Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

Partisan group self published source Destruction of early Islamic heritage sites in Saudi Arabia

The article [1] has a lot of citations from a single partisan self published source which reflects only a fringe standpoint of history. Many of the names of the graves mentioned are not even verified , here is the source:

http://www.al-islam.org/history-shrines/history-cemetery-jannat-al-baqi

It looks more like a blog presenting personal opinions on a matter and that too by a fringe group which accuses a Jewish conspiracy in the destruction.

Hence proof of the graves from reliable independent, non sectarian sources should be added. Relevant tag: WP:BIASED,WP:FTN (fringe theory).

partisan base self published source

in article Mufaddal Saifuddin

However, Muffadal Saifuddin's succession has not been accepted by Khuzaima Qutbuddin, who claimed the title of the 53rd Dai of the Dawoodi Bohras Himself.[10] Khuzaima Qutbuddin claims that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin performed nass on him 49 years ago, a ritual during which he appointed him as his successor in private, just before he was publically appointed as Mazoon, second-in-command in Bohras hierarchy.[11] After the death of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin he claims that the succession was not done in London as Mohammad Burhanuddin suffered from a full stroke at the age of 100, that made it difficult for him to write, speak, or move.[1] Khuzaima Qutbuddin explains that he never claimed to be the rightfull successor, as per Mohammed Burhanuddin's instruction to keep it secret.[12][13] It is further claimed that former CJI upheld the validity of Khuzaima Qutbuddin as the rightful successor.

Dispute as to who Sheb Wooleys Children

Sheb Wooleys Wikipedia says that he had two daughters ; when in fact he had ONE LEGALLY ADOPTED daughter Christi Lynn Wooley who was his ONLY CHILD and a step daughter ( never legally adopted) Shauna Dotson . Wikipedia states that Sheb had two daughters ; when in fact he had one legal daughter and one step daughter

Ukrainian based sources coverage of the ongoing Ukrainian crisis

Most of Wikipedia's articles covering the crisis are for a large part based on Ukrainian sources coverage. Since there is no lacking of coverage from 3rd party verifiable English language sources, I find no reason to include Ukrainian sources per WP:NPV and WP:NONENG. Just for example Unian.net is a Kiev based news agency it is used throughout "2 May 2014 Odessa clashes" 15 times, that is more than any other reference. Their coverage is heavily skewed in favour of the current Ukrainian regime. Their website regularly describes anti-Kiev protesters as "terrorists" (Террористы)[2], while the ongoing military operations are described as "anti-terrorist" (антитеррористическую).[3] Similar claims can be made against news.liga.net, unn.com.ua, etc.--Kathovo talk 13:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised at this. Usually with current news stories there are plenty of people adding material from the BBC, CNN etc. News agencies in both Russia and Ukraine are in principle reliable, but where versions diverge, ensure that everything is compatible with what is in the mainstream English-language media. No opinion pieces unless by expert outsiders, and then use only very sparingly. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

No Daily Mail, please. Articles should carry a current events warning. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The user above simply wants to censor Ukrainian media. That UNIAN calls them terrorists is irrelevant since we don't use that terminology, or transfer bias into the article itself. If UNIAN quotes a public official, and we include that quote or report in the article, that's neutral content from a reliable source. A lot of English language sources are used but for obvious reasons local media will have more in depth coverage. If you have a problem with a 'Ukrainian source' please provide the ref and how it is used incorrectly, or suggest a better source to use in its place. You yourself claim there is "no lacking of coverage from 3rd party English sources", so go ahead and help out.--Львівське (говорити) 15:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That Ukrainian media call them terrorists shows that they are already disposed towards a certain side and should be viewed with extreme caution. If a certain Ukrainian official is quoted then his quote must be included when notable enough to be picked up by mainstream media, even then it should be attributed properly to him and not presented as a fact.

Local media does provide a more in-depth coverage, but let's not forget this is an encyclopaedia (Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS). We shouldn't strife to provide the most in-depth coverage of the current events, but rather to present main events based on the most neutral and verifiable sources possible. so far Ukrainian crisis-related articles fail miserably at this.--Kathovo talk 16:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That's like saying we can't use American sources which talk about the Boston Marathon bombings because "they call them terrorists which shows they are already disposed towards a certain side". Crazy. —Львівське (говорити) 16:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm a vocal advocate of WP:NOTNEWS, and have made sure our articles are in line with that principle to the highest degree possible. The main article, 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, uses the OSCE monitoring missions as a source to verify information, and uses western sources along with some local Ukrainian ones. We never advocate the point of view of a Ukrainian source. We merely take the facts, and shed the propaganda. If we included a quote, we give context. Everything is attributed. However, many reliable sources, such as the New York Times [4][5], have reported about a 'disinformation campaign' by Russian media. We cannot ignore that sources that are usually considered highly reliable are reporting this, and hence we take Russian sources with a grain of salt, just as we do Ukrainian sources. RGloucester — ☎ 17:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It is strange that you use the NY Times as a source to put forward the idea that Russian media are engaged in a "disinformation campaign", since the NY Times has been engaging in its own disinformation campaign:

the Times’ prejudice over the Ukraine crisis has reached new levels of extreme as the “newspaper of record” routinely carries water for the neocons and other hawks who still dominate the U.S. State Department. Everything that the Times writes about Ukraine is so polluted with propaganda that it requires a very strong filter, along with additives from more independent news sources, to get anything approaching an accurate understanding of events....

