Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

Sources on Estonian police battalion

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

Article: 36th Estonian Police Battalion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions of the Commission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review of a decision to remove an external link per ELNEVER

After a comment here, a discussion opened here and a suggestion here, I removed an external link from Wikipedia's mainspace per WP:ELNEVER. Later I was criticised for that decision ("... eliminated links to the site ...").

• Source: Oron, Aryeh (2014). "Cantata BWV 10: Meine Seel erhebt den Herren". Bach Cantatas Website. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)

(EL to the page available in this old revision)

• Article: Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10
• Content: Lion share of the content currently in the "Concert performances and recordings" section (most of this content could presumably be referenced elsewhere too)

Is there a way to retain the external link in the article? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You suspect that the website violates copyright. I am rather sure that the record labels know about the presentation of their liner notes. Yes, the content in "Recordings" could probably be sourced elsewhere, but I doubt that "elsewhere" would provide the same wealth of information, such as translations of the libretto to several languages, and names of instrumentalists, to name just two.

The site has not been questioned by experienced reviewers in previous source checks for FA quality, compare the summary.

We would serve our readers better presenting the EL. Nikkimaria said recently here: "The site has been cited by multiple scholars and works in the field". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: If your concern is the copyright status of an external link rather than its reliability, I'd suggest moving this over to the external links noticeboard. I will say if the content believed to violate copyright is the reproduction of liner notes, ELNEVER would apply to links to those but not to links to other pages on the site - eg. we link to YouTube but not to specific videos on YouTube that violate copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Re. "...I'd suggest moving this over to the external links noticeboard" – I actually considered this but the header of that noticeboard contains "Concerns with links used as references should be handled at the reliable sources noticeboard", so whether or not the primary concern is copyright this RSN noticeboard seems to be the right place (the Bach Cantatas link was used as a reference). A possibility would be to remove the Bach Cantatas BWV10 page as reference and add it to the external links section of the BWV 10 article instead, and after that restart this discussion from scratch at the EL noticeboard (I would not favour such proceedings, just mentioning it as a possibility). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Is Bach Cantatas Website a RS?

I meant to add to my previous comment but don't want to disturb the chronology. We should not talk about one specific link in one article, discussing one specific action, but clarify that Bach Cantatas Website can be used as an external link and even as a reference. It has been used in 2005, random example BWV 6 ("Various comments on the piece", one of three external links), it is used in the same article today as a reference, and in hundreds of other articles on cantatas, hymns, biographies, discographies, - just not in BWV 10. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see its a self-published website that (from my brief perusal) also appears to be hosting copyrighted work, as well as content that looks to be very similar to Wikipedia content. Absent an explanation of the above, I would say it probably shouldnt be used or considered an RS unless it can be demonstrated the specific use is compliant with our sourcing guidelines. ELNEVER is quite clear, we do not link to copyright infringing material. If the specific use fails that (as FS indicates above in the case that caused this discussion) then we would not link to it. Sourcing/references are looked at on an individual basis, but once you start racking up the violations, you end up with 'not reliable unless you can make a damn good argument'. 'Its been used before' can be re-phrased as 'no one has noticed/found out' which is a terrible argument to use a source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah it's a useful site in general, but no way WP:RS for anything here. Alexbrn (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• Returning to the OP (.../BWV10.htm reference at the BWV 10 article), as a blanket approval of the entire website seems unlikely to be forthcoming: I can find no other source than the Bach Cantatas Website for "In 1963 Max Thurn recorded the cantata for the Norddeutscher Rundfunk", which currently opens the Concerts&Recordings section. Two possible approaches:
  1. If this (apparently otherwise unpublished) recording is only mentioned on one website, it is probably not worth mentioning in the Wikipedia article (even if it is apparently the oldest documented recording of the cantata);
  2. This is a "damn good argument" (in Oiddde's words) to include the webpage as a source. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Obviously undue. We reflect "accepted knowledge"; we're not a repository of obscure factoids. Alexbrn (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Articles (by BWV number) listing the dedicated page at the Bach Cantatas Website as a reference or source, and/or linking to copyrighted liner notes on that site – hope I avoided errors):

• 1 (GA)
• 2
• 3 (GA)
• 4 (FA)
• 5
• 6 (GA)
• 7 (GA)
• 8
• 9 (GA)
• 10 (GA – replacement of Bach Cantatas Website link by generally accepted RSs in progress by Francis Schonken (talk))
• 11 (GA)
• 12 (GA)
• 13
• 14
• 15
• 16
• 17 (GA)
• 18 (GA)
• 20
• 21 (GA)
• 22 (FA)
• 23 (GA)
• 24
• 25
• 26 (GA)
• 27
• 28
• 29 (GA)
• 30
• 30a
• 31
• 32 (GA)
• 33
• 34 (GA)
• 35 (GA)
• 36 (GA)
• 36a
• 36b
• 37
• 38 (GA)
• 39 (GA)
• 40 (GA)
• 46 (GA)
• 51 (GA)
• 54 (GA)
• 56 (GA)
• 58 (GA)
• 61 (GA)
• 65 (GA)
• 66 (GA)
• 67 (GA)
• 71 (GA)
• 75 (GA)
• 76 (GA)
• 77 (GA)
• 79 (GA)
• 84 (GA)
• 86 (GA)
• 88 (GA)
• 96 (GA)
• 103 (GA)
• 106 (GA)
• 107 (GA)
• 108 (GA)
• 110 (GA)
• 111
• 112 (GA)
• 114 (GA)
• 116 (GA)
• 119 (GA)
• 125 (FA)
• 126 (GA)
• 127
• 131 (GA)
• 132 (GA)
• 135
• 136 (GA)
• 140 (GA)
• 143 (GA)
• 149 (GA)
• 150 (GA)
• 152
• 153
• 154
• 155
• 156
• 157
• 158
• 159
• 160
• 161 (FA)
• 162
• 163 (GA)
• 164
• 165 (FA)
• 166
• 167
• 168 (GA)
• 169
• 170
• 171 (GA)
• 172 (FA)
• 173
• 174
• 175
• 176
• 177
• 178
• 179
• 180 (GA)
• 181
• 182
• 183 (GA)
• 184 (GA)
• 185 (GA)
• 186
• 187
• 188
• 190
• 190a
• 191
• 192
• 193
• 193a
• 194 (GA)
• 195
• 196 (GA)
• 197
• 197a
• 198
• 199 (GA)
• 200
• 201
• 202
• 203
• 204
• 205
• 205a
• 206
• 207
• 207a
• 208a
• 209
• 210
• 213
• 214
• 215
• 216
• 216a
• 217
• 218
• 219
• 220
• 221
• 222
• 223
• 224
• 232 (discography)
• 243
• 243a
• 243/a-discography
• 244-discography
• 244-structure
• 245-discography
• 245-structure (GA)
• 249b
• 1084
• Anh. 3
• Anh. 5
• Anh. 9
• Anh. 11
• Anh. 18

Oron references in these articles could probably use some scrutiny. BWV 208 and 248 are examples of fairly extended articles, not GA or FA or so, but showing that a lot can be covered with a wide variety of other references. Not retained in the list above: articles only containing links to "chorale melody" pages at the Bach Cantatas Website (these don't seem problematic to me while generally only containing public domain data). Also not listed: pages that link to the Bach Cantatas Website from the external links section only (not this noticeboard). Can we agree on a coordinated approach, for instance Gerda Arendt checking FA articles from the above list they were involved in, or start with re-linking Bach Pilgrimage liner notes to the SDG website if possible, etc. – don't want to propose a time-schedule yet, there is no deadline I suppose? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC) Expanded and updated 16:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a beautiful day, I should not sit at a computer at all. Thank you for that Fleißarbeit (don't know an equvalent English expression. As our lifetime is limited, I suggested to look at one or two examples, I propose two recent GAs, Bleib bei uns, denn es will Abend werden, BWV 6 (Easter) and Erwünschtes Freudenlicht, BWV 184 (Pentecost). Both appeared on DYK in 2017, so a few hundred extra viewers inspected them, on top of the GA rewievers.

Bleib bei uns, denn es will Abend werden, BWV 6

• created 18 Jul 2005 by Microtonal, with the link to Bach Cantatas Website (BCW) one of 3 external link, no ref

• Addition of a first recording 20 Jan 2010 by me, BCW one of 5 external links, still no ref

• Addition of a second recording 14 May 2010 by me, BCW as ref for that one recording, first ref in article

• expansion 27 May 2013 by Nikkimaria, now 4 refs

• expansion 21 Mar 2017 by me to GA standard

• Good article review 8 April by Jaguar.

Erwünschtes Freudenlicht, BWV 184

• created 14 Dec 2012 by Dr. Blofeld, with BCW as the only ref, expanded a bit by him and me the following days

• expansion 5 Jun 2013 by Nikkimaria, now 4 refs, BCW no. 1

• expansion 28 May 2017 by me to GA standard

• Good article review 30 May by Yash!

Summary: The valuable source of information has a long tradition to be in these articles. It serves readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

One more: Jauchzet Gott in allen Landen, BWV 51

• created 23 Dec 2005 by Camembert, with BCW as the first of three external links, no ref

• first recording 20 January 2010 by me, now 5 external links, BCW No. 2 after the free score, no ref

• expansion 4 Sep 2013 by me, more 11 September 2015 to GA standard

• Good article review 5 Oct 2015 by Drmies

Same as above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Always thought BC site an excellent source, an authority on Bach related topics, so much that I even began a missing article list from it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I think Francis needs to show more clearly that this is copyrighted material used without permission.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Gerda, that is essentially the same argument 'It has been used before'. Please actually address the question of its reliability, not how many times it has been used. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Ask Dr. Blofeld, and the (many) others who introduced it to articles. I only used what others did for (many) years before me, and find the information reliable and more detailed than anywhere else, and many reviewers found the same. It has not only been used before, but found useful before. The questions RS and possibly copyright violation should have been discussed in 2005, not in 2017. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

• O heilges Geist- und Wasserbad, BWV 165, written for Trinity Sunday (today) of 1715, and therefore TFA on Trinity Sunday 2015

• created 10 May 2012 by me, BCW in external references, and as a ref for the chorale (see comment by Francis above)

• expansion 25 Feb 2015 to GA standard with help from users such as Sparafucil, BCW ref for recordings, chorale, + liner notes by Gardiner and Hofmann for convenience, GA review by RHM22

• expansion for FA 8 Apr 2015, review, comments and changes by Mkativerata, Curly Turkey, Tim riley, Syek88, Dr. Blofeld, RexxS, and Nikkimaria who performed the source review, which moved several refs to external links but not BCW.
  • Not commenting on the quality of the source, but just pointing out that I didn't do a source review. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
• FA 1 May 2015

All these editors didn't have concerns with BCW. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Which confirms once again how meaningless FA review often is. In general classical music articles on Wikipedia are poorly sourced (or even unsourced) but it's no biggie (unlike articles on cancer, or BLPs, say) and I'd be inclined leave content in place that is unexceptional. Bachcantatas.com is not RS (unless somebody can show it has a "reputation" for fact-checking and accuracy in the real world). Nothing exceptional should be sourced to it, and things which are unexceptional should, by their very nature, be sourcable to decent RS. If bachcantatas.com is the only source for some factoid (Fischer-Dieskau had a cold while recording) then this also tells us recounting such a factoid would be undue because in using it we'd not be reflecting the preponderance of knowledge found in RS. From some of the comments above people seem to be forgetting we're writing an encyclopedia (a tertiary work) - we should be summarizing accepted knowledge as found in RS (principally, decent secondary sources). It harder, duller, work - but it's what we should be doing. Alexbrn (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

