Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

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

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)

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)

That's precisely the problem. Is it supposed to be an opinion piece or fact-based news reporting? Unlike The New York Times, Heat Street doesn't differentiate between the two. Woodroar (talk) 17:15, 2 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[1] and the Gaurdian[2] 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)

Yes, but the content under question was not (and would require a lengthy search through the relevant sections and then searching the page histories for the diffs). The page instructions clearly state to specify the content under consideration. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 21:21, 5 July 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)

Thanks for stopping by and letting us know. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 21:21, 5 July 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)

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 posting; 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, [3]. (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)

Concur. Even the most reputable newspapers use headlines which don't match the body, or they are misleading. Few years ago The New York Times or The Washington Post (or both?) profiled their web readers and served different headlines for different users, which suggests that headlines have other purposes than just conveying the clearest possible message to the reader. Politrukki (talk) 18:38, 3 July 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)

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)

…what? —WLM / ? 15:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It's simple enough, if something is worthy of note (or even notable) more then one SPS needs to have noticed it to establish this. The issue thus becomes one of weight (and, depending on context, notability), why is this persons views worthy of inclusion if he is the only person saying it. This (at it's heart) seems to be the real issue here, not RS but rather trying to enable him to be used as a source when no others exist. So I have to ask, what is he being uses as a source for?Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I assume we're still discussing Angelic 2 the Core, correct? In regards to that album, there seems to be quite a few sources that discuss Angelic 2 the Core's existence and creation, but there are few that discuss it from a critical standpoint. ThrillShow (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

So this is about using it for one album, one that no one seems to care about? This seems (as I said) a weight and notability and not an RS issue.Slatersteven (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that that's true. Like I said earlier, there are sources that address the album's existence and creation, but the sources don't discuss it from a critical standpoint. ThrillShow (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Forgiver me but how can an album have received in depth coverage (enough to establish notability) if it has not been reviewed (critically)? Also why do we even need critical analysis, we an an encyclopedia not a music newspaper? I am failing to understand the need here, what are we missing by excluding this material, the opinions on one SPS music reviewer. Why is his opinion even worthy of note by us if it has not been deemed worthy of note by RS?Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you asking why reviews are allowed on Wikipedia? That is a much broader question. Reviews give readers a deeper understanding of how a piece of media has be received, which is incredibly relevant information. Also, I think that there is enough evidence to show that Fantano's reviews are reliable under Wikipedia's current guidelines.. ThrillShow (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

No I am saying that it is not important, certainly no enough to warrant re-writing an RS classification to allow the use of one SPS when he is the only person reviewing it (how does that provide any kind of "deeper understanding of how a piece of media has be received", beyond "no one cared enough to review it"). All they do is provide us with one persons subjective opinion of the media, that can only be relevant when it is more then one person expressing an opinion, which is the exact opposite of the proposal here.Slatersteven (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

If there was another source that reviewed the album, then are you saying that including Fantano's criticism alongside it would be acceptable? In that situation, Fantano's review would no longer be the only point of view, which would make for a more neutral critical reception section. ThrillShow (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. —WLM / ? 15:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

No I am saying that a single SPS should not have it's criteria for being RS altered just because it is the only source. If anything that reinforces the notion it is not in fact saying anything worthy of note. I am saying this is jot an RS issue, it is a notability and weight issue.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – Agree with Dan56; use sparingly, and decide if he's relevant on a case-by-case basis. I also like what WOLF LΔMBERT said: He's still not the best option if other sources are available, professional or not. Ss112 10:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Never use. Reliable for its own opinion (but this would be undue); unreliable for statements of fact. The desire to use this source reeks of unencylopedic activities. Alexbrn (talk) 11:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Rosetta Books and Johnny Ace

I was thinking about replacing reference 7 in Johnny Ace (which is a dead link [4]) 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?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

You can certainly conclude that sources are reliable or unreliable as you wish, however other editors are unlikely to accept your authority in the matter. I would encourage you to seek consensus about acceptable sources on article talk pages, although that can be difficult and time consuming, it is an excellent way to collaborate with other editors. While it is possible that you're the only bird flying in the right direction, that's unlikely. Dougmcdonell (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oldest Harley-Davidson club in history?

