, which is associated with cults because of the high level of one-sided sales pressure that many people report." The source is calling Landmark a psychogroup (not religion or spiritual) and then says "Tvind is another [emphasis added] non-religious organization...", effectively saying the opposite of that the passage in the article claims. And again, there was no peer-review or editorial review. Simply a statement by a self-trained "Exit Counselor". --Tgeairn (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ad 1. What Tgeairn calls "the actual document" does not, as far as I can see, contain the text relevant to the issue.

Ad 2. Therefore Tgeairn's conclusion under 2. is based, I fear, upon the wrong publication. (But I think the conclusion is nevertheless true.)

Ad 3. This reference should be removed, because it doest not support the text. The text itself needs not to be changed, as it is backed by other (and better) references. Theobald Tiger (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Re 1: You're right, the pdf of the print copy does not contain that article (and I should have made that clear in my opening remarks). It was only in the electronic (website) edition of that issue. Somewhere in the web archive I saw the listing showing what was in the print copy and what was electronic only. If needed, I can go dig that up, but it seems unnecessary to do so (given the other issues with the source and the availability of other sources). --Tgeairn (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Lockwood, Religiosity Rejected

Source: Lockwood, Renee (2011). "Religiosity Rejected: Exploring the Religio-Spiritual Dimensions of Landmark Education". International Journal for the Study of New Religions. 2 (2). Sheffield, England: Equinox. ISSN 2041-9511.

Article: Landmark Worldwide

Content:

Before leaving his position at Mind Dynamics, Erhard considered setting up est as a church

It [Landmark] has also denied any direct connection between its programs and Erhard's est and Forum

Some scholars have categorized Landmark and its predecessor organizations as new age, self religion or a new religious movement.

Discussion:

These are three controversial statements, and each of them require exceptional sources before we make them. At the time this source was published, the author (Lockwoood) was a graduate student at the University of Sydney.[39] In the paper, the author acknowledges that several articles have been published about the Landmark Forum, and says "These have proved to be valuable resources, and are referenced here only when their account can be supported by the author's experiences of the Landmark Forum". This is also not the behaviour of a researcher.

About the claims:

1) "Before leaving his position at Mind Dynamics, Erhard considered setting up est as a church". This is taking the source (Bartlet, 1978) somewhat out of context, Barlet said "...a variety of alternative plans were canvased - whether to be profit or nonprofit, whether to organize as a church...". We should just stick with citing Bartlet.

2) "It [Landmark] has also denied any direct connection between its programs and Erhard's est and Forum". The word denied is only in the paper once ("...[Landmark] has continuously denied being a religious organization"). The paper does not allege that Landmark disclaims Erhard or a relationship with est or the Forum.

3) "Some scholars have categorized Landmark and its predecessor organizations as new age, self religion or a new religious movement." Lockwood mostly says that previous writers do not include Landmark as religious (for instance "Rarely are the boundaries of what constitutes a “religion” expanded in order to explore those groups that, though not understood to be “religious” in a traditional sense, clearly contribute to contemporary “spiritual” life.") She indirectly says that it should be percieved as religious, but she is hardly a "scholar". --Tgeairn (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source at all? Is it reliable for the sourced statements?

• Not reliable - As proposer of commentary above. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

As there are no arguments given to support the view that this is not a reliable source, I am not able to address them. Obviously this source is reliable.

Ad 1. The source does support the first statement: "Finally, it is imperative to note that during its inception, the possibility of establishing est as a church was indeed considered, but its official position as an "educational corporation" eventually prevailed." (p.229)

Ad 2. The source does support the second statement: "Landmark Education today insists that the Landmark Forum is entirely distinct from est, claiming that it is not based on or a derivation of Werner Erhard’s original program." (p.227)

Ad 3. It is crystal clear that Tgeairn has not read the Lockwood article. Moreover, the statement is not controversial at all.

Kind regards, Theobald Tiger (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. Regarding the source itself, as I said - it is a student paper written by a graduate student, as such it is PRIMARY at best. It is not published in citation indexes, it's DOI isn't even published.. These alone disqualify it as a reliable source, I believe (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Even if not, the author herself says that she disregarded other sources that did not match her own experience (actual quote above). As for the points, I re-read Lockwood's paper just today before preparing this. There is a link above to read it online, and if you would like a pdf then it's available via google search (I won't link as it's a site that is hosting copyrighted content for download in avoidance of payment).

