Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457

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

consultingbyrpm.com/blog -- personal blog of economist Robert Murphy

ω Awaiting: Explanation of how removal of the Callahan personal blog (from the article) changes the analysis of the Murphy personal blog. – S. Rich (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Stale

 – The article text and supporting references have changed since this thread was begun and the comments may no longer apply to current article content or sources

SPECIFICO talk 18:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Source: "Free Advice: The personal blog of economist Robert P. Murphy": "In Defense of the Mises Institute" [1].
2. Article: Ludwig von Mises Institute#Criticisms
3. Content:

   Mises Scholar Robert Murphy wrote in support of the Institute's founder, Llewellyn Rockwell. He called the critics of Rothbard and Rockwell "hyenas" and defended Rockwell's refusal to respond to the controversy surrounding the racist content in the Ron Paul newsletters.[37][38] [39][40] In the opinion of former Mises Institute Scholar Gene Callahan, "I think the truly racist time at LVMI had passed by the time Bob [Murphy] and I got there" around 2001. Callahan states, "Rothbard, in the late 80s or early 90s, had decided that an appeal to racists was just the ticket for his movement. He published articles saying things like blacks weren't doing very well because they weren't so smart, got involved with Neo-Confederate causes, and so on. I think by 2000, Lew Rockwell sincerely regretted that time". Callahan rejected Robert's Murphy's denial that the Mises Institute is a cult, and compared it to Scientology.[41]

• Content (updated, as material from Callahan removed per RSN):

  Mises Scholar Robert Murphy wrote in support of the Institute's founder, Llewellyn Rockwell. He called the critics of Rothbard and Rockwell "hyenas" and defended Rockwell's refusal to respond to the controversy surrounding the racist content in the Ron Paul newsletters.[40][41][42][43]

• Talkpage discussion: Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#Murphy blog as RS for article .28BRD.29
• Notes by OP: Footnote 37 is the Murphy blog citation. Footnotes 38–40 are about the Ron Paul newsletters. Footnote 41 is the subject of another RSN, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gene-callahan.blogspot.com. (The quoted passage is copied from screenshot of paragraph without using <ref></ref> Wiki markup so that footnote numbering does not change with subsequent edits.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Despite (or maybe because of) a lot of words coming from Srich, I still have no idea what his objection is. MilesMoney (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I cannot read his mind, but a frequent objection (and one widely supported at this board) is that in general a blog is not a reliable source, and that even in cases where it is accepted (e.g. for an opinion), there needs to be a good reason why a particular blog post deserves enough weight to include it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I tried that on, but it didn't fit. We're using Murphy's words about himself and his own organization, so it's WP:ABOUTSELF that applies here, not WP:BLOGS. Moreover, we're quoting him in support of the subject of the article, which means WP:BLP can't possibly apply. The reason we're doing this is so that we can frame Callahan's response, which would otherwise make no sense, so this is well-motivated.

I can't read his mind, either, but if that's what's on his mind then he's wasting our time again. I've been frustrated with his confusing, incompetent and counterproductive behavior on this issue, and I'm no less frustrated now. MilesMoney (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Just gonna point out that I've asked SRich to explain himself, he's made other edits to this section, but hasn't even tried to explain himself. Looks like all we're left with is mind-reading and I'm not detecting any hints of what your objection is. a whole lot to read.MilesMoney (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Not a helpful comment. Please redact it per WP:NPA. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstood it, but whatever. MilesMoney (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• PRIMARY sources are piss-poor at evaluating racism. They're entirely unsuitable to cult-studies. And they're inappropriate for the history of small controversial organisations. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It turns out that the primary source isn't even quoted on the issue of cults, and we have to let them discuss racism because it would be unbalanced to let Callahan's allegations go unanswered. MilesMoney (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't interest me. The source isn't reliable for the claims it is making. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't apply to anything I said. Unfortunately, none of your comments show that you have a working understanding of the relevant issues so I'm not sure what to do with your opinion. MilesMoney (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me quote you in detail, "we have to let them discuss racism because it would be unbalanced to let Callahan's allegations go unanswered" We must X because WP:OTHERSTUFF. No we must not. I'm sorry but you can't backdoor shit into the encyclopaedia because someone else once did so. The source you're citing has no capacity to judge racism in the sociology of small group organisations, nor is it credible for the history of a small controversial political group. This is because it is a primary SPS. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If you actually read WP:OTHERSTUFF, you find that it's not only a (non-binding) essay, it's a link to a section called "What about article x?". This argues against the idea that one article's existence should be justified -- in an article deletion discussion -- by referencing other articles.

What we're talking about isn't article deletion, nobody's making the argument that it argues against, and it's not even binding, regardless. Like I said, you don't have a working understanding of relevant issues. You're misquoting non-policy out of context to something it was never even supposed to apply to. The relevant policy is WP:BALANCE and it's on my side. MilesMoney (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

OTHERSTUFF is often mentioned in discussions about problematic edits. The analogy is that the existence of other lousy stuff/articles does not justify keeping this lousy stuff. While BALANCE is editing policy, it does not come into play until the threshold question is asked – Is the Murphy blog (or Callahan blog) acceptable RS? We cannot have two personal blogs (not acceptable RS) presented in the name of BALANCE. This is especially true when these personal blogs are talking about third parties. Also, Murphy's blog is not about "his organization" in that he has no official role in the administration or policy positions of LvMI. He teaches & has had stuff published by LvMI. (Another analogy. Fouad Ajami is a Fellow at the Hoover Institution. He's written over 400 articles about Arab & Islam issues. It would be improper to look through his publications, find interesting tid-bits, and post them in a "Views espoused by founders and organization scholars" section.) The views of the individuals, like Murphy and Callahan and others, are best confined to their particular articles. – S. Rich (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

@Srich The Murphy piece is RS for the content which is cited to it in the context of this article. Most of the points I stated in the Callahan thread above also apply here to Murphy. In neither thread have you made a case based on policy and content. Instead you are dressing up your opinion with inapt citations and misinterpretations of policy. Please do some background reading: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Please note, per one of the links provided, it is not constructive to deploy gratuitous language such as "lousy stuff" here. SPECIFICO talk 18:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

PRIMARY SPS with no EXPERT making accusations tending to libel. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

What article text sourced to Murphy's blog is libelous? I don't think calling Rockwell's unnamed critics "hyenas" is actionable. SPECIFICO talk 22:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Libel is not the issue. (Murphy could be saying wonderful things about different people.) When a personal blog talks about others (persons and third parties) it goes beyond WP:ABOUTSELF. Murphy's personal blog involves named, particular third parties/third persons. It is not acceptable RS about the Ludwig von Mises Institution. – S. Rich (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This is out of touch with the facts. Murphy is writing about himself; he's a member of the Institute and therefore free to discuss it all he likes. He's saying good things about it, defending it, so libel doesn't even enter the picture. But if he wants to deny that it's a cult, that's his call, and he's a reliable source on what members believe about the cult status of the Institute. MilesMoney (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

SRich, you've been curiously silent. Can we conclude that you're dropping your objections now that they've been soundly refuted? MilesMoney (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

That would be a welcome outcome, since Srich has rejected user Fifelfoo's libel concern. Of course, keeping Murphy's bit intact makes it all the more appropriate we also keep Gene Callahan's comment on Murphy, for balance. Note that Callahan defends Rockwell by stating he believes that Rockwell came to regret the racist redneck strategy which supported the founding of vMI. SPECIFICO talk 15:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:QS says: "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves;... They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. [Emphasis added.]" Murphy's blog might be suitable in his article or for posting his expert opinion in the field of economics. Callahan's blog might be suitable in his article or for posting his expert opinion in the field of economics. Murphy has taught & had publications published by LvMI, that does not make him an official of the organization. I'm a "member" of the Sierra Club. While I can use my personal blog to express any personal opinion about the Sierra Club, that opinion cannot be used in WP. Fifelfoo has objected on multiple points. I support many of the points. Again, we have a blog commenting about another blog which is commenting about other uncited comments. This is QS based on other QS. – S. Rich (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

@srich: Have you reviewed the links which discuss various of the fallacies you have used in these RSN threads? That will help move this discussion forward. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

My background reading is not the issue of this thread. Rather, let's look at the names included in Murphy's blog: Ron Paul, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Peter Klein, Roderick Long, Mark Thornton, Lew Rockwell, Guido Hulsmann, Jeff Herbener. Even if he says wonderful things about these people, he is giving us gossip, rumor, and personal opinion. His personal blog has no meaningful editorial oversight. It can be used in the Murphy article, but not elsewhere. – S. Rich (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

This paragraph describing a kerfuffle between warring camps of libertarian economists (between the "GMU Austro-libertarians and the Auburn Austro-libertarians") is a tempest in a teapot if all we have on it are blog-sourced salvos sent at each other across no man's land. Why do we care what the bloggers are saying to each other? This stuff should be sourced to mainstream journals and books, not blogs, and it should be described neutrally rather than in the voices of the involved. The text shown at the top of this thread as "content" is clearly using Murphy's blog post as a coatrack to introduce the intended post by Callahan who is given five sentences versus the one sentence offered to Murphy. It is clear from this addition by Steeletrap in mid-August is the basis for the current RSN discussion; Steeletrap writes that Callahan "implies" that LvMI is a cult akin to Scientology. It is only later that Murphy is added by SPECIFICO in a false attempt to provide balance, when it is obvious that the only reason Murphy is added is so that the bit by Callahan can better survive deletion. The much greater weight given to Callahan is revealing. I think the whole paragraph should be struck as undue weight. Binksternet (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Wrong flick, Binksternet. This has nothing to do with the Cato/Mises rift. Murphy and Callahan were colleagues at Mises. SPECIFICO talk 01:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the part where I linked to the same Murphy blog that you used as a reference. It's the same game. Binksternet (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you may be directing your efforts to an area beyond your expertise with these libertarian and Austrian economics articles. SPECIFICO talk 01:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm really good at recognizing activist editors who are here to slant the encyclopedia their way. Binksternet (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The subject of this noticeboard is Reliable Sources, and so far you haven't shown much understanding of the sources, their contexts, or the WP policies that would apply to them. But I'd love to have you prove me wrong and see some on-topic policy-based writings from you. SPECIFICO talk 01:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion of my "understanding" is not worth comment. There is a larger picture here; larger than RSN's purview. This context should not be absent from the discussion, as it bears strongly on the matter. The various blogs from Murphy and Callahan are not useful on Wikipedia unless they are 1) on topic, 2) founded on the writer's widely acknowledged expertise, and 3) relevant to a summary style encyclopedia article on the topic. In this case, the relevance is severely lacking. Murphy argues against unnamed critics of LvMI-as-a-cult and then Callahan responds saying LvMI is indeed a cult, in his opinion. Who cares? This back-and-forth by bloggers is not mainstream news. I say delete the paragraph per WP:UNDUE. As well, neither Callahan nor Murphy are expert cult researchers, so they are out of their element. Binksternet (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, just about nothing regarding the Mises Institute is "mainstream news." Please read all the source material. Murphy says that no group which solicits dissent could possibly be a cult. Callahan, in order to refute him, gives a counterexample. It's a matter of logic. One needn't be an "expert cult researcher" whatever that means, or call Ghostbusters, to figure out that Callahan has refuted Murphy in this narrow clearly stated matter. SPECIFICO talk 17:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The more I look at Rich's and Blinksternet's hardline refusal to accept either of these sources, the more I realize that neither of them has even an excuse. Neither one can point at a rule that's even relevant, much less on their side. Neither one has anything substantive to object to; it's all just WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

I also realize that, since we can't quote Callahan without Murphy or vice versa, we can't talk about how reliable they are separately. We need a single thread, which means this one is dead in the water. Let's close both of these threads, burying the mess, and let them open up one where they actually stay on topic and don't misapply the rules. MilesMoney (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The Callahan blog RSN is getting plenty of comment, and each RSN thread has a notice about the other. Combining them will not work for two reasons: 1. Combing would not change the basic RS analysis (for either blog) and would only complicate a thread that is quite long as is. 2. What you say about the fate of Murphy's blog vs. Callahan's is true to a certain extent. If Murphy's blog is non-RS, then Callahan's comments about Murphy's blog get kicked out because of WP:UNDUE. I opened the Callahan blog RSN first because some editors claim other RS supports the idea that LvMI is a cult. Callahan's blog might be non-RS in this regard, but the other sources might support a cult description. But since Callahan's blog talks about Murphy's blog, I felt it necessary/helpful to open this RSN as a separate issue. Again, I remind readers that each thread provides notice about the other. – S. Rich (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not saying that LvMI is a cult. For that, we'd need considerably stronger sources. All we're saying is the obvious and uncontroversial fact that the controversy exists, that members of the LvMI argue publicly about whether it's a cult. I'm just not going to let you misinform people by spinning the issue this way. MilesMoney (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

As the RSN regarding the Callahan blog is now closed with a non-RS determination ([8]), I propose that we give equal treatment to the Murphy blog and consider it non-RS as well. It would be unbalanced for us to leave the Murphy comments in the article. – S. Rich (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The topic here is whether it's RS, not the balance of the article. You may withdraw this at your option but if not, let the discussion proceed to a conclusion. SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The closing of the related Callahan blog RSN said: [inserted closing text curiously omitted by OP: "consensus was that comments from Callahan's blog in re: the institute as a cult should not be included in the article.] The basis for this consensus was that, as a self-published source, the content is generally considered unacceptable for use. [Emphasis added.]" I cannot see how we might consider Murphy's blog as RS. It is specifically self-labeled as a "personal blog". It would be incredibly inconsistent to allow one blog in, yet exclude the other. – S. Rich (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC) [omitted text inserted SPECIFICO talk 13:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)]

A request to close this RSN has been posted at WP:ANRFC. – S. Rich (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The two RSN threads are about different issues and Srich's insistence that, because the Callahan/cult text was rejected, the closing Admin must reject the Murphy defense of Mises Institute is unfounded. SPECIFICO talk 21:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

There may be two different personal blogs involved with the two RSNs, but the WP editing issues involved match. Each blog is WP:SPS. Each goes beyond WP:ABOUTSELF because each blog talks about third parties. Each is WP:QS. Each is WP:PRIMARY because they ruminate on their personal experiences at LvMI. Each involves blogging about material that is not within their areas of expertise – economics. Specifico has not advanced any WP policy, guideline, or argument to overcome this fact. – S. Rich (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems as if you feel that there's more to say in this discussion. If so, I suggest you withdraw your request for closure. If not, I'm sure the closing Admin will bring the matter to the right conclusion without needing special instructions. SPECIFICO talk 23:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't have anything to add. The arguments are well laid out above and, by connection, in the closed Callahan blog RSN. I would not presume to instruct an Admin on how to close. (And they'd probably ignore any such proffered instruction.) – S. Rich (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Content related to Murphy's blog now updated per removal of Callahan quote. Basically the material after the footnotes. – S. Rich (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

In light of this update, the discussion in the current thread no longer reflects the current article content and sources. This thread should be withdrawn. Please start a new thread which states whatever issues remain in the article. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the Callahan material was found non-RS was posted a few days ago. Perhaps "Clarify" would be a better term. No matter, the issue remain the same – Murphy's material is a personal blog and does not serve as proper RS. (How does the removal of the Callahan blog change that factor?) – S. Rich (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

ω Awaiting: Explanation of how removal of the Callahan personal blog (from the article) changes the analysis of the Murphy personal blog. – S. Rich (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Stale

 – The article text and supporting references have changed since this thread was begun and the comments may no longer apply to current article content or sources

SPECIFICO talk 18:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Please state the question for which you are soliciting discussion. Please be specific and state any outstanding concerns and their relationship to the current article text. If you are requesting further editor comment here, please withdraw your closure request so that all editors will have a chance to comment and help move the discussion to a resolution and consensus. SPECIFICO talk 15:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

How does the removal of the Callahan blog (from the article text) change the fact that Murphy's personal blog is SPS and thereby is not acceptable RS? An answer might start off saying "Murphy's personal blog is acceptable as RS in the article because......" – S. Rich (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think what you meant to write was, "Does the removal of the Callahan text change the fact that Murphy's statements are acceptable RS?" I would say it doesn't change things. Murphy is still RS for the text attributed to it. Please withdraw your request for closure so that discussion can resume. Otherwise, this thread is going to remain stale and stuck. The alternative would be to withdraw this thread and start anew with a more clearly stated issue which relates to the current article text. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you appreciate the value of anchoring. (And my framing of the question/s was quite deliberate.) So, I will await fulfillment of this inquiry:

"The removal of the Callahan material changes the analysis of the Murphy material because..... and the Murphy material is RS because.........."

Please provide rationale for the missing portions. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Is People magazine a reliable source for BLPs?

A number of biographies use People magazine for sourcing various statements. Prior limited discussions on this board have held People to be generally reliable. [9], [10], [11] However, concerns have been raised that People does not meet the sourcing standards laid out by WP:BLP. The full discussion outlining these concerns can be found here.

1. Can People continue to be used as a reliable source in BLP's?
2. If the answer to 1 is Yes, under what circumstances should People not be used as a source in BLP's?

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Survey (first question "Can People continue to be used as a reliable source in BLP's?")

