Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

WikiData source

I don't know where to raise this question, whether this is a VPP issue or here (or even an RfC question (feel free to move/convert if that would be warranted)). Here goes:

IMDB is an external database with a lot of information. We have roughly decided that iMDB is NOT to be used as a reference, as it is generally unreliable information. People can use iMDB to get data, but they are to supply an independent reference according to our referencing rules. iMDB cannot be used as a reference for the material that we source from iMDB.

Similar goes for any external wiki that we use. We may be able to find material that we do not have on, say, es.wikipedia.org, and we can incorporate that information in an article on en.wikipedia, but we cannot say that es.wikipedia is the source. es.wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for the material that we source from es.wikipedia

Even if the specific bit of information that we take from iMDB or es.wikipedia is locally referenced, we should use the information from that reference, not from iMDB or es.wikipedia at face value.

We incorporate data from WikiData (by transclusion, by substituted transclusion, or by copying) in the same way as we could copy material from iMDB and es.wikipedia, which means we incorporate material from an unreliable source. Now my question is: how do we see that with respect to WikiData? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

People can use iMDB to get data, but they are to supply an independent reference according to our referencing rules. So what is the problem with "People can use Wikidata to get data, but they are to supply an independent reference according to our referencing rules"? If we apply the same rules as we do for other Wikipedias, Commons, iMDB, etc. why should the results be any different for Wikidata? --RexxS (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Because, when transcluded, the material is sourced from WikiData, referenced (where needed) to an source which meets our sourcing standards. That reference could be local, or on WikiData. When we take something from es.wikipedia, it is not transcluded but copied, properly reference to the reliable source. Es.wikipedia is not visible in that scenario, and it shouldn’t because it is not a suitable source giving credibility to the correctness of the source. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Nor is Wikidata visible in the scenario of information imported into an infobox, for example. The information is not transcluded, because it's filtered when imported. Checking that the reference meets our sourcing standards is precisely the same operation whether one is checking on es-wiki or on Wikidata. --RexxS (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

No, the information is transcluded, altering it on WikiData changes the value on en.wikipedia, which is not the case when taking the data from es.wikipedia. The data is sourced from WikiData, referenced, with WikiData referenced. If the data is imported it is the same, I am talking about transcluded data. I hope now that other editors will start chiming in, because between the two of uswe are not getting anywhere. Our arguments apparently do not arrive at the other side and we are running in circles. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

No, the information is not transcluded. "Transclusion is generally the inclusion of the content of a document into another document by reference." - mw:Transclusion. There are no documents on Wikidata to transclude. The values are imported from Wikidata and filtered, not passed by reference. When a sourced fact is updated on es-wiki manually or by bot, that update will eventually be made on en-wiki manually or by bot. The difference is merely timescale. If a source is removed from Wikidata as unreliable or inaccurate, the fact it used to support no longer appears in our infobox. That process is very different from transclusion. You are asking others to answer questions based on your faulty understanding of the mechanics of importing sourced content from Wikidata to Wikipedia. We won't get any informed opinions from others while you persist in biasing the questions. --RexxS (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

we both have bias here, RexxS. Our main point of disagreement is whether WikiData is a source in this context. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• We shouldn't be using WikiData at all IMO, because of the doubtful origin of the information presented there and the frequent inaccuracies. Reyk _YO! 07:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion: WP:CHALLENGE

The above discussion seems confusing: e.g. "source from" vs. "reference to" – I suppose there is some difference between the two but it seems all but clear from the discussion above:

1. Wikidata is (like iMDB) WP:USERGENERATED content. The WP:RS guideline (whereto WP:USERGENERATED redirects) has some exceptions. Afaics, however, the listed exceptions do not apply to Wikidata nor to iMDB. In sum:
   1. Wikidata can not be used as a source
   2. Wikidata can not be used as a reference
2. Wikidata however also (like other Wikimedia projects) often "mirrors Wikipedia content" or "relies on material from Wikipedia as source", for which the WP:CIRCULAR part of the WP:V policy has: "... do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources", which means that
   1. content residing at Wikidata which was previously merged there from Wikipedia should not be used as a source
   2. content residing at Wikidata which was previously merged there from Wikipedia should not be used as a reference
3. Copying references from an unreliable source to Wikipedia without confirming that these references are reliable and support the content is equally a breach of policy, e.g. from WP:CIRCULAR: "Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly.", which means,
   1. the external reliable source (not Wikidata) should be used as a source
   2. the external reliable source (not Wikidata) should be used as a reference

... otherwise (if not complying to these policy requirements) the content can be WP:CHALLENGED...

Probably we should see more of that, WP:CHALLENGE-ing that type of content I mean. The abstract discussion above is unlikely to lead to an (abstract) solution, and even less likely to change policy. So, if you see mainspace content that is likely sourced from and/or referenced to Wikidata, and that is not WP:BLUE content, remove it. If a discussion ensues, that can not be resolved on the article's talk page, then bring it here in the Source/Article/Content format recommended for this noticeboard, and we'd maybe have something less abstract to discuss about here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's a first example of such a WP:CHALLENGE:

• [1]:
  • Source – Wikidata
  • Article – Malpelo Island
  • Content – removed content, based on the unreliable Wikidata source, does not distinguish between the name of the island ("Malpelo Island") and the name of the WHS protected area ("Malpelo Fauna and Flora Sanctuary"), notwithstanding that the external reliable source (1216) & reference (identical to external reliable source, i.e. 1216) are clear that that is the name of the WHS protected area.

The above has not been discussed on the article's talk page yet (and was, for clarity, operated under Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site#Implementation of RfC) – just trying to illustrate what such WP:CHALLENGEs could look like.

Further, this example illustrates what goes wrong when not *checking* (i.e. per WP:CIRCULAR's "Confirm that these [external reliable] sources support the content, then use them directly") whether the content of the external reliable source matches the content imported from Wikidata... --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Fracis, that is true for any information, and besides the point. My question here basically is: when we transclude data from WikiData, are we getting that data from an external source. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

External to what? Wikidata is a Wikimedia project owned by the WMF so, like English Wikipedia, it's internal to that group of projects; Wikidata is a project different from English Wikipedia, so it is as external to English Wikipedia as, say, French Wikipedia or Commons. Could you explain why that question is relevant? For me the main distinction is: reliable or not reliable, that is: in WP:RS/WP:V sense – and the kind of distinctions that are sorted out on this noticeboard, which is called "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard". So, for example, French Wikipedia is not a reliable source in that sense. For Commons, the answer to the reliability question falls in two parts: it is partially reliable, and partially unreliable. Probably for Wikidata that would be the case too: partially reliable, partially unreliable. I propose to proceed with case studies triggered by WP:CHALLENGEs as described above, which would make the question at least tangible. Maybe the abstract external-or-internal question is "besides the point". At least it seems to be so on this noticeboard which is about reliability of sources. So please explain why you think your question relevant, maybe we can find a better venue for it (if it is, as you seem to indicate, unrelated to the reliable-or-unreliable question). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

So, we are transcluding material from an unreliable source. There is correct information on it, but in basis, since material on WD can be a) reliably sourced, b) unreliably sourced, c) unsourced), d) reliably sourced but changed without changing the reference. So we are getting to the point. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

As to my question: if we are transcuding data from WikiData, are we sourcing information, and therefore is that information source subject to WP:RS? That is besides the question whether the material carries a reference here or there. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Tacking on references without checking whether the reference represents a reliable source nor whether the source supports the content would be meaningless in any Wikimedia context. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Scenario: I include a chembox, where the synonym field is empty, and the box is set up to transclude if the data is referenced on WikiData. However, WikiData is empty for the synonym as well. I check all transcluded fields, noting that there are no synonyms, and see all are NOW reliably sourced. I save and walk away. You come to WikiData the next day to the same item, fill in a synonym, referenced to what En.wikipedia considers an unreliable source (but since WikiData is not that strict, you have not done anything ‘wrong’). Because it is THENa referenced item and the chembox is set up to transclude referenced items, it is transcluded. YOU have just added unreliable material through MY edit. But from the en.wikipedia point of view, you have tacked on a reference to data wihout checking whether after transclusion it is representing a reliable source or whether the source supports the content. Meaningless? —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Is it your responsibility that if you edit WikiData and add data that is going to be transcluded to make sure that it follows en.wikipedia sourcing rules? And if you, on WikiData, continue to add such data, will any admin on WikiData block you (after warnings) for consistently failing en.wikipedia’s sourcing requirements? —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems extremely unlikely I would have added a synonym for a chemical (with or without reference) to Wikidata. Hence my proposal to switch to real examples instead of using hypothetical ones – would at least avoid to seemingly make me responsible for things I would never do.

In your hypothetical example, did the Lua code which imported the synonym (and its reference) check whether the source indicated by the reference is reliable for en.wikipedia's purposes? And whether that source covered the content of the imported material? I don't think so, not on either account. Thus, the software (and/or whoever set it up in that way) seems to be the culprit for evading the WP:V policy. But whatever: if something along these lines happens, simply WP:CHALLENGE the material by removing it (which is an acceptable method to counter material that does not comply to WP:V). If that doesn't lead to acceptable results, bring the example back to this noticeboard for analysis. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you really expecting a LUA code being able to detect if something is a reliable source for information or not? This noticeboard can be closd. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

No, the Lua code cannot perform what is needed for full WP:V compliance, hence the unresolved problem. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Unless WikiData is a reliable source, we have no way to distinguish whether their material is reliable. We should therefor not source material from WikiData. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Wikidata is not a source, reliable or otherwise. Material cannot be reliable or unreliable, only sources have that property. The way we distinguish whether the source is reliable is the always the same and we have WP:RS to explain how to do it.

Here's a concrete example: William P. Murphy received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Is that reliable or unreliable? Neither, it's a statement. Here's the award that Wikidata states William P. Murphy received: Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine . Is that reliable or unreliable? Neither. Follow the pen-icon link and you'll find this reference https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1934/ - is that reliable or unreliable? I would have thought 'reliable'. Anybody disagree? If you want to challenge something, why not look at William P. Murphy? You can legitimately remove the first four paragraphs because they are unsourced. The infobox, however, has good sourcing in place for each of its facts. Using Dirk's reasoning, we should not have any content at all because it's all sourced from Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I just WP:CHALLENGEd the Wikidata source at William P. Murphy ([2]). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

And also here, we are running in the same circle. Guess we’ll see at the next RfC. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you are running in circles, I'm not. The challenging at the Murphy article worked afaics: the infobox is now Wikidata-free. Next non-hypothetical example please. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

((rto|Francis Schonken}} No, WE are running in circles- I say WikiData is a source, and an unreliable one, you(pl) say, just challenge, I say that there is nothing to challenge as it is unreliable and should not be a source, you challenge .. on the other hand I say we transclude, then people say, we import only data we filter .. i say we then transclude what we filter but no, we don’t transclude. Perfect circles. Over and over. Now, go import and challenge what you want, we’ll meet at either ArbCom or another RfC, because this is a recipe for continuous fights, WE are not going to solve this, we need the community to decide on these terms. I already said I will wait for others to comment, but it is continuous the same four or five people. I want other editors to explain to me it is NOT a source and why, and I want other editors to explain to me we are NOT transcluding. Now, close the circle again. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not running in circles, please speak for yourself.