Ad 1: My point here is that Lockwood is taking Bartlet (her cited source) out of context. We already have Bartlet sourced in the LW article, so I see no need for this interpretation.

Ad 2: This still feels like a twist of terms, but I can see your logic.

Ad 3: The statement is not only controversial, but it is the point of the paper and it is the crux of what Arbcom has said is the locus of dispute with the LW article. Lockwood disputes Chryssides and others in their limitation of what constitutes a religious movement, and she arrives at novel interpretations from her own observation of a course she attended.

We can disagree on a topic, but please do not make statements such as "It is crystal clear that Tgeairn has not read the Lockwood article". Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Not only have you not read the article, as I have clearly demonstrated, but you also have not the faintest idea of what primary source actually means. The Lockwood article is not a primary source at all. It is a study and it has been published in the International Journal for the Study of New Religions, Vol 2, No 2 (2011), which is published in cooperation between the International Society for the Study of New Religions and Equinox Publishing (link). It is a refereed journal. Is has an editorial board with distinguished scholars as Susan J. Palmer, Adam Possamai, Paul Heelas, Boaz Huss among others. Theobald Tiger (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I would say that it is clearly not reliable, particularly as a source for the highly contentious claim that Landmark is a "Religious" organisation in any sense in which a normal reader would understand that term. Lockwood explicitly states that she is "expanding" the scope of the religious beyond its normal usage. The study is a student paper, written while she was a postgraduate and before she received a doctorate. In the four years since then, she has still not attained an academic position as far as I can see. Nor do web searches produce any evidence that she is recognised as an expert in the field, and there do not appear to be anything much in the way of citations, endorsements or commentaries on her paper.I have no idea what the acceptance criteria are for that journal, but I am not convinced that fact that they printed it confers any evidence of notability. I have read it (twice) and I don't find it a very impressive piece of work. I am sure Tgeairn knows whether he has read it or not, and it strikes me as uncivil to contradict him. DaveApter (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Civil or uncivil, the conclusion is simply inescapable. Theobald Tiger (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Timothy McVeigh Religion and Political categorization

Is [40] this ethicsdaily.com article sufficient to label Timothy McVeigh's religion as Christian Identity?

There is no doubt that Timothy McVeigh was deeply influenced by the Christian Identity movement. Christian Identity is a profoundly racist and theocratic form of faith that developed in the late 1970s and spread like wildfire through rural communities throughout the U.S. in the 1980s.

In my opinion, McVeigh was one of those who responded to the traces of Christian Identity beliefs that are woven into Pierce's book.

From here it looks like the opinion of the writer who proffers no actual source for the claim whatsoever. Absent a real source, we can not assert McVeigh's religion to have been "Christian Identity Movement".

Second issue is whether we can place McVeigh in Category:American libertarians on the basis of [41] page 298 The claim made in the biography sourced to that book was:

but may have voted for Libertarian Party candidate, Harry Browne, in the 1996 presidential elections.

Which sounds like pure speculation at best. Is that book a good source for the claimmade? Is the claim actually speculation which does not belong in a biography? Is the claim as stated sufficient to place McVeigh in the category? Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing aside, even if that source was determined to be reliable, there is a bit a logical leap from "Timothy McVeigh was deeply influenced by the Christian Identity movement" to "Timothy McVeigh's religion is Christian Identity". You can be influenced by a religious movement without identifying yourself as a member of that movement. Similarly, on the second issue, even if we knew for a fact that McVeigh voted for Browne that doesn't make him a libertarian. As with the religion, you can vote for a candidate without identifying with their political party. I know many people that consider themselves democrats that have occasionally voted for a republican and vice versa, and many more people who consider themselves independent who have voted for members of several political parties. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

ethicsdaily.com doesn't appear to be a reliable source. Is there any reason to believe that it has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking? As for the second issue, we need to look at the totality of what reliable sources say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Going to chip in here and agree on both points - the inference is not supported and should be removed for the reasons provided thus far. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

"Bellingcat"

