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

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

Kissan support services Private Limited (KSSL)

Kissan Support Services is Private Limited Company, established in 2006 as a subsidiary of Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited (ZTBL), Located in Islamabad Capital of Pakistan. The purpose for establishing this subsidiary was to outsource ZTBL’s non core activities which include:  Sports  Security Services  Provision of man power (Clerical & Non-Clerical Staff)  Janitorial Services &  Canteen Maintenance

The Company Provides Services to Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited (ZTBL)

References

Using Parlamentní listy.cz as a source

An editor is using this source [1] for content in the synopsis section of the documentary The Weight of Chains 2. The author of the piece is 'Radim Panenka' who 'Googles' as being only a contributor to 'user-posted' sites, and who appears to be an activist in the area which the documentary covers.

Parlamentní listy has an entry on Czech WP [2], which Google translate [3] appears to suggest is a mix of monthly print output and user-posted online output. It is not clear which this article is. Some discussion of the source has taken place here Talk:The_Weight_of_Chains_2#Synopsis_..._single_source.

Whilst I appreciate that sources are not required for non-contentious claims in a documentary synopsis, sources, if used should be RS I believe, otherwise a spurious-legitimacy is being given to the content, is this a correct supposition on my part?

Parlamentní listy is used as a source in a very small number of Eng WP articles [4].

Attributed statement sourced by RT news article

In the Initial claims section of the Ghouta chemical attack article, the following statement is sourced by this RT article.

The Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, said the claims that his government had used chemical weapons were politically motivated and that it would go against elementary logic.

An editor tagged it as a unreliable soruce, and describe it as "Russian propaganda", ref. diff. Is the source reliable for this statement according to the identifying reliable sources guideline and the verifiability policy? Erlbaeko (talk) 07:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

No, RT is «Russian propaganda», it is not neutral, or reliable. Spumuq (talq) 09:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure? The reliable sources guideline, says: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.", ref WP:BIASED. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I think RT(TV) can be used for sourcing non-political issues, and a lot depends on context. In this particular context (promoting a political conspiracy theory), no, I do not think this source should be used. My very best wishes (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that context matters, but the context here is not to promote anything, it is to describe the Syrian presidents view, in a section that covers initial claims from both sides, and the source I included do support the information as it is presented. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

In the diff above [5] RT was used to source claim by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. I am sure that if he made such claim, it could be referenced to another/better source. There was no need to make this posting, especially since RT has been already discussed many times on this noticeboard. Please do search prior to your posting.My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I found another source here, but I don't know if "The Irish Times" are reliable. (It looks reliable to me at first glance, then.) It can be used to verifiy that he made that statement, I guess. However, it does not include the "politically motivated" part, so I like to use RT anyway. I also did search for old discussions, but there was no consensus that RT is or is not reliable for general purpose. Ref. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_173#Russia_Today. However, most users seems to agree that it can be used as a source in the simplest way (the government said "bla-bla-bla"). Erlbaeko (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The unreliability of RT, which has direct editorial oversight by the Kremlin and operates in a media climate commonly described as "unfree", has been extensively documented. I have noted just a few examples of critical analysis on Talk:Khan al-Assal chemical attack. I think we have a responsibility as Wikipedia editors to use high-quality sources whenever possible, and RT isn't one. It is the functional mouthpiece of a totalitarian dictator who has been unabashed in his support of Syria's embattled government. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

" It is the functional mouthpiece of a totalitarian dictator who has been unabashed in his support of Syria's embattled government" WOW now that is a really neutral statement!!!do you have any reliable neutral sources to show that President Putin is a totalitarian dictator rather than a democratically elected President? if you don't, then you are in no position to make judgements about what sources are reliable. In this case "reliable" means can they be trusted that if they quote somebody saying something, that person actually said it. Whether you like what was said or not is irrelevant to the topic of reliability. KoolerStill (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Citations of RT in articles about politics, wars, international relations &c should be treated as a red flag for neutrality problems. bobrayner (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions; however I believe you described your position better here, Kudzu1. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. RT should be used in the same way as we use CNN or BBC. CNN is "not" oversighted by White house? It sure is! If one is reliable, other is too. Equality and neutrality. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 10:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Disagree with classifying RT as unreliable source, although all news sources must be taken with grains of salt -- some more than others, and especially on some topics. For this specific fact, or any fact in question where there may be a reasonable suspicion of bias due to RT affiliation with Russia and its geostrategic interests, let the editors seek other sources for the position of the Syrian president. If RT is to be classified as an unreliable source due to a level of affiliation with a government, then so would the BBC, VOA, and on another level, also pseudo-private sources like WSJ, NY Times, Fox News, etc, because bias and agenda certainly do not come only from formal superficial association. At some level there can be suspicion of agenda in all reporting. We as editors must use our minds sensibly to source claims as well as possible and fact-check to other sources when possible, and otherwise attribute controversial claims in the text. In terms of parallelism, the BBC could be claimed to be equally as involved in propagandizing news reports as RT, if one wished to make that case. There are literally hundreds of articles from dozens of other sources by which to fact-check a claim about a position of the Syrian president on this issue. SageRad (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

RT should be used in the same way as we use CNN or BBC. - No, see WP:GEVAL. Apples and oranges. Discussed to death previously. "CNN is "not" oversighted by White house? It sure is!" - No, false analogy. Apples and oranges. Discussed to death previously (and a telling statement about the bias of the commentator). Disagree with SagaRed (an account active for only a month). Please cut it out with the false equivalence. "BBC could be claimed to be equally as involved in propagandizing news reports as RT" is a an empty (and very stupid) assertion. Obama could be claimed to be from Mars. 2+2 could be claimed to equal 5. The Earth could be claimed to lie on the back of a turtle (with turtles all the way down). So what? There's dozens, if not hundreds of reliable sources, including scholarly ones, which say RT is in the business of propaganda and disinformation. While CNN, BBC or whatever may have their shortcomings and may have certain biases, it's in a different league all together. Also. If you want to discuss the reliability of CNN, please start a separate discussion.

Did I mention that this has been discussed to death already and the same bullshit false equivalence arguments get trotted out again and again, only to be shot down by the mature and sane people on this website, again and again?Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I think a lot of attention should be paid to the media climate in particular countries. If there are political considerations, there they lie: RT is among a number of official or semiofficial media outlets under state control operating in countries with an unfree press. It just doesn't make any sense to treat these outlets as if they are reliable news sources. They are propaganda, plain and simple, especially when they are used to report on events and situations in which the state has a strong interest. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure it is reliable and there is no doubt that al-Assad denied responsibility for chemical attacks. TFD (talk) 07:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not, and there's plenty of actually reliable sources which can be used to source that Assad denied responsibility.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

RT is well established (by known reliable sources) as being the propaganda organ of the Russian state. Article in The Economist describes RT:

At home Russian media, which are mostly state-controlled, churn out lies and conspiracy theories. Abroad, the main conduit for the Kremlin’s world view is RT, a TV channel set up in 2005 to promote a positive view of Russia that now focuses on making the West look bad. It uses Western voices: far-left anti-globalists, far-right nationalists and disillusioned individuals. It broadcasts in English, Arabic and Spanish and is planning German- and French-language channels. It claims to reach 700m people worldwide and 2.7m hotel rooms. Though it is not a complete farce, it has broadcast a string of false stories, such as one speculating that America was behind the Ebola epidemic in west Africa.

-- GreenC 20:"50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The article you quote as..... "...now focuses on making the West look bad...." is itself engaged in making RUSSIA LOOK BAD...it is in an article headlined in part with "Russian aggression"... not further proven in the story. So you are using the propaganda of one nation to prove the other point of view is propaganda. It is not evidence/ It is bias in your choice of which to believe. The article in any case is an OPINION piece, nothing proven in it at all; it would not be allowed as a WP article. KoolerStill (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• The reporting by RT in this case seems quite plausible and consistent with other sources. For example, the BBC says "President Assad accused rebel groups supported by the US, Turkey and Saudi Arabia of using chemical weapons to turn around the conflict in Syria because they were losing. He also said it would have been illogical for the military to use weapons of mass destruction in an area where its soldiers were present." What should happen in this case is that you add an additional source such as the BBC to confirm the point that Assad denied responsibility. Andrew D. (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the links/replies. However, the question here is if the given source is reliable for the statement in the described context (according to relevant guidelines and policies). Based on this discussion, I believe most users see RT as reliable according to the guideline, at least for statements like this ("the government said..."). As KoolerStill wrote above "In this case "reliable" means can they be trusted that if they quote somebody saying something, that person actually said it." Erlbaeko (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I am disturbed that, despite the recent arbcom case and a current mediation case, and countless objections, Erlbaeko is still pushing to use a Russian propaganda source. If it actually happened and if it's worth mentioning then some other genuinely reliable source will cover it. bobrayner (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean, this, this or this report? The first two was rejected. The third is a violation of the 1 revert per 24 hours rule, which applies to Syrian Civil War related pages. I thought blanking whole sections against consensus was vandalism (a 3RR/1RR exemption), but I was wrong. I now know, that the Vandalism policy states: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." However, I don't see why any of this should disqualify me from asking a question about RT here. None of the cases even affect RT. Nor does the mediation case. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You don't think that POV-pushing around the Syrian civil war has any connection to the reliability of a source which is POV-pushing around the Syrian civil war? bobrayner (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

How is including the Syrian presidents view in a section that covers initial claims from both sides “POV-pushing”? If you have personal problems with me, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand that some users just don't like RT to be used as a source, but this is not a question of personal taste. Nor is it a vote. Even when using RT as a source in the simplest way possible (Mr. x said y), users delete it or tag it as a. I do not see any policy based arguments to do so, and their arguments is not founded in the policy, nor in the guideline. In fact, enforcing a specific non-neutral point of view is against the behavioral guideline of gaming the system.

In this case the source do support the information as it is presented, and it is definitely not and exceptional claim. In fact it is not even a contentious claim. Does anybody doubt he said it? Yes, RT has a bias. That’s fine, according to the biased or opinionated sources section of the guideline. Yes, some of their reporting may be seen as propaganda, but that is true for most news organizations.

What we have here is a well-established news organization that is referring another well-established news organization (Izvestia). Both is "reliable for statements of fact". That is what the relevant part of the guideline says, and that is what the policy on sourcing says. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Some could profit by reading these statements:

1. "A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view." Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources
2. "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources
3. "It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content." Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete
4. "The reliable sources guideline refers to a source's overall reputation for fact-checking and reliability--not the source's neutrality. Reliable sources may be non-neutral: a source's reputation for fact-checking is not inherently dependent upon its point of view." Wikipedia:Neutrality of Sources

Mnnlaxer (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia consensus on RT

WP consensus has never held RT to be a priori unreliable or reliable: most have argued it can be used for uncontroversial statements of fact (including attribution of official statements), and that for specific contentious issues, discussion is required.

This particular case is a simple case of attribution. The relevant question is not reliability but the editorial question as to whether Assad's statement deserves mention here. Kudzu1 should have known that.

We've had many discussions here about RT as a source. Linking users uninvolved (so far as I know) in the Syria/EastEurope debates, with diffs:

In 2013, Formerip, Elinruby, Itsmejudith, Tom Harrison, AQfK, Blueboar and BorisG voiced different opinions available here: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12].

• The first 4 users generally wrote that RT is a predictably biased source, not in all cases more biased than western sources, and can be useful for some news items or for opinion with attribution.
• The last 3 users wrote that RT is heavily biased or gives credence to conspiracy theories, and should be avoided in almost all cases, or used only with great caution.

In 2014 there was a very long argument about RT, ultimately closed by a user who is now banned. Nevertheless, Collect, Ubikwit, GRuban, Herzen, Ian.thomson, Kmhkmh, Viriditas, Mjroots, TheBlueCanoe, Carolmooredc, Jytdog, and TFD all contributed, with diffs of their statements here: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. Of these users,

• 6 wrote that RT is equivalent to many other national news outlets and has spin that should be evaluated accordingly,
• 3 wrote it can be used for simple, non-controversial facts and otherwise requires evaluation/discussion
• 1 wrote it should never be used for controversial issues,
• 2 wrote it is as reliable as Fox or a tabloid, or should never be used.

This month (June 2015), above, SageRad, TFD, Andrew D., Spumuq and GreenC also commented.

• 3 wrote it is generally reliable (perhaps as biased as other national news sources), and
• 2 wrote it is propaganda and in no way reliable.

