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.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455

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

Kissan support services Private Limited (KSSL)

Kissan Support Services is Private Limited Company, established in 2006 as a subsidiary of Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited (ZTBL), Located in Islamabad Capital of Pakistan. The purpose for establishing this subsidiary was to outsource ZTBL’s non core activities which include:  Sports  Security Services  Provision of man power (Clerical & Non-Clerical Staff)  Janitorial Services &  Canteen Maintenance

The Company Provides Services to Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited (ZTBL)

References

Using Parlamentní listy.cz as a source

An editor is using this source [1] for content in the synopsis section of the documentary The Weight of Chains 2. The author of the piece is 'Radim Panenka' who 'Googles' as being only a contributor to 'user-posted' sites, and who appears to be an activist in the area which the documentary covers.

Parlamentní listy has an entry on Czech WP [2], which Google translate [3] appears to suggest is a mix of monthly print output and user-posted online output. It is not clear which this article is. Some discussion of the source has taken place here Talk:The_Weight_of_Chains_2#Synopsis_..._single_source.

Whilst I appreciate that sources are not required for non-contentious claims in a documentary synopsis, sources, if used should be RS I believe, otherwise a spurious-legitimacy is being given to the content, is this a correct supposition on my part?

Parlamentní listy is used as a source in a very small number of Eng WP articles [4].

Bellingcat

This seems to be a personal website www.bellingcat.com but describes itself as 'by and for citizen investigative journalists'. It is being used as a reliable source in Wikipedia article MH17 and probably other articles. My question is can anyone set up a website or blog, put up original research there by amateur journalists or bloggers and then reference it in Wikipedia articles? If so it seems a way to get around No Original Research protection - I could just put up my OR on my own website and then quote it as a reliable source.Dbdb (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Not a reliable source. I see nothing that makes me think this site meets RS. The fact that it says it's by citizen journalists probably is a good indicator that it lacks editorial oversight. The "about" page is blank. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Not a reliable source -- it seems to just be user-generated content. Cheers, Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 20:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Not reliable, per WP:SPS. This is clearly a self-published advocacy website that consists of bloggers without qualifications. RGloucester — ☎ 20:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - whether or not something is reliable depends on whether, per WP:RS, it has a reputation for "fact-checking and accuracy". Bellincat analysis has been covered in multiple sources, noting the quality of the analysis. It most certainly is NOT "user-generated content". Please familiarize yourself with a subject (like, start here: Eliot Higgins) before offering your opinion. Or [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. So we have positive coverage of the source in The Guardian, Abc, Washingtonpost, Sunday Morning Herald, Deutsche Welle and BBC - and there's more out there. Whether they're reliable or not depends on the particular text that is being discussed. But they're definetly several steps above "user-generated content" or "bloggers without qualifications" or a "self-published advocacy website".

I also feel compelled to point out that this is some disruptive WP:FORUMSHOPPING by User:Dbdb. They asked exactly the same question at NOR noticeboard, got an answered they didn't like, so they came over here. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes I did raise it under OR because I saw the bellingcat website as OR (as a lot of people here seem to). I was told that I couldn't raise it as OR within the article as the website was only linked to in the article. This is clearly a loophole whereby anyone can publish OR on their own website and then just link it into a wikipedia article, thereby bypassing the OR prohibition. Clearly the protection against that is enforcing RS - that is why I raised bellingcat as not RS. Anyone looking at it can clearly see what it is. You pretesting so much and accusing me of being disruptive does not help your case. I assume you are connected with bellingcat? Dbdb (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm trying not to resent the fact that you came in and started telling people what they haven't read or researched. Screw AGF, right? "Citizen journalists" are still user-generated content at this site. RSN is exactly where this issue should be discussed., so it's the right forum. Additionally, even IF (big if) the source can be used, putting a conspiracy theory from it in the lead isn't proper. IF (again big if) it belongs in the article, the lead isn't where it belongs. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I was only going by your comments, which do pretty clearly indicate that you haven't read or researched certain things. What do you want me to do, assume that you actually meant/did something else than what you said you did? Sorry, I just took what you said at face value and responded accordingly. And you keep persisting in your misconception/misrepresentation even after you've been provided with links which could potentially remedy that, if you chose to actually read them. It's not "user-generated content". "citizen journalist" is just a descriptive phrase which is irrelevant as to the source's reliability. It's not a "conspiracy theory" - where in hell did you get that one from? Obviously established reliable sources do not treat it as such since they are reporting Bellingcat analysis as legitimate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Look, let's simplify this. If the Dutch, US, etc are putting the THEORY forward, then why are you using a citizen journalist site? And if the site itself says it is "by and for" citizen journalists, then how is it not user generated? For citizen journalists (ie the users) by the citizen journalists (the users). User generated. Citizen journalists.....actually, that is relevant as a term. Just like it's relevant when used for the blacklisted NowPublic or Examiner.com. In any case, I'm done here. Enjoy your editing. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: Regarding "conspiracy", you're aware the official probe (conducted by the Dutch) consider it the #1 cause of the crash right now? Dutch-Led Probe of MH17 Crash Says Buk Missile Launch is Primary Theory - Wall Street Journal ("...Buk surface-to-air missile launched from rebel-held territory"). Stickee (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• At this point, it's a conspiracy theory. Do some conspiracy theories end up being true? Once in a while. Will this one? Maybe someday. Today it is just a theory. Further, if you insist on putting the theory in the lead, then use the Dutch govt as a source, not Bellingcat. That's the simplest answer. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not a "conspiracy theory". You seem not to understand what a "conspiracy theory". There are two words there "conspiracy" and "theory". The topic under discussion fulfills the second of these but not the first. In other words, yes, it's a "theory" but it's not a "conspiracy theory" but rather the mainstream most plausible and probable theory. Your argument is a bit like saying that the idea that it was the 9/11 hijackers who flew those planes into those towers is a "conspiracy theory" because it's "just a theory" (and it involved some "conspiring").Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: said "whether or not something is reliable depends on whether, per WP:RS, it has a reputation for 'fact-checking and accuracy'." A reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is necessary but not sufficient for a source to be reliable. The full quote from the Overview says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." In addition, that's just the opening sentence. I think it is fair to say Bellingcat is self-published, although if someone wants to argue that, I would recommend starting a new thread. But granting it is self-published, the most relevant part of the policy is this sentence from Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper): "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." (emphasis in original) If the subject matter was academic scholarship or other typical cases of established expertise like lawyers or doctors, then this would be a no-brainer that Bellingcat is not reliable. But the uniqueness of the expertise claimed in this case makes the first emphasis murky. There isn't an established field of social-media image and video analysis. So it would be better to use Bellingcat material from other RS when possible, and with attribution in all cases, rather than declare it is a RS. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Depends Using Bellingcat itself as a reference may or may not be reliable, but it being cited in RS's (eg NYT, The Guardian etc) makes its use reliable. Stickee (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Not reliable Depends, but if a Bellingcat article is cited by a well-established news source, that article can be used as a source together with the news organizations article. If a Bellingcat article is not cited by a reliable news organization, it can be deleted as non RS. Same goes for the Brown Moses blog. On exception is if Bellingcat "print" an article by an established expert in the relevant field (not a self-claimed "expert"). Erlbaeko (talk) 09:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC) (Updated based on discussion. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC))
• Can be used for sourcing. If it was quoted by Wall Street Journal, it can be used for sourcing here, either directly or indirectly (through quotes in other sources). My very best wishes (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• Supremely reliable It is not self-published or user-generated content. It is published by a corporation with a fiduciary interest in accuracy. It is subject to the control of expert professional editors. It has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. As much as some WP editors like to invent special extraordinary criteria for sources to meet, it is unnecessary to go any further than this to establish reliability. It's worth going further in this case, however, because Bellingcat absolutely raises the bar when it comes to verifiability. All their sources and reasoning are fully documented and transparent, in the interest of reproducibility. We should wish that all journalists applied a similar paradigm. The Savushkina troll army is out in full force today to talk down Bellingcat, but the data and the reasoning are out in the open for everyone to see. Rhoark (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a parody, right? Mnnlaxer (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess you weren't kidding: "I'm beginning to suspect this might be the most reliable source in existence." [13] - Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

'All their sources and reasoning are fully documented and transparent' - 'the data and the reasoning are out in the open for everyone to see' - RS quote bellingcat a heck of a lot - no, that is not parody - and who suggests it is parody - an idiot who wants the views of Limbaugh and paul and veterans today and globalresearch everywhere - that is what is contemptible - a complete idiot who wants ignorant rentagobs views promoted all over the shop has the absolute stupidity to mock views way more intelligent than his own. 92.3.10.13 (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC) (struck as blocked sockpuppet)

Do either of you have RS to back up these claims? "It is published by a corporation with a fiduciary interest in accuracy." I'm not aware of this interest. From below, see what the largest English-language newspaper website, the Daily Mail, printed. Besides libeling rich or powerful people and publishing classified info, there is no such fiduciary interest in accuracy. In fact, I don't think you know what fiduciary interest is, because it commonly conflicts with publishing only accurate information. "It is subject to the control of expert professional editors." Who are these expert professional editors? How much are they paid? Where does the money to pay them to edit come from? Only two of the contributors listed have editing experience and they are both undergraduates right now. "It has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking." The Kickstarter campaign to fund it and its first post were less than a year ago. Only two topics it has posted on have received any notice in the MSM. Posts on other topics seem to get a lot less traffic. Since August 2014, there has only been one post on the Ghouta chemical attack. There is still MH17 news coming, and that will pick up when the official investigation issues its report. But what guarantees that the MSM will continue to cover Bellingcat, much less praise it? Declaring a one-year site with a diverse group of free-lancing writers a RS seems very premature, it would be prudent to wait and see what happens. See my "with attribution" comment below. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not, in general, necessary to support editorial decisions (such as whether a source is reliable) with citations to other reliable sources. However, Bellingcat does have a reputation for reliability as shown by the variety of RS's that have profiled Bellingcat and its founder, or used them as sources. My older statement that Bellingcat may be the "most reliable source ever" was hyperbole, however, its fact checking processes seem more visible and robust than all but a few news outlets (such as Der Spiegel or the Economist). Their analyses are probably often sufficiently original to be considered primary sources, in which case it is indeed highly desired to have claims corroborated by a secondary source. That does not, however, mean that Bellingcat is not reliable on its own terms. Rhoark (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

My RS request was sort of joking. But I would like to know if "[Bellingcat] is subject to the control of expert professional editors" is also hyperbole. No matter. I am very interested in this issue because it is so complicated and confusing. So let me try make a couple of points clearly. That RS have profiled Eliot Higgins is almost completely independent of whether Bellingcat or Higgins himself is a reliable source in the eyes of the RS. Yes, they couldn't be publishing easily debunked garbage, but if they are working hard, publishing plausible information, and avoiding big mistakes, then they are in the mix. What makes Higgins and Bellingcat stand out so much and receive so much attention is not closely related to its reputation for accuracy and fact-checking (which is dubious, but I'll grant it for now). Much more important is the 1) novelty, 2) uniqueness, 3) support for mainstream and government narratives, and 4) the Everyman angle of Higgins going from on-the-dole to international player.