WP:CHALLENGEs can be applied to material that is unsourced and to material that is poorly sourced (please familiarize yourself with the policy instead of basing yourself on circular reasoning). So, whether Wikidata is a "poor" (e.g., WP:USERGENERATED, WP:CIRCULAR,...) source, or "not a source at all", WP:CHALLENGE can be applied either way. I'm hoping that through discussion of concrete examples (instead of endless theoretical discussions) we may establish what is the case. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

That is the point, Francis, my argument is 'it is a source'. If WikiData is the source, then there is no point in challenging - WikiData is not a reliable source and they are, by definition challenged. You guys state 'WikiData is not a source', in which case the data can be challenged. WikiData is the website that carries the information that we use on en.wikipedia, that is a 'body of work', 'a database', an 'information carrier' .. it is a source, it is our source. And it is unreliable. I have not seen yet a convincing argument why WikiData is NOT a source, and until then we are running in circles.

Until now it is two against two (roughly) where two say it is a source and that therefore the whole of WikiData is subject to WP:RS, and two who say that it is not a source, and that therefore the data is subject to WP:CHALLENGE. WE are running in circles, not me alone. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

"Poorly sourced" material (which includes "sourced to an unreliable source") can be WP:CHALLENGEd. That is policy. As I said above. Multiple times. Please snap out of your circular reasoning, and maybe start with getting acquainted with the policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

OK. By this I challenge: ALL material sourced from WikiData is challenged, please remove all information that we transclude, import, or whatever you name it (all, literally all material that is stored on WikiData and that is, filtered or unfultered, through LUA code and templates, and directly transcluded) from En.wikipedia, as that is all sourced from an unreliable source: WikiData. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

To clarify the word ‘Berlin’ in here: “Berlin“ is sourced from WikiData. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: If you challenge something as it's unreferenced, you should remove it completely from the article (or add the references), it's not an excuse to substitute Wikidata-provided information (particularly when that information has references on Wikidata!). Otherwise, by the logic that seems to be used here, you're referencing it to the Wikipedia article. Mike Peel (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Re. "... (or add the references), ..." – which I did, e.g. here. If you think that can be useful, I'm prepared to discuss that example, or any other similar example, in detail. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure... Maybe try adding the references in the normal way, and stop ignoring the references to that exact same source that are on Wikidata? Or, please just stop harassing me by pinging me so often with your 'revert's, and stop the POINTy edit summaries. Mike Peel (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Re. "Sure..." – Chitwan National Park example:

• This edit removed referenced, valid content from Wikipedia, replacing it with a highly unorthodox reference, i.e. a reference that is neither "normal", nor conforming to WP:V/WP:RS.
• This edit restored the deleted material, while at the same time "Confirm[ing] that [3] support[ed] the content, then us[ing that source] directly", per the recommendations at WP:CIRCULAR.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

No, the WHS URL is used consistently as a reference in that case - it's both on Wikidata and the number+URL is shown in the infobox consistently. It seems to be you that's going round in circles, not the reference. Mike Peel (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Except that in this other case the WHS URL was removed. Took me some time to figure out how come that in that case the WHS external reference was removed: as it happens, by an operation that was completely legit at Wikidata. Anyhow fails WP:V 1.0 "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source...". In that case no such reliable source was indicated in the box. The fickleness of Wikidata shows that it is unreliable for en.Wikipedia's verifiability purposes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Another CHALLENGE: Before the CHALLENGE the World Heritage Site (WHS) supposedly had an area of 245.13 km² (2.6386×10⁹ sq ft) [sic], while according to the reference that should have been 0.0031 km² (0.31 ha). Again, nothing wrong at Wikidata (the original km² is more or less correct for the topic of the article, 242 km² (93 sq mi) according to its {{infobox Italian comune}}), but completely unreliable for transclusion in the WHS infobox. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• I WP:CHALLENGEd the ridiculous area values, supplied by Wikidata, in this infobox. Note that the challenged data completely fail WP:V's "verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source". --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Related question

One issue that has not been discussed is how WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies when transcluding from Wikidata. My understanding of SAYWHERE is that, if we use Wikidata as an intermediary host site for information, then Wikidata becomes OUR source, regardless of where Wikidata got its info. Wikidata is what we should cite. Comments? Blueboar (talk) 11:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Now that is exactly as I see it: regardless of whether the data is locally and/or on WikiData referenced to a reliable source and whether either reference (still) represents what we originally transcluded (knowing that material may not be on WikiData when the transclusion was set up and that the data can be changed on WikiData after transclusion), WikiData is the source of information, that is where we got the information. And WikiData is by all definitions of our sources unreliable (if we consider ourselves, en.wikipedia, to be an unreliable source ...). To me, ALL data that is transcluded from WikiData should carry a <ref> tag stating that WikiData is the source of the information. It stretches my AGF that all editors who transclude data from WikiData have checked whether all data is reliably sourced (knowing that e.g. an template can now be added to a page where one field is both locally and on WikiData empty, and that later data can be added to WikiData for said field with an, for en.wikipedia, unreliable source). —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Re. "... ALL data that is transcluded from WikiData should carry a <ref> tag stating that WikiData is the source of the information" – of course not. Wikidata is a WP:USERGENERATED source (see above), and it is thus not allowed to use it as a reference. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

So we are not allowed to transclude from Wikidata? Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

If you source data from WikiData you have to reference your source. If you are not allowed to use an unreliable source as a reference, you are not allowed to use the source. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

...thus what I wrote in the #Suggestion: WP:CHALLENGE subsection seems entirely relevant after all. The exception would be WP:BLUE type of content (as I indicated above). Thus, I'd proceed with WP:CHALLENGEs, as described above, so that we can figure out together where the WP:BLUE border falls for content imported from Wikidata. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

No, because WikiData is unreliable, there is no unchallengable info - all information that you transclude from WikiData is unreliable, and therefore it should simply not be used. And we are NOT talking about imported data, we are talking about transcluded data - i.e. data that, when changed on WikiData, changes data here. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

About the semantics: "transcluding" is definitely a (specific) form of "importing". I'd say "importing-with-a-live-connection" or "importing-by-software" or some such. So, if there's guidance relating to "importing" it certainly also applies to "transcluding".

There's definitely also WP:BLUE type of content in a Wikidata item: at least the sitelinks (called interwiki links at English Wikipedia) are. Whether these fall under the "exception" of the second paragraph of WP:CIRCULAR, or are completely outside the WP:V/WP:RS realm is unclear: the thing is, they're unproblematic as far as this WP:RSN board is concerned. I'd be sympathetic towards the idea that authority control numbers might be to some degree WP:BLUE, or at least unproblematic, too. I'd like to find out whether there's a consensus about that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Although it can have impact, I indeed think that the interwikis are completely exempt from WP:V/WP:RS. All other, though, do not. I do think that linking the wrong persondata on a person could be BLP-sensitive (as that does relate to being able to confirm whether we are talking about a certain subject). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't see a problem with how the {{authority control}} box currently operates. Since all authority control numbers in that box (whether or not transcluded from Wikidata) are presented as external links, and are by the design of the box not used as references/sources in the WP:V/WP:RS sense, this would equally fall outside WP:RSN board I suppose. Afaics also "unchallengable" in the WP:CHALLENGE sense. Applicable guidance would be Wikipedia:External links, and if there are issues to be resolved w.r.t. external links in that template, rather to be taken to WP:ELN than to this WP:RSN. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

IMHO, anything in a Wikipedia article should be correct, and in this case the created external link is by itself a (primary) reference. But also for external links, one needs to be able to show that it is correct, and there are (albeit rare) cases where there are references in the external link section to verify that a certain external link is indeed the one that it is supposed to be (ever changing external links are sometimes referenced as to show that that is currently the correct one). I would not really go as far as that external links are completely exempt from WP:V/WP:RS. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: There is such a discussion currently at ELN here. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Challenging MusicBrainz info in authority control box

See WP:ELN#Examples of problematic linking via the authority control box (first example), please discuss that example there, in order to keep the discussion in one place. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

cryptomundo.com and mysteriousuniverse.org

An editor is insisting that we use sources like cryptomundo.com and mysteriousuniverse.org over at list of cryptids (Talk:List_of_cryptids#Man-eating_trees). (As the article is something of a hive for cryptozoologists, if you're not familiar with the pseudoscience of cryptozoology, you'll save yourself some trouble by reading this or this first.) :bloodofox: (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

You'll note the second link here is to a bogus personal page written by editor bloodofox. And you keep synthesizing supposed WP guidelines and creating non-facts. No one is suggesting that books or magazines on mythology, cryptozoology, ghosts, folklore, or aliens, be used as sources for anything except the subjects in question. These aren't scientific studies where sources such as these should be blotted out as fast as possible. But when we have an article on ghost sightings we are going to use books and other sources on ghosts. When we write about mythology we are going to use books and websites that deal with mythology. And when we have articles on lists of cryptids we use books and magazines that describe cryptids. And, of course, when we talk about real scientific studies we aren't going to use any of these types of sources. Wikipedia has always worked this way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The "bogus personal page" is an essay, which is obvious to anyone who clicks it. Note that this is the user insisting that we use these sites.

Obviously, when we write about mythology, we turn to philologists or other related fields in anthropology. When we discuss ghostlore, we turn to folklorists. We have a plethora of policies regarding pseudoscience, nicely summed up at WP:PSCI. Under no circumstances do we turn to amateur pages like cryptomundo.com. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It is not obvious that the info is your personal musings on a subject you dislike and have been trying to get banished for years. Mythology, Cryptozoology, Ghosts... they are all the same thing as far as science is concerned. They are non-science and we make sure our readers know they are non-science. When we look at the God Zeus it's as non-science as a horned rabbit. Anthropology? Really? What a double standard that would be to accept here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yikes! Judging by your response, you seem to have a poor understanding of WP:RS and, well, the humanities in general. Nonetheless, per WP:RS (especially Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Scholarship), we cite experts — academics — in their field. I'm afraid you'll need to look elsewhere to link to sites promoting pet pseudosciences. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Right, like with the Golden Fleece article we use books such as Lives of the Necromancers: An account of the most eminent persons in successive ages, who have claimed for themselves, or to whom has been imputed by others, the exercise of magical power. A perfectly fine scientific journal on the subject of Golden Fleeces. Your reliance on RS and other wiki guidelines has been very very inaccurate in past posts, and your attempts to remove all things crypto-related have been admonished and reverted by multiple longstanding editors and administrators. Perhaps this is a topic that you should stay away from because of inherent bias? We have editors trying to add sourcing to an article, while you and one other editor simply delete everything. This is supposed to be a fun topic that everyone knows isn't science, but that is covered in books, newspapers, dictionaries, and magazines. We site the source that it is considered a cryptid, plop it in the list, and move on. Just like ghosts and mythological three-headed dogs. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

If you see a violation of WP:RS, remove it. It's as simple as that. You're bound by WP:RS just like anyone else. I have no idea what the context is for the 19th century book you've pulled out of the blue, but Wikipedia's source for myth-related articles are just as strong as they are for any other subject. (The "other user" you mention, by the way, is @Tronvillain:.) Notably, when I rewrote cryptozoology from scratch and various other related articles, I stuck to WP:GA standards, just like I do anywhere else (so much for "attempts to remove anything crypto-related"!).

Sorry, as long as the site doesn't somehow get bought out by, say, global warming denialists, flat earthers, or gay conversion therapy proponents, we retain Wikipedia's reliable source criteria and so links to pseudoscientific sites like cryptomundo.com and mysteriousuniverse.org just ain't happening. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The issue that remains unclear to me, despite multiple threads on a half dozen or more talk pages, is the extent to which something like bigfoot should be considered an academic subject for the purposes of choosing reliable sources. IMO folkloristics does not have a monopoly on reliable sourcing for a subject that's so much a part of popular culture (or regional culture). So if there are books in the popular press or high-quality articles in non-academic publications (not including silly local news stories like "let's interview this local guy who says he saw a yeti"), I don't see a good reason not to use them. And if popular press uses terms that originated with cryptozoology, then use them just as we would any other term from popular press. In other words, as with most other topics, academic sources are ideal but not absolutely required. I feel very much in the minority with this nonbinary opinion, though, as I see bloodofox and a handful of others insisting on academic sourcing, and I see fyunck(click) and a handful of others insisting that basically anything having to do with cryptozoology is a reliable source. It's a mess. For a long time.