At this point, further discussions here on RT's reliability in general, or its reliability for simple statements by officials, or even for perspectives attributed to RT, are a huge waste of time. Controversial facts should be discussed and probably need secondary sources, or contrasting views, or should be avoided. If RT's reliability as a source is not the issue and their perspective is, the appropriate tags are WP:POV and the appropriate forum is WP:NPOVN.

In my view, blanket removal of RT as a source without specific discussion of WP:POV should go to WP:AN or WP:AE. -Darouet (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Well done. I agree that knee-jerk removal of content sourced to RT is wrong (see the links I posted in 1-4 above), but I disagree with blanket recommendation for AN or AE. Repeat offenders, certainly, but not in general. And see also consensus can change. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I too agree with Darouet that RT should not be used for sourcing controversial political subjects, if that is what he is telling in the summary. My very best wishes (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

That's neither what I said, nor what the provided diffs demonstrate. You should read them. -Darouet (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. So you are simply telling there is no consensus about this? I think that sources may not be especially reliable for a number of reasons. Some, like Bellingcat below, are not sufficiently professional, others (such as certain "Western" news media) may be biased, and others (such as RT TV) promote professionally cooked disinformation on a number of political issues. So, I would strongly caution anyone from using it indiscriminately, although, yes, it can be used with care, just like Bellingcat and a lot of others. My very best wishes (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I know that's how you feel. However, I compiled the responses above, both pro-RT, anti-RT and ambivalent, to show that most editors don't agree with you. That's fine, but the resource of their views is available to you if you want to make use of them. -Darouet (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. FYI, there was also a general discussion about RT in 2012. See Talk:RT_(TV_network)/Archive_1#RFC:_Is_RT_a_reliable_source_as_per_WP:RS.3F. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

...and BTW, that discussion was closed formally by an administrator (Beeblebrox) after a request for closure. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This discussion 3 years ago is irrelevant. The final transformation of Russian state-controlled media to disinformation outlets had happen more recently - during the Ukrainian campaign, when these media were forced to deny the obvious (such as Russian military involvement) and resort to outright fabrications. My very best wishes (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

flamewar Rhoark (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jeez freakin' crust. Just drop it already. It's been discussed to death. Stop beating the dead horse. Stop grinding the axe. Stop grinding the axe into the dead horse. Stop twisting the pencil into the donkey. Stop petting the monkey with a spork. Stop wrench plucking the crow. Stop buttoning the shirt of the gazelle. Stop flea jumping the octopus. Stop sculpting the turnips with a spatula. Stop running with the sea urchins. Don't float the gazebos into the shrimp. Stop ... just stop beating the dead horse please. It's not reliable for 99% of instances where people try to use it and in the 1% where it may be reliable there's better sources out there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Volunteer Marek, RT is a Russian state newspaper but that doesn't make it's facts wrong all the time. All newspapers have bias due to their sponsors. In addition, your comments are highly POV and uncivil. Erxnmedia (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC) I see that you've now started stalking my edits. And complain about "civility". Right.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC) It is so funny when Volunteer Marek provides a perfect example of the behavior he is objecting to in the comment making the objection. This really deserves a meta wiki mention somewhere. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC) What on earth are you talking about?Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Are you really that un-self-aware? Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Instead of trying to be cute how about you explain your comment. I've objected to the continuation of pointless discussion. I added in a joke. Yes, and? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Gentlemen, try to stay on the topic. This is not a discussion forum. Erlbaeko (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

No, RT is «Russian propaganda», it is not neutral, or reliable.Spumuq (talq) 15:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Bellingcat

This seems to be a personal website www.bellingcat.com but describes itself as 'by and for citizen investigative journalists'. It is being used as a reliable source in Wikipedia article MH17 and probably other articles. My question is can anyone set up a website or blog, put up original research there by amateur journalists or bloggers and then reference it in Wikipedia articles? If so it seems a way to get around No Original Research protection - I could just put up my OR on my own website and then quote it as a reliable source.Dbdb (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Not a reliable source. I see nothing that makes me think this site meets RS. The fact that it says it's by citizen journalists probably is a good indicator that it lacks editorial oversight. The "about" page is blank. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Not a reliable source -- it seems to just be user-generated content. Cheers, Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 20:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Not reliable, per WP:SPS. This is clearly a self-published advocacy website that consists of bloggers without qualifications. RGloucester — ☎ 20:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - whether or not something is reliable depends on whether, per WP:RS, it has a reputation for "fact-checking and accuracy". Bellincat analysis has been covered in multiple sources, noting the quality of the analysis. It most certainly is NOT "user-generated content". Please familiarize yourself with a subject (like, start here: Eliot Higgins) before offering your opinion. Or [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. So we have positive coverage of the source in The Guardian, Abc, Washingtonpost, Sunday Morning Herald, Deutsche Welle and BBC - and there's more out there. Whether they're reliable or not depends on the particular text that is being discussed. But they're definetly several steps above "user-generated content" or "bloggers without qualifications" or a "self-published advocacy website".

I also feel compelled to point out that this is some disruptive WP:FORUMSHOPPING by User:Dbdb. They asked exactly the same question at NOR noticeboard, got an answered they didn't like, so they came over here. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes I did raise it under OR because I saw the bellingcat website as OR (as a lot of people here seem to). I was told that I couldn't raise it as OR within the article as the website was only linked to in the article. This is clearly a loophole whereby anyone can publish OR on their own website and then just link it into a wikipedia article, thereby bypassing the OR prohibition. Clearly the protection against that is enforcing RS - that is why I raised bellingcat as not RS. Anyone looking at it can clearly see what it is. You pretesting so much and accusing me of being disruptive does not help your case. I assume you are connected with bellingcat? Dbdb (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm trying not to resent the fact that you came in and started telling people what they haven't read or researched. Screw AGF, right? "Citizen journalists" are still user-generated content at this site. RSN is exactly where this issue should be discussed., so it's the right forum. Additionally, even IF (big if) the source can be used, putting a conspiracy theory from it in the lead isn't proper. IF (again big if) it belongs in the article, the lead isn't where it belongs. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I was only going by your comments, which do pretty clearly indicate that you haven't read or researched certain things. What do you want me to do, assume that you actually meant/did something else than what you said you did? Sorry, I just took what you said at face value and responded accordingly. And you keep persisting in your misconception/misrepresentation even after you've been provided with links which could potentially remedy that, if you chose to actually read them. It's not "user-generated content". "citizen journalist" is just a descriptive phrase which is irrelevant as to the source's reliability. It's not a "conspiracy theory" - where in hell did you get that one from? Obviously established reliable sources do not treat it as such since they are reporting Bellingcat analysis as legitimate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Look, let's simplify this. If the Dutch, US, etc are putting the THEORY forward, then why are you using a citizen journalist site? And if the site itself says it is "by and for" citizen journalists, then how is it not user generated? For citizen journalists (ie the users) by the citizen journalists (the users). User generated. Citizen journalists.....actually, that is relevant as a term. Just like it's relevant when used for the blacklisted NowPublic or Examiner.com. In any case, I'm done here. Enjoy your editing. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: Regarding "conspiracy", you're aware the official probe (conducted by the Dutch) consider it the #1 cause of the crash right now? Dutch-Led Probe of MH17 Crash Says Buk Missile Launch is Primary Theory - Wall Street Journal ("...Buk surface-to-air missile launched from rebel-held territory"). Stickee (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• At this point, it's a conspiracy theory. Do some conspiracy theories end up being true? Once in a while. Will this one? Maybe someday. Today it is just a theory. Further, if you insist on putting the theory in the lead, then use the Dutch govt as a source, not Bellingcat. That's the simplest answer. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not a "conspiracy theory". You seem not to understand what a "conspiracy theory". There are two words there "conspiracy" and "theory". The topic under discussion fulfills the second of these but not the first. In other words, yes, it's a "theory" but it's not a "conspiracy theory" but rather the mainstream most plausible and probable theory. Your argument is a bit like saying that the idea that it was the 9/11 hijackers who flew those planes into those towers is a "conspiracy theory" because it's "just a theory" (and it involved some "conspiring").Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: said "whether or not something is reliable depends on whether, per WP:RS, it has a reputation for 'fact-checking and accuracy'." A reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is necessary but not sufficient for a source to be reliable. The full quote from the Overview says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." In addition, that's just the opening sentence. I think it is fair to say Bellingcat is self-published, although if someone wants to argue that, I would recommend starting a new thread. But granting it is self-published, the most relevant part of the policy is this sentence from Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper): "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." (emphasis in original) If the subject matter was academic scholarship or other typical cases of established expertise like lawyers or doctors, then this would be a no-brainer that Bellingcat is not reliable. But the uniqueness of the expertise claimed in this case makes the first emphasis murky. There isn't an established field of social-media image and video analysis. So it would be better to use Bellingcat material from other RS when possible, and with attribution in all cases, rather than declare it is a RS. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Depends Using Bellingcat itself as a reference may or may not be reliable, but it being cited in RS's (eg NYT, The Guardian etc) makes its use reliable. Stickee (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Not reliable Depends, but if a Bellingcat article is cited by a well-established news source, that article can be used as a source together with the news organizations article. If a Bellingcat article is not cited by a reliable news organization, it can be deleted as non RS. Same goes for the Brown Moses blog. On exception is if Bellingcat "print" an article by an established expert in the relevant field (not a self-claimed "expert"). Erlbaeko (talk) 09:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC) (Updated based on discussion. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC))
• Can be used for sourcing. If it was quoted by Wall Street Journal, it can be used for sourcing here, either directly or indirectly (through quotes in other sources). My very best wishes (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• Supremely reliable It is not self-published or user-generated content. It is published by a corporation with a fiduciary interest in accuracy. It is subject to the control of expert professional editors. It has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. As much as some WP editors like to invent special extraordinary criteria for sources to meet, it is unnecessary to go any further than this to establish reliability. It's worth going further in this case, however, because Bellingcat absolutely raises the bar when it comes to verifiability. All their sources and reasoning are fully documented and transparent, in the interest of reproducibility. We should wish that all journalists applied a similar paradigm. The Savushkina troll army is out in full force today to talk down Bellingcat, but the data and the reasoning are out in the open for everyone to see. Rhoark (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a parody, right? Mnnlaxer (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess you weren't kidding: "I'm beginning to suspect this might be the most reliable source in existence." [33] - Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

'All their sources and reasoning are fully documented and transparent' - 'the data and the reasoning are out in the open for everyone to see' - RS quote bellingcat a heck of a lot - no, that is not parody - and who suggests it is parody - an idiot who wants the views of Limbaugh and paul and veterans today and globalresearch everywhere - that is what is contemptible - a complete idiot who wants ignorant rentagobs views promoted all over the shop has the absolute stupidity to mock views way more intelligent than his own. 92.3.10.13 (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC) (struck as blocked sockpuppet)

Do either of you have RS to back up these claims? "It is published by a corporation with a fiduciary interest in accuracy." I'm not aware of this interest. From below, see what the largest English-language newspaper website, the Daily Mail, printed. Besides libeling rich or powerful people and publishing classified info, there is no such fiduciary interest in accuracy. In fact, I don't think you know what fiduciary interest is, because it commonly conflicts with publishing only accurate information. "It is subject to the control of expert professional editors." Who are these expert professional editors? How much are they paid? Where does the money to pay them to edit come from? Only two of the contributors listed have editing experience and they are both undergraduates right now. "It has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking." The Kickstarter campaign to fund it and its first post were less than a year ago. Only two topics it has posted on have received any notice in the MSM. Posts on other topics seem to get a lot less traffic. Since August 2014, there has only been one post on the Ghouta chemical attack. There is still MH17 news coming, and that will pick up when the official investigation issues its report. But what guarantees that the MSM will continue to cover Bellingcat, much less praise it? Declaring a one-year site with a diverse group of free-lancing writers a RS seems very premature, it would be prudent to wait and see what happens. See my "with attribution" comment below. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not, in general, necessary to support editorial decisions (such as whether a source is reliable) with citations to other reliable sources. However, Bellingcat does have a reputation for reliability as shown by the variety of RS's that have profiled Bellingcat and its founder, or used them as sources. My older statement that Bellingcat may be the "most reliable source ever" was hyperbole, however, its fact checking processes seem more visible and robust than all but a few news outlets (such as Der Spiegel or the Economist). Their analyses are probably often sufficiently original to be considered primary sources, in which case it is indeed highly desired to have claims corroborated by a secondary source. That does not, however, mean that Bellingcat is not reliable on its own terms. Rhoark (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

My RS request was sort of joking. But I would like to know if "[Bellingcat] is subject to the control of expert professional editors" is also hyperbole. No matter. I am very interested in this issue because it is so complicated and confusing. So let me try make a couple of points clearly. That RS have profiled Eliot Higgins is almost completely independent of whether Bellingcat or Higgins himself is a reliable source in the eyes of the RS. Yes, they couldn't be publishing easily debunked garbage, but if they are working hard, publishing plausible information, and avoiding big mistakes, then they are in the mix. What makes Higgins and Bellingcat stand out so much and receive so much attention is not closely related to its reputation for accuracy and fact-checking (which is dubious, but I'll grant it for now). Much more important is the 1) novelty, 2) uniqueness, 3) support for mainstream and government narratives, and 4) the Everyman angle of Higgins going from on-the-dole to international player.