In more depth: 1) Feature story writers are always looking for something to write about. No one has done analysis of social media and open sources like Higgins. That's a big deal. News is about new stuff. 2) There is little to no access for western reporting on the ground in Syria or Donbass. The only information that was previously readily available all comes from the involved parties and there is much propaganda and little chance to check it out for themselves. Plus the immediacy and intensity of the videos are like cat nip to viewers, and thus media producers. 3) This one is completely tied up in ideology and bias, so I won't bother. But if anyone thinks it isn't important, you're fooling yourself. 4) Higgins himself is a great story. At home watching the baby one year and jetting off to Ukraine and Jordan the next. Major international attention for what almost everybody does, watch Youtube. Pure gold. And his almost-attractive-but-not-threatening looks. Total Tom Hanks. Plus the Brit accent for the U.S. audience. He's the complete package.

Using Bellingcat as a source in an RS story. Almost all of the big coverage Higgins has gotten is a repetition of his claims. "A forensic study found ..." (they love "forensic") or "A Bellingcat analysis stated ..." or "Higgins found ..." In general, that's good journalism: don't say anything yourself that you could put into a primary source's mouth. It lets the reporter off the hook if it's wrong, gives them the appearance of a neutral observer, and is more compelling coming from someone else. I've got no problem with in-text attribution, as I've made clear on this thread.

Primary source. Bellingcat's reports are not a primary source for the conflicts they cover. They are secondary, as they are not personally involved in the story. When the story is about Bellingcat, they become the primary source. And you have to be careful with primary sources. CYA kicks in. If Bellingcat turns out to be wrong, the reporter and the RS doesn't get any of the blame. It's "well, we're just reporting" blah, blah blah. The related point is that when RS includes Bellingcat's analysis, the RS is not corroborating Bellingcat's work. It is merely passing it on. If there are any stories out there that explicitly say that the RS went back and did the same leg-work as Bellingcat to see if it was correct, please post it here. </rant> Sorry. Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

When a source performs novel research (such as image analysis) rather than just reporting, it is a primary source for the research it performed. Rhoark (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You've just illustrated you don't understand the concepts behind WP:Primary and Secondary sources. Analysis of a primary document such as published images is clearly secondary, while reporting what an eyewitness saw is clearly primary. Note "Secondary" is not another way to spell "good" and the opposite. Mnnlaxer (talk)

• Not reliable With attribution (update below) This is basically what major RS do when using Bellingcat themselves. This leaves the decision of whether it is a RS with the reader. And this eliminates individual arguments over specific cases if the decision is "Depends." In general, the issue with Bellingcat is that it is a brand new form of journalism. RS are very interested in latest developments and tech. Higgins himself provides a good human interest story. And the work Bellingcat does is un-reproducible by RS right now. They can't call up the original or their own sources to confirm anything Bellingcat does, because it isn't human source based. There is no way of knowing how comprehensive Bellingcat's survey of videos or photos is. Key facts like when was the BUK video recorded are unknowable. So you've seen neutral to positive stories on Higgins/Bellingcat so far, focusing on the novelty, tech and rags to riches angles. That's about all they can do right now. There has been plenty of criticism of Higgins/Bellingcat, but it is currently on the fringes of RS. This situation is likely to stay this way for awhile, as long as Bellingcat stays in their niche and doesn't make any huge errors. So use the RS citing Bellingcat rather than Bellingcat itself when you can, but in all cases use attribution, e.g. "Bellingcat analyzed pictures of X obtained from social media and concluded that Y." Rather than just "Y." Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: "With attribution" was my attempt at compromise, but it seems the discussion is much more "not reliable" than I expected. My first choice has always been to use RS citing Bellingcat, not Bellingcat itself. If this discussion ends in "not reliable," then Bellingcat shouldn't be cited at all. I'm personally fine with adding Bellingcat as an in-text attribution for the RS citation, but don't feel strongly about it, and I realize that specific discussion is complicated. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's another issue with Bellingcat. The most recent post is Analyzing Bin Ladin’s Bookshelf Part 2 which is a repost from Automating OSINT, a commercial service. If anyone posted the one from Automating OSINT, it would be reverted very quickly. But someone could (and would) argue it can be used as a RS because it appeared at Bellingcat. This also brings up the issue of compensation. Are all the contributors on Bellingcat paid per post? Paid by traffic? Not paid? This puts the range of contributors from free-lance journalist, to intern or job seeker, to hobbyist blogger, to self-promoting PR. How do you know which one applies in any given instance? Are there any paid editors? And how is the site funded? Talk about a lack of transparency. Mnnlaxer (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

RS discuss the work of bellingcat all the time so all your huffing and puffing are irrelevant - eliot Higgins sought crowdfunding to establish bellingcat- £47K was raised - crowdfunding enbled bellingcat to license imagery used in one of their latest reports also -july 17 imagery - 92.3.10.13 (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC) (struck as blocked sockpuppet)

Crowdfunding is exactly why this isn't an RS. It is a populist blog, run by activists. I agree with what was said above. If an RS cites a Bellingcat report in a specific instance, it can be included in a Wikipedia article with attribution. However, if RS do not cite a report, it cannot be included. RGloucester — ☎ 16:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

and RS do cite their reports on Ghouta and MH17 and Russian army and materiel in Ukraine etc etc - so this is all just 'subject, the bleedin' obvious' 92.3.10.13 (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC) (struck as blocked sockpuppet)

I think this is reasonable and yes it does apply in this case. One detail though, which is relevant to how this discussion got started - if Bellingcat is quoted by secondary sources and we use it accordingly, there should be no issue to linking to the original Bellingcat post itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course not, as long as the secondary RS is provided. The only problem arrises when Bellingcat is used alone, without attribution, and without secondary RS. RGloucester — ☎ 19:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable - Bellingcat is an independent analysis group which has been lauded in the press, and is often cited by the press. The Kickstarter is how the group initially funded the company but funding source has nothing to do with reliability. It is an "Opensource" analysis meaning they rely on Opensource information such as videos and photos published on YouTube as the basis for independent investigations of wartime which are otherwise too difficult or dangerous for traditional media outlets to obtain. There are quite a few conspiracy theorists who see Bellingcat as a paid front for intelligence agencies but it's fringe critics. There is one legitimate critical article in Der Spiegel that presumably could be used to provide a counter-POV to the Bellingcat report on MH17. -- GreenC 20:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Funding source is relevant to reliability. The Washington Times kept operating at a loss due to the Rev. Moon's patronage. On many subjects his newspaper was not a reliable source. Once the current funds are gone (and they can't last for long), where is the money going to come from? It is not going to come from intelligence agencies, but there are plenty of ideological foundations and think tanks that would pay for supportive journalism. As for legitimate critical sources, more will appear I predict. Here is another digital photo expert criticizing the latest satellite photo story. [14] He was interviewed in Deutsche Welle. Here is another similar critique [15] of Bellingcat's work and more will eventually get into RS. I can't emphasize enough 1) how premature it is to judge the Bellingcat website as RS right now, and 2) only a small portion of Bellingcat's posts (all by Higgins?) have been mentioned by RS. Mnnlaxer (talk) 04:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Not ReliableAs the person who raised this I am happy to accept the notion that bellingcat if quoted on a matter, in a(nother) RS, can be referenced on that matter in wikipedia. Conversely if it is is simply some citizen journalist article not quoted in any other RS that bellingcat has chosen (with its rather strong POV) to put on its website then it can't. I only have a slight concern that in the former case the actual RS should be mentioned but is that a fair summary of the consensus? How do I progress this, specifically how do I get non RS bellingcat references removed? (sorry I am new to this). I think it needs resolving as bellingcat seems to be popping up all over the place and there will be others. Dbdb (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

One other point, what about comments on say a BBC page? The BBC, definitely RS, have chosen to publish those comments, which could be the weirdest conspiracy theory. I wouldn't want that theory to then appear in wikipedia as RS, even if the BBC is mentioned. Dbdb (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment sections are never RS. Mnnlaxer (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Last point I see there are a few very vigorous and knowledgeable (about bellingcat) defenders of bellingcat. That only confirms me in my view that it is not RS. If we give weigth to that any number of extreme websites may become RS, some not on the same extreme as bellingcat Dbdb (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC).