As to this specific matter of this section, I'm inclined to think these two websites are not great sources. What would be useful, Fyunck(click), would be an explanation of why they are reliable sources (putting aside, for the time being, the issues I mention above). In other words, let's say, for the sake of argument, that there is no special requirement for academic sources here and that there isn't a long messy history in debates over these sources. Why are these two in particular good sources according to WP:RS? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion here. First, if you happen to 'believe in' (see folk belief, emic and etic) the existence of Bigfoot, that doesn't make you a cryptozoologist. You don't magically start using the word cryptid, for example. This word remains obscure to the general public and simply isn't used by academics. We've been over this many times. The word that those who aren't members of the obscure and tiny subculture use is one everyone knows: monster. It's also the same word that folklorists, anthropologists, and zoologists use for fantastical beasts like Bigfoot. It is, by far, the most common word that media outlets use to describe creatures like Bigfoot or, say, the Loch Ness Monster.

And this is exactly why we need academic source for these topics, just like any other, and as mandated by Wikipedia's sourcing polices. While Wikipedia may have served as the subculture's primary vector for years, several editors — including myself — continue to work toward improving the quality of our coverage on these topics. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

That word is not really obscure as I see it in newspapers and dictionaries. It has entered standard English. I have no idea why you keep trying to make it like it is only used by a handful of people around the world. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it's quite obscure to the general public and in media, and Wikipedia is its primary vector. Go on, compare usage of monster versus cryptid! :bloodofox: (talk) 04:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Neither of those websites is reliable in any way, shape or form. Both emphasize "humor" and both publish credulous bullshit. I will consistently oppose any use of websites like this anywhere on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Rhododendrites. Mysterious Universe is a tremendously entertaining podcast - I even used to subscribe to it. However, it's nothing more than that - entertainment. It's produced by two guys out of their home in Australia, neither of whom have scholarly or journalistic qualifications, who don't apply more than the slightest gatekeeping process, and who often have guests of dubious credentials. (This is not a knock on the show, just an observation that it's not intended to be anything more than light fare.) Chetsford (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course they aren't great websites, I'm not sure anyone said that they were great. If at all possible we would want much better ones, preferably books in print. I don't happen to own any books on what is and what is not a cryptid. What I am saying is that no one should be able to be an academic on ghosts or golden fleece either, yet those sources seem to have no problem passing muster here. It's an unfair standard. Way back when, I had high school classes on mythology and demons and other such topics. They were fun but not really academic in any way that I could see. I have no idea if class members took any of it seriously, but we had to do research on the topics nonetheless. If we find multiple google entries of a creature being considered a cryptid, then we put in those multiple sources and add it to the list. You're not going to find scientist written, peer reviewed papers on the topics for sourcing. But you aren't going to find those for ghosts, mythology, or folklore beasts either. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

If you have an issue with Wikipedia's reliable source policy or you need further guidance on what does and does not constitute a reliable source (and, if you'd like, how to source articles on the topic of myth, legend, or any other folklore genre, for example), please discuss it over at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems your suggestion was that specific cryptids be included in a list of cryptids if they were mentioned in, for instance, Mysterious Universe because no legitimate scientific source would index - in the example you gave - Man Eating Trees. And that MU, in this instance, is not being used to comment on the veracity of the existence of Man Eating Trees but simply to verify it exists as a hypothesized animal by virtue of the fact they hypothesized on it. In the strictest sense, you're correct. However, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The mere fact that a not notable media outlet has ruminated on a cryptid certainly isn't enough to warrant its inclusion in an article that is "a list of cryptids notable within cryptozoology". That said, I appreciate your position that the absence of sources examining the sociology of the cryptozoological community means that there will always be a dearth of RS which could establish what is, in fact, notable within that community and understand you're not holding out MU as an example of RS. Chetsford (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not absolute. For instance, professional tennis is sanctioned by the ATP, WTA, and ITF. We use those places as reliable sources for player information and stats. However, by wikipedia consensus, we are forbidden from using those governing bodies as a source for how we spell a player's name at wikipedia. While using crypto books and websites for academic things would be ridiculous, using them as additional sources for what is considered a cryptid makes perfect sense. They are not a first choice, but they are a source when you are talking about fantastic creatures to begin with. Just like we use bizarre books as sources for things like Golden Fleece. Now I don't look at Mysterious Universe for anything, so perhaps it is not as good as some others, but a blanket removal of sources from anything crypto-related is really what we are talking about here. Bloodofox wants all sources from all cryptozoology books and magazines and websites expurgated, and that's not right.

As for indiscriminate lists, we have articles here like List of Nirvana concerts worked on by many editors and administrators through the years. We have lists of thousands upon thousands of asteroids... few of which are notable. Worked on by many astronomy fans. We have lists of every tennis player, List of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, List of Essential Mix episodes, all of which are massive lists compared to cryptids. It seems like this list is being singled out by certain editors because it is not scientific. those other lists have planty of non-notables in their listings and they have worse sourcing than list of cryptids. What is it about cryptids that makes it a continual target for a handful of editors? I don't recall what even led me to the cryptid article to begin with, but I stuck around because it seemed to getting the short end of the stick as far a fair treatment by certain editors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow, where to start with this nonsense. I can sum this up: here you have a lot of text aiming to get cryptomundo.com and mysteriousuniverse.org on Wikipedia by attempting to avoid WP:RS. Listen, add these sources to an article and they'll simply be removed by another editor who leaves an edit summary of "WP:RS". And they'll be right, because reliable sources are a pillar of the platform. You know better, and your time is frankly better spent elsewhere. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Considering the nonsense and mischief you caused in trying to delete the article against consensus, this is a pot, kettle, black, type of statement. Move along. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

As I've pointed out before, those are completely different type of lists. As seen at WP:CSC: "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria" or "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group."--tronvillain (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Back to the topic of the suggested sources. Stop discussing philosophy here.

• mysteriousuniverse.org has a staff of writers, but I could not locate its editorial policy. However the website offers a warning about the reliability of its contents: "Neither we nor any third parties provide any warranty or guarantee as to the accuracy, timeliness, performance, completeness or suitability of the information and materials found or offered on this website for any particular purpose. You acknowledge that such information and materials may contain inaccuracies or errors and we expressly exclude liability for any such inaccuracies or errors to the fullest extent permitted by law."
• Cryptomundo is a WordPress blog. I think it meets the criteria for self-published works. Per Wikipedia policy: "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Dimadick (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Without addressing the other issues, I will note in passing that the content disclaimer is a red herring. You'll find similar disclaimers on the New York Times and CNN websites. Such boilerplate disclaimers don't convey anything about the reliability of a source one way or the other; they just tell us that the publisher has a lawyer. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Keep in mind that this is a question about what whether those are reliable sources for establishing something as a "cryptid notable within cryptozoology." The list shouldn't just be "List of anything ever mentioned by anyone as a cryptid that also has a Wikipedia article." Even within a pseudoscience, there are things that are significant and things that aren't. There are "cryptids" that are prominent within cryptozoology (they get a lot of coverage, have a lot of supposed sightings, people actually look for them, etc.), like bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, chupacabras, thylacines (actually existed, but gets described as a cryptid by those claiming its not extinct), and so on. Then we have things like man-eating trees, described by Shuker in The Beasts that Hide from Man as one of the "little-realized plethora of lesser-known or decidedly obscure mystery beasts also on record - creatures that have often received only the briefest of mentions in the literature, and even then only in specialized, scarcely read, or largely forgotten journals, travelogues, historical accounts, and other esoteric sources." Does the occasional article on a site like Mysterious Universe repeating exactly the same hundred year old sightings, hoaxes, and fiction constitute notability within the "field" of cryptozoology? I really don't think it does. --tronvillain (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Focusing on "cryptid notable within cryptozoology" may not be the best way to frame it. In that context, academic sources are absolutely irrelevant and the question is what are reliable sources within cryptozoology. As we know, with rare exceptions (i.e. Daily Mail), we don't really label sources as never reliable or always reliable for any purpose, so while some cryptozoology publication might not carry a lot of weight when talking about a bigger topic per PSCI/FRINGE, if we're only looking "in universe," then it's more likely that these two websites could be considered reliable (note that I'm not saying that I think they are, however). It seems a lot easier to just make it a list of notable cryptids, including those for which we have a Wikipedia article and for which there are reliable sources calling them a cryptid. It's in that rubric that I think these sources are worse. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

We actually do have academic sources discussing what monsters and entities from the folklore record that cryptozoologists find to be particularly notable, which can generally be summed up as Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster and anything cryptozoologists deem to resemble them. While academics mostly ignore the pseudoscience (or, in the case of biologists, not uncommonly offer up harsh criticism of it), they now and then do discuss what cryptozoologists primarily fixate on. The fact is that we have academic sources on this topic, but we have historically had -- and continue to have -- editors who are choosing to either ignore them or try to wiggle around them in favor of, for example, amateur websites. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's the stated scope of the article, which is perhaps the problem. I still think those wouldn't be sufficient even "in universe", but as you say, perhaps it should be a list of notable cryptids: those which have a Wikipedia article and have reliable sources describing them as a cryptid (sufficient to get that into their article, for example), which would probably encompass most of the "major" cryptids. For collections of anything and everything someone calls a cryptid, there are things like the Cryptid Wiki.--tronvillain (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

But when we have an article on ghost sightings we are going to use books and other sources on ghosts...And when we have articles on lists of cryptids we use books and magazines that describe cryptids. Actually, no. Ghosts and cryptids fall under our pseudoscience and fringe theories guidelines, which advises (for good reason) that the best sources to describe fringe topics and ideas are sources that are independent of those ideas. In short, we don't let a fringe idea present itself on its own terms. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure that is what they are being used for, they are not supporting anything more then inclusion of something as a Cryptid on that list, not for it being real.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, well, good luck. Cryptozoology sources can't agree on anything, everyone claims to be an authority, and every rumor or urban legend has been dubbed a cryptid. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

That is not the source under discussion. So are the sources under discussion unreliable in general?, are are they only unreliable for the specific claims they are being unused to source?, What are they unreliable for?Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'm not sure what makes cryptomundo.com and mysteriousuniverse.org more reliable authorities on what or what is not a cryptid, than say, nationalcryptidsociety.org, or any other cryptozoology site on the internet. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• no these are not RS. They are not OK anyway as blogs, and are especially not OK for WP:FRINGE stuff like this. Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Each one of these is used a bunch of times, needs cleaning:

cryptomundo.com appearances

mysteriousuniverse.org appearances

-- Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Digging through these, some of these appear to be false positives. Any idea why this is? :bloodofox: (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Which ones? Are you sure the link isn't in external links, rather than as a reference? --tronvillain (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep – well, whatever it is, the problem seems to have been corrected. It may have come down to some sort of delay. I'll post examples if I encounter it again. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Reddit.com: Citations in 500+ articles