In more depth: 1) Feature story writers are always looking for something to write about. No one has done analysis of social media and open sources like Higgins. That's a big deal. News is about new stuff. 2) There is little to no access for western reporting on the ground in Syria or Donbass. The only information that was previously readily available all comes from the involved parties and there is much propaganda and little chance to check it out for themselves. Plus the immediacy and intensity of the videos are like cat nip to viewers, and thus media producers. 3) This one is completely tied up in ideology and bias, so I won't bother. But if anyone thinks it isn't important, you're fooling yourself. 4) Higgins himself is a great story. At home watching the baby one year and jetting off to Ukraine and Jordan the next. Major international attention for what almost everybody does, watch Youtube. Pure gold. And his almost-attractive-but-not-threatening looks. Total Tom Hanks. Plus the Brit accent for the U.S. audience. He's the complete package.

Using Bellingcat as a source in an RS story. Almost all of the big coverage Higgins has gotten is a repetition of his claims. "A forensic study found ..." (they love "forensic") or "A Bellingcat analysis stated ..." or "Higgins found ..." In general, that's good journalism: don't say anything yourself that you could put into a primary source's mouth. It lets the reporter off the hook if it's wrong, gives them the appearance of a neutral observer, and is more compelling coming from someone else. I've got no problem with in-text attribution, as I've made clear on this thread.

Primary source. Bellingcat's reports are not a primary source for the conflicts they cover. They are secondary, as they are not personally involved in the story. When the story is about Bellingcat, they become the primary source. And you have to be careful with primary sources. CYA kicks in. If Bellingcat turns out to be wrong, the reporter and the RS doesn't get any of the blame. It's "well, we're just reporting" blah, blah blah. The related point is that when RS includes Bellingcat's analysis, the RS is not corroborating Bellingcat's work. It is merely passing it on. If there are any stories out there that explicitly say that the RS went back and did the same leg-work as Bellingcat to see if it was correct, please post it here. </rant> Sorry. Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

When a source performs novel research (such as image analysis) rather than just reporting, it is a primary source for the research it performed. Rhoark (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You've just illustrated you don't understand the concepts behind WP:Primary and Secondary sources. Analysis of a primary document such as published images is clearly secondary, while reporting what an eyewitness saw is clearly primary. Note "Secondary" is not another way to spell "good" and the opposite. Mnnlaxer (talk)

• Not reliable With attribution (update below) This is basically what major RS do when using Bellingcat themselves. This leaves the decision of whether it is a RS with the reader. And this eliminates individual arguments over specific cases if the decision is "Depends." In general, the issue with Bellingcat is that it is a brand new form of journalism. RS are very interested in latest developments and tech. Higgins himself provides a good human interest story. And the work Bellingcat does is un-reproducible by RS right now. They can't call up the original or their own sources to confirm anything Bellingcat does, because it isn't human source based. There is no way of knowing how comprehensive Bellingcat's survey of videos or photos is. Key facts like when was the BUK video recorded are unknowable. So you've seen neutral to positive stories on Higgins/Bellingcat so far, focusing on the novelty, tech and rags to riches angles. That's about all they can do right now. There has been plenty of criticism of Higgins/Bellingcat, but it is currently on the fringes of RS. This situation is likely to stay this way for awhile, as long as Bellingcat stays in their niche and doesn't make any huge errors. So use the RS citing Bellingcat rather than Bellingcat itself when you can, but in all cases use attribution, e.g. "Bellingcat analyzed pictures of X obtained from social media and concluded that Y." Rather than just "Y." Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: "With attribution" was my attempt at compromise, but it seems the discussion is much more "not reliable" than I expected. My first choice has always been to use RS citing Bellingcat, not Bellingcat itself. If this discussion ends in "not reliable," then Bellingcat shouldn't be cited at all. I'm personally fine with adding Bellingcat as an in-text attribution for the RS citation, but don't feel strongly about it, and I realize that specific discussion is complicated. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's another issue with Bellingcat. The most recent post is Analyzing Bin Ladin’s Bookshelf Part 2 which is a repost from Automating OSINT, a commercial service. If anyone posted the one from Automating OSINT, it would be reverted very quickly. But someone could (and would) argue it can be used as a RS because it appeared at Bellingcat. This also brings up the issue of compensation. Are all the contributors on Bellingcat paid per post? Paid by traffic? Not paid? This puts the range of contributors from free-lance journalist, to intern or job seeker, to hobbyist blogger, to self-promoting PR. How do you know which one applies in any given instance? Are there any paid editors? And how is the site funded? Talk about a lack of transparency. Mnnlaxer (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

RS discuss the work of bellingcat all the time so all your huffing and puffing are irrelevant - eliot Higgins sought crowdfunding to establish bellingcat- £47K was raised - crowdfunding enbled bellingcat to license imagery used in one of their latest reports also -july 17 imagery - 92.3.10.13 (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC) (struck as blocked sockpuppet)

Crowdfunding is exactly why this isn't an RS. It is a populist blog, run by activists. I agree with what was said above. If an RS cites a Bellingcat report in a specific instance, it can be included in a Wikipedia article with attribution. However, if RS do not cite a report, it cannot be included. RGloucester — ☎ 16:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

and RS do cite their reports on Ghouta and MH17 and Russian army and materiel in Ukraine etc etc - so this is all just 'subject, the bleedin' obvious' 92.3.10.13 (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC) (struck as blocked sockpuppet)

I think this is reasonable and yes it does apply in this case. One detail though, which is relevant to how this discussion got started - if Bellingcat is quoted by secondary sources and we use it accordingly, there should be no issue to linking to the original Bellingcat post itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course not, as long as the secondary RS is provided. The only problem arrises when Bellingcat is used alone, without attribution, and without secondary RS. RGloucester — ☎ 19:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable - Bellingcat is an independent analysis group which has been lauded in the press, and is often cited by the press. The Kickstarter is how the group initially funded the company but funding source has nothing to do with reliability. It is an "Opensource" analysis meaning they rely on Opensource information such as videos and photos published on YouTube as the basis for independent investigations of wartime which are otherwise too difficult or dangerous for traditional media outlets to obtain. There are quite a few conspiracy theorists who see Bellingcat as a paid front for intelligence agencies but it's fringe critics. There is one legitimate critical article in Der Spiegel that presumably could be used to provide a counter-POV to the Bellingcat report on MH17. -- GreenC 20:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Funding source is relevant to reliability. The Washington Times kept operating at a loss due to the Rev. Moon's patronage. On many subjects his newspaper was not a reliable source. Once the current funds are gone (and they can't last for long), where is the money going to come from? It is not going to come from intelligence agencies, but there are plenty of ideological foundations and think tanks that would pay for supportive journalism. As for legitimate critical sources, more will appear I predict. Here is another digital photo expert criticizing the latest satellite photo story. [34] He was interviewed in Deutsche Welle. Here is another similar critique [35] of Bellingcat's work and more will eventually get into RS. I can't emphasize enough 1) how premature it is to judge the Bellingcat website as RS right now, and 2) only a small portion of Bellingcat's posts (all by Higgins?) have been mentioned by RS. Mnnlaxer (talk) 04:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Not ReliableAs the person who raised this I am happy to accept the notion that bellingcat if quoted on a matter, in a(nother) RS, can be referenced on that matter in wikipedia. Conversely if it is is simply some citizen journalist article not quoted in any other RS that bellingcat has chosen (with its rather strong POV) to put on its website then it can't. I only have a slight concern that in the former case the actual RS should be mentioned but is that a fair summary of the consensus? How do I progress this, specifically how do I get non RS bellingcat references removed? (sorry I am new to this). I think it needs resolving as bellingcat seems to be popping up all over the place and there will be others. Dbdb (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

One other point, what about comments on say a BBC page? The BBC, definitely RS, have chosen to publish those comments, which could be the weirdest conspiracy theory. I wouldn't want that theory to then appear in wikipedia as RS, even if the BBC is mentioned. Dbdb (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment sections are never RS. Mnnlaxer (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Last point I see there are a few very vigorous and knowledgeable (about bellingcat) defenders of bellingcat. That only confirms me in my view that it is not RS. If we give weigth to that any number of extreme websites may become RS, some not on the same extreme as bellingcat Dbdb (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC).

• Reliability is contextual, but generally not a reliable source, certainly not for any remotely controversial statements of fact. Per WP:V, reliables sources are "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Likewise, the WP:RS entry for news outlets (the only alternative I can see to qualifying it as a self-published source, which is definitely not reliable) states that only "well-established news outlets" are reliable; it's simply not well-established enough to be citable as a source on its own. Compounding this, more extreme claims require higher-quality sources (and the most extreme claims require multiple mainstream high-quality reliable sources); from what I gather, the claims people are trying to cite to it would be fairly extreme. As others have said, though, when something from it is picked up by a more reliable source and reported on there, we can use that. --Aquillion (talk) 05:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Not a reliable source, at least not per se and not even when cited by reliable sources. For general criticism, see the section for criticism here and note that it applies to bellingcat, not Eliott Higgins in person. The criticism has been criticised itself, but on formal reasons, not for content. Follow the link here, and you get a detailed analysis of a contribution of bellingcat. This, combined with an interview with an expert - in English, led to the news magazine Der Spiegel retracting the claim of bellingcat and apologising for violating journalistic standards. Sorry, some of it is in German. The salient point being that they would have needed to check more sources than just bellingcat. This is a case of a reliable source, the Spiegel qualifies, citing bellingcat and finding out to be wrong. -- Zz (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a reason why that crap was removed from the Eliot Higgins article. It was BLP-violating POV pushing. And every source gets critized and disagreed with. As for the Der Spiegel what they are doing is not "retracting bellingcat" but rather amending some of their language - roughly they say "instead of saying that Bellingcat "proved beyond a doubt" we should've said that Bellingcat's report strongly suggests..." (paraphrase). It's not nearly as damning... or damning at all actually, as you are trying to make it out to be. And they are apologizing for their OWN owrding, Der Spiegel's, not Bellingcat's. Nice try though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You've got that wrong. Der Spiegel has featured a scathing review - by an expert - of Bellingcat's so called analysis. Its headline was "Bellingcat reads tea leaves". Not sure how you could miss this. The link has been provided already. And then the Spiegel apologised for their own violation of journalistic standards which was to presuppose Bellingcat's analysis had been the truth. Some other newspapers - such as the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung - followed suit. -- Zz (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• "...the data and the reasoning are out in the open for everyone to see..." but not to understand. Majority of the work is geo-location from satellite images, or XFIF data from photographs to show photoshopping etc. These are not easily checkable by the average reader. Several other blogs HAVE gone into bellingcat's work in detail, and determined it to be inaccurate or mistaken in the results. Some of these were written by people with verifiable expertise in digital imaging, which Higgins lacks. I have seen bellingcat quoted on numerous news sites, invariably when it confirms their narrative. It is not reliable evidence, but opinion based on highly technical calculations most people cannot verify. Not RS at all.KoolerStill (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That is an interesting theory of what it means to be verifiable, but is difficult to square with scientific or mathematical sources, which are also possible to verify while being difficult to do so. Rhoark (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I cannot personally check and verify calculations in nuclear physics. But I'd think more than twice before accepting the figures of an author who has been repeatedly shown to be wrong/misleading/fraudulent by people who do have the qualifications to do so. Would you consider The Onion a reliable source? A site claiming to prove Cold Fusion? KoolerStill (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's just a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's WP:V policy, mixed in with some WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable, but must be used with care. Bellingcat, as described here, is an investigative journalism resource. That kind of research is never "the truth", and it is frequently unreliable. That does not make unreliable the source per WP:V. My very best wishes (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Not reliable. Bellingcat has been accused of being biased and was several times heavily criticized by experts. If his stories have been picked up by the main stream press, his reports may be mentioned but not used as sources that actually "prove" something. --Maturion (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Not a reliable source unless well cited by secondary RS. As already noted by other editors, Bellingcat is WP:SELFPUBLISHED and relies on 'sightings' (et al) by the general public. The only circumstances under which it can meet RS is where multiple sources have cited its opinions and findings. Even there, if its findings are being widely reported, any reports need to be proscribed by WP:INTEXT attribution. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Not a reliable source unless well cited by secondary RS, and attributed by us if attributed by the secondary RS, which in most cases would make its use questionable or redundant.Pincrete (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Reliable with attribution: Reliability is always in context. The fact that its analysis has been widely cited by mainstream sources is a good indicator of its reliability. Because of the difficulty in obtaining access to, say, conflict zones in Ukraine, media often simply report the claims of various sides. This kind of digging is essential to journalism. However, it must be used with care, always keeping in mind context. Especially controversial claims should not be solely sourced to it. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