• Reliability is contextual, but generally not a reliable source, certainly not for any remotely controversial statements of fact. Per WP:V, reliables sources are "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Likewise, the WP:RS entry for news outlets (the only alternative I can see to qualifying it as a self-published source, which is definitely not reliable) states that only "well-established news outlets" are reliable; it's simply not well-established enough to be citable as a source on its own. Compounding this, more extreme claims require higher-quality sources (and the most extreme claims require multiple mainstream high-quality reliable sources); from what I gather, the claims people are trying to cite to it would be fairly extreme. As others have said, though, when something from it is picked up by a more reliable source and reported on there, we can use that. --Aquillion (talk) 05:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Not a reliable source, at least not per se and not even when cited by reliable sources. For general criticism, see the section for criticism here and note that it applies to bellingcat, not Eliott Higgins in person. The criticism has been criticised itself, but on formal reasons, not for content. Follow the link here, and you get a detailed analysis of a contribution of bellingcat. This, combined with an interview with an expert - in English, led to the news magazine Der Spiegel retracting the claim of bellingcat and apologising for violating journalistic standards. Sorry, some of it is in German. The salient point being that they would have needed to check more sources than just bellingcat. This is a case of a reliable source, the Spiegel qualifies, citing bellingcat and finding out to be wrong. -- Zz (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a reason why that crap was removed from the Eliot Higgins article. It was BLP-violating POV pushing. And every source gets critized and disagreed with. As for the Der Spiegel what they are doing is not "retracting bellingcat" but rather amending some of their language - roughly they say "instead of saying that Bellingcat "proved beyond a doubt" we should've said that Bellingcat's report strongly suggests..." (paraphrase). It's not nearly as damning... or damning at all actually, as you are trying to make it out to be. And they are apologizing for their OWN owrding, Der Spiegel's, not Bellingcat's. Nice try though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You've got that wrong. Der Spiegel has featured a scathing review - by an expert - of Bellingcat's so called analysis. Its headline was "Bellingcat reads tea leaves". Not sure how you could miss this. The link has been provided already. And then the Spiegel apologised for their own violation of journalistic standards which was to presuppose Bellingcat's analysis had been the truth. Some other newspapers - such as the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung - followed suit. -- Zz (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• "...the data and the reasoning are out in the open for everyone to see..." but not to understand. Majority of the work is geo-location from satellite images, or XFIF data from photographs to show photoshopping etc. These are not easily checkable by the average reader. Several other blogs HAVE gone into bellingcat's work in detail, and determined it to be inaccurate or mistaken in the results. Some of these were written by people with verifiable expertise in digital imaging, which Higgins lacks. I have seen bellingcat quoted on numerous news sites, invariably when it confirms their narrative. It is not reliable evidence, but opinion based on highly technical calculations most people cannot verify. Not RS at all.KoolerStill (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That is an interesting theory of what it means to be verifiable, but is difficult to square with scientific or mathematical sources, which are also possible to verify while being difficult to do so. Rhoark (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I cannot personally check and verify calculations in nuclear physics. But I'd think more than twice before accepting the figures of an author who has been repeatedly shown to be wrong/misleading/fraudulent by people who do have the qualifications to do so. Would you consider The Onion a reliable source? A site claiming to prove Cold Fusion? KoolerStill (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's just a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's WP:V policy, mixed in with some WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable, but must be used with care. Bellingcat, as described here, is an investigative journalism resource. That kind of research is never "the truth", and it is frequently unreliable. That does not make unreliable the source per WP:V. My very best wishes (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Did you forget that you already voted on June 11th? Tarc (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Not reliable. Bellingcat has been accused of being biased and was several times heavily criticized by experts. If his stories have been picked up by the main stream press, his reports may be mentioned but not used as sources that actually "prove" something. --Maturion (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Not a reliable source unless well cited by secondary RS. As already noted by other editors, Bellingcat is WP:SELFPUBLISHED and relies on 'sightings' (et al) by the general public. The only circumstances under which it can meet RS is where multiple sources have cited its opinions and findings. Even there, if its findings are being widely reported, any reports need to be proscribed by WP:INTEXT attribution. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Not a reliable source unless well cited by secondary RS, and attributed by us if attributed by the secondary RS, which in most cases would make its use questionable or redundant.Pincrete (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Reliable with attribution: Reliability is always in context. The fact that its analysis has been widely cited by mainstream sources is a good indicator of its reliability. Because of the difficulty in obtaining access to, say, conflict zones in Ukraine, media often simply report the claims of various sides. This kind of digging is essential to journalism. However, it must be used with care, always keeping in mind context. Especially controversial claims should not be solely sourced to it. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

What is different about media simply reporting the claims of Bellingcat? And almost all of Bellingcat's claims are controversial. Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

That is a good point, and I don't have a good answer. Perhaps this form of journalism is too new and radical to be included on WP just now. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

This is nothing new. They simply publish investigative journalism reports. However, there is a concern how knowledgeable and reputable their reporters/investigators are. If a number of sources/journals more reliable than Wikipedia (see discussion above) quote Bellingcat reports with appropriate attribution and care, there is no any reason for not using them here.My very best wishes (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Not reliable other than to cite basic info about itself. Otherwise this is just a blog written by unqualified contributors. Tarc (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Skagway, Alaska

Regarding your history section of the history of Scagway, Alaska, my father and I are primary sources, living direct descendants of William Moore whom this site notes as the sea captain and host to miners and travelers in the area. Currently, there stands the Moore Family Cabin that served miners while they searched for their treasure. The issue with your written piece is that William Moore's son is "Ben;" this is in error, as his son's name was William Hunter Moore, my grandfather (not Ben). We request a change and update to further add credibility to your information. IMG_3007.JPG I've attached a copy of s genealogy chart for further reference, but you may contact Jon Arthur Moore, William's son, if you need further evidence of originality. 1 (775) 622-2631 Thank you. Cheryl Moore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.249.221 (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2015‎ (UTC)

American Mercury et al

At the article Leo Frank several editors are pushing questionable sources (see Talk:Leo Frank#Reliable secondary sources arguing Frank's guilt). This is the list provided:

1. Mary Phagan Kean The Murder of Little Mary Phagan, 1989.

2. Bradford L. Huie (Leo Frank Trial Analysis Introduction, Leo Frank Trial Week One, Leo Frank Trial Week Two, Leo Frank Trial Week Three, Leo Frank Trial Week Four, Closing Arguments of Frank Arthur Hooper, Luther Zeigler Rosser, and Reuben Rose Arnold, Arguments of Prosecutor Hugh M. Dorsey, One Hundred Reasons Leo Frank is Guilty)

3. Elliot Dashfield (Leonard Dinnerstein's Book "The Leo Frank Case", A Pseudo-History)

4. Mark Cohen (Who Really Solved the Leo Frank Case? and Did Leo Frank Confess?)

5. Scott Aaron (Atlanta, Southern Jewry and Leo Frank)

6. Jasper Dorsey (Marietta Daily Journal, Friday January 20, 1984 "If Trial Were Today, Frank Would Still Be Found Guilty").

7. Tom Watson Brown Notes on the Case of Leo Frank and its Aftermath Emory University, Georgia.

− Numbers 2, 3, and 4 are from the website for The American Mercury. At American Mercury#Revival this is identified as an antisemitic site with sourcing to the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League. These designations notwithstanding, the three authors listed have no apparent academic credentials and are likely pseudonyms. Number 5 is from a site operated by Kevin Strom who the SPLC identifies as " a bookish neo-Nazi with a fondness for child pornography". Numbers 1, 6, and 7 are written by non-academics who are blood relations of principles in the original Frank case. Of the three, Kean's is the closest to a legitimate source and is probably reliable for most factual matters, but her work has not been reviewed by any academic journals that I could find on JSTOR.

Comments from others on these sources would be welcome. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Fact checking, critical thinking, commonsense, reason and logic are the primary apertures that we apply when determining verifiability, accuracy, veracity, and objectivity.The American Mercury is a reliable source. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

How do you judge that the American Mercury is a reliable source? It also appears to be self published but it is not clear from their website who actually runs the site today. We also have no idea what credentials the authors of the articles (Huie, Cohen, and Dashfield) are? The person wanting to use this as a source should be able to address these questions. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

From H.L. Mencken to Karl Hess, from William Bradford Huie to Harold Lord Varney, we stand for a tradition that we believe exemplifies what is best in American journalism. When I contacted the American Mercury staff they also told me Rita Potter who just recently passed away at 98 was one of the central figures in revitalizing the magazine. She had played a significant role in the magazine back in its hey-day. If a magazine requires scrutiny by editors (in the example of Leo Frank case articles for accuracy and scholarship), it's obviously not a self-published magazine like some online blogs where anyone and their mother's uncle can publish whatever they please. It appears the articles about the Mary Phagan / Leo Frank case had to go through a rigorous process in order to be published on the site, because they are based on scholarly research, analyzing and contextualizing primary and secondary sources. I went ahead and fact checked the Frank articles by looking at the official legal records from the Georgia Supreme Court and contemporary newspaper articles reporting on the case from Atlanta. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I readily acknowledge that you claim these sources are great reads. What you're obligated to establish that anybody in the scholarly community consider them reliable. You really think your opinion that Mark Cohen writes good reviews on Amazon qualifies him to be treated as a reliable source for wikipedia? As far as the antisemitic nature of the sites, this [16] from the SPLC and this [17] from "Forward" make the case. You have been asked repeatedly to establish the reliability of these sites, but you can't tell us who controls the websites or what credentials the authors have. You are the one wh0 has the Burden of establishing the legitimacy of these sources. I've told you why I don't believe they are reliable -- you only response has been to blow smoke by attacking me. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Tom-No, Many modern books and articles about the Leo Frank case written after 1990 cite Mary Phagan Kean in their bibliography / references section. CNN interviews Mary Phagan Kean. The documentary People v. Leo Frank interviews Mary Phagan Kean. Numerous articles about Leo Frank case written after 2000 interview or cite Mary Phagan Kean.

Augusta Chronicle-Herald, May 15, 1983, statement by Justice Randall Evans Jr.:

"The suggestion that a governor or Board of Pardons and Paroles may pardon a deceased person is completely ridiculous. The Constitution of Georgia provides that 'the legislative, judicial, and executive powers shall forever remain separate and distinct.' The executive department has no power whatever to reverse, change, or wipe out a decision by the courts, albeit while the prisoner is in life he may be pardoned. But a deceased party can not be a party to legal proceedings (Eubank v. Barber, 115 Ga. App. 217-18). If Leo Frank were still in life, he could apply for pardon, but after death neither he nor any other person may apply for him. As the Supreme Court of Georgia held in Grubb v. Bullock, Governor, 44 Ga. 379: 'It (pardon) must be granted the principal upon his application, or be evidenced by ratification of the application by his acceptance of it (the pardon).' Leo Frank's case was finally terminated absolutely against him by the Supreme Court of Georgia on June 6, 1914.

He lived thereafter until August 16, 1915, and never did apply for pardon. It is too late now for any consideration to be given a pardon for Leo Frank. Pardon can only be granted to a person in life, not to a dead person. To illustrate the folly of such proceedings, could someone at this late date apply for a divorce on behalf of Leo Frank? The blood of a little girl cries out from the ground for justice. I pray the sun will never rise to shine upon that day in Georgia when we shall have so blinded ourselves to the records, to the evidence, to the judgments of the court, and the judgment of the people, as to rub out, change, and reverse the judgment of the courts that has stood for seventy years! God forbid!"

Obviously there are many prominent people who support the guilt of Leo Frank, the consensus of researchers is that Leo Frank's guilt or innocence is divided. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

leofrank.info looks self-published. I see no reason the other sources ought not to be considered reliable. Looking at the talk page, it looks like both sides of this argument have gone astray in trying to argue their sources are the right ones, instead of collaborating on wording that reflects the full range of views in reliable publications. Rhoark (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The articles appearing on The American Mercury are not self published. They are submitted by various authors for publication, and are subject to approval by The American Mercury before they are granted publication. The American Mercury exercises editorial control of the material it allows to be published, and openly states that published materials which are parodies or fiction are clearly marked as such. As per their stated policy on The American Mercury "About" page, as far as content is concerned:

"We actively seek out new writers and editors of excellence who believe in free thought and free communities. The new American Mercury was created in 2010 by a group of volunteer writers and editors, among whom are some who collectively worked with the contributors and management of the print Mercury for over 40 years."