A search for "Reddit.com" pops up more than 500 citations in article space. I estimate that 85-90% of these cites are improper. (A small minority may fall under a WP:SELFPUB exception). Does anyone want to assist in culling through these and removing the bad ones? Neutrality^talk 23:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes this appears to be a problem, seen these pop-up for factual statements as well. I suspect removing all of them wouldn't cause much issues either. The only case where these might be appropriate are AMAs or Reddit announcements even then if such events are notable they would've gotten picked up by news outlets. In all, Reddit is a forum and shouldn't be cited. Gotitbro (talk) 04:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

crap. link search. that is a lot of work. Jytdog (talk) 03:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

A bunch of these are from ask me anythings. Hm. I think those should be considered OK if used as described in BLPSPS. Not OK for other usergenerated content. Jytdog (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Help with assessing reliability of Ukrainian site used in Tetyana Ramus article

The article Tetyana Ramus draws extensively on http://ukrainka.org.ua/tetyana-ramus. Is there anyone with knowledge of Ukrainian who could offer an opinion on whether this is a reliable source? It looks a bit self-published to me, but I'm just judging by the general feel of the site without being able to read the content. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

based on the about page, people send in stuff and the website posts it. So it is WP:USERGENERATED, really. So not useable. Jytdog (talk) 03:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Jytdog. Having done some more research with Google Translate, I had come to the same conclusion. Before I remove the material that is referenced to this source, does anyone else have a view? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

European Aviation Safety Agency‎

I think I know the answer to this question, but would appreciate other views: at European Aviation Safety Agency‎, is this website an independent reliable source for a mass of detail about its rules and regulations? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you are expecting a "no" :) That is what i say, anyway. Jytdog (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Is it important whether it's independent? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Nordstadtblogger.de

Google translation of the "about us" page

This is a small, German-language local news organization in the Northern District of Dortmund, Germany. Someone objected because of the word "blogger" in the name. They have an actual office, but it's a non-profit/volunteer organization. It's run by the former editor and editorial director of the Westfälische Rundschau, a mid-sized mainstream regional daily newspaper. Nordstadtblogger does general local news stories, with a focus on social themes. They tend to be in support of immigrants and against right-wing extremism.

I found an article where they received a civic award presented by the District Mayor, who described them as "experienced and competent journalists" who achieved "balanced, independent reporting", and "show how innovatively one can develop good journalism on the Internet without having large media groups behind them." The article also says "(Almost) All who write there have a sound journalistic education and often worked for decades in the editorial offices of the Westfälische Rundschau and the Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung".

I've used this article about an exhibition at the Dortmund Museum for Art and Art History as a source for some basic facts about Münsterstraße, one of the main streets/neighborhoods in the district, which was the subject of the exhibition. It would also help show notability for Münsterstraße. So I'd like to get an opinion as to whether it could be considered a reliable source for this and for other typical local news reports, despite having "blogger" in the name. Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

In myv view, It is hyper-local and doesn't help with N. It seems fine otherwise to use. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC) (modulate Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC))

@Jytdog: thanks! But I don't see anything in WP:N or WP:NGEO about the "localness" of a source. Is that an unwritten rule or something? --IamNotU (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is written anywhere. The policies and guidelines are broadly written, and shouldn't be treated like "rules". Something of the notion of what I meant by discounting it due it being hyperlocal is discussed here: Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_independent_sources#Relationship_to_notability. People have very different perspectives about this kind of analysis all the time, btw. :) I've redacted my comment to make it more clearly "my view". Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks again! --IamNotU (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Carlo Troya at Origin of Romanians

At [4] Iovaniorgovan has inserted a book published in 1846 as if it were a WP:RS, which he also stated at [5]. Please chime in. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Further question: can the 19th-century Troya be listed among the scholars who contributed to the development of the theories of the Romanians' ethnogenesis without verifying his place with references to reliable sources?Borsoka (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

"as if it were a WP:RS? Are you suggesting it's not?--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No book published in 1846 is WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. It is rather a primary source about the thoughts of a mid-19th-century historian. Borsoka (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. And a secondary source would be necessary to show that this historian's opinion has any relevance. Jytdog (talk) 03:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem, secondary source showing that this historian's opinion still has relevance will be used instead.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Cautionary note on Simon and Schuster who I've discovered also publish woowoo material

I've usually assumed they're ok. But Michael Tellinger, the discoverer of Adam's Calendar, most of whose books are self-published by Zulu Planet that seems to be owned by Tellinger.[6] has managed to get "Slave Species of the Gods:The Secret History of the Anunnaki and Their Mission on Earth" published by them.[7] The book on Adam's Calendar is published by Zulu Planet that seems to be owned by Tellinger.[8] Same publisher for "Temples of the African Gods" and "Ubuntu contributism". Doug Weller talk 13:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

bummer. Thanks for the information. Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly a source that was formerly used on Emela-ntouka, discussed below, is:

Loren Coleman & Jerome Clark (1999). Cryptozoology A-Z. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 9780684856025.

Pinging User:Bloodofox who posted the section below.Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

How topical! Definitely another example. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Statements of Fact Based on One Report from One Media Outlet, Sourced to Anonymous Sources

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.

---

I was recently reverted here by DrFleischman. Originally They speak so often that one Trump adviser has said that Hannity "basically has a desk in the place.", I tacked on , according to a Washington Post story.. as it's a sensational claim that the article writers claim was claimed by an anonymous "presidential adviser," and the claim hasn't been verified by other news orgs (to my knowledge).

Fleischman performed a similar act here, arguing that Cristiano Lima's assertion that Hannity "echoes Trump's anti-media rhetoric and his attacks on the Russia inquiry." should be treated as a fact, and stated as such in Wikipedia's voice. Since the source provides no proof or even evidence of this claim, I felt a "Cristiano Lima argues that" attribution is necessary, especially since Lima's claim is dubious to say the least and can be readily debunked.

Can we have some clarity to really nail down when it's acceptable to skip attribution and go ahead and allow journalists to be the final arbiters of facts on Wikipedia, please? Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Is this a content dispute or a conduct dispute? This board is for evaluating the reliability of sources. The sources in question are news articles from The Washington Post and Politico. Mr. Plainview has already acknowledged that these are reliable sources. However at least in the case of the Politico story, he wants in-text attribution in part because he contends that Politico is "leftist." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

this revert, is to a change in the title in the citation. For pete's sake, look at what you both are actually doing. The revert was fine (but for the wrong reason) and the edit that was reverted, was idiotic and very obviously tendentious. That person is heading to a TBAN. Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

as to this revert, i find generally that when you have a quote in the content, it should be attributed in the content. I also generally find that quotes are shitty writing and are often intended to be colorful. WP content should be neutral and should summarize the content, simply and neutrally (negative content can be summarized neutrally) Simply writing "Hannity often attacks mainstream media and attacks the Mueller investigation in ways similar to Trump." sourced to Politico, would be fine. Jytdog (talk) 03:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

::So to answer DrFleischman first, this is of course a content post. I have no serious issues with your conduct so far, although I am growing a bit peeved that you continue to blatantly misrepresent my concerns with the content despite being corrected at least twice, now. Both sources are reliable in general, yes, with the exception of the occasional false report and heavy reliance on what they claim to be "high level White House officials who wish to remain anonymous" and such. As I explained to you yesterday here and here, I did not say anything remotely resembling "I want in-text attribution because Politico has leftist leanings". This is a content post, but if you continue to intentionally repeat this falsehood, we may have to explore remedies to throw a wrench in this pattern. The material should be attributed appropriately if you only have one source that makes the claim, which happens to be demonstrably false. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC) :::In response to Jytdog, that edit was actually in the wrong place. I had meant to add the attribution to the content, not the reference (I would think that is fairly obvious). I am not exactly what you would call a "seasoned editor," but I would be astonished if editors get banned for trivial mistakes like that. Your revision proposal is POV ("attack" is much less neutral than "criticize"), and doesn't properly attribute the source of that argument. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It should be attributed it is an opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Which? If you're talking about the "basically has a desk in the place" quote, that's already attributed in-text to its speaker, which is a Trump staffer, not the Washington Post. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I am being blind, I see no attribution except for the economist. It reads to me as if we are saying this in Wikipedias voice, and that if off.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I'm confused, which sentence are you talking about? The "basically has a desk" sentence, or the "echoes Trump's rhetoric" sentence? The former is properly attributed in-text to its speaker, while the latter is a factual conclusion, not an opinion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• I still don't understand why we're here. Mr. Plainview has repeatedly acknowledged that the sources in question are reliable. I think this discussion should be closed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

::The reason why we're here is because you think this claim should be stated in Wikipedia's voice, and I think you're wrong and policy says otherwise. But once again, that's not you're missing the issue. The issue is that the alleged claim by this anonymous source that Lima claims to have is not attributed to the publication that chose to print it. If we don't attribute stuff written in a single article on the Internet, where do we draw the line? Look at former Politico writer Glenn Thrush's article: "A leaked email released in October 2016 by "Wikileaks", which the U.S. intelligence concluded was executed by the Russian government, showed Thrush sending John Podesta portions of a draft article that dealt with Podesta, asking that he fact-check the statements, and writing: "No worries Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u. Please don't share or tell anyone I did this Tell me if I fucked up anything." Not only is Thrush's email attributed to the source, but Wikipedia's voice pins the whole thing on the Russkies. We attribute the source of the email (twice), and Thrush admits he sent the email.[9] But somehow, the sensational and preposterous "Hannity basically has a desk in the place" gossip from a phantom source written in Politico gets to be stated in Wikivoice with no attribution whatsoever. Something's not adding up here. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Asking the subject of draft articles for comment and/or to verify facts is how journalism works. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Mr Plainview is correct to take it here, the question is not just whether a source is often reliable (and it may not be if it in turn depends on something unverifiable see WP:RSCONTEXT), but whether with an opinionated source we must state that source, and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV says yes. Of course even attribution might not be enough for this BLP. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You've just re-confirmed that this doesn't belong here, as this board is about whether certain sources are reliable, not about how we handle in-text attribution. If this is a BLP issue then it can be taken to BLPN. I'm not going to respond here to comments that a Politico news article is "leftist" or "opinionated." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Your statement "this board is about whether certain sources are reliable" is an error, as the top of this page says "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context". I believe that Mr Plainview has valid RS concerns, but if I've hurt his argument by adding that there are violations of other policies too, then I apologize to him. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

::::::Thanks for clarifying that Peter Gulutzan. The only thing I'm confused about now is how do these postings conclude, normally? Does an administrator come in and make the final call as to whether Lima's claim should be attributed? Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

You could look at WP:CLOSE but look also at the WP:BLPN archives and you'll see that these threads rarely end with formal administrator close. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

* as i noted above, the content is a quote. Everybody learns in grade school that if you are quoting, you attribute that. X said: "Blah blah blah." The content as it stands is just bad writing. This remains a goofy argument. It would be an interesting discussion if the content were paraphrased. Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Pardon me but honestly I'm having trouble discerning which version you are siding with here! You insinuated that editors should be banned for making an edit in the wrong place so I got ab it lost. So for 1), you are in agreement with me that the ", according to an anonymous source quoted in a Washington Post story." is needed? And for 2), you said the Politico article with Lima's argument that "Hannity echoes Trump's anti-media rhetoric" should be attributed to Politico? Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Both of you are making bad arguments. I didn't insinuate anything btw. What I said was that the first specific edit cited "was idiotic and very obviously tendentious. That person is heading to a TBAN." When I say "tendentious" I am referring to the larger pattern of behavior. With respect to the 2nd edit, I said that if it is quoted it should be attributed. I said that the content would be better if the source were paraphrased. Jytdog (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Which quote needs to be attributed? The "basically has a desk" quote? That quote is already attributed to a Trump staffer per the source, yes? I don't think that particular quote is paraphraseable. FWIW I agree that quotes should be paraphrased when possible, and when quoted directly they should always be attributed in-text. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you are talking about 2 different things. The first quotation says "one Trump advisor says" and the quotation is referenced. I don't see anything else has to be said, if the reference supports this. In the case of the second quotation I agree that Christiano LIma should be mentioned in the article since it is his opinion that is being written, not a fact. If a physics paper says e=mc^2 we can use the article as a source but if it also says "Einstein was the most studly physicist ever" we would legitimately wonder how the author knew that.Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment - OP has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a community banned user. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hidden Tempo, to be exact. I've struck his edits. Doug Weller talk 16:16, 26 May 2018 (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.