Along with almost the entire U.S. mainstream media, the Times cheered on the violent overthrow of Yanukovych on Feb. 22 and downplayed the crucial role played by well-organized neo-Nazi militias that surged to the front of the Maidan protests in the final violent days. Then, with Yanukovych out and a new coup regime in, led by U.S. hand-picked Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the IMF austerity plan was promptly approved.

Since the early days of the coup, the Times has behaved as essentially a propaganda organ for the new regime in Kiev and for the State Department, pushing “themes” blaming Russia and President Vladimir Putin for the crisis.....

In the Times’ haste to perform this function, there have been some notable journalistic embarrassments such as the Times’ front-page story touting photographs that supposedly showed Russian special forces in Russia and then the same soldiers in eastern Ukraine, allegedly proving that the popular resistance to the coup regime was simply clumsily disguised Russian aggression.

Any serious journalist would have recognized the holes in the story – since it wasn’t clear where the photos were taken or whether the blurry images were even the same people – but that didn’t bother the Times, which led with the scoop. However, only two days later, the scoop blew up when it turned out that a key photo – supposedly showing a group of soldiers in Russia who later appeared in eastern Ukraine – was actually taken in Ukraine, destroying the premise of the entire story.

Note that Russian media have never had to retract a story on the Ukraine crisis, but the NY Times has. That alone means that Russian sources are more reliable on events in the Ukraine than the NY Times is. – Herzen (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That argument is complete nonsense. The New York Times is not perfect, but it is widely considered one of the leading newspapers of record. The fact that it has the journalistic integrity to correct its own mistakes makes it more reliable, not less reliable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

My argument is "complete nonsense"? The Times exhibits a clear pattern of producing disinformation to further US foreign policy goals. Another example, from a former correspondent of the International Herald Tribune:

Misinformation, disinformation, lies: Can the New York Times’ foreign coverage be trusted at all?

That is about Syria using chemical weapons, a claim that the NY Times published which turned out to be false. In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the NY Times reported that Iraq was working on germ warfare, a claim which also turned out to be false. The Times consistently publishes stories putting a government that the United States is hostile to at the time in a very bad light, is then forced to retract the stories, but then does the same thing again. If it keeps on publishing false stories, then publishes a retraction saying that it should have done better, but then makes the same mistake again, it is simply not a reliable source when it comes to a country that the US is in a conflict with, as the US currently is with Russia.

And as for Wikipedia treating the Times as a reliable source. The Times published a story detailing how the US government gave the go-ahead for the coup that ousted Morsi. I tried to get that into the Wikipedia article on the coup, but couldn't, because I could find no other source that gave the same account of events as the Times did. – Herzen (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Making mistakes is common to all journalism. There is a great difference between mistakes and intentionally misleading readers. RGloucester — ☎ 20:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Informed readers could instantly tell that the story about the Syrian army using chemical weapons didn't make any sense. So it's very difficult for me to view that article as simply a "mistake". Anyway, this is off topic. Please just keep in mind in the future that although Russian media are going to take the Russian government line on most things, I have never caught them in a lie during this whole Ukrainian crisis. (When the Russian government said that the polite men in green that appeared in Crimea were not Russian troops, Russian media reported that they seemed to be Russian. It did not mechanically follow the official line in that case.) So your bringing up Russian media in this thread was off-topic. The State Department says that RT just presents "Putin's fantasy", but in all the Western news reports I have seen about Russian media engaging in "disinformation", it is the Russian media that turns out to be truthful. And remember that the BBC is in exactly the same position that RT is: it is a state run news outlet. – Herzen (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Almost everything in the articles is verified with western sources, but many of those complaining about Ukrainian sources have also said that the BBC is no good, and so on. If we include anything from a Ukrainian source, it is mentioned who reported it. We never call anyone terrorists, nor do we call anyone fascists. We can use Ukrainian sources for facts, like quote from officials, but we do not give WP:UNDUE weight to Ukrainian POV on 'terrorism'. RGloucester — ☎ 16:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

-Львівське says we should use Ukrainian sources because they have more in-depth coverage. To me that is exactly why we should avoid them. The elements of the story that are significant will be carried in Western media. Local sources are best for local stories that have little or no international significance. Furthermore one of the pluses of Wikipedia articles is that readers can look up the sources. Few readers speak Ukrainian. TFD (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's a compilation of lies that have been spread by the Ukrainian press, from the anti-Putin Moscow Times. (The article treats lies published by the Ukrainian media and anti-Maidan rumors as if they were the same thing, for "balance".) This article should be taken as a warning that Ukrainian sources should not be used unless a Western source can back them up.