What is different about media simply reporting the claims of Bellingcat? And almost all of Bellingcat's claims are controversial. Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

That is a good point, and I don't have a good answer. Perhaps this form of journalism is too new and radical to be included on WP just now. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Skagway, Alaska

Regarding your history section of the history of Scagway, Alaska, my father and I are primary sources, living direct descendants of William Moore whom this site notes as the sea captain and host to miners and travelers in the area. Currently, there stands the Moore Family Cabin that served miners while they searched for their treasure. The issue with your written piece is that William Moore's son is "Ben;" this is in error, as his son's name was William Hunter Moore, my grandfather (not Ben). We request a change and update to further add credibility to your information. IMG_3007.JPG I've attached a copy of s genealogy chart for further reference, but you may contact Jon Arthur Moore, William's son, if you need further evidence of originality. 1 (775) 622-2631 Thank you. Cheryl Moore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.249.221 (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2015‎ (UTC)

American Mercury et al

At the article Leo Frank several editors are pushing questionable sources (see Talk:Leo Frank#Reliable secondary sources arguing Frank's guilt). This is the list provided:

1. Mary Phagan Kean The Murder of Little Mary Phagan, 1989.

2. Bradford L. Huie (Leo Frank Trial Analysis Introduction, Leo Frank Trial Week One, Leo Frank Trial Week Two, Leo Frank Trial Week Three, Leo Frank Trial Week Four, Closing Arguments of Frank Arthur Hooper, Luther Zeigler Rosser, and Reuben Rose Arnold, Arguments of Prosecutor Hugh M. Dorsey, One Hundred Reasons Leo Frank is Guilty)

3. Elliot Dashfield (Leonard Dinnerstein's Book "The Leo Frank Case", A Pseudo-History)

4. Mark Cohen (Who Really Solved the Leo Frank Case? and Did Leo Frank Confess?)

5. Scott Aaron (Atlanta, Southern Jewry and Leo Frank)

6. Jasper Dorsey (Marietta Daily Journal, Friday January 20, 1984 "If Trial Were Today, Frank Would Still Be Found Guilty").

7. Tom Watson Brown Notes on the Case of Leo Frank and its Aftermath Emory University, Georgia.

− Numbers 2, 3, and 4 are from the website for The American Mercury. At American Mercury#Revival this is identified as an antisemitic site with sourcing to the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League. These designations notwithstanding, the three authors listed have no apparent academic credentials and are likely pseudonyms. Number 5 is from a site operated by Kevin Strom who the SPLC identifies as " a bookish neo-Nazi with a fondness for child pornography". Numbers 1, 6, and 7 are written by non-academics who are blood relations of principles in the original Frank case. Of the three, Kean's is the closest to a legitimate source and is probably reliable for most factual matters, but her work has not been reviewed by any academic journals that I could find on JSTOR.

Comments from others on these sources would be welcome. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Fact checking, critical thinking, commonsense, reason and logic are the primary apertures that we apply when determining verifiability, accuracy, veracity, and objectivity.The American Mercury is a reliable source. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

How do you judge that the American Mercury is a reliable source? It also appears to be self published but it is not clear from their website who actually runs the site today. We also have no idea what credentials the authors of the articles (Huie, Cohen, and Dashfield) are? The person wanting to use this as a source should be able to address these questions. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

From H.L. Mencken to Karl Hess, from William Bradford Huie to Harold Lord Varney, we stand for a tradition that we believe exemplifies what is best in American journalism. When I contacted the American Mercury staff they also told me Rita Potter who just recently passed away at 98 was one of the central figures in revitalizing the magazine. She had played a significant role in the magazine back in its hey-day. If a magazine requires scrutiny by editors (in the example of Leo Frank case articles for accuracy and scholarship), it's obviously not a self-published magazine like some online blogs where anyone and their mother's uncle can publish whatever they please. It appears the articles about the Mary Phagan / Leo Frank case had to go through a rigorous process in order to be published on the site, because they are based on scholarly research, analyzing and contextualizing primary and secondary sources. I went ahead and fact checked the Frank articles by looking at the official legal records from the Georgia Supreme Court and contemporary newspaper articles reporting on the case from Atlanta. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I readily acknowledge that you claim these sources are great reads. What you're obligated to establish that anybody in the scholarly community consider them reliable. You really think your opinion that Mark Cohen writes good reviews on Amazon qualifies him to be treated as a reliable source for wikipedia? As far as the antisemitic nature of the sites, this [36] from the SPLC and this [37] from "Forward" make the case. You have been asked repeatedly to establish the reliability of these sites, but you can't tell us who controls the websites or what credentials the authors have. You are the one wh0 has the Burden of establishing the legitimacy of these sources. I've told you why I don't believe they are reliable -- you only response has been to blow smoke by attacking me. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Tom-No, Many modern books and articles about the Leo Frank case written after 1990 cite Mary Phagan Kean in their bibliography / references section. CNN interviews Mary Phagan Kean. The documentary People v. Leo Frank interviews Mary Phagan Kean. Numerous articles about Leo Frank case written after 2000 interview or cite Mary Phagan Kean.

Augusta Chronicle-Herald, May 15, 1983, statement by Justice Randall Evans Jr.:

"The suggestion that a governor or Board of Pardons and Paroles may pardon a deceased person is completely ridiculous. The Constitution of Georgia provides that 'the legislative, judicial, and executive powers shall forever remain separate and distinct.' The executive department has no power whatever to reverse, change, or wipe out a decision by the courts, albeit while the prisoner is in life he may be pardoned. But a deceased party can not be a party to legal proceedings (Eubank v. Barber, 115 Ga. App. 217-18). If Leo Frank were still in life, he could apply for pardon, but after death neither he nor any other person may apply for him. As the Supreme Court of Georgia held in Grubb v. Bullock, Governor, 44 Ga. 379: 'It (pardon) must be granted the principal upon his application, or be evidenced by ratification of the application by his acceptance of it (the pardon).' Leo Frank's case was finally terminated absolutely against him by the Supreme Court of Georgia on June 6, 1914.

He lived thereafter until August 16, 1915, and never did apply for pardon. It is too late now for any consideration to be given a pardon for Leo Frank. Pardon can only be granted to a person in life, not to a dead person. To illustrate the folly of such proceedings, could someone at this late date apply for a divorce on behalf of Leo Frank? The blood of a little girl cries out from the ground for justice. I pray the sun will never rise to shine upon that day in Georgia when we shall have so blinded ourselves to the records, to the evidence, to the judgments of the court, and the judgment of the people, as to rub out, change, and reverse the judgment of the courts that has stood for seventy years! God forbid!"

Obviously there are many prominent people who support the guilt of Leo Frank, the consensus of researchers is that Leo Frank's guilt or innocence is divided. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

leofrank.info looks self-published. I see no reason the other sources ought not to be considered reliable. Looking at the talk page, it looks like both sides of this argument have gone astray in trying to argue their sources are the right ones, instead of collaborating on wording that reflects the full range of views in reliable publications. Rhoark (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The articles appearing on The American Mercury are not self published. They are submitted by various authors for publication, and are subject to approval by The American Mercury before they are granted publication. The American Mercury exercises editorial control of the material it allows to be published, and openly states that published materials which are parodies or fiction are clearly marked as such. As per their stated policy on The American Mercury "About" page, as far as content is concerned:

"We actively seek out new writers and editors of excellence who believe in free thought and free communities. The new American Mercury was created in 2010 by a group of volunteer writers and editors, among whom are some who collectively worked with the contributors and management of the print Mercury for over 40 years."

"From H.L. Mencken to Karl Hess, from William Bradford Huie to Harold Lord Varney, we stand for a tradition that we believe exemplifies what is best in American journalism."

Accordingly, I say The American Mercury should certainly be considered a reliable source. 68.10.143.69 (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

(Restoring deleted quote from source. Why was it removed?) 68.10.143.69 (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You say authors "are subject to approval by The American Mercury." So who are the people who run American Mercury? What are their qualifications? If they self describe themselves as "a group of volunteer writers and editors", then this appears to clearly meet the description of self published. And who are these "new writers and editors of excellence" who wrote these specific articles? What are their qualifications? It's strange how many single issue IPs and first time editors comment on this issue. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Tom (North Shoreman), please review WP:SOURCES. You have created a personal benchmark by which you define what is and isn't a 'legitimate source'. There are no requirements that every single source must be from a peer reviewed publication written by an academic. There are no requirements that a source can not be written by a 'blood relations of principles'. I would think books written by contemporary eyewitnesses would hold some value and can't be discarded just because they lack a post graduate degree. You wrote above regarding one of the sources "her work has not been reviewed by any academic journals that I could find on JSTOR". That is not a requirement but again you have created your own benchmark, which you are using to limit sources. Please remember that WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL should be maintained. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You say, "I would think books written by contemporary eyewitnesses would hold some value and can't be discarded just because they lack a post graduate degree." In fact, neither Watson or Kean were even alive when the events occurred so your comment is irrelevant. As far as my "personal benchmark", you are also well off the mark. As WP:Scholarship makes clear, "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." As I've said, I can't find where anyone in the "scholarly community" has vetted or reviewed Kean's work. Besides, as WP:BURDEN indicates, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". So in this case, I am asking for you folks to provide evidence that any of these sources are reliable. For most of the sources in question it is not a matter of the "lack of a post graduate degree" as you misstate my position, but the lack of any evidence that authors such as Huie, Cohen, and Dashfield have any qualifications, have written anyplace other than the website in question, or are anything other than pseudonyms. Blow all the smoke you want, but these are questions that have been asked repeatedly with no answers. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Tom (North Shoreman), the WP:Scholarship section frequently uses the phrase 'articles about scholarly issues'. Would a biography be considered an example of an article about a scholarly issue, or would an article about mitosis (for example) be the focus of the Scholarship section. In any case even there it says that for articles about scholarship issues it's fine to use non-academic references (5th sentence of 1st paragraph). My comment about Watson and Kean are relevant, since you don't like either because of 'blood relations of principles'. Can you point to some guideline that supports your view that such relations disqualifies a source? Going by the list found at WP:SOURCES, which shows exactly the types of non-academic sources that are welcomed, it's evident that the 3 sources below each demonstrate verifiability.

(1) Kean, Mary Phagan (Georgia Almanac, curated by U of Georgia states that this source is important as it 'gives a unique family perspective on the case' and uses this book as a reference. [[38]] Published by New Horizon Press, a reputable, award winning 20+ year old publishing company).

(6) Dorsey, Jaspar (Jasper Dorsey, Marietta Daily Journal columnist. MDJ has been Cobb County print newspaper since 1866 with center-right leaning).[[39]]

(7) Watson Brown, Tom (Tom Watson Brown, Harvard and Princeton Educated great grandson of Watson, the Georgia congressman/senator/newspaper publisher anti-Semite who repeatedly called for and participated in the lynching of Frank. Self made billionaire philanthropist behind Mercer University Press, one of the most prolific academic publishers in the nation. Publisher: Emory University. [[40]]) Cheers! Meishern (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we please add number eight to the list = 8. Augusta Chronicle-Herald, May 15, 1983, statement by Justice Randall Evans Jr. (see The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean pp. 297-290). Also Concerning Scott Aaron http://www.leofrank.info a website absolutely arguing against racism, bigotry, prejudice, anti-Gentilism and anti-Semitism, if Kevin Alfred Strom is supposedly being accused of being behind the site, doesn't that mean the site isn't self-published. Scott Aaron is not Kevin Alfred Strom. So that would not make it self-published. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Alfred Strom is identified here as a man whom "the SPLC identifies as 'a bookish neo-Nazi with a fondness for child pornography". Has anyone here ever bothered to read "Kevin Alfred Strom’s Address to the Court" where, among other things, it is revealed that his estranged and relentlessly vindictive wife was responsible for planting child porn on his computer AFTER he was driven out of their home and thereby lost control of it? Have they considered at all that after this revelation, the judge handling the case ORDERED that Kevin Strom's name was NOT to be identified as, or placed on a list of sexual offenders? This accusation made by the SPLC, and repeated here by North Shoreman is a clear defamation and libel of Kevin Strom.