• Yes, it can be validly used. I don't have any new arguments, so I'll repeat some of what I stated in the above linked WP:BLP noticeboard discussion: People is generally not considered tabloid journalism, at least not by Wikipedia, which means that use of it for biographies of livings persons (BLPs) is generally not in violation of WP:BLPSOURCES. It has become standard practice to use it as a source in BLPs; editors often have especially felt that it is fine to use for uncontentious material. It is also used as a source in many WP:Good (GA) and WP:Featured (FA) BLP articles during those nomination processes (where the sources are usually extensively analyzed, especially with regard to WP:Featured articles), without any problems. I wouldn't put People in the same category as the National Enquirer or the Daily Mail, especially not the former, and of course neither has the Wikipedia community generally done so. Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes. I mean, it can be used; it'd be pretty silly to say it can never be used. This doesn't mean that it can always be used for everything, that everything that appears in People must be true, or that People is the gold standard for journalistic veracity on this planet. But it can be used. Am I understanding the question correctly? Of course it can. (BLP's can be fraught; there's some material that should be redacted even if we have an excellent ref, there's usually lots of harmless and uncontested material that doesn't really have anything to do with why WP:BLP was created and the spirit of BLP, and then there's some borderline material where we want to be really careful. Those need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis, and things like the reputation of the author of the piece and other factors might come into play. You can't really have a strict rule that covers all these cases.) Herostratus (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes People is a magazine that has a major emphasis on reporting celebrity news. If terms such as "gossip" and "tabloid" are defined broadly, then People is a gossip tabloid. Defined more narrowly, it isn't. It has a reputation for fact checking, accuracy and professional editorial control. Therefore, it is a reliable source in specific contexts. Certainly, a book published by a reliable publisher would be a better source, or even an article published in a respected newspaper. But we are not debating whether or not People is the best source ever published, but rather, whether it is generally reliable for biographical information about notable celebrities. Even the New York Times can be unreliable, for example, Judith Miller's articles about the runup to the Iraq war. I believe that People is generally reliable for biographcal details regarding celebrities. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, to be used for uncontentious biographical information from interviews, as per WP:SELFSOURCE, and possibly for other information relevant to People as per Context matters. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 07:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes. Longstanding consensus is that People may be used as a reliable source (obviously in BLPs, since LPs are their focus), and it is already used in a large number of well-written, well-sourced articles, including GAs and FAs. It is a mainstream magazine published by one of the oldest, most reputable magazine publishers in the world, it employs experienced editors to oversee a staff of qualified journalists, it has a reputation for fact-checking, and because of its good name in the business it enjoys an enviable level of trust among its readership and among the celebrities it covers. We would be hard pressed to replace it because no other source with its specific focus is as reliable. In discussions leading up to this RfC, the term "tabloid" was bandied about, but it seems unfair to tar People with that broad and woolly brush; the magazine's style may verge on the lurid at times, but the same can be said of much celebrity coverage in other sources, including various daily newspapers and broadcast news programs. Besides, the substance matters more than the style, and no evidence whatsoever has been presented that People 's substance is generally less reliable than that of any other source. Rivertorch (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes. It is particularly useful for interviews and announcements from BLPs and their representatives, which they have a good track record of rendering faithfully. Siawase (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, especially in interviews of LPs and statements they make regarding themselves, their lives and careers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• No as it is a gossip magazine; as someone put it below, accuracy is not important for its business model. However good its fact-checking, it is, by its nature, prone to use less encyclopedic rigour in what it does and doesn't print than we require for sources on a BLP. There are also well-founded concerns about it being used by celebrities for what amounts to product placement. We should perhaps adopt similar, but even stricter, guidelines to using sources like this and Hello to those we already have for sourcing from autobiographies. A Featured Article should never be sourced to gossip magazines, as their editorial values are so different from ours; even if, on occasion, they contain useful material (and I have seen little evidence of this), it should always be possible to find a better source for something that is going into one of our encyclopedia articles, particularly those on living people. --John (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes - From looking at the edit which started this discussion, yes it can be a reliable source. And as stated above, context matters. Garion96 (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, but cautiously. People is not utterly unreliable, but it's not the gold standard of journalism either. If the claim is unlikely or potentially contentious, I'd want to see corroboration from other sources, but if it's pretty unremarkable, I think People would be sufficient. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes And this has been discussed enough times to make it a simple answer. It uses fact checkers, etc. which makes it reliable enough for Wikipedia purposes. It is not a "gossip magazine" and calling it one does not make it one. Does it use information from press agents? Yes. So does the New York Times. So that argument is simply disposed of as not relevant here. Would I use any single source for an extremely contentious claim? "George Gnarph is HIV-positive and has had thousands of sex partners" (hypothetical claim) surely requires extremely strong sourcing - beyond even the New York Times. Collect (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes. No question here, it's an excellent, perhaps the best, source for what it does cover, the celebrity world. It is a long-standing and well-regarded publication ad is ubiquitous in libraries and library databases, and is frequently cited in sources that no editor would think twice about using in a BLP, such as biographies from mainstream, reputable publishers and biographical library databases. It is not the ideal source for things outside its area of expertise (for example, medical, legal, and historical issues.), but what source is ideal used in that manner? Gamaliel (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes. There should never be a blanket ban of this magazine in BLPs. It can be used to support a wide variety of facts. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, with caution. It can be used carefully to add or confirm basic facts or opinions that more reputable news sources leave out because it is not in their remit, particularly when dealing with highly notable celebrities whose fame is in part derived from this media coverage. I would not touch it for anything negative, or for anyone else other than the article's subject (most obviously their spouse(s) and children). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, for standard material, with the same disclaimers as everyone above: requires editorial judgment (as does everything else), and not as the single source for a highly contentious claim". --GRuban (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, but it depends very much on what is being sourced, the article etc. "X gave an interview to People", usually. "Rumours say Y did this." definitely not. There is a whole grey area in between. Martin451 (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes People magazine can be used as a reliable source in many cases. It still publishes a certain amount of gossip which is unreliable content but among all the popular publications on celebrities People is among the most reliable. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes there are at least some conditions under which it may be used, and the arguments and conditions for its use have been laid out pretty well above. My view is along the lines of Seraphimblade's. Zad68 03:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes As shown by other editors People does fact checking and publishes corrections. It has no reputation for deliberately publishing incorrect material. It is certainly reliable for sourcing uncontentious biographical facts and its subject interviews can be used to source material dealing with the subject's thoughts and opinions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Survey (second question "If Yes, under what circumstances should People not be used...")

• I'll assume it's not a question of the material itself being problematic (e.g., it's unnecessarily defamatory, trivial, nobody's business, subject has requested redaction, etc.) where we might remove the material regardless of how well it's sourced. So we're talking about anodyne (harmless) material that does belong in the article. In that case, we should treat it like any other source: If there's reasonable grounds for suspecting the material isn't true (such as when there's another source saying something different) then we should probably not include the material. Otherwise, treat it like any other medium-level source, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, Herostratus, we are not discussing problematic additions. Thank you for asking. --(AfadsBad (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC))
    • OK. Just to expand a little, suppose the material is not defamatory but is maybe a little embarrassing. It's something we want to be sure to get right. If it's in a book the subject wrote himself, we're pretty sure of that. If it's in Der Spiegel we're pretty sure of that. If its most other places, we're maybe not quite so sure. I don't think we can give a set rubric and each case needs to be looked at. How about this for a rule of thumb: treat People about the same as a news story in the Los Angeles Times. Times news stories aren't fact-checked but they have a rep for veracity to uphold; People is fact-checked but rigorous veracity is not as important to their business model; so maybe it's a wash. Just a thought. Herostratus (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Do you have a source establishing that LA Times reporters aren't trained in fact checking? --(AfadsBad (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC))
        • I'm sure they are. What I meant by "not fact-checked" is that newspaper news stories generally aren't checked by an independent fact-checker because there's no time. It's only hours between an event and the publication of the story. (New stories are copy-edited for errors (spelling, grammar, house style) and the copy editor might flag a dubious fact, but not usually.) Instead, news reporters are expected to check their own facts and keep copious accurate notes and not make errors, and they will be fired if they make too many mistakes. Imagine being called J. Jonah Jameson's or Perry White's office to explain an error in your story, if you will. This varies very much between papers, but big famous papers like the LA Times have a strong business incentive to not be perceived as being riddled with errors. At People, on the other hand, you have an actual person calling Scarlet Scarlett Johansson and asking "We have you down as saying such-and-such. Is that an accurate quote?" and so on. I don't know how vigorous their fact-checking is, but just because "The sort of person who reads People" is I thing I don't think it's accurate to assume they don't care about that or that being lax with fact-checking (which is pretty low-wage and cheap) would be a good business model for them. "The sort of person who reads Cosmopolitan" is also a thing, but see here for a description of their reasonably rigorous fact-checking operation, for instance. Herostratus (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
          • Please don't say newspaper stories aren't fact checked because reporters are expected to check their own facts. It has no meaning. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC))
            • It has some meaning. "Fact-checker" is a real job. "Fact-checking" is what a fact-checker does. If a professional fact-checker hasn't vetted a piece, it's not been fact-checked in this formal technical sense, which is what I meant. Herostratus (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
              • Please stop being disingenuous. Journalists are professional fact checkers as part of their job. Why does People require such tortured support, that an intern at People is a better qualified fact checker than a professional journalist? Says who besides you? Cite it or cut it out. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC))
                • Lighten up, willya? I explained myself already: "What I meant by 'not fact-checked' is that newspaper news stories generally aren't checked by an independent fact-checker" Quote is directly above. Note the word "independent". What you're saying is "No, 'fact-checked' carries no implication of a second person needing to be involved" and I gather you also think it doesn't much matter. It's a debatable point, and you might be right (or not), and we'd need people working in the field to enlighten us on usage, and even they'd probably disagree, and of course word meanings depends on context. Language! It's imprecise. I could use the term "independently fact checked" in future, but then someone will doubtless take that to imply that the facts have been checked by an external consulting firm or something. So I dunno.

I'm not dumping on the LA Times or anything. Dailies are generally mediocre sources for facts, mainly because of deadline pressure I suppose. If there's a notable car crash in the middle of the night, they have to get a story with lines such as "Smith, 37, was killed when..." into print in a couple of hours. So how did the reporter know Smith was 37? He probably asked his wife or something. 99+% of the time that'll do ya, but there's that <1%: maybe he had a recent birthday and his wife forgot to account for that, or maybe he's been lying to her all these years, or maybe she's lying for some obscure reason, or whatever, so there's that. That's part of the reason the Times prints corrections (mostly trivial stuff) most every day. There's nothing shameful about any of that -- dailies are great for what they are, and the good ones are pretty darn reliable. Herostratus (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That is not how you get the age of a crash victim for a newspaper traffic fatality report. You don't have a clue, so lighten up yourself with the loose and clueless information. You obviously have no basis for what you are saying, so lighten your load by not providing misinformation in order to get People accepted as a BLP source. Fact-checking by People interns is not superior to trained professionals fact-checking at newspapers.. --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC))

Well, enlighten us. How does a does a newspaper traffic fatality report get the age of the victim? You apparently know something about this, and it's important to know this, so please share. I mean, it's 2:00 AM. The paper hits the newsstands in a few hours. All I can think of is the reporter using something like LexisNexis, is that done? If that's it, why not just say so? Herostratus (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the jurisdiction. However, big clue is that traffic fatalities are accompanied by formal procedures and records, formal identifications, and formal notification of kin. See this for one example in one jurisdiction of records associated with a traffic fatality. Eyewitness testimony is reported as that, the words of a witness in newspapers, not as factual evidence from a single source. People, unlike other sources in the one article I cited on the last board, gets >75% of its information from personal interviews, under 20% for others. Don't get ticked off at me because you stated your wild guesses as information, newspaper reporters are experts at fact checking. It is a requirement of the job. The article cannot run if it is not verified; so don't say they have too little lead time. You don't know that any more than you thought you knew they got victim ages from next of kin. They get next of kin names from official records after the next of kin have been notified after preliminary then final identifications of victims. Formal identification is recorded, and this information includes age of victim. It is so extraordinary and rare to get this wrong, officially, that it really makes the news when it happens. This information is not necessary to this discussion, but neither is your misinformation that newspapers don't fact check. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC))

Oh OK, Coroner's report. I didn't know these were published that quickly. Thanks, this is useful info! You're right, there's a lot I don't know, and I'm trying to feel my way through to some useful data and conclusions, which I why I started this discussion with How about this... just a thought. We work together to work through these things, and advancing a proposition is one way to start that process, right? I only know what I can glean from what I read, and there's not a lot. (For instance, "Cautionary tales circulated [in the fact-checking department] about errors that originated in The New York Times or The Washington Post, only to be replicated and memorialized forever by lazy magazine fact-checkers relying on single news stories. Proper protocol was to consult microfilm of the paper but then to check the next few days’ papers, also on microfilm, on the chance that a correction had been published" ([12]) and so on. You have knowledge of the inner workings of dailies, and this is very useful. Why didn't you say so, for goodness sakes? (And you still haven't said so; we're left to infer it.) Given that, I'm interested in your statement "People, unlike other sources... gets >75% of its information from personal interviews, under 20% for others" This is useful info! How do you know this? I'm not asking this in (or my other questions) in a adversarial "how the the hell do you know this" manner, OK? Finding hard data on this stuff is hard, I just want you to share your knowledge. Herostratus (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• As noted in the linked WP:BLP noticeboard consensus discussion, the appropriateness of its use varies, but editors especially agree that it is fine to use for uncontentious information. Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't agree and did not agree that it i fine for uncontentious information, and I mentioned specific problems with the uncontentious examples posted, and your final posts indicated that discussion was manipulative, and I request you not to draw conclusions for me from it. Thank you. --(AfadsBad (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC))

Like I noted in that discussion, I don't see how my post you are referring to "indicated that discussion was manipulative." You drew a conclusion that I did not state or imply. As for not drawing conclusions from you, noted. What I stated still applies to the other editors, as seen in that discussion. Collect, one of Wikipedia's strictest WP:BLP-compliant editors, even told you: "It meets WP:RS and is generally acceptable for Wikipedia articles, including BLPs. I believe this has been stated forcefully by many above. AFAIK, it is not the Weekly World News or the like, and is not a 'tabloid.' It does not promote specific special interests, and is about as innocuous as is imaginable. It does, in fact, cover people other than film and tv actors, and I seriously doubt the about long discussion affects the opinions of a clear consensus here. And since the consensus is so crystal clear here, I consider the issue quite sufficiently settled. Cheers." So the exceptions from that discussion are you and John, which is where "generally" comes in with regard to the other editors and what I've seen in various discussions on Wikipedia regarding People. Flyer22 (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I provided evidence that it does promote specific interests, that of the celebrities it works with. The consensus of that discussion is completely bogus. Please do not continue speaking for that discussion. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC))

And per above, I fail to see how the "consensus of that discussion is completely bogus." I will continue to refer to that discussion as having achieved consensus on this matter because, as others agree there (and at WP:ANI), it did. Flyer22 (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The consensus at BLPN is to continue to use People as a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• People should not be used as a source for medical, scientific, historical or other academic topics. It can be a reliable source, when used judiciously, in celebrity biographies and other articles about popular culture. It should be used with caution in articles about notable legal cases. When sources from publications with a better reputation for accuracy are available, they should be used to supplement or replace citations to People. As always, editorial judgment is called for. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I think Cullen's got it about right. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• I think People should not be used in most cases. Most of the content of the magazine is produced under no well-regarded standards of rational inquiry. So largely it is not a reliable source. There are of course exceptions, but these would be few and far between. I think a lot of people respond to considerations like these with their arguments like "discussion of these aspects of pop culture are not covered by sources which follow academic standards, and so reliable sources for these aspects do not have to approach the quality of reliable sources for academic subjects." I say to this, one man's modus ponens is another's modus tollens. I would say that this only goes to show that such aspects are not worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. Some people also may reason that it is harmless to allow such sources in for pop culture articles, because the serious articles will not be affected. I would ask anyone who thinks that to look at the evidence and reconsider. It is often that a nonetheless serious topic becomes popular. In such cases, if there are editors who promote non-academic quality material, they end up treating these serious topics the same way. For example, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth is a recent book about the historical Jesus which became very popular. The article is currently greatly a commentary on a Fox News interview by a Lauren Green, including the question whether this was "The Most Embarrassing Interview Fox News Has Ever Done?", as if any of this has any importance to the study of history. But by tolerating and incubating such treatments of non-serious, popular topics, this is the sort of spillover that happens. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• What Herostratus said, more or less. I wouldn't support a blanket rule about when not to accept People as an RS; I think we need to use our judgment on a case-by-case basis, as we would with any source, when exceptional claims or particularly sensitive content are involved. Rivertorch (talk) 07:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• I don't think People should be used when it speculates about the future, specifically regarding pregnancies, marriages, affairs, divorces, weight issues or substance abuse problems of LP, any statement that comes from unnamed sources that aren't the individual concerned. I think that any newspaper, magazine or website article that makes these unsupported, speculative statements is veering into "tabloidish" behavior and should be avoided. But I don't see that as a consistent pattern with People magazine.

Luckily, WP:BLP guards against this kind of speculation being included in articles on Wikipedia We don't have to write up special guidelines for each media source because WP:BLP is adequate protection against this kind of media coverage. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm largely in agreement with the above. If the claim is speculative, extraordinary, or likely to be contentious, People is not sufficient by itself. If the claim is in the area People is normally known to cover (celebrities and pop culture, largely), and is relatively mundane, using it is likely to be acceptable. Ultimately, "Is this a reliable source?" always requires the followup question "A reliable source for what claim or statement?". There is no source which is unquestionably reliable in all cases and for all subjects, so examining the context is always critical. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• People can be used whenever the facts it presents appear to be well-founded and not controversial. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• I more or less agree with Cullen's comments above, with perhaps an added caveat. There will be times when some material in such a source is a matter of some contention to the person involved, but we as editors might not know that. As one possible example, someone might use it to indicate that they were present at a wild party they themselves want to deny being at, whether they were or weren't there probably doesn't really matter, and in some cases there may be no apparent "contention", perhaps because of lawyers working unseen in the background. I don't know how often such "I was somewhere else" or "S/he was here" statements appear in such sources, but I imagine they do exist. On that basis, honestly, much as some others might not like it, I personally would be really, really hesitant to use People at all on a lot of material, other than perhaps direct or indirect quotes from individuals and similar material which can be directly ascribed to some person involved in the story. Particularly for most of the people in People, there are other sources, like the person's own website, newspapers, TV, and other media, which might be preferable. Yeah, they might have the same problems once in a while too, but their reputations for seriousness are also a bit heavier, and I'm going to assume that they possibly exercise greater care in covering what we might call "questionable" material. John Carter (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Editorial judgment, avoiding undue weight and general WP:BLP concerns ought to constrain us from mentioning "wild parties" in biographies, no matter what the source, unless some dramatic event occurred there. We simply can't concern ourselves with the machinations of invisible lawyers. If People says that actor so-and-so was born in Altoona, Pennsylvania in 1961 to a tool-and-die maker named George and a hairdresser named Harriet, I trust them. It may well be that this information has not been reported in the New York Times or the New England Journal of Medicine. As for "TV", do you really think that "AM Altoona" has fact checking capabilities comparable to those of People magazine? Because I don't. I think that local entertainment TV talking heads pretty much read what is placed in front of them, and that journalistic standards for that type of reporting are low. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Let me ask about a couple of examples of borderline data:
  • "Schmoe, a devout Christian Scientist...." (Keep in mind that some people think Christian Scientists are kind of nutty, so this could be, if not defamatory, deprecatory to some. That applies to really any religion -- some people think Catholics are any kind of Christian are kind of loopy, and so forth.)
  • "Schmoe turned down the role of X in film Y..." (Nothing else is stated, but let's assume that X turned out to be a plum role, and turning it down might indicate lack of savvy or following bad advice on Schmoe's part (probably just bad luck though), so a deprecatory vibe could be inferred.)

