Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Additional notes: RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. Start a new discussion

Are they reliable sources

http://www.sps-automotive.com/en_sps/track/07Nt_zonda.html http://twinrev.com/cars/Fastest-Production-car-supercars-20.6km-Nurburgring-lap-times-under-9-03.30-7119945 http://www.mobisux.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3096509 http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/nordschleife http://www.zeperfs.com/en/classement-ci1.htm I have verified nurburgring laptimes in those site all the laptimes existing there seem to be correct.

Max Blumenthal

Can Max Blumenthal, writing in Goliath: Life and Loath*ing in Greater Israel be used as a source for "Ben-Zion Gopstein of Lehava, an organization dedicated to anti-assimilation, declared to reporters outside the courtroom that:'It seems that here the youth raised Jewish pride off the floor, and did what the police should have done", which was put in Zion Square assault?
Please note that this is a claim about a 3rd party living person, and should be fairly easily sourced to a news outlet since he says it was told to reporters. Blumenthal is a polemicist, and even some of his political supporters describe him as "deliberately deceptive" [1] No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Eric Alterman is not a 'political supporter' of Max Blumenthal. Ist error. Secondly, the cherrypicked 'deliberately deceptive' phrase should be read in context.

Eric Alterman, 'Max Blumenthal’s carelessly constructed case against the Jewish state won’t help the occupation’s victims,' The Nation 16 October 2013 states

'Blumenthal’s accounts are mostly technically accurate, but often deliberately deceptive. In one relatively trivial but revealing example, Blumenthal hides behind the passive voice to repeat the accusation that El Al “airline has been accused of allowing Mossad officers to pose as El Al staffers to collect information on non-Jewish passengers in foreign airports” [italics mine]. Lo and behold, it turns out that the accuser in question was a recently terminated El Al employee who spent nineteen years at the company without ever mentioning any of this (and who presented no evidence for his claim).'

(Alterman was proved wrong in any case, as the South African cables affair revealed earlier this year)

In short Alterman's whole case, and NMMGG's, for saying Max Blumenthal is 'deliberately deceptive' is that he reports an accusation in the passive voice, a voice most editors in Wikipedia use in reporting similar claims. That is all Alterman can come up with. There is no other evidence for deception, deliberate or otherwise, in the review. The charge is unsubstantiated.

• Nina Burleigh 'Goliath vs. Goliath: Blumenthal Book Is Right About Israeli Myopia, but Naive on Islamists,' Observer 29 October 2013 found the book accurate.
• Ian Lustick, perhaps the greatest authority on this conflict, took Blumenthal's work seriously, and engaged in a long dialogue before Penn students in which the crisis was discussed amicably. See Max Blumenthal and Ian Lustick speak at Penn
• David Dean Shulman, 'Occupation:The Finest Israeli Documentary,' New York Review of Books 22 May 2014 likewise reviewed it positively.

Blumenthal quotes Ben-Zion Gopstein’s statement. The statement is in keeping with someone who is a Kahanist by background, and a leader of Lehava, an organization that the Government itself has several times considered outlawing as terroristic, as it has Meir Kahane's organization. He regards Palestinian as a form of cancer, and has openly promised that one of their parliamentary representatives in Israel Azmi Bishara will be hung.

There is nothing out of character in the kind of statement Blumenthal attributes to him, and Blumenthal has not been called to account for consistent misrepresentation of sources to my knowledge, neither in the investigative works on American politics nor for the details he has dug up in Israel.Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Blumenthal is "deliberately deceptive". His "selectivity often gets in the way of his truth-telling". That's from someone who's on the same side politically as he is. I could bring many more from the other side, naturally. The assistant book editor at the WSJ said the book is garbage [2]. He is making claims you should be able to source to better sources. About living people. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Contentious claims about living people need better sourcing than this. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The source is not contentious. Have you edited wiki under another name?Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Blumenthal quotes Arutz Sheva for this statement. Unless you believe Arutz Sheva will lie about a Kahanite, or that Blumenthal made the quote up, this is rather beside the point. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to dig up the original Arutz 7 quote and use it instead of this unreliable source. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I am saying that Blumenthal is not RS for this per Wikipedia policy, and that we should be extra careful with BLP. And that I'm fairly certain I've seen you arguing against the reliability of Arutz 7. Or am I mistaken about the last one? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva doesn't quote Ben-Zion Gopstein. Arutz Sheva ran an interview with him, which is on Youtube. It is from this interview that Blumenthal is quoting. So it is immaterial whether the source is Arutz Sheva. The only technical objection can be that of showing that the quoted phrase is not what BenZion Gopstein says in that verifiable interview. So by all means go ahead, and check the translation in Blumenthal against that video-recorded comment (or the following comments made by him in the Arutz Sheva studio debate).Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a link? I'm not sure about the policies re: youtube. If it can be used, by all means use it. The point still stands about Blumenthal and claims about living persons. He is not a reliable source and should not be treated as such. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not incumbent on me to dig up the Arutz Sheva interview. Blumenthal quotes them, that is enough. If you have any evidence that Blumenthal made up the quote, feel free to provide it. As to reliability of Arutz Sheva, it is always in context. They are reliable for internal settler matters, and for an interview with a Kahanist guy, who shares their ideology. Why would they make up stuff about a Kahanite? Arutz Sheva is not reliable for Palestinian matters. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is incumbent on you to dig up the Arutz Sheva interview - if Blumenthal is unreliable - how do we know he' accurately quoting his claimed source? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The quote is also sourced here, which sources it to here; both of them seem reasonably usable. In general I'm not sure I see the argument against Blumenthal in the first place; one person making an accusation against him in an editorial, review, or similar opinion piece doesn't instantly render everything he writes unusable, especially if his books are being published by a respectable publisher. --Aquillion (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