Defamation of anyone on Wikipedia is not tolerated, and according to WP:LIBEL, "It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified." I have previously tried to remove this libel per Wikipedia policy, and was subsequently BLOCKED for doing so.

It is clear that Mr. Strom is being targeted here because of his educated views on Leo Frank, the convicted murderer of a young girl. So are these kinds of dirty tricks (libel; defamation) ok with you guys? I say the offending text should be removed per Wikipedia policy. What say others on this? 68.10.143.69 (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Tom Northshoreman -- on the Leo Frank talk page at the new section (late-June/ early-July 2015) "Let's archive most of this page please" -- just used an ugly personal attack calling me the homo-erotic slang "Your Boy" to indicate that "I'm a prepubescent gay child in a homosexual relationship with an older man". Where I come from when you call someone "Your Boy" it means you are the bottom (the sexually receiving female role in homosexual language and relationships) and the the person you are the "Your" of (in this case Meishern) is the homosexual daddy the sexual giver (or sexually giving male role in homosexual language and relationships). So because someone or anyone disagrees with Tom Northshoreman's wildly-over-the-top POV warrior activism, they are now (late June 2015) accused of being a homosexual teenager in a statutory rape relationship with an adult man. No personal attacks is an escutcheon of wikipedia. This is more proof Tom-No has NO legitimate argument. Instead of using logic, common sense, and appeals to reason when fact checking the listed items below, Tom Northshoreman is making ugly adhominem attacks. This is how low, the "dirty tricks" as you say, are becoming. What I need from you IP is for you to hunt for reliable sources that suggest Leo Frank was guilty, since that is what this topic is all about here. Tom-No is arguing that the sources sustaining Leo Frank's verdict of guilt are not reliable. I am arguing that theses sources are in fact reliable.

1. Mary Phagan Kean The Murder of Little Mary Phagan, 1989.

2. Bradford L. Huie (Leo Frank Trial Analysis Introduction, Leo Frank Trial Week One, Leo Frank Trial Week Two, Leo Frank Trial Week Three, Leo Frank Trial Week Four, Closing Arguments of Frank Arthur Hooper, Luther Zeigler Rosser, and Reuben Rose Arnold, Arguments of Prosecutor Hugh M. Dorsey, One Hundred Reasons Leo Frank is Guilty) American Mercury

3. Elliot Dashfield (Leonard Dinnerstein's Book "The Leo Frank Case", A Pseudo-History) American Mercury

4. Mark Cohen (Who Really Solved the Leo Frank Case? and Did Leo Frank Confess?) American Mercury

5. Scott Aaron (Atlanta, Southern Jewry and Leo Frank)

6. Jasper Dorsey (Marietta Daily Journal, Friday January 20, 1984 "If Trial Were Today, Frank Would Still Be Found Guilty"). Quote "The evidence there also shows Frank's religion had nothing to do with his conviction. He would have been convicted had he been a Presbyterian minister. He would also be convicted today."

7. Tom Watson Brown Notes on the Case of Leo Frank and its Aftermath Emory University, Georgia.

8. Augusta Chronicle-Herald, May 15, 1983, statement by Justice Randall Evans Jr. (see The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean pp. 297-290)

9. The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles ruled there was no sufficient evidence to prove Leo Frank was innocent, 1982-1986.

Although Leo Frank was not officially absolved of Mary Phagan's murder, the consensus is divided as to Leo Frank's guilt or innocence. Alas, right now the lede is stating that the consensus is that researchers believe Frank to be innocent (which is wrong). GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

2-5 unreliable; 1, 6-9 reliable The contemporary reincarnation of The American Mercury is indeed anti-Semitic and unreliable, and leofrank.info is self-published. However, Phagan-Kean's book, while not of the caliber of authors like Oney and Dinnerstein, is nonetheless a reliable source. The Marietta Daily Journal is also a reliable source, as is the primary source from Brown, the Augusta Chronicle-Herald, and the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles' decision. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments about The American Mercury. I see it's used twice at J. Peters. Doug Weller (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The American Mercury is not indeed anti-Semitic or unreliable. I am listing items 2, 3, 4. Please read them and give me specific examples or sentences of these articles promoting anti-Semitism or Neo-Nazism as the Antigentile activists groups ADL / SPLC claim. Here are the items.

2. Bradford L. Huie (Leo Frank Trial Analysis Introduction, Leo Frank Trial Week One, Leo Frank Trial Week Two, Leo Frank Trial Week Three, Leo Frank Trial Week Four, Closing Arguments of Frank Arthur Hooper, Luther Zeigler Rosser, and Reuben Rose Arnold, Arguments of Prosecutor Hugh M. Dorsey, One Hundred Reasons Leo Frank is Guilty)

3. Elliot Dashfield (Leonard Dinnerstein's Book "The Leo Frank Case", A Pseudo-History)

4. Mark Cohen (Who Really Solved the Leo Frank Case? and Did Leo Frank Confess?)

Please give specific examples in these items 2, 3, 4 that promote hitler, national socialism, and racist/religious-bigotry Antisemitic conspiracies. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That would be original research, not our role. I'll quote from our article though, which has sources: "The "new" American Mercury was criticized by the Southern Poverty Law Center in the Winter 2013 edition of their magazine Intelligence Report, which called it a "Leo Frank Propaganda Site" and described it as "a resurrected and deeply anti-Semitic online version of H. L. Mencken’s defunct magazine of the same name". The Anti-Defamation League calls it "an extreme right-wing site with anti-Semitic content", while The Jewish Daily Forward refers to it as "H.L. Mencken’s historic magazine, resurrected online by neo-Nazis several years ago", which "has published several revisionist articles to coincide with this year’s anniversary". All three mentioned its role in publishing "revisionist" material relating to the lynching of Leo Frank. Doug Weller (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You might want to brush up on what revisionism means, because you obviously do not know what it means. Revisionism in this sense usually means going against what was established as fact and in this case the U.S. appellate courts found that Leo Frank had a fair trial and therefore they did not alter his verdict of guilt. Authors who support the legal system's decision on Leo Frank's established guilt, are not the revisionists. The revisionists are the ones who are coming along and making up all sorts of lies, like Leonard Dinnerstein. An academic activist and fraudster who fabricated (academic misconduct) the anti-Semitic hoax about people chanting "hang the Jew" at the trial jury during open court. The ADL / SPLC / Forward do not have the power to determine that something is anti-Semitic because they don't like the conclusions some scholarly articles make. The remaining items still in question (American Mercury scholarly articles) actually argue against anti-Semitism being behind Frank's indictment and conviction. None of the American Mercury articles about the Leo Frank case itemized above say anything anti-Semitic, I still haven't heard from anyone a specific example of what is anti-Semitic in those articles. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

He also needs to brush up on the meaning of Wikipedia:NOR, as it applies only to article content, and has nothing to do with discussion pages like this. Not only that, he employs a circular reference by using the content of a Wikipedia article to disqualify your reliable sources, when Wikipedia policy itself clearly states that Wikipedia articles are not reliable.

In any event, making any reference to the ADL and the SPLC in an attempt to disprove reliability of a source is merely an "appeal to authority", which in itself is a logical fallacy. The ADL and the SPLC both have their own rigid agendas, which are clearly exclusive of common sense, logic and reason, not to mention fact-checking and accuracy, and cannot, therefore, be used as a source of evidence to prove any fact in this dispute. Both use innuendo, ad hominem and outright dishonesty to push their agendas, and are very often wrong in their spurious claims.

Thus the reliance upon the word of these supposed authorities entails the assumption that these sources are infallible, or never wrong. This assumption is patently false. 68.10.143.69 (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Quote from the Leo Frank talk page:

Using "Antisemitism" As a Smear Word

"Antisemitism", or any of its derivatives, when used in the context of a smear word, is an ad hominem solely intended to squelch any and all criticism of the behavior of any jew or jews. It matters not how despicable the behavior criticised or complained of may actually be, or how much the behavior actually deserves criticism, the only fact that matters, according to the person using this smear word, is that the criticism of the critic is directed toward a jew or jews. It is a kind of a weasel word; a non sequitur whose sole purpose is to plant the idea in the mind of the reader that they should disregard the substance of the criticism, no matter how valid, and brand the critic as some kind of mindless, drooling, blood thirsty bigot who wants to kill six million jews, all in order to render any jew or organization of jews immune to criticism.

For example, see the following YouTube video: [redacted, copyvio link]"It's a Trick, We Always Use It (calling people anti-Semitic)"]

It is the ADL's bread and butter, and it is being used on the talk page of this very article as yet another tool the pro-Frank editors use here to push their POV agenda.

Any person using this word in this context is really no different than Luther Rosser, calling Jim Conley "a dirty, filthy, lying nigger".

End quote. This is exactly what is going on here, where bare accusations from two organizations which many critics have called "jewish supremacist hate groups" are being invoked in an attempt to smear and disqualify certain reliable sources simply because those sources provide complete, detailed, and accurate information on the case of Leo Frank. Such irony is astounding. 68.10.143.69 (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The ADL / SPLC or Forward for that matter, shouldn't have the power to determine history, or what is reliable and not reliable on Wikipedia. All these member groups of the anti-Semitism lobby have to do then, is say that anything not agreeing with their position is "anti-Semitic" and "neo-Nazi", with the result it gets excluded from Wikipedia. That's absurd that Jewish activist groups or members of the anti-Semitism Lobby would have the power to decide what is reliable or not. Who gave them the power to determine what is reliable or not on Wikipedia? Who gave them the power to determine what is allowed to be used as a source on Wikipedia or not? There are many scores and dozens of secondary sources out there now writing negative things about the ADL / SPLC, exposing them for being frauds. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This section looks like chaos. It doesn't follow the banners at the top of this page, almost all the comments are by editors from the article, and so far no one has shown that any of the sources are reliable according Wikipedia policy WP:SOURCE. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Are you losing the debate?

Shout "ANTISEMITISM!"

To silence your opposition, which ends the debate, allowing you to claim victory, even if you're wrong.

(Not "A Public Service Message From The ADL and SPLC", but may as well be.) 68.10.143.69 (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

So basically if anyone deemed reliable (like some members and groups of the anti-Semitism lobby like adl and splc for instance) and labels something "anti-Semitic" or "neo-Nazi", the item in question is automatically invalidated, made "unreliable", thus can no longer be used for the writing of history at Wikipedia. Did I get that correctly? or Weasel word next? So Therefore Wikipedia's content (according to some editors here) is based on not having any sources, references or citations labelled these red herrings (anti-Semitism and neo-Nazi). So if the ADL or SPLC or Forward decides to label something anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi, the item becomes "unreliable" here and can no longer be used on Wikipedia. That's not globewide level academic scholarship, that's history being defined by those who can smear, defame and slander someone with redherring terms (anti-Scholarship). Seems pretty twisted logic about how Wikipedia should evolve its living knowledge base! Some groups get to "invalidate" authors, newspapers, magazines, media etc.. not based on logic, reason, and common sense, but because its perceived as being against someone else's ideology and politics. Those items on the American Mercury about the Leo Frank Case should be judged by their lexicon, scholarly substance, accuracy, logic and appeals to commonsense, as they do. I'm still waiting for examples of a sentence from these articles listed above about the Frank case at the American Mercury that are anti-Semitic.