Assuming the only source is People, what would you my fellow editors do? I don't know. It's a hard question! My inclination would be: 1) it's quite likely true, since People wouldn't just make something like at up or publish it without a fact-checker confirming it it wit the source, but 2) "quite likely" isn't good enough for arguably deprecatory material in a BLP. But if I'm not going to accept it, I also wouldn't accept Time or the New York Times as a sole source, either -- same deal applies, and I have no reason to believe that Time or the New York Times is any better on this sort of thing than People. Herostratus (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd use them if it isn't highly contentious, there isn't a source to the contrary, and (for the second case) it's judged to be important to the person's notability. The "arguably deprecatory" case seems weak - there are few facts that aren't "arguably deprecatory": just for an example, see just above, "arguably" being born to a hairdresser and tool-and-die maker is a sign of lower-middle-class origins. If we excluded everything that is this weakly "arguably" deprecatory, we couldn't write anything. For the second case, it might well not matter enough to be included - actors turn down roles all the time, and it's very rarely a big deal; maybe he just wanted to spend the time with his family or something. It would be highly contentious if there are sources to the contrary, or implications to the contrary (for example, if the alleged Christian Scientist is known for advocating blood donation, or their close relatives are well known or proselytizing members of some other faith); then we'd probably want other sources as well, not just this one, though this one could be used as one of several. --GRuban (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The turned down role would be out on WP:UNDUE alone for the reasons GRuban stated. That factoid would need more meat on its bones or it's just trivia. The Christian Scientist assertion I would lean towards excluding on WP:BLP/WP:REDFLAG grounds, but that's in part because the scenario as presented seems unlikely and would raise redflags because of that. Who would this person be where the only mention of their religion is one unattributed sentence in People? If this People profile is some of their most extensive media coverage, they might not qualify for WP:WELLKNOWN and we should stick to only covering their work. On the other hand, if they are well known and there is extensive media coverage available, it raises a redflag that no one has touched on their religion elsewhere. Siawase (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Not if it's the single source for a highly contentious claim; and not for the sorts of gossipy or celebrity trivia things we generally leave out (currently dating X; attended movie premiere Y dressed in fashion by Z; etc.), not because of unreliability, but because they're a celebrity mag, and we're an encyclopedia. --GRuban (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

We generally leave gossipy or celebrity trivia things out? I wish! Rivertorch (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Leave circumstances ambiguous If information is published in People and the information is non-contentious then the magazine should be considered a reliable source. I have no opinion about what should be done with contentious information from this magazine. Perhaps it should not be on Wikipedia or perhaps it should. Supplement claims with other sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Here's an odd thing. The question is "...for BLPs". But if People is reliable, it's reliable. If it's not, it shouldn't be used anywhere. Granted there are special BLP considerations for some material, which can get complicated I guess, but we can probably dispense with that because:

• People is probably mostly used in BLPs. It's not much used as a ref in articles on quantum physics or medieval plainsong and so forth. If People is no good for BLPs it's probably not much use to us at all and blacklisting it would not be much of a loss.
• If it is reliable, then it's probably most reliable for material on living people, because that's their area of expertise (note that the name of the publication is "People"). If I wanted to learn about the current state of exoplanet research, I'd turn to Astronomy, but if I want to learn what movie Kristen Stewart is currently filming, I would not turn to Astronomy. That would be silly! Even if if they did mention it (doubtful, but let's suppose they did) I wouldn't consider them reliable for information about Kristen Stewart, because that's not their area of expertise. They might get Kristen Stewart confused with Jennifer Lawrence. A reporter from People would never do that, but might get R136a1 confused with Cygnus OB2-12, which a reporter from Astronomy would never do, and so on. (At the ref vetting checklist I used the more formal term "standing to address the material".)

Summary: If People can't be used for BLP's, is there any reason to not just blacklist it? Can't see one. Herostratus (talk) 02:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Data is good. Here's what I got from a quick web search:

• here's a recent instance where they screwed the pooch. This doesn't speak to well of People. On the other hand, photos are particularly hard to verify (maybe with Google Images and TinEye and whatever, though, that's not longer so true). It's easier to call someone up and ask "Did you really call Brad Pitt a poltroon?" than it is to say "I have a photo here, is it you?". Also, this was apparently a big enough deal for the Post to write a story about it, so maybe it's not that common. It's one instance, but it's a data point. If People does this a lot it should leave a paper trail, and we should look for more of these.
• here, People itself says that fact-checking is done by interns. (That's not necessarily that damning; they didn't say "only by interns", its a very entry-level job, and "intern" != "lazy moron". I'd be interested to know how this compares to other publications, though.)
• I see a couple references to People's "$3-million-a-year fact-checking department" but in ads that're probably sourced to People itself and I can't put that in context anyway. If there's anything to it, $3 million sounds like a lot to me, but I'd have to have other publications' budgets to compare.
• Heh, I found an article where an actress screams at a People reporter "Do your fucking homework, you cunt!" which I suppose could be taken as criticism of the rigor of their fact-checking (I can't cite the source cos it's not reliable, and WP:BLP standards apply here too; it's probably true, but then the actress is one of the lidda-bit-crazy ones, so that's maybe a wash).
• Now this is interesting: according to an old version of our article Fact checker, there was an article at the Medill School of Journalism website where an erstwhile People fact-checker writes "[I]f more than four mistakes are later found in articles checked and passed by a fact-checker in the course of a year, the magazine would fire him or her. To protect their jobs, fact checkers try to identify three separate sources for any claim." If true, that's a useful data point, but the link doesn't resolve. But it's a direct quote; it seems unlikely that they'd just make up something like that. Why would they do that? I'm pretty confident the article exists and was quoted correctly. Would like to get my hands on it. A year's a long time. Four is a small number. Getting fired is pretty harsh. Add it up and it sounds like a reasonably rigorous fact-checking operation. (Update: realized that the (dead) link points to a folder named /1999/, so probably too old to be very useful.) Herostratus (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I think all newspapers and magazines make mistakes, so I think we have to have reports of comparing how many they make, anecdotes won't cut it. --(AfadsBad (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC))

It is perhaps just as important whether they publish corrections, openly acknowledging the mistakes they do make, and it appears they do:[13] Siawase (talk) 09:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks like they do publish corrections, and that's good for two reasons: 1) they care about that on at least some level, and 2) if data sourced to People is challenged by another editor, she can point to the correction (if there is one and she can find) as proof of nonveracity. Anecdote's don't cut it, but each little thing is a data point. If someone can show me scores of these, I would change my mind about People. (I note that the picture screwup was widely reported (even in India and so on), and that further indicates that this is not something People does with every issue. It's still a black eye though.) Herostratus (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• The comment a little above "But if People is reliable, it's reliable. If it's not, it's not usable for any purpose" is a misunderstanding about the nature of sources. There is no source that is 100% reliable. There is no source that is unusable for all purposes. People is not the sort of reckless irresponsible source that we blacklist. It cab be used properly for clearly uncontested facts that do not deal with possible negative aspects of a person;s life. It cannot be used for negative BLP, or for evaluations of merit. (There is a potential problem that for many of the individuals it covers, even the apparently uncontested facts of their life tend to be in dispute.) Whether it can support notability depends. Extensive coverage there shows something is a matter of substantial comment, but if the comment is tabloid0-style gossip, we wouldn't include it in any case. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Right, that's all correct, and deciding which sources are OK for which material in which articles is a tricky and subtle thing. All I mean was this: if you accept the proposition "At no time may the Reference section of a BLP contain a link to People, ever, for any material" (the assertion of which is why we're having this exercise, I think), then what good is People to us? Everything except the activities of living people is outside their area of expertise. I suppose old articles might be used to ref facts on people who were formerly living. But WP:BLP doesn't imply "if the person's dead, screw it, just source your material to any old gossip rag". So I dunno. Herostratus (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• We must not confuse reliability with weight. While the information in People may be reliable, it may also be too trivial to warrant inclusion. Generally if the information is significant it will be carried in more reliable sources, which we should use in preference. TFD (talk) 06:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'd say reliability depends on the nature of the material, and how People attribute it in the first place. If it's straight from the horse's mouth so to speak, it's reliable with possible WP:SELFSOURCE concerns. Direct reporting where People were present for an event or similar, also generally reliable. The really questionable material is when they attribute to "a source close to the star" or similar. And this is probably a good chunk of their reporting (see google search.) When it comes to celebrity news media like People, their primary fact checking concern is whether they risk being sued or not. So they may publish good news or a flattering puff piece with very loose backing, since there is basically zero risk in doing so. But with lawsuits in mind, and their track record for accuracy and fact checking, I would actually trust them to have substantial evidence for any negative or potentially damaging reporting, even when attributed to unnamed sources. All that said, when People is the "heaviest" source a particular piece of information is found in, that's a pretty good indicator it does not carry the WP:WEIGHT to be included in Wikipedia. For contentious claims, I would also say WP:REDFLAG kicks in, and even if we trust People to be reliable, that is not sufficient to satisfy verifiability without corroboration from several highly reliable sources. Siawase (talk) 10:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• My understanding is that the reason we're going through this exercise is that some editors are asserting that People cannot be used to ref anything in a BLP, even anodyne material such as place of birth and so on. OK so far -- that's a reasonable (if wrong IMO) position which reasonable people can work out -- but some editors are pretty adamant about it, so we're working through this. It's been a particularly fruitful and interesting discussion so far, BTW.

So anyway, regarding the position "People? Never in a BLP, period". Well, look. I understand the spirit of WP:BLP pretty well I think. The guiding principle is "The Wikipedia does not exist to make people sad". Sometimes we have to, but let's minimize that and be sure it's for very good reason. We're very very careful with defamatory material, for instance, and other types of material. But there's a reasonable limit. Consider the following assertion:

• In our article on Evanston, Illinois, we can state "Evanston is a suburb of Chicago..." and source the assertion that Evanston is a suburb of Chicago to a normal source describing it as such, per WP:RS and so forth.
• But in our article on Joe Shmoe, we cannot use that same source to say "Shmoe was born in Evanston, a suburb of Chicago...". It's a WP:BLP! Normal reliable sources won't do. We have to have extremely rigorous proof that Evanston is indeed a suburb of Chicago -- the same level of proof we would need to assert "Shmoe is an alcoholic and wife-beater..." for instance. Just a line in some magazine or newspaper describing Evanston as a suburb of Chicago is not sufficient. We need AAA-level sources here.

This seems odd to me. The word "nonsensical" comes to mind.

But wait. Suppose the subject is (let's say) a musician who projects the persona of an inner-city tough-guy fuck-da-police type, and maybe his career depends on projecting this persona. He doesn't want people to think he came from a suburb.

So let's not have things "...born in X, a suburb of Y..." for anybody, absent AAA-level sources. Actually, since anyone can easily look up the nature of any town, let's redact place of birth altogether, absent very rigorous proof. Same for pretty much everything. Month and day of birth? It's possible that some article subject somewhere doesn't want their astrological sign known, so let's redact month and day of birth for every article, absent a copy of the birth certificate. And so on.

But look. We are not mindless pencil-pushers here. Great Darwin gave us brains to work these things out. Obviously things such as birthplace and birthdate are just anodyne harmless facts for 99.99 percent of article subjects. In a case where the matter is raised, that's different: "Look, based on such-and-such data, it's reasonable to infer that he's ashamed of his hometown/birthdate/mother's maiden name/whatever and would prefer people not to know it. So let's treat this as contentious defamatory material and make sure we're as close as humanly possible to 100% confident that it's true (and also carefully consider whether it's necessary even if we're sure it's true)." That'd be both reasonable and kind, and in that case it'd be reasonable to throw out not only People but any source which is not AAA-level (and there are very few of those). But absent data to the contrary, there's a lot of material that we can assume is harmless and can be sourced to AA- or A-level publications such as People. That's in the spirit of WP:BLP. Pointless pettifoggery isn't. Herostratus (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Hero. --GRuban (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Question If we are agreed that People and its cohort (Hello etc.) allow "celebs" to pick and choose what they place in the publication, wouldn't we need to treat it the same way as we treat commercial links like Amazon and user-generated ones like IMDB? --John (talk) 09:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• People does publish negative/contentious information without confirmation from the subject, but they do so sparingly. Siawase (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• • Wait, tell me more about this. People allows people to choose what they place in the publication? I'm not disputing this (or accepting it without more info), but what do you mean? Is article space bought and sold? Do subjects sign off on articles before publication, or are they involved in the writing of the articles, do they have the right to refuse to have an article published, or to demand that one be published, or what? Or is it more of a symbyotic thing where there's an implicit agreement in some areas? Would people not publish an article that would increase sales, or publish articles that readers don't want, at the behest of a third party, and why? Again, all this could be so, but what exactly is going on here? Herostratus (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • As we are not agreed that subjects have final control over articles, please provide evidence to back your assertion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I wouldn't agree that article subjects (or their staff) have final control over articles. Yes, there is a dependent relationship (access to actors in exchange for not embarrassing them) but the same relationship exists between financial reporters and the companies they cover, between Washington reporters and politicians, between small town editors and municipal government and local businesses. I worked for several years for an entertainment publication that accepted no advertising so it could be seen as completely neutral but the subscription price was outrageous.

So, for most newspapers, magazines, TV/radio programs, websites there is always a trade-off. Without a link to some sort of expose of payola at People magazine, I don't think we can accept as true that there is some quid pro quo. Meaning? We need a reliable source for that claim. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Heck no. The only evidence that I've seen that John's presented is that celebrities sometimes either agree to interviews or send publicity photos of themselves out to be used in articles. That is not the same thing as controlling article content. Consider - I wrote our article Barnaby Conrad III (in response to a request from the person that our article Barnaby Conrad in several places confused him with his father, also a notable author). I emailed the person, asking him to release a photo. He did. I put it in the article. Does that mean he controlled the article content? Heck no. I assume that means he didn't disapprove of it, since there's a good chance that if he was unhappy he wouldn't have released and mailed the photo - but that's not nearly the same as control. He didn't tell me what to write, and if I didn't like the photo he sent, I wouldn't have used it. --GRuban (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• • Regardless, the answer to John's question is still no. WP:SELFSOURCE clearly states that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves". So again, no, self serving publication of information about yourself, used in a Wikipedia article about yourself, is fine as long as it is not "unduly" self-serving nor an "exceptional claim". Regular old self-serving is just fine for basic biographical information. On the other hand, we have little clue who writes content for Amazon reviews and IMDB, so these are not "Selfsources" Dkriegls (talk to me!) 17:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Special Operations Forces 1

• www.americanspecialops.com

• Being used at Special Mission Unit stub.

• Can't find any info about this site period, let alone editorial policy, ownership, etc.

Does anyone here familiar with WP:RS find this site to be reliable? Thanks - thewolfchild 06:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be used by many other sources; I can only find one Business Insider article.[14] Of course that's not nothing. It seems a quality designed site, and chock full of information, but it's not clear who is running it or where they're getting their information. I wouldn't use it for controversial info, but I wouldn't necessarily consider unreliable either. However, for the specific Special Mission Unit article, it doesn't seem to be used for anything that doesn't have several other sources already, so I don't think that's going to affect that article either way. --GRuban (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Special Operations Forces 2

• sofrep.com

• Being used at Special Mission Unit stub

• First problem; this is a subscription site, cannot access references. Site appears to be run by Special Forces 'guys', and content appears to be user submitted (by other Special Forces 'guys') and is published 'as is'.

Can anyone here familiar with WP:RS advise if this site is considered a reliable source? Thanks - thewolfchild 07:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be run by Brandon Webb (author) who is a published author in the field.[15][16][17][18] So I'd say generally reliable. Of course it depends on the exact exact statement you're trying to back. If something seems to be a personal reminiscence then it is that, and not necessarily representative. --GRuban (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Special Operation Forces 3

• fas.org

• Being used for Special Mission Unit stub

• First problem, this is a subscription, may not be able to access content being used as a source. This site is run by what seems to be a Washington DC think tank with charitable status, and it appears it may be a blog of sorts for various 'scientists' to submit user content.