Don't Drink the Tea and Other Myths From the Ukraine Conflict – Herzen (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Ergo, according to this opinion piece by a (notice the use of the singular) journalist, all Ukrainian reportage is tainted?(!) Of particular interest is his use of colourful language. The title, alone, seems a little less than neutral. I can certainly see how it would appeal to readers who want confirmation that Ukrainian reports are all crazy. It's good to see that this reporter doesn't hold back on patting himself on the back for 'debunking' everything that's just plain propaganda. No flies on him! (EDIT) Just in case I haven't made myself clear, I'm wondering how the Moscow Times qualifies as a reliable source on the basis on it being 'anti-Putin', or how this journalist qualifies as being a reliable source because he has pieces published in the Moscow Times. Ipso facto? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 0:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The consensus of this board is that you should prefer English-language sources such as Associated Press. If a fact is relevant it will be picked up by these sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

As you would have noted, it appears that Herzen's contention is that because the Associated Press, et al have carried misinformation in the past, while he/she has never caught out the Russian sources he wishes to cite indulging in such spurious activities, the Russian sources are superior to Western sources. But wait, if I start digging through the archives regarding the war on Georgia, the Chechen war, ad infinitum, will Herzen's contention actually hold up? I'm reluctantly prepared to dig around if needs must, but I remember for a fact that I've read seriously tendentious, pro-Russian propaganda articles on such matters printed in his truly 'reliable' sources in the past... The state of near perfection he purports is in the eye of the beholder. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

We should use third party non-partisan sources where possible. In my experience, where there exists such a degree of polemic, we should avoid such polarised sources as RT, Pravda, Kyiv Post or Ukrayinska Pravda if at all possible. National news outlets of Russia and the Ukraine cannot be relied upon to report these events objectively because sentiment is strong and the stakes are high, these organs can become mouthpieces of the respective governments by extension even if they are notionally independently controlled. There is the strong risk that in these sources, even superficially impartial "facts" may be subject to inherent bias or even be propagandised by them. Certainly if we choose to rely on these national sources, should there be any dispute as to factual accuracy or bias, we should defer to foreign media. The exception being where there is the express desire to represent the views or situation seen by that one side; such assertions/views ought to be balanced in some way by sources representing opposing points of view. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Given that, as you have suggested, there is bound to be self-censorship and agenda based bias, I can see a compromise of 'according to/reports from [insert name of regional source]' where colourful, emotive terminology is substituted, and where 'unbiased' sources can back up the assertions as having their place. Having been following the development of the article, this cautious approach was, and is, in place. I don't see the argument for Russian sources being more reliable than Ukrainian sources as having any merit. I'm already convinced that the right balance has been struck, and this as being a push to introduce POV sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with you entirely, Ohconfucius. My main concern is that many of the people calling for the elimination of Ukrainian sources are also calling for the elimination of western sources because they are 'propaganda' and 'lies'. If we cannot even cite the New York Times, we are more or less screwed. Regardless, all the work I've done on the various articles has always verified information with OSCE reports and western sources, and I've made sure to eliminate sole reliance on Ukrainian or Russian sources, or added qualifiers (explaining who reported it). I'd be happy for anyone here to take a look at 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine and see if there are any problem spots in that regard that need work. RGloucester — ☎ 16:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Please don't make straw man arguments. Nobody has called for "the elimination of western sources". I said that when it comes to current events in the Ukraine, Russian sources such as RT are to be considered to be significantly more reliable than the NY Times, specifically. This follows logically from the fact that the Russian government has been more truthful about events in the Ukraine than has the US government. You have explicitly identified yourself as a Marxist, so this should not be hard for you to understand. Proper constitutional procedures were not followed to remove Yanukovich from power; this means that the current Kiev regime is not a legitimate government. USG treats the current regime as legitimate; Russia does not. This means that the Russian line on events in the Ukraine is prima facie more credible than the USG line. It follows from that that a Russian source like RT is prima facie more reliable than the NY Times, which closely follows the current USG line in such situations.