What was referenced to it were recordings, chorales, and liner notes by respected people, nothing "exceptional". No factoid such as a cold would be mentioned in the article, but people interested in such things could find it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Except one of the problems with liner notes is that they can potentially be a copyright issue. Which we would be unable to link directly to anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the site can be used at the least as an external link. RSs are reliable only per the content they are sourcing and cannot be labeled reliable or unreliable in general. What is reliable for some content may not be reliable for other content. Technically copyrighted content used without permission may still be reliable especially if the original source can be found. I agree with Alexbrn above that content/ sources that are unexceptional can be left alone. This is neither BLP content nor MEDRS so sourcing can be less stringent than is those cases. While Oron may have borrowed without permission he is also cited for the quality of the website. What all of this indicates is that this is not a simple situation but the solution to use the site as an external link and for content that is unexceptional is a simple solution. I don't think anyone is arguing that the sourcing is in itself not accurate. Also, sometimes we can get carried away with the letter of the law on Wikipedia which is not how Wikipedia is structured. We have IAR which means we can and should use common sense. We are trying to give information to the reader and to link them to further information on a topic. Oron's site does this.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC))

The problem here is that the "letter of the law" is the letter of the actual law, not just Wikipedia's policies. Just as you can't argue your way out of a traffic ticket by claiming IAR, so you can't argue your way out of a contributory copyright infringement. No opinion (as yet) on the suitability of this particular source, but you really cannot use IAR for copyright violations; they have real-world legal implications. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, good points and I agree. I wasn't suggesting using IAR, in this case. I was referring to the common sense we have to use when dealing with any content. I was also talking in terms of general reliability, but then again if content is not copyrighted on the Oron site we can't use the content here unless we can find the original source which comes back to reliable per specific content? From what I'm seeing much of the content on the site if OK. Do you think we can link to the site as a whole as in an external link if we are suspicious that there is some content on the site that violates copyright. I think I know the answer but I'm not an expert in the area of copyright. What I see is that multiple editors have used the site in good faith which represents a lot of work. Once again I'm not advocating using content that violates copyright just wondering how to make this simple while wondering of there is a way to save the work these editors have done. Maybe there is no saving anything.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC))

Re. "I don't think anyone is arguing that the sourcing is in itself not accurate" – no, the accuracy of the website's content is part of the problem. I'd say, copyright issues aside, the source is about as accurate as a garden variety fan site. So, to put it simple, "Wikia + copyright issues" or something in that vein. Of course fans (and Bach has fans) don't want anything wrong being said about the object of their affection, but still, (1) they can lose themselves in minutiae, as has already been illustrated above, and (2) they can be a tad credulous towards gossip. And they usually don't care too much about too many bootlegs (and so the copyright problem is somewhat inherently linked).

Let me illustrate: this page on the website contains a link to an unauthorised translation of a copyrighted article on the site. The original article writes somewhere: "... Passionsoratorium ... (Gotha 1720)". Then I see an enthusiast collaborator of the site translate that to "... Good Friday Oratorio ... (Gotha, 1720)" – which is incorrect, while half of the Passion oratorio was composed for performance on Maundy Thursday. That was not the only place where the bootleg translation led me astray when contributing to the Wikipedia article about the composer of that Passion oratorio, and related Bach articles.

It would be an oversimplification to think that a website like bach-cantatas.com is "reliable with copyright issues" and others, like Wikipedia, are "unreliable without copyright issues": being careful about copyright issues and about content most often go hand in hand I believe. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Re. "... save the work these editors have done" – this isn't the issue, not at all. "Finding a better source", "checking Wikipedia content against better sources" and "updating content according to these sources if necessary" may require some extra work, but doesn't diminish the work already done. A subsidiary detail may be removed in some cases, but shouldn't have been in Wikipedia in the first place if there's no more solid source for it, and by the time you're done with the more solid sources I'm sure more essential content will have been added to the article too. This approach nearly doubled the size and number of references in the BWV 10 article in a few weeks: that may have been a "debacle" in terms of the ongoing FAC procedure, but for Wikipedia's content and reliability it was of course the opposite of a debacle. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Re. "The questions RS and possibly copyright violation should have been discussed in 2005, not in 2017" – this suggestion has been replied to before (e.g. [1], [2]), but since that earlier discussion is closed now, and a similar suggestion has come up again elsewhere (To say now, after 8 years, ...) I summarize:

• Rules have changes since Wikipedia's early days: best to keep current content and references in line with current guidance.
• Always reiterating the argument "that's how we did it yesterday (or the day before)", and keeping that argument up for several years in a row rather prevents an in-depth discussion of the desirability of the habit: that a less fortunate approach has been able to continue for such a long stretch of time is thus as much due to those fencing off an up-to-date assessment by the "that's how it was done before" argument.

Additionally, regarding the "...that these recordings don't come from the Bach Cantatas Website seems simply not true" argument:

• Yes, WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT is still current guidance: if and when the source where the information was retrieved from is no longer considered generally reliable it is best to obtain the information from a more solid source (and replace the reference). If the information can only be retrieved from a source which under the circumstances is no longer considered reliable then the information should probably not be in Wikipedia in the first place.

None of this modifies why we should or should not consider a source reliable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yunshui has basically said it all for me. There are two separate questions here: (1) is the site a reliable source? and (2) can we link to it?

1. I don't know the answer to this. It's obviously a valuable source, in that it gives a lot of information and and a lot of hints on where one could go for sources that confirm that information, but that in itself does not mean that it should be treated as reliable and used as a reference.
2. If we "know or reasonably suspect" that the site is hosting copyright content without proper permission from the copyright owners, we cannot link to those pages in any way, per WP:LINKVIO. That is a Wikipedia th blog with legal considerations, and there's no scope or wiggle room there for IAR or any other kind of argument to persuade us otherwise.

Two observations: not linking to a page does not prevent us from using it as a reference if it turns out to be reliable – there's no requirement to link a ref; and the simplest way to find out if the suspected copyvio content is hosted with permission is probably to write and ask. Oh, and if anyone wants add a citation for a chorale melody, they need only give the relevant page number in Riemenschneider. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Riemenschneider lists a few hundred hymn tunes set by Bach as four-part chorale. There are thousands of chorale melodies, and Bach set quite a few of these not mentioned by Riemenschneider (e.g. for organ as chorale prelude). Also Riemenschneider being published over 70 years ago it is not the most modern research: much has been published in reliable sources since, e.g. BWV 1084, 1089 and 1122–1126 are all four-part chorales by Bach only added to the BWV catalogue around half a century after Riemenschneider's publication. But I agree that bach-cantatas.com is rarely ideal as a reference in this context. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Naming the website in Wikipedia

Maybe a side-aspect but it came up in previous talk, and I saw a wide variety of formats when doing my checks yesterday. Acceptable formats to refer to the website (in mainspace I mean, not talking about short formats used in talk) are imho:

1. Bach Cantatas Website, linked: Bach Cantatas Website
2. bach-cantatas.com, linked: bach-cantatas.com

I have a slight preference for the first. When capitalised, without hyphens, "Website" should be the last word, not just "Bach Cantatas" while that could refer to almost any collection of Bach Cantatas. With a hyphen: best to use lower case I suppose, and always add ".com" to make clear one is referring to a website. Wouldn't italicise either expression, I don't think we do that for website names. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

In the first case, "website" would have to be lowercased, as it's not part of the name of the site. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Re. "... as it's not part of the name of the site" – on the contrary: it is. That's how the website spells its own name in big script on every page, with that capitalisation. There are a lot of other websites dedicated to Bach Cantatas, e.g. Dellal's with the translations or Mincham's jsbachcantatas.com, but there's only one Bach Cantatas Website. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Liner notes copyrights

Above it was contended "I am rather sure that the record labels know about the presentation of their liner notes" – afaics it isn't even all that relevant whether the record labels know. E.g. the Klaus Hofmann liner notes used as a reference in the BWV 10 article are published by the BIS record label. The text, as printed, ends with:

• ©Klaus Hofmann

In the case BIS would write a letter to Mr. Oron asking to take down the copyrighted text, Mr. Oron would feel under no obligation to do so (see http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Copyright-Policy.htm – BIS can not act "on behalf" of the copyright owner, BIS is only a licensee allowed to publish a text of which the copyright is "owned" by the author)

This approach is very different from Wikipedia's: it is no secret that if in Wikipedia something is encountered that "looks like" something found outside Wikipedia, without clear attribution of where the Wikipedia contributor found it and/or without clear notice that its copyright is cleared, the possibly copyright-infringing material is removed first: questions can be asked later, and the material can be brought back if a sufficient clearance is obtained.

In Wikipedia any contributor can place a {{copyvio}} template, and admins will act on it, including the deletion of possibly copyright-infringing earlier page revisions. For media files the procedure is often even simpler: if you upload an image without clear copyright statement admins will routinely act by complete removal of the questionable content from the site. No jumping through hoops as at the Bach Cantatas Website: if you are not the copyright owner or their legal representative, writing a letter complying to a list of formalisms, the copyrighted text can linger on that website forever. In Wikipedia a text or image copyrighted elsewhere can only be retained if any of the following applies, and, in each case, with a clear attribution of what applies:

• the material has come into the public domain – not the case for the Hofmann text
• fair use applies: an unabridged multi-page text, like the Hofmann liner notes, would usually not be eligible for this, and besides, presenting material under a fair use rationale requires at least a short explanation (Wikipedia requires it e.g. for any recording jacket image shown – Mr. Oron's website does not show any fair use rationale explanation for any of the dozens of recording jackets at the .../BWV10.htm page)
• the material is licensed under a compatible free license: not the case for the Hofmann liner notes
• the copyright owner licenses it with a written permission (in Wikipedia: not enough unless it is a general compatible free license, i.e. instant delete with no questions asked unless complying to the previous point – it is especially in this context that the lack of management of copyright material at the Oron site is apparent: they'll only take down after a formalistic request, the bare minimum of what is required by law, not as a precautionary measure until a copyright clearance is obtained)

In general the way copyrights are handled at the Bach Cantatas Website rather resemble YouTube copyright provisions (as someone alluded to above), which whatever way it is turned is a site Wikipedia considers "not reliable *unless* some pretty tough conditions are met", and that can only clear one page at a time (never the entire website). Yet, with all its strict copyright handling, Wikipedia does still not consider itself reliable. So I'd like to compare to another site I've used quite often in references on various Wikipedia pages:

• It's Copyright Notice contains: "To the best of our knowledge, we have received permission to post any text that is protected by copyright" (emphasis added) – which is completely opposite to the Bach Cantatas Website approach, which doesn't care too much about receiving permission prior to posting, and will only take down afterwards after jumping through some legalistic hoops. "To the best of our knowledge" also implies that bringing something to their attention (e.g. bringing it to their attention that, for instance, translation X is still under copyright according to source Y) will be enough for them to act while notifying them implies adding it to their "knowledge" – whether one is the copyright owner or not.
• Special copyright permissions (according to the fourth point above) are always clear: e.g. the four translations presented on this page not only list the respective copyright owners, but it is also explicitly stated for each one of them that a permission was obtained. By contrast, the Bach Cantatas Website leaves the reader "guessing" under what kind of a permission (or not) a copyrighted text or image may be included in the website – which rather indicates a lack of management of the copyrights situation.