972 is a group blog. It is not reliable. If we have the original source- (INN/Arutz 7 ) - why not use that? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not incumbent on me to find the A7 source, for the simple reason that you are assuming the conclusion in stating that Blumenthal is unreliable. Nobody in this section has charged that he makes up quotes, and there is no reason prima facie to suspect that the quote is wrong. But it turns out that the original A7 article has been found after all, and Google Translate confirms that the quote is real. Can we forget this petty dispute now? Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No, that is not the way it works around here . You seem to be operating under the mistaken assumption that a source is presumed reliable unless proven otherwise, but it is in fact the other way around - unless a source is shown to be reliable - by meeting certain criteria spelled out in WP:RS - such as a reputation for fact checking, editorial oversight, etc.. - it is presumed not reliable. I have no idea if MB makes up quotes, but it wouldn't surprise me if he did, seeing as we have sources that say he is deliberately deceptive - which is a reason to suspect he is wrong,or aat least not accurately quoting.. Anyway, now that the A7 source was found, we can certainly use THAT as a source, but not Blumenthal. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 04:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, that is indeed the way it works around here. Blumenthal is a journalist who has been published in many places. Nobody, anywhere, has alleged that he makes up quotes. The book is published by Nation Books, which has editors and fact-checkers. Blumenthal explicitly gives his source, anyone can check it, fulfilling WP:V. If Blumenthal gave his own interpretation of the quote, then it would be relevant for one to consider the general reliability of Blumenthal's political judgements etc. As to using the A7 source, it can be used together with the Blumenthal source, because English language sources are preferred on WP. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Though you preface your paragraph with "...that is indeed the way it works around here." - the following text shows you know this to be false, as you then attempt to prove MB's book is a reliable source, using the criteria established by WP:RS, ergo, it is not reliable by default - its reliability needs to be proven. That's good, were making some progress in getting you to understand and correctly apply wikipedia's sourcing policy. As to the arguments themselves - firstly, you should really drop the false line that nobody here has suggested MB is unreliable. Several have, and reliable sources have been produced that explicitly state he is a deliberately deceptive source. That alone should put a huge red flag over using him. Journalists are not inherently reliable - their reliability stems from their association with reliable publishers who employ editorial oversight and have a reputation for fact checking. I am not sure those apply to Nation Books. English wikipedia prefers reliable ENglish sources over reliable non-English ones, but it does not prefer non-reliable English sources over reliable former language ones. If we have the original, we can simply use that. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Find me one person in this area who is not criticized by some person or the other? Benny Morris is used in literally hundreds of Wikipedia articles, and you can find scholarly opinions on him, tearing him to shreds. But nobody claims that he makes up reports of atrocities. The questions are always about interpretation, emphasis and so on. Blumenthal is used to substantiate a quote, the quote is even found to exist, exactly in the place where he said it existed. If Blumenthal is quoted in his interpretations of Israeli policy, then you may or may not have a point about reliability. Simply insisting over and over that he is "unreliable" because some guy does not like his work is useless. This is too petty a dispute for me to continue. So I am done. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This is getting silly:'sources have been produced that explicitly state he is a deliberately deceptive pluralizes one polemical dismissal by Eric Alterman, which has been shown to be absurd, since it consists in a protest about his grammatical usage of the passive voice. Why Blumenthal should require exceptionalist quarantine, when there is no evidence in sources that he is more, or less, reliable than any other journalist of the numerous we use here, is the query. Could we therefore drop the expostulations and ask some neutral outside experts to make a simple call.Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Since there is repeated edit-warring to remove the sources, could I prevail on the board to attend to these requests for external third party input? It really should not be difficult to decide whether Max Blumenthal, published by Nation Books is WP:RS. This is an issue that has been brought up for consultation now twice here, without significant third party input, and the problem will not go away until the issue is decided.Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Max Blumenthal is a journalist and there is no reason to believe that Gopstein's statement, reported elsewhere and wholly consistent with his political beliefs, is fabricated. -Darouet (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Umm what? Journalists do not have some magic "reliability dust" that magically renders anything they write, in any forum, reliable. Their reliability stems first and foremost from being published in newspapers that have editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking - neither of which exist here. If other, reliable sources confirm the Gopstein quote, we can use them. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