Malmö

Is this source reliable? It involves the former police chief of Malmö, Sweden talking about crime in Malmö to journalists from Breitbart news. --2001:8003:4023:D900:84FB:E76A:E25C:7CE6 (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

We cannot comment on sources alone - what content do you want to source from this, in what article. Jytdog (talk) 03:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Breitbart News is an extremist site and such it is only usable for information about itself. See WP:QUESTIONABLE // Liftarn (talk) 06:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I would like to use the source as a citation on list of grenade attacks in Sweden, in reference to the increase in crime because of the migrant crisis. --2001:8003:4023:D900:45A4:C69C:3094:F649 (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I have added the source but liftarn removed it because he views it as not reliable, which is why I am asking here. --2001:8003:4023:D900:45A4:C69C:3094:F649 (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Liftarn. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Immigration plus Breitbart equals exclude. Guy (Help!) 10:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Anything plus breitbart equals exclude Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I've actually added Breitbart to Wikipedia:Press coverage 2018, too inclusionist? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, they may be press, in that they publish sentences online, but as a source..just no Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It's Breitbart, so, no.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Not for that, no. Jytdog (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

We have many other RS other than Breitbart that talks about skyrocketing crime in Malmo so no need to use Breitbart. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

That may need updating as crime is down.[10] // Liftarn (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

climate-data.org

I'm after opinions on climate-data.org. It looks self-published and its sole point of contact is one individual. There is very little other information on the website. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

It's rarely a good sign when the contact address is a Gmail account. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Tricky. The lack of an obvious authority is indeed a concern, but there are no ads and in the end it's a relatively uncontroversial aggregator of weather data. However, I would still lean towards excluding it because in the end authority matters. Guy (Help!)

I don't know about there being no ads. On this page I get two ads. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Why would one want to use this on Wikipedia?? I can't see any source information for an encyclopaedia there. Dmcq (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

As of now there are 1,120 links to it.[11] --AussieLegend (✉) 14:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh I see, data from the site is being imported wholescale into Wikipedia. They created the data from sources to try and make money. See their licencing page "If you would like to use this data for your own products you must be granted a license. Please contact us and tell us about your plans." I think it is not technically a copyright violation like directories can't be copyright, but it certainly feels wrong to me, I don't know which policy to remove it under but I'm sure there must be one amongst all the ones Wikipedia has. Dmcq (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I've never heard of the guy who put this together and can't find any info on him. There's absolutely no info on where the data were sourced or the methods used for analysis, other than "All of our climate data comes from a climate model" which is meaningless. So this source is not reliable and should not be used as a reference on en:wp. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Not reliable. Lots of red flags here. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

can an image of an object/printed card be a valid source?

Hope this is the right place to ask this question (newbie)...Can an image be a source/reference for information about an article topic? I have a number of scans provided by institutional archives of postcards announcing an artist collective's exhibitions. the facts of the shows (when/where/who) are on the cards. if they give permission to upload to wikipedia can an image of the postcard be the reference? The info in the images can be verified in NY times listings for the same exhibitions. Or are the postcards considered like press releases and not valid references? Or is this original research and disqualifying for that reason alone? The way i see it, there is no possible misinterpretation of the image because it is a scan of published words (scan of the physical object in an archives' collection) rather than an image of people or a situation which can be interpreted in different ways. some of this is touched on here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_175#Using_jpeg_files_as_inline_citations but I am not clear on how to deal with this particular situation, as I am totally new to this. Thanks!Jenuphoto (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Then why not use the NYT?Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, even press releases can be valid references for some content (there's a Template:Cite press release) as primary sources potentially subject to WP:ABOUTSELF. And if they're from archives, there's always Template:Cite archive - sources aren't required to be available online, though clearly it's great if they are to allow verification. Do you want to use them for information that isn't in the NYT listings?--tronvillain (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that should be okay. There is no problem with OR as the information on something like that was clearly for the purpose. You should acknowledge the archives as the sources. Dmcq (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• I have a couple of thoughts about this.

First, like all scholarly projects, content that is added must be sourced in such a way that other people can go look at the source too. It would be OK in theory to cite something like "Postcard #442, Box 5, in Artist Collective XX Archives in the New York Public Library" -- it needs to be well-defined enough that somebody could actually go there.

But I would be dubious of postcards that were scanned and uploaded being used as sources. That is too easy to monkey with, in my view.

Second, there is the additional issue, of each of these post cards being a primary source (essentially a press release). And building up big sections of content based on primary sources is generally a bad idea here in WP. Because:

a) we summarize secondary sources here. WP should not be the first place where something like a history of exhibitions by the collective is published - this is reallydoing history' here which is a form of WP:OR and not OK.

b) the issue of WP:UNDUE comes up as well, for sections built entirely from primary sources.

Those are my thoughts, fwiw. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I should have added, btw, that the scans would be nice illustrations for the articles, probably! And you have the NYT listings which are much better. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a weight thing. A postcard is not a very substantive document but I see no issue if it supports some smaller assertions perhaps about the advertising on the card or what have you. Legacypac (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

everytime i read your comment i keep laughing. :) Jytdog (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Emela-ntouka

Can we get some eyes on Emela-ntouka? After stripping out the usual cryptozoology pseudoscience, a quick search doesn't reveal any reliable sources for this topic, just the usual pseudoscience from figures like Loren Coleman, amateur cryptoozologist websites, and even some nonsense by Roy P. Mackal. If this entity does indeed stem from the folklore of Central Africa, surely there's some specialist sources out there from folklorists (academics active in folklore studies) or Central African studies specialists. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hm, see section above, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Cautionary_note_on_Simon_and_Schuster_who_I've_discovered_also_publish_woowoo_material Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Eric Zorn

I have a 2-part question regarding the same source. I need advice on if the journalist Eric Zorn can be cited as a source for facts, or just for his personal opinion, or not at all.

Part 1: Does the news blog at the Chicago Tribune qualify as a reliable source under WP:NEWSBLOG?

Part 2: Does the journalist, Eric Zorn, having written more than 36 articles over the past 30 years about Rob Sherman, qualify as a "specialists and recognized experts" and "authoratative" on the specific topic (Sherman) as described under WP:NEWSORG? Is he a citable reliable source for facts, or would information from Zorn about Sherman still need to be attributed to Zorn?

As you can see, the "Change of Subject" news blog is operated as a feature of the Chicago Tribune by op-ed columnist Eric Zorn and edited by the coordinator of the Tribune editorial staff, Jessica Reynolds [12]. WP:NEWSORG also says, "One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections." Zorn's news blog does issue corrections [13], [14], to maintain factual accuracy. Holbach Girl (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I found this about the Zorn news column by the Tribune, regarding editorial oversight: "It's previewed by editors. I appreciate the second and third sets of eyes" [15] and "We've more or less adopted the SacBee model in which I can and do post directly to the site, but I do so shortly after emailing a short roster of editors, some of whom are on duty at any given time, so they can give it a quick look." [16] Holbach Girl (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Boing Boing

Hi folks, How are Boing Boing for a reliable source, specifically Johannes Grenzfurthner Thanks scope_creep (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Primary source, so what is it being used as a source for?Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You may be interested to read West_Bromwich_Albion_F.C.#Supporters. But then again, you may not. Boing boing. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Johannes Grenzfurthner. So it is genuine. I wasnt sure about the site. The author Thomas Kaestle has only two articles, and both seem to be about the Monochrom artist group that Grenzfurthner is part of, suggesting it is self generated. scope_creep (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

As I said, without knowing what it is being used for hard to say if it is RS (not genuine, just not RS). But no it does not sound RS to me (as a general rule). It would (I think) be RS for his opinions, but not their veracity.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Excellent. Slatersteven. Then I would say, it is reporting a film he is working on, so I would be looking for factual source, not his opinion on it, in this particular case. Thanks scope_creep (talk) 12:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Then I would say as long as we say he has claimed this it would just about be RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it's not user-generated, but a translation. (Scroll down to the end of the interview.) But I agree that there are probably better factual sources. Interstellarpoliceman (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

SFlist

Is SFlist (and it's affiliates RS)?

Specifically this [[17]] for the claim that a given person set up a museum (and for the other "facts" it contains)?Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

My position, as in edit summary: SFist and LAist are/were clickbait churnalism. In this case LAist was obviously cannibalising original reporting from elsewhere (in this case Pasadena Star News); so go with the original. NPalgan2 (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC) Issue is moot. NPalgan2 (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Not really as LAlist is used in at least one article as well. Thus the question about general RS status stands.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• this was part of the Gothamist that provided really invaluable local news coverage in the cities where it operated. In NYC the WNYC (the main public radio station) acquired the local iteration and has it up and running again. So I would say yes, reliable for basic facts about the museum. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

German

Is the following a reliable source: https://www.lvstprinzip.de ? 92.10.238.53 (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Using Google Translate, this page and this page seems to indicate that the site is a blog of Theresa Lachner with guest authors. This page seems to confirm that it's largely Lachner's site. It would fall under WP:SELFPUBLISH, which really only allows self-published sources by noted and recognized authorities in a given field. I'm not immediately spotting anything on Lachner, though the Portfolio page links to materials that could result in an article (which would help one argue Lachner is an authority in the field and save one a lot of future trouble in maintaining a citation).

Even if that was resolved, there's still the following issues: What article on Lvstprinzip are you citing? What article on this site is being Lvstprinzip cited for, and for what content? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• The question as posted is not answerable. Please read the instructions at the top of this page. Jytdog (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson Okay, to be more specific, is this source permissible for usage on wikipedia? 92.10.238.53 (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Once again, you would need to establish that the author is a recognized authority in whatever field you're citing them for. That's a guest article, so Lachner's potential authority may not carry over.

You have still not yet specified what article on our site you would be citing that Lvstprinzip piece for. I'm not sure that it matters, because there's not really any objective claims about any subject we have an article on at any rate -- just the author's subjective feelings about their own personal experiences.

Wikipedia is not censored, but we're not a diary or an art exhibit, we're an encyclopedia. What is your exact purpose in asking us about this site? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

What Ian said. IP editor, read the instructions at the top of this page. If you post again without providing the additional information, I will just close this. Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, let's make it simple: For (almost) all practical purposes that that website is not a reliable source and should not be used for Wikipedia.

Even if you would show that an individual article was written by a highly reputable author (and hence theoretically might be considered as a source), he most likely has published somewhere else. More importantly the self published exceptions usually only apply for content that is more or less undisputed. For disputed or controversial topics (which probably includes most sexual topics), that exception usually doesn't apply and you need a repputable publisher and (peer) reviewed publication as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Richard Rohr

Greetings! Richard Rohr has been tagged five years for chronic WP:COI and WP:NPOV issues. My attempt to add a critical review of a book is met with resistance and the claim that it violates WP:WEIGHT. We could use some more opinions. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm on the other side of this dispute, and I agree we need more opinions. 173.209.178.244 (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Holy crud, that was civil. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC on use of a master's thesis

See Talk:1946 British Embassy bombing#RfC about Bagoon Source which may interest this board.Icewhiz (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Isaaq genocide

What is the appropriate form of action if someone promotes an article title that has zero sources? Thylacoop5 (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

BTW, the same editor also violates MOS:LEADSENTENCE in this edit. Thylacoop5 (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Is it okay to use the Daily Mail as a source for a benign, non-political article?