Concluding, I'd say that the way copyrights are handled on M. Oron's site is fundamentally incompatible with the care Wikipedia displays towards copyrighted material. A careful handling of copyrights can be found on The LiederNet Archive website, which I used as an example above, and that is what makes this website copyright-wise generally (as opposed to exceptionally) acceptable to link to from Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

This is only true of some of the content on this site. The site is massive; some content is fine per our guides. I disagree in painting the site with one colour, the, we can't use the site, colour. We can use some of it and perhaps not all. And again, a sources is reliable per the specific content it supports. WP:RS does not refer to a general judgement of reliability, "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content."(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC))

Re. "WP:RS does not refer to a general judgement of reliability" – true, nonetheless it is totally within the remit of this noticeboard to make a distinction between sources that are generally not reliable (and reliable only in certain well-defined contexts) on the one side, and sources that are reliable in almost any context (without needing a special deliberation every time it is used although it may be unsuitable in certain contexts) on the other. As an example of the first the Daily Mail can be mentioned (the general Wikipedia-unreliability-with-a-few-exceptions of which was decided via this noticeboard), as an example of the second The New York Times would do (which doesn't mean that every bit of information in its Readers' letters section would necessarily be reliable).

Making a similar distinction for Bach-websites is perfectly feasible, e.g. the general unreliability of the bachonbach.com website was decided here (while an exception to use it nonetheless here was agreed upon). As an example of a generally reliable Bach-website www.bach-digital.de (see Bach Digital for its credentials) can be mentioned (which doesn't guarantee that every bit of info on that site is necessarily up to date scholarship – but generally it can be used as a reference in Wikipedia without questions needing to be asked).

I submit (from the discussion above) that bach-cantatas.com rather belongs to the first category, i.e. generally unreliable because of copyright issues, excessive detail not found in mainstream Bach-scholarship, etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. The remit of this Notice board is not to outlaw sources, and is not to define sources in a general way. Per the top of this page, "Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." It is to offer opinions on the reliability of specific sources per the specific content being referenced and those opinions are, well, opinion. Opinions cannot override the guideline itself as no opinion can override policy or guidelines. Opinion here is expected to offer further insights rather than become definitive. A few editors here do not control the sources on Wikipedia unless they are truly damaging and in any case this NB is not for identifying such sources. Its simple really; while we can, here, always identify concerns with a source we cannot limit its use.The source in question is a kind of catalogue useful for some material and not others. Its that simple.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC))

apologies the auto edit summary added the edit summary just as I saved. My edit summary should read, reply.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC))

Above, #Is Bach Cantatas Website a RS?, the general question was asked. That question was answered. Sorry if you don't like the answer. FYI, that answer was not "outlaw": all uses of the source where "it can be demonstrated the specific use is compliant with our sourcing guidelines" (as it was worded above) are of course permitted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Francis here: liner notes that are beyond basic details (album producer, performer credits, etc.) can be copyrights, and thus since 1976 have default copyright under US law. Wholesale inclusion of these liner notes is outside of fair use provisions that we would take as a copyright violation, so the site as a whole should not be linked to. That doesn't mean that one cannot reference the liner notes. There's a wink-wink-nudge-nudge factor that while you cannot link to the site, you still can make a WP:V-meeting reference for liner notes, so that the information previously supported by the site can be replaced by these. There won't be an external link but you likely now get a ISBN number for the album. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

That's more or less how it's handled at the BWV 10 page currently – that is, except that nor recordings nor their liner notes usually have ISBN numbers: they do however usually have a product number (BIS-1331 in the example I linked) and can often be linked to the record company's website for a dedicated page on the release (http://bis.se/conductors/suzuki-masaaki/js-bach-cantatas-vol23-bwv-10-93-178-107 in the same example). For the other liner notes used in the same article we were even more lucky: the record company (SDG, the Monteverdi Choir's own brand) hosts a pdf of the entire liner notes ([3]). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Masem. I understand that Francis is trying to eliminate the site as whole and I am saying as you are that this is not necessary. We can use some of this site - those aspects that fall in line with our RS guide. And Francis, this is not a matter of whether I like an answer or not; I could careless on one level. But I do care that our NB are used within the purview they were meant for - this is a matter of using this page properly. An editor asking a question does not change the purpose of this NB. Several editors here are saying as I am that this site is OK for limited use.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC))

Again, that answer, as given by others, and as supported by me, was not "outlaw": all uses of the source where "it can be demonstrated the specific use is compliant with our sourcing guidelines" (as it was worded above) are of course permitted.

Other than that, WP:RS perfectly allows to range sources along WP:USERGENERATED (which is one of the "generally not reliable with limited exceptions" categories) and other characteristics used for such assessments on that page. That is what this RSN noticeboard is for: to operate such deliberations. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that that site is "tainted" by the excessive use of copyright-taking (the liner notes). While it may be considered a RS by other sources, the problem is that the copyright issue isn't going to disappear. If we had an article on the site, that would be the only place appropriate to link to it (as we would something like the Pirate Bay). The use of the site, from what it seems, is to simply corroborate details of what is said by the liner notes of the published albums, which means we're just using the site as an intermediate, easy-to-access details that are still verifyable elsewhere, and as such we should avoid the copyright issue and just point to the actual published albums for the sourcing. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

What Masem said. Which is substantially in agreement with what I, Alexbrn and others said ten days ago. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Basically, it's citing a reproduction of the liner notes. I've cited to brochures I've seen reproduced on eBay, often archiving that page. It's not ideal, but I don't have an issue on the use of the Bach website in this way.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: copyright is about the right someone has (or has not) to reproduce ("copy") material that is copyright-protected. Could you give an example of where you linked to copyright-protected material on eBay from Wikipedia's mainspace? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: ... or a reference that mentions eBay for copyrighted material one can have access to via that site? I don't think that is possible within Wikipedia's copyright provisions, by analogy (and because that is what WP:ELNEVER literally says in a "no exceptions allowed – ever" wording) we shouldn't do it for bach-cantatas.com either I suppose. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

On further recollection, I cited to them, not linked to them. .--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Redux

Can we summarize this subsection by saying that links to copyrighted material on the bach-cantatas.com website were never allowed (per WP:ELNEVER), and that that standard will be upheld in Wikipedia from now on?

Further, I'd like to return to the topic I mentioned higher up: how are we going to take this up practically? I'd deplore a blunt removal of mainspace content currently referenced to the bach-cantatas.com website. Hundreds of articles are affected if we no longer consider that website a generally reliable source.

I propose we cooperate: maybe in a first pass check which content can be safely referenced to the site. For Lutheran hymn related material I suppose content and references can often be vetted "as is" for the time being. At least that seems less urgent to remedy. For the liner notes there seem to be chiefly two types that are most often used:

1. Gardiner / Bach Cantata Pilgrimage liner notes: these can usually safely be linked to the Soli Deo Gloria website. As the liner notes original on that website often has different page numbers than the bootleg of the same at the bach-cantatas website some page numbers in references usually additionally need to be updated.
2. BIS records liner notes (Suzuki recordings): Wikipedia's mainspace should not display links to the bootlegs of these liner notes at the bach-cantatas website: that doesn't mean that the content of these liner notes can't be used as reliable source (see e.g. previous discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 226#Hofmann liner notes in BWV 10 article): I propose to link to the dedicated web page at the BIS website in the reference instead.

For the discographies a "light" solution would be to provide the record companies' reference code of the recording, in which case another reference (like the bach-cantatas.com discography page) is no longer needed. A bit more work is to provide OCLC numbers, BnF references, and other kinds of librarian's resources. Some data in the discography lists can not be confirmed by these sources: these should probably better be pruned than kept with a reference to the bach-cantatas website.

As for timing: I'd address these issues in FA articles first, then GA articles, etc, ... until also the start class articles have been checked. This may take months (or more). Who is in on such scheme to address the issues that are probably going to result from this RSN? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Cited elsewhere

I don't know where to put an observation, so start a new header: Among the "reliable sources" left in the article is the Bach Cantata Page by the University of Alberta, https://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~wfb/cantatas/10.html. At the bottom, it links to the Bach Cantatas Website. If that respected source links to it, why should we not do the same? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

https://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~wfb/cantatas/10.html is a WP:SPS currently not used as a source or reference at the BWV 10 article. It is listed in the External links section. Whether or not it is suitable as external link can be discussed at WP:ELN (I have my doubts but that is not a topic for this noticeboard). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

A university web site is not necessarily a SPS. It may also host academic pages and we can assume those pages have the oversight of academics in that field. This looks to me like an academic page as it is not about the university itself. Once again we cannot generalize.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC))

Re. "A university web site is not necessarily a SPS" – indeed, no, but in this case it is (and my comment applied to this webpage in particular, not to university websites in general). Please check the source before commenting. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't agree with you... and please assume competency as in, yes I did look at the site. I am suggesting the page linked to is in line with more of an academic addition. to a university site.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)):

No, the website in question are a computer scientist's personal pages. He doesn't list a single Bach-related topic among his publications – this academic is outside his stated field of expertise when including Bach-related content on his personal pages, and thus would not pass WP:SPS on that topic. Besides, all the content of these pages can be (and is currently) referenced to other sources, at least one of which is a no-threshold website. As well that website (Dellal's) and the Jones/Dürr source (covering the same and more) have the advantage of offering English translation, where the academic's personal cantata pages are almost exclusively in German. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I see. Its a university web site hosting a personal web page.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC))

In this version which I looked at, and also the latest, it was used as a reference, look for University of Alberta. - When I refer to it, I name it Bischof, after the author. It offers a easy-to-understand listing of the movements and their scoring, which I like for the convenience of a reader. The Dürr-Jones book has more or less the same scoring but interspersed with the text: less convenient, also some pages are not visible online. I reference to both. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem to discuss it as a source: it can't be used per WP:SPS. But that problem has indeed been solved a few weeks ago for the BWV 10 article: the content was kept, expanded and referenced to other more suitable sources. The Bischof source can also not be used for claims that reliable sources refer to the bach-cantatas.com website: the Bischof source is not a reliable source (in the WP:V sense), per WP:SPS. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry that I don't understand. In that last version - you list Bischof (Alberta, with the University name) as a source, just like Dürr-Jones, no? That's what I saw (concluding that you find Bischof reliable - or would not use it), and commented. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, should have checked, I confused with the Grob source which had been moved to the external links section for similar reasons. fixed now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration

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

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

& (for comparison)

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

Heat Street

The use of this source has been in contention in discussions at Carl Benjamin and Pepe the Frog - is Heat Street, a website launched in April 2016 a reliable source for factual content, or merely for RS:OPINION stuff? PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Insertcleverphrasehere, who stated that it is the right wing equivalent to the apparently partisan Guardian. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Heat Street, while a WSJ spinoff, doesn't seem to have the same journalistic integrity as WSJ, and I would avoid it outside its use for opinion. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone have any examples of fabricated/made up stories being published by Heat Street? While a partisan source, I don't see a lot of difference between it and partisan left wing sources in terms of quality and journalistic integrity. In a lot of cases, I find that they are often the most comprehensive source for internet nerd culture stuff (such as in the above articles) as their contributors tend to be a bit more internet savvy than other outlets. They might be less reliable for political stuff, I am not sure. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 18:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Their handling of mistakenly-run articles and retractions is not what we expect from reliable sources, and it says a lot about their fact-checking and accuracy.