Looking for feedback on the sources in this addition to Harley-Davidson, which says that the Prague Harley-Davidson club is the oldest such club in the entire world. There are six sources cited here:

• [5] This is a self-published source by a European organization. Where does it say "Many Harley-Davidson Clubs exist nowadays around the world"? Is it independent, and reliable? How is the writer of this web page in a position to make this claim?
• [6] ITN Source is a film library that sells clips. The summary of the clips for sale here is an uncritical rehash of the self-published claims the Prague club makes about itself (below)
• [7] This source is the root of all the others. The Harley-Davidson Club Prague is boasting about itself here, with no independent verification. The club was founded by a Prague Harley dealership to promote its products
• [8] Here is some other Harley dealership which has a copy of a press release from the Prague dealership. Again uncritically parroting the source.
• [9] A TV station making a routine announcement about a club event. It quotes the president of the club, making the usual claims about itself.
• [10] An auto website, with a direct quote from the Harley dealership sponsoring this club, making the same claims

Superlatives like "first" or "oldest" rest on proving a negative about every other club on Earth, which is not easy. How are the club president in Prague, or the staff of a Harley dealership in Prague, able to investigate the history of every possible club for the last 100 years in every other place on the planet outside of Prague, and be sure there were no other clubs in existence before 1928? Aside from their conflict of interest, are they even in a position to know what they claim? Since Harley-Davidson, a global company, is heavily invested in promoting its brand heritage and history, and has never been shy about claiming to be the first at many things, why doesn't the company itself ever mention the Prague club? H-D promotes rider clubs connected to its brand, and is known for pioneering this marketing strategy; see Harley Owners Group. Is it plausible that the company would ignore the oldest continuously operating owners club?

Perhaps its all true, but it's the kind of extraordinary claim that requires quality sources. Organizations like Guinness World Records (with all their flaws) exist to carry out the kind of independent research necessary to establish superlatives like this, but we have no evidence of anything of the kind here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You still do not believe me? Ok, here you go-another ones: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Is it enough? Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

ethnicelebs.com

ethnicelebs.com appears to be a homegrown website with user-generated content. It's written using a Wordpress theme, says it's a "sole proprietorship", says "The information on Ethnicelebs is provided for entertainment purposes only ... we make no assurances that all information on our Site is accurate", refers to "submissions by Users", and "relies on the content submitted to its Site". (See http://ethnicelebs.com/all-celebs/welcome/terms) Is it a reliable source for the ethnicity and ancestry of people? 32.218.44.102 (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

No. Not a reliable source for any article, much less for the higher standards needed for information about living people. First Light (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: Ethnicelebs.com is linked from 120 pages, mostly talk and user pages, but also some actual BLP pages such as Rob Gronkowski. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

It was used in two articles - I have removed from both. Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Also Tucker Carlson, which I removed in responding to a related edit request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Other editors removing content with a source

Hello - I have added some information to an article and given a source but another editor keeps removing it: [11] [12] [13] [14]

Can someone please help because this true information (I gave the source twice to this guy) should be in the article and not deleted. I don't understand why he's being so unhelpful? Amisom (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

You added no source. See WP:V and WP:INTEGRITY. Since this is a BLP it was only right such unsourced statements are removed. Alexbrn (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: I put a source!!! Look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scandal&diff=prev&oldid=788817080 Read it. I put the source. BBC News. I put it. Also it isn't a bLP because Jimmy Savile is dead. Amisom (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Why do trolls like this have rollback rights?? 32.218.44.102 (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Probably needs to go to ANI. Alexbrn (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

No you did not add a source. You added your text behind an existing source which means that there was no apparent connection to it, because sources always need to be given at the end of a statement. And while Saville may be dead, Fiona Woolf is still alive so any edits regarding her activities are also subject to our BLP rules. BLP applies to any living person and not just to the subject of the article. That aside, the fact that Woolf resigned had already been mentioned before in the article's text: "but on 31 October 2014 she too resigned from the role." So your edits were totally pointless. De728631 (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@De728631: What? I was writing that Lowel Goddard had resigned. Not Woolf. And I listed a source from BBC News saying that Lowel Goddard had resigned. What is the prblem here? Amisom (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