Can anyone here familiar with WP:RS advise is this site can be considered a reliable source? Thanks - thewolfchild 07:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

This one seems clear. Just from our article, Federation of American Scientists, it seems quite reliable, established, and reputable. However what do a bunch of scientists know about special forces? --GRuban (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

tabloids

In a number of pages - viz. Tony Blair, Kate Winslet, Peter Mandelson, John Major et all, it is stated that any newspaper published in a tabloid format is unacceptable for any use at all in a BLP. As all the major British newspapers are now tabloid or the very slightly larger Berliner format, this, taken literally, means no British newspaper is usable on Wikipedia. In fact, a majority of all newspapers worldwide are no longer full-size publications, so we could simply say no newspapers at all are allowed <g>. Is it proper to now delete all sources published in tabloid format as being verboten in BLPs, and presumably as tabloids verboten on all of Wikipedia? Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I researched this topic a while back and learned that tabloid has two meanings. One is Tabloid (newspaper format), which has nothing to do with reliability and only relates to the size of paper the story is printed on. The other is "featuring stories of violence, crime, or scandal presented in a sensational manner" (Webster's) which does effect its reliability. I would think we would want to avoid a Tabloid style of reporting, but the size of the page isn't important. This would be easy to clarify at WP:BLP. CorporateM (Talk) 13:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

We can not simply ban major newspapers from BLPs... While tabloids do tend to sensationalize their stories, even the most sensational of them can contain good reliable reporting from time to time. What we have to realize is this: reliability often depends on context. The same source might be reliable in one context, and not at all reliable in another context. We have to examine the specifics. Also, even the best of sources can contain errors. If you think a source contains an error, double check it against other sources, and assign them due weight. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, all sources should be examined in context. And the context we are dealing with here is that British 'tabloids' use illegal information gathering techniques and regularly print falsehoods, rumours and sensationalist clap-trap, thus making their use on Wikipedia completely unacceptable in the vast majority of cases. For people who don't know which British papers are 'tabloid' (format) and which are 'tabloid' (style); here's a reminder of those to avoid (particularly in the case of BLPs): Daily Mail & Mail on Sunday, The Mirror & Sunday Mirror, The Sun, The Express, Daily Sport, Daily Record (Scotland), News of the World, Daily Star (UK), Metro. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 15:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Your list doesn't point out which are tabloid format and which are simply tabloids. As noted above, the two are not the same; many valid/reliable newspapers use tabloid format. Flyer22 (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Or are you stating that all the ones in your list are tabloids, no matter the format they use? Flyer22 (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That list only shows those "bad tabloids", I believe they are all of a tabloid format too. All of these publications have a differing ethos than Wikipedia's (in theory if not in practice). Other UK publications should be treated cautiously, as there is a lot of inherent political bias involved, but the ones listed cannot really be described as reputable news organizations. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 15:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The Times is a better newspaper for politics than The Sun. Both btw are published by the same company and have similar political views. We should favor the better source. Also, stories about major political figures that are only covered in tabloids lack the importance for inclusion. TFD (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The term "tabloid" is problematic not only because it has more than one meaning but because the adjectival meaning involving sensationalism and lurid reporting doesn't always lend itself to a dichotomous categorization of sources. There is a spectrum, and it includes no bright line but rather a sizable gray area. Some newspapers are tabloid in the worst sense of the word, others are tabloid only because of the size of the paper they're printed on, and others fall somewhere in between. It should be noted that on the other side of the Pond there are several major dailies published in a tabloid size that rank among the more reputable newspapers in the U.S. (e.g., the Chicago Sun-Times, Newsday, and the sadly defunct Rocky Mountain News) and are easily as reliable as their broadsheet peers. At the other extreme are rags such as the New York Post whose reporting should always be viewed with a huge dose of skepticism, to put it mildy. Occupying middle ground are certain papers, notably the New York Daily News and Boston Herald, that run giant headlines and employ a rather dramatic, lurid style but nonetheless do contain some legitimate stories written by competent reporters and checked by competent editors. Rivertorch (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The New York Post is a "rag"? I didn't know that there exists such a harsh view of it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

'fraid so. Rivertorch (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Collect, I reverted one of those text deletions that you mention and, then, I was rereverted and told I should go find better sources. I thought it was BRD: boldly edit, revert, then discuss the edit....not boldly edit, revert, revert the reverter and then tell the reverter to go get better sources and not revert again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Liz, this is an unacceptable pattern that cannot become a habit – you are 100% right. Unless the source is undoubtedly harmful, you should not have been re-reverted. If the other editor wants better sources, godspeed to them with finding those sources. I'm having a similar problem with Hillbillyholiday81 (who, by the way, is the only editor in this thread who adamantly refuses to cooperate because of a self-admitted agenda). Encouraging such editors means opening yourself up to bullying. So far, the consensus in this thread is that a newspaper in a tabloid format is no different from a newspaper in another format, therefore no connection should be made between the format of a newspaper and its reliability. Hearfourmewesique (talk)

So, which part of this policy is troubling you: ::Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.?

You don't seem to understand that the sources you are continually reinserting into the Adele article are the epitome of tabloid journalism. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 20:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it's you who doesn't seem to understand that these are merely differently formatted newspapers, which is substantially different from tabloid journalism. This is... what, the tenth time that I say it? You just keep playing dead. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not just Wikipedians who don't like citing The Sun

In Britain, "tabloid" has acquired a particular meaning, independent of its physical format, which basically means a lowbrow mass market form of journalism, with a particular focus on celebrities (in which fact checking and lack of bias are strictly optional), and pictures of topless women. Hillbillyholiday has given a concise list of what you should avoid, and a full reading of The Sun (United Kingdom) will give you a better picture, as will It's The Sun Wot Won It, but in short you should avoid The Sun like the plague. The Daily Mirror is on the same level of intellect (example) and level of reputable journalism ("Oops, we screwed up"). The Daily Mail is not generally regarded as a tabloid per se, but it is very infamous for having an extreme right wing bias with a particular hatred for the EU, immigration and housing prices (typical target audience), to the extent that this game for generating headlines from it is funny precisely because it's uncannily accurate. Note, avoid does not mean never use ever - Neil Kinnock is one example where you might wish to directly cite The Sun, Fernando Belaúnde Terry is perhaps another due to a tangential link to the Falklands War. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Please follow the normal recommendations of this forum and explain what is being sourced from where - concrete cases. Trying to make general rules on this subject is not the right approach. People are just talking past each other.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was giving general rules - I certainly wasn't as I gave two counter-examples. It is useful to mention a summary, because people can search for keywords like "The Sun" and "Daily Mail" up front on RSN, without needing to necessarily start a discussion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Everything above is about the general concept of tabloid, which as has been pointed out, can mean different things anyway. But the general answer to the general question is that yes we can use tabloid sources, sometimes. So to have any practical discussion, we need to actually talk about real details. What source is being used to say what?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Quite. Part of the problem here is a baby/bathwater one. Though certainly many of the British tabloids do run exaggerated or misleading stories at times, they also run huge numbers of perfectly accurate stories, and for some topics (e.g. sports and pop culture) may be more detailed and useful sources than the more 'respectable' news outlets. Barnabypage (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we please remember that policy does not say "tabloids", it says "Tabloid journalism. I know this has been said before but we are still confusing the format with "tabloid journalism". Dougweller (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think context matters too. It's hard to imagine how XBIZ and AVN (magazine) would not be classified as tabloid journalism given their nature, but for most porn topics there's usually nothing better, except in the case of the most famous performers. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Same thing: to see if something is tabloid journalism, we need to discuss context, real examples. BTW the discussion above makes it hard to claim that Hillbillyholiday81 does not understand the distinction about journalism, and so such claims should not be used to dismiss their concern. It is simply hard to say anything about the claim unless we may discuss real cases, with context.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed journal article not reliable?

Is this one a reliable source?

Arnaiz-Villena, A.; Gomez-Casado, E.; Martinez-Laso, J. (2002). "Population genetic relationships between Mediterranean populations determined by HLA allele distribution and a historic perspective". Tissue Antigens 60 (2): 111–121. doi:10.1034/j.1399-0039.2002.600201.x

The work of principal author, Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, was criticized, but the article in question was not retracted. It's not being cited in support of anything relevant to controversies.Cavann (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

This is for use at Turkish people, yes? It's WP:PRIMARY, it hasn't been cited that much, and the primary author is controversial. There's also a red flag in that Arnaiz-Villena is publishing in Tissue Antigens while the other cites in that section are to J Human Genetics, J Physical Anthropology, Antiquity, etc. Given that we already have better citations in place, why include it? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The editor who removed the source also asked for Good Article Reassessment Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Turkish_people/1. It was more needed for this section Turkish_people#Prehistory.2C_Ancient_era_and_Early_Middle_Ages (see diff which was reverted: [19]) Cavann (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The first paragraph of that version of Prehistory has four cites to the Arnaiz-Villena paper. I'll also note that the Yardumian (2011) paper has only been cited once and is used three times in the paragraph. I think the question of undue weight needs to be addressed first. If these two papers are within the mainstream opinion in this field then we can probably dig up some better cites. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I would say they are, but I don't think this particular topic gathers that much attention. Yardumian (2011) is a review study. I guess I can find more sources within that. Cavann (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The claim that "Modern Turks descend primarily from ancient Anatolians" is not mainstream. No scientist worth his salt will make such a claim, because it is impossible to prove. Only kooks like Arnaiz-Villena would make such a claim. As far as I can tell, the consensus among the literature is as follows: 1) Anatolia as a land bridge, has been subject to numerous populations movements, and its genetic makeup is highly complex and varied, and includes neighboring peoples (Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians, etc..), as well as Bronze populations and Central Asian tribes, 2) The genetic impact of the Central Asian Turkic tribes was small because Anatolia already had a large population (but this population was itself highly diverse and simply "ancient Anatolians"), and 3) Modern Turks are closer to Middle Eastern and Balkan populations genetically than to Central Asian populations. However, stretching that to mean "modern Turks primarily descend from ancient Anatolian populations", is well, a stretch, and is not to be found within the literature. Athenean (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It is also well-sourced that several million Balkan Muslims and Caucasus Muslims settled in Anatolia during the 19th and early 20th centuries. The genetic makeup up of modern Turkey is thus highly diverse, now that is amainstream claim. Not that the modern Turks are lineal descendants of the Bronze Age populations. Athenean (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I would roughly agree with your number 1, 2, and 3 assessments. That's why the article does not simply say "modern Turks primarily descend from ancient Anatolian populations." In case you did not know, if you are using quotes, it usually has to match something. The article says: "Various people including Ancient Anatolian civilizations and Thracian peoples have inhabited the area now called Turkey since prehistoric times.j[›][71][72][73] Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups,[68]k[›][74][75][76] but their ancestry includes neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples.[69]" Moreover, other sources talk about paleolithic and neolithic populations too, so it is not just "kooks like Arnaiz-Villena." Cavann (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to add, the author seems to have a history of controversial articles. Some of his articles have even gotten him fired from journal editorial boards for a topic very similar one here. I'd be VERY reluctant to call this a RS. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

He was not fired, the article was retracted. And controversy about Antonio Arnaiz-Villena has nothing to do with his research on Turkish people. The articles I'm cited were also not retracted. Stop making up outright inaccuracies.Cavann (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

2002 is not very recent in this field, and we do not have to use such a source if there is something "redflag" about it. OTOH I think that just claiming continuity from ancient Anatolians is not all that shocking? Nor can we really justify deleting reference to "primary" research articles in the human genetics field if they are important. (There is very little secondary literature in that field which is up to date. Attempts to rely on it always lead to strange results.) What is relevant:

• It sounds like the author is controversial.
• We should cautiously check to make sure this is not widely cited before deciding not to use it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Another article by the same principal author (this citation was also deleted from the Turkish people article), [20] has been cited 51 times. Also, the principal author is controversial on some topics, but not this one (ie: Turkish people), and the article has 10 more co-authors! Def does not look fringe. I had forgotten to include this one on my original post that started the thread. Cavann (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion about the use of this source, being too lazy to investigate it. I just want to say that there is nothing "red flag" about publishing in a different journal from other authors. In fact it is a normal phenomenon across all areas of scholarship. Zero^talk 09:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a reliable source. However, whether or not it meets WP:WEIGHT is a separate issue. It is better to use secondary sources that explain what weight academics have given to the report. TFD (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

We have Cavalli Sforza's book, The History and Geography of Human Genes, but it is not detailed enough about a specific ethnicity, since it's about the entire world. I can have another look tho. Cavann (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Another question: We have Yardumian et al (2011). And it's a review article, which is good. But it has been cited only once, prolly due to the fact that this is not a very popular topic. It is in line with other sources, but in a lil more layperson terms. For example, other sources are talking about neolithic or paleolithic populations, or are talking about backgrounds of each haplogroups separately. Would the low citation number be controversial?

Yardumian, A.; Yardumian, T. G. (2011). "Who Are the Anatolian Turks?". Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia 50: 6–42. doi:10.2753/AAE1061-1959500101

Cavann (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is crucial here. I'm not going to say which work is reliable and which one isn't. Instead, we should go with the mainstream academia, not controversial authors. I agree with Athenean. Anatolia has been inhabited by dozens of various ethnic groups throughout history. The mainstream academia doesn't seem to support the view that Turks are solely descendants of Ancient Anatolians. Other groups such as Greeks, Armenians, Circassians, Georgians, Albanians, Arabs have definitely played some role in the formation of the Turkish nation too. --Երևանցի ^talk 21:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That's why the article says: "Various people including Ancient Anatolian civilizations and Thracian peoples have inhabited the area now called Turkey since prehistoric times.j[›][71][72][73] Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups,[68]k[›][74][75][76] but their ancestry includes neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples.[69]"

How did you get solely from that? Cavann (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that the word primarily which does not reflect what the sources say. Yardumian, who may have said this, is only cited once. If were going to talk about the descendents of Turks, we need to incorporate ALL cultures and ethnic identities they have descended from, including central Asian hordes and Balkan peoples, if of course academic literature supports this. The issue now is that the literature may not support such claims and that genetic makeup has become interchangeable with the word "descendents". Anyhow, I sent the article to page-protection and I think a RFC is definitely needed on this issue. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yardumian et al. is not the only one saying this. However, I'm not opposed to adding Roman and Byzantine era populations. Than it would be perfectly in line with all sources, including Cavalli Sforza's book, "The History and Geography of Human Genes." Cavann (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No...central Asian hordes as well. Stop being so reluctant as to mentioning that Turks invaded and conquered. Did those who came from central Asia to Anatolia in the 11th century not have genes? Did they not Turkify the native population? If you want to talk about such scientific genetic prophesies of these ever-so controversial "academics", I propose you go add this to the genetic history section under a given context. I think the RfC should be solely provided for that purpose. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

"central Asian hordes" (!) are already there (Turkic people). This is the 3rd time I'm quoting this. Is anyone even reading the article? "Various people including Ancient Anatolian civilizations and Thracian peoples have inhabited the area now called Turkey since prehistoric times.j[›][71][72][73] Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups,[68]k[›][74][75][76] but their ancestry includes neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples.[69]" This is what Cavalli Sforza says [[21]]. Cavann (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, the sentence includes the word "primarily". You're claiming ancestry as a totally different social event by using the word "but". Therefore, ancestry should be removed and instead the sentence should use the word "in part" or "partially" while considering central Asian hordes or Turkic peoples for that matter. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Take it to Cavalli Sforza and journal articles [22] if you disagree with their conclusions. I will stop clogging the noticeboard with this discussion. Cavann (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No one here is disagreeing with anything. The only thing I disagree with is the terminology used in the article. I and others have already mentioned what terminology we are seeking a compromise for and you are still very reluctant to point out that central Asian hordes/Turkic nomadic tribes are also part of what you call "descendency" of the modern Turk. Therefore, as I and other have said already, your attempts of rejecting this notion is pushing this discussion overboard and will get you nowhere since YOU are the only person you stands for the current terminology. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what part of "but their ancestry includes neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples" you are not getting. Also, "No one here is disagreeing with anything" is quite nonsensical, since what you are suggesting (some sort of equivalency between indigenous and Turkic) is contrary to results of cited sources. Actually, that is something NO source suggests. Please remember WP:verifiability. You can't simply add material cause you feel like it.Cavann (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess I need to set an example of what the sentence should be like:

I wonder if user:Proudbolsahye realizes that there would be no "Proud" "bolsahye" in Bolis or any Bolsahye if "central Asian hordes" had never invaded and allowed them to live in the previously exclusively Greek Orthodox Constantinople :). Povopoulos (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I also wonder where you suddenly appeared from. --Երևանցի ^talk 16:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Modern Turkish people partly descend from Turkic peoples and indigenous groups of people including Ancient Anatolians and Thracians.

It may or may not be a perfect sentence. Would need a second opinion in terms of its effectiveness of wording and terminology, but I'm just trying to convey the general idea of what were trying to say here. Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

That sorta equivalency is not in line with ANY of the sources. Eg, Hodoğlugil et al says only 9-15% is Central Asian [23].

As I said, you cannot just make up "terminology," especially considering you seem to be unaware of what any of the sources are saying.Cavann (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

@Cavann. Unfortunately Cavalli Sforza is way out of date. If Wikipedia has to use only out of date materials we come into conflict with NPOV because we distort our reporting of reality. This dilemma has come up many times concerning human genetics. My point: we do need to use research articles if we report this field properly. OTOH, it does appear that this discussion is really more about whether the word primarily should be removed?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster. There are other sources too: newer journal articles: [24] (5 of em here) and other ones like [25], which are in line with Cavalli Sforza. I'm using Cavalli Sforza too, because it's a secondary source (a book).Cavann (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Are these sources reliable?

The above discussion got too long. Just to summarize, I would like to use these 3 sources in addition to other sources. Are they reliable: [26] [27] [28] ? Cavann (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No...Arnaiz-Villena A. got fired from his job because over highly controversial claims over the same topics we are discussing here. We have already pointed this out in the beginning. Yardumian is only cited once. We already pointed that out as well. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The news article says his article was retracted. Where does it say he "got fired from his job"? You are also aware that the retracted article was about research on Jews and Palestinians, and has nothing to do with his work on Turkish people? Cavann (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Fyi, he got fired because he said various things about modern history like calling Israelis "colonists"... it wasn't about genetics at all. --Yalens (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

His findings regarding genes were presented in a highly politicized manner which got him fired. Whos to say his research regarding Turkish genes is any different. He is a very controversial researcher in his field and thus not reliable. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

On Antonio Arnaiz-Villena. A controversial researcher is a controversial researcher. I'd like to hear others opinion too, but I would personally avoid citing experts like him. --Երևանցի ^talk 00:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I would personally avoid citing experts who disagree with my point of view. I would discredit their sources to prevent their use on wikipedia by doing ad hominem to the authors. Povopoulos (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The author is clearly controversial. Come back with a better argument. --Երևանցի ^talk 16:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

ePodunk

ePodunk[29] "provides in-depth information about more than 46,000 communities around the country". It is owned by Internet Brands. It's list of sources is here. It's very heavily used in our articles for demographic information.[30] I can't see anything about it that makes me think it should be used as though it's gospel. Dougweller (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As an example, it is being used in North Miami Beach, Florida as a source[31] for the Haitian population ([32] shows before and after recent IP edits which may have been vandalism or just bad editing. But where is it getting this data? (and for Columbian, etc). Here[33] is the 2010 census data, no data on Columbians, Haitians etc. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It does if you know how to use the census site. Here it clearly states that there were 9,807 Haitians in North Miami Beach city, Florida. Here it states there were 1,446 Colombians. No idea if or how ePodunk works (indeed, the valid reliable source SHOULD BE the Census.gov site, even if ePodunk were compiling from that site, the original data is better from the original source). But on the question of whether or not the Census has data on the number of Haitians and Columbians in N. Miami Beach, it certainly does. --Jayron32 14:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry if I don't understand how to use the census site. I couldn't find anything about Haitians though from your link, I'm clearly still doing something wrong. It will be interesting to compare the ePodunk numbers with the census. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. Apparently, you can't link to the URL directly to get the correct link. Apparently the database calls are generated in a way that can't be copy-pasted from the URL. Sorry about that. Here's how I got the data: From http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml the main American Factfinder site, you click "Advanced search - Show me all" then on the next menu, under "item 1" click the radio button for "Race/ancetry" and then as you start to type "Haitian" it brings up a tooltip that lets you select "581- Haitian (336-359)" Select that. Under the other box, start to type "North Miami Beach" and likewise it brings up a tooltip that lets you select the exact name of the city. Select that, then select "search" and then on the next screen, you'll have like hundreds of "products" that have those values in them. About 5 options down is B01003 "Total Population" Click that blue link, and you get a page that gives you the value you're looking for, in this case the total population of Haitians living in North Miami Beach. So the data exists, and can be gotten manual, or for anyone smart enough, a program can be wrtiten to cull the information from the database automagically. ePodunk may have done this, for all I know. But the data should really be cited to the horses mouth, as it were. --Jayron32 16:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

And Jayron and Doug have shown why I have in the past used ePodunk as a source (along with the US Census) as sources. When I used to use the US Census some editors had shown annoyance that they didn't know how to use the census website, which is very common, as Jayron shows above the steps can take awhile to explain. By sourcing to BOTH websites I was able to have the numbers shown quite quickly at epodunk but then also have the US census fact finder back it up. Perhaps some place we should have the discussion on how to source to the US census when you are actually listing a url to what is really no more than a fancy app that requires you to fill in fields to get the info you're looking for. Technically if I wanted to list that there were 100,000 Haitians in New York (made up number) I don't need a url at all, I can source the US census and require anyone who challenges to do the work to disprove it before they can mess with the numbers. URLs are not required. At least with epodunk we have a functioning url that gives the numbers in a handy immediate way that may be quite useful to our readers, and really we edit for our user's convenience, not our own fact checking convenience.Camelbinky (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

If we can trust the "app" then I suppose the situation might be one like how we use google books as "convenience links"? (I also see people using Amazon previews sometimes.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

digitaldreamdoor.com

The site http://digitaldreamdoor.com appears to be a blog, hobby or vanity site. http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/about_us_ddd.html seems to support that. If that's the case should we be

1. using it to support the statement that its "best of lists", such as http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_songs-rbilly.html, are somehow notable? See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earth_Angel&diff=prev&oldid=572956624
2. placing it on a blacklist so that it's not added as a RS?