I know that this board isn't meant to be used to address general source reliability, but I was wonder if any of my esteemed colleagues that frequent this board could comment on a website called "Bellingcat". Queer name, if I've ever heard one. It is a relatively new website, and largely seems to be the project of one fellow, a Mr Brown Moses. It seems to be a form of original research, activist blogging. I can't seem to find any evidence of reliability accorded to it by RS. This question came up when an editor attempted to add information from this Bellingcat "report" to our article on the Battle of Mariupol. I cannot trace its reliability, at all. I'm especially concerned by the fact that it is written by a one "Pieter van Huis", who the site says "is based in the Netherlands and is currently finishing his university studies". Kyiv Post, which I generally consider reliable, mentioned the report. KP says that Bellingcat is a "renowned open-source investigative group", but I find that odd, as it is a fairly new "group" (launched on 1 July in the prior summer), and not mentioned by any RS. I'd never heard of it until now. KP also says "Despite verbal and written requests to the General Prosecutor’s office, the Kyiv Post was not able to ascertain the status of the official investigation into the May 9 shootings". The lack of the official investigation report is also very concerning. Anyway, what do you fellows think? I personally don't think it is RS. It seems too shaky. RGloucester — ☎ 23:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Eliot Higgins, founder of Bellingcat is often cited in RS , as for example in the guardian last july on mh-17mh17 , he has been profiled in The New Yorker rocket man, a speaker at the Frontline Club,the changing face of news gathering, and - Bellingcat, though still quite new has attracted attention , as for example here [42] -, - he is already a respected citizen investigative journalist - is Bellingcat a RS ? if one were an Assad regime supporter, or Putinist one would frantic denigrate it and say, its not a RS, but then that's from a pov that regards LifeNews and SANa and RT reliable, so what would that be worth ?, otherwise , - I think it should be regarded as a RS, its a team, not one person now, - 'a Bellingcat study said ...' such and such, - should be fine. bloody hell when one thinks how painstaking and scrupulous bellingcat reports are, wp should be asking itself - is it of its caliber , or even close, not the other way round really Sayerslle (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• We have a page about Eliot Higgins, founder and one of Bellingcat authors. Based on info/sources on his page, he looks like a more or less reputable journalist. So, I think this source may deserve some credibility. My very best wishes (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

He may well be, but it seems like he has political motives. What's more, this particular report is sourced to a student that is "finishing his university studies". RGloucester — ☎ 02:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

One must be careful, however this particular publication looks like a good and detailed investigative report to me. BTW, this former student edited here, on-wiki a few years ago and looked as a reasonable contributor, which does not affect credibility of his article though.My very best wishes (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Having an article about someone, or saying they're a journalist, doesn't mean a source they write in is automatically reliable. We have a whole list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, but that doesn't mean any of them should be used as reliable sources. Shii (tock) 02:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't have an article on the author, only on the founder of the blog. It is fairly obvious that this isn't an RS report. RGloucester — ☎ 01:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I know nothing about the web site, but the 'queer name' may be a reference to the phrase Belling the cat. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I've seen it being used as an RS on quite a number of articles surrounding current events, and have been wanting to query it myself. Being started by a notable, as we know, does not make any committees, think tanks or publications the notable is attached to inherently notable (or reliable). It certainly doesn't make any 'journalist' published there RS, just self-professed. At the very least, if anything is to be used in an article, it should require WP:INTEXT attribution, as well as being open to being challenged or discussed on the article's talk page. Not sure = probably not RS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph

Is The Daily Telegraph a WP:reliable source? An IP-hopping editor is repeatedly removing the phrase "making New Caledonia one of the few countries or territories in the world with two recognized flags" from Flag of New Caledonia claiming that the Telegraph is "Not reliable source". They justify this on the talk page by arguing that it is "an article in the other part of the world". They use the same argument for their repeated removal of the second flag from the infobox of New Caledonia. The source says "New Caledonian Congress overwhelmingly voted to adopt the emblem of the indigenous movement ... as the nation's second official flag" and "The unusual move makes New Caledonia one of only a handful of countries ... that have two official national flags." Are there any policy based reasons why this Telegraph article is not reliable? Does the geographic location of a source impact its reliability? TDL (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Properly cited as such, and sourced to the Daily Telegraph, the claim can be made. The Tricolor is the national flag of France, of which New Caledonia is a part, and the New Caledonians appear to have chosen what the US calls a "state flag" as it is not considered a separate "country" by France. It is likely more correct to call the Tricolor the "national flag" and the new flag the "state flag" (where "state" seems likely to be a more understandable term than "collectivity"). Collect (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, where state and province flags are counted - they are far from rare, and the Daily Telegraph seems to have gotten carried away. Even Scotland, Wales and England have distinct "flags." Collect (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you to TDL. By motivating me to look at our Daily Telegraph article I came across the delightful name "Cockie Hoogterp" which I had never encountered before. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case

Current dispute regarding extremely topical subject matters; hence the importance of ascertaining whether or not the below-referenced are, in fact, reliable sources.