If there is any question about Gopstein's own acknowledged politics: [[3], [4], [5], [6]. -Darouet (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The consensus of this page is that Max Blumenthal is perfectly adequate as an RS source for this comment (and I might add generally). Unless their are further objections, can this be formally closed as resolved? Nishidani (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want a formal close, you can list it at WP:ANRFC. I can do it if you like. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd much appreciate that, and sorry for the bother. Anything technical is beyond me, apart from work around a house.Nishidani (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait, what? You can't close this as an RfC without advertising it as such. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not asking for a close as an RfC. I am asking an uninvolved editor to look at this discussion. This page cannot have an official consensus anyway, as stated at the top of the page. This page is just volunteers replying to questions. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Using the same or similar acronyms means there potential for some confusion between RfC - Request for Comment and ANRFC - Request for Close? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

This page says at the top that the answers given here are not official policy. Of course, if people wish, they can stonewall, and force an RfC. It would be incredibly petty to do so, since even the quote has been found in the exact place where the author said it was. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kingsindian, Apologies, I was just pointing out the potential for the two terms to be confusing; not making any comment or suggestion on action. From my reading of the above, you clearly meant ANRFC (Request for formal closure of the discussion above), which is different to RfC, despite the similarity in naming. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

That is ok, I wasn't really replying to you, but talking generally. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

UKGameshows.com

I was directed here from Template:Did you know nominations/One Hundred And Eighty but this request pertains both to it and Template:Did you know nominations/Safeword (game show).

The source, generally, is UKGameshows.com. I have added this source to a number of game show articles over the past six months, including (from memory) Benchmark (game show), Freeze Out (game show), Rebound (game show), Decimate (game show) and most recently of all Pick Me!, many of which to supplant the game play sections and for other assorted bits of information (e.g., "Pick Me! was developed by Possessed, a production firm owned by Glenn Hugill"). In One Hundred and Eighty's case, this is just one statement (that nine-dart legs win £1,000); for Safeword, this is at the time of writing the entire gameplay section due to the length of which the DYK nomination dragged out (I may trawl YouTube for relevant clips - but see below). These have recently been removed by an IP address citing WP:IMPORTANT (along with the entire background section of One Hundred and Eighty - make your own mind up).

I would argue that the site is reliable because, as copied from Template:Did you know nominations/Safeword (game show), "UKGameshows.com is primarily edited by David J. Bodycombe, a man who has 25 years experience in the field of game shows and was responsible for bringing the nation The Crystal Maze. I consider him a reliable source." Yes, it is a wiki, but it is not freely editable - you need an account, and very rarely are they issued. My request was rejected. (There's no need to worry about circular referencing - we tend to be described as 'that other wiki' by the site.)

I would also like clarification on two other sources: Weaver's Week, a weekly review of 'the latest happenings in game show land' (this week's is an excellent example), and the shows themselves. I ask for clarification in these instances as they are borderline self-published and original research respectively.--Launchballer 18:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Though the UKGameshows.com Wikipedia article is almost entirely unsourced, it does say at the moment that the site was updated and edited by Bodycombe until 2004, when it was re-launched using mediawiki software. This strongly suggests that any content after 2004 has been added by a variety of editors, in a similar fashion to Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The list of editors can be found here, where it seems a number of editors were involved before the site converted to MediaWiki software, which would lead me to believe it was converted to facilitate those editors. Bodycombe remains the editor/project manager.--Launchballer 00:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The 'elephant in the room' question is why you are so keen to rely solely on UKGameshows.com to source your edits, when there are always recognised reliable sources available for notable TV programmes (e.g. newspapers and news websites). Sionk (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I read the site's TV Guide and Weaver's Week columns every week anyway. Nowadays, very rarely do the mainstream media come out with anything chunky.--Launchballer 23:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