I suspect that the editor who added that link above is one of the editors: "Bruce", but that's a different noticeboard. 00:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

There was a 2010 RSN topic about this website (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 78#Digital Dream Door) but nobody answered User:IHeardFromBob's request for guidance.

I say let's blacklist it. The website accepts user-generated content without editorial oversight, making it completely unreliable. On June 24 this year I removed the website and associated text from 60 articles about music and musicians. (Example.) These were all I could find that needed removing. It appears that the links have crept back into the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisting it may be the best way to move forward then. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I have proposed that digitaldreamdoor.com be blacklisted at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Digitaldreamdoor.com. Feel free to comment. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Military Channel - Top tens. Reliable Source?

This is a TV documentary series that interviews experts and military staff about 'game changing technology'.

http://military.discovery.com/ http://military.discovery.com/tv-shows/combat-countdown/videos/top-10-fighters.htm

Synopsis of series: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2247584/

Reliable? Z07x10 (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

In which article would you like to use this, and to support what claim? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. WP:RS#Context matters. Also, an important editing concern is how do we take the expert interviews from the series and put them in articles as referenced material? – S. Rich (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor (Mach 2.5 stated in source). I honestly think this source and the one currently listed are guessing because the information isn't released but I'm just putting it out there.Z07x10 (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You source to the episode and program. Medium of the source does not matter. Most military channel programs have transcripts or videos available for purchase. An inconvenience for fact checking, but policy states that convenience does not matter when sourcing. Only that it theoretically can be checked by someone.Camelbinky (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

My assessment of the source is that it is an opinion/editorial piece, which gives very little in the way of verifiable information. I have checked other sources, which I usually find to be more reliable, such as books. The speculation out there on the craft's top speed varies wildly. For example, the book Introduction to the United States Air Force says the top speed is mach 2. The book Attack Fighters says mach 1.7. I think the book F22 Raptor gives the most reliable answer, saying, "The top speed of the F-22 is classified. Test pilots say it can go faster than 1,600 miles (2,575 kilometers) per hour. [mach 2.1]." For this particular source in question, I have to ask where this information came from, but they do not provide any source of their own. Zaereth (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Then I'd recommend we document the inconsistency - give the different figures and cite each one to where it came from. --GRuban (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that's probably a good idea in general when dealing with these things GRuban. Lockheed themselves only state Mach 2 class and I don't think Top Tens or Air Forces Monthly (2.25) has a source for their figures. Zaereth - we do need to be careful when performing Mach conversions from TAS. 2,575kph is undoubtedly a figure achieved at high altitude where the speed of sound is only 1062kph and hence that equates to over Mach 2.4.Z07x10 (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Just cite Jane's All the World's Aircraft and be done with it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, iusually don't double check numbers or spelling on talk. You're right, I just typed it into my microsoft conversion program, but these are not always the best choice. (Just try to get a decent torr conversion from one.) At typical cruise altitude it would be mach 2.356. I'm fine with citing whatever Jane's says, or giving a range (ie: between mach 2.0 and 2.8, which is the largest number I've seen), or you could just put a tilde in front of the number, meaning "around," to indicate the exact figure as unknown (ie: ~ mach 2.4). My main point was to indicate that there are probably better sources than the one in question. Zaereth (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Dodger67 - Jane's isn't really the fantastic source it's made out to be. All their data is taken from other sources, they do no independent performance testing AFAIK. Zaereth, can you source the pilot's claim of 2,575kph? My calculation was for 11,000m, which is usually around the optimum altitude for maximum speed.Z07x10 (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I can neither confirm nor deny... Actually, I chose the above quote about "pilots say it can go faster than 1600 mph" out of irony. (I was hoping ypu'd check google books.) The only book which actually attributes a source (pilots say) and admits to not knowing outright, making it a believable response, is the book F22 Raptors, which is a childrens book.

The book Mass Assassinations gives this number (2.4) on page 164. The website http://tech.military.com/equipment/view/89685/f-22-raptor.html also gives this number. I can't vouch for the relability of these numbers, but at least these aren't op/ed pieces.

What I can tell you is that when Lockheed was designing the F22, there was much discussion about whether it should be Mach 2.0 or Mach 2.4. At Mach 2.0 the craft's skin must be able to withstand maximum temperatures of 275 degrees F, and long-term temperatures of 220 degrees F. Increasing the speed to 2.4 would mean exposing the crft to temperatures of 400 degrees max, and 350 for long-term exposures. Going even faster produces even higher temperatures, so the material used in the airframe and hull were major deciding factors in determining the max speed. Zaereth (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Jane's is certainly better than a TV show. Jane's is a pretty well known source for things military. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I am more than happy with Jane's reputation, although I don't know what it says about the F22. I think everyone seems to agree that it's above 2.0 and that only the government knows for sure, so perhaps simply putting >2.0 will suffice. (Just a thought.) Zaereth (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

@Dbrodbeck - Any source is only as good as its source. I think the present source is Air Forces Monthly, which states a 1.82 supercruise and 2.25 top end. These 2 figures don't seem to tally. I would have expected re-heat to cause a much bigger difference.Z07x10 (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll give you the most reliable sources I can come up with. On page 16, the book United States Air Force by the United States Air Force says the top speed is "1500 mph (mach 2)." (Directly citing; no math on my part.)

The book Lockheed Stealth by Bill Sweetman says on page 96 that the top speed is between 1.8 and 2.0. He goes on to say that, although the engines have plenty of power for 2.5 "few pilots have seen 2.5 on the mach meter." He says that to achieve 2.5 they would have had to add variable inlets and increase the temperature requirements for materials used throughout the craft. (Keep in mind that in material choice max temp. is often not as critical as temperature cycling. In other words, the difference between supercruise and gate is limited by the bird's structural design rather than its engines.)

The book The Lockheed Plant by Joe Kirby on page 116 syas that Lockheed boasts a speed "in excess of mach 2.0, but the exact speed remains classified." I would probably choose this last book and follow its example, because it offers no conjecture about the unknowns but clearly states the knowns. All of these books are available of google books, and none are children's books. Zaereth (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Reddit (IAmA)

Can a post on Reddit be considered a reliable source? Specifically, an IAmA post. I know the Reddit team verifies the authors, but is that considered sufficient for use on Wikipedia?

Specifically, I'm wondering about the suitability of this Reddit comment as a source for the following statement in Outlook.com#IMAP:

IMAP support was announced on September 12, 2013.

It seems like a WP:SPS (internet forum) to me, and I'm not sure if it falls under WP:ABOUTSELF. Is there any reason to even consider it as a source, given that both an official announcement ([34]) as well as numerous secondary sources ([35], [36], [37], etc.) are available?

Indrek (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Another question I have also recently become involved in a dispute over this site as a source: (see the contentious edit). I removed the comments on the grounds that it looked like a forum, but if this person is indeed Robin Williams then obviously I don't have a problem with sourcing his comments, and I don't want to be personally responsible for having inaccurate information in the article, so the bottom line is how do we confirm if a poster is real or not? Is there an official announcement somewhere which confirms identities? Betty Logan (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It's easy: The Reddit moderators ask for proof that the person doing the AMA is the one it claims to be. Things that are considered proof are listed here. Often celebrities tweet about the AMA from an account which has been verified by Twitter (see the tick next to the account name). This has been done quite often now and Reddit is popular enough that celebrities would intervene if someone tried to impersonate them. --Kurt Jansson (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

So, any thoughts about the original issue(s) here? Do Reddit IAmA's fall under WP:ABOUTSELF (so long as the account is verified)? What about the specific Reddit link above - does the fact that it makes claims about third parties (albeit non-exceptional claims) disqualify it for WP:ABOUTSELF and therefore as a reliable source? Is there any reason not to use secondary sources (in the form of well-established news outlets) over a Reddit post (which would be a primary source) when available? Indrek (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Treat it like any other interview. I don't see any difference here. --Kurt Jansson (talk) 09:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, one obvious difference is that Reddit is inherently a WP:SPS (being an internet forum). Hence this question. But I see what you're saying. I hadn't thought of looking at an IAmA like an interview. Thanks for your input. Indrek (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Newspaper sources for population statistics in addition to official government sources

When I added a figure from a 2013 NYT article about the number of Korean immigrants in Mexico (cited line: "CULTURE Performing Korean pop music in Mexico City. At least 12,000 Koreans are said to live in Mexico." - and page3/4 says: "Officials at a newly opened Korean cultural center here say at least 12,000 Koreans now call Mexico home,"), an IP address removed it, saying that it was pointless to state the figure because there were already 2008 South Korean government figures in the article. I believed that one should have both the 2008 and 2013 pieces of information in the article.

When I argued that there is a difference between the years 2008 and 2013 and that articles in general should cite secondary sources whenever possible, the IP argued from WP:RS "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content" and "For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports." - He argues that a government has a reputation for making a reliable population counts while a newspaper does not.

Would these arguments be always correct, or are do publications have reputations for being very high quality on the matter?

Please see the page at Talk:Korean immigration to Mexico WhisperToMe (talk) 08:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The New York Times is a highly reliable source but of course in this case it is quoting people who might not be well-informed themselves. However, given that the thrust of the section in the article is to illustrate the disparity in estimates of the Korean-Mexican population, rather than to dogmatically give an absolute figure, I don't think that poses a problem. The NYT reporter is likely to have chosen their sources with some consideration of their reliability. Barnabypage (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Social Security Death Index

Do editors consider this index to be a permissible source for articles? The index is purportedly available through various genealogy websites. My view is that until you have a reliable source for a death date, the subject of the article is governed by WP:BLP policy. In this instance, the applicable policy is WP:BLPPRIMARY. That policy says specifically not to use public documents "to support assertions about a living person." Even more clearly, it says: "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." Just as we can't use a birth certificate, we wouldn't be able to use a death certificate or, in this instance, an entry in a governmental database.

The battle over this issue is occurring at Joan Gerber. I've already cited the policy, but, curiously, @Beyond My Ken: asks me to cite policy in his re-addition of the index as a source. In addition, in BMK's edit summary, he analogizes the issue to using census records. Without addressing whether we should or shouldn't use census records generally, the analogy is fatally flawed as we don't use them in BLP articles.

An aside. The issue of Gerber's death has been a contentious one for some time now. She was a prolific actress but appparently, as a voice actress, not fodder for a lot of media attention. Therefore, no one has ever been able to find reliable sources supporting her death (usually they've been blogs, if I recall correctly, but I might be mixing her up with another actor).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Are we clear on what index is being sourced? Look at Social Security Death Index. Seems the "SSDI" is the commercial equivalent to the Death Master File (DMF). The DMF is available through the "official" SSDMF, another commercial database. – S. Rich (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

[EC] I'm reluctant to rely on the Social Security Death Index as the sole source for death information. Reasons are that it's a primary source that can be misinterpreted and it is periodically reported to contain errors (living people are sometimes reported dead); also, the online sources for the data are nongovernmental websites like [38]. In Gerber's case, IMDB and several online forums (none of which are reliable sources) say that she died in August 2011 -- and apparently have had that info for about two years. If she's still alive, it seems likely that someone likely would have corrected the errors by now. However, a user comment on this page indicates that an obit appeared in the LA Times on August 31, 2011. Can someone check that day's LA Times? That could resolve the matter. --Orlady (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I vaguely recall checking that LA Times thing out once before and coming up with zilch. Nonetheless, using the LA Times archive search, I searched for "Joan Gerber" or "Joanellen Gerber" from August 1 to September 30, 2011, and there were no hits.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I had a hunch about the August 31 obit, and it turned out to be correct. I went to the library and found the obit on microfiche. It's not an article, which, of course, is subject to normal fact-checking. It's a paid, very small obit placed by someone. It confirms the date of death (as well as the birthdate), along with some other details about her death and loved ones. The problem is it can't be considered a reliable source. Theoretically, anyone could place it. According to the LA Times, the only thing they edit for are "style and grammar". My guess is they wouldn't put anything obscene in, either, but the key thing is they don't appear to check the facts themselves. So, are three unreliable sources (IMDb, social security record, and LA Times obit) together good enough to put in the date? One personal side benefit, of course, is I wouldn't have to revert editors coming along and wanting to put in her death date.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The SSDI is a primary source and should not be used in articles. If a person is not notable enough to have their death reported by a reliable secondary source, perhaps there should not be an article about them. In this particular case, I send an email to a blogger who is a screenwriter and published comics/animation historian, perhaps he knows for sure. Gamaliel (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it also WP:OR? I've used primary sources to help me find secondary sources (ie. narrow a search on a maiden/married name or birth/death/marriage place/date) but I haven't included it unless I can find a secondary source that reports it. AnonNep (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used and WP:RS#Context matters in determining whether the info is reliable. In any event, the SSA gets reports about deaths & (usually) stops paying benefits. But nobody at the SSA actually makes/produces the report of the death. – S. Rich (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no comment on how the index works; I have no idea. However, primary sources, standing alone, cannot be used per BLP policy, unless you see a loophole I don't.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure, context matters but if every government source is ok to quote verbatim then thousands of 19th century biog pages will be deluged with 10 yearly UK census results that, at present, are generally considered, original research to use. WP:WPNOTRS says; 'Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.' So, if this is notable, why isn't there a secondary source that mentions it? AnonNep (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

BLP? The SSDI, a very grave subject, is a listing of dead people. – S. Rich (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It may be 'a very grave subject' but, in genealogy terms, western death records are generally considered the most unreliable because those providing information are bereaved and relying on what they've been told by those in aging years who might forget/mistake/want to mistake things. If the primary source is notable it will have been mentioned in secondary sources elsewhere, if not, it shouldn't be used as per WP:OR. AnonNep (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Cute, but BLP applies because one adds the death date to a BLP. Otherwise, you've bootstrapped your argument.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I quite agree that WP:V should be applied for every biography. Even more so when there is some doubt about the person being dead or alive. But if the article is about someone that could not possibly be alive, then the SSDI might serve as one possible source of info. It seems that a non-commercial, earlier version of the SSDI had a parameter that described the source of info for the DOD. (Being cheap, I have not purchased a SSDI report for quite some time.) – S. Rich (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

(Outdent) Here ya go, big bad bobblehead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You get a gold star.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm late to the discussion, but I'd have to agree with User:Beyond My Ken. The Social Security Death Index is not a primary source — that would be the death certificate itself, not the SSDI, which is reporting what the death certificate says. I think we'd be cutting off our nose to spite our face to disallow this reporting tool based on a faulty characterization of it. And certainly, there are many notable individuals who might not have been recognized during their lifetimes and received no formal obituaries, whose birth and death dates could not be verified any other way. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Even assuming for the sake of argument that the SSDI is not a primary source, it is still a "public record", which is the term used in WP:BLPPRIMARY. Therefore, it can't be used in BLPs. Also, it is interesting to read the SSA FAQ on the death master file here. It explains how deaths are reported and then inserted into the file. It never says that the SSA does any kind of independent fact checking. Reading between the lines, I'm guessing there may be some decisionmaking in the process depending on the reporting source, one of which includes family members. In that example, I wonder how it determines that the "family member" is who they say they are and that the person really died. Finally, it acknowledges that "in rare instances it is possible for the record of a person who is not deceased to be included erroneously in the DMF."--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and in rare instances it's possible for otherwise extremely reliable sources to report someone is dead who actually is still alive. Extreme cases - "rare instances" - are not (and should not be) a criteria for determining reliability, because everyone, even the vaunted The New Yorker in the heyday of its fact-checking, makes mistakes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally:

Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.

This was mentioned above and brushed away as "bootstrapping", but in fact, it is not. Ms. Subject is presumed to be alive, so we cannot use "other public document" to assert anything about her. Now, however, we see that Ms. Subject has been included in the SSDI list -- now Ms. Subject is presumed to be dead, so no BLP policy is being violated. That's not "bootstrapping:, that's simply new facts changing the circumstances.

An editor above also asserts that if there's no RS reporting someone's death, maybe they weren't notable enough to begin with, but that's absurd. It's hardly unusual for someone to be notable, even famous, even world-fanous and then virtually disappear once their career is over or their time in the limelight has ended. What do we do, then, when the tree falls in the forest and no one is there is publish the obit? Do we carry on regardiong them as "living" when they would be, say, 130 years old? 150? When can we make the reasonable assumption that they are no longer subject to BLP rules? (Not to report that they are dead, of course, since we don't report speculation unless it comes from a RS, but simply in how we deal with the subject.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Lastly, I hope everyone is aware that in the specific case that brought up this question, Joan Gerber, a RS for her death (her union's magazine) has been found and inserted in the article, so the discussion at this point is about policy and not editing driven. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

If someone is notable enough and is deceased, then the Social Security Death Index (SSDI) is at best a concurrence. It should not be proof that someone has died, especially if many different persons share the name.