"From H.L. Mencken to Karl Hess, from William Bradford Huie to Harold Lord Varney, we stand for a tradition that we believe exemplifies what is best in American journalism."

Accordingly, I say The American Mercury should certainly be considered a reliable source. 68.10.143.69 (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

(Restoring deleted quote from source. Why was it removed?) 68.10.143.69 (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You say authors "are subject to approval by The American Mercury." So who are the people who run American Mercury? What are their qualifications? If they self describe themselves as "a group of volunteer writers and editors", then this appears to clearly meet the description of self published. And who are these "new writers and editors of excellence" who wrote these specific articles? What are their qualifications? It's strange how many single issue IPs and first time editors comment on this issue. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Tom (North Shoreman), please review WP:SOURCES. You have created a personal benchmark by which you define what is and isn't a 'legitimate source'. There are no requirements that every single source must be from a peer reviewed publication written by an academic. There are no requirements that a source can not be written by a 'blood relations of principles'. I would think books written by contemporary eyewitnesses would hold some value and can't be discarded just because they lack a post graduate degree. You wrote above regarding one of the sources "her work has not been reviewed by any academic journals that I could find on JSTOR". That is not a requirement but again you have created your own benchmark, which you are using to limit sources. Please remember that WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL should be maintained. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You say, "I would think books written by contemporary eyewitnesses would hold some value and can't be discarded just because they lack a post graduate degree." In fact, neither Watson or Kean were even alive when the events occurred so your comment is irrelevant. As far as my "personal benchmark", you are also well off the mark. As WP:Scholarship makes clear, "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." As I've said, I can't find where anyone in the "scholarly community" has vetted or reviewed Kean's work. Besides, as WP:BURDEN indicates, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". So in this case, I am asking for you folks to provide evidence that any of these sources are reliable. For most of the sources in question it is not a matter of the "lack of a post graduate degree" as you misstate my position, but the lack of any evidence that authors such as Huie, Cohen, and Dashfield have any qualifications, have written anyplace other than the website in question, or are anything other than pseudonyms. Blow all the smoke you want, but these are questions that have been asked repeatedly with no answers. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Tom (North Shoreman), the WP:Scholarship section frequently uses the phrase 'articles about scholarly issues'. Would a biography be considered an example of an article about a scholarly issue, or would an article about mitosis (for example) be the focus of the Scholarship section. In any case even there it says that for articles about scholarship issues it's fine to use non-academic references (5th sentence of 1st paragraph). My comment about Watson and Kean are relevant, since you don't like either because of 'blood relations of principles'. Can you point to some guideline that supports your view that such relations disqualifies a source? Going by the list found at WP:SOURCES, which shows exactly the types of non-academic sources that are welcomed, it's evident that the 3 sources below each demonstrate verifiability.

(1) Kean, Mary Phagan (Georgia Almanac, curated by U of Georgia states that this source is important as it 'gives a unique family perspective on the case' and uses this book as a reference. [[18]] Published by New Horizon Press, a reputable, award winning 20+ year old publishing company).

(6) Dorsey, Jaspar (Jasper Dorsey, Marietta Daily Journal columnist. MDJ has been Cobb County print newspaper since 1866 with center-right leaning).[[19]]

(7) Watson Brown, Tom (Tom Watson Brown, Harvard and Princeton Educated great grandson of Watson, the Georgia congressman/senator/newspaper publisher anti-Semite who repeatedly called for and participated in the lynching of Frank. Self made billionaire philanthropist behind Mercer University Press, one of the most prolific academic publishers in the nation. Publisher: Emory University. [[20]]) Cheers! Meishern (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we please add number eight to the list = 8. Augusta Chronicle-Herald, May 15, 1983, statement by Justice Randall Evans Jr. (see The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean pp. 297-290). Also Concerning Scott Aaron http://www.leofrank.info a website absolutely arguing against racism, bigotry, prejudice, anti-Gentilism and anti-Semitism, if Kevin Alfred Strom is supposedly being accused of being behind the site, doesn't that mean the site isn't self-published. Scott Aaron is not Kevin Alfred Strom. So that would not make it self-published. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Alfred Strom is identified here as a man whom "the SPLC identifies as 'a bookish neo-Nazi with a fondness for child pornography". Has anyone here ever bothered to read "Kevin Alfred Strom’s Address to the Court" where, among other things, it is revealed that his estranged and relentlessly vindictive wife was responsible for planting child porn on his computer AFTER he was driven out of their home and thereby lost control of it? Have they considered at all that after this revelation, the judge handling the case ORDERED that Kevin Strom's name was NOT to be identified as, or placed on a list of sexual offenders? This accusation made by the SPLC, and repeated here by North Shoreman is a clear defamation and libel of Kevin Strom.

Defamation of anyone on Wikipedia is not tolerated, and according to WP:LIBEL, "It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified." I have previously tried to remove this libel per Wikipedia policy, and was subsequently BLOCKED for doing so.

It is clear that Mr. Strom is being targeted here because of his educated views on Leo Frank, the convicted murderer of a young girl. So are these kinds of dirty tricks (libel; defamation) ok with you guys? I say the offending text should be removed per Wikipedia policy. What say others on this? 68.10.143.69 (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Tom Northshoreman -- on the Leo Frank talk page at the new section (late-June/ early-July 2015) "Let's archive most of this page please" -- just used an ugly personal attack calling me the homo-erotic slang "Your Boy" to indicate that "I'm a prepubescent gay child in a homosexual relationship with an older man". Where I come from when you call someone "Your Boy" it means you are the bottom (the sexually receiving female role in homosexual language and relationships) and the the person you are the "Your" of (in this case Meishern) is the homosexual daddy the sexual giver (or sexually giving male role in homosexual language and relationships). So because someone or anyone disagrees with Tom Northshoreman's wildly-over-the-top POV warrior activism, they are now (late June 2015) accused of being a homosexual teenager in a statutory rape relationship with an adult man. No personal attacks is an escutcheon of wikipedia. This is more proof Tom-No has NO legitimate argument. Instead of using logic, common sense, and appeals to reason when fact checking the listed items below, Tom Northshoreman is making ugly adhominem attacks. This is how low, the "dirty tricks" as you say, are becoming. What I need from you IP is for you to hunt for reliable sources that suggest Leo Frank was guilty, since that is what this topic is all about here. Tom-No is arguing that the sources sustaining Leo Frank's verdict of guilt are not reliable. I am arguing that theses sources are in fact reliable.

1. Mary Phagan Kean The Murder of Little Mary Phagan, 1989.

2. Bradford L. Huie (Leo Frank Trial Analysis Introduction, Leo Frank Trial Week One, Leo Frank Trial Week Two, Leo Frank Trial Week Three, Leo Frank Trial Week Four, Closing Arguments of Frank Arthur Hooper, Luther Zeigler Rosser, and Reuben Rose Arnold, Arguments of Prosecutor Hugh M. Dorsey, One Hundred Reasons Leo Frank is Guilty) American Mercury

3. Elliot Dashfield (Leonard Dinnerstein's Book "The Leo Frank Case", A Pseudo-History) American Mercury

4. Mark Cohen (Who Really Solved the Leo Frank Case? and Did Leo Frank Confess?) American Mercury

5. Scott Aaron (Atlanta, Southern Jewry and Leo Frank)

6. Jasper Dorsey (Marietta Daily Journal, Friday January 20, 1984 "If Trial Were Today, Frank Would Still Be Found Guilty"). Quote "The evidence there also shows Frank's religion had nothing to do with his conviction. He would have been convicted had he been a Presbyterian minister. He would also be convicted today."

7. Tom Watson Brown Notes on the Case of Leo Frank and its Aftermath Emory University, Georgia.

8. Augusta Chronicle-Herald, May 15, 1983, statement by Justice Randall Evans Jr. (see The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean pp. 297-290)

9. The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles ruled there was no sufficient evidence to prove Leo Frank was innocent, 1982-1986.

Although Leo Frank was not officially absolved of Mary Phagan's murder, the consensus is divided as to Leo Frank's guilt or innocence. Alas, right now the lede is stating that the consensus is that researchers believe Frank to be innocent (which is wrong). GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

2-5 unreliable; 1, 6-9 reliable The contemporary reincarnation of The American Mercury is indeed anti-Semitic and unreliable, and leofrank.info is self-published. However, Phagan-Kean's book, while not of the caliber of authors like Oney and Dinnerstein, is nonetheless a reliable source. The Marietta Daily Journal is also a reliable source, as is the primary source from Brown, the Augusta Chronicle-Herald, and the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles' decision. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments about The American Mercury. I see it's used twice at J. Peters. Doug Weller (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The American Mercury is not indeed anti-Semitic or unreliable. I am listing items 2, 3, 4. Please read them and give me specific examples or sentences of these articles promoting anti-Semitism or Neo-Nazism as the Antigentile activists groups ADL / SPLC claim. Here are the items.