My position is that Western sources are to be preferred, simply because this is English Wikipedia. Thus, one needs to have a special and good reason to use a Russian source, whether it is in English or in Russian. All Ukrainian sources, in contrast, are to be treated as nothing but engines of disonformation, given that they treat the Kiev regime as a legitimate government, when any non-failing PoliSci 101 student can easily explain to you why that is an utterly mendacious position. – Herzen (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this lovely laden wagonload of WP:POV and WP:Original research. Thank you dearly, for all that. Sadly, your opinion about what is or isn't legitimate has no relevance here. RGloucester — ☎ 05:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• No sources are unbiased or free from error. But neutrality means we need to give greater weight to the presentation in mainstream sources. The result may be that the articles have a Western bias, but that is what neutrality dictates. TFD (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The preference is for English-language sources whether they be Russian (RT), Ukrainian (KyivPost), American (NYT), or British (BBC). The country of origin or inherent bias of each organization is irrelevant. They are English-language sources and an English-language user can verify their contents. The Russian-language, Ukrainian-language, Estonian-language, Polish-language, etc. sources are unverifiable to me. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there too many Ukrainian sources used in the articles to cover what is now a military conflict-many of them seem amateurish and unreliable. Additionally there is a propaganda war going on, and we had claims that for example the Rebels are planning to build a "dirty bomb" by Ukrainian sources, which obviously were scaremongering and unverified.We should use caution and skepticism when using them.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Please provide us with a link to that source, MyMoloboaccount. Rather than providing anecdotal information, it would be useful to see which of the biased Ukrainian sources (Kiev Post, perhaps?) is carrying these stories. Might it have been the same source you used to post the Territorial claims against Poland section on the Svoboda article talk page stating, As far as I understand the leading party members advocate also annexing Przemysl and other territories of Poland. for example? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"dirty bomb" by Ukrainian sources? See that: http://ukr.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2014/05/5/7024414/?attempt=1 http://podrobnosti.ua/podrobnosti/2014/05/05/974487.html http://fakty.ua/181133-sbu-izyala-1-5-kg-radioaktivnogo-vecshestva-prednaznachavshegosya-separatistam-dlya-izgotovleniya-gryaznoj-bomby "...She also said that the SBU had seized a "potentially radioactive" substance weighing 1.5 kilograms in Chernivtsi Oblast, speculating that separatists may have been preparing to detonate a "dirty bomb." The SBU arrested 10 people in the operation, including one who is a citizen of the Russian Federation." https://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/anti-terrorist-operation-continues-in-donetsk-oblast-live-updates-346313.html

Looking at these sources, what exactly is supposed to be biased or unreliable about their reporting? An SBU official made a statement. The sources report on that statement being made. And? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

And is this actually in any article? In a problematic way or something? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

David Patterson & 1947 Aleppo pogrom

According to David Patterson there was a pogrom in Aleppo in 1853.

_{<ref name="Patterson2010">{{cite book|author=David Patterson|title=A Genealogy of Evil: Anti-Semitism from Nazism to Islamic Jihad|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=lMLmK-fmf8kC&pg=PA56|accessdate=18 October 2010|date=31 October 2010|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-13261-9|page=56}}</ref>}

User:Oncenawhile does not provide any source to disprove this assertion. He nevertheless removes the content because he claims Mr. Patterson's work is Islamaphobic (defames a BLP?) and he is "100% certain that Mr. Patterson has no idea what happened in Aleppo in 1853, and it is likely that he knows little about Aleppo at all."[6] Now User:Pluto2012 demands that I provide another source.[7]

Some input is requested. Is David Patterson reliable enough for the uncontradicted assertion that there was a pogrom on Aleppo in 1853? Thanks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a little bit more nuanced : Talk:1947 Aleppo pogrom#1853

Pluto2012 (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_126#Genealogy_of_Evil.3F

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

In addition, per [8] no mention of such event is found in a specialist work on the history of Aleppo's Jews. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It's an academic author and a good publisher. However, based on the bad review in the Oxonian Review, the fact that this is indeed a very tangential claim for Patterson and his book, and the fact that apparently no other sources can be found while there are independent sources for a Christian-Jewish conflict in 1853 Aleppo, I would be very reluctant to use this source for this fact. Even nominally reliable sources make errors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The bad review you link to is a student review published in a 10 year old student run literally magazine. Patterson is a professor and published scholar in the field in which he writes. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The review is from 2011, and the author, while young, has (and had at the time of writing) a BA from King's College London and an M.Phil. from Oxford, both degrees in very relevant fields. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand, but still disagree. A reliable source is not invalidated by a student-authored "bad review" published in a student-run literary magazine, even if the reviewing student has degrees in the relevant field. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I see it the other way round. If someone has the relevant degrees in the field, why should it matter that he (or she) is a student? Do my papers become unreliable if I decide to go off and study medieval history? There may be a cultural difference at work here - with a Master's degree one usually is a fully qualified scholar, not just "a grad student", Howard Wolowitz jokes notwithstanding. That said, I checked what is available from Patterson's book online, and while he may give the impression that the pogrom was related to Muslim jihad, he does not actually seem to say so. He may be referring to the Orthodox Christian attack on Jews also mentioned in other sources. In that case, I wonder if and how one should mention that Christian-on-Jew event in the context of the 1947 nationalistic Arab unrest. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Several reliable sources mention a blood libel made by Christians against Jews in Aleppo in 1853. For authors like Patterson this would be enough to call it a pogrom, but we should have better standards. I have read several accounts of the accusation and none of them report a pogrom. A notable aspect was that the Muslim authorities took the side of the Jews and urged them to seek revenge on the Christians. I'll add more details on the article talk page. Zero^talk 12:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I can see several sources that mention a blood libel in Aleppo in 1853 but few that give any details or say any more than that. If there are enough sources, and there must be some somewhere, we should have an article on those events. This would have been just one of a series of blood libels, generally instigated by Christian community leaders or would-be colonialists and suppressed by the Ottomans, probably not energetically enough. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox officeholder