An example of what is contained should show its limitations with a notable person (Harry S. Truman, the 33rd President of the United States of America whose biographical details are well known, and whose Social Security number could never be used for fraudulent purposes:

Given Name: Harry

Middle Name:

Surname: Truman

Name Suffix:

Birth Date: 8 May 1884

Social Security Number: 488-40-6969

State: Missouri

Last Place of Residence: Jackson, Missouri

Previous Residence Postal Code: 64050

Event Date: December 1972

Age: 88

What isn't shown? Where he died. SSDI could not show that he died in an auto accident near St. Louis or in a hospital far from his home (of course we know otherwise, but from other sources). His last place of residence is well known but the city is not named. In many cases the exact date of death is not shown. So is his middle initial, also not known.

Now here's another "Harry Truman", a crusty character who refused to leave Mount Saint Helens when the going was good and got much media attention at the time, and is thus notable:

Given Name: Harry

Middle Name:

Surname: Truman

Name Suffix:

Birth Date: 30 October 1896

Social Security Number: 535-20-8745

State: Washington

Last Place of Residence: Castle Rock, Cowlitz, Washington

Previous Residence Postal Code: 98611

Event Date: May 1980

Age: 84

He surely died during the eruption of Mount St. Helens. But note that his middle initial and his exact date of death are not shown. The town in which he was listed as having his last place of residence is clearly not where he died. That was a mailing address. I can only guess that the Postal Service was not delivering mail at the lodge on Spirit Lake where he was staying because delivering mail to a volcano known to be in imminent danger of eruption is unduly hazardous duty.

SSDI really says nothing of great usefulness to Wikipedia. It might be good for stopping some credit frauds such as assuming the identity of a deceased person and for filling blanks in genealogy. The Social Security Number of a deceased person is at best a means of distinguishing one person from another given other information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbrower2a (talk • contribs) 18:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get your point. In the Joan Gerber case, we knew when she was born and where, so unless there was another Joan Gerber born in the same place on the same day, it was unlikely that we would confuse two listings in the SSDI. We don't necessarily need to know the circumstances of Gerber's death, just that she died, so I'm not getting how you think the index "says nothing of great usefulness", when it establishes that someone is dead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Concur with Beyond My Ken. The SSDI as a source for a death date does not violate the living persons policy, by definition — the odds of it reporting someone dead who is alive is astronomical and well, well within the margin of error we'd give any other source in terms of reliability, including, as someone mentioned, The New Yorker. Other personal factors such as place and date of birth are, equally obviously, pertinent factors in identifying a person.

And as already mentioned, taking an ideological hard line and saying, "No, I'd rather not source someone's death to the Social Security Death Index and instread give the misimpression they're still alive" goes against the mission of Wikipedia and misses the forest for the trees. As Wikipedia policy makes clear, we follow the rules only up to the point where it becomes absurds to do so (i.e., suggesting someone is 130 years old). Obits are preferable — of course. When no obits exist, however, ignoring a source that institutions and the rest of real life uses, and knowingly leaving a misimpression, seems a very bad option. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

GayStarNews.com

[39] has been presented on a sandbox page User:Jenova20/Criticism_of_the_Daily_Mail_and_Mail_Online as a proposed addition to the Daily Mail article. Is this a reliable source for claims that the Daily Mail has "Trans issues and reputation of homophobia" Is the proposed section something which should be added to the main article? Collect (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliable for the experiences of one journalist. Whether it is worth including in the article is a matter of weight. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. This is an opinion piece so I think the question really comes down to the reliability and authority of Jane Fae rather than Gaystarnews, which in itself seems reliable enough to not have made up her article from thin air. She's an established journalist on issues related to transgender etc., but on the other hand she's not (as far as I can see) particularly an authority on media or media history. I'd say on balance that the source is just about okay but not great. I'm sure there must be better ones around to support the same point. Barnabypage (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The journalist actually praises the DM in the editorial article -- which is not the claim being made in the first place <g>, but you feel "gaystarnews" meets WP:RS? How? Collect (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This piece is an interview with a journalist, so should be reliable for the views of that journalist. If the journalist has retracted her views then please disregard the source. Of course if it is felt to be relevant it needs to be accurately represented. I did not look at whether she praised or criticised the DM. I only looked to see whether the source was usable in the WP article. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Zheng He, a school teacher's website and a source that doesn't seem to back the claim

A minor edit war at Zheng he (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with an editor removing what appears to be well cited information and replacing it with material sourced to a website [40] by a school teacher[41] and a source [42] which clearly only says he was born a Muslim, not "He also remained a Muslim throughout his life, while being tolerant and accepting to other religions and customs". There's probably an NPOV issue about the original text as there are plenty of RS which call him a Muslim, but he clearly worshiped Mazu (goddess) - maybe as well - (seach for Tianfei or Tian Fei). Dougweller (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Editor ignoring any request, just forcing it back in. Dougweller (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Prayway.com

I'm finding this used in a number of articles for factual statements, mainly population figures. I've been removing it but would like other comments. Currently the figure is [43]. Dougweller (talk) 05:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Prayway.com is definitely non-RS. – S. Rich (talk) 05:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a site for prayer requests that doesn't even purport to be a source of information about anything else. It couldn't possibly be a RS except for narrow questions relating to itself. Barnabypage (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Comics Forum and Ulysses Press - re Aklo

I am working on the article about the fictional language Aklo and the most "academic" analysis I have come up with so far is from The Comics Forum from google scholar, particularly this and this one. Is the content there being appropriately vetted?

I also have a question about this book it is published by ulysses press with the authors credited as listverse.com.

i appreciate any insight. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The first source meets WP:SELFPUBLISH as the author has been published on comic analysis. Unfortunately, on a side note, I question the statement in the article that Aklo is pictographic, even though that is what the source says. The Haunter of the Dark, which is what is referred to, says: "The manuscript writing consisted of the common traditional symbols used today in astronomy and anciently in alchemy, astrology, and other dubious arts- the devices of the sun, moon, planets, aspects, and zodiacal signs- here massed in solid pages of text, with divisions and paragraphings suggesting that each symbol answered to some alphabetical letter.... The cipher, he soon saw, was no simple one; and after a long period of endeavour he felt sure that its language could not be English, Latin, Greek, French, Spanish, Italian, or German ... The text was, he found, in the dark Aklo language used by certain cults of evil antiquity, and known to him in a halting way through previous researches." In other words, the cipher used was pictographic. Not the Aklo language. The Aklo language uses "alphabetical letters". Stephen Cain misread the story. --GRuban (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

What kind of source do we need for a statement "Some historians speculate"

I've been trying to deal with Kourgm22 (talk · contribs) about this. I put what I thought were useful comments on their talk page, they replied to me on their talk page and then reverted the discussion. The current statement is "Some historians speculate that the Queen of Sheba visited Solomon in order to obtain his consent to travel her caravans through Jordan, which at the time, Solomon controlled", sourced to Fisher, Eugene M., and M. Cherif Bassiouni. Storm Over the Arab World. This is better than "historians believe" which was the original edit. M. Cherif Bassiouni is a notable legal scholar, I don't know anything about Fisher, and the book is about the colonial and post-colonial Arab world. In the deleted edit the editor states that " it clearly says that some historians speculated on why the Queen of Sheba wanted to visit Solomon" but without the context it doesn't actually tell me much, and isn't what the Bible says. And of course no page number despite my request, possibly because the student wrote a paper for college (as he/she says) but didn't put the page number in and no longer has the book. At the moment it seems that if I remove it again it will be replaced, and I've got no good reason to think that we can accept it at face value and I don't think we can word it this way. Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Page 200 of the 1972 edition. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Fisher is/was a member of the Indian Bar - see this. I'm not sure that two legal types are going to be great authorities for such a book. I note that the foreword was provided by Arnold Toynbee, which might nowadays be considered a kiss of death. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oops, given the dates it would seem that should link to Arnold J. Toynbee. - Sitush (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I gather the diff is at [44]. The source, St. John's University School of Law, is RS. I suggest a quote from the law review article to put the material in context will help. – S. Rich (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused now - the publisher is Follett. - Sitush (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm the one who's confused. You linked the bar review article, and that got me diverted. I'll guess that the bar review piece (1970) served as the precursor for Follett. Either way, would a quote help? (Also, Fisher is listed as a member of the Indiana Bar, not Indian Bar. ) – S. Rich (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

S. Rich, the source would clearly be reliable for the politics, etc of the modern Arab world. But sources aren't reliable necessarily for everything. How can they be a reliable source for what historians say? I also see that the Law Review article states the biblical stories as fact, which gives me more concerns than I had before. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The editor's talk page quotes the source as saying "Historians who concern themselves with the long ago speculate that Sheba made her journey to Jerusalem to win Solomon's consent for the travel of her caravans through Jordan, which then he ruled." It's my opinion that even quoting and attributing this doesn't help much as we have no idea what they are referring to. It begs the question 'what historians" and gives the reader no way to find out. As I've said, we should have academically recognized historians commenting on what historians say. Til, while arguing that we have no definition for historians, has found this [45] from the Cambridge Ancient History by Otto Eissfeldt which is the sort of source we should be considering.

(edit conflict) My apologies for the typo - I'm making a lot of those at the moment and yesterday even tried changing keyboard mid-edit to resolve the problem. Still, a member of a Bar is a member of a Bar. From the introduction to the 1970 paper, neither appear to have any qualification in a theological or history-based subject, unless you count law as history-based due to research/reliance on past rulings etc. Furthermore, it seems likely that the Sheba comment in the book is in the nature of an aside to their main thesis.

Page 200 is the first page of a chapter titled "Yemen the Land of the Queen of Sheba". All I can see of it is first first paragraph, reconstructed from searching the snippet views: "In biblical history the lady has long been known as the queen of Sheba. Secular historians often call her ancient realm Saba. She traveled from this country in the southwestern region of the Arabian peninsular northward along the Red Sea to visit Solomon in Jerusalem, and there, the scribe reports, "she communed with him of all that was in her heart". Of this communion, tradition has it, was born a son who became King Menelik. Historians who concern themselves with the long ago speculate that Sheba made her journey to Jerusalem to win Solomon's consent for the travel of her caravans through Jordan, when he then ruled. When one takes into account the Hebrew king's seeming obsession with sex, it is possible to imagine that the use of her body was part of the price she paid." There are no footnotes to that paragraph. I know almost nothing of the Bible and definitely nothing of this, but the wording all seems a bit fluffy to me. I think I would prefer to see the words of the "historians who concern themselves with the long ago" - if there are a few then presumably it should be possible for someone to track them down ... eventually. - Sitush (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with others above: we would need to quote or cite the historians concerned. Moreover, we would only do so if those historians are experts in the field (or highly notable for some other reason). If those conditions aren't met, the speculation isn't worth mentioning on Wikipedia. Andrew Dalby 09:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The whole page needs a copyedit, since it is written by someone without a native knowledge of English.

Its neutrality is flawed, also as a consequence. I.e. for example:

Among other things it was the home of the biblical "Queen of Sheba"

No one here surely needs to be told that the 'Queen of Sheba' story is almost unanimously considered legendary, and therefore 'she' cannot have an historical home. The tale of course, like many legends, probably contains traces of ancient trade information, the spice route etc. There is no evidence for Solomon's vaunted kingdom, and this is a post-Persian era fairy tale, grounded on the historicization of semi-legendary moral tale, much as occurs in Early Roman history.

the article by Otto Eissfeldt in the the Cambridge Ancient History is encyclopedically useless. A fine scholar of course, but that edition came out in 1973, and the whole Eissefeldt piece was written much earlier, and smacks of the 1930s. The assumptions made throughout it are simply not shared by archeologists anymore.

'Historians who concern themselves with the long ago speculate'. That is horrific writing at any level (a) all historians deal with what the writer ineptly calls 'the long ago', which sounds like a fumbling attempt to imitate in an English country vernacular the Braudelian longue durée. One writes, if one must, the 'deep past'. (b) It is grammatically untrue: since the class of historians who study the deep past is a huge one, whereas its subset, historians of Sheba, is a very small, restricted field. 'who' here confuses the subclass with the main class. (c) When 'some' is used one must have a good specialist source that uses it, or name at least two specialist historians.Nishidani (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Nishidani. I'm a bit embarrassed by the Eissefeldt gaffe, especially as I'd already commented on the original editor's talk page about using old sources that have since been shown to be wrong. I hope you'll make an attempt to deal with the neutrality issues. Andre Dalby is also right - we can't use 'historians' in general, as you both say we need current specialists who are known in their fields. Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Otto E. point, the linked edition is dated 2000, although the first edition was 1973. This footnote says that the first four sections were originally published as a "fasicle" (?) in 1965. Do Cambridge regularly reprint without amending for modern research? - Sitush (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately Til Eulenspiegel seems to be encouraging the original editor to use Eissfeldt and doesn't seem to want to participate here - see User talk:Kourgm22. Dougweller (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Where he's dismissed RSN, saying "That's how I remember the place. If they are now instead telling people - "No - any source that doesn't pass our POV litmus test xyz cannot even be mentioned on wikipedia", then the wrong people are now lurking around there". He's been edit-warring at the article and made it clear at Talk:Sheba he rejects anything coming from here. Dougweller (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Is the University College London reliable?

I know that this might look like an unnecessary question, but I'm currently having a discussion with an user called Tobus2 (detailed discussion here [46]) and he insists on the institution being unreliable until proven otherwise here, I told him repeated times that on the case of recognized universities it isn't necessary, but he insists. So well, what do people here think? My intention is that of use the university as a source for crediting an investigator called Jonathan Hagos as an expert on cartography (he was featured in a seminar hosted by The Bartlett Development Unit [47] (citing the site of the exhibition) The exhibit will be public and will be displayed during the London Mapping seminar on the 20th and 21th September 2012 at UCL. As well as receiving a certificate, the chosen posters will be consider for a future publication and will be featured in the website, The confirmation of Hagos being featured on the 2012 seminar as well as the the proof of him having multiple publications in the field and being recognized by the Oxford brookes University is here [48]). I believe that is rather unnecessary and that his behavoir breachs a bit the codes of conduct of wikipedia, but if this is what it takes to end the discussion so be it. Another thing that must be remarked is that i was involved on a discussion some time ago regarding this investigator and on it's due time I accepted the resolution of the past discussion, which is already on the past. I say this so the old issues don't be taken up again and this discussion get extended too much. This is a completely different issue, on a different topic, and I base my posture today on what is written at the top of this noticeboard: Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y" though to be more precise, on this case it would be Many sources are unreliable for statement "X," but reliable for statement "Y". Thanks in advance. Czixhc (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Here you add [[49]] the map. Tobus2 removes it [50]. You add it again [51], and Tobus2 removes it again [52]. But this is the same map which was debated in the last discussion at [[53]]. And this is the dispute you are discussing on Tobus2's discussion page. So how is this a completely different issue? It seems like the exact same issue. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I know this is a complex issue because we're not just talking about a straightforward case of a cartographer doing a bit of cartography. I'll repeat the point I think I made on the article page a while back, that although Hagos may be an expert in the visualisation of information (or somesuch phrase), that doesn't make him an expert in the data underlying the information.

However, in answer to your specific question here - yes, UCL is clearly a reliable institution (usually featuring in the top 10 or top 20 lists of worldwide institutions of higher education) and that speaks to the reliability of its staff and its publications.

I will also add, just having seen some of your discussion with Tobus2, that the guy under discussion doesn't need a formal qualification in cartography to be an expert in the subject. (John Maynard Keynes did not have a qualification in economics, to take a random example.) At an academic level there is an awful lot of cross-over between architecture and other disciplines, with cartography having an obvious relationship. Barnabypage (talk) 07:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I am getting past fed up with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from this editor. The repeated claim of "being recognized by the Oxford brookes University is here [54]" is simply wrong, but he ignores any response to this. The page in question is Hagos's personal page, where he wrote "My work and research focuses on the ‘re-illustration of post-colonial themes such as freedom of speech and expression, identity and migration which are executed through diverse media such as cartography, film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions." This is not the unversity saying that Hagos is an expert in anything. And it really doesn't matter if Hagos is an expert in drawing maps, as the editor wishes to use him as an expert for the data in those maps. If there is any "breach of conduct" is it by Czixhc for not dropping this and continuing with the same rejected arguments. As for not using it for migration at Czixhc claims, see [55] where he's added the same map which is about skin color and migration and has been talked to death I would have thought. Perhaps time to go back to ANI, see the earlier threat at [56]. Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The link to the 2012 seminar clearly says "Anyone can enter!" and that submissions were in the form of an A1 poster and a 300 word abstract. There was no CV, qualifications or formal written application required and the "featured" applicants didn't give talks, their work was just included in an exhibition - this wasn't a "seminar" in the usual sense with lectures and presentations by qualified professionals, it was an exhibition of visual works open to anybody who felt like entering. There's nothing on the page that indicates successful applications were selected on anything other than aesthetics. Despite Czixhc's choice of title and misrepresentation of my arguments, I'm not questioning the reliability of University College London - it's just that being in this "seminar" doesn't mean that UCL credits Hagos an expert in cartography. Tobus2 (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC

While a publisher may in general be a reliable source, that is not a blanket coverage for all topics and in all situations. Just because University College London is a respected academic institution, that does not give everything on any page on the University College London webpages universal credence as "being unquestionably reliable" . In addition, there is the aspect of being a reliably published source, rather than merely being content posted or hosted on a website. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)`