2. Bradford L. Huie (Leo Frank Trial Analysis Introduction, Leo Frank Trial Week One, Leo Frank Trial Week Two, Leo Frank Trial Week Three, Leo Frank Trial Week Four, Closing Arguments of Frank Arthur Hooper, Luther Zeigler Rosser, and Reuben Rose Arnold, Arguments of Prosecutor Hugh M. Dorsey, One Hundred Reasons Leo Frank is Guilty)

3. Elliot Dashfield (Leonard Dinnerstein's Book "The Leo Frank Case", A Pseudo-History)

4. Mark Cohen (Who Really Solved the Leo Frank Case? and Did Leo Frank Confess?)

Please give specific examples in these items 2, 3, 4 that promote hitler, national socialism, and racist/religious-bigotry Antisemitic conspiracies. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That would be original research, not our role. I'll quote from our article though, which has sources: "The "new" American Mercury was criticized by the Southern Poverty Law Center in the Winter 2013 edition of their magazine Intelligence Report, which called it a "Leo Frank Propaganda Site" and described it as "a resurrected and deeply anti-Semitic online version of H. L. Mencken’s defunct magazine of the same name". The Anti-Defamation League calls it "an extreme right-wing site with anti-Semitic content", while The Jewish Daily Forward refers to it as "H.L. Mencken’s historic magazine, resurrected online by neo-Nazis several years ago", which "has published several revisionist articles to coincide with this year’s anniversary". All three mentioned its role in publishing "revisionist" material relating to the lynching of Leo Frank. Doug Weller (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You might want to brush up on what revisionism means, because you obviously do not know what it means. Revisionism in this sense usually means going against what was established as fact and in this case the U.S. appellate courts found that Leo Frank had a fair trial and therefore they did not alter his verdict of guilt. Authors who support the legal system's decision on Leo Frank's established guilt, are not the revisionists. The revisionists are the ones who are coming along and making up all sorts of lies, like Leonard Dinnerstein. An academic activist and fraudster who fabricated (academic misconduct) the anti-Semitic hoax about people chanting "hang the Jew" at the trial jury during open court. The ADL / SPLC / Forward do not have the power to determine that something is anti-Semitic because they don't like the conclusions some scholarly articles make. The remaining items still in question (American Mercury scholarly articles) actually argue against anti-Semitism being behind Frank's indictment and conviction. None of the American Mercury articles about the Leo Frank case itemized above say anything anti-Semitic, I still haven't heard from anyone a specific example of what is anti-Semitic in those articles. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

He also needs to brush up on the meaning of Wikipedia:NOR, as it applies only to article content, and has nothing to do with discussion pages like this. Not only that, he employs a circular reference by using the content of a Wikipedia article to disqualify your reliable sources, when Wikipedia policy itself clearly states that Wikipedia articles are not reliable.

In any event, making any reference to the ADL and the SPLC in an attempt to disprove reliability of a source is merely an "appeal to authority", which in itself is a logical fallacy. The ADL and the SPLC both have their own rigid agendas, which are clearly exclusive of common sense, logic and reason, not to mention fact-checking and accuracy, and cannot, therefore, be used as a source of evidence to prove any fact in this dispute. Both use innuendo, ad hominem and outright dishonesty to push their agendas, and are very often wrong in their spurious claims.

Thus the reliance upon the word of these supposed authorities entails the assumption that these sources are infallible, or never wrong. This assumption is patently false. 68.10.143.69 (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Quote from the Leo Frank talk page:

Using "Antisemitism" As a Smear Word

"Antisemitism", or any of its derivatives, when used in the context of a smear word, is an ad hominem solely intended to squelch any and all criticism of the behavior of any jew or jews. It matters not how despicable the behavior criticised or complained of may actually be, or how much the behavior actually deserves criticism, the only fact that matters, according to the person using this smear word, is that the criticism of the critic is directed toward a jew or jews. It is a kind of a weasel word; a non sequitur whose sole purpose is to plant the idea in the mind of the reader that they should disregard the substance of the criticism, no matter how valid, and brand the critic as some kind of mindless, drooling, blood thirsty bigot who wants to kill six million jews, all in order to render any jew or organization of jews immune to criticism.

For example, see the following YouTube video: [redacted, copyvio link]"It's a Trick, We Always Use It (calling people anti-Semitic)"]

It is the ADL's bread and butter, and it is being used on the talk page of this very article as yet another tool the pro-Frank editors use here to push their POV agenda.

Any person using this word in this context is really no different than Luther Rosser, calling Jim Conley "a dirty, filthy, lying nigger".

End quote. This is exactly what is going on here, where bare accusations from two organizations which many critics have called "jewish supremacist hate groups" are being invoked in an attempt to smear and disqualify certain reliable sources simply because those sources provide complete, detailed, and accurate information on the case of Leo Frank. Such irony is astounding. 68.10.143.69 (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The ADL / SPLC or Forward for that matter, shouldn't have the power to determine history, or what is reliable and not reliable on Wikipedia. All these member groups of the anti-Semitism lobby have to do then, is say that anything not agreeing with their position is "anti-Semitic" and "neo-Nazi", with the result it gets excluded from Wikipedia. That's absurd that Jewish activist groups or members of the anti-Semitism Lobby would have the power to decide what is reliable or not. Who gave them the power to determine what is reliable or not on Wikipedia? Who gave them the power to determine what is allowed to be used as a source on Wikipedia or not? There are many scores and dozens of secondary sources out there now writing negative things about the ADL / SPLC, exposing them for being frauds. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This section looks like chaos. It doesn't follow the banners at the top of this page, almost all the comments are by editors from the article, and so far no one has shown that any of the sources are reliable according Wikipedia policy WP:SOURCE. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Are you losing the debate?

Shout "ANTISEMITISM!"

To silence your opposition, which ends the debate, allowing you to claim victory, even if you're wrong.

(Not "A Public Service Message From The ADL and SPLC", but may as well be.) 68.10.143.69 (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

So basically if anyone deemed reliable (like some members and groups of the anti-Semitism lobby like adl and splc for instance) and labels something "anti-Semitic" or "neo-Nazi", the item in question is automatically invalidated, made "unreliable", thus can no longer be used for the writing of history at Wikipedia. Did I get that correctly? or Weasel word next? So Therefore Wikipedia's content (according to some editors here) is based on not having any sources, references or citations labelled these red herrings (anti-Semitism and neo-Nazi). So if the ADL or SPLC or Forward decides to label something anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi, the item becomes "unreliable" here and can no longer be used on Wikipedia. That's not globewide level academic scholarship, that's history being defined by those who can smear, defame and slander someone with redherring terms (anti-Scholarship). Seems pretty twisted logic about how Wikipedia should evolve its living knowledge base! Some groups get to "invalidate" authors, newspapers, magazines, media etc.. not based on logic, reason, and common sense, but because its perceived as being against someone else's ideology and politics. Those items on the American Mercury about the Leo Frank Case should be judged by their lexicon, scholarly substance, accuracy, logic and appeals to commonsense, as they do. I'm still waiting for examples of a sentence from these articles listed above about the Frank case at the American Mercury that are anti-Semitic.

2. Bradford L. Huie (Leo Frank Trial Analysis Introduction, Leo Frank Trial Week One, Leo Frank Trial Week Two, Leo Frank Trial Week Three, Leo Frank Trial Week Four, Closing Arguments of Frank Arthur Hooper, Luther Zeigler Rosser, and Reuben Rose Arnold, Arguments of Prosecutor Hugh M. Dorsey, One Hundred Reasons Leo Frank is Guilty) American Mercury 3. Elliot Dashfield (Leonard Dinnerstein's Book "The Leo Frank Case", A Pseudo-History) American Mercury 4. Mark Cohen (Who Really Solved the Leo Frank Case? and Did Leo Frank Confess?) American Mercury. If anything these are more scholarly than most of the articles written about the Frank case. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I doubt that you would agree that a sentence was anti-Semitic, and I've already commented on your request above. I will point out that we have no idea who "Bradford L. Huie" actually is, so we have an anonymous writer on a website. Nope, not an RS. And Mark Cohen's article "Who Really Solved the Leo Frank Case?" also published in the racist National Vanguard.[21]. Absolutely not reliable sources. Doug Weller (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2015‎

GBH was blocked, and hopefully this is over. However, for those wondering about his use of the term "anti-Gentilism", see [22] and [23]. Doug Weller (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I find it interesting, in an extremely ironic way, that a number of editors here have little, if anything, to say about the sources in question as regards their suitability according to applicable Wikipedia policy and guidelines in terms of fact-checking, accuracy, editorial control, etc., but oppose their reliability either primarily, or solely upon grounds of whether or not said sources can be opportunistically vilified by other questionable sources merely for expressing an allegedly unacceptable, but even as of yet unproven, bias, or particular point of view. But for the sake of clear policy, let's assume they ARE biased. So what?

According to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, as to biased or opinionated sources:

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, 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.

Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking.

According to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, as to bias in sources:

A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view.

Attributing and specifying biased statements

Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited.

Another approach is to specify or substantiate the statement, by giving those details that actually are factual. For example: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." People may still argue over whether he was the best baseball player. But they will not argue over this.

According to Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources, as to non-neutral sources:

One of the perennial issues that arises during editor disputes is how the neutral point of view policy interacts with the reliable sources guideline. Arguments often arise which contend that a given source ought to be excluded as unreliable because the source has an identifiable point of view. These arguments cross a wide variety of topics and stem from a common misunderstanding about how NPOV interacts with RS. The neutral point of view policy applies to Wikipedia articles as a whole: articles should reflect an appropriate balance of differing points of view. The reliable sources guideline refers to a source's overall reputation for fact-checking and reliability--not the source's neutrality. Reliable sources may be non-neutral: a source's reputation for fact-checking is not inherently dependent upon its point of view.

A frequent example that arises in this type of discussion is The New York Times, which is the leading newspaper of record in the United States yet which is sometimes said to reflect a left-wing point of view. If that presents a problem within article space, the problem is not reliability. The appropriate Wikipedian solution is to include The New York Times and also to add other reliable sources that represent a different point of view. The Wall Street Journal and National Review are reliable sources that present right wing points of view. Left-leaning The Village Voice might also be cited. The appropriate balance can be determined from the undue weight clause of the neutrality policy. Overall, good Wikipedian contribution renders articles objective and neutral by presenting an appropriate balance of reliable opinions.

It requires less research to argue against one reliable source than to locate alternate reliable sources, which may be why neutrality/reliability conflation is a perennial problem.

This phenomenon is global rather than national. For instance, with regard to Middle East politics the Jerusalem Post presents a view of events that is distinct from Al Jazeera. Generally speaking, both sources are reliable. When these two sources differ, Wikipedian purposes are best served by clearly stating what each source reported without attempting to editorialize which of the conflicting presentations is intrinsically right.

So, do we have any real evidence here that the sources in question fail in terms of fact-checking, accuracy, editorial control, etc., or are we to base this decision only upon disparaging invectives? 68.10.143.69 (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

One further thought on this - The Wikipedia policy cited above specifically mentions Al Jazeera as a reliable source. Now, what do the ADL and SLPC have to say about this particular source? Do they allege or maintain that this source is also "antisemitic"? If so, then the point is made. 68.10.143.69 (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest people don't waste their time engaging with 68.10.143.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which has been blocked as a sock of GingerBreadHarlot. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GingerBreadHarlot. If new IPs should appear here with recognizably the same agenda, they may reasonably be viewed with suspicion too. Bishonen | talk 09:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC).