Just sayin'. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 15:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Why would yo not use a better source? What does it say that is not said somewhere better?Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

^^Agree. And the Mail is rarely benign - it can make a malignant mess out of any subject you care to name and often does. - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Also also its the only source I can see even talking about this puzzle type, making me speculate its legitimacy. --Masem (t) 15:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

No. Unreliable means we cannot assume that anything it publishes is accurate. TFD (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, there is a high likelihood that anything published in The Daily Mail is plagiarism.[18][19][20][21][22][][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] Never use The Daily Mail for a source on anything, ever. No exceptions. If it isn't in any other source they made it up. If it is in another source use that other source instead. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

We don't have a never ever policy for the Daily Mail but an avoidance policy (which allows for occasional exceptions).--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

So has anyone found any other source for this?Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Amartya Sen book review

Economist Amartya Sen, in a New York Times review of Mike Davis' Late Victorian Holocausts, notes that India, China, and other countries which were formally or informally part of the British Empire suffered massive man-made famine in the 19th century. These countries were run under free trade systems, yet the outcomes were remarkably similar to the great Communist famines, leading writer Tariq Ali to call Davis' book a veritable Black Book of liberal capitalism. Sen concluded that man-made famines don't arise specifically from communism or capitalism, but from any government subjecting people to an "absence of economic power combined with a lack of political leverage..."

References

Is used to aver that China was "(informally) part of the British Empire" in the 19th century. The review itself makes no such claim, nor does the review compare "communism" and "capitalism" other than to say Tariq Ali calls this a "Black Book of liberal capitalism." In addition, the lengthy quote seems aimed at presenting opinion as direct fact, and to verge on excessive length of a copyright article. Is the review a "reliable source" for the claims made, ought the review be noted as editorial in nature, should Tariq Ali be described here as a supporter of the Bolivarian Revolution etc., and is the entire topic covered in a fully neutral manner using his review. Mass killings under Communist regimes Thanks. Collect (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

That's ridiculous on a bunch of levels. Not OK. And on the narrow question, no, this source is not reliable for the content, as it doesn't support it. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• I am not sure I completely understand the point (I mean was the question about Davis or Sen's interpretation), but here is a quote from a review on Davis's book (Geoff Mann (2003) Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World, by Mike Davis New York: Verso, 2001, Rethinking Marxism, 15:2, 295-297, DOI: 10.1080/0893569032000113587):

"For Davis, colonial famine in the late nineteenth century was the result not of the failure of political systems,but of their effectiveness: “drought was consciously made into famine by thedecisions taken in palaces of rajas and viceroys”. The contemporary “Third World” is the miraculously standing remnant of regions that were meticulously devastated by a London-centered program of imperial economic order and colonial disempowerment that “aggressively exploited” environmental calamity. The argument is extremely convincing. Late Victorian Holocaustsis a “political ecology of famine”, an examination of the human/environment dialectic that generates mass starvation. It presents two integrated histories. The first is an analysis of a series of catastrophic environmental disturbances (drought and flood) in the non-Western world that were the context for between 31 and 60 million deaths in India, China, and Brazil alone between 1876 and 1902. The second is a detailed narrative of the history and state of scientific knowledge of the source of these environmental disturbances: the large-scale climate events known as El Niño/Southern Oscillation, or ENSO. Recent earth science research has demonstrated that the environmental instability that contributed to these famines was associated with ENSO. Davis’s argument is thus conjunctural: planned international market penetration and the deliberate disassembly of systems of local and national economic autonomy, in combination with ENSO-driven drought and flood, created what we now know as the “third world.” For example, in India, perhaps the central case in the book, he chronicles the terrible toll of severe droughts-made-famines by British policies of export orientation, free-market “price famines,” and a battery of regressive imperial taxes on peasant producers. Extended examinations of Brazil and China reveal similar stories. It is this “sinister combination” that makes this quarter century a “radical point of division in the experience of humanity”.

"The political environmental nexus with which he is concerned is only recently receiving the attention it merits, and an understanding of the interpenetration of nature and political economy that constitutes the “secret history” of famine is a crucial contribution to the analysis of the global spread of capitalism."

In addition, the book was cited almost two thousands times according to google scholar.

My conclusion is that if the Geoff Mann's review is a reliable source for Davis, then Davis is a reliable source for the claim that Britain was responsible for late 19 century famines, including the famine in China.

Hope it was helpful. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Great - China was part of the British Empire, and the UK was responsible for its famines. Find a real source for that claim - please. Collect (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for providing a long quote (I did that to avoid taking the statement out of context). However, just in case if you have difficulty with reading and understanding long texts, I reproduce a small piece specially for you (emphasis is mine):

"For example, in India, perhaps the central case in the book, he chronicles the terrible toll of severe droughts-made-famines by British policies of export orientation, free-market “price famines,” and a battery of regressive imperial taxes on peasant producers. Extended examinations of Brazil and China reveal similar stories."

In other words, the source says that British policy caused severe famine in India, and the same story reproduced in Brazil and China.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

This is bizarre. In high school most of us learned that the opium wars led to British imperial influence and colonization of the major Chinese ports. If nothing else, you're educated enough to know the meaning of the words informal and economic. -GPRamirez5 (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Whatever this is, it does not belong to the page Mass killings under Communist regimes, and especially to the section about origin of communist terror. Hence I excluded it. This can be included back if we will reach consensus here to include. My very best wishes (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• I see that the citations do support the content, except for one catch. The informal empire (or informal colonialism) is mentioned in Davis's book. The colonial empires did indeed practise "liberal capitalism", but I don't know if book covers it specifically in the context of China. Amartya Sen is certainly discussing "liberal capitalism" and "formal socialism" (which presumably means communism). Sen is not denying that liberal capitalism was a cause of famines (says, "that it certainly is"), but he is saying that economic disempowerment was perhaps the more important factor. There is a quotebox in the review that shows that the colonial state did intervene to ameliorate famine, but it was half-hearted and inefficient.
  • Now the catch: Sen is drawing a parallel from communism to liberal capitalism, i.e., not only liberal capitalism but communism also can also cause famines. But the text of the article is drawing a parallel the other way: not only communism but liberal capitalism can also cause famines. That is mild WP:SYNTHESIS and should not appear in an attributed paragraph.
  • A better solution is to first mention that Davis's book talks about famines under colonial empires practising "liberal capitalism". Having said that, you can add that Sen says the true cause was economic disempowerment.
  • The attribute "liberal" in "liberal capitalism" is important. It is in fact called classical liberalism, which prohibits welfare state or any form of state intervention in the economic activity. "Capitalism" by itself doesn't involve such ideology.
  • As an aside, I might add that India had no famines after independence. They put their mind to it and got rid of them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

    And Bangladesh had, so what?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

    One more famine you can't blame on Communism.GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

    • Uh... in 1974 Bangladesh had a planned economy, five year plans and all (though to be fair this particular famine was probably due to other causes).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Kautilya3—WP:SYNTH is often interpreted overly broadly. Bear in mind the information on this explanatory supplement: SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition, SYNTH is not summary, and SYNTH is not explanation. - GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the point is not that both Communism ad liberal captitalism can cause famines, but that in both cases the cause is imperialism, i.e., the elites of one country controlling other countries against the interests of those countries. That provides an alternative to the thesis of the article that Communism alone was responsible for the famine in Ukraine. TFD (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

GPRamirez5 I know WP:SYNTHNOT quite well. (I would, woulnd't I, if I am giving feedback on this noticeboard?) I stand by my assessment that the current paraphrase involves SYNTH. But it is easy enough to fix it, as I indicated.

Well I can tweak it, but I'm still not clear on where the deviation is. The order of a comparison (in this case between communism and capitalism) doesn't effect its value: 4+1=5 means the same thing as 5=4+1.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, you seem mathematically minded. So it should be easy enough to see that Sen is making a comment on liberal capitalism whereas the text here is making a comment on communism/socialism. So they are different. The substance is similar, but when you attribute it to Sen, you can't say something different from what he said. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I don't see Amartya Sen talking about imperialism. Rather, his position is that the checks and balances of an open democracy are necessary to force the state to deal with famines effectively. In principle, an imperial regime could have promoted such checks and balances. Conversely, a home-grown dictatorship could quash them equally. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, there is some good debate here on why democracy failed in Bangladesh in 1974. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Kautilya3, is this what you mean?

Economist Amartya Sen argues that economic ideologies in themselves do not cause famines, including the major communist ones. To Sen, man-made famines don't arise specifically from communism or capitalism, but from any government subjecting people to an "absence of economic power combined with a lack of political leverage..." In his New York Times review of Mike Davis' Late Victorian Holocausts, Sen noted that India, China, and other countries which were formally or informally part of the British Empire suffered massive man-made famine in the 19th century even though these countries were run under free trade systems. The outcome of the policies were nonetheless remarkably similar to the great Communist famines, leading writer Tariq Ali to call Late Victorian Holocausts a "Black Book of liberal capitalism."

GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I am afraid this is even worse than the original in some ways, because it is mixing up Davis (who talked about "imperial famines") and Sen (who is talking about 20th century famines). Stuff like "formally or informally part of the British empire" is not Sen's language at all, but you are putting it in the attributed text. Also, phrases like "free trade systems", "policies" and "remarkably similar" are not his language. We don't know whether these famines have occurred because of "policies" or because of the failure of policies. It is also not a good idea to bring in Tariq Ali, who might not have talked about communist famines at all. (I haven't seen his review.) The best you can say in the second part is:

Sen noted that famines of similar magnitude to the imperial famines have occurred in 20th century communist economies.

That is all he said, as far as ideologies go. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I see. Or rather I don't. I'm perplexed that "informal empires" can't be mentioned because the language isn't in the Sen article (this to me is exempted through SYNTH is not explanation), but Tariq Ali shouldn't be mentioned even though he is explicitly mentioned in the Sen article, and "Black Book of liberal capitalism" is a clear cut comparison to The Black Book of Communism which was a hot topic in the press at the time this review was written. Actually, interweaving insights from a notable book review by a Nobel laureate with observations from the book which it is favorably reviewing seems on the whole like a case of reasonable synthesis covered by SYNTH is not just any synthesis. But I could be wrong.

Kautilya3 , would you consider re-writing the edit? I think that might satisfy everyone. Alternately, I could just add the page numbers from Davis that mention free trade, informal empire, etc.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, would it be correct to summarise the discussion as:

Davis and Sen can be good sources to support the claim that large scale and devastating famine was a widespread phenomenon in 19th century in colonies and the countries that were dominated economically by Briatin; the scale of these events was comparable with later famines that occurred in the same countries under Communist rule. These sources may not directly support the claim that China was an informal part of British Empire, because this is a loosely defined category.

Please, let me know if anybody disagrees.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Boing Boing

I linked to an interview on Boing Boing, but it was removed as a non-reliable source. True? Boing Boing Interstellarpoliceman (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Seems it has already been discussed. Will comment there Interstellarpoliceman (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Blogs discussing Ranked Choice Voting

Seeking others' input regarding two blogs being held out as RS

• leastevil blog
• bolson blog

This dispute arose at Burlington mayoral election, 2009 as follows -

• Bold edit .... I don't know when these two blogs were added to the article
• Revert 1 ..... I reverted them as self-published non-RS blogs
• Non-discussed re-Revert (Non-AGF Edit summary "revert blanking of references")

Attempts at other discussion

• I started this Thread at talk page for Omegatron (talk · contribs), citing our policy on edit warring, but more particularly for this board's purposes, I also cited our poilicy on self- published sources. I suggested the other ed undo their re-rerevert to seek consensus on the use of these self-published sources.
• In reply the other user tosses a link to WP:TENDENTIOUS at me.