(edit conflict) This is a confusing RSN posting. I see it is about the reliability of a certain map, right? Or, more correctly, about the information displayed on the map, since the map is being used to present the information. However, the question asked is about the reliability of UCL. How is that relevant? Universities don't generally certify information other than about themselves. Where can we read that UCL has spoken about the reliability of the map? Please, oh please, don't tell us that the map must be reliable because it was displayed at a seminar at UCL; that would be just too much of a misconception about how universities work. Zero^talk 12:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ok, I just realised that Czixhc added the map on the 24th, despite the earlier discussions at ANI and here. Here[57], a week before he added the map again to an article, he says he is desisting. I'll give him a chance to drop this entirely, but if he continues I don't see any reason to let him waste our time and will take it to ANI. I agree that the editor doesn't seem to understand how universities work. Dougweller (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It's also worth looking at Talk:World map as there are serious questions as to why this particular map should be included in this article. Originally he wanted it at Human skin color. Having failed there, he's tried a different article. Dougweller (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This is ridiculous - we have already been through this, and there is no reason whatsoever to go through it all again. The data in Hagos's map is not reliable - because (a) Hagos isn't qualified in the field of human skin colouration (a subject for physical anthropologists, not cartographers), and (b) more importantly, he doesn't claim that his map represents any particular data anyway. It is a work of art, not science. If Czixhc won't drop the matter, take it to WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it is wrong to say that because someone is an expert on something that every single thing they produce may be relied upon. You need to consider where the map was published. If it was published in an academic journal that would indicate that it had been peer-reviewed, and we could see where he got his data and determine its general acceptance. TFD (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hagos doesn't claim that the colours on his map are based on objective 'data'. [58] He describes it as based on a "von Luschan scale" which was "considered problematic, even by its practitioners, because it was very inconsistent". He goes on to say that "In this project I utilize [the map] as a way of highlighting (when compared to maps utilizing population data from earlier centuries) the effects of colonisation as well as migratory trends in the last century. The question of 'the indigenous' is raised as well as a closer look at multicultural ideals". It clearly isn't intended as any sort of objective depiction of 'skin colouration' at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

time to close as another overwhelming rejection in this WP:FORUMSHOPing spree?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it is. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Note. Given the grossly misleading title given the image by Czixhc, I have asked that it be renamed. [59] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like there have been a true debate over here, I appreciate the contributions of you all. Just some clarifications: this goes mainly for Dougweller: This is not "I didn't hear that" or anything, the topic on which I want to use the map is different, and i'm using a different source. That's it. This one goes for Tobus2 for stating that "Anyone can enter" on the seminary, well, maybe anyone can enter but not anybody will be featured on the final seminary. Looks like there is some indecision wheter if the recognizement of an university might make somebody reliable or not (I agree with Barnabypage: it does), well, lets focus on that for now, whatever the outcome turns out to be i'm ok with it. Czixhc (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Please note that Czixhc has just deleted, without prior discussion, my rename proposal on Commons. At this point, I have to suggest that his/her self-evident inability to demonstrate even the faintest ability to drop the stick is solid grounds for an indefinite block per Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guidelines. Enough is enough, and I don't see why we should have to put up with this any more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• You are really dramatic aren't you? I already explained why the rename request that you made up was incorrect, what do you want? to have two rename requests: one mine and yours? I'm more tired than you of discussing this and i'm just waiting for a consensus on the reliability of the recognizement of an university, i'm not like you, if the consensus doesn't favor me again it's not the end of the world, chill out. Czixhc (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Your "explanation" is just the same old bullshit you have repeatedly been told is irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• I accepted that was my mystake in the old discussion, right now the sources and the topics are different, as i told before, i have no problem with the final resolution, i just want to be sure about the sources to know if i wil need more in the future, and if so, which ones so this don't happens again. Czixhc (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• If you have accepted that you were mistaken, why are you still asserting that the image should be entitled a "World map by skin color for modern populations" despite the fact that the source makes no assertion to that effect whatsoever? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Stop mixing unrelated issues, this is no place to discuss this, i said well at the beginning that i didn't wanted this discussion to enlong itself and go off-topic, the title of the image and the discussion taking place right now have nothing to do with eachother. Czixhc (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

By all appearances you are still trying to include the map, on the basis of Hagos' work. The fact that Hagos' work was part of this seminar was known in the last discussion as well. The problem with the map that was identified in the last discussion wasn't that it was being used on a page about a migration and not a page about world maps, the problem was that it makes certain claims about human skin colour and that Hagos' work was not a reliable source for these claims. You've produced documents of the seminar. But these documents include no claims concerning human skin colour, apart from Hagos' map. There doesn't appear to be anything new to judge. If you do indeed have something new, my suggestion would be to follow the regular procedure of this board, as given with Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Just simply write: 1. The sources you mean to use. 2. The article to which you mean to add content. 3. The content you wish to add to that article." --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Well, my basis was that self-published sources are reliable if produced by somebody with recognizement on the field which would be cartography, so while UCL does not specify issues related to skin color, the idea is the map being used in cartography articles as a way to exemplify all that can be done with map. What if we state on the footnote where it could be used that it is a "representation" or an "exemplification" to make clear that it doesn't intends to have extraordinary scientific accuracy? This is something i wanted to ask you since the last discussion. Czixhc (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hagos's original is artwork, not scientific data. Czixhc's image is nothing but a partial copy, missing much of the detail, and all of the context. It doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Using Czixhc's map as an example of cartography isn't an RS question, it's a WP:WEIGHT issue - why should this map be used as an example over the thousands of other maps that are available to use as examples? As explained by User:Strebe at the World map talk page[60], it isn't suitable there.

If you think about it, using a map as an example means we're using the expression of the ideas (the execution), not the ideas themselves (the content). If we were going to use Czixhc's map as an example of cartography, then it would have to be Czixhc who has the recognition/expertise in cartography - we wouldn't use a copy of the Mona Lisa as an example of oil painting and claim it's OK because da Vinci is an expert, we'd use the real thing (under WP:Fair use if needs be). So even if there were an article where such a map would be a good example, then we'd use Hagos's original map and not this version anyway. I think AndyTheGrump is right, there's nowhere this map can be used on WP - it's not reliably sourced so can't be used in any factual articles and if it were ever warranted we'd use the original as an example, not Czixhc's "copy".

Tobus2 (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Judging for the reponses of the users above me this is starting to lean to a remarkably subjetive area. For example: Andythegrump says that is artwork, however in the site of the original image that is never stated; and Tobus2 is bringing a tiring argument regarding copyrights again, despite that the map has been proven to not violate any copyright two times before. I'd rather wait to see what users Barnabypage and Atethnekos have to say about the issue and the questions i've asked to them, i have no intention neither time to extend this discussion once more answering the same questions from the same users again. Czixhc (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You have misunderstood me Czixhc, I didn't say anything about copyright. My point is that your map wasn't executed by Hagos, it was executed by you - any skill, reputation or credentials that Hagos might have in making maps would only apply to his original map, not to yours.

The site of the original image clearly states that the data in Hagos's map is not reliable (as AndyTheGrump pointed out earlier). Whether it's "artwork" or not doesn't matter so much as the fact that it's definitely not "scientific data".

Tobus2 (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

While I agree with AndyTheGrump, I will endulge Czixhc's request to stick to his specific narrow question, which I am basing on the title of the thread- Yes, in general, material published (and a website is considered for Wikipedia purposes to be "published" material), by that university, having gone through some sort of peer-review, fact-checking process, it is considered to be reliable, with the obvious caveat that- it must be true. If a book published by the university says the capital of Iceland is Dublin and the capital of Ireland is Reykjavik then no, those statements are not reliable and the source cant be used to state that those statements are true, however being wrong in that one instance does not invalidate the entire book from being a source on something else (though enough wrong statements and one would be better off sourcing a correct statement to a different source than one that is wrong too many times). So, Czixhc, your intentionally narrow question has been answered regarding the reliability of material published by that specific university with no mention to whether the map is accepted or not. Now, personally- I believe you should be topic banned.Camelbinky (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The image in question wasn't published by UCL anyway. It was 'published' by Czixhc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

In that case- we're in the wrong forum. This is not the OR/N; if he wishes to expand his question to the map in particular and not generically about the university's reliable publishing ability he'll have to start a thread over there. This should be closed per- wrong forum. Camelbinky (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Tobus2, Your statement is non-sense, by your logic 90% of the maps used on wikipedia aren't reliable, because the information have been replicated by wikipedia users from their respective source sites in order to not violate any copyright, And the map being based on the Von Luschan chromatic scale shouldn't be an impediment for it's use as an informative source, there is another maps and articles based on it being used on wikipedia right now. Camelbinky: I really don't think that a publication by any University will ever switch the capitals of Iceland and Ireland, these institutions have a strong editorial control. And to answer your question, I ask about the reliability of the UCL because that university accepts Hagos as a cartographer and published his work before (i mention this on my first paragraph in this discussion). Per wikipedia's self published sources policy [61]: "A self published work (which would be the original map on which the file i made is based upon) might be reliable if the creator has recognizement and works in the relevant field" Thus The claim of the UCL don't publishing this exact map per the policy afore mentioned is void, because the requeriments for a self-published work to be included on wiki are the creator to third party back up in the field, not on the exact work. If the UCL is reliable Hagos is a reliable cartographer, that's why the focus point of this discussion is the UCL. This is really going on circles, I'll wait to see if Atethnekos and Barnabypage (he agreed on Hagos being a reliable cartographist) appear again. I have no intention of going on circles here again. Czixhc (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"If the UCL is reliable Hagos is a reliable cartographer". No. That is not what it would take to make the map properly sourced. A connection to UCL does not automatically mean that anything produced by Hagos is accurate & neutral, least of all considering the concerns raised above. Please stop this and move on to something else more productive. bobrayner (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Well, i believe is that way because the policy for reliable sources states such, but well, looks like somehow it's not that way how it works, for now i take your insight as adecuate for the resolution of this discussion, though i sugest to wait and see what the other users mentioned have to say. If they don't appear then it's seetled for now (I say for now because the reputiation of Hagos or his work might change in the future, when more sources that favor him get published as one of much examples, and when that happens i'll try again). Czixhc (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

To prevent future arguments, please note that you've misquoted the WP:SPS policy - it doesn't say an SPS can be used "if the creator has recognizement and works in the relevant field", it says they may be used if "produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." This means the author must be an established expert in the subject matter (not just have "recognizement" in it), and must have been published in the field by a reliable publisher (not just have works in it, and not just have a job in it). If you do decide to "try again", please make sure to asses your source against the actual policy. Tobus2 (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• What makes somebody a recognized expert if not to have his work published by on a seminary hosted by one of the most notorious universities in the world? What third party publications are more reliable than the aforementioned university itself? Czixhc (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• uhhh, how about actual publishing and not just posting on your personal employee space on the college website. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• But he was featured on the seminary, it's not just something he made up. Czixhc (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Since it is self-evident that Czixhc has no intention whatsoever of accepting an overwhelming consensus that his image should not be used on Wikipedia, I shall shortly be raising the matter at WP:ANI, where I shall propose an indefinite topic ban for Czixhc on any matters relating to human skin colour, cartography, and/or the works of Jonathan Hagos, broadly construed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be good if you try for once to read carefully what is written, and analize it before writting plain non-sense . I said various replies above that as of now i accept the resolution of this issue. I just asked to tobus what does the sefl published sources policy mean to him. Your behavoir through this issue is shrug inducing. Czixhc (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Since "work published by on a seminary hosted by one of the most notorious universities in the world" really means he was in an art exhibition that anybody could enter into then no, that doesn't make him an recognised expert in the field. It just means he's good at drawing things. Tobus2 (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Anybody could enter, but not anybody would be featured on the final cut. It is called a seminary for a reason. Czixhc (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Note. I have now raised Czixhc's tendentious behaviour at WP:ANI, proposing a topic ban. [62] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• But i accepted the consensus of the comunity two hours ago. How come that somebody as clueless as you is editing wiki? seriously. Czixhc (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

And continued to argue. By the way, a seminar is not the same thing as a seminary, and 'notorious' doesn't mean what you think it means. You should not be calling other people clueless if you don't understand the words that you are using. Dougweller (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm comenting here because i want to be sure about what every thing means to this comunity, so this discussions don't happen again. I have an understanding of what these things mean, but looks like the definitions of the comunity are different, that's why i want to learn them. Czixhc (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Types of abortion restrictions in the United States

At the article linked above, are two articles in the New Republic and Mother Jones to be considered reliable for the statement that certain laws are aimed at closing abortion clinics? Particularly in preference to self-published sources supporting a statement that "there is disagreement as to the purpose" of these laws. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

My only concern with the TNR commentary and MJ article is that relying solely on them excludes a significant opposing viewpoint. But that's a POV issue. I don't object to their reliability.

As for the three sources I added in the given diff, I'm persuaded by Roscelese's advice that these sources aren't the best choice in this situation. These primary sources' viewpoints, whether reliable or not, are significant enough to have secondary source coverage, so can be replaced by citations to secondary sources. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is not that Roscelese is using these articles as references for the Wikipedia article, Matt. The problem is the way she is using them: to support as fact in Wikipedia's voice a contention that is eminently an opinion; the OPINION that these laws are aimed at closing abortion clinics. All Roscelese needs to do to correct the problem is to attribute this OPINION to one or both of her sources in-text. See WP:RSOPINION. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC) PS: By the way Roscelese's complaint about Matt Fitzpatrick's "self published" sources is something of a red herring. Those sources present the contrasting takes (i.e. the OPINIONS) of certain interested parties in the abortion fray as to the purposes and effects of these laws. These sources are reliable as to the opinions of the organizations they represent and not being used to support contested facts which Wikipedia's guidlines warn us against.Badmintonhist (talk) 03:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

RSOPINION should be used with caution in all cases. It can not be used for instance to say in an article about African-Americans that- "African-Americans have lower intelligence, according to the KKK." except in a specific subsection dedicated to, and clearly demarcated as being about, racism and racist claims clearly meant to be fringe. When dealing with many subjects it is not always necessary to mark two opposing views as "equal" opinions. Climate change, evolution, racial equality are all good examples where one side is science, one side is fringe. One wikipedian once said in an argument about climate change- "Any compromise between science and "not science", is not science." Now when it comes to politics, it may not be a "hard science", but last I checked my degree is in Political Science; so there is a component of science to it. There surely are, somewhere, perhaps even direct quotes from people/organizations involved in the legislation (the legislator who proposed the legislation) that makes it clear-cut one way or the other. Basically- we don't have to give equal time to each "side". One side is right, the other can be labeled as "according to the opinion of xx, it was (was not) meant to be anti-abortion" Camelbinky (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not actually clear on what you're saying here. Are you saying that these secondary sources should be used in preference to the self-published statements, or that it is the self-published statements that should be used? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

He's saying neither Roscelese; nor is it a matter "either . . . or," though you have tried to frame it that way. Both the opinion magazine sources and the so-called "self published" sources can be used provided that they are used properly. That means Wikipedia presenting their views as opinions. As for Camelbinky's point that something approximating objective truth can be found on this issue he's either being overly naive or overly sly. Legislators may vote the same way on an issue but have very different purposes in mind. Moreover, we aren't talking here about a single law in a single state but a variety of laws in a variety of states considered by a wide variety of legislators. By the way, I also have a post graduate degree in political science but I always basically considered it a degree in political philosophy not in "science" of any kind. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC) PS: You might consider the question of the purpose(s) of laws that expanded the ability of women to obtain abortions in a number states (and the District of Columbia) prior to Roe v. Wade. Was that purpose to enhance sexual freedom? protect women from unsafe abortions? reduce the number of the great unwashed? or perhaps all of these things and more?

Why don't we let RSN serve its purpose and allow uninvolved users to comment? I know you were opposed to bringing the matter here, but that's not a good reason to derail. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to note, in case it's not clear from the diffs, that I did not delete any references. The section cited all 6 sources now being discussed after my last edit. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Clearly the stated purpose is protecting public health but the motive is to restrict abortion. In order to challenge this assessment. The bill drafted by by the anti-abortion group "Americans United for Life" - their reason for being is stopping abortion. TFD (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's a rather recent and more balanced source that might be used: [63] in place of news commentaries in opinion periodicals such as Mother Jones and The New Republic. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

How would you use it? It makes no comment on the motivation of anti-abortion activists. TFD (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! Badmintonhist (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC) PS: The topic of our article isn't the motives of anti-abortion activists. It's laws regulating the practice of abortion.

I think this noticeboard needs a bit more information to comment more effectively on this.

• It seems there is no disputing that we can use the New Republic and Mother Jones sources. Correct?
• It seems there is dispute about whether those two sources, which apparently say the same thing, need attribution as opinions. Correct?
• Therefore the obvious question is whether we have other good sources which show that these two are only one opinion and do not represent any mainstream consensus. Do we have any that we can discuss?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• No sources of similar quality have yet been produced that show otherwise, although obviously if any had been, this situation would be quite different! Do you happen to be aware of any? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Again as others stated -- it is far better to cite opinions as opinions and not to make assertions that an opinion is a fact using Wikipedia's voice. The "KKK example" given does not apply here, and using arguments of that type do not advance the purpose of this noticeboard. Collect (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Collect. If there really were no controversy about the purpose of these laws, we should be able to find voices from all sides, life, choice, and neutral, saying the same thing. The fact that only pro-choice sources are saying something is a reason to cite it as their opinion. --GRuban (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I cited the July 2013 New York Times article [64] for a reason that is seemingly being ignored here. It cites "sharply tightened oversight of Maryland abortion clinics that have won praise from both sides of the political divide." The Maryland regulations voted in by both pro-life and pro-choice legislators are also, of course, "TRAP LAWS," they just aren't necessarily the kind of "trap laws" that Roscelese had in mind when she created this section and assiduously selected her sources. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Not to overstate the obvious but, are these TRAP LAWS, then, always about trying close down abortion clinics or is it a bit more complicated than that? Badmintonhist (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but Collect, you're absolutely WRONG. The KKK analogy is exactly what is going on here. NO we do not have to give everyone's opinion an equal weight. You are dead wrong. Wrong. I think it is terrible you and others would state here that we should "find voices from all sides"... We don't do that with climate change, racism, or evolution. The same is here, either the laws are drafted by politicians/groups whose reasons are xy or they are not. The other side is fringe. It is not naïve, nor is political science "philosophy", if someone has a degree in poli sci and they were taught to consider it a philosophy that allows free thinking and "opinion" instead of a science with numbers, facts, hypothesis that are testable with theory then they went to college over thirty years ago and haven't kept up. Most of poli sci courses now are statistics and have more math than hardcore science degrees like biology.Camelbinky (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Using the KKK as an analogue for every opinion source is reductio ad absurdum ... insisting that this is "exactly what is going on here" gets no points as an argument. That you know the truth on an issue does not, unfortunately change Wikipedia policies and guidelines to conform with your own personal knowledge. It would be nice if we had editors with such perfect knowledge that we could eliminate WP:RS and the like, but I rather fear this is not yet the case. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Well of course we don't give "everyone's opinion equal weight." You're right there, Camelbinky (any connection to Binksternet??). However, you are as wrong as wrong can be in saying that "either laws are drafted by politicians/groups whose reasons are xy or they are not." Different lawmakers often have very differing reasons for passing the same piece of legislation. I have just produced an example, reported in the New York Times, of TRAP (Targeting regulations of abortion providers) laws in Maryland being praised by those on both sides of the abortion issue. Besides the common goal of protecting patients at abortion clinics, pro-life legislators may think that the regulations will make it more difficult for doctors to set up clinics in the state while pro-choice legislators (who obviously don't want to shut down abortion clinics) may think that such laws will help the reputation of abortion providers in the state. Hope this helps. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC). PS: Oh by the way, which source would we normally be expected to give more weight to . . . a New York Times article giving an example of TRAP laws being supported by pro-choice legislators or a an article in a magazine of political opinion broadly stating that such laws are intended to close down abortion clinics? Badmintonhist (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

United States Olympic Hall of Fame List

The website for the United States Olympic Committee does not have a current list available of all members of the United States Olympic Hall of Fame. In an attempt to find a verifiable list, I e-mailed the webmaster of the site and inquired if it was available. I received an e-mail several days later with a PDF listing of the members, current as of 2013. I wish to cite this somehow, as it's verifiable (I have the e-mail from the USOC), but I don't know what format to use, or how to prove it to other people. Any advice on this would be most helpful, thanks. Anthony (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

a pdf that was mailed to you is not a reliably published source and so it is not usable as a source for Wikipedia content. You could use it to do google news and googlebooks and other searches to find reliably published sources that identify team members. If they put it up on their website, then it would be acceptable as a primary source document. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

May I inquire why it is not reliable? I thought I'd seen e-mails considered reliable sources if you're able to verify the source of the e-mail. The e-mail originates from the USOC.org domain name, and the author identifies herself as an employee (archivist, actually) of the USOC. The problem is, I've done a search and cannot find any other sites or citations for this information. Not being snippy, but I fail to see how something stated straight from the source cannot be considered reliable. Anthony (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

all that is verifiable is that you say it came from them. I could say that I got a telegram from the Pope that says he owns 7,439 cats and so since I have confirmation from the Pope, I should add that to his article. I am not saying that you are not being truthful, but your claims are not verifiable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The USOHF must actually publish the list, not send it out privately. Binksternet (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Understood. I e-mailed her back asking her to post it on the USOC website somewhere. We'll see what happens. Anthony (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

California State University: reliable source?