After poking around the site in question, I have concerns similar to those expressed by Sionk. The good news is that while UKGamesshows accepts contributions from the general public (via a form at the bottom of each entry), the general public is unable to directly modify a page. I was unable to locate any information as to how much editorial control is exercised over suggested changes once they are submitted to the site. Things quickly become murky past his point in the investigation. As noted above, the site uses mediaWiki software. Account access is restricted, but individuals can apply for an account by answering a handful of questions and expressing an interest in the site.[7] Communication with the site's controls is by email or a Yahoo! Groups.[8] Notably missing from the contact information is any form of telephone number or Snail mail address. Given the uncertain level of editorial control exercised and the lack of contact information for legal inquiries, UKGameshows comes across as a higher quality fan site. This means I would have to rate the site as a potentially useful resource that falls short of being a reliable source. --Allen3 ^talk 22:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Allen3: Okay. (I did test the editorial control last night after finding an error in their TV Guide - it failed to mention that the Challenge repeats of Fifteen to One started fifteen minutes earlier one day. He checked it against the listings and then changed it. That should tell you all you need to know on that account.) What is your verdict on using the shows themselves?--Launchballer 01:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The television shows themselves (on YouTube or the channel's website) are WP:PRIMARY sources, so the normal guidelines for using primary sources would apply, wouldn't they (i.e. with care and not as the main source for the article). Sionk (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Google Maps and Streetview

I'm pretty sure they can't but I just wanted to make sure. Can Google Maps and Streetview be used as reliable sources? Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 01:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

For what information? Mangoe (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

For any article. I saw it being used as a reference in Newbattle Viaduct. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 23:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

In that article it's being used as follows:

The last arch at the south end is a skew arch to accommodate the A7 public road, which runs parallel to the viaduct before cutting underneath it. The viaduct is nearly straight, but with a slight curve at the northern end where it crosses the river. To the south of the viaduct is a caravan park.

References

I'm not sure that all of the information based on the source is immediately intuited form the map. Hope this helps - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what bit of information the citation is intended to support... google street view does not appropriately verify that the last arch is a "skew arch" (this is not a fact that anyone can verify just by looking at the street view) ... however it does verify that the road runs parallel to the viaduct before cutting underneath it. Blueboar (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

At most I can see GM and Street View as a check against other sources, maybe as a source of coordinates (though I personally don't go that far either). But Street View in particular is the equivalent of going to the spot and reporting back what you personally saw here. It's one thing if you went to the location given by some source and discovered that there isn't anything there, or that what's there isn't even remotely like the subject of the article; then you can say that the source which gave you the location is plainly wrong. In this specific instance the part about the skew arch is not only an analysis of what's seen, but a supposition as to why it was built that way (it's possible, after all, that the road was put through that way because of the arch, or even that the arch originally accommodated a different road/path/whatever). Mangoe (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that there is a second source given here which backs up all the statements made, except that it refers to the road just as "a turnpike road", rather than the A7, a name which would not have existed at the time. The skewness of the last arch is not obvious from street view but is very obvious from the aerial view. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we use this racist website (added an external link) as a source for Willis Carto's death?

Editors are trying to rewrite the article to say Carto is dead, which may be the case. I can't find any reliable sources for this however. Currently the article says he's dead, and an editor says the source is [[9], a racist anti-semitic site run by Mark Cotterill. It's not actually added as a source but as an EL. I removed it because I think that as an EL it is just publicising a tiny racist website - I didn't consider it a source, but I've been reverted saying that it is a source. Doug Weller (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No, that's definitely not a usable source for a claim about a living or recently deceased person. I did find this, however it also doesn't seem to meet our guidelines. - MrX 13:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hm, the editor has been warned about using reliable sources for deaths in the past, and blocked twice for BLP violations. Doug Weller (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

How about this? David in DC (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, SPLC is fine. - Location (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to adjust my comment. The SPLC is a reliable source, but they are reporting what unreliable sources have stated. I guess I'd like to hear other opinions. - Location (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

He was editor and publisher for the Barnes Review, I'm sure they're "reliable" about his death. Link to Barnes Review obituary. Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. There's not a lot that Barnes Review would be an RS for, but ok for his death. Doug Weller (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Al Jaffee's brother Harry

1. Source. Weisman, Mary-Lou (2010). Al Jaffee's Mad Life. !t Books (HarperCollins). ISBN 978-0-06-186448-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
   • According to the dust jacket, Weisman and Jaffee have been friends for more than 30 years. The book was written in close collaboration with Jaffee.
2. Article. Al Jaffee, the famed Mad magazine cartoonist.
3. Content. [10] replaced "mental illnesses" with "various illnesses". The sentence in full read:

His oldest brother Harry, who also had artistic talent, had long been coping with various mental illnesses—for a time he had been committed to Bellevue.

User:Modernist is adamant that "mental" not be mentioned, and deleted it. He claims to have personal knowledge of the family, and says the book "verges on libel" on this issue. See Talk:Al Jaffee#H Jaffee, where he is claiming that he knows personally that the book is wrong on this point.

(Previous attempts at resolution at ANI and DRN have been punted, with the suggestion that this is the proper forum.) Choor monster (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I added content to the sentence above which currently reads: His oldest younger brother Harry Jaffee (1922-1985), who also had artistic talent, had long been coping with various illnesses—for a time he had been committed to Bellevue.