RT.com in CIA–al-Qaeda controversy

1. Source. http://rt.com/news/usa-egypt-muslim-military-233/
2. Article. CIA–al-Qaeda controversy
3. Content. "Allegations were made [by Don Debar in an interview with RT] that the United States and NATO have either unknowingly or knowingly been supporting al-Qaeda affiliates during the Libyan Civil War and the current Syrian civil war."

In an interview with RT, Don Debar of Community Progressive Radio in NYC stated: "Well, they [i.e. Washington] have no problem dealing with Al-Qaeda in Syria and Libya, and again, the folks who supposedly assassinated Anwar Sadat were connected in one way or another to the Muslim Brotherhood – that’s the official story from the United States, my suspicion is that it was the US military." My gut feeling is that a brief quip like this by a talking head on Fox News suggesting a conspiracy theory would not be permitted in Wikipedia, so I'm wondering how others feel this should be addressed. WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, and/or WP:FRINGE? - Location (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

RT in this case would be reliable for reporting the opinions of Don Debar. I'll leave it to editors more familiar with the matter as to whether this deserves weight within CIA–al-Qaeda controversy. The relation to other topics is almost certainly WP:ONEWAY. Rhoark (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Rhoark is correct. In this case RT can be relied upon to report Debar's remarks (especially since there is likely to be mutual sympathy and thus no motivation to misrepresent him). The question is whether Don Debar's views are noteworthy. That is a matter for the article talk page rather than this noticeboard. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

RT is problematic, if this is a noteworthy comment, then a more reliable source will have published it. Spumuq (talq) 14:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• It is reliable with an in-text attribution to Don Debar, according to WP:NEWSORG, WP:SOURCE and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and Spumuqs opinion does not count, as it is not based in our policy. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

How can Debar be a reliable source for the statement "the United States and NATO have either unknowingly or knowingly been supporting al-Qaeda affiliates during the Libyan Civil War and the current Syrian civil war" when the only reference to al-Qaeda in the article was his quip, "Well, they have no problem dealing with Al-Qaeda in Syria and Libya..."? And the article doesn't even reference NATO, or the CIA, for that matter. - Location (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I did not notice at first reading. However, the article is still reliable for reporting Don Debars opinion with an in-text attribution. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Saying it is reliable, because you want to use that POV, does not make it reliable, look at older discussions of RT on this noticeboard, other editors agree RT is not reliable, if you are so determined that Debar's words are important you can find a reliable source. Spumuq (talq) 16:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  If RT says the sun rises in the east then one should get up at 6 a.m. to verify. However, as stated by the OP this was an interview with RT so they would be the best source for this particular interview. Don Debar is quite sympathetic to Russia, so there's no reason to expect his words were misreported. Again, the real question is whether Don Debar's views are sufficiently relevant for inclusion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Spumuq, I don't want to use that POV, and I have never even heard of Don Debar, but that does not make the source unreliable. Nor does your repeated no votes. We base our advice on policies and guidelines around here. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Sources are supposed to be determined reliable or unreliable in context, and I have supplied the context of his quote and the context of how it appears to be used in the article. They don't seem to match, so I cannot see how the source is reliable for the content specified. - Location (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the Wikipedia article is misrepresenting RT/Debar. I missed that that was at issue. Debar says the US was "dealing with" al Qaeda, which seemed to me to mean in the sense of communicating or negotiating with them. I don't think it should be stretched to "supporting". Rhoark (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I missed that too. However, I noticed that this article was used as second source earlier, ref diff. I am not sure if Voltaire Network/Tehran Times is reliable or if the two sources fully supports the statement, but the removal of that source may be the reason for the misrepresentation. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

OK. Now things make much more sense. The insertion of both sources went in the same time here. That article does claim a US-al-Qaeda conspiracy but doesn't mention any CIA connection to make it relevant to the article. - Location (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC) edited 21:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• I think you have agreed that the source is reliable for the opinion of DeBar.
• Let's move the discussion on to relevance and noteworthiness, which I did at Talk:CIA–al-Qaeda controversy#Don DeBar comments about Libya and Syria

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Not reliable Unless I'm missing something, the source is a blurb and an interview from a second-rate news organization. The claim being made is WP:EXCEPTIONAL, as well as speculative (accusations, as oppose to confirmed facts). As an interview source, only the paragraph at the top that is in the voice of the reporter is reliable - the rest is basically the equivalent of an op-ed. However, even if the whole thing was in the voice of the reporter, it still wouldn't be anywhere in the ballpark of what we should look for, for something like this. CorporateM (Talk) 01:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• The RT.com part isn't the most relevant part of reliability here; let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that they're reliable for conveying someone's comments in an interview. But so what? Who the heck is Don DeBar? The whole CIA–al-Qaeda controversy#Allegations section is highly controversial, in fact WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Government shaking stuff. Now some of the sources there are strong enough to bear that burden, such as top level government officials from the UK and Saudi Arabia, OK. But some guy from a NYC radio station? No way is that enough for claims like this. --GRuban (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
• This is a typical Erlbaeko problem. No doubt the comments are, strictly speaking, verifiable, in the sense that we can find them in a source of some kind; but that's missing the point. Giving undue weight to WP:FRINGE opinions and watering down the mainstream view is a much bigger problem. Insistence on citing RT is a red flag for this - if an editor really wants to put text in an article whilst citing a Kremlin propaganda mouthpiece, we should consider whether that text poses a neutrality problem. bobrayner (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

If you had taken the time to read the discussion, you might have noticed that I said that I don't want to use it. In fact I have suggested to delete the whole section. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

He who pays the piper

Catholic think-tank in Poland, called the John Paul II Centre for Thought (Centrum Myśli Jana Pawła II) in order to make themselves feel good about how the Catholic Church is doing in the country apparently paid commercial pollster CBOS to conduct a survey. The results were published by the society of Jesus in a series of PDF files, many with deeply controversial answers to questionnaires about other religions and their practices such as the ritual slaughter of animals for consumption. Now, we have User:Sdino with the total number of 194 edits under his belt waging an edit war using Twinkle to restore biased expansion of the article Religion in Poland, including monster pie charts based on the society of Jesus publications and his ridiculous colour schemes. The new information is mostly about what Catholics think about other religious denominations. The Centre for Thought of John Paul II (according to its own website) is devoted entirely to the teaching of the Blessed Pope John Paul II and follows the intellectual heritage of the Pope.[24]

• Please, see his blanketed summary at Reverted 2 edits by Poeticbent (talk) to last revision by Sdino. (TW)
  

Also, please read my detailed post about this WP:RS conflict at Talk:Religion in Poland#Read the writing on the wall. I do not wish to continue edit warring with this user (possibly a devoted parishioner), but I will gladly follow our community decision in this matter. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 16:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there a question here? Rhoark (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately, Rhoark, it was actually a matter of UNDUE content being pushed using a biased source which has been deemed inappropriate for this article per TITLE. The content may be considered biased RS, therefore fine for usage (with attribution) in the appropriate context... but the "Religion in Poland" article is by no means the appropriate context. My understanding is that this group are WP:FRINGE as is. Devoting a large slab of the article to their 'research' and 'polling' results is way off topic. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Use of online video as source on Bosnian mujahideen

I came across Bosnian mujahideen by chance, the article contains the text: 'Abu Hamza, was one of the leaders,' … (of the Bosnian mujahideen)

Source used is an Al Jazeera video on 'YouTube called Veterans - Siege of Sarajevo

A quick 'Google' 'Abu Hamza Rabia Bosnia' threw up two hits, both WP pages (at present we are linking to the dab page).

A quick 'Google' 'Abu Hamza al-Masri Bosnia' threw up more hits, but they mainly refer to his claims to have fought in Bosnia.

I appreciate there are BLP as well as RS issues. I also realise Bosnian + Mujahideen are problematic areas, of which I have little expertise. I have posted on talk but so far no response. Advice?Pincrete (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of problem: I think the first problem is the use of 'dab' link failing to identify WHICH Abu Hamza, and thus by implication suggesting the more infamous Abu Hamza Rabia, that isn't a RS matter, but is part of the background. … … Second problem is whether a single Al Jazeera documentary is good enough for such a claim. The other 'Abu Hamza', the imprisoned cleric, has quite a number of hits for his presence in Bosnia, but I could not find very serious ones for any 'leadership' role, rather the opposite, many of them claim he 'peddled' a fake war history among his followers. Pincrete (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It's from an official Al Jazeera YouTube account, so should be considered as published by Al Jazeera. Rhoark (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Update I've solved problem for now by removing the offending text and leaving a 'talk' message, until we know WHICH Abu Hamza, better to say nothing. Opinions on using such a video as 'sole source' for such a claim, still welcome.Pincrete (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Stupid Wikipedia mirrors and Wikipedia Books!!!

So I've been working on sourcing Articles lacking sources from October 2006. As can be expected, those articles have been around long enough that there are many mirrored versions of them on the web; that doesn't surprise me.

What does surprise me however, is the fact that a good many of them have apparently been included in Wikipedia Books, which then feature prominently in book search results. Generally for historical articles I turn to book searches first, as the web tends to be full of lots of unreliable nonsense. Now Google Book searches are turning up Wikipedia Books containing copies of the unreferenced articles I'm trying to reference. Why on Earth are the people who make these Wikipedia Books including totally unreferenced articles in them?

For an example of what I'm talking about look at Royal Order of Saint George for the Defense of the Immaculate Conception. The entire first page of book results on Google is nothing more than Wikipedia Books and self-published nonsense by a man who thinks he can use an odd combination of orders of nobility, genealogy, and heretical nonsense from three religions to do - something that I haven't read enough of his nonsense to make sense of (something about "exposing the secrets" of Christianity which are hidden by the Catholic Church). See search results here.

Yes, I know how to modify the search to exclude Wikipedia books, which is somewhat easier to do than excluding Wikipedia mirrors from a web search. I can also exclude the self-published author's nonsense. What I'm left with leads me to seriously question the accuracy of the article, beginning with the first sentence ("founded by Maximilian II Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria in 1726").