What are the thoughts on the reliability of this source for the article Randy Rhoads? The material was researched and compiled by the International Guitar Research Archives (IGRA) staff and appears reliable. --ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 21:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Note that the title of the archive on this page naming the archive William Randall (Randy) Rhoads (William before Randall) as compared to the second page where the biography starts : Born Randall William Rhoads (Randall before William). Issues of accuracy.
• Also note : "The information contained on the following pages was researched and compiled by IGRA staff and has been approved and edited by Mrs. Delores Rhoads." Approval of content by a person with an inherent conflict of interest. Issues of independence.
• I would also point out that the content linked to is not so much "published" as it is promotional-ware describing their archives.

Given all of that, the source should be treated with care and not used for anything that is contested. Particularly anything regarding the name. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

In regards to the apparent inconsistency in the name, the source does state he was "born Randall William Rhoads" which implies that perhaps his name was changed at some later date. Don't simply assume that the source's reliability becomes questionable over this point. In regards to your second point, the fact that the subject's mother had input in the content means that it's verified by a reliable source, someone who knew the subject perhaps better than anyone and was able to ensure the integrity of the material. And finally, saying that this article is "promotional" is simply nothing more than your opinion. It's absurd to imply that a university is being "promotional" in allowing the public to view its research archives. Of course they want people to read it. This source is reliable because it falls under the category of multimedia materials that have been archived by a reputable party, namely California State University. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 23:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"implies that perhaps his name was changed at some later date." - real scholarship would have actually covered that name change

how can "SEE ALL THE GREAT CONTENT WE HAVE RELATED TO GUITARISTS!!!!!!" be seen as anything OTHER than promotional? I

If the burb on the site is to be considered "published" and NOT "promotional" - the peer review/editorial board is "mother" whose view apparently is that "theres lots of false stuff out there about my son and the TRUTH needs to be known" seems to fall far short of anything other than WP:SPS - usable for non controversial content about self. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere does the source say "SEE ALL THE GREAT CONTENT WE HAVE RELATED TO GUITARISTS!!!!!!" or anything even close to that. You can't use made-up quotes to support your position. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 17:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with ChakaKong. That CSUN source has vast information on Randy and is very beneficial and reliable. I understand that the involvement of Mrs. Delores Rhoads and her proofreading of the article might be a conflict of interest. However, no one knows their own son better than a mother. I personally trust the information of the mother of the late guitarist rather than a third party source whom may have not even met Randy ever. Just my personal thoughts.

The issue of the birth name has been resolved. I have consulted TheRedPenofDoom with a source that is verifiable and published, and he agreed with it. So need to worry about that anymore. Randy never changed his name, the misunderstanding came from a title error from that CSUN source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.249.38.97 (talk • contribs)

and again, a source that allows such a major error to exist in their "published" work for so long is not one that deserves standing as a "reliable" source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add something more to this. I know someone who was a childhood friend of Randy. I informed her of the situation when the conflict was still ongoing, and she forwarded the message to the sister of Randy Rhoads, Kathy Rhoads D'Argenzio. Kathy has since called CSUN in order to fix the inconsistency in the CSUN article. Just thought I should forward this over to you all.

Newest update: I have received a new message from the childhood friend of Randy. She has told me that CSUN is now going to send Randy's sister, Kathy Rhoads D'Argenzio, a revised copy that she will review for any inconsistencies. Once this CSUN page is reviewed by her, I believe that there is no question it should be considered reliable and a verifiable source. This is very important information that I felt needed to be passed on to you both, as there is a question to the validity of that CSUN article. I will keep you updated. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.249.38.97 (talk • contribs)

Too many problems here with IPs weighing in citing unpublished information. The promotional material should not be used. Binksternet (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Once the CSUN article is reviewed by Kathy Rhoads D'Argenzio it should be allowed for use. I am sure the CSUN article will note that Kathy Rhoads D'Argenzio has reviewed the information, on top of the review from Mrs. Delores Rhoads, which would then bring two of the best sources you can get for information regarding Randy Rhoads, his mother, and his sister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.249.38.97 (talk • contribs)

This material is not from a third party, not from uninterested and neutral journalists or historians. It is reactionary and revisionist, and should not be used. Binksternet (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you actually read the material? It is definitely from a third party. The material was not WRITTEN by Mrs. Delores Rhoads, she simply proofread it. If it was in fact written by Mrs. Delores Rhoads, then you would be correct. That it is "reactionary and revisionist" is nothing more than a personal assumption. It should be continued to be used ONCE its inconsistencies are corrected.

172.249.38.97 (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)172.249.38.97

1) It does not say "proofread by" it says "edited by".

2) If they were allowing a music teacher to be their proofreader they have even more issues. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Mrs. Delores Rhoads graduated from UCLA, she is an educated woman and she is the most educated on the subject of Randy Rhoads. Your statement is not only rude, but it is also incredibly ignorant. 172.249.38.97 (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)172.249.38.97

I will stand by my assessment. If an academic is going to call in outside help to proofread their work before "publication", they will not choose someone whose background is as a music teacher. I have not called into question her personal knowledge of the subject - it is probably as much as any mother who raised their child - quite a bit about when he was really young and a lot less as they grow older and spend less time under her direct supervision. I have, and will continue, to call into question her ability to be accredited as an independent judge of content about her son - which is the basis for being considered a "reliable source" at Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It's from a respected group of scholars and backed by the subject's mother. Of course it should be used. If some points seem controversial, then attribute them properly - even mothers have been known to lie - but of course this is a crucially important source. We can't just leave it out. --GRuban (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If an independent author has used the primary source material collected there and talked with the mother, then yes we should include that. However, the content posted on the web is very clear that mother had the final editorial say and that is NOT how actual reliable scholarship works. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you are overstating Mrs. Delores Rhoads' involvement in the webpage. First and foremost, that CSUN source gathered most, if not all of it's information from other reliable sources. If you go to the CSUN source, and go to "Notes," you can find the bibliography that was used to find most of the information. Mrs. Delores Rhoads' contributions were used to check for accuracy, and nothing more than that. I applaud the CSUN scholars for having her look over it, because it in fact adds to the accuracy and legitimacy, even if you believe there is an inherent conflict of interest. Now that Randy's sister, Kathy, will be reviewing the CSUN source once more to correct the inconsistencies (such as the incorrect birth name in the title) the accuracy increases more. This source is very reliable and should be continued to be used for a lot of the information on this page. If there are controversial issues that you might believe would be better to use an independent source, I can find you those sources. However, I am very well educated on the topic of Randy, and there is not much controversial stuff regarding him. Mostly everyone has the same story of Randy Rhoads.172.249.38.97 (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)172.249.38.97

all we know is that they state that she had the final edit and approval. if she did, it is not independent. if she didn't, then they are liars. Either way its problematic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The IGRA published it. They're a reliable source. Your feeling their letting Mrs. R. edit was a mistake is not relevant - we don't get to decide their editing policies. --GRuban (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

we dont get to decide their editing policies, but we do get to decide whether or not their editing policies are those that produce reliable content or whether their editing policies are problematic. In this case, they are problematic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Problematic? Since when did one mistake in a title constitute it as a problematic source? That's incredibly funny. To be considered problematic, there needs to be a history of mistakes. Once it is republished by CSUN and the error is fixed, it is no longer problematic and should be used as a reliable source. 172.249.38.97 (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)172.249.38.97

its not only or even primarily the incorrect data (but in the title fergawdsake??). its the editorial process. A drug research paper that went through final editorial approval by the maker of the drug is not a reliable source for claims about the drug. Likewise this piece (which is merely a posting on a website and NOT published) that goes through "final approval" by the mother is not standard academic vetting. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Family members have been know to whitewash and sanitize biographies, particularly authorized biographies, so the subject's mother editing the content is of legitimate concern. I'm surprised to find a reputable academic institution allowing this. Obviously, interviewing the subject's mother and other family members and getting their insights is useful. But because they are they are not disinterested, neutral, objective, third-party editors, letting them edit the final text would not pass even basic journalistic standards ... and an encyclopedia should not have lower standards than a magazine or a newspaper. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't been following this, but I've just read it through and will add a comment in case it's useful. Biographies of recently dead people, even if published by highly reputable publishers, are quite often submitted for the approval of surviving family members. This may sometimes be the only way to get permission to publish documents that are copyright or privately owned. I would guess that is exactly the reason why these web pages have been submitted for Delores Rhoads' approval.

The difference here is that the text is said to be "edited by" her. This strikes me as unusual, and I think the archive intends readers to notice this statement. They wanted to publish the biography pages under that condition -- probably it was a wise decision -- but they are gently hinting that (in Wikipedia terms) their reliability may be compromised. I'd say OK for uncontroversial facts. Andrew Dalby 11:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I've written several obits for one of the country's largest newspapers. We never run them by anyone outside our own editorial staff for approval. That would be a major breach of journalistic standards. And any book biography over which a family member has final say has to questioned as to its editorial independence. I'm a professional journalist: What I'm saying isn't controversial or unusual but standard procedure. [NOTE: This was inserted after the comment that appears immediately below]. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That was basically my assessment as well - that the University decided that in order to get the collection and have it available to independent scholars they would allow Mrs Rhoades to edit what they posted as the publicity blurb on the site, its not really a "publsihed" anything. (note though, Rhoades death was back in the 80s) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial or contentious about any of the information from the source. And as the subject died over 30 years ago, BLP guidelines do not apply. As the subject has been dead for so long, available literature is scarce and this is one of the few quality sources that is at least slightly informative and has had its facts checked. It must be allowed to stand for anything uncontentious, and I see nothing contentious whatsoever. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 12:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

1) Where did I say anything about my objections being based on BLP? they are based on WP:RS. 2) Just because the subject of an article is dead does not mean that BLP does not apply to content about other living people mentioned in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's pretend for a moment that this wasn't compiled by the California State University. Let's pretend that this was just a mother's memories of her son. Would it be a reliable source for someone dead 30 years? Sure. Is it in any way less reliable because it was compiled by the California State University? Of course not. --GRuban (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

it is not "published" it is merely posted on a website, so no, it would not be reliable, outside of perhaps WP:SPS non controversial content about the author of the SPS.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Any material that has been vetted by a scholarly community is regarded as reliable. This is not a self published source. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 16:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians

The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians is a book in eight volumes written by H. M. Elliot and edited by John Dowson and praised by English historian Stanley Lane-Poole. This historical book has been reprinted several times and still available both online and paperback editions. Currently, there is a discussion on Talk:Manda_clan and Talk:The_History_of_India,_as_Told_by_Its_Own_Historians about using this book for citation. Is this a reliable source or not? Thanks, --Tartarrman (talk) 09:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Not reliable, and that is absolutely clear. Much too old. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article itself raises some questions as to the book's quality. It might be a reliable source as to the contents of those medieval Persian chronicles but I wouldn't consider it reliable on the subject of the history of India in general. And that is hardly an unresearched subject - there must be countless more recent and more authoritative publications that you could use instead. Barnabypage (talk) 09:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The precise point that Tartarrman wishes to use this source for is in any event a violation of WP:OR. One of the medieval texts contained within it refers to a groups of people called Mands and Tatarrman wants to assert that these are the same people as the present-day Manda clan. - Sitush (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Not a reliable source for the history of India, and certainly not for the purpose Tartarrman wants to use it for. Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Cassandra Clare Controversies

OK, so I've been trying to find sources that meet wikipedia's reliability standards for BLP for the Cassandra Clare article regarding plagiarism accusations, and after a lengthy discussion in the talk page, Binksternet verified that a certain Daily Dot article, which discusses CC's murky fandom past, including accusations of flamewars, cyberbullying & plagiarism, was good enough to meet the criteria for reliable sources. However, about a day later or so, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz disputed this, claiming that the source was a "gross" BLP violation in the page log, and reverted the edit, as well as my reversion of that revert. Here's the diff.

So far, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has not bothered to back up any of their claims regarding the supposed inappropriateness of the source with anything from the wikipedia guidelines. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, the guidelines (as mentioned by Binksternet) seem to support the use of this source. For example, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz claims that the piece is a "blog" and so not strong enough for BLP. However, not only does the Daily Dot not present the piece as a blog, but just another article held to the same standards as all their others (including rigorous fact-checking), but the Daily Dot presents itself as an actual online newspaper, and by extension all its articles not marked as "blogs" (including this source) are essentially newspaper articles (to further strengthen this demarcation, the Daily Dot does have an actual blog, and that piece was still not hosted in that section, but in its main news section). And aside from that, WP:NEWSBLOG would seem to support the use of this source even if it was from the blog of a newspaper anyway (even though it would be better classified as an opinion piece from a newspaper).

Therefore, I come for a consensus to end this debate once and for all. Again, I stress, there is no reason to believe this article in particular is held to any different standard than any of the other journalistic articles published by the Daily Dot, and even the most basic research will show that the facts have been very well checked, as the Daily Dot's Ethical Policy promises, and this piece essentially constitutes a newspaper article.

As I said on the talk page:

"According to WP:NEWSBLOG, the guidelines clearly state that they should be used with caution as "the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process".

Not only has Gavia Baker-Whitelaw clearly checked their facts (something which you can verify yourself by cross-referencing the multitude of links I posted above), but the Daily Dot, in its ethical policy, clearly states that their reporters (which includes Baker-Whitelaw) are required to do a significant degree of fact-checking. Specifically, I thinking of this section:

The Daily Dot’s first and most important responsibility is accuracy. We make reasonable efforts to verify information by publication time and we disclose to readers transparently what we do and do not know to be a fact.

This clearly applies to individual reporters like Baker-Whitelaw in the following section:

Individual employees will never manipulate the facts for any kind of personal relationship, and they will not put themselves in a position to profit, financially or otherwise, by their reporting."

So: is this Daily Dot article reliable, and can the edit therefore be reinstated?The Talking Toaster (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"applying tried-and-true principles drawn from community journalism" "Like traditional community newspapers, we are tribunes, " If this is the only and most "reliable" source that you can find covering very controversial content about a living person, no it is not acceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

And a source isn't reliable just because it says it's reliable. Of course, there are other major BLP issues here, beginning with why an internet kerfluffle over a now-successful writer's not-really-published amateur work belongs in an encyclopedia at all. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I have found two other sources which discuss Cassie's plagiarism allegations:

• Christian Science Monitor, which despite its name, purports to be a secular, fully fledged news organisation.
• An article in Paper Droids, which discusses the plagiarism debate more fully. This one also presents itself as a magazine, which according to WP: SOURCE, seems very much to fit the mould of a reliable source.

All of these sources back up each others' stories as far as I can tell, and hence support each other--are these three together reliable enough?

Also, could you clarify your point in selecting those two quotes to repeat, please?The Talking Toaster (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what they mean when they say "community journalism" but it sounds like crowd sourcing and/or activism. And when they talk about "we are tribune" sounds even more like activism. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

But the CS Monitor is in fact a very respected source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

However, what the CS Monitor says is: "blog posts filled with vitriol abound, alleging " - we dont repeat allegations made in blogs, which is all the CS Monitor says.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

And what of the paper droids source?

Also, regarding the allegations, I understand that it wouldn't be a good idea to harbour any and every allegation someone makes about an author (or other living person), but this is more than just a random, single claim with no evidence, or a persistent rumour that is actually false. On the contrary, these claims have followed Clare since the original story broke over the Draco trilogy (over a decade ago). The original story was very well sourced, with a lot of evidence (see the Clare talk page for an extensive list of links, particularly the one to the Cassandra Clare Plagiarism Debacle by Avocado, which is also mentioned in the paper droids article), and new claims have since arisen--and also continued to follow Clare, and again with a lot of evidence--since her professional break. At this point, a significant chunk of Clare's fame consists of the plagiarism (and to a lesser extent, cyberbullying) aspects, and should be covered, especially since her fanfic past is included in the article. At the very least, I--and clearly several other users on the talk pahge--feel that the fact that she has been consistently accused of the same plagiarism claims for ~12 years should be addressed, even if the question as to whether or not she did plagiarise is left open ended.

That said, the Daily Dot article supports the multitude of claims I linked in the talk page, and the paper droids one supports that. The CS monitor, though apparently unconvinced, does also at least acknowledge that these claims exist also, and so I feel that could still be used in the article as well.

Furthermore, regarding your comment about undue weight, again, given the length of time these claims have persisted, and the fact that so many people espouse them, and that there is so much evidence for them (even if a good deal of that evidence may not meet Wikipedia's verifiability standards) clearly shows that this opinion of Clare is not, at the very least, a minority one, and does seems to be one followed by a significant number of people.The Talking Toaster (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Given the fact that you cannot produce one reliable source which backs the claims, WP:UNDUE. Interwebs "controversies" are a dime a gajillion and we dont cover them unless the reliable sources do. Particularly when they run afoul of WP:BLP-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I missed something, but I must ask again: what of the paper droids source? As far as I can tell, that does seem to be the most reliable bar the CS monitor one--does it not count? If it does, that would at least be one reliable source, and could back up the Daily Dot article (and possibly the CS one?)The Talking Toaster (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)