In September 2016, they published "No Hillary, Pepe the Frog is Not a Racist Meme" about the Pepe the Frog meme. Five days later, they issued the retration "Hillary Clinton Is Absolutely Right, ‘Pepe’ Meme Is Antisemitic – An Apology" written by co-founder Louise Mensch. (She is no longer with the site.) In it, Mensch wrote: "That piece was inaccurate. We apologize for publishing it. The piece was floated and rejected in a story meeting yet somehow, at high volume, this one slipped through the net." (How a site could accidentally publish an article that had specifically been rejected is beyond me.) Later in the piece, she wrote: "I have discussed this matter with our contributor and showed him the evidence. He offered to delete the original post but we decided it is more in the spirit of No Safe Spaces to admit our own foul-ups." Sure enough, an Editor's Note was added to the original piece. But sometime later the Editor's Note was removed from the version of the article currently on heatst.com and Louise Mensch's apology/retraction was pulled from the site. So is Pepe the Frog a racist meme or not? There was "evidence" pointing to yes, but then it was removed. It's tough to say what Heat Street's official editorial position is.

Also, unlike many (most?) other reliable sources, they don't differentiate between opinion and fact-based reporting. For example, articles like "SJW vs. SJW: SJW Mad That SJW New York Times Writer Praised SJW Who Wrote SJW Book" get in plenty of digs with lines like "social justice warriors will always be outraged about something". There's no indication if they consider this real journalism or a gossipy opinion piece. Woodroar (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, they did issue a retraction when the preponderance of sources were agreeing at the time that Pepe was a 'racist meme', the issuing of retractions is a good thing, and indicates a reputation for accuracy and fact checking (WP:NEWSORG). Note now that the Heat Street article in question largely agrees in content with what our own article says about the racism of Pepe the Frog based on current sources (i.e. some pepe memes are racist, and others aren't), perhaps they decided in hindsight that a retraction was not necessary (If this is the case though, I still find it odd that there is no editor's note about the retraction of the retraction on the article). The second source you mentioned, about SJWs also largely agrees with what our article on the subject says about the term (i.e. reputation for overly politically correct views). Heat street might have a right wing veiwpoint and perspective of these issues, but neither of these sources demonstrate printing of false material IMO, they are well within the range of legitimate views on the topics in question (just like sources on the other side like Mother Jones or Salon might have a reasonably strong left leaning viewpoint on similar issues). Partisan sources are not really a major issue, so long as they are not supporting conspiracy theories, or printing false material without fact checking (i.e. Infowars), it is just a matter of maintaining proper WP:WEIGHT of sources in our articles. Anyone have anything else that might demonstrate that Heat Street is not a reliable source? — InsertCleverPhraseHere 21:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The initial retraction is the only reliable-source-worthy move they made here. Publishing a rejected article with errors apparent to the editor and later the author, pulling the retraction, and republishing the original article (with, again, apparent errors) are not hallmarks of fact-checking and accuracy. (Seriously, for a source that's supposed to be "internet savvy" to play games with retractions suggests that they really don't know how the internet works.) It's also misleading to say that the Heat Street article reflects what our Pepe the Frog article says. Which version of that article? With or without the Editor's Note stating the article is wrong? Our article doesn't say that Pepe is "now a symbol of the Nazi Jew-baiting of the alt-right" or characterize the alt-right as "actual racism" as the offline retraction does. Is it not cherrypicking to reference one article yet ignore a contrary article from the same publisher?

As for their bias goes, the issue isn't with their partisanship, but with their lack of distinction between analysis of facts and mere gossip. Are we supposed to treat conclusions like SJWs are always mad, the left are puritans, criticized game devs retreat to alcohol, and making gold isn't what MMOs are about as evidence of hard-hitting journalism? When referencing them, how do we tell what's factual and what's hyperbole? Woodroar (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I would say opinions are allowed to be wrong. We would never count it against The New York Times if their opinion section published a column railing against climate science. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

No. Heat Street does not have a good reputation for fact-checking an accuracy. It may be usable for its own opinions, but not for statements on facts -- at least not for most subjects. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

It's easy to point to mess ups by any RS that is widely used, InsertCleverphrase has it right in the way such mess ups are handled, is a good indication of what that source is. Arkon (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Arkon Its not me, its in our own guidelines (bottom bit of WP:NEWSORG), all sources make mistakes, how they handle those mistakes, and how often is what matters.

@Rhododendrites what made you come to the conclusion that they have do not have such a reputation? The New York Times re-used quotes given to heatstreet here, The Washington Post cites Heat Street's sleuthing on a fake news story [here]. The Post also examines reporting by heatstreet that led Trump to believe he was being wiretapped here. Digiday talks about them positively here. As does Business Insider here. NPR reported positively about their reporting here, indeed NPR says that "The BBC and The Guardian in January confirmed much of Mensch's report and built on it.", referring to a post on Heat Street, indicating that the BBC[4] and the Gaurdian[5] also consider Heat Street to be a reliable source. Fox News is considering taking on their head editor to run Foxnews.com, as reported by the Wall Street Journal. Regardless of how you feel about their conservative leanings, it is pretty clear that they are taken very seriously as a reliable source by other, more established, reliable news sources. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 04:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC) Pinging all other users who were involved in a similar previous discussion about Heat Street's reliability Mark Schierbecker, Grayfell, Jeff5102. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 04:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the first comment made by Masem in this thread. Sagecandor (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'd like to see a bit more comment here, as only Woodroar's comment had any sources and/or information indicating the reasons behind his arguments (and has not responded to my reply to thier comment). Sagecandor, saying that you agree with Masem's comment above still doesn't indicate why you or he/she has that view ("It doesn't have journalistic integrity" isn't an argument unless you demonstrate that the statement is true somehow).

Most importantly, I'd like to have some input on the specific issue this was raised because of. Specifically:

Is this Heat Street source appropriate for use in the Kekistan section of the Pepe the Frog article. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 05:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Heat Street is overheated. If something only appears in HS, that's a red flag. If it's also in better sources, use the better sources. Alexbrn (talk) 05:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT or are there some reasons why? (I literally just asked for substantive arguments instead of just opinions). — InsertCleverPhraseHere 05:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Because it's a commentary site pushing its own line. We don't use such sites for assertions of fact (except for the trivial, in which case sourcing it better should be a cinch anyway). Of course HS is reliable for its own view - everything is - but that would be a questions of NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Bias alone cannot be a reason for disqualifying a source, we have a policy on this (WP:BIASED) and it states: "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." You are wrong when you state that we don't use such sources for assertions of fact, WP:BIASED makes it clear that it depends on the normal requirements for reliable sources (this discussion), and that attribution may be necessary but is not required universally. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 06:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I would argue that Heat Street's perspective (POV/Bias) on Kekistan is essential to fully understand all points of view on the subject. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 06:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

You are selectively picking at bits of WP:BIASED in general, I am talking specifically about such sources as Heat Street, a commentary site pushing its own line. Avoid it in general and never use it for asserting (non-trivial) facts: that's my view. I'm not sure why you ask if you don't like the answer. (BTW, if you think WP:BIASED allows us to WP:ASSERT biased opinion outwith a context which makes it plain what it is, you're in for a shock). Alexbrn (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

"I would argue ..." <- that's the problem right there. Does any RS "argue" this or are you engaging in original research based on primary sources? We should be reflected accepted knowledge on topics, not confecting our own. Alexbrn (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I literally spoke about nearly every sentence in WP:BIASED, directly quoting the first paragraph and discussing the implications of the second paragraph piece by piece. For highly polarized topics it can be essential to use biased sources because nearly all of the sources are biased, and the only way to build a coherent report about it is to cite opposing views. I am not saying we don't need attribution, but it is not essential in all cases and depends on context (per WP:BIASED). We also don't need an RS to tell us to include something or not in a WP article (this assertion is absolutely ludicrous); that comes down to editorial judgement, which should be used in accordance with WP guidelines. To avoid any confusion: "I would argue" that in my editorial judgement, "Heat Street's perspective on Kekistan is essential to fully understand all points of view on the subject."

Your view; "Avoid [biased sources] in general and never use [them] for asserting (non-trivial) facts", seems to be not firmly rooted in WP guidelines. You could use this justification to absolutely eviscerate the sourcing of nearly every article on polarized political topics, that's why it isn't policy. If you are only talking about Heat Street in the above quote, then it is even worse, as you haven't given any justification for such a view on this particular source and you are essentially asking it to be treated just like the Daily Mail without having to use an RfC to ban it. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 07:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

In Wikipedia an WP:ASSERTion is a non-attributed statement. We assert facts. Your selective quotation from WP:BIASED is not policy, and WP:BIASED itself is not policy. However NPOV is policy. I haven't said Heat Street should be "banned". Anyway, you're obviously here to argue a position rather than seek views so continuing seems futile. Alexbrn (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:BIASED is a content guideline, but WP:NPOV says roughly the same thing about biased sources, so I am not sure where you are going with this. In any case, we seem to be getting off topic slightly, I agree.

You don't have to question my motives, I stated them above. I'm here to answer the question: "Is this Heat Street source appropriate for use in the Kekistan section of the Pepe the Frog article." More specifically: under what conditions? If you guys agree that it is necessary to use attribution, fine, but the source is necessary for the section; when the source was removed by Peter the Fourth, he left all the info cited from the source, going so far as to say "I have no doubt that information can be found for some of the content which would be unsourced without Heat Street- removing it all would not support the encyclopedia. We just need to be less lazy and find better sources than a partisan rag." However, outside of numerous blog posts this info really hasn't been published anywhere else, especially not in such a comprehensive review of 'Kekistan' specifically (other sources have talked extensively about Pepe the Frog, and the Cult of Kek, but not Kekistan specifically in great detail). I agree with him that it doesn't serve the encyclopedia to remove the info.

Potential solution: Perhaps for trivial facts from the Heat Street article we agree that it does not require attribution, and for controversial or opinion based stuff from the article we use it with attribution only. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 07:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

How do we define trivial? If it truly is trivial, why can't other sources be found? PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Trivial such as the bit about Sargon of Akkad being the one that brought it to the mainstream (already in the Kekistan section but unsourced), use of "Shadilay" as part of the meme/political movement (already in the Kekistan section but unsourced), Kekistan being a portmanteau of “Kek” and the names of central Asian countries that end in the suffix “-stan", etc (already in the Kekistan section but unsourced). Simply defining it as a "political meme and online movement" (which is currently unsourced as well) is probably 'trivial' as well.

Non-trivial and opinion based would include stuff relating to defining Kekistan in opposition to other sources: "Described as some publications, and even the SPLC as 'Neo-Nazi social engineering,' they are anything but. You should know what Kekistan actually is, and what it means to be a supporter of the group—not just what other people disingenuously purport it to be... As with any popular online movement, there are undoubtedly some racist trolls within its ranks, but Kekistan is at its core a politically incorrect reaction to the suppression of free speech. The enemies of Kekistan are social justice warriors and proponents of political correctness—oppressors of the Kekistani people, in other words."