2. Bradford L. Huie (Leo Frank Trial Analysis Introduction, Leo Frank Trial Week One, Leo Frank Trial Week Two, Leo Frank Trial Week Three, Leo Frank Trial Week Four, Closing Arguments of Frank Arthur Hooper, Luther Zeigler Rosser, and Reuben Rose Arnold, Arguments of Prosecutor Hugh M. Dorsey, One Hundred Reasons Leo Frank is Guilty) American Mercury 3. Elliot Dashfield (Leonard Dinnerstein's Book "The Leo Frank Case", A Pseudo-History) American Mercury 4. Mark Cohen (Who Really Solved the Leo Frank Case? and Did Leo Frank Confess?) American Mercury. If anything these are more scholarly than most of the articles written about the Frank case. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I doubt that you would agree that a sentence was anti-Semitic, and I've already commented on your request above. I will point out that we have no idea who "Bradford L. Huie" actually is, so we have an anonymous writer on a website. Nope, not an RS. And Mark Cohen's article "Who Really Solved the Leo Frank Case?" also published in the racist National Vanguard.[41]. Absolutely not reliable sources. Doug Weller (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2015‎

GBH was blocked, and hopefully this is over. However, for those wondering about his use of the term "anti-Gentilism", see [42] and [43]. Doug Weller (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I find it interesting, in an extremely ironic way, that a number of editors here have little, if anything, to say about the sources in question as regards their suitability according to applicable Wikipedia policy and guidelines in terms of fact-checking, accuracy, editorial control, etc., but oppose their reliability either primarily, or solely upon grounds of whether or not said sources can be opportunistically vilified by other questionable sources merely for expressing an allegedly unacceptable, but even as of yet unproven, bias, or particular point of view. But for the sake of clear policy, let's assume they ARE biased. So what?

According to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, as to biased or opinionated sources:

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking.

According to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, as to bias in sources:

A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view.

Attributing and specifying biased statements

Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited.

Another approach is to specify or substantiate the statement, by giving those details that actually are factual. For example: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." People may still argue over whether he was the best baseball player. But they will not argue over this.

According to Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources, as to non-neutral sources:

One of the perennial issues that arises during editor disputes is how the neutral point of view policy interacts with the reliable sources guideline. Arguments often arise which contend that a given source ought to be excluded as unreliable because the source has an identifiable point of view. These arguments cross a wide variety of topics and stem from a common misunderstanding about how NPOV interacts with RS. The neutral point of view policy applies to Wikipedia articles as a whole: articles should reflect an appropriate balance of differing points of view. The reliable sources guideline refers to a source's overall reputation for fact-checking and reliability--not the source's neutrality. Reliable sources may be non-neutral: a source's reputation for fact-checking is not inherently dependent upon its point of view.

A frequent example that arises in this type of discussion is The New York Times, which is the leading newspaper of record in the United States yet which is sometimes said to reflect a left-wing point of view. If that presents a problem within article space, the problem is not reliability. The appropriate Wikipedian solution is to include The New York Times and also to add other reliable sources that represent a different point of view. The Wall Street Journal and National Review are reliable sources that present right wing points of view. Left-leaning The Village Voice might also be cited. The appropriate balance can be determined from the undue weight clause of the neutrality policy. Overall, good Wikipedian contribution renders articles objective and neutral by presenting an appropriate balance of reliable opinions.

It requires less research to argue against one reliable source than to locate alternate reliable sources, which may be why neutrality/reliability conflation is a perennial problem.

This phenomenon is global rather than national. For instance, with regard to Middle East politics the Jerusalem Post presents a view of events that is distinct from Al Jazeera. Generally speaking, both sources are reliable. When these two sources differ, Wikipedian purposes are best served by clearly stating what each source reported without attempting to editorialize which of the conflicting presentations is intrinsically right.

So, do we have any real evidence here that the sources in question fail in terms of fact-checking, accuracy, editorial control, etc., or are we to base this decision only upon disparaging invectives? 68.10.143.69 (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

One further thought on this - The Wikipedia policy cited above specifically mentions Al Jazeera as a reliable source. Now, what do the ADL and SLPC have to say about this particular source? Do they allege or maintain that this source is also "antisemitic"? If so, then the point is made. 68.10.143.69 (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest people don't waste their time engaging with 68.10.143.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which has been blocked as a sock of GingerBreadHarlot. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GingerBreadHarlot. If new IPs should appear here with recognizably the same agenda, they may reasonably be viewed with suspicion too. Bishonen | talk 09:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC).

And I would suggest that people don't waste their time engaging with editors like Bishonen and others here who are so quick to block, and then make false accusations of sock-puppetry and other abuses against distinctly separate Wikipedia editors who are obviously only trying to improve Wikipedia with good faith edits, simply because she and her friends don't want the truth about Leo Frank to appear in Wikipedia. "Dirty tricks" indeed.

Quote from Doug Weller's second link above (09:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)): "The Evil Scourge of Zionist Hate: Anti-Gentilism"

"You can, perhaps, silence a particular representative of Truth. You can marginalize and slander a particular source of Truth ...but you cannot silence Truth itself. It can't be done. The force for Truth is greater than all the armies arrayed before it. The power to oppose Truth comes from the same single source as the power to express it. That source can affect either in any way it chooses at any time. They have the 'appearance of power' but those who legitimately represent the Truth are in possession of real power and not just the appearance of it. Should they eliminate any particular individual expression, that act will exponentially amplify the words and actions of the one so eliminated; keeping in mind that they were not eliminated so much as promoted to a higher plane of existence." 64.254.111.109 (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The Diplomat

Greetings all! I was wondering if we could assess the validity of The Diplomat magazine. Specifically, in regards to Park Yeon-mi. There are two sources used from The Diplomat that question Yeon-Mi's statements about her stories. No issue there. But reading the articles, they are seriously lacking integrity in my opinion. As such I believe there is an issue with WP:QUESTIONABLE.

• http://thediplomat.com/2014/12/the-strange-tale-of-yeonmi-park/
• http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/north-korea-defectors-and-their-skeptics/

Both articles have updates at the bottom of the page in which they basically rescind all the claims they make. These updates also show that the magazine did not do very much research or investigating before publishing these articles. They also apparently did not seek a response from Yeon-Mi until after releasing one of the articles. Below

"Update: A Response from Yeonmi Park: I want to thank Mary Ann Jolley for caring so much about the terrible situation in North Korea that she would point out any inconsistencies in my quotes and how my story has been reported. Much of the time, there was miscommunication because of a language barrier. I have only learned English in the last year or so, and I’m trying hard to improve every day to be a better advocate for my people. I apologize for any misunderstandings. For example, I never said that I saw executions in Hyesan. My friends’ mother was executed in a small city in central North Korea where my mother still has relatives (which is why I don’t want to name it). And there are mountains you can even see on Google Earth – maybe you call them big hills in English – outside of Hyesan that we crossed to escape. There are many more examples like this.

But one very important thing to correct: I do not have a foundation. The website was a dummy site built by a friend, and it was not supposed to be live. There was no way it could accept money, and I haven’t taken any. I am so sorry for the confusion. The site has been taken down.

Also, I apologize that there have been times when my childhood memories were not perfect, like how long my father was sentenced to prison. Now I am checking with my mom and others to correct everything. I am also writing a book about my life in North Korea, my escape through China and and my work to promote human rights. It is where I will be able to tell my full story.

In the meantime, I thank you all for your patience and kindness to me."

"*Update: It appears the newspaper misquoted Park. What she actually said was: “Every morning and every … like … some riverside like this [gesturing out the window] you can see the dead bodies floating, and if you go out in the morning and just people dead there.” It should also be noted that the BBC did in fact film a body in the Tumen river on the Chinese side of the border in 2008."

This just doesnt seem like it meets the standards of a reliable source. Seems more like a blog. And while I understand reliable sources are very much allowed to have biases, in this instant, with a publication that does not follow journalistic behaviours, their bias is a bit more questionable. In conclusion I contend that these articles, and very like The Diplomat as a whole, does not check for facts and has no editorial oversight. DaltonCastle (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely inaccurate on this topic. Such examples can be found for any long-running publication, and has to be evaluated for whether it constitutes a pattern. Unfortunately, "The Diplomat" is hard to Google. The editoral board has quality bona fides, and its articles are regularly highlighted by the Council on Foreign Relations website.[44] I would consider it a reliable source in general, but not on the topic of Yeonmi Park. Rhoark (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. But what happens if there are similar articles by The Diplomat that are inaccurate like these? Do we have to resort to some discretionary rule that The Diplomat is reliable by default unless shown to be inaccurate? DaltonCastle (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

DaltonCastle: I was the one who added The Diplomat source to the article. I am sorry I don't understand your point. You state Park's response to the article in The Diplomat, which is already present on the Wikipedia page. Everyone has a right to reply, that doesn't mean that the original article was wrong. It was wrong in one respect, but the error was not by The Diplomat, but the newspaper to which Park gave the interview, who misquoted her. These kinds of errors happen all the time in news, indeed the fact that they are corrected is one of the signs of a WP:RS. Please see this: One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello there! I meant these corrections basically nullify several of the articles' claims. "Park has stated that the inconsistencies arise due to her imperfect English and mistranslations of her statements by journalists" is not notable, and should just be removed, as with the criticisms that were incorrectly made due to the language barrier. Why dont we just use those sources from SBS Dateline? DaltonCastle (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@DaltonCastle: I am not sure what corrections you mean, which nullify the article's claims. I see only one correction, namely the one after the "Update: " portion. That part is not mentioned in the wikipedia article. The rest is a response by Park, which does not have any higher validity than the original article. Just because someone responds doesn't automatically mean that what they are saying is right. Our aim on Wikipedia is to describe disputes not engage in them. If you wish, you can elaborate a bit on her response in the section. Kingsindian ♝♚ 04:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, for starters, Abt's claim in one article about Yeon-Mi's statements about bodies in rivers was inaccurate. Yeon-mi was misquote due to the language barrier, and in 2008 the BBC did, in fact, film a body in the Tumen river. The same goes with Michael Basset, who denied the river comment. Am I saying remove ANY criticism section? No, not at all. But these sources from the Diplomat are poor. DaltonCastle (talk) 06:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, on the second article, which is rather poor in quality and is written more like a blog post, basically all the inconsistencies arose from the language barrier. These two articles did not handle Yeon-Mi's case very well. DaltonCastle (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid that is not how it works. Just because Yeonmi states that all the inconsistencies arise from her language barrier does not mean that they actually do. WP:NPOV deems that we present the criticisms, and we present Yeonmi's response, both of which are present in the section. We do not take a position on the debate, we simply describe it. As to the second article, it is written by Mary Ann Jolley, who interviewed Yeonmi on SBS Dateline herself. So when you say that we should cite SBS Dateline, we are actually doing it. Furthermore, there are other sources, like the Japan Times source, also cited in the article, that other defectors question some aspects of her story. Kingsindian ♝♚ 06:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

That still does not address the concerns of the page. The corrections are pretty big ones. Its not just "we got this one detail wrong". Its "we missed a lot and didnt do much research before publishing this article". DaltonCastle (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

These articles make blaring errors about Park and North Korea. For instance, they state her claims that bodies being in a river were absurd. But then later they go on to state they were in error since the BBC had in fact filmed bodies in the same river before. I think the number of factual errors made in these articles merits another look at them. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Since this page exists to get outside opinion of editors, I will not say much more on this. If you are unhappy with the section, I suggest opening an RfC on the topic. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

RT.com in CIA–al-Qaeda controversy

1. Source. http://rt.com/news/usa-egypt-muslim-military-233/
2. Article. CIA–al-Qaeda controversy
3. Content. "Allegations were made [by Don Debar in an interview with RT] that the United States and NATO have either unknowingly or knowingly been supporting al-Qaeda affiliates during the Libyan Civil War and the current Syrian civil war."