Has an RfC to discuss the interesting situation where redistricting results in "successors" and "predecessors" being named for office holders where there is zero actual district overlap between the "current" officeholder and the putative "successor" or "predecessor." Collect (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Catholic legislators and abortion

Without discussing on the Talk page of Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication, an article created by herself, Roscelese has again deleted information on the teaching of the Catholic Church on the moral obligation of Catholic politicians who participate in what their Church considers the seriously sinful action of promoting liberalization of abortion to refrain from going to Communion. The first time was this. The grounds she earlier adduced were that the text was a "quote farm" (in reality there was only one quotation in the first text she deleted and none whatever in the second) and that the sources were "bad". See the discussion here. Is Roscelese right in claiming that none of the cited source are reliable for the statement for which they are given? Surely not? Esoglou (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• This is a typical bad faith post from Esoglou, who's already had it explained to him that the problem isn't that the statements might not be factually accurate, but that these self-published or low-quality partisan sources don't meet our reliable sourcing standards for purposes of weight and NPOV. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• I am grateful to Roscelese, whose good faith I do not question, for stating the question clearly: Are the following sources merely "self-published or low-quality partisan" for the statement that, according to the Catholic Church, Catholic legislators who promote legalization of abortion should refrain from Communion? (The question of whether they should be refused if they present themselves for Communion is a separate question.)

1. Pastoral Statement published by Bishop John J. Myers in June 1990;
2. article by David Paul Kuhn published by CBS on 6 April 2004;
3. article by Charles J. Chaput published on Denver Catholic Register, 26 May 2004;
4. memorandum by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, published in July 2004;
5. statement by Bishop Michael Saltarelli in August 2008
6. article by Sandro Magister on L'Espresso, 27 August 2008.

• Esoglou (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• • The reliable sources in this list weren't the ones being used for the disputed content, so they're kind of irrelevant. Please stay on topic. Do you have anything to say in defense of the sources that were used? If your addition had adhered to our policies on weight, NPOV, and reliable sourcing, you wouldn't have been reverted, so obviously the reliable sources aren't the problem here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    • They are the ones that you deleted. More on-topic than that there is nothing. Have you withdrawn your objection? May your deletion be reversed? Esoglou (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Can someone explain why this is considered controversial? The position of the catholic church is unambiguous: any politician taking part in political activity in support of abortion or euthanasia is considered unworthy to present him/herself for communion. The church considers this more serious than capital punishment or waging war. As religious positions go it's much easier to explain and justify than the ban on contraception. What's the problem?

[9] in Staci Appel

Is [10] which appears to be a press release run in a local paper, a reliable source for making the same assertions in Wikipedia's voice?

During her time in the State Senate Appel worked to pass the Equal Pay For Equal Work Act.

I am uncertain precisely where a "presumption for fact checking" implicit for a reliable source intersects with verbatim use of a press release. I would rather hope a better source were found, as the amount of "campaign material" sourced to her campaign web site made up a large amount of the BLP. Collect (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Straightforward local paper stuff, OK for local news, which this is. Giving the newspaper the benefit of the doubt, they would have cut out any assertions that she intercepted the landings of dozens of UFOs. The problem is with the "worked to pass the ... Act". What on earth is that? She voted for the Act? She wrote a letter asking other state senators to vote for it? Too vague to be of any use. Whole article is resume-like. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You should have seen the material directly sourced to her campaign web site <g>. I fnd press releases easy to spot from effusive use of adjectives. Collect (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

A lot of newspaper reporting, especially business news, is based on press releases. Reporters are supposedly familiar with the subjects they report and if they are satisfied with a press release to report its contents as facts, then that is sufficient. TFD (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Ip vandalism

Can anybody restore this deleted part? Maybe we need a page protection against further vandal attacks.--Pramo97 (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

That isn't what Wikipedia defines as vandalism. See WP:VANDAL. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it what Wikipedia defines as removal of content in a deliberate attempt? --Pramo97 (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

A deliberate attempt at what ? Editors can remove content for all sorts of legitimate reasons. In this case the IP appears to think that the DNA sample size is too small to support the conclusions being stated in the article. That's the kind of content dispute that should be discussed on the article's talk page. Specific questions about the reliability of the sources cited can be brought here. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Well this is exactly the point, the sample sizes in both studies ([11] | [12], [13] ) were huge enough. Thats the reason why the IP first argued like this. The Ip obviously wants to avoid any East Asian connotations. How to deal with it? --Pramo97 (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