You've been told. You only added a statement which had no attached source. You were also edit-warring. Alexbrn (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: I don't understand, I did attach a source. Click here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scandal&diff=prev&oldid=788817080 and look for it (search for "bbc.co.uk" with control-F if you need to). Amisom (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Lowell Goddard is alive; BLP applies. And no reader of the article is going to or should be expected to look in your edit summary for a source, nor should you expect other editors to move it from your edit summary to an inline citation purely to indulge your apparent laziness. WP:BURDEN is written as it is, calling for inline citations, for a reason. General Ization ^Talk 18:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@General Ization: So Why don't you fix it ("Fix problems if you can ... Instead of removing content from an article, consider adding a citation yourself") then? Amisom (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My fault, you were in fact referring to Goddard, but General Ization is right: sources like this belong into the main article text and not into the edit summary. De728631 (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@De728631: THen why on earth won't someone fix it or help me fix it instead of calling me a troll, giving me warnings and being genrally hostile? Amisom (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Because that policy isn't referring to fixing problems that editors who know or should know better create and persistently refuse to correct themselves when it is pointed out to them. Our method of dealing with that is generally to block the editor in question. General Ization ^Talk 18:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@General Ization: Where in WP:PRESERVE does it say that? Because I can definitely see the bit where it says, "Fix problems if you can ... Instead of removing content from an article, consider adding a citation yourself". Which bit are you referring to? (And if you really want to block me for adding truthful information and listing a source for it then go for it - oh no wait you're not an administrator at all.) Amisom (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

PRESERVE is actually irrelevant in this case. At the latest at this point when you wrote in the edit summary "I literally just provided a source. ...]" the responsibility of fixing this fell back to you, even more so since Bbb23 had also told you that "sources don't go in edit summaries". De728631 (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@De728631: Cause I don't fucking know how to fix it? OK? I don't know what an "inline citation" is, I've never heard of it before. If you were interested in improving the encyclopedia instead of being superior you'd offer to help or fix it yourself. But no. Did you or @General Ization: even bother to ask if I knew how to an inline citaton? No you didn't. Thanks for nothing guys. Amisom (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, let me get this straight. You've been an editor since early 2015 2012 with over 1500 edits, you recently asked for and were granted rollback rights, you've repeatedly cited WP:PRESERVE and other policies, but it never occurred to you to click on the highlighted text in every and any one of those policy pages to find out how to perform an inline citation? Or to type "inline citation" into the search bar? Really? General Ization ^Talk 18:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@General Ization: And now, even after I explicitly told you that I didnt understand what you were saying, you're still determined to be an unhelpful WP:DICK and not try to help? Bloody hell. Amisom (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, here, I'll help. See in my response above where inline citation is highlighted in blue? Click on it, and follow the instructions found there. General Ization ^Talk 18:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Sarcasm ≠ help. Sarcasm ≠ welcoming. Sarcasm ≠ an attempt to teach someone smoething in good Faith. You don't want to be nice? Fine fuck you, I'll take my efforts elsewhere. Amisom (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

There was no sarcasm in my response. The link to the Wikipedia discussion of citing sources is, and already was, at the link I pointed out to you, which should have been very helpful if you were genuinely interested in being helped. General Ization ^Talk 18:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I went and researched the issue and added two different BBC articles citing Dame Goddard's resignation and the survivor group's reaction. Hopefully, this satisfies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that. The article is unquestionably the better for your thorough summary of the cited content. General Ization ^Talk 19:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Specific instance - Facebook posts by experts as sources

Hi all,

Following on from discussions involving Beachbo, Blueboar, Chrissymad, Huon, Trainsofvictoria and Voidxor, I'd like to establish formally that the following pages qualify as reliable sources in the context of articles in the VRLocos Template, such as VicRail N type carriage and so on.

Background

• Ruling by Staszek Lem that "If social media are reliably associated with official spokespersons for the company, then see WP:SELFPUB" (Archive 65).
• Confirmed by Blueboar and Huon that the principle also applies to social media postings by individuals, if a) the account can be confirmed i.e. by checking posts over a long time frame to look for consistency and b) they qualify as an expert in the relevant topic based on previous published works. [15]
• This is in response to Chrissymad deleting Facebook references for minor claims in the relevant articles on the grounds that Facebook is not a reliable source regardless of the content, which I dispute based on the above rulings and comments. Huon suggested that I list the particular references here, to discuss their individual appropriateness or otherwise.
• Some/most of the references I used are from a locked Facebook group, but the vast majority of readers of the specific articles would already have (or could easily gain) access to the group(s) so I don't see it as a problem. (ref. WP:V#Access to sources "If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf"; in addition they are only related to minor claims, not overarching statements underpinning the whole page's content).