If it is truly trivial why can't other sources be found? Good question, perhaps there are a finite number of journalists with a finite amount of time on their hands that don't want to waste their time covering a topic that someone else already scooped? Perhaps they'd rather spend their time copying the recent clickbaity title article instead to get their viewcount up rather than an article that only a relatively small group of people are interested in? (hundreds of thousands, based on youtube view counts of videos on the topic, but still small in internet terms). — InsertCleverPhraseHere 08:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree that attributing the mainstreaming of something some people describe as a 'white supremacist meme' to somebody is trivial. This is BLP content, and we really should be more stringent with our sources, not less. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I can agree on that particular point. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 13:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

To come at it from a different angle- if it's only ever mentioned on Heat Street, maybe it's just not notable enough to include in this encyclopedia. We don't include everything. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion is rather hard to follow because it does not tell us what Heat Street is supposed to be used for, and which article in that publication is to be used for this unspecified content. These directions are given at the top of the page. If people simply followed directions, much pointless bickering could be avoided. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I tried to address this issue above, but it doesn't seem to have had much success in distilling the conversation into a coherent discussion. I didn't want to call out Peter on this, but it is a little unreasonable to expect people to go and read two other discussions on other pages before commenting. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 06:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Carl Benjamin and Pepe the Frog are the articles. They are listed in the first comment. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

1) I concur with Woodroar's assessment above. 2) Heat Street is not good not delineating the difference between reported facts and their opinions. 3) The manner of Mensch leaving calls their whole editorial process into question. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Heads up: Heat Street announced this week it is folding into Marketwatch. I'm a Heat Street contributor - or was until this week. I'll probably come back to comment here again... right after I finish polishing my résumé. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Croatian presidential election, 2014–15 and Opinion polling for the next Croatian parliamentary election polls

I have recently got into an edit war (that I have stopped in the meantime) with user Tuvixer when I tried to add polls made by 2x1 komunikacije, which were the only one to correctly predict the winner of the election. The polls are usually published on direktno.hr portal (for example: http://direktno.hr/direkt/anketa-2x1-komunikacije-hdz-biljezi-pad-popularnosti-most-i-hns-narasli-81673/ ), but are also mentioned in other media:

• Večernji list (one of our major newspapers): https://www.vecernji.hr/vijesti/ni-hdz-ni-sdp-nece-imati-vecinu-bez-koaliranja-1015326
• Jutarnji list (one of our major newspapers): http://izbori.jutarnji.hr/istrazivanje-agencije-2x1-komunikacije-domoljubna-koalicija-je-u-prednosti-pred-sdp-om-i-partnerima-pogledajte-u-kolikoj/
• Slobodna Dalmacija (major newspaper in southern part of Croatia): http://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr/stil/gastro/clanak/id/278185/josip-jovic-lijevi-pretekli-desne
• index.hr (probably the largest news portal in our country): http://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak/anketa-2x1-komunikacija-u-iii-izbornoj-jedinici-pobjedjuje-sdp-ali-ukupno-je-bolji-hdz/827601.aspx
• dnevno.hr (smaller than index, but popular among right-leaning population): http://www.dnevno.hr/vijesti/komentari/karamarko-premocno-pobjeduje-17-travnja-na-izborima-za-predsjednika-hdz-913489/

Our whole discussion can be seen at Talk:Croatian presidential election, 2014–15. Also, I saw that he reverted all mentions of the said survey in Next Croatian parliamentary election article (I HAVE NOT edited that article at all), without even discussing it, and even changing the introduction to include only polls published by TV chanells (see here: [6]). He described direktno.hr as "right wing antisemitic and pro fascist tabloid" and told me to "stop citing them". While I can't deny them being slightly to the right, they are far from being extreme. Their workers include Davor Gjenero (independent liberal, also works with Al Jazeera and is a frequent guest on HRT - national TV), Tomislav Marčinko (centre-right, worked on national TV and is one of the founders of NovaTV - one of three major TV houses in Croatia), Gordan Malić (also often a guest in other media) and other journalists and analysts with experience in major newspapers and TV houses. What I am trying to prove is that the polls from 2x1 komunikacije should be included, as they are frequently cited by other portals and newspapers and not only direktno.hr. Tuxiver provided two main "sources" against the polling agency:

• Well I am sorry to inform you but my neighbor is a professor of statistics specialized in opinion polling and surveys. I have asked him multiple times if I should look at the 2*1 komunikacije polls as relevant and he said and I quote "They don't make scientific surveys, you better make up the numbers yourself and then say that it is an opinion poll".

So, we have an unsourced opinion of an unknown "professor" (hardly a reliable "source").

• [7]

A critique written by marginal far-left activist, who seems to forgot that other major polls from the time period when 2x1 agencija conducted it excluded Sinčić completely. Plus, the critique was written before the second round, in which only 2x1 komunikacije predicted the correct winner (comparison of polls can be seen here: [8])

So, I am kindly asking the members here to state their opinion on the polling agency. StjepanHR (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: Courtesy notification to the noticeboard of prior external discussion at the article talk page, a DRN case (closed with a refferal here) and the talk page of a DRN volunteer. TheDragonFire (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Although nobody has yet replied, I will do it because I forgot to add one thing. Tuvixer also criticized 2x1 komunikacije on the basis that their founder is a HDZ supporter. Well, he surely is, but Agan Begić of Promocija plus is also pretty outspoken in his pro-People's Coalition and left-wing position (he supports Ivo Josipović - coincidentally a candidate in the elections that are a part of this dispute, Tatjana Šimac Bonačić, Nada Turina-Đurić, Andrej Poropat, etc., who are/were all from the People's Coalition): https://www.facebook.com/agan.begic . And the owner of the third agency, Ipsos Puls, Srđan Dumičić is accused by his opponents for connections with People's Coalition ([9]). To be honest, each of the three accuses the other two, so maybe we should remove all three polls (and delete the page with polls) if criticising from the oposition is a relevant source :) StjepanHR (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Could someone, please, give his/her opinion about this. Not that I am impatient, but two days seems to be a long wait time on this board... StjepanHR (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I just found out that even Transparency International used 2x1 komunikacije as a relevant polling agency for our last elections: [10] . On a side note, they missed the results ([11]) for only seven (7) seats, compared to nineteen (19) missed by Promocija Plus and twelve (12) missed by Hendal. Ipson (not listed by T.I.) missed the results by fourteen (14) seats. Week later 2x1 performed worse, but still equal to Hendal and better than the other two. StjepanHR (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Please, for anyone involved, read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=787656457&oldid=787610655

The owner of 2*1 komunikacije was a candidate in parliamentary elections in Croatia for the largest center right party in Croatia HDZ, if that is not unreliable or biased, then what is?--Tuvixer (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

He resigned from his position before the election: http://www.fininfo.hr/Poduzece/Pregled/2x1-komunikacije/Detaljno/241214 StjepanHR (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Weight of multiple sources?

If two sources are both considered reliable, and due to policy we can only list one, do we only list the source that is the "industry standard"? Something similar is happening here. SharkD  Talk  14:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Which policy would limit us to only one? WP:NOTPAPER. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Its not a reliability issue, its including a review aggregator as part of a template. There is no policy issue with using multiple reliable sources within an article, but if discussion on a template is to limit the included fields to 1 or 2 of the most significant/well known, thats the way it goes. Templates/infoboxes try not to include *everything* because it quickly leads to bloat. The reason other aggregators are not being included in the template is that they add nothing that is not already covered by metacritic - the de-facto industry go-to in this area. Opencritic is unliklely to be used in an article otherwise, because its an aggregator, not a source itself. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a reliability issue, as there have been numerous complaints among RSs that Metacritic is unfair, and that OpenCritic is a better alternative.[12][13][14] SharkD  Talk  05:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Not really. There is criticism that due to opaqueness, metacritics aggregate rating is unfair - primarily due to their weighting different critics reviews. This is an absurd criticism for *us* to level, since we weight sources differently as a matter of policy. However for better or worse, metacritic is the industry standard, to the extent that games publishers have in their contracts with developers that bonuses get paid when they reach a set metacritic rating. Until opencritic reaches that level of acceptedness, its not going to supplant metacritic anytime soon. Opencritic bitching about a competitor they are trying to oust is not exactly a reliable source on metatcritics reliability anyway. They have a vested interest in rubbishing it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Increase in cow-protection related violence since 2014

In the article Animal protection-related violence, I have added the following passage:

Recently there has been an increase in cow vigilantism in India, especially after Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government came to power in 2014.

To support this passage, I have cited these sources:

• New York Times: "Cow protection groups, known as gau rakshak, have proliferated in recent years, since the Bharatiya Janata Party of Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power. These vigilante groups have carried out violent attacks on Muslims and, more rarely, low-caste Hindus suspected of slaughtering cows."
• Reuters: "Hindu hardliners and cow vigilante groups have been increasingly asserting themselves since Modi's Hindu nationalist government came to power in 2014."
• The Sydney Morning Herald: "Ever since Narendra Modi and his Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power in 2014, Hindu cow vigilantes have been in the news."
• Deutsche Welle "Many observers believe that the extremists were boosted by the election of Indian nationalist Narendra Modi in 2014."
• Huffington Post: "Such attacks on religious minorities have increased across India since Narendra Modi was elected prime minister in 2014, backed by the Hindu nationalist BJP."
• Asia Times: "Ever since Narendra Modi became India’s Prime Minister three years ago, attacks from so-called “cow vigilantes” have been increasing, with the victims mostly Muslims or lower caste Hindus."
• BBC News: "Vigilante cow protection groups have mushroomed. They claim to have a strong network of informers and say they "feel empowered" because of the ruling Hindu nationalist BJP government in Delhi."

Ms Sarah Welch has argued that the above sources are "primary news sources" and not reliable enough to make this statement as written above. I understand that these sources are not as reliable as a journal article or a book, but given they are talking about recent events (post-2014), most of the sources on this topic will be newspapers and magazines. The discussion is here.VR _talk 14:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Vice regent misrepresents my concerns and the issue, though correctly acknowledges my comment about primary news sources. I have proposed the following alternate which primary sources support:

Media groups state that cow vigilantism in India have increased after Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government came to power in 2014.[55][56][7] Many cow vigilante groups say they feel "empowered" by the victory of the Hindu nationalist BJP in the 2014 election.[39][54] The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is another Hindu nationalist group active, with a history of cow protection-related vigilantism.[39]

I object to the following and related paragraphs Vice regent has created:

Recently there has been an increase in cow vigilantism in India, especially after Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government came to power in 2014.[65][66][67][68][8][69][excessive citations] The frequency and severity of cow-related violence have been described as "unprecedented".[70] (...)