How we're going to deal with it, here, on the reliable sources noticeboard, is to advise on the quality of the sources you've presented. I'm examining them right now. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at the sources and none of them are anywhere near the quality of source required for a section on Genetics. It all seems to be based on the work of Jeannine Davis-Kimball, who although qualified with a PhD, doesn't hold a university post, instead runs her own centre. If any of it is published in peer-reviewed journal articles or books from scholarly presses, that could be possibly be included, so long as our article doesn't stretch the facts in order to present a nationalistic argument. The deleted text is remarkable in how at first reading it seems like sound scholarship but on examination is anything but. Classic WP:SYNTH. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

And what is with this journal? --Pramo97 (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It is in the Correspondence section of the journal and may not have gone through peer review. It throws doubt on the validity of the paper that it critiques but caution would be needed before using any of its findings as substantive fact. Its main purpose is to call for further research. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

UK Independence Party

Is this political parties own website RS for membership numbers? It has been added to the article and removed as not RS several times. I do not see how it is not RS for their own membership numbers. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Parties' membership claims are notoriously inaccurate. Hence it fails WP:SELFPUB as "unduly self-serving." TFD (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially for smaller and fringier parties. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Blog source written by scientist

I am going to expand the article about Paraceratherium, and am mostly using the 2013 book "Rhinoceros Giants" by palaeontologist Donald Prothero. In this book he makes the novel claim that these animals probably had large, elephant-like ears. However, in a blog post review[14] of this book by the palaeontologist Darren Naish, Naish expresses scepticism of this idea, and elaborates a bit in the comments section. Is it possible to cite that? For example, if I first explain and attribute the large ear hypothesis, but then write something like "Palaeontologist Darren Naish expressed scepticism towards the idea in a review of Prothero's book"? FunkMonk (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It is fine to use, per "Self-published sources (online and paper)": "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." TFD (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, this is an example of a notable self-published source Shii (tock) 20:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Labrys

There is a discussion concerning the Labrys, an ancient Cretan symbol, with the main claim:

The labrys also has been used since the 1970s as a lesbian, feminist, and goddess movement symbol to represent women's strength and self-sufficiency.

The sources provided are:

1. The book The Butterfly Effect, [15][googlebooks], a poetry book with the single inline citation ""The word labyrinth is related to labrys, the double axe, a powerful lesbian symbol of the 1970s.". It is written by Susan Hawthrone, who appears to have a doctorate in Women’s Studies and Political Science from the University of Melbourne.[16]
2. A personal homepage of dubious reliability, http://www.swade.net/gallery/symbols.html#labrys, that lists lesbian symbology among others, with the citation "Today, the labrys has become a symbol of lesbian and feminist strength and self-sufficiency.", written by an undisclosed individual.
3. A second googlebooks with a faulty link, [17]

The contested content is reviewable at this diff.

The editor refuses to have the content challenged and deleted per WP:VERIFY, so to give the benefit of the doubt, I will try to confirm the symbol's claimed usage by requesting comments or other reliable citations first. ~ Nelg (talk) 10:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Go do some research. If you don't like these sources there are plenty of others. Mangoe (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a bookstore called Labrys Books, which would seem to be supportive.

• Beth Marschak; Alex Lorch (2008). Lesbian and Gay Richmond. Arcadia Publishing. pp. 62–. ISBN 978-0-7385-5368-9. --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

This book:

• Kathleen L. Komar (2003). Reclaiming Klytemnestra: Revenge Or Reconciliation. University of Illinois Press. pp. 25–. ISBN 978-0-252-02811-3.</ref>

may have the following statement on page 25 (but I do not have the book so cannot confirm):

...this version of the labrys for feminist ends. In modern times, some lesbian groups, for example, have reappropriated the labrys as a symbol...--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Westeros.org

I am concerned that this site is being used to source bold claims within the body of Game of Thrones' related articles. From what I've seen, there is occasionally a good piece of notable info (such as an interview with one person or another related to the books or the resulting television series), but it is mixed in with wave after wave of fancruft. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Even if accurate, the information on a fan site cannot be taken as an indication of what should be included in an encyclopedia. I would take citations like this as a sign that the article is getting crufty. Shii (tock) 20:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone claimed it reliable? If so, or there are responses to the recent edits such as [18], then direct them here. --Ronz (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Shii and Ronz, if you haven't seen alreday, there is an episode talk page discussion going on about this matter; see Talk:Oathkeeper#'Adaptation' section removed (WP:Permalink here), which also links to another episode talk page discussion going on about it (at the Breaker of Chains talk page, where the debate started). Flyer22 (talk) 01:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Earth Mag article (op-ed?)

Article: List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ref: Steven Newton (2012-04-30). "Voices: Defending science: The link between creationism and climate change". EARTH Magazine. Retrieved 2014-04-20.

Article content: "Interest in such scientists has been increased by attempts to compile lists of dissenting scientists, including a minority report to the US Senate by Marc Morano, another by Arthur B. Robinson, which is often known as the Oregon Petition, and another by the Heartland Institute, all three of which have been criticized on a number of grounds."