* Example: References 22 & 23
* Source: [16]
* Article: [17] – Row 4 & 5, Column 3 & 4

* Content:

2016-09-03

* Explanation: Discussion between myself and a person involved in fleet management at V/Line Passenger. I asked him, as part of a wider discussion, when Carriage Set SN1 entered maintenance (which marked when the carriages were reorganised); he replied “3rd September” and the context of the thread makes it clear that it was 2016. That date marks when carriage BN2 was removed for transfer to set SN8, as part of a project to improve reliability on the North East railway line by running four shorter trains in lieu of three longer ones. I am willing to upload a screengrab of the conversation, but I am not sure how to upload it. In any case, the claim is minor and does not underpin the validity of the entire article.

There are about sixty of these sorts of minor claims/references in the older version of the N type carriage article, and a handful of similar claims which have been deleted from other articles, which I think are reasonable, accurate, reliable and ought to be restored. Many are (that person) or his colleagues, or established experts like Daryl Gregory, who is cited in many of the ISBN references on the various pages in the VRLocos template. Others are links to random photographs or videos with timestamps showing that carriages were in a certain arrangement or paint scheme at a certain time. They are only intended as temporary, until such time as a proper, printed reference can be found. Ideally I would not need to provide this level of discussion for all sixty, though perhaps a randomly-selected handful would be reasonable, to demonstrate a pattern of accuracy. In that case, obviously I can't be allowed to select the random cases, so I suppose that's open to nominations?

Anothersignalman (talk) 04:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment This is the last possible way I can say this: a locked facebook group is not suitable as a source and cannot be deemed reliable. You cannot force readers to verify by joining a private Facebook group where the sole discretion of admittance is up to the administrator. Secondly, this introduces an aspect of WP:OUTING as Facebook requires individuals to use their real name and thus would require readers to disclose personal identification about themselves in violation of this policy and this does not address the fact that we do not vet individuals on Facebook as SMEs. Ever. Add to that we do not vet SMEs elsewhere either. SMEs are considered as such because of published, verifiable material. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 04:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Unreliable: it completely and undoubtedly fails the single most important tenet of Wikipedia: WP:V. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 04:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Re WP:OUTING, have edited above to remove individual names, just in case. Hadn't considered it as a problem, thanks for pointing it out. Anothersignalman (talk) 04:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Anothersignalman That is not what I was referring to as outing. I was saying that requiring individuals to verify information (especially those that edit here) by requiring them to use their own Facebook account to join a private group is bordering on violating the spirit of outing, among many other things. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 04:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

In any case, I've emailed the Oversight group. Anothersignalman (talk) 04:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• The issue of outing is, I think, a red herring. The fact that Facebook requires a real name to join is no different than a public library requiring one to show ID to check out a book.

That said.... when commenting on this issue at WT:V, I was not made aware that the social media source in question was located in a private, locked Facebook group. That changes things. While author may qualify as an expert based on previous publication... material posted to a private, locked venue would not qualify as being "reliably published".

To be considered reliably published, a source has to be available to the general public... not necessarily easily available, or freely available, or even anonymously available... but available never the less. A closed, locked facebook group (where some may join, but others can not) fails this availability requirement. The analogy in hard copy would be a rare manuscript that is located in someone's private collection. If that person would allow anyone who shows up at his door to view the manuscript, we could (arguably) say that it is "available to the public" and thus "published" by our definition. However... if the owner picks and chooses who gets to view the manuscript, then it fails that definition. Blueboar (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

And how would this differ from a Journal that requires a 1000$ yearly subscription to a real person (with money transfer), along with possibly some guild or association membership? Creating a false Facebook account would be easier. I don't think this fails the availability requirement (depending on the gate-keeping function of the group administrator) - however I still think it shouldn't be used as a source - as a private locked facebook forum seems to indicate that the publisher didn't intend to publish his comments widely.Icewhiz (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Icewhiz In this context, there's a vast difference between something that is published with editorial oversight and a Facebook group (locked or otherwise.) Additionally, anyone can pay the fee to join/gain access to something of that nature. The only entry requirement is something universal: money. A Facebook group can be changed, edited, modified by any of the members/administrators and there is no editorial oversight and there is not guarantee that members of the public could access it. But basically tl;dr it's still not a valid source regardless of open membership or not. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

A journal could require more than money - e.g. membership in an association or society requiring some qualification which could be difficult to avheived or a defined political affiliation (e.g. party membership). A locked Facebook group may operate in a clearly defined fashion in terms of granting access. I disagree with the availability argument - though I do agree with the conclusion (for different reasons - editorial oversight would be one).13:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Chrissymad, in all the Facebook groups I've ever encountered, admins/moderators and original posters can change content of individual posts, but a normal member of a group can't change anyone else's content.