• Matthew Boyle (19 September 2012). "Emails reveal Justice Dept. regularly enlists Media Matters to spin press". Daily Caller. Retrieved 24 February 2013.
• "Emails show Justice working with Media Matters on stories that target critics". Fox News. 18 September 2012. Retrieved 24 February 2013.
• Matthew Boyle (19 September 2012). "Farenthold: Congress will likely investigate DOJ-Media Matters collusion, target group's tax-exempt status". Daily Caller. Retrieved 24 February 2013.
• Ryan J. Reilly (14 February 2013). "Top Eric Holder Aide Tracy Schmaler To Leave DOJ". Huffington Post. Retrieved 26 February 2013.
• Allen, Charlotte (2013). "Politicizing Justice". The Weekly Standard. 18 (23). The Weekly Standard LLC. Retrieved 26 February 2013.
• Evan Perez (14 February 2013). "Senior Aide to Holder Stepping Down at Justice". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 26 February 2013.
• Mike Allen (15 February 2013). "IN PRIVATE, OBAMA FLASHES ANGER OVER GOP STRAFING OF HAGEL -- Justice's Tracy Schmaler to ASGK Public Strategies -- The era of big Wall Street deals is back -- Ted Cruz shakes Senate". Politico. Retrieved 24 February 2013.

Respectfully submitted, Quis separabit? 01:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of cites not directly needed for the sentence to which they are appended including Right Web and Yale Daily News for BLP claims

(From WP:BLP/N)

The following single sentence is the entirety of the removed text, including refcites, with the reason being the assertion that this Right Web is an "attack site". Here is a link to the series of edits removing material and sources, and here is a link to the talk page discussion.

<blockquote>''Kagan spent 13 years as a Senior Associate with the [[Carnegie Endowment for International Peace]], before joining the [[Brookings Institution]] as a senior fellow in the Center on United States and Europe in September 2010.<ref>[http://www.brookings.edu/media/NewsReleases/2010/0908_kagan.aspx Robert Kagan joins Brookings]</ref><ref>[http://www.carnegieendowment.org/experts/index.cfm?fa=expert_view&expert_id=16 Profile on the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace site]</ref><ref>Robert Kagan, "I Am Not a Straussian", ''Weekly Standard'' 11: 20 (February 6, 2006)</ref><ref>[http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=30540 "Robert Kagan Follows Father but Forges Own Path"], Andrew Mangino, [[Yale Daily News]]</ref><ref>[http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1241 Robert Kagan profile on "Right Web"]''</ref></blockquote>

I suggested there that the pertinent cites for the claims of fact would be any Brookings source stating that he, indeed, worked there and a Carnegie source stating his position with them. The Weekly Standard cite appears to be self-written, so of problematic value as to anything other than statements of fact. The Yale Daily News, AFAICT, is a student publication which is of no value for the sentence to which it is appended, and the RightWeb editorial is also not needed for a claim of fact (indeed is not specifically needed at all here) but which also contains clear opinions which would preclude it being used as an RS for claims of fact. The discussion indeed focused on using the opinions cites as a basis to label living persons as "neoconservative" in Wikipedia's voice. The Right Web cite is clearly an opinion piece and really of no use here as far as I can tell.

Are the last two cites usable at all to state in Wikipedia's voice (I opined that such a use would require that opinions must be properly cited as opinions) that Kagan and others of his family are "neoconservative"? Is it proper to use problematic cites for a simple claim where absolutely RS cites are readily found and used? See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Robert_Kagan and a second section with the same name at the bottom of the page, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Neoconservativism_-_Victoria_Nuland and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Neoconservatism_-_Frederick_Kagan where the same sources and arguments to categorise them is made. See also List of Neoconservatives (listing towards bottom of article) and diff [43] [44] where specific living persons are categorized on the basis of an opinion article, and so on. Thanks. Collect (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• It is not quite clear to me what you're asking. It might help if you could condense your post for readability and clarity. As best I can tell, the question is whether reliable sources describe Robert Kagan as a "neoconservative". The answer is obviously yes, since 5 seconds of work yields high-quality sources as Der Spiegel, The Guardian, Politico, and so on. We shouldn't use low-quality sources like RightWeb, or borderline sources like the Yale Daily News, but then there's no need to do so—the question is moot since high-quality sources are available. MastCell ^Talk 12:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Publishers Weekly as source in author article