In an interview with RT, Don Debar of Community Progressive Radio in NYC stated: "Well, they [i.e. Washington] have no problem dealing with Al-Qaeda in Syria and Libya, and again, the folks who supposedly assassinated Anwar Sadat were connected in one way or another to the Muslim Brotherhood – that’s the official story from the United States, my suspicion is that it was the US military." My gut feeling is that a brief quip like this by a talking head on Fox News suggesting a conspiracy theory would not be permitted in Wikipedia, so I'm wondering how others feel this should be addressed. WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, and/or WP:FRINGE? - Location (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

RT in this case would be reliable for reporting the opinions of Don Debar. I'll leave it to editors more familiar with the matter as to whether this deserves weight within CIA–al-Qaeda controversy. The relation to other topics is almost certainly WP:ONEWAY. Rhoark (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Rhoark is correct. In this case RT can be relied upon to report Debar's remarks (especially since there is likely to be mutual sympathy and thus no motivation to misrepresent him). The question is whether Don Debar's views are noteworthy. That is a matter for the article talk page rather than this noticeboard. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

RT is problematic, if this is a noteworthy comment, then a more reliable source will have published it. Spumuq (talq) 14:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• It is reliable with an in-text attribution to Don Debar, according to WP:NEWSORG, WP:SOURCE and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and Spumuqs opinion does not count, as it is not based in our policy. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

How can Debar be a reliable source for the statement "the United States and NATO have either unknowingly or knowingly been supporting al-Qaeda affiliates during the Libyan Civil War and the current Syrian civil war" when the only reference to al-Qaeda in the article was his quip, "Well, they have no problem dealing with Al-Qaeda in Syria and Libya..."? And the article doesn't even reference NATO, or the CIA, for that matter. - Location (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I did not notice at first reading. However, the article is still reliable for reporting Don Debars opinion with an in-text attribution. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Saying it is reliable, because you want to use that POV, does not make it reliable, look at older discussions of RT on this noticeboard, other editors agree RT is not reliable, if you are so determined that Debar's words are important you can find a reliable source. Spumuq (talq) 16:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  If RT says the sun rises in the east then one should get up at 6 a.m. to verify. However, as stated by the OP this was an interview with RT so they would be the best source for this particular interview. Don Debar is quite sympathetic to Russia, so there's no reason to expect his words were misreported. Again, the real question is whether Don Debar's views are sufficiently relevant for inclusion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Spumuq, I don't want to use that POV, and I have never even heard of Don Debar, but that does not make the source unreliable. Nor does your repeated no votes. We base our advice on policies and guidelines around here. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Sources are supposed to be determined reliable or unreliable in context, and I have supplied the context of his quote and the context of how it appears to be used in the article. They don't seem to match, so I cannot see how the source is reliable for the content specified. - Location (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the Wikipedia article is misrepresenting RT/Debar. I missed that that was at issue. Debar says the US was "dealing with" al Qaeda, which seemed to me to mean in the sense of communicating or negotiating with them. I don't think it should be stretched to "supporting". Rhoark (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I missed that too. However, I noticed that this article was used as second source earlier, ref diff. I am not sure if Voltaire Network/Tehran Times is reliable or if the two sources fully supports the statement, but the removal of that source may be the reason for the misrepresentation. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

OK. Now things make much more sense. The insertion of both sources went in the same time here. That article does claim a US-al-Qaeda conspiracy but doesn't mention any CIA connection to make it relevant to the article. - Location (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC) edited 21:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• I think you have agreed that the source is reliable for the opinion of DeBar.
• Let's move the discussion on to relevance and noteworthiness, which I did at Talk:CIA–al-Qaeda controversy#Don DeBar comments about Libya and Syria

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Not reliable Unless I'm missing something, the source is a blurb and an interview from a second-rate news organization. The claim being made is WP:EXCEPTIONAL, as well as speculative (accusations, as oppose to confirmed facts). As an interview source, only the paragraph at the top that is in the voice of the reporter is reliable - the rest is basically the equivalent of an op-ed. However, even if the whole thing was in the voice of the reporter, it still wouldn't be anywhere in the ballpark of what we should look for, for something like this. CorporateM (Talk) 01:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• The RT.com part isn't the most relevant part of reliability here; let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that they're reliable for conveying someone's comments in an interview. But so what? Who the heck is Don DeBar? The whole CIA–al-Qaeda controversy#Allegations section is highly controversial, in fact WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Government shaking stuff. Now some of the sources there are strong enough to bear that burden, such as top level government officials from the UK and Saudi Arabia, OK. But some guy from a NYC radio station? No way is that enough for claims like this. --GRuban (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
• This is a typical Erlbaeko problem. No doubt the comments are, strictly speaking, verifiable, in the sense that we can find them in a source of some kind; but that's missing the point. Giving undue weight to WP:FRINGE opinions and watering down the mainstream view is a much bigger problem. Insistence on citing RT is a red flag for this - if an editor really wants to put text in an article whilst citing a Kremlin propaganda mouthpiece, we should consider whether that text poses a neutrality problem. bobrayner (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

If you had taken the time to read the discussion, you might have noticed that I said that I don't want to use it. In fact I have suggested to delete the whole section. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

IP editor using website to cite American-Serbian individuals

84.221.70.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is using the website http://robert.susnjer.com/Prominent-American-Serbians/Prominent-American-Serbians.html as a source to add the category Category:American people of Serbian descent to articles. The edit to John Miljan popped up on my watchlist, and checking the site, info about this person seems to come (mainly) from WP in the first place. I'm guessing this site isn't a WP:RS for biographies (or anything, for that matter), but want to confirm. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Not reliable These types of massive directories never have an acceptable level of fact-checking. CorporateM (Talk) 01:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• Not Reliable for BLP's. Like the above user stated, the website doesn't have much of a fact-checking system. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorting out sources for Buddy Murphy's training

Matter is now closed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Over on the BLP Noticeboard I am having to field insistence that two sources proving WWE developmental wrestler Buddy Murphy trained with either the PCW Academy or with Carlo Cannon should be accepted, when they are promotional for the wrestling promotions to attract new wrestlers. The PCW Academy claims; WWE Diva Emma (Tenille Dashwood), WWE Superstar Buddy Murphy (Matt Silva) and AAA's Australian Suicide (Ryan Rollins) first began their wrestling careers at the PCW Academy Note that only one real name is used in brackets - Emma's. It also claims above this; The PCW Academy located in Hallam, Victoria has produced many of Australia's finest wrestlers including Daniel Swagger, Slex, Mad Dog McCrea, Trikki D, Sinister, Mark Kage, Danny Psycho, The Enforcer, Anthony Dangerfield, Cletus Blood, Chris Knight, Mr. Big and many more! The promotional language is obvious. The MCW website claims; Carlo Cannon has trained extensively with numerous Australian wrestling talents who are now signed overseas - Ryan Rollins (now signed with AAA in Mexico) – Matt Silva (now under a developmental contract as ‘Buddy Murphy’ with WWE) – Tenille Tayla (currently performing on WWE NXT as Emma) Almost exactly the same claim as PCW and exactly the same wrestlers. The rest of the link is also promotional. In addition to this, they also attempt to claim the following podcast backs up the second claim. This claim is supposed to be at the 4:42 mark of the podcast, but there is no text back up. Further, the podcast is not run by recognised industry professionals who are independent. According to Josh Armour's Facebook he is nothing more than an announcer for one promotion. According to Todd Eastman's Twitter he is a manager of one particular wrestler, Chris Basso. Could these be reviewed by experienced editors in the context of BLP requirements and professional wrestling who can make a firm judgment on this so we can move forward and stop the argument on the BLP Noticeboard. Curse of Fenric (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC) PCW is not reliable for claims that PCW trained a famous wrestler, as it is a primary source. Facebook, Twitter, etc. cannot be considered. Text however is not strictly required and if the article-subject himself claims this is true in a podcast, I think it can be used with attribution. CorporateM (Talk) 01:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Can I check something here? I used the Facebook and Twitter links not to prove something for inclusion on Wikipedia. I know they aren't reliable. I was simply showing that the two that run the podcast aren't industry professionals, and I believe that places the podcast in a fan category as such. There are no guidelines for podcasts within the rules of RS which is why I'm trying to clarify this as to whether or not there is a rule concerning podcasts. Thank you for the firm thumbs down for the PCW source. Curse of Fenric (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Not industry professional by what standards? They are employed in the industry. That's the definition of industry professional. And Buddy Murphy stating a fact about himself is more reliable than the "I just know it's not true" and "IIRC that didn't happen" arguments you've made throughout the discussion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC) By wrestling standards. An industry professional is a person of long standing. These two are not. It's a fan podcast, not a professional podcast. Your quotes are therefore irrelevant and you are again behaving like a bully. I await confirmation from an admin in this section to my above observation. Curse of Fenric (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC) The issue is that this podcast features Murphy explicitly stating that he was trained by Carlo Cannon at 4:42. Curse of Fenric is attempting to argue that this is somehow invalid based on some spurious WP:OR claims about the podcast ownership, when in fact the podcast is an interview and the information is coming directly from the subject. As far as I'm concerned, if the podcast literally features Murphy stating this information without prompting then it can be considered legit, since the information is coming straight from the subject and not the podcast authors. As I mentioned in the BLP discussion, the only way this information could be considered unreliable would be if you're suggesting that the man being interviewed in the podcast is an imposter. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Or if the podcast is run by fans and not industry professionals. If I was to accept what you say you would be opening Pandora's Box re the reliability of podcasts. As I said to Gary, anything beyond that is either irrelevant or back up to the core issue. This is why I need an admin to confirm in black or white where podcasts stand. Curse of Fenric (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC) If Murphy is saying it then there's no way it could be unreliable. It literally is being confirmed by the subject himself. It does not get more reliable than that. Your concern would be relevant and worthy of discussion if the information was being provided second-hand by the podcast owners, but it isn't. The reliability policy exists to prevent the spread of misinformation, and there's no possible way that the information can be misinterpreted or misrepresented in this case. Once again, I'm not talking about using the podcast as a general source of information, I'm referring specifically to the exchange at 4:42 in which Murphy himself explicitly states that he was trained by Carlo Cannon. Unless you're suggesting that the voice on the podcast isn't the real Murphy (and I don't think there's any sensible way that you can suggest that) then it's totally inane to claim any doubt over the reliability of the information given that it literally comes straight from the subject's mouth. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC) So any fan can include a snippet or something from the subject to a podcast and it's automatically reliable? I have a podcast and I could do that myself and be reliable. That's Pandora's Box you're trying to open and it's not on. Curse of Fenric (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC) If you interviewed a professional wrestler for your podcast, and the wrestler made a benign statement like, "I like to eat chicken carbonara," I would take it at face value and assume that the wrestler in question likes to eat chicken carbonara. I don't see how this situation is any different--the information is equally trivial. Someone on one of the other boards said that BLP is to "protect the self-interest of the subjects of biographies, including how they may feel about particular information in their article" (which sounds like borderline censorship, but that's yet another tangent). I think that, if Buddy Murphy was worried that Wikipedia might report that he trained with Carlo Cannon, he would not have stated in an interview that he trained with Carlo Cannon. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC) He could have to a couple of fans, and equally he could have been playing kayfabe and put over Carlo just because they're buddies. The point is you don't know for sure and that's why you can't just throw it into the pot willy nilly. Again, it would be opening Pandora's Box. Could @CorporateM: pop back here and clarify this once and for all? Curse of Fenric (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC) What you're effectively arguing is that Murphy's response to the question on this podcast is unreliable, but if he'd responded to the exact same question in the exact same way on a different podcast then it would be reliable. That's utter nonsense. The fact that this content is coming directly from the subject means that it's essentially WP:SELFPUB, the ownership of the podcast is irrelevant. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC) You're not paying attention. How do you know that he was telling the truth? How do you know he wasn't playing kayfabe to a couple of fans - something that he wouldn't do to a proven professional? You don't. That's what you're missing here and one thing WP would always frown upon is putting a kayfabe claim over as real. Getting it yet? Curse of Fenric (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC) All interview sources, whether text or audio, have an important distinction to make between claims being made by the publication, and those claims being made by the interview subject, for which the publication is merely acting as a conduit. In most cases, interviews cannot be used for this reason - they are basically op-eds. However, in this case the interview subject is the article-subject, the claims are not controversial, and the third party involved agrees with his claim. Therefore while technically not self published, it meets the requirements of WP:BLPSELFPUB for including statements made by the article-subject. The podcast's reliability is not really of import, so much as the whether it is an acceptable case to use claims made by the article-subject. CorporateM (Talk) 03:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC) @CorporateM:, that helps a bit re podcasts in general. Can I just ask one more thing? I mentioned the probability for "kayfabe". To explain that to you, it's when a wrestler promotes a storyline that is not real in an interview. It is possible (and I'm not saying that in this case it's definitely a storyline) that Murphy intentionally misled the podcast hosts for the purpose of promoting the person being claimed as a trainer of his and a good one at that. This is a factor that is exclusive to professional wrestling due to it's nature. How does this fit with your clarification? Curse of Fenric (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Curse of Fenric, yeah, no, this is not a kayfabe interview. Discounting it on that basis would discount every single wrestling-related source ever. Apart from anything else, the information is the same as that on the MCW website, which is what you were contesting in the first place. You've had the administrator clarification you were looking for, now please, WP:LETITGO. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Not to mention that he gives exactly the same information in this interview, which indicates that it's not a one-off joke (Holy moving goalposts, Batman!). GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC) My impression was that the content was about his real-life story and not that of a character he plays. There are some rare cases where a BLP has a specific reputation for lying, where we would therefore exercise WP:COMMONSENSE, and such conspiracy-grade information manipulations do occur in areas like politics. But being that there is no basis for that here specific to this individual, I don't think there is a reasonable argument for it. CorporateM (Talk) 06:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC) @CorporateM: You're obviously not familiar with the pro wrestling processes, with all due respect. My point is that when fans do things like this, lying (AKA kayfabe) is actually quite common. That's why reliable sourcing is very specific within pro wrestling - see for example a list of websites within the pro wrestling project that are seen as reliable, and those that are not. A key factor to that is the kayfabe factor. The list of sites that fall for kayfabe lies are listed as unreliable. Believe me, conspiracy grade manipulations like those in politics do happen in pro wrestling, especially towards those who don't have the experience or the respect of people like those who run the sites that are seen as reliable. It's funny, because they are genuine industry professionals - and yet GaryColemanFan tries to put these two fans who run that podcast in the same bracket, when they don't belong there in any way shape or form. I don't think he knows what a genuine industry professional is. So the application of WP:COMMONSENSE has to be done in context. As for that blogspot reference, again that is not reliable - blogs never are. Marek for the record is another fan who is trying at present to run a promotion in Australia's Blue Mountains. So much for moving the goal posts. And 94, you don't know for sure if it's a kayfabe interview or not. How do you know for sure that it is? Explain that one to me if you wouldn't mind. Curse of Fenric (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC) You've received administrator clarification on the reliability of the source, to continue to revert the change based entirely on WP:OR is akin to vandalism at this point. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 06:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC) This is not OR this is reliability based on the possibility of kayfabe. You can't deny the possibility, and as I assume he is not a person familiar with pro wrestling a further clarification in context is needed. The dispute remains meanwhile and it's YOU who has to leave the page alone until this is sorted out to everyone's satisfaction. Remember that it was an admin who called this dispute unresolved, not me. See his edit summary in the page history of the Murphy page. Curse of Fenric (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC) The dispute has been resolved, you asked for administrator clarification and it was given. The only thing furthering this debate is your insistence that the administrator is 'wrong' because he didn't take your side, based on some absolutely baseless logic. Once again, WP:LETITGO. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 07:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC) It has NOT been resolved and you are being uncivil by trying to bully me out of it. Prove that it's not kayfabe, or stop editing here if you wouldn't mind. Curse of Fenric (talk) 07:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