Harry died in 1985 and he was one year younger than Al. I fail to see what Harry's condition needs to even be included on any level in this article. Harry worked with Al; but Al is an enormously successful cartoonist; well deserving of an article; and his brothers condition is irrelevant to the article anyway.

My position is - essentially what is stated in the Weisman book is the primary sources opinion; and I am stating that that opinion needs corroboration and that I have personally heard objections to that opinion. I have been told by people close to all involved that there is more to what happened then what is stated in the book. Weisman takes the primary source at his word, however I am stating my objection to that as a reliable source. I'm not bad mouthing anything by the way - these are extremely private matters, and my suggestion is to respect those objections...Modernist (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we follow WP policy and guidelines. I will point out that two other editors have accepted the Weisman book as an RS, see ANI (User:Only in death) and Talk:Al Jaffee#H Jaffee (User:KoshVorlon). Choor monster (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

ZeroHedge Blog post by "Tyler Durden"

A user is repeatedly adding a a blog post from "Tyler Durden" of ZeroHedge to support the following statement:

As of Oct 27 2015, at least one hedge fund newsletter questioned whether the actual value of Theranos (and thus net worth for Holmes) is approaching $0."

The blog is a primary source written by a pseudonymous author "Tyler Durden" -- not suitable in accordance with WP:BLP. Secondly, it doesn't really support the assertion that the net worth for Holmes is approaching $0. The exact quote from the blog:

That's ok: she lied again, something which appears to have been a recurring pattern for this 31-year-old paper multibillionaire. Sadly for her, following these escapades, "on paper" is where her young billionaire status will remain, as we doubt anyone, either in the private market, and certainly in the public one, will bother to invest even $1 more at a valuation anywhere approaching $9 billion, or even a valuation of $0 for that matter.

Need a third opinion on whether this is an acceptable source or not. utcursch | talk 20:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

From what I can see, Zero Hedge does not appear to meet the threshold of being a reliable source. No evidence of editorial oversight, the actual author is unknown (the "Tyler Durden" has been claimed to represent multiple writers) meaning there's no means to validate their actual qualifications to provide expert opinion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Fails WP:V and WP:RS and shouldnt be used as a source - especially in a BLP. Minor4th 15:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

If Zero Hedge is not a reliable source, why does it have its own Wiki entry?

That entry states:

By September 2009, Zero Hedge had begun drawing more traffic than more established financial websites[5] with 333,000 unique visitors a month, impressing even those[who?] who say the news site is full of conspiracy theory and "apocalyptic world view".[4]

Matt Taibbi, in his book Griftopia, cites Zero Hedge in the last chapter as accurately assessing the level of corruption in the banking industry and credits its inside advantage. He questions why mainstream financial media did not earlier detect the corruption at Goldman Sachs.

These scenarios are precisely on-point with the current situation - analysis of key financial facts missed earlier by the mainstream financial media. That's the situation where Wiki's own entry of Zero Hedge supports the credibility of this site.

Rkaplan (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

That argument makes no sense: notability is a different concept altogether. The Bible is not a reliable source for Evolution. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is not a reliable source for history of Jews. Both of these have their own Wikipedia articles.

And like I've said, even ZeroHedge doesn't support your assertion: that blog post does not say that Holmes net worth is approaching zero. It says that the investors will not invest any more money in Theranos, whether its valuation is $9 billion or $0. utcursch | talk 14:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Good analogy.. The Wiki entry on History of the creation–evolution controversy does indeed reference the Judeo-Christian Bible in order to provide context. My point is - if you disagree with the Durden article, then add your own references to refute it rather than censoring the reference I have added. I already added an additional reference which additionally supports the theories in the Durden article:

The Economist notes that startups of this nature can wind up being valued as a "fantasy" rather than based upon present reality.

As for your comment that Zero Hedge does not say Holmes' net worth is approaching zero, look at the title of the article itself: The Beginning Of The End For Theranos?

Bottom line - Please add your thoughts to the article rather than censoring or deleting mine. The combination of references from Zero Hedge and The Economist is a reasonably referenced part of the Wiki entry. Rkaplan (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The article History of the creation–evolution controversy doesn't use the Bible as a source. It uses secondary sources that discuss the Bible as a reference. If a reliable source discusses this ZeroHedge blog post, the ZeroHedge claim can be added to the article.

"The beginning of the end of" is an expression, and even that line doesn't mention anything about the net worth of Elizabeth Holmes. (Not that this matters -- even if it did, ZeroHedge still fails WP:RS).