Discussion: Here, consisting of a few comments beginning at 18:16, 25 April 2014

The reference is a proposed addition to the end of the content quoted above, specifically criticism of the Oregon Petition. The relevant info from the reference is:

"Having failed to convince the scientific community of the credibility of their views, both creationists and climate change deniers have taken their case to the public in a way that distorts and misrepresents the nature of science."

"Take petitions, for example. Creationists maintain a “Dissent from Darwin” list of several hundred Ph.D.s who have signed a statement encouraging “careful examination of the evidence” for what is vaguely termed “Darwinian theory”; climate change deniers have the so-called Oregon Petition, with more than 31,000 signers endorsing a statement denying that there is any “convincing evidence” that the human release of greenhouse gases will cause “catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”"

"Such petitions convey the misleading impression that science is a popularity contest. Whether evolution and climate change are good science is, ultimately, a matter of evidence, not of who can amass more signatures. But that’s not the way deniers portray it."

The author is Steve Newton of NCSE(NCSE profile)

The concern is that the reference is an op-ed, and may fail WP:NEWSBLOG or otherwise not be reliable in this context. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope, the concern is that the reference simply isn't needed, and that you haven't made an argument as to why it should be used. There are already references for the sentence that you reference above in the article, and there is consensus that it shouldn't be used. Another concern is that you simply want it in the article because you want to couple "climate scepticism" with "evolution denial", which is a WP:BLP concern - not a reliable source one. --Kim D. Petersen 01:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, RS is not the crux of the issue. Only one editor in a very, very extended conversation has brought up this op-ed as a Reliable Source issue. This is not the proper forum for this content discussion. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I was planning on taking this to NPOVN next. As I pointed out, I want to be sure we have this resolved first. --Ronz (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It's moot. There are already six refs for that section's language. There is no apparent support and considerable resistance to this proposed edit, regardless of RS issues. What could be seen as forum shopping isn't a solution. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Please leave this discussion to those who want to address the concerns here. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

This ref is titled "comment" on the site. It is an opinion piece or column. It is reliable for the opinion of the author. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Ordinarily, one should be wary of using opinion pieces in BLP articles. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those are the concerns. Any thoughts on the specific publication, the author, the author's affiliations, or the reliability of the quoted information? --Ronz (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

About.com reviews usable?

Hi! I've been told a few different things about the site. I've been told that we can't use anything from the site, but then I've been told in the past that we can use reviews if they were done by staff members and held as the official rating by the site. I never really use them for anything other than reviews for films and the occasional book, but this would be good to know for future researching. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

About.com generally falls under WP:SPS so reliability would depend on each individual author, but previous consensus seems to be to avoid them in favor of better sources when possible. (See this archived post from this noticeboard which also has links to earlier discussions.) Could you give some examples of the kind of reviews you are talking about? Siawase (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Is MuuMuse reliable?

This website is used on the FA Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song) however I'm not sure if it's reliable. At first I thought it was an SPS, however I've seen more than two writers write for it. Can it be used or not? prism^△ 13:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This might be able to technically squeeze into reliable source criteria, but FAs should be using the highest quality sources possible, so in this case I'd say it's better left out. There also seems to be some possible BLP implications (ie, whether these songs are a reflection of an acrimonious breakup) that makes it even more iffy. Siawase (talk) 09:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Horizon Research publishing (hrpub.org)

I recently saw Horizon Research Publishing being cited in an article, and wanted to make sure I was correct in assuming that it's not legit.

• It appears on this list of predatory publishers, and even has its own entry. Yes, that site is a blog, but it's backed up by The Council of Editors of Learned Journals.
• They admit they're pay-to-publish, though they try to justify it as "processing charges" to keep the articles open source.

Ian.thomson (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Stay away, stay far, far away. On its website its address is 506 N Garfield Ave #210 Alhambra Ca 91801 - they seem to also prepare taxes. http://tax-preparers.find thebest.com/l/65020/Qiang-Zhu (url split to get it through) - another name at this address[19] is Kuan Bo Tech Inc. At the same address (office 210) is Mr. Gao of YY Capital.[20] This seems to be a registered address for several companies run by people with Chinese names. Now I'm not claiming that this is a reliable source by our criteria, but it does say that last year this publisher was using "the URL http://zj.nkwww.com/, which is registered to Wanlun Guo in Linyi, Shandong, China. " That ties in with the California address evidently being some sort of registered office, not a real headquarters. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Not reliable. They have a long list of legitimate-sounding journal titles but no indication of legitimate peer review. It's completely anonymous and they have no reputation for accuracy. They're happy to include stuff like Artificial and Fake Eggs: Dance of Death and Looking for Mobility of Hypothetical Venusian Fauna. The abstracts for these are telling. I'm sure some good faith academics have submitted potentially clean work, but there's no way of knowing solely based on association with this publisher-for-hire. It would help if you shared where they were being cited (it could still be a claim that might be found in a more reliable source).__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been removing a citation of one article from Number of the beast. The editor in question seems to have stopped upon finding out what I learned in my first post. If he resumes, I'm sure y'all's research will be the final nails in the coffin. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Some of their papers are being references on a few Navier-Stokes pages too → Search for links to hrpub.org. At least one of them seems to be being argued about on the talk page. I don't feel experienced enough to get involved, but perhaps there's someone here who's willing?--Otus scops (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Sample treasures from the abstracts: From the evidence of their very slow movement and position of some other similar objects it is concluded that the physical action of the Venusian fauna may be much slower than that of the Earth’ fauna. and Generally the artificial creation of natural things doesn’t blessing for human being.. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