Does anyone have any tips on excluding Wikipedia mirrors and Wikipedia books to get at reliable sources for an article which has been floating around unsourced for 9 years and has been included in compilations of Wikipedia articles that have made it to print? These stupid books are even turning up on Amazon and library searches! ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Try different search terms. These sham books tend to turn up higher when the search term isn't used much in books, and in this case that's because this order is better known as the Georgsorden. There are lists of literature on dewiki and nlwiki that you wouldn't find with a query for "Royal Order of Saint George". QVVERTYVS (hm?) 07:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll try Georgsorden!~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Unable to help on 'searching', but in the case of 'Royal Order of Saint George etc', would you not be justified in proposing deletion when the article has had a 'no refs' tag since 2006? A proposal to delete might bring in help for sourcing what is left.Pincrete (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion is not cleanup; sources to corroborate existence and notability exist in other editions of WP and this article isn't in so bad a state that WP:NUKEANDPAVE applies. Trimming it down to a stub might be better idea. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, deletion is not clean up. Otherwise we could just go through and take everything in the tagged for sources since 2006 categories to AFD. Currently there are 200+ articles in the category for October of 2006 and thousands in later months. People at WP:RFA are always talking about conquering adminstrative backlogs, but there are a LOT of regular editing clean up backlogs that are far more neglected. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC notice: The Washington Post on 2012 Koch-related funding of Americans for Prosperity

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds. Please contribute to this request for comment, at which the verifiability and accuracy of the paraphrase have arisen as issues. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48

This is inappropriate WP:CANVASSing. But the request has already been on this board, where consensus leaned against. (Note, that I've changed my mind. The sources are reliable, but do not say what Hugh says they do, even though he's changed what he wants to add. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:Requests_for_comment#Publicizing_an_RfC. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 05:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Your comments are welcome at the RfC. By most of us. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Kanyetothe.com

Can't seem to find a blanket-ban guideline on user-submitted forums, if there is one then please tell me I'm a plonker and direct me to it, because I'm sure there may be one. But a Kanye West fan forum has been cited on multiple discographies in album sales updates (1, 2, 3) the figures seem close to the previously listed figures, but the post its self gives no indication of where it achieved these figures. Is it safe to say this is unreliable? Azealia911 _talk 22:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Azealia911: I think WP:USERGENERATED is what you're looking for. You are correct, forums cannot be used as sources for anything; the same goes for any crowd-sourced sources. CorporateM (Talk) 03:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: that's along the lines of what I needed, thankyou! Azealia911 _talk 09:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Hot wheels wiki

[25], is this source reliable enough to support the statement that lakesters are playable in Hot Wheels Turbo Racing and Hot Wheels Velocity X made in Lakester? --Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa¹²³|UPage|_☺★ (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a Wikia, so therefore user edited. I'd say no. Azealia911 _talk 12:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. No fact checking going on and can be edited by anyone. Meatsgains (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Not reliable Has a bright "Edit this page" button. All openly editable or crowd-sourced content is not reliable by its nature, even for the most mundane statements. CorporateM (Talk) 03:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

raceandhistory.com

This article is being used as a source on the evolution of epicanthic folds in this Wikipedia article. The following claims are made.

It is hypothesized that epicanthic folds are caused by climatic factors, and it may have originated more than once during human evolution. The genetic basis of epicanthic folds is not well understood. The fat above the eyes insulates the eyes, conserving body heat.

The article is attributed to an Amon Hotep, on whom I can find little information on the internet other than various self-published writings attributed to him. Therefore, he has no reputation, and it is not clear whether he is a real person or whether Amon Hotep is a pseudonym. He is allegedly the founder of an organization in Trinidad and Tobago which calls itself the Self Empowerment Learning Fraternity and which runs a number of websites including www.raceandhistory.com.

The article itself is not a primary source and cites no sources.

Rectipaedia (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Not Reliable - I am fairly confident that this is a unreliable source. Amon Hotep is very deep into self published WP:FRINGE territory and has self published a variety of works on the internet that advocate absurd racist conspiracy theories. For example this, he is hardly an expert on biology or racial differences. Thanks for removing that source. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
• Not reliable Per OP. CorporateM (Talk) 03:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
• not acceptable, particularly given all of the actual peer reviewed content available about the subject.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
• Not reliable or acceptable due to being a WP:SELFPUBLISHed source. The 'About us' page demonstrates that it's a self-funded 'project' run by an autodidact and doesn't draw on any scholarly research. Pure WP:OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• Not reliable, for the reasons clearly pointed out by Iryna Harpy, TheRedPenOfDoom and Winner 42. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Patent records as sources

Editors here are invited to participate at Talk:Yamaha_Tesseract regarding the acceptability of a list of patents cited to official patent records. CorporateM (Talk) 04:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Swedish publication: Reliable source or tabloid?

Is Aftonbladet particularly http://www.aftonbladet.se/nojesbladet/klick/article21099559.ab a reliable source for personal relationships about living people or is it a gossip tabloid that should be expunged? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh... something like the Daily Mail, I would say. You know, what Wikipedia calls "middle-market". Considerably more respectable than The Sun. Their Nöjesbladet is very gossipy, yes, but not the worst kind of gossip, and I think generally reliable gossip. I'm baffled by why an encyclopedia purveys such information at all, but I'd better not get started on that... given that we do, I think Aftonbladet is an OK source. Bishonen | talk 21:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC).

In most cases, such sources qualify as "reliable"... but that does not mean we are required to mention what they say. UNDUE comes into play here, if the information they give (gossip) is too trivial to mention in the first place. Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It would help to know what content it is being sourced for. CorporateM (Talk) 20:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication

This is more of an OR question than an RS question, but NORN is very low-traffic and I'm skeptical of this user's willingness to allow his bold edit to be reverted even if no one else supports it, so hopefully RSN can help out - maybe along the lines of "are these sources qualified to do this analysis." Anyway, User:Rms125a@hotmail.com believes that this paragraph in Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication is synthesis, while I have pointed out that the no-synthesis policy prohibits original analysis by editors, not the inclusion of the analysis by reliable sources. What do you think: is the bolded text prohibited by WP:SYNTH, or are the cited sources accurately represented and qualified to do this analysis of the events?

In 2004, Archbishop Burke said he would not give communion to 2004 presidential candidate and Senator John Kerry, in part because of his position on abortion. According to religion experts, such a denial of communion would have been unprecedented. Kerry's own Archbishop Sean O'Malley refused to specify the applicability of his earlier statement that such Catholics are in a state of grave sin and cannot properly receive communion. The issue led to comparisons between Kerry's presidential campaign and that of John F. Kennedy in 1960. While Kennedy had to demonstrate his independence from the Roman Catholic Church due to public fear that a Catholic president would make decisions based on the Holy See agenda, it seemed that Kerry, in contrast, had to show obedience to Catholic authorities in order to win votes. According to Margaret Ross Sammons, Kerry's campaign was sufficiently damaged by the threat to withhold communion that it may have cost him the election. Sammons argues that President George W. Bush was able to win 53% of the Catholic vote because he appealed to "traditional" Catholics.

References

I've encouraged Rms to read the relevant policies, but he has declined to do so, mistakenly citing BRD as a reason to repeatedly try to push his change onto a pretty calm article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It's a bit odd to cite a bunch of minor local publications for a national level presidency. I haven't reviewed the sources for SYNTH, but they seem pretty week in general. I see that one of the sources has "opinion" in the URL and opinion content cannot be used anywhere for anything, certainly not for this kind of material, which would probably fall under WP:EXCEPTIONAL. CorporateM (Talk) 20:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Uh, what country are you from? The Washington Post is one of the largest and most reputable papers in the US, and the SF Chronicle and SD Union-Tribune are smaller but still in the top 25 or so, I think. The Toronto Star is Canada's largest paper. Just because they have a place name in their name doesn't mean they're "minor local publications". I've got to say, I'm baffled by this response. (I'm fine with removing the "opinion" source, but as it's saying the same thing as the other sources; I don't think this would result in the removal of any content.)

If you'd rather avoid news coverage entirely, even from established national papers, this is a pretty common view about Kerry's campaign and it's easy to find book sources for it.

But either way, would you agree that the text does indeed accurately reflect the cited sources? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Internet Brands

Dedicated Controversy section here is cited exclusively to primary sources, crowd-sourced websites and a press release (the "Reuters" source is just a press release repost). I brought it up at COIN, because I have a very remote potential COI, but it was archived without response. An editor suggested RSN was a better place. I think COIN is probably more focused on investigations of a non-disclosed COI, since in addition to a WP:CRITICISM issue, none of the content actually has adequate sourcing. CorporateM (Talk) 17:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Peacenow.org.il

Is the anti-Semitic site peacenow.org.il a reliable source? On French Hill, it is being used to claim as a fact that a Jewish neighborhood in the Israeli capital Jerusalem is a racist term called an "illegal Israeli settlement."

• Not reliable English version of their About page is here. They are some kind of political advocacy organization. Way out of bounds from a reliability perspective. CorporateM (Talk) 20:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Columnist

Additional input is welcomed here. I'd also like to ping @Gandydancer:, since the subject is related to feminism, which is a topic I know they have an interest in. CorporateM (Talk) 20:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Kworb

Note: Second time listing as the first occurrence got no response, appreciate all feedback.

A site normally used to track album and singles positions on iTunes, http://kworb.net/cc/ustotals.html gave some figures which have been included on multiple articles (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Figures seem to match that of some previously reported, however source its self claims "Aggregate Sales Estimates (United States)", "Exact Soundscan figures have not been incorporated.", "Subtracted sales due to "Complete My Album" are still included." and "Only covers top 200/400 weekly sales for some periods". I'd be strong to suggest it was unreliable, but would like other opinions before I get myself into multiple edit wars with the same editor of these additions. Azealia911 _talk 23:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Not reliable The FAQ/description of the site says "I'm a 29-year-old guy from the Netherlands and this whole website is just my personal playground." It's just a personal, self-published hobby site by "some guy". Not even a remote argument for reliability. CorporateM (Talk) 17:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Lyndon Johnson's political influence on selection of Houston Manned Spacecraft Center?

Source: Koppel, Lily (2013). The Astronaut Wives Club: A True Story. Grand Central Publishing. p. 106. ISBN 1-4555-0323-1.

Article: Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

Content:

Despite the ability to satisfy these requirements at what was already the temporary home of MSC, the geographically larger Cape Canaveral and nearby Patrick Air Force Base facilities, NASA had an unexpressed public relations interest in involving as many geographical areas of the country in its mission as possible. Considering that, and the fact then President Johnson was a Texan, the choice became clear.