And there is no "censorship" here. You actually removed some of the content portraying Theranos in a negative light from the article. The only issue here is the "$0 net worth" bit, which is your interpretation of a source that's not acceptable.

utcursch | talk 15:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Rochdale Online

Is currently primarily used in the BLP for Simon Danczuk for such claims as:

In October 2015 over 5,000 people signed a petition asking the Parliamentary Labour Party withdraw the whip from Simon Danczuk, and the Rochdale constituency consider deselection [11] as a result of Danczuk repeating a particular falsehood that smeared the leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn. http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/98824/over-five-thousand-sign-petition-asking-for-the-labour-party-to-offload-simon-danczuk

Danczuk's comments prompted local criticism in Rochdale http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/97493/simon-danczuk-causes-outrage-by-suggesting-labour-mps-should-subvert-democratically-elected-leader

Danczuk was first married to Sonia Milewski with whom he had two children. They divorced in 2010 previously used for https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_Danczuk&diff=688345209&oldid=687423382 2009 with the reason cited as Mr Danczuk's adulterous behaviour

I note that multiple blogs are used in that BLP as well including "LabourList" ("LabourList is an independent progressive blog providing a platform for open debate about centre-left issues and the future of the Labour movement.") and numerous other blogs, and thus I am catenating them here with the local newspaper used to make contentious claims, and the fact the Daily Mail is here used for its "celebrity gossip" as well. (" On 3 February 2012, Huhne became the first Cabinet Minister in British political history to be forced from office as a result of criminal proceedings") and for the ref for the divorce. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2658971/I-took-ecstasy-cannabis-Labour-MP-Simon-Danczuk-admits-drug-fuelled-nights-wife-defends-cleavage-selfies.html

Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Rochdale Online is probably reliable for some claims, but its choice of tone is clearly biased. I do not think it is appropriate for contentious BLP claims, such as calling someone a liar or stating the reasons for someone's divorce. The focus on the petition is probably undue - its a change.org online petition with only 5000 signatures. Here are some better sources on Danczuk's contentions about Corbyn: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/25/corbyn-leadership-challenge-labour-mp-threatens-to-stand-if-may-elections-disappoint http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-funded-ira-bomber-sun-report-inaccurate-disproved-1987-10509965.html— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhoark (talk • contribs) 14:38, 31 October 2015

• Unreliable for any claims except as allowed at WP:ABOUTSELF. Rochdale Online is an "online department store" that happens to have a "news desk", most likely for SEO purposes. It lacks author by-lines, masthead/editorial board, and the standard legal disclaimers that you'll find at any reputable publisher. And, most importantly, there is zero evidence of "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy": they have not received any major (or minor) journalism award and other reliable sources do not share their articles. Woodroar (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

stats-sh.gov.cn used for number of high-rise buildings in Shanghai

http://www.stats-sh.gov.cn/tjnj/nj14.htm?d1=2014tjnj/C1104.htm is being used to source the statement that there are 14,479 "high rise" buildings (defined as 12 or more stories) in Shanghai in List of cities with the most high-rise buildings. This would make that city first in the world in number of high-rise buildings. Mirandajovi posted to the article talk page, and at the Teahouse, expressing disbelief of this figure.

Note that the figure 14,479 does not appear in the cited page, nor does it seem a simple sum or difference of any relevant figures that do appear.

The page seems to be in Japanese. I used google translate to get a rough idea of its contents, and it does seem to be a table of number of buildings with a given range of stories, but I can't tell what area this table covers, nor whether this is a reliable source for these statements. Any advice, particularly from editors with knowledge of Japanese Chinese, would be helpful. DES ^(talk) 14:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• A Chinese government page is written in Japanese? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• I should have said that is what was displayed by Google Translate. You are correct, Niteshift36, that doesn't make sense. No doubt it is actually Chinese, or one of the forms of Chinese. In any case, I can't read any Asian language, so "it's all Greek to me". Any assistance from someone who can read it properly would be welcome. DES ^(talk) 18:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• While discussing reliable sources on that page, we should also address whether the other source frequently used on that page- the commercial site emporis [11], actually meets the criteria for reliable sources as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. Any comments on the reliability of Emporis for such figures? Mirandajovi seemed to regard it as a highly reliable site. DES ^(talk) 18:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