Does the board believe the cited sources are WP:RS in this context? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Wound characteristics of military-style rifles

Is the New York Times a reliable source for bullet wound characteristics? Which article(s), if any, should this be included in? –dlthewave ☎ 20:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed text

Wound characteristics The New York Times interviewed several trauma surgeons with military experience, who described the wounds created by assault rifles, both military and civilian variants: “What makes injuries from these rifles so deadly…is that the bullets travel so fast. Those from an M-16 or AR-15 can depart the muzzle at a velocity of more than 3,000 feet per second, while bullets from many common handguns move at less than half or a third that speed. The result: The energy imparted to a human body by a high velocity weapon is exponentially greater than that from a handgun.” The bullets in an M-16 or AR-15 also turn sideways (yaw) or "tumble" when they hit a person. The surgeons also explained "the weapons produce the same sort of horrific injuries seen on battlefields…You will see multiple organs shattered. The exit wounds can be a foot wide.” As the blast wave travels through the body, it pushes tissues and organs aside in a temporary cavity larger than the bullet itself. They bounce back once the bullet passes. Organs are damaged, blood vessels rip and many victims bleed to death before they reach a hospital.”

References

Background

The text has been proposed or added to Assault rifle, Assault weapon and AR-15 style rifle.

Survey questions

1. Is the New York Times article a reliable source for this statement?

2. If the statement is found to be reliably sourced, which article (if any) should it be added to? If the source is found to be reliable, which article(s) (if any) is it a reliable source for? (Assault rifle, Assault weapon, AR-15 style rifle, specific cartridge type, or something else) Wording changed per discussion below. –dlthewave ☎ 03:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Straw poll

• OPPOSE INCLUSION FOR ALL ARTICLES...by definition, anecdotal evidence, as such not reliable.--RAF910 (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

RAF910, "interviews with trauma surgeons with military experience" on this topic is not anecdotal evidence by any definition, much less a news article based on them among other sources. If that's what your opposition is based on, you might want to rethink it. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The NYT article is filled with hyperbole. For example "The exit wounds can be a foot wide." Really? Someone please tell me where I can get 5.56mm ammo that will produce an exit hole larger than a basketball. Maybe you should rethink your support.--RAF910 (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• No, the NYT is not a RS for medical information and has an axe to grind on this issue. This is not MEDRS compliant AFAIK. And it is also filled with hyperbole due to the gun debate in the US. The reality is a tad more nuanced - there are high velocity handguns on the one hand, and the M-16/AR-15 small caliber has actually led it to be ineffective against body armor - with the army looking at 6.8mm [30] and 7.62. Interviewed surgeons invariably (in any conflict) bemoan the damage caused by bullets (whether they stay in or zip out). We should stick to a solid medical (or cadaver/dummy) studies, of which I am sure there are several, which are not linked to the gun control debate.Icewhiz (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Not usable for anything here. I get a feeling that the journalist has done some heavy editing on what the trauma specialists said, without knowing what he/she was doing, because I doubt they said what the article says. The energy does not depend entirely on bullet velocity, as the article seems to claim when mentioning the lower velocity of handgun bullets, but on velocity when entering the target and bullet weight (½ x bullet weight x velocity squared), which since handguns usually have heavy bullets (ranging from ~125 grain for a 9mm to ~230 grain for a .45ACP) while the 5.56x45mm NATO (which is the caliber they were talking about, since that's what the M-16 and most AR-15s are chambered for) usually have bullets in the 55-70 grain range, and handguns are used at short range while rifles are used at longer range, means that a handgun bullet can very well have the same energy when hitting the target as a 5.56mm rifle bullet has. Which a surgeon with military experience of course would know. The material has been repeatedly added to Assault rifle and Assault weapon, i.e. articles about weapons, where it most definitely does not belong, for these reasons (copied from a post of mine at Talk:Assault rifle):

"They (i.e. wound characteristics) are totally irrelevant in this article since it isn't the rifle as such that causes the wound, but the ammunition/bullet. How severe a wound is, i.e. penetration, size of wound cavity etc etc, depends entirely on the cartridge (bullet diameter, bullet length, bullet weight, bullet type, velocity when entering the target etc), not on what type of weapon that was used. The barrel length matters, since a longer barrel usually results in a higher muzzle velocity, but what type of action the weapon has, what it looks like, whether it has a removable magazine or not, etc, is totally irrelevant. Which is why wound characteristics belong in articles about specific cartridges (and many articles about military cartridges already have such information), not in articles about different types of weapons."

So, as I wrote there, the only article that kind of material might belong in is 5.56x45mm, but that article already has that kind of information (scroll down a bit and you'll find illustrations and all...), much more professional information to boot, so I see no use at all for the kind of unprofessional sensationalist information the NYT article provides. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes the New York Times is a reliable source for reporting the assessments of experts in this or any other field. Dismissing such as merely "anecdotal evidence" strikes me as a bit odd. I'll pass on the question of which article(s) are appropriate for this information. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

"Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes, i.e., evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony."--RAF910 (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment This is a difficult set of questions as phrased. It depends greatly on what context. The NYT source suffers from being politically motivated and lacking some requisite technical details but that alone doesn't exclude it. It is a poor quality source on this topic which already has good, technical sources in 5.56x45 NATO. Which article it is fit for raises questions of NPOV and DUE weight which cannot be decided here. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• YES INCLUDE for all the articles. Of course the NYT is a credible source of information and the damage caused by AR-15 is specifically described. Several respondents above act as if their own expertise matters, when it does not. Wikpedia is about including facts from credible sources. They are welcome to add other articles that further cover the subject that may disagree with the statements of the trauma surgeons cited in the NYT article. But to exclude such content is wholly inappropriate. "You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts" as the saying goes. It's factual, it's from a credible source, include it. Then decide how to balance it if you have other credible factual sources that disagree.Farcaster (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • All what articles? All the articles on Wikipedia? This is RSN, being a reliable source doesn't make something fit for inclusion in any given article. It could be an entirely reliable and factual source but you can't just pop it into the Opossum article. Which articles in particular are you saying this is a RS for? And that still doesn't answer whether it is DUE. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    • The articles are listed above. Please read what you are commenting on.Farcaster (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Sorry, my apologies, I didn't see that line. Not listed is the most relevant article which I could see it going in and the one I had suggested: 5.56x45 NATO. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Inadequate It isn't a very good source when more academic works on the subject may be found. Concerning two of the doctors cited in the article, they mention the rarity with which they operate on someone having these wounds and that doesn't go well with describing them as experts. "Now, though the wounds are still rare on the streets of Birmingham, he operates on occasional victims..." concerning Dr. Kerby. Concerning Dr. Gupta, "Attacks using AR-15-style weapons are still rare, he emphasized. He sees mostly handgun wounds and some from shotguns." Better sourcing with more collated data from actual experts en masse is needed and available. Try books about ballistic wounds. Trying to use a NYT article for this subject is a hack job.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Yes for the first question per Shock Brigade Harvester Boris. As for the second question, that's beyond the scope of this noticeboard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, after reading the NYT article more closely, I don't think the proposed text is completely accurate in capturing the what the source is saying. First, while it does say that 3 of the doctors served in the military, but does not say how they served. Perhaps they were surgeons. Perhaps they were infantry. We don't know because the article doesn't say. Second, unless I missed it, I don't think it supports the text "both military and civilian variants". Therefore, I would propose the following:

Wound characteristics The New York Times interviewed several trauma surgeons with military experience, who described the wounds created by assault rifles, both military and civilian variants: “What makes injuries from these rifles so deadly…is that the bullets travel so fast. Those from an M-16 or AR-15 can depart the muzzle at a velocity of more than 3,000 feet per second, while bullets from many common handguns move at less than half or a third that speed. The result: The energy imparted to a human body by a high velocity weapon is exponentially greater than that from a handgun.” The bullets in an M-16 or AR-15 also turn sideways (yaw) or "tumble" when they hit a person. The surgeons also explained "the weapons produce the same sort of horrific injuries seen on battlefields…You will see multiple organs shattered. The exit wounds can be a foot wide.” As the blast wave travels through the body, it pushes tissues and organs aside in a temporary cavity larger than the bullet itself. They bounce back once the bullet passes. Organs are damaged, blood vessels rip and many victims bleed to death before they reach a hospital.”

References

• Source has serious issues, these wounds are not inflicted because they are from a military style rifle, but instead because they are from a rifle firing a certain cartridge, the type of rifle is incidental. This is equivalent to saying being hit by a MAN truck is in some way worse than being hit by a Mercedes truck, despite the two travelling at identical speeds and having identical fronts. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC).
  • Logic needs work; the cartridge by itself does nothing; throwing it does little damage.Farcaster (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I think you should read what I wrote, "they are from a rifle firing a certain cartridge", who said anything about throwing? Rather than simply making snide comments about those who hold opposing views from your own, can I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:CIVIL and WP:EQ. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Hm.

PMID 25724396 is a review from 2015, PMID 20565804/PMC 2898680 is a review from 2010, and PMID 19644779 is a review from 2009; they are the most on-point MEDRS reviews and both say the same thing -- that tissue damage from a bullet is a function of the kinetic energy of the bullet; the kinetic energy = one-half the mass times velocity squared. So velocity is by far the most important aspect. The velocity is dependent on the weapon, with handguns providing far less than rifles, with shotguns in between but depending on the range, causing more damage due to the multiple projectiles. Both articles walk through that and talk about the resulting injuries. The shape of the bullet also matters, and whether it tumbles or fragments. They also make it clear that the temporary cavitation when a high velocity bullet passes through tissue is much larger than with a low velocity bullet, and that inelastic organs like the brain, liver, and spleen are devastated by large temporary cavitation from high velocity bullets. This is what the surgeons in the NYT article talked about the most.

The Hartford Consensus from 2015 also talks about this; it is a high quality MEDRS source -- a clinical guideline. It doesn't go into the same deal but see example page 30, left column, where the stuff I just wrote is reviewed.

This document from the military about kinds of wounds, and wound management, says the same thing as well. It also names kinds of weapons, so will be more useful with respect to adding content to specific articles.

All four of those are MEDRS and say the same thing as the NYT.

In my view the content should absolutely come in in the relevant articles about guns and rifles and shotguns, with these sources. The NYT ref can be used to a) provide as a "lay summary" and b) connect the generic types of weapons discussed in these pages to the specific models, if that is needed. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

btw PMID 26958801 is a primary source, reviewing autopsy reports of civilian mass casualty shootings, and comparing those to battlefield wounds. It notes that there is a much higher mortality rate with civilians because a) civilians aren't wearing protection so head and chest "hits" are devastating; b) civilian shootings tend to be close range. That is addressing comments above bringing in issues of range, with respect to velocity.