He who pays the piper

Catholic think-tank in Poland, called the John Paul II Centre for Thought (Centrum Myśli Jana Pawła II) in order to make themselves feel good about how the Catholic Church is doing in the country apparently paid commercial pollster CBOS to conduct a survey. The results were published by the society of Jesus in a series of PDF files, many with deeply controversial answers to questionnaires about other religions and their practices such as the ritual slaughter of animals for consumption. Now, we have User:Sdino with the total number of 194 edits under his belt waging an edit war using Twinkle to restore biased expansion of the article Religion in Poland, including monster pie charts based on the society of Jesus publications and his ridiculous colour schemes. The new information is mostly about what Catholics think about other religious denominations. The Centre for Thought of John Paul II (according to its own website) is devoted entirely to the teaching of the Blessed Pope John Paul II and follows the intellectual heritage of the Pope.[45]

• Please, see his blanketed summary at Reverted 2 edits by Poeticbent (talk) to last revision by Sdino. (TW)
  

Also, please read my detailed post about this WP:RS conflict at Talk:Religion in Poland#Read the writing on the wall. I do not wish to continue edit warring with this user (possibly a devoted parishioner), but I will gladly follow our community decision in this matter. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 16:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there a question here? Rhoark (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately, Rhoark, it was actually a matter of UNDUE content being pushed using a biased source which has been deemed inappropriate for this article per TITLE. The content may be considered biased RS, therefore fine for usage (with attribution) in the appropriate context... but the "Religion in Poland" article is by no means the appropriate context. My understanding is that this group are WP:FRINGE as is. Devoting a large slab of the article to their 'research' and 'polling' results is way off topic. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Emereo Publishing

Someone made an edit on Emilia Clarke claiming she has ADHD and takes medicine for it (see this edit) The source is The Emilia Clarke Handbook by Emily Smith published by Emereo Publishing (isbn 9781486461912). Emereo Publishing seems to be a self-publisher that just repackages Wikipedia content. See these links that say Emereo is not RS: [46], [47], [48], see 5th paragraph, [49].

Should any source from Emereo Publishing be consider RS? I'm inclined to say no personally. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Definitely not, per Wikipedia:CITOGENESIS. Gamaliel (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Not reliable. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Terrible source, copied from Wikipedia. Every once in a while I search for and remove any Emereo reference. It's a steady job, because people keep adding this stuff. Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Should this be added to Wikipedia:List of companies engaged in the self-publishing business? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Use of online video as source on Bosnian mujahideen

I came across Bosnian mujahideen by chance, the article contains the text: 'Abu Hamza, was one of the leaders,' … (of the Bosnian mujahideen)

Source used is an Al Jazeera video on 'YouTube called Veterans - Siege of Sarajevo

A quick 'Google' 'Abu Hamza Rabia Bosnia' threw up two hits, both WP pages (at present we are linking to the dab page).

A quick 'Google' 'Abu Hamza al-Masri Bosnia' threw up more hits, but they mainly refer to his claims to have fought in Bosnia.

I appreciate there are BLP as well as RS issues. I also realise Bosnian + Mujahideen are problematic areas, of which I have little expertise. I have posted on talk but so far no response. Advice?Pincrete (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of problem: I think the first problem is the use of 'dab' link failing to identify WHICH Abu Hamza, and thus by implication suggesting the more infamous Abu Hamza Rabia, that isn't a RS matter, but is part of the background. … … Second problem is whether a single Al Jazeera documentary is good enough for such a claim. The other 'Abu Hamza', the imprisoned cleric, has quite a number of hits for his presence in Bosnia, but I could not find very serious ones for any 'leadership' role, rather the opposite, many of them claim he 'peddled' a fake war history among his followers. Pincrete (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It's from an official Al Jazeera YouTube account, so should be considered as published by Al Jazeera. Rhoark (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Update I've solved problem for now by removing the offending text and leaving a 'talk' message, until we know WHICH Abu Hamza, better to say nothing. Opinions on using such a video as 'sole source' for such a claim, still welcome.Pincrete (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Stupid Wikipedia mirrors and Wikipedia Books!!!

So I've been working on sourcing Articles lacking sources from October 2006. As can be expected, those articles have been around long enough that there are many mirrored versions of them on the web; that doesn't surprise me.

What does surprise me however, is the fact that a good many of them have apparently been included in Wikipedia Books, which then feature prominently in book search results. Generally for historical articles I turn to book searches first, as the web tends to be full of lots of unreliable nonsense. Now Google Book searches are turning up Wikipedia Books containing copies of the unreferenced articles I'm trying to reference. Why on Earth are the people who make these Wikipedia Books including totally unreferenced articles in them?

For an example of what I'm talking about look at Royal Order of Saint George for the Defense of the Immaculate Conception. The entire first page of book results on Google is nothing more than Wikipedia Books and self-published nonsense by a man who thinks he can use an odd combination of orders of nobility, genealogy, and heretical nonsense from three religions to do - something that I haven't read enough of his nonsense to make sense of (something about "exposing the secrets" of Christianity which are hidden by the Catholic Church). See search results here.

Yes, I know how to modify the search to exclude Wikipedia books, which is somewhat easier to do than excluding Wikipedia mirrors from a web search. I can also exclude the self-published author's nonsense. What I'm left with leads me to seriously question the accuracy of the article, beginning with the first sentence ("founded by Maximilian II Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria in 1726").

Does anyone have any tips on excluding Wikipedia mirrors and Wikipedia books to get at reliable sources for an article which has been floating around unsourced for 9 years and has been included in compilations of Wikipedia articles that have made it to print? These stupid books are even turning up on Amazon and library searches! ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Try different search terms. These sham books tend to turn up higher when the search term isn't used much in books, and in this case that's because this order is better known as the Georgsorden. There are lists of literature on dewiki and nlwiki that you wouldn't find with a query for "Royal Order of Saint George". QVVERTYVS (hm?) 07:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll try Georgsorden!~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Unable to help on 'searching', but in the case of 'Royal Order of Saint George etc', would you not be justified in proposing deletion when the article has had a 'no refs' tag since 2006? A proposal to delete might bring in help for sourcing what is left.Pincrete (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion is not cleanup; sources to corroborate existence and notability exist in other editions of WP and this article isn't in so bad a state that WP:NUKEANDPAVE applies. Trimming it down to a stub might be better idea. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, deletion is not clean up. Otherwise we could just go through and take everything in the tagged for sources since 2006 categories to AFD. Currently there are 200+ articles in the category for October of 2006 and thousands in later months. People at WP:RFA are always talking about conquering adminstrative backlogs, but there are a LOT of regular editing clean up backlogs that are far more neglected. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC notice: The Washington Post on 2012 Koch-related funding of Americans for Prosperity

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds. Please contribute to this request for comment, at which the verifiability and accuracy of the paraphrase have arisen as issues. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48

This is inappropriate WP:CANVASSing. But the request has already been on this board, where consensus leaned against. (Note, that I've changed my mind. The sources are reliable, but do not say what Hugh says they do, even though he's changed what he wants to add. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:Requests_for_comment#Publicizing_an_RfC. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 05:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Your comments are welcome at the RfC. By most of us. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Kanyetothe.com

Can't seem to find a blanket-ban guideline on user-submitted forums, if there is one then please tell me I'm a plonker and direct me to it, because I'm sure there may be one. But a Kanye West fan forum has been cited on multiple discographies in album sales updates (1, 2, 3) the figures seem close to the previously listed figures, but the post its self gives no indication of where it achieved these figures. Is it safe to say this is unreliable? Azealia911 _talk 22:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Azealia911: I think WP:USERGENERATED is what you're looking for. You are correct, forums cannot be used as sources for anything; the same goes for any crowd-sourced sources. CorporateM (Talk) 03:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: that's along the lines of what I needed, thankyou! Azealia911 _talk 09:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Hot wheels wiki

[50], is this source reliable enough to support the statement that lakesters are playable in Hot Wheels Turbo Racing and Hot Wheels Velocity X made in Lakester? --Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa¹²³|UPage|_☺★ (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a Wikia, so therefore user edited. I'd say no. Azealia911 _talk 12:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. No fact checking going on and can be edited by anyone. Meatsgains (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Not reliable Has a bright "Edit this page" button. All openly editable or crowd-sourced content is not reliable by its nature, even for the most mundane statements. CorporateM (Talk) 03:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

raceandhistory.com

This article is being used as a source on the evolution of epicanthic folds in this Wikipedia article. The following claims are made.

It is hypothesized that epicanthic folds are caused by climatic factors, and it may have originated more than once during human evolution. The genetic basis of epicanthic folds is not well understood. The fat above the eyes insulates the eyes, conserving body heat.

The article is attributed to an Amon Hotep, on whom I can find little information on the internet other than various self-published writings attributed to him. Therefore, he has no reputation, and it is not clear whether he is a real person or whether Amon Hotep is a pseudonym. He is allegedly the founder of an organization in Trinidad and Tobago which calls itself the Self Empowerment Learning Fraternity and which runs a number of websites including www.raceandhistory.com.

The article itself is not a primary source and cites no sources.

Rectipaedia (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Not Reliable - I am fairly confident that this is a unreliable source. Amon Hotep is very deep into self published WP:FRINGE territory and has self published a variety of works on the internet that advocate absurd racist conspiracy theories. For example this, he is hardly an expert on biology or racial differences. Thanks for removing that source. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
• Not reliable Per OP. CorporateM (Talk) 03:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
• not acceptable, particularly given all of the actual peer reviewed content available about the subject.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Patent records as sources

Editors here are invited to participate at Talk:Yamaha_Tesseract regarding the acceptability of a list of patents cited to official patent records. CorporateM (Talk) 04:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Swedish publication: Reliable source or tabloid?

Is Aftonbladet particularly http://www.aftonbladet.se/nojesbladet/klick/article21099559.ab a reliable source for personal relationships about living people or is it a gossip tabloid that should be expunged? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)