Is it appropriate to include Publishers Weekly's review of Orson Scott Card's novella "Hamlet's Father" in Card's article? User:Collect claims it is a BLP violation to include a mention of the publication's brief negative review, since PW points out that the novella attempts to link homosexuality to pedophilia, while I argue that PW is a major industry publication whose reviews of full-length novels are not usually much longer than this and that BLP definitely does not bar criticism of an author's creations, which is what this is. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

If the article describes the author's work in some detail then of course reviews can be consulted, no matter whether they are negative or positive. However the reviews mentioned should be some representative for reviews as a hole. So don't use (only) a negative review, when most revoews are actually positive and vice versa. I see nothing wrong with using Publisher's Weekly for reviews or biographical information even. --Kmhkmh (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The question is:

Is a PW single paragraph review a reliable source to state in a BLP:

Trade journal Publishers Weekly criticized Card's "flimsy novella", stating that the main purpose of it was to attempt to link homosexuality to pedophilia.

Where one would surmise that saying a person was attempt(ing)ing to link homosexuality to pedophilia as a fact in Wikipedia's voice is a "contentious claim" per se. Is saying a person is attempting to link homosexuality to pedophilia a "contentious claim" or not? is the actual question here. I note the editor above also states it as a "fact". Also note that there is a very extensive section in the Orson Scott Card BLP on "views on homosexuality" (over three hundred words on the topic) and thus there is also a WEIGHT issue present. Collect (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The sentence is an accurate summary of the Publishers Weekly review (though I'm rather hoping we specify which novella was reviewed), and Publishers Weekly is a reliable source for book reviews. As a short review it certainly doesn't deserve more than one sentence, and as a relevant comment, I can't see how we can give it less than one. (Maybe if there were multiple reviews that said the same thing, we could write that in one sentence?) --GRuban (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Card specifically denied any imputation about homosexuality in the novella, and the claim is under an ArbCom area decision regarding charges about homosexuality. IMO, the review is an opinion piece,and in no way should its opinions be placed in Wikipedia's voice. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree completely. Reviews are opinion pieces and should not be given in Wikipedia's voice. The proposed sentence (assuming it is clear which novella is being discussed) is good. --GRuban (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, in the text Collect removed the novella was identified by title, as another secondary source which mentioned the PW review was also present and preceded it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I gave the entire sentence relevant to the PW review above. Your imputation that I "removed" anything from my post here is abhorrent. The entire paragraph was:

Card has also expressed his opinion that paraphilia and homosexuality are linked. In a 2004 essay entitled "Homosexual 'Marriage' and Civilization", Card wrote: "The dark secret of homosexual society—the one that dares not speak its name—is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally."[60][non-primary source needed] Card's 1980 novel Songmaster depicts a homosexual relationship between a young man and a 15-year-old boy. Card described this relationship as "a mutually self-destructive path" and stated: "I was not trying to show that homosexuality was 'beautiful' or 'natural'—in fact, sex of any kind is likely to be 'beautiful' only to the participants, and it is hard to make a case for the naturalness of such an obviously counter-evolutionary trend as same-sex mating."[56][non-primary source needed] Additionally, in Card's 2011 novella Hamlet's Father, which re-imagines the backstory of Shakespeare's play Hamlet, Card was accused of directly trying to link the king's pedophilia with homosexuality. The novella prompted public outcry and its publishers were inundated with complaints.[61][62][non-primary source needed] Trade journal Publishers Weekly criticized Card's "flimsy novella", stating that the main purpose of it was to attempt to link homosexuality to pedophilia.[63] Card responded to the claim: "...[T]here is no link whatsoever between homosexuality and pedophilia in this book. Hamlet's father, in the book, is a pedophile, period. I don't show him being even slightly attracted to adults of either sex. It is the reviewer, not me, who has asserted this link, which I would not and did not make."[62][non-primary source needed]