    On looking a little further, Emporis says that it "collects" information about buildings, but doesn't say anything about a process of fact-checking or who it collects that information from. Moreover, it doesn't appear anywhere to claim that its statistics are complete -- it seems to be focusing on individual buildings that a commercial user might be interested in, not on city-wide statistics. For example its page on Shanghai (from its "building directory) lists exactly 1 church. I find it very hard to accept that there is only one church in a city that large, so I am doubtful about its other totals representing accurate figures for how many buildings of a particular type there are in a particular city. DES ^(talk) 19:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I think its only a city official claimed for Shanghai. Other cities in India, Iran, Bangladesh, Pakistan etc also claimed their cities had thousands highrise. Only Emporis completed with the name of the building and with their stories. So we can trust Emporis not just city claimed. This article based in Emporis sources which is neutral sources and in English. But somebody had edited the article and put Shanghai highrise more than 14.000 based on local sources which is not neutral sources. Its impossible Shanghai highrise : Hongkong highrise + New York highrise

http://www.emporis.com/statistics/skyline-ranking In this source Shanghai only had 1,232 building. Emporis data completed with list the name of the highrise so we can verified not just city claimed. Somebody claimed Shanghai had 14.000 higrise. But cant give the name of the building just number claimed which is cant verified. Shanghai is international city why no single foreigner report it to Emporis ?? For example in the year 2014 Emporis count the highrise in Moscow only 3000 buildings. But there is a report completed with the name of the building. So Emporis change highrise count for Moscow more than 10.000 highrise.

There is a pattern for building more than 180 metre : Hongkong had 143, New York had 100, Chicago had 50, Shanghai only had 70. For the city without height restriction there is impossible Shanghai only had 70 buildings more than 180 metre but had more than 14.000 highrise building. New York had 100 building more than 180 metre but New York only had 6.000 highrise building. Except city with height restriction such as Sao Paulo.--Mirandajovi (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

What are relevant and reliable source to describe someone's theory?

I want to describe a theory - the first theory published about some topic. The theory was published more than 200 years ago and it is related to the alternative location of Great Moravia. Are the studies about a historian who published this theory and his work (including a detailed description of his theory) considered to be a relevant and reliable sources? They were published by reliable and recognized historians.Ditinili (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Ditinili, it would have been helpful to other editors responding to your question if you had included, as specified in the instructions, information on the exact source you are asking about: "If it's a book, please include author, title, publisher, page number, etc." and "If it's an online source, please link to it."

To clarify, individual historians cannot be "reliable sources" as Wikipedia defines that term; a reliable source is a publication or publisher with editorial control and a history of fact-checking. This is why we need to know who published the work(s) by historians that describe the theory. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 16:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

We'd have to know more details, but if a theory is extensively discussed by other notable historians (and by this I mean of course in reliable sources) then it possibly merits inclusion in an article. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Chinese tank pages and Chinese news sites

Type 99 talk page

Hi. I'm a new user here so I'm not very familiar with the rules but it seems like the the Type 99 pages has been embroiled in a back and forth and edits. Thus I seek clarification about a particular contentious source here.

Documentary This biographical documentary/interview of the Type 99's lead designer by CCTV has labelled propaganda and thus unreliable. I find it disturbing because although the documentary was filmed to achieve some kind of propaganda purpose, the source was not cited to support propaganda but to support other sources in explaining the development of the Type 99 tank.

I understand that CCTV has been in the news for continuous gaffes and being a state mouthpiece in general. But shouldn't this film be treated as a primary source first and foremost? The separation of fact and fiction would be harder than other news media but until contradictory information appears, must we not take the state media at face value? Shouldn't prefixing an "according to" or "it was claimed by" be sufficient, as seen by other claims on the page made by non-Chinese sources?

Maan News

Source. Maan News ['Locals: Settlers prevent Palestinian farmers from olive harvest,' Ma'an News Agency 31 October 2015]. Article. [[List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015]. Content. : **Farmers in Burin were blocked from harvesting their olives by settlers, who reportedly also stole olives and agricultural equipment in the Bab Sanna area of Burin,<

Is this source reliable for this claim?Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be? Also, to be clear, Ma'an is reporting what locals in Burin said and attributing the info in the quote you mention above to those locals. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

See for serious questions regarding their reliability. It looks like NGO Monitor and Palestinian Media Watch have found serious cases of quoting untrue reports and for espousing hate propaganda. I suggest they are not used as reliable sole sources for Wikipedia articles.

References

{{reflist-talk}} template added by GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 16:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Wiki is not a reliable source. The NYTs article mentions Ma'an Network which uses a Ynet video, hardly anything in this checks out. They do not cite the Ma'an newspaper on line we use, which is far more cautious. By the same token, all Israeli newspapers we use are not RS because in at least 7 cases they have unanimously reported throughout the day that a 'terrorist' was killed in a stabbing attack in cases where it is known or suspected no attack occurred or appears to be underway when the 'terrorists' are killed. Amnesty International has made the point. For that matter, the NYTs is not a RS, either, by these standards.Nishidani (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Every source in this area has critics. Ma'an News is routinely quoted in major media, including Vox, NYT, Wash Post, Guardian, Al-Jazeera, and Israeli newspapers, like JPost, Times of Israel. Links can be found by simply Googling for them, so I am not giving them explicitly. There is absolutely no evidence that Ma'an is unreliable in general. If there is evidence that it is unreliable in this particular case, one should provide it. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about the Arabic language site (whcih seems to be the focus of the thread you linked to), but the English language version of Ma'an News is a very valuable source for detailed coverage of the Palestinian territories and is a source of local (and sadly routine) stories that major international news simply don't cover. In the same way that Israeli news networks have value for local coverage of Israel, Ma'an News is valuable to the news coverage of Palestine. Nothing to me indicates that Ma'an is unreliable, even with that recent story where they reported a Palestinian teenager had been killed by Israeli soldiers, instead of wounded. Most news sites have made mistakes here and there, but that doesn't classify them as unreliable. If there is a real pattern of false or exaggerated reporting or racism, then I would consider that there is a real problem with reliability. That has not been demonstrated and again, I'm referring to the English language version. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Piero Scaruffi - third-party publications