The version by Vice regent includes conclusions and statements, relying on primary news sources / opinion columns, that secondary sources / peer reviewed scholarship do not support and contradict. WP:Primary sources can be reliable but need care in their use. If we use opinions in primary sources, we must quote exact and attribute the opinion to the source, not imply that it is generally accepted statement or mainstream conclusion based on secondary sources. We can mention post-2014 recent events, but any analysis, causal connections, anthropological/religious and historic claims need secondary sources. Please see page 161 of the Judith Walsh source, for example, for evidence why the opinion articles / newspaper articles such as Al Jazeera / Atimes.com / etc are not reliable source of history / anthropology / etc. Please also see this section for further concerns and comments on RS and NPOV issues created by Vice regent edits in that article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

MSW said above that "The version by Vice regent includes conclusions and statements, relying on primary news sources / opinion columns, that secondary sources / peer reviewed scholarship do not support and contradict" (emphasis added). Can you provide any secondary sources that actually "contradict" the content I have added?VR _talk 17:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Read the reply above for the link with the page number! I already explained this earlier on the article's talk page. See the other peer reviewed scholarly sources I have added for more. I can't help if you refuse to read the sources, or keep cherrypicking sources or content guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

page 161 of the Judith Walsh source talks about cow-protection violence happening the 1800s. It doesn't contradict (or even talk about) cow-protection violence increasing after 2014. I don't see where the contradiction is.VR _talk 02:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

It does, and it is strange that you don't see the Walsh discussion on the severity of 1880s and 1890s cow-related riots. See the Thursby source at pages 79-88, and other sources in the article for more. You wrote above "given they are talking about recent events (post-2014), most of the sources on this topic will be newspapers and magazines". But for anything beyond the simple quoting of basic info about alleged attackers, alleged victims and alleged motives from primary news sources, why can't we wait a few months or few years till peer-reviewed RS – e.g. journal articles or books by academic publishers – become available? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

"why can't we wait a few months or few years..." Because that's not how wikipedia works!! If there was a notable event yesterday, then wikipedia will have an article on it today. Most articles on recent events have absolutely ZERO books or journal articles as sources and rely entirely on newspapers. Take 2017 Sichuan landslide or 2017 Bahawalpur explosion, for example.VR _talk 07:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - "Unprecedented" is either rhetorical, in which case it has no reason to be duplicated on Wikipedia, or it is a historical claim, for which news sources are not reliable. In either case, it should be thrown out. Other than that, there is not much here that is of relevance to RSN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Indeed, that is exactly my point, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

So this can be resolved by removing one word... "unprecedented"? Blueboar (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

...and similar rhetorical / historical claim language or words! That is what the replacement para tried to do, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Wait a second. The "unprecedented" part is actually sourced to a journal article in Politics, Religion & Ideology, which is a scholarly source. Kautilya himself called it a "good quality" source. @Blueboar: The use of the term "unprecedented" was only one of MSW's objections. The other objection is whether we can state the following sentence as fact: "Recently there has been an increase in cow vigilantism in India, especially after Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government came to power in 2014." VR _talk 00:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

If the rest of the article is sourced from journal articles, well founded books, etc. - qualifying the statement by "some news reports" or "some media groups" would be in order - to differentiate that this isn't as well founded in comparison to the rest of the article due to this being a "currentish" event count.Icewhiz (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Most of the article is not from journal articles and the contemporary cow-protection violence can't be expected to be from journal articles, because it documents very recent events.VR _talk 00:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Icewhiz. The article is in a flux! in this version, if I counted right, the majority is peer reviewed RS. As Kautilya3 hints above that we need reliable sources, and the talk page discussion suggests the same, despite some opposition, we are trying to get more peer reviewed, high quality RS into the article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The sources Ms Sarah Welch is referring to are about facts that have occurred long ago. For example, Hinduism's stance on the cows, the Cow Protection Movement of the 1800s, the legislation of various Indian states with regards to cattle slaughter etc. But the truth of the matter is that there are very few, if any, books or journal articles on recent cow protection killings. And one of the journal article I found did call the violence "unprecedented", something that MSW removed in her edit of the material.VR _talk 14:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Then attribute the "unprecedented" to whomever said it - don't put in WP's voice. It needs to be qualified - unless you have actual studies and this is a clearly established fact accepted by all major researchers. Recent events are indeed mainly covered by news articles - the question is how reliable they are in relation to a wide-spread phenomena and measuring its rate (and historical references - news sources don't always look 200 years back for comparison). Some of your sources only claim that "groups have proliferated" - but not that actual acts have. It seems from quick look at these sources that you could easily say "multiple media reports indicated an increase is cow protection violence" - but it would be best to qualify this.Icewhiz (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Just want to clarify that there are two claims being discussed here. #1 is that violence increased after election of BJP (2014) #2 is that current level of violence is "unprecedented". Obviously claim #2 requires a more scholarly source that can look back at history, whereas for claim #1 current newspapers should suffice.

Discussion on claim #2: "unless you have actual studies and this is a clearly established fact accepted by all major researchers." What do you mean by studies? When historians write history they don't actually conduct scientific studies they conduct literature reviews etc. Secondly, how do I go about proving something is accepted by "all major" researchers? If by that you mean, that no major researcher disagrees, then yeah I agree. And in this case, please note that there really aren't many journal articles on this matter, I have found a grand total of 2 (one of which I'm still trying to get access to because it was published only a month ago).

Discussion on claim #1: "historical references - news sources don't always look 200 years back for comparison". But the sources are not making claims about 200 years ago. They are only making claims about the last 5-10 years. Would you say that BBC News, New York Times, Reuters etc are reliable sources for making claims about cow protection violence in the last 5-10 years?

"Some of your sources only claim that "groups have proliferated" - but not that actual acts have." Ok, then we can say "Recently there has been an increase in cow vigilante groups in India, especially after...". That's merely a difference in wording.

Ultimately the issue is that are newspapers reliable sources for recent events? I very strongly argue yes. If newspapers weren't reliable sources then we wouldn't be able to write articles on recent events.VR _talk 03:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Erik Wemple of The Washington Post

I'm not writing about a particular content dispute; rather, I'm hoping to solicit thoughtful feedback on an issue that has come up a several times recently: whether articles by Erik Wemple of The Washington Post (archive here) are generally reliable for the facts they contain. Of course WaPo is by and large quite reliable, and WP:NEWSBLOG suggests that Wemple's pieces shouldn't be deemed unreliable simply because they're part of what WaPo calls a "blog," but the problem here is that WaPo at least formally categorizes his work as opinion, but it often contains what appears to be factual, investigative reporting in addition to commentary. Every article written by Wemple (e.g. [15]) is designated as "Opinion" but says in Wemple's byline, "Erik Wemple writes the Erik Wemple blog, where he reports and opines on media organizations of all sorts.") To me, the fact that WaPo designated Wemple's blog as "opinion" suggests that it's held to a lower standard of review by the editorial staff--but how low?

Another, closely related issue here is whether Wemple's pieces can be used as indication of a Wikipedia article's notability. Wemple often spotlights media issues that haven't received a lot of public attention, so this issue can be pivotal in whether a media organization or journalist merits a Wikipedia article. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions for posting and give some specific content (multiple examples if you wish); this NB is not for general queries. Alexbrn (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually it is often used for general inquiries, despite the instructions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Please post queries according to the instructions for this noticeboard. Alexbrn (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

DrF's question here is a useful inquiry, and gives sufficient context and explanation so that discussion would be fruitful, plus the question is sufficiently defined/narrow. I don't consider this a "general" query that we frown upon. In any case, WP:IAR. Neutrality^talk 17:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The notability question is fair - an in-depth article, even if opinion, given by Wemple as an employee of the Post would be a secondary source on the topic. It wouldn't alone be sufficient for notability per the GNG but it helps.

As for any facts, I would stick with the usual: if they give a "fact" that seems controversial or cannot be corroborated, it should be either omitted from here (depending on its nature) or attributed towards Wemple/the WaPost. Uncontroversial facts or those that can be checked from other sources would be fine to include. --MASEM (t) 17:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

You would have to provide an example. Policy says that news reports in reliable publications are reliable sources, opinions are not and it has nothing to do with the writer. Opinion pieces do not have the same standard of verification, such as double-sourcing. Also, columnists generally are writing about things already covered in the news, but bringing their personal perspective. OTOH there are news articles that contain opinion which are reliable sources. TFD (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

TFD, I did provide an example, but here's an even better one that was on the front page of washingtonpost.com yesterday. It reads mostly like a news article, with a couple of paragraphs of commentary thrown in at the end. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I used up my free WaPo articles for the month, but it says "opinion" hence it fails rs. The article is titled, "Three CNN Employees Resign over Retracted Story on Russia Ties." If it is important, then there will be news articles about it, like this article in CNN. TFD (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I generally agree with Masem. Erik Wemple is a notable media critic, and so his view is noteworthy on issues of media criticism. The question is whether the material requires in-text attribution or not. I think this depends on context: I would attribute any commentary that he writes to him, but we need not attribute straightforward factual material that is not unlikely to be contested to Wemple. To give a fictional example: if Wemple says "Two employees from the Daily Bugle were fired last month for an ethical lapse" that wouldn't require attribution. But if Wemple writes a column labeled opinion and writes "This is the most embarrassing blunder in the history of the Daily Bugle," then I would attribute it. Neutrality^talk 17:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Haaretz headlines

1. Source: Sommer, Allison Kaplan (May 17, 2017). "Explained: 'Alt-right' Using Cruel Seth Rich Conspiracy Theory to Deflect From Trump's Russia Scandal". Haaretz.
2. Article: Murder of Seth Rich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
3. Content: [Just the second (italicized) sentence; first sentence added here for context.] "Conservatives and members of the alt-right, along with certain commentators on Fox News, featured coverage of the conspiracy theories during the same time period in which other news outlets reported new revelations about President Trump firing FBI director Comey, revealing highly sensitive information to Russia’s Foreign Minister and Russia’s Ambassador to the U.S., and having urged Comey to drop the FBI investigation of former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn. According to Haaretz, the timing of the these broadcasts about the Seth Rich conspiracy theory was most likely intended by Pro-Trump outlets as a distraction from the negative news concerning President Trump."