We've established previously that if content anywhere can be confirmed to be owned by a previously-established subject matter expert, then it is an acceptable source (pending WP:SELFPUB, WP:POV, and now the accessibility requirement).

With specific regard to the latter of those three, I think I'm starting to see the point. The way I was interpreting the rules was that locked FB groups would be allowed because they are hypothetically available to everybody, which I understood to mean the same as, say, a journal article which anybody could hypothetically subscribe to and find back-issues of, even articles from a century ago. Combine that with the note in WP:V#Access to sources - "If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf" - and that seems to indicate that locked FB groups would be acceptable if "others" (presumably other Wiki users?) could confirm their validity, which is why I suggested some sort of a register where User A nominates a site, User B seconds that the source actually says what A claimed. If that's not how the ruling is supposed to be interpreted, then maybe that should be made clearer on the rule page? This is probably a good principle in any case – people could easily misinterpret or misrepresent the content of a journal article.

Putting aside the possibility that a group's locked-or-not status can change (because the analogy there is published books going out of print, or journals being declared bankrupt - neither of which change the validity of the content), I don't actually know what the privacy settings are on the groups I've referenced. To that end, here are some random examples from different groups. Can someone else test them and check whether the URLs work? (I'm guessing they might work for Beachbo and/or Huon based on their areas of expertise, but not others?)

A. [18]

B. [19]

C. [20]

D. [21]

E. [22]

F. [23]

G. [24]

On the assumption that none of these URLs pass the locked/unlocked test, I'd like to propose a compromise. I can leave the actual articles without the references that don't qualify, but I will maintain a userpage of my own matching the content and including those sources, until such time as I can find a "reliable, published" reference to add to the real article; and eventually my userpage version can be eliminated as obsolete. If, say, the reliable source gives the month of an event and the unreliable source gives the month (matching) and the day as well, then I might try to reference both in the proper article.

For the other minor points raised, just in case I need to refer to them some other time:

• Re outing, the other odd part there is that in the past Chrissymad said that FB sources absolutely wouldn't be permitted because the account holders couldn't be verified. That's the opposite of what she's said above re real names? On the other hand, public libraries (to my knowledge) don't publish membership lists for general consumption.
• Re Subject Matter Expert (SME) vetting, that's not what I was trying to do. Rather, I was trying to establish that the social media account/post is actually associated with the SME, which would automatically render it OK pending WP:SELFPUB. Other discussions suggested that WP:POV should be included in the test for SMEs, and a third test is the availability (hypothetical or actual) of the post in question.
• Chrissymad, sorry for annoying you so much through the discussion across multiple pages. In the future if you encounter someone as stubborn as I am, I'd suggest finding other people who share your views and can back them up. Especially on a collaborative site like this one, consensus is key.

Anothersignalman (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Anothersignalman I don't have time to address all this however I will address your last bit, specifically: Chrissymad, sorry for annoying you so much through the discussion across multiple pages. In the future if you encounter someone as stubborn as I am, I'd suggest finding other people who share your views and can back them up. Especially on a collaborative site like this one, consensus is key. - I don't know if you missed what Huon and half a dozen others have told you over the last few years regarding this or it's a case of WP:IDHT but please go back and read the last several discussions that I've engaged you in. I am not the odd one out on this - my whole argument is supported by current consensus and policy. You are nitpicking bits and pieces but you're missing the overall point and that is that we do not vet people based on Facebook posts in a group and more importantly, comments someone may post in a Facebook group are not published sources. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I also want to add to your comment, I shouldn't need a calvary to continue to explain what is written in clear terms as a policy, your stubbornness is not the communities problem and insisting as much brings it to the point of tendentious editing. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I just want to throw in my two cents here. WP:PRIMARY says we can quote someone for things they've said, or for purely trivial information that isn't likely to be challenged. In this case, we have:

• Information being challenged, which means a primary source is disqualified anyway.
• A locked Facebook group means that someone who wants to verify a piece of information MUST either 1) release their personal information to a group of fairly random strangers (rather than a reputable library/journal/etc. who generally DON'T share membership lists) - ie: forced self-outing to verify content, or 2) violate Facebook's Terms of Use by registering a fake account. This would fail WP:V (we cannot require someone to violate a contract - which is what a TOU is - to verify information in an article).
• We do not vet/verify SME's on social media. If a social media account is "Verified" or "Confirmed" by the social media service, then we follow that verification that the account matches to the SME and then WP:PRIMARY still applies. We are not a research journal publishing original content.
• I believe, also, that you should read Original Research.

The compromise of leaving the information unsourced in the article isn't a good one, Unsourced or improperly sourced content that has been challenged should be removed until a reliable, secondary source is found to support it. On a userpage, the rules are more lax, but you cannot link to your userpage from the mainspace article, so you can keep it as a reference for yourself, but it's not useful for the article. Waggie (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Not useful references, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I never agreed that "checking posts for consistency" was confirmation, nor did I agree that having published a book is automatic proof of being an "established expert". In fact I disagree with both, and that would not have been a conclusion from the wording I said was redundant over at WT:Verifiability#Permitting use of established experts as references, if posted on social media?. I rather do not think having published a book, even if it's on the relevant subject, is on its own good enough to make someone enough of an "established expert" to take someone's Facebook posts as references. Regarding that kind of "confirmation by looking at posts", it would be original research, and we cannot expect our readers to engage in such an analysis to determine the reliability of a source. Beyond this doubly doubtful expertise, there's also the problem that these specific social media posts are to a closed group. That's pretty much the opposite of being published. Waggie has said it better above, and Icewhiz' comments about the author maybe not even wanting it to be "published" beyond that group also carry weight. I also disagree with the reasoning that the source being a closed group is not an issue because our prospective readers are likely to already be members of that group. Shall we write small walled gardens for members of specific Facebook groups that others aren't expected to look at? Sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works; we cannot predict the social media activities of our readers. Huon (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

verifiable

Hello. The following sources mention Israel's involvement in training/funding MEK against Iranian government, specifically targetting its nuclear scientists. My question is whether I am allowed to remove the word "alleged" the way I did in this edit

• Rock Center with Brian Williams (6 December 2014). "Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News". NBC News. Retrieved 6 December 2014

• "Report: U.S., Israel helped train Iranian dissidents". Haaretz. April 7, 2012.

• Time Magazine(Nov. 30, 2010), "The assassination carried the signature of Israel's Mossad"

• Independent(December 11 2010), "The attacks have all the hallmarks of Israel's secret service, which has carried out many such assignations in foreign countries over the decades"

• Spiegel(August 02, 2011), "Mossad Behind Tehran Assassinations, Says Source"

Thank You--Kazemita1 (talk) 05:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The same discussion has occurred at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Notice your first source says, "U.S. officials tell NBC news." We should follow what reliable sources do, which is to say who made the claim and who denies it, and avoid stating it as a fact. And note that excessive qualification of the allegations should be avoided too. TFD (talk) 06:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

So you mean to keep the word "alleged" wherever possible?Kazemita1 (talk) 06:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Research Article or Research Paper

A user has claimed that historian Rakesh Ankit's work is a research paper. My position is that it is a research article satisfying WP:HISTRS. The work can be accessed here. I would like a second opinion on this work's status. Sicilianbro2 (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Rejoinder: The user who commented here had said to me that the issue was that Rakesh Ankit's work is a research paper and therefore a primary source but I believe it is actually a research article and therefore a secondary and WP:HISTRS source. Who is correct? Sicilianbro2 (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

That is not the issue. This user has claimed that this journal article is a WP:SECONDARY source. And, they have based almost an entire Wikipedia article Annexation of Junagadh on this one paper. The current version is a bit better, but it is still heavily overweight on this single souce. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Can the Stack Exchange Network be considered reliable?

I recently found several hundred citations to the Stack Exchange Network in various Wikipedia articles. Can these online discussions be considered as reliable sources for Wikipedia? Jarble (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)