Is this reliable, NPOV fact, or simply this author's opinion? Biased sources should only be used to verify controversial opinions, not supposed facts. Several writers have thrown around aspersions about "Johnson and his cronies", which seem to be related to the 1963 Bobby Baker scandal. Yet no corruption allegations ever actually stuck to Johnson. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Covering speculation is not outright forbidden, but in most cases it is very strongly discouraged. Generally it should only be included if it meets WP:EXCEPTIONAL (exceptional is not actually relevant, it's just a similar standard) of being covered by multiple highly reliable sources. Regarding the language, "the choice became clear" makes me cringe. It would be much better to clearly identify it as a speculation, add attribution, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 17:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Houston was selected as the site of the Manned Space Center in 1961; Johnson wasn't president yet. Rep. Albert Thomas of Texas, the then Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, is generally identified as the main political influence on the selection. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Facebook

Do we have a Template:Cite facebook or something similar for those extremely rare occasions when citing a Facebook post is appropriate? I know we have Template:Cite tweet, so I would think we would have a Cite facebook, but I can't find it.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail

Could I please get some help at the Bernie Sanders article where an editor insists on using the The Daily Mail as a source in the Personal life section. See the "Sources" section on the talk page where the editor defends the Mail saying, "The Daily Mail is a respected, fact checked newspaper" and when I supplied info from this site he replied, "The Daily Mail is based in the UK which has very strict libel laws, much stricter than American law. They check facts. Unless you can come up with a secondary source that says the Daily Mail is a discredited newspaper because it relies on "fabrication and distortion," then it's still just opinion." Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 03:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The suitability of the Daily Mail as a source has been a subject of much discussion on this noticeboard - and there is a strong current of opinion to the effect that it does not have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - and that to the contrary, it seems to have something of a reputation for questionable content, if not outright fabrication (see e.g. [26]). As always though, it depends what it is being cited for. Can you provide the link in question, together with the disputed content? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The link: [27] The info:Sanders married his college sweetheart Deborah Shiling in Baltimore on September 6, 1964. They had no children and divorced in 1966 after eighteen months of marriage. His son, Levi Sanders, was born in 1969 to Susan Campbell Mott in St. Johnsbury, Vermont. [146] Gandydancer (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Where does 'Susan Campbell Mott' come from? The Mail refers to her only as 'Susan Mott' and 'Susan Mott Glaeser'. I note also that it states that "Daily Mail Online has been unable to find any record of Sanders marrying Mott" - which may well be true, but isn't a statement that Saunders and Mott were never married. Though whether they were on not, along with all the other details given about Sanders past relationships seems to be of questionable significance if the Daily Mail is the best source for it - if is of real significance, why aren't the U.S. media reporting on the matter? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Andy, "Susan Campbell Mott" comes from [Politico], currently reference #40. I added that as a better source than the Mail for Sanders' early life and cited it for several things. A Sanders spokesperson confirmed the Politico assertions. Someone removed it from this section because the Mail had the first wife's maiden name, and then went on to use it for his son's exact date of birth and the name of the little town where the son was born. Really unnecessary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Why don't we just ban the daily mail as a source and be done with it? If something is real, what are the odds of only the Daily Mail covering it? I say we ban it and make the user find a better source. Should I post an RfC asking that? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

We can't ban the Mail. What would I use for toilet paper? -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 12:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I am not in favour of a ban, but something needs to be done. After having spent time doing research and making an edit, it is very dis-heartening for another editor to simply delete your work and say something like "no intelligent person trusts the Daily Mail as an RS". My own preference is that it should be tagged with "better source needed" and if no better source is provided (e.g. within a week), it gets deleted then. In effect, the Daily Mail is already banned by consensus of the people on this page, but there needs to be a clear communication of that to those actively editing articles.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy, the thing is...when the Mail is used in a BLP, just the fact that it's listed in the sources suggests that someone is up to no good, IMO. If I had a BLP here, I sure would not want to see a Mail source used. And if it is left up for a week, how many thousands of people are going to see it in a popular article? Too many, IMO. I'd like to see it banned. Gandydancer (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Completely inappropriate for such claims about a living person. There are many actually reliable sources that discuss Sanders life and those are the ones that should be used. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gandy. As it often does, I think it depends on the context. I tried to use the Daily Mail when reporting on the number of dogs eaten at a festival. I saw several blogs (obviously non-RS) with the number of 10,000. I then saw the Daily Mail stating the same number. I remembered reading that newspapers are considered to be RS secondary sources, so I made the edit. I was then pounced upon as if I had written something that was going to shake the project to its very foundations. I actually care very little if the Daily Mail is banned - I think the notion that if it is reliable information it will be reported elsewhere, is very convincing. So let's get on and ban it but, above all, let the community know this. Is there a list of banned sources somewhere?DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to see them ban assholes too--like editors that get their rocks off by letting newbies know how stupid they are. There was no way that you could have known that the "Mail" was not a good source. In the RS guidelines it is written somewhere that it should be used with caution, but looking for it just now I can't find it. If I remember correctly, the guideline is not at all strongly written. It should be. :D Gandydancer (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Examiner - cocktails

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Island_Iced_Tea

examiner.com/article/long-island-iced-tea-1

This drink is believed by scholars and non-scholars alike to be created by Robert "Rosebud" Butt at Hampton Bays Inn in Long Island in the 1970's. This is not true at all, early printings of this drink appear as early as:

New picture cook book by Betty Crocker in 1961

American home all-purpose cookbook by Virginia T. Habeeb in 1966

Punch: Volume 256 by Henry Mayhew, Mark Lemon, Tom Taylor in 1969

This drink has an overwhelming amount of variations which we will talk about individually later. The first of these variations is the culprit in the confusion behind this drink, it was the Texas Tea; which came about sometime after 1980 seeing as even in Texas it is still called a Long Island Iced Tea in 1978:

Texas Monthly - May 1978 - Page 2 Vol. 6, No. 6

"Fine happy hour Mon thru Fri 3-6:30 pm Try the Long Island Tea drink"

There also seems to be some confusion over the ingredients in this drink. By 1985, most of the country was still making Long Island Iced Tea's correctly as we see here:

Time: Volume 125, Issues 18-25 by Briton Hadden, Henry Robinson Luce in 1985

"Long Island Iced Tea (vodka, gin, tequila, rum and triple sec) are successful examples."

Here are a few examples a few years later showing the misunderstanding:

New York Magazine - Feb 8, 1988 - Page 40 Vol. 21, No. 6

"Long Island iced tea (rum, tequila, vodka, and Triple Sec)"

Blithe spirits: a toast to the cocktail by Jill Spalding in 1988

"Long Island Iced Tea contains no tea, iced or otherwise. Also know as New York Iced Tea, it is made from equal parts of rum, vodka, gin, triple sec, lemon juice, orange juice, and a splash of cola"

Until recently, this was a Long Island Iced Tea to many and a Texas Tea was the addition of Tequila. Texas Tea does call for tequila, but gold tequila, because silver tequila should already be used. Here are some references regarding the vessel this drink is to be served in:

Fairplay: Volume 297 in 1986

"I have no wish to upset Mr Havens, the more so since he was kind enough to introduce my wife to the delights of Long Island Iced Tea, a wicked cocktail containing six explosive spirits served in a pint glass."

Nightmover: How Aldrich Ames Sold the CIA to the KGB for $4.6 Million by David Wise in 1996

"They're called Texas iced tea or Long Island iced tea in the US, They're served in a beer mug."

This drink dates between 1954 -1960 and originated in or near New York City, it originally contained as of then:

Shake these ingredients:

Vodka

Gin

(Light) Rum

(Silver) Tequila

Triple Sec

Fresh Lemon Juice

Simple Syrup

Strain into a Pint or Beer Mug filled with crushed ice (Crushed ice is mentioned as early as, Thinking rich: a personal guide to luxury living by David Shilling in 1986)

Top with: Charged Coca-cola

Lemon Wedge Garnish

will I have to do this 250 times?

I am a cocktail historian who has published over 60 books about cocktails and cocktail history. I have also published over 250 articles on the same subjects. They have no been allowed because it is blacklisted, but I don't understand why?

Its a reliable source, not anybody can just sign up and post to examiner, you have to be an expert in a certain field. Seeing as ive published more on the subject than anyone alive or dead ever has, its safe to say I am the worlds leading authority on the subject.

Not only that, it gets worse, MY INFORMATION IS USED ON ALL THE COCKTAIL PAGES WITHOUT MY PERMISSION!!!@$@

I found the references so I should be given credit, they were published by me well before anyone else and not by a BLOG! does anyone get this. this would piss anybody off. I am suggesting that my articles be allowed to be contributed to the cocktail pages I have studied. Or at the very least GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE.

There are so many descrepancies with all these pages, but until you lift the ban on that website they will remain. Why is it that its banned to begin with and BLOGS fucking BLOGS are allowed? ANYONE CAN WRITE A BLOG, please explain.Themastermixologist (talk) 06:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

1. Why is it banned? Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_39#Examiner.com
2. Blogs are rarely allowed. Please see WP:SPS
3. If you want to cite one of your own 60 print books or articles, see WP:SELFCITE for guidance.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Gerontology Research Group (GRG) tables

The reliability of GRG tables for articles on supercentenarians in project World's Oldest People has been discussed here several times in the past but none of the discussions have been closed with a reliability determination.[28][29][30][31] The articles are in need of work but before that can begin, we need to determine whether the GRG tables are reliable sources to support birth/death dates and age claims for articles on supercentenarians, particularly for the "List of" articles such as List of Belgian supercentenarians, List of oldest people by nation, List of supercentenarians from the United States, List of oldest living people, and List of supercentenarians who died in 2014.

There are several tables on the GRG site and the ones most commonly used as sources on Wikipedia are Table E (verified or validated supercentenarians), Table EE (supercentenarians pending validation), and Table I (verified supercentenarians organized by death date). There are also tables listing deaths in each year that are used as sources here. I can't find the validation process on the grg.org site but I think it involves the supercentenarian (or their next of kin) providing three pieces of documentation with the person's birth date which are then researched and validated by GRG researchers. My understanding is that claims may be pending validation because either they not have provided the three pieces of documentation or the documentation has been provided but has not yet been researched or validated. I don't know how much verification goes into verifying death dates.

GRG researchers consider all GRG tables to be reliable but I'm not sure about that. I think Table E is probably a reliable source for birth/death dates and age because entries have been fact-checked, whereas Table EE is probably not a reliable source for the same because the entries aren't fully fact-checked and there's no way to know how far along in the process they are. I'm also concerned that the tables are constantly updated and previous versions are not available so it isn't always possible to verify that a name appeared in a previous version of a table, but I don't know whether that affects reliability.

Apologies for the length of this post, and thank you for your help. Ca2james (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)