There are two problems here. First, "several observers" fails verification. Second, the content is relying specifically on the "deflect" language in the source's headline, which oddly enough isn't supported by the source's body. The body says that the Seth Rich story was "aimed at undermining the credibility" of the Russia scandal, which is consistent with other reliable sources. It does not say the Seth Rich story was intended to distract (or deflect) from the Russia scandal. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Objection to RfC; addressed --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

DrFleischman WHY are you using the OLD VERSION? This is how the article CURRENTLY stands, [16]. (See our discussion on the article TP Murder of Seth Rich TP Section Intent to distract) "Conservatives and members of the alt-right, along with certain commentators on Fox News, featured coverage of the conspiracy theories during the same time period in which other news outlets reported new revelations about President Trump firing FBI director Comey, revealing highly sensitive information to Russia’s Foreign Minister and Russia’s Ambassador to the U.S., and having urged Comey to drop the FBI investigation of former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn. According to Haaretz, the timing of the these broadcasts about the Seth Rich conspiracy theory was most likely intended by Pro-Trump outlets as a distraction from the negative news concerning President Trump." Leaving this out is a little misleading, don't you think, DrF? DN (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC) My apologies, that was an oversight on my part. I believe I've fixed it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty standard to employ headline writers who develop headlines that will grab readers' attention. In other words, not written by the author of the article and too often not accurately reflecting the content. If the newspaper article doesn't mention it, we shouldn't. Doug Weller talk 18:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

While Haaretz is generally a RS, with a pronounced leftward bias, it is not the greatest source on news on US politics unless they are Israel or Jewish related. They usually just rehash other sources in general US items, often to an audience that is not into the details. I will note that Haaretz has done some superb non-Israel reporting, e.g. their coverage on the ground in Crimea in 2014 was unique and ground breaking. But for US non Jewish/Israel/ME related politics there are usually better sources. And their English headline editors are not great - the English side is a small outfit, they have had some English headline gaffes, particularly on translated items. Icewhiz (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Since Dr.F has made corrections, I would ask the previous commenters @Doug Weller: & @Icewhiz: to review the changes. Sorry for any inconvenience this may cause. DN (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Newspaper headlines are not reliable sources. Their role is to describe the information in the article and may be misleading. In this case the title says that the 'alt-right' is using the Seth Rich murder to deflect from Russiagate, although the article itself does not say that. I am always suspicious when dubious sources are presented for stories that have extensive coverage. If the information is sufficiently reported, it should not be necessary to glean it from headlines. TFD (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Headlines are generally written by "headline writers" and often do not actually make accurate claims as to what a journalist actually wrote. This has been discussed, with some editors insisting that the headline is "part of the article" but the fact is that actual newspaper editors admit that the headlines are the equivalent of newspaper "clickbait" and have been so for many years. Collect (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Collect: This article is under DS regarding American Politics. Please redact your comment. @HJ Mitchell: @Bishonen: SPECIFICO talk 01:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Scuttlebutt Sailing News

Is this an RS please?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Its been going for 20 years, and while it has a small staff, appears to be fairly comprehensive within its specific area. I wouldnt use it for something controversial, but it seems ok. What article/information is it going to be used on/for? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

George S. Coumantaros. Seems OK then?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For which article and which content? But also, why not use the original source, The National Herald? [17] - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Good find. I didn't realize it was a mirror. I'm already using the obituary from the National Herald. I would like to find more obituaries... Anyway, I've removed it from the article as it adds nothing new.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

Up date martial status - Shaun Williamson

Hi I'd like to update my martial status from being married to divorced. How do I do this ? Can't see anywhere I can attach proof of this Thanks Shaun

The Needle Drop

Several days ago, Anthony Fantano created a video where he criticized Wikipedia for removing his reviews from articles. This sparked a lengthy discussion on WikiProject Albums. Because the discussion is very long, I'll do my best to summarize the progression:

• In his video, Fantano seems to be under the impression that his reviews were being removed because they were not seen as "professional" enough; however, the reason that many of his reviews were removed were because they were self-published.
• While Fantano's reviews are self-published, several users believed that Fantano could be considered an exception because...
  • Anthony Fantano has had his work published by third parties in the past; Fantano hosted a weekly music review radio show on NPR.
  • Fantano has a reputation for making quality music review (for example, this Spin article).
  • Anthony Fantano employs several editors to oversee his videos. These editors are in charge of fact checking Fantano's reviews and making corrections. One of these editors, Austen Walsh, is also a published music critic (and his name can be found listed here).

In the discussion, one of the major criticisms of Fantano's reviews were that they had "no editorial oversight or control", which was proven to be untrue. One user, @WOLF LΔMBERT, proposed the following amendment to The Needle Drop's description on the WikiProject Albums/Sources page:

Anthony Fantano's reviews are self-published, and a review from an established source (as listed above) is strongly preferred. In the absence of a review from such a source, however, (or if the review is specifically relevant to the work in question,)[?] referencing a video of his might be appropriate, but this should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Fantano's reviews are trustworthy if they have been published by a third party.

A consensus regarding the amendment above has not yet been reached, so it was agreed that it would be best to carry on the conversation in an area with more visibility as it was likely to affect many future sources. What does all of this information mean for The Needle Drop? Can we reach a consensus on the amendment above? ThrillShow (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

No, if the are SPS they are SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rules regarding self-published sources have specific requirements for a source to become "an exception". He is an SPS, but I believe that there is enough evidence for him to be considered an exception. Please see "Self-published doesn't mean a source is automatically invalid" ThrillShow (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I am aware of that, this does not explain why he is only RS when he is the only source for his reviews. Either he is RS or he is not, and I am not sure that he meets the requirements. By their very natures reviews are opinions, and thus many of the reasons for including SPS are redundant. I think he only meets (just) "Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." the problem is that it goers on to say "Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." So I hacve to ask, why are his reviews worthy of inclusion (rather then ones published in non SPS)?Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't write the amendment above, so you can suggest adjustments if you don't like the wording. I believe that the rule is not trying to say that being the only reviewer makes him more reliable, just that Fantano's SP work should be mentioned when it is "appropriate for the material in question".

Fantano is an incredibly well established reviewer, and (from what I can tell) he meets the requirements of being an exceptional self-publisher. His channel is run very much like a business, and he has expert editorial oversight. ThrillShow (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. He might be self-published, but there's a team working behind his channel, including someone who oversees and edits his reviews (who even commented in the discussion linked above). His name is synonymous with the channel, but the channel itself has grown from Fantano with a camera to what's pretty much a small-scale company at this point. —WLM / ? 18:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Fantano's reviews are occasionally more popular than the album being reviewed (case in point: Angelic 2 the Core). Always including Fantano is unfair towards other sources and probably not the best idea, as he's still a self-published source, but the current rule pretty much encourages the militant removal of any references to Fantano's reviews, which, as ThrillShow brought up in the original discussion, almost seems unfair to the reader. His reviews can be relevant, and self-published or not, he's still someone who reviews music professionally, and has quite the following. —WLM / ? 17:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

With Angelic 2 the Core, it's not technically possible to prove that Fantano's review is more popular. However, I do think that his review of that album is significant, and he is one of the few critics to review the album. ThrillShow (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment — Thanks a lot for summarising the discussion! —WLM / ? 17:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• Unreliable - Im still convinced that it is not a reliable source. There's no editorial policy. No editorial team. No history of fact checking. He makes boastful, unfounded claims without proof or explanation. (He recently proclaimed himself the most popular music reviewer on the internet or something to that capacity. I mean, come on.) His content is questionable. (He gave an album a "humus out of ten" rating. What is that supposed to mean?) He hired a guy to manage his channel and help, but it's still largely just a guy self-publishing to YouTube. Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Gag reviews can hardly be used to describe the quality of a critic. I believe it was Anthony Fantano who pointed out Pitchfork Media's review of Jet's second album. As for his boastful claims, they were uploaded to his side channel, not The Needle Drop. Not to mention, the claims weren't completely unfounded. Also, to say that there is no editorial oversight is simply untrue. ThrillShow (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

What is their editorial policy then? Review policy? Editorial team's credentials? Do we know anything besides the fact that someone created a Wikipedia account just to say "Hey guys I help with Fantanos reviews"? Sergecross73 msg me 19:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

A gag review is not representative of a critic as a whole. I believe it was Anthony Fantano himself who pointed out Pitchfork's review of Shine On. As for editorial oversight, Austen Walsh said in a blog post on The Needle Drop's website that he was a collaborator and managing editor on the channel, which means that he has input on what does and doesn't go on the channel. As for his credentials, Walsh is best known for his music reviews published by Art Fuse. He was even cited on this Wikipedia page. As for Fantano's boastful claims, they were uploaded to his side channel, not The Needle Drop. Secondly, the claims are not completely unfounded. ThrillShow (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Things like official editorial policy and staff credentials are generally documented from the source itself. If you have to go to blogs or Spin articles to tangentially make guesses about it like that, it's a pretty sure bet they don't exist. (But since the Fantano and fans are actively watching and pushing for the website's inclusion on Wikipedia, it's probably a safe bet they're hastily making one up as we speak.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

What have I guessed about? I've cited everything that I've said. Spin is an established site and the blog that I cited was posted on The Needle Drop's website and was written by the editor of the website. How is that a tangent? I addressed all of your claims. ThrillShow (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I missed the part where you linked to The Needle Drops editorial policy page on their site? Can you provide that link again? Sergecross73 msg me 20:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Currently, there is no page that publicly lists all of The Needle Drop's editorial guidelines. But the same could be said for Pitchfork Media, Sputnikmusic, PopMatters, or many of the trusted sources listed on Wikipedia's WikiProject Albums/Sources. It would be a severe double-standard to require to see the exact editorial policy of independent-publishers and not all third-party publishers. ThrillShow (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Is Sputnikmusic listed there!? —WLM / ? 21:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

If what I've been led to believe is correct, Sputnikmusic essentially has 2 forms of reviews: user reviews and critic reviews. Wikipedia allows the critic's reviews. ThrillShow (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I was unaware of that. —WLM / ? 22:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

First off, that's not remotely true - all sorts of staff info and policy available. Secondly, even if it was true (it's not), that would give The Needle Drop a free pass. Sergecross73 msg me 21:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

(1) Sorry one of my examples was off, I corrected that. (2) WP:OSE "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." ThrillShow (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

No, not just one. Sergecross73 msg me 23:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

That's just a list of the names with position titles. I gave the names and titles of two of Fantano's editors. ThrillShow (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. PopMatters has staff and policy info, but Pitchfork just gives a list of names, which I don't believe qualifies as an editorial policy. Pitchfork, however, is still listed under WP:RS (as it should be). —WLM / ? 23:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Pitchfork has a massive staff list with editors with all sorts of credentials. TND does not. Which is the point. And again, your (poorly thought out) attempts to discredit other widely agreed upon RS's (that you don't even really mean to discredit) are not helping your argument for TND. I can't stress enough - that's not how these discussions work. It will not convince experienced Wikipedia editors. Sergecross73 msg me 23:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

A lot of people may misinterpret my earlier point, so I'll clarify. I'm not trying to say "because other sources did it, why can't TND do it?" Nor is it an attempt to discredit Pitchfork. I'm trying to point out the fact that it is unfair to criticize Fantano's editors for not publicly stating their guidelines when many other sources are not held to this same standard. That is a complete double standard. TND has a staff of editors, one of whom is a published critic. ThrillShow (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

But they don't have an editorial policy, editorial staff list, or any credentials for any editorial staff listed. Any one of these missing is concerning - missing all of them is a major concern. Sergecross73 msg me 00:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

It would be beneficial if they had a full list of their employees/staff publicly available. However, there is still information spread throughout TND website and other websites that confirms that these editors are real and do work for TND. ThrillShow (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to discredit Pitchfork either, for the record. As I said in my earlier comment, Pitchfork is listed under reliable sources, as it should be. However, as far as I can see, several established sources do not have all three of the requirements you brought up, like Pitchfork, and they, too, are defined as acceptable sources. —WLM / ? 02:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I've mentioned on the original discussion page that that "most popular music reviewer on the planet" statement kind of rubbed me the wrong way (although he is the most popular music reviewer on YouTube going by subscribers, that can be checked), but still — even if that's wrong and he said it to brag, that doesn't impact his ability to review a record. It seems unfair to me to take one such statement (one that isn't even about a record, but about himself) and use it as an argument against his reliability when it comes to reviewing music.

I also doubt that if Rolling Stone gave an album a joke rating, like "hummus/10", or if Pitchfork awarded the next Kanye record with an 11.7/10, they'd get thrown off the WP:RS list immediately. It appears that this only applies the other way around. There are times when Fantano doesn't take himself too seriously, and I don't see what's wrong with that if it only happens occasionally (and if we all agree that these specific reviews should definitely not be ref'd).