In May 2014, User:Soul Crusher made a posting to this noticeboard, generally pointing out that Scaruffi's writings on music had been accepted as authoritative by several unrelated sources. That posting is here.

With this posting, I am adding information about Scaruffi's publications by third-party publishers. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Scaruffi was being published by Arcana (Milan, Italy). In 1991, it published Guida all'avanguardia e alla New Wave (Guide to Avant-Garde and New Wave). According to WorldCat.org, print copies of this book are held in the university libraries of Princeton, Pennsylavania, Columbia, Cornell, and Georgia, as well as the city libraries of Seattle and New York (plus other libraries in Italy, Germany and Switzerland). One edition of this book was coupled with a CD from Nonesuch Records.

Aracana also published a multi-volume series Grandi opere rock (the exact number of volumes is unclear, but it is at least 22). Scaruffi wrote one of these volumes -- Enciclopedia della musica New Age (1996, volume 16 of the series).

Comments on this will be welcome. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Peter Dale Scott

1. Source. Peter Dale Scott's essay "Launching the U.S. Terror War: the CIA, 9/11, Afghanistan, and Central Asia; Bush’s Terror War and the Fixing of Intelligence".
2. Article. Safari Club
3. Content.

a) "Jimmy Carter discussed public concerns over secrecy in his campaign, and when he took office in January 1977 he attempted to reign in the scope of covert CIA operations."

b) "Thus even as Carter's new CIA director Stansfield Turner attempted to limit the scope of the agency's operations, Shackley, his deputy Thomas Clines, and agent Edwin P. Wilson secretly maintained their connections with the Safari Club and the BCCI."

After explaining that the War on Terror should be called "Bush's Terror War", Scott writes: "This essay will demonstrate that before 9/11 a small element inside the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit and related agencies, the so-called Alec Station Group, were also busy, 'fixing' intelligence by suppressing it, in a way which, accidentally or deliberately, enabled the Terror War." He heavily cites not only himself but 9/11 conspiracy authors Anthony Summers, Kevin Fenton, John Farmer, Jr., and an article in 911Truth.org by truthers Rory O'Connor (filmmaker) and Ray Nowosielski.

Regarding the content in question, the only statement in the article that mentions Jimmy Carter, Stansfield Turner, Theodore Shackley, or Thomas Clines states: "Then senior CIA officers and ex-officers (notably Richard Helms), who were dissatisfied with the CIA cutbacks instituted under Jimmy Carter’s CIA director, Stansfield Turner, organized an alternative network, the so-called Safari Club. Subordinated to intelligence chiefs from France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and (under the Shah) Iran, the Safari Club provided a home to CIA officers like Theodore Shackley and Thomas Clines, who had been marginalized or fired by CIA Director Turner." Edwin P. Wilson is not even mentioned in the article. Thanks! - Location (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Bob Mosher

Source: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=65438816

Article: Bob Mosher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This source was recently added to the page to source the names of Mosher's parents. However, the edits adding the source also removed any mention of Mosher being Jewish (backed up by another source of dubious reliability), presumably because the source claims the elder Mosher to be an Episcopalian. My instinct is that Find A Grave is unreliable due to its user-editable nature, but I'd like to get a few other opinions if possible. clpo13_(talk) 03:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC announce: What does Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) cover?

There is a request for comments at [ Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#What does MEDRS cover? ].

At issue is whether the lead paragraph OF WP:MEDRS should remain...

"Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."

...or whether it should be changed to...

"Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical and health information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."

This has the potential to change the sourcing policy from WP:RS to WP:MEDRS on a large number of Wikipedia pages, so please help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Is Breitbart reliable for its own opinion.

My understanding is that a source is generally always reliable for its own opinion, but numerous people at Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian#Censoring_any_criticism appear to contest that. Is Breitbart reliable for the statement: The conservative website, Breitbart, was critical of Sarkeesian's ability as an art critic. sourced to "Let's Stop Pretending Anita Sarkeesian Is an Art Critic". Breitbart. Retrieved 2015-11-03. Thanks, Second Quantization (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)