Which is entirely aimed apparently at setting an extended argument that Card considers homosexuality and pedophilia in the same category, and then gives him one sentence of rebuttal. And I noted that the link to pedophilia was cited only to PW and not to any other sources (The Guardian only links to the PW review for the precise claim - the Rain Tree review is not cited in this BLP and says "The old king was actually murdered by Horatio, in revenge for molesting him as a young boy" but appears to use "Card has publicly stated that homosexuals will destroy America" as his primary basis for that assertion. As Card specifically denies linking homosexuality to pedophilia, and the basis source is a very short PW review, then we are hitting a "contentious claim" - based on the assumed anti-gay bias of Card to assert something Card says in not in the novella (retelling of Hamlet). Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Collect doth protest too much, methinks. MastCell ^Talk 14:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• It is reasonable to use the Publishers Weekly review as a source, provided it has proper in-text attribution and is not presented in Wikipedia's voice. As Collect would ordinarily be the first to point out, Publisher's Weekly is a reliable source for opinion, and can be used as such here. There is no WP:BLP issue in accurately conveying the content of a book review from a reputable source. MastCell ^Talk 12:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, of course PW is a reliable source for the proposed content. It's attributed and presented with appropriate context. It's also not an isolated viewpoint.- MrX 13:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you note The Guardian used the PW as its source for that claim? LOL! The other source (book review) does not make the claim in as strong terms, to be sure, at all, so you are saying The Guardian (which used PW) and PW are distinct sources in your opinion? Clue: Sources which quote the same source do not become multiple sources. Really. Collect (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Ludicrous. The Guardian didn't simply reprint a wire story. Of course it's a distinct source.- MrX 14:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Read The Guardian article, please:

Subterranean produced its limited edition, signed, 1,000-copy run of the book this spring, with the release largely falling under the radar, apart from a damning review from trade journal Publishers Weekly which said that its focus was "primarily on linking homosexuality with the life-destroying horrors of paedophilia, a focus most fans of possibly bisexual Shakespeare are unlikely to appreciate". This is a view Card has espoused in the past, writing in 2004 that "the dark secret of homosexual society – the one that dares not speak its name – is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally".

I read that as saying the only place initially making the homosexuality-pedophilia claim was the single PW review which it quotes. I do not know how else one can interpret "under the radar" and "apart from" can be interpreted. And again -- citing a source does not make it a separate source -- The Guardian, in fact, says it basically was the only initial source for such a claim at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the article?

""Here's the punch line: Old King Hamlet was an inadequate king because he was gay, an evil person because he was gay, and, ultimately, a demonic and ghostly father of lies who convinces young Hamlet to exact imaginary revenge on innocent people," writes William Alexander. "The old king was actually murdered by Horatio, in revenge for molesting him as a young boy – along with Laertes, and Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern, thereby turning all of them gay … Hamlet is damned for all the needless death he inflicts, and Dead Gay Dad will now do gay things to him for the rest of eternity: 'Welcome to Hell, my beautiful son. At last we'll be together as I always longed for us to be.'" "
— The Guardian

Referencing this.

Of course, there are other sources: Salon, Wired, New Statesman, The Telegraph, and Advocate, and Huffington Post. I'm straining to assume good faith here, but it's difficult not to see the obvious GAMING in these objections.- MrX 14:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Is www.bwtf.com a reliable source for purposes of Wikipedia?

I am curious as to how one can determine whether a particular web site is a reliable source for purposes of Wikipedia.

The site in question appears to be a fan site, but I'm open minded to different standards perhaps being okay for toy sites and toy-related articles, if the community has weighed in on such matters in previous consensus discussions.

Is www.bwtf.com a reliable source for purposes of Wikipedia? Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It does not seem to be a reliable source per WP:SPS, but self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. According to Ben, he has been interviewed by a few notable publications. If this is verified to be true, then that lends some credibility. Do other reliable sources cite his website? If so WP:USEBYOTHERS factors in.- MrX 13:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome2theBronx

Welcome2theBronx is being constantly readded as an external link in The Bronx. The site appears to be a local blog with 300+ subscribers with only one author/editor (Ed García Conde). I did not find any reliable sources discussing the website in a quick Google search. My last edit removed all the alleged newspapers as unreliable (only one is actually used in any citations on WP), but W2tB's current proponent put them all back, citing Alexa ratings but no reliable sources discussing the website itself. Proponent is also trying to discuss this at Talk:The Bronx. 73.17.21.143 (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

See our WP:External links guideline. Our reliability standards for External Links are quite different from our standards for citation sources. Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I concur with 73.17.21.143. I removed it at first because I, too, didn't find any reliable sources citing this website, nor did I find any use of citations to Welcome2TheBronx on Wikipedia or any evidence of any significant readership. Although Welcome2TheBronx does have a higher Alexa rating (a global rank of 929,983, compared to 1,641,027 for the Bronx Chronicle), neither Welcome2TheBronx or the Bronx Chronicle is reliable enough to be linked to at the external links section of The Bronx. This seems like POV pushing or link spamming to me. Epic Genius (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)