Fantano also does reviews where he doesn't score the records at all. He published two of those today, in fact, and also has a regular not good segment. I'd argue that the "hummus/10" review is one of those, and he just had a bit of fun with the rating. —WLM / ? 19:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I would support using him sparingly, when there is a lack of more notable publications having covered a topic/an album/whatever he's being used to cite. Otherwise, hosting a weekly radio show hardly qualifies as being previously published and an expert in his field. As for editorial information, sites like PopMatters list their editorial staff. From a quick search and skimming this discussion, Fantano strikes me as an up-and-comer and not a respected professional yet. But rather than make this a referendum on him, let's consider how this source benefits Wikipedia's articles: In what cases is he providing usable information that more established sources aren't providing, and would leaving him in such cases be a detriment to any particular article? Dan56 (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - When I was researching, I found a lot of his NPR "Song of the day" articles. 1, 2, 3, among others. While I don't know if he should be included in the review box, if a someone wanted to add things like his song of the day and put it in a critical reception section of a song, I wouldn't have any problem with it - because it was published by NPR. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 21:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, but his time at NPR, though not sufficient to give him any sort of free pass, does make him more important than just any self-published source in my opinion, especially considering how influential he has become since.

WP:RS mentions that "[s]elf-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", and I still believe that Fantano falls under this. As that page also mentions, though, "[s]uch material […] likely lacks the fact checking that publishers provide. Avoid using [it] to source extraordinary claims", which I tried to adhere to in my proposed amendment. —WLM / ? 22:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, as explained before, that "established expert" clause is meant for your high level Siskel and Ebert types, not "Minor-NPR-contributors-that-start-up-YouTube-channels". Sergecross73 msg me 23:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, but that isn't specified in the clause, so I don't see why it doesn't apply here. —WLM / ? 14:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, it's not that all Fantano content itself is marked as non-reliable - it's fine if he is published through a legit RS like NPR. The issue is TND, the stuff which has has no review from a editorial team with an editorial policy. Sergecross73 msg me 1:03 am, Today (UTC+2)

I wouldn't use him more than sparingly either. He remains self-published. If an established source is available, that source should always be prioritised. —WLM / ? 22:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Is "an up-and-comer" really a good description for him, though? He's been active in the field for a decade, and he has a million subscribers on YouTube, which is the highest amount for any music reviewer on the site. Sure, he's self-published, but he isn't an up-and-comer. Far from it, I'd argue. —WLM / ? 22:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking in terms of how long he's been at it, but mainstream exposure and other sources' coverage of him. Dan56 (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, he's got mainstream exposure, doesn't he? —WLM / ? 23:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Nah, I don't think he should be used. At some point, a line has to be drawn that prevents any kid with a semi-popular YouTube channel or blog and strong opinions from deciding that they're a reliable source for Wikipedia. Additionally, plenty of published critics and editors (Simon Reynolds, Mark Fisher, David Stubbs, Jeff Weiss) have their own blogs/radio shows/self-published content on the internet, and we don't really treat those as reliable sources. I'm generally suspicious of arguments about "reliability," as they're often used to reinforce a hegemonic media landscape, but Fantano doesn't add any meaningful insight beyond his (frequently dull and conventional) opinion. Leave him to the geeky music forums that provide him most of his fan base. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to act like this is a war against old media vs. new media, because I don't think that it is. I just think there are some instances when Fantano's insights are relevant to the article at hand. Also, I wouldn't be trying to defend him purely because he's popular. Popularity isn't really related to reliability. I think he meets Wikipedia's qualifications for a reliable self-publisher, and - if he does - then I think that having his reviews on articles could be beneficial. ThrillShow (talk) 01:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Frequently dull and conventional, huh? When did this become about opinions?

There are a couple sites on the list at the WikiProject Albums that I really don't think add anything to the music journalism landscape. I think The Independent is quite a shite newspaper, actually. I didn't think that was relevant to the discussion in any way, but since your opinion on Fantano's reviews has now apparently become a viable argument, I might as well throw it out there for good measure. —WLM / ? 02:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

So (it seems to me) the objective is to enable him to be used when he says something a user wants to include, and to be able to exclude him when he says something a user does not want to include, that seems to me the gist if this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

That would just get rid of the rule entirely. Why would we want to do that? He's still self-published, and there are still better options, but I don't think his reviews should be removed in every single situation without a case-specific analysis.

Do his reviews belong on most articles, where a couple of reliable sources have already been cited? Absolutely not. Can a review of his be relevant to an article? Yes. That still doesn't mean that we have to cite his review in such a case, but I'd argue that it's a better option than no reviews at all. —WLM / ? 14:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

An obvious fact that we seem to be skirting over is that Fantano primarily does opinion-based reviews. The exception on self-published sources basically says it's fine if they're adding something useful, but the guy isn't doing significant fact-based reporting or interviews or research or something that would add to anyone's knowledge of a subject. He's giving us his opinion, which....well, we all have opinions don't we? I've written for professional publications in the past, does that mean all I need to consider my blog or YouTube channel a reliable source is to hire my roommate as editor?

And it's always been about opinion, pal. In case you smarties who fancy yourselves "objective" haven't realized it yet, there's no purely rational justification for preventing anyone from being a "reliable source" on this website, the guidelines around self-publishing and the editorial setup are an arbitrary distinction that bears no relation to the quality and usefulness of a source. Again, what's to prevent me from considering myself as valid as him in that regard? An "editorial staff" of my friends?gentlecollapse6 (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, it's always been about opinions, but at least I try to approach the subject in an objective manner. I enjoy his reviews, but I still don't think he's a "reliable source", because he's self-published. What I'm trying to fight here is that the current rule, at least when it's applied to Fantano's reviews, causes his reviews to be purged from the encyclopedia pretty much automatically, which I don't think is fair. Sometimes there are no reviews from major, established sources, but the album does have a Wikipedia article and Fantano has reviewed it. This does happen, considering that he also reviews lots of underground music. Angelic 2 the Core is a prime example of this; until a few days ago, the §Reception section was limited to a reference to Sputnikmusic, a user-based review site, and now the section is gone entirely. Sure, Fantano's reviews might have limited editorial oversight compared to established sources such as Pitchfork and Rolling Stone, but he still has an editor and reviews music professionally, so I don't see the problem with citing his review here. In most situations, a more reliable source with more editorial oversight is available, and Fantano should not be ref'd, but on an article such as Angelic 2 the Core, this rule pretty much serves to deny people relevant information.

And don't you think that "all I need to consider my blog or YouTube channel a reliable source is to hire my roommate as editor" is quite a gross underestimation of Fantano's situation? His YouTube career spans 7+ years and over a million subscribers (which does make him the most popular music reviewer on the platform), and SPIN called him "today's most successful music critic". Does that mean he should get a free pass for anything? No. He's self-published and thus a less trustworthy source. But I'd argue that it does make him more important than your average self-published source. —WLM / ? 14:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, Fantano might not do any "significant fact-based" reporting or interviews, but that some of the established sources do interviews on the side doesn't mean that their reviews are anything but an opinion either. Reviews are inherently opinionated, regardless of how much research you present along with them, and I don't see what makes any of the established sources' opinions superior to Fantano's. —WLM / ? 14:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Unreliable - per user Sergecross73's argument. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Reliable SPS are always reliable as sources for the opinions of their authors, while reviews wherever published are rarely reliable sources for facts. Similarly reviews published in mainstream media are always reliable as sources for the opinions of their authors, while rarely reliable sources for facts. Fantano is a well known and influential critic, he studied journalism and worked as a music critic at a radio station before building his youtube channel. SPIN published an article about him, "How Anthony Fantano, aka The Needle Drop, Became Today’s Most Successful Music Critic." So I would treat The Needle Drop as just as reliable as any other music criticism published in mainstream media. TFD (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: The main problem about Fantano is he use YouTube to post his reviews, which is a self-published website that should be avoided. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

No. A YouTube channel can have an entire editorial team behind it (with full transparency). Pitchfork has a YouTube channel. So does Consequence of Sound. This isn't about YouTube; it's about Fantano's reviews, which are self-published. That's the issue here. If "YouTube […] should be avoided", we're having a different discussion entirely (and you're wrong, because the medium doesn't influence the review, but I digress). —WLM / ? 02:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

He's still a self-published critic, though, which inherently makes him less reliable. He has editorial oversight from one or two people, which is nothing compared to most established sources.

I do support using him sparingly, but I don't think he should be held to the same standard as any mainstream media outlet. He's still not the best option if other sources are available, professional or not. —WLM / ? 02:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any prohibition on youtube. The only issue is that videos posted by third parties can be doctored, but that is not an issue here. Also, we do allow self-published articles by experts on the assumption that their postings should be accurate. But as with any source, whether or not to use it depends on circumstances. TFD (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

If he is the only person reviewing an album or band would that not be an issue with notability, thus why would we need to use him as any material he could be used to support (as "sole noticer") would fail on so many other levels?Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The same could be said of any reviewer. TFD (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

True, which is why we do not tend to use SPS, if it is published by a third party then more then just the one bloke has noticed it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Rosetta Books and Johnny Ace

I was thinking about replacing reference 7 in Johnny Ace (which is a dead link [18]) with another source that verifies the quote currently attributed to it; specifically, this book, published in 2011 by RosettaBooks. (The quote can be found here) Do other editors consider it to be a reliable enough source? This publisher doesn't have a WP page and they seem to be digital-only, but on the other hand, they don't seem to be a self-publishing company. Everymorning (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Korea Exposé

Source: https://koreaexpose.com/racism-seoul-bar-failed-multiculturalism/

Article: Racism in South Korea

The Korea Exposé was removed from the article. Is the source reliable or not to verify the following deleted information: "As a result, it is common for people to be denied service at business establishments due to their race, with such incidents occurring as recently as [of] 2017"? --George Ho (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Well it seems to have an editorial team, but they also list an intern (which seems a bit puffery like to me). I also note the owner is also editor in chief, so I would be a bit dubious.Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Newslo.com

Someone recently added some citations to a news satire website in this article. Can these citations be replaced with something more reliable? Jarble (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Can I conclude this source unreliable?

In page Nathu La and Cho La clashes, it writes According to an independent source, the end of the conflict resulted in the defeat of Chinese military in the hands of Indian forces. . I notice that in the book The Global Rise of Asian Transformation: Trends and Developments in Economic Growth Dynamics, the content cited from this book is a stand-alone statement "Chola incident (1967 - 1967) Victorious: India/Defeated: China". In same page there are 29 same kind of statements listed with this one. The problem is the Authors writes that sources for make those statements are "1. Macquarie Research Aug 2010; 2. Norman Friedman (1999). 3. Author.", and this book is about economics and no other information about historical matters are provided in this book. Can I conclude this source is unreliable? -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

References

I would prefer a better sources, but I am not getting a "not RS vibe" of this source. I think it is a bit iffy for this one factoid, and better sources do not list it as an Indian victory.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Slatersteven Thank you. I don't know if I should ask it here but, in current version -- According to an independent source, the end of the conflict resulted in the defeat of Chinese military in the hands of Indian forces., it states as it is a fact and the source we are talking about here is the only source used to back this statement. I have raised this concerned in talk page asking for supplemental sources few days ago but receive no responds on this issue. What should I do next? Can I omit this text? -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Well Dupey and Dupey say it was an inconclusive campaign. So I think this is ore an issue of Undue weight being given to one version of events, rather then an RS issue.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Got it, thank you again. -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)