An aside -- in the course of looking for sources, I came across this article from the UK about care of wounded soldiers, which has some history and some horrific pictures that were hard to see. It is Memorial Day tomorrow in the US. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Jytdog, these sources from how you have described them seem quite useful and appropriate. The discussion of different rounds and weapons in the military document would make this appropriate for the Assault rifle article and could be used to expand the individual weapon and round articles (at least one of which already has this discussion in technical detail). The military document does on the other hand list among common misconceptions velocity being the most important factor. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

glad you are pleased. Please be careful not to cherry-pick. :) Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I personally have no concern with how lethal or devastating any round or weapon is described to be as long as it is well sourced and accurate. From my knowledge 5.56mm AR-15s do produce massive wounds. I was brought to this discussion by concern over the manner in which a secondary dictionary definition was added to the Assault rifle article, not any interest in hiding discussion on the lethality of these weapons. I should mention that you are right, it is good to remember Memorial Day in this discussion. —DIYeditor (talk)

• Source is reliable, but lack of specificity limits applicability to a few articles The source in question makes some generalized statements about bullet wound characteristics without specifying the cartridge(s) from which the bullets creating the observed wounds were fired, although it may be inferred the cartridge would have been the 5.56×45mm NATO which was the primary cartridge used in the M4 and M16 rifles. Although AR-15 style rifles are mentioned by the source, many AR-15 style rifles use other cartridges. The 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge is also used in many other firearms, and many bullets used by civilians are of distinctly different design than the bullets used in military loads and may be loaded to significantly lower velocities. The material might be useful in articles like Stopping power or Hydrostatic shock (firearms) focusing on description of bullet injuries. Its usefulness for the 5.56×45mm NATO article would be conditioned upon positive identification of that cartridge to the described injuries. It would not be appropriate for articles describing firearms suitable for multiple cartridges because of the erroneous implication the firearm rather than the cartridge is a primary determinant of injury characteristics. Thewellman (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Yes The NYT is a reliable source, but it may need to be attributed if any RS challenges any of this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Yes, obviously a RS and should be included. Contrary to some assertions above, the muzzle velocity and damage caused is certainly not a function of the cartridge only. It also depends on the barrel, and is generally greater for longer barrel lengths. Waleswatcher (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Of course it's an obvious RS, regardless of whatever original research or fantasies people concoct to try and change that fact. Maybe should be attributed at most. Some of the comments here are frankly ridiculous ("I know better than the writer therefore it's not RS!") Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, obviously. A reliable source. Objections seem to be special pleading here. Neutrality^talk 15:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• I think that question #1 kind of misses the point. Why do we care about whether a source is "reliable"? It's so we know whether we can "rely" on it, in our quest to get our facts straight in the article. Are these claims accurate? Well, looking at some even more obviously reliable sources, the answer is "yes". Can you rely on this source? Yes. Is it possible to substitute in a gold-plated academic source? Yes. Is using the "best" source necessary? Well, it's not required by any policy, but as a matter of practical politics, people who don't like the content will have a much harder time saying "You didn't say Mother, May I? when you added that content, because that's only an acceptable source rather than the best possible kind!" (I find it hard to believe that people who know anything about firearms would even pretend that a class of rifles that was originally designed for the US military would be no more dangerous to its targets, or even any different from, any other firearm that can shoot any of the same cartridges. Muzzle velocity is significantly affected by the barrel, not just the cartridge. To put it another way, everything in this list uses the same cartridge, but they do not have identical effects.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Reliable Source can be used wherever it is relevant. Journalist conveying qualified expert knowledge. That's what journalists do. SPECIFICO talk 16:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• No, The removed content stated "assault rifles, both military and civilian variants:" This would incorrectly lead readers to believe all AR's are assault rifles. The content also attempted to mislead readers by asserting that simply being shot one time from this caliber is so deadly that a instant death is assured.

I do not believe comparing a rifle with a hand gun is relavent to this article. It is common knowledge that a rifle is more powerful than a hand gun. The removed content also stated "“What makes injuries from these rifles so deadly…is that the bullets travel so fast." You are also making a very specific claims with velocity,"is that the bullets travel so fast." it is just on the high end with a very spicific barrel length, and most rifles have this speed and beyond. You are also making a distinction with just one caliber in a general article of weapons.

It would appear that some editor here have just a very basic understanding of firearms, by there comments. And therefor basing there views on this lack of knowledge.

The WP:BALASP policy states "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms , or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial , but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic . This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news ." -72bikers (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Question #2 is off topic for this noticeboard as phrased and should be stricken. It combines consideration of DUE weight and NPOV with reliable sourcing. If it were to remain here it should ask whether it is a RS for particular articles, instead it begs for an extended discussion on a number of topics. Also not phrased in a simple manner per RfC instructions because it fails to provide any background - totally open discussion would be instigated. Since the RfC has already started and there are responses, the malformed question #2 should simply be removed from consideration here. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The two main concerns are "The NY Times article is not a reliable source, period" and "The source isn't talking about the topic of this article, but you might try adding it somewhere else." In fact you've admitted to using the latter argument to make Farcaster someone else's problem by sending them to another article where you believe their edit will be rejected, when you actually believed it would be more relevant to a third article. I'm hoping to "kill two birds with one stone" and avoid sending Farcaster on another Fool's errand. My intent was to determine which article the source is about, since it mentions several different models and we don't have a Military-style rifle article.

I agree that ...whether it is a RS for particular articles is a better way to phrase it. Perhaps If the statement source is found to be reliably sourced reliable, which article(s) (if any) should it be added to is it a reliable source for? would be a better question. –dlthewave ☎ 00:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes I think that would be the right way to handle it. And maybe list it as "which of the following articles" and list them with the RFC question because I originally missed the line below the text which listed the articles. Maybe it's just my problem but it seems like the formatting was a little confusing. My main point was to clarify that a finding of "reliable source" here is not a definitive answer on whether to include it. As a note, I did not think I was sending Farcaster on a fool's errand in the sense that the NYT article was not fit for the AR-15 article, I think it probably is, I only meant that the discussion is more appropriate there. I do think he would run into the same degree of reaction against it there but I don't at this point agree with that reaction. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Let me further say, I was confused a bit by the "proposed text" being included when the survey questions were not about the proposed text. I don't think we can address the proposed text here except as far as to say if it is based on the RS correctly - and that would be a question #3. I focused mainly on the two questions as they were worded, which is really what an RfC is supposed to be, and I think we have been somewhat talking at cross purposes because of this. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Why NYT (yes, a gold-standard for journalism, but this is not a journalism issue) - and not actual journals and serious publications? e.g. [31], [32] (yes a presentation, but their paper is probably interesting and they have results in a nice chart), [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38].Icewhiz (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I believe that's not really the source of the dispute. The editors who want to include this kind of information would be happy having better sources (they just used what they found available); the editors who don't want to include this kind of information will not be happy no matter how "perfect" the source is. People who don't see it as a political issue may be a little confused about why this isn't standard information for all articles about firearms. What happens to the target is relevant even if your context is purely subsistence hunting. You can't eat pink mist (a bullet that shreds isn't so handy if you want to eat squirrel meat), but you do need a bullet that hits with enough force to kill your next meal. But here, I think that the complaints about the source quality are just the first step in complaining about whether the information belongs in the article at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: You seem to have missed the point entirely. Those who object to adding it to the articles it was added to do so because it, for the reasons given in multiple posts above, simply doesn't belong in those articles, but in articles about the cartridges (in this case the 5.56x45mm). Where there's no need for the NYT article since that information in many/most cases already exists in those articles... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking at this from a WP:MEDRS perspective as well as from a non-US-centric perspective. I think it would be interesting if we quantified the "deadliness" of assault rifles (which, BTW, in what I skimmed through some of the links above regarding the M-16/AR-15 has actually more to do with the bullet breaking up/fragmenting in the body and less with velocity) vs. other types of guns - but I really do not think that the motivation of the really RECNETISM (in terms of how "hot" a topic this is) of gun control vs. assault-like guns due to school shootings should be the motivating factor.Icewhiz (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The Hill, Fox News, and Daily Caller reliable sources?

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.

---

Would publications on the following outlets be considered reliable sources?:

• The Hill (newspaper)
• The Daily Caller
• Fox News

I've come across some info I'd like to include in the National Council of Resistance of Iran article and just want to make sure these are valid sources. Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Caller, probably not, except for documenting what certain right-wing figures say. I would use Fox and The Hill with inline attribution, as they are biased, but rarely deceptive, sources in their news reporting. "According to a 2017 Fox News report..." And note that opinion pieces are never sufficient to establish facts, unless they are written by a scholar in the area being addressed.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@GPRamirez5: The Daily Caller was judged reliable at the most recent discussion. wumbolo ^^^ 18:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

wumbolo, reading through that thread, I don't see any consensus about Daily Caller, just one random editor trying to declare an authoritative judgement, but not many people agreeing with him.GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a blatant lie. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't checked others but FOX is reliable as major WP:NEWSORG as we don't do usually inline attribution for BBC the same goes for FOX.--Shrike (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Caller has an ongoing association with known fabricator James O'Keefe.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Caller is not reliable at all. DC regularly publishes false, misleading and poorly research stories. It does not have a reputation for fact-checking, and should not be cited for factual statements. The stories it reports are no indication of due weight. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• I haven't formed a clear enough opinion of The Hill to opine. Fox News is ok for some things, sure. I don't think anybody would give a blanket "yes it's reliable" to any of the major news outlets, though; context matters. Daily Caller, however, is unreliable for statements of facts. The Daily Caller was judged reliable at the most recent discussion is inaccurate. Daily Caller comes up regularly here. A thread from 2013 is not the most recent discussion. That's also the most favorable outcome I've seen regarding the Daily Caller of all the times it has come up. Finally, even in that most favorable outcome, it doesn't say "judged reliable". The summary at the top says "At best, it's reliable but should be avoided in favor of more neutral media whenever possible". That's pretty far from "judged reliable" full stop. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Generally speaking, The Hill and Fox News are considered reliable. I'm not sure about the Daily Caller. Also, as Rhododendrites points out, reliability depends on context. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• The Daily Caller is certainly not reliable or usable for statements of fact. Fox and the Hill are usually usable for straight-news reporting, but note that the Hill's various "contributor blogs" are opinions and are not usable except with in-text attribution (much like Forbes's contributor blogs). Neutrality^talk
• In the case of Fox News... a lot depends on which program we are talking about. Some are traditional news reports (the shows anchored by Shepard Smith, Bret Bair, or Chris Wallace, for example) very reliable (there is some bias in choosing what news they report on... not how they report it. They do neutrally report the news). Then there are the news analysis and commentary shows... Outnumbered, the Five, Sean Hanity. These (like all analysis and commentary, in any news outlet) needs to be presented as being opinion and attributed as such. A few shows blur the line between reporting and analysis - but if you follow a basic “when in doubt, attribute” self-policy you won’t go wrong. The same, of course, goes for CNN, MSNBC, BBC, The Wall Street Jounal, The Times (and the NYT). Basic reporting is reliable... but attribute anything that gets into analysis, commentary and opinion. Blueboar (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• The Daily Caller in imho completely unusable as source for WP aside from the possible rare exception as a primary source to document some text being written in the daily caller. For the other two it depends on the context, i.e. what WP content is being used with what source from Fox or The Hill. With regard to Fox however I disagree a bit with some of the framing above. While it is true that Fox is mainstream news (in the US) and the same general guidelines apply as with other (mainstream) news organizations, Fox is an outlier nevertheless and differs somewhat from other mainstream news organisation like for instance the BBC. In fact I see it much closer to RT than to the BBC. Whereas better mainstream news on average tend to bring on renowned academics or otherwise distinguished experts, Fox often tends to bring on a clown parade of "pundits".--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2018 (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.

Living Dinosaur

Major issues with synthesis and pseudoscience over at living dinosaur that could use more eyes. Page seems to be a pile of WP:SYNTH consisting of the usual crackpottery one can expect from cryptozoology circles (in this aligned with Young Earth creationism, as happens frequently with the pseudoscience). See talk page. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)