...That makes me want to get an Uncyclopedia account. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

See [21]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Yelp for summarized statements of reviews

Can Yelp pages like this one be cited for summarized statements like the following one in the Citi Field article: "Overall, reviews of Citi Field from fans and press have mostly been positive." ? My guess is no, because it's user-generated, and because some users may write negative reviews out of a desire for retribution, other personal reasons, or satire, and negative reviews were observed to have risen 20% in 2013. However, I wanted the community's input. I tried looking through the archives, and it appears that no one had a discussion focused on Yelp in particular. The one discussion that mentioned it was this one, in which an editor, A Quest for Knowledge, pointed out four articles citing Yelp. Of those four, Yelp citations are only found in two of them, and in any event, that's a descriptive statement, not a prescriptive one (i.e.: just because there are articles citing it doesn't mean that they're supposed to; it's possible that the editors who did so didn't know about WP:USERG). Thoughts? Nightscream (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Daily Star (Bangladesh)

Is this source Suitable to support the sentence "Dr. Geoffrey Davis, a physician who participated in the programme, estimated that the commonly cited figure of 200,000 was probably "very conservative" compared with the real numbers"? It is also supported by Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia p 120 which says "the widely held estimate is that almost 200,000 women were raped during those nine months. [sic] Yet in an interview with me in Dr Geoffrey Davis , who was working in Bangladesh in 1972 suggested this number was far higher.".

It is reliable to me. For what type of content you are using it? OccultZone (Talk) 08:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: For Dr. Geoffrey Davis estimates of rape figures during the Bangladesh Liberation War. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It is obviously unreliable, for two reasons: first, its level of English is so poor it clearly shows lack of editorial oversight and quality control – if they aren't doing anything to ensure people in that op-ed section write correct English, they can't be doing much to ensure journalistic quality either. Second, and much more importantly, the writer evidently copied much of the content, including the statement in question, directly from the very Wikipedia article for which it is now claimed as a source – a classic case of circular sourcing. If you closely compare the wording, arrangement and selection of claims between that op-ed and our article as it stood in late 2013, when the op-ed was published, the correspondences are obvious. All this was explained to Darkness Shines the other day; the fact that he doesn't even mention these objections here is disappointing, to say the least. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Poor english is no excuse... Back to the subject, Yes, it is reliable source. Although it can be attributed well only if there is any edit conflict going on concerning the above source, like, "According to...." Thanks. OccultZone (Talk) 12:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Right. Yes, you mentioned that opinion of yours earlier. Now, are we going to have the privilege of witnessing you actually addressing the arguments, or do you prefer to just continue standing by here doing useless kibitzing? You know, this board is for getting advice from people who actually understand policy and are willing to have a meaningful discussion about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• Just pointing out, it is being claimed that the article has used content from the wikipedia article, our article does not mention anything at all about Dr Davis`s diary, which is where the author of the piece says he got his information. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Dude, we are talking about a claim regarding what Davis meant in a certain sentence he spoke to Bina D'Costa in an interview in 2002, a few years before his death. How would Audity Falguni get any information about something that happened in 2002, from a "diary" he wrote about the events in 1972? The sentence in question in Falguni's article is outside the passage dealing with that "diary"; it's part of a paragraph that is obviously parroting your Wikipedia text, sentence by sentence. (Incidentally, I can't confirm a published diary of Davis under the title claimed by Falguni even exists.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

So this is just forum shopping, then? Sounds like the issue has been adequately dealt with and the OP simply doesn't like the answer. Guy (Help!) 07:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Youtube video on official channel?

Connecticut Public Television did a video article on Slater Memorial Museum. Their official website links to the article on their official YouTube channel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcNQZtp2rSk). YouTube is not normally considered a reliable source so I am unsure if I can use it for stating how part of the museum's collection was acquired by Slater on his "Grand Tour" around the world via ship. If I cannot use it as a reliable source, is it permissible to use the YouTube link in the external links section? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The usual problems are not an issue here since being a official channel removes the usual copyright concerns (the main issue with most Youtube videos). The only real issue I can see would be whether or not Connecticut Public Television is a reliable source for this fact and that is something I have no idea about.--67.70.140.89 (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)