Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reliable sources

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.226.15.68 (talk) at 20:30, 12 May 2016 (→TheJoeKorner: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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:

    Shortcuts
    • 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.

    Source does not include Mike Singletary

    [1]

    Warren Sapp

    At the time of his retirement, Sapp was one of only six defensive players in NFL history to make the Pro Bowl, be named Defensive Player of the Year and win a Super Bowl or pre-Super-Bowl NFL title. The others are Mean Joe Greene, Jack Lambert, Lester Hayes, Lawrence Taylor, Bob Sanders, Reggie White, Ed Reed, Ray Lewis and Sapp's former teammate, Derrick Brooks.

    CelebrityNetWorth (copied from talk page, outside opinions desired)

    This discussion does not belong on the talk page of CelebrityNetWorth as it relates to the site itself and is not germane to the article on the site. The user 130.65.109.103 seems to be adding net worths to a variety of biographical articles with only this site as the source. I do not believe CelebrityNetWorth is an RS. Thoughts? Intelligentsium 23:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This web site seems to meet the criteria for Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This edit suggests that it is not a reliable source.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand, User:Mcfar54 accepted this edit, suggesting that it was an RS.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, it doesn't seem that the site's methodology is scholarly or rigorous. They claim to calculate net worth "by applying a proprietary algorithm", which excuses them from disclosing what data they use to arrive at that figure. Furthermore, reviewing a few of the pages on celebrities it seems quite likely that a significant portion of their information is in fact derived from Wikipedia. The fact that a pending change was accepted by an editor is not an endorsement of the edit beyond the fact that the edit is not vandalism or blatantly inappropriate. Intelligentsium 03:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    After reviewing their About us page, it also seems like their contributors are amateurs rather than professional journalists and analysts. Intelligentsium 03:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it is most likely not a reliable source, however the edit was accepted for not being vandalism. Mcfar54 (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed that for net worth for Safra Catz, their page comes up with the same figure as our forbes.com citation.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's quite likely that CNW simply copied the Forbes citation, especially as they mention Forbes on that page. Forbes definitely is a reliable source of course, so when Forbes is available that is the source we should use. Intelligentsium 03:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but CNW covers a lot more people that Forbes does. Take another look at the article. Note the high Alexa ranking and read their "About Us" page. These guys are not amateurs.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A high alexa ranking is perhaps the epitome of what Colbert calls truthiness - a lot of people repeat it because it's true, and it's true because a lot of people repeat it. However high it's alexa ranking is, I'll bet Wikipedia's is higher... I read the "About Us" page; not just amateurs, their team appears to consist of bloggers, marketers, and college students rather than professional journalists, much less respected finance journalists. I am beginning to question whether the site CNW is even notable.
    How about a compromise: I believe a good rule of thumb for net worth is, if a person's net worth can be found in Forbes (or a similar respected publication), it's probably OK for inclusion in an article. Otherwise, it's most likely unnotable (at best) and at worst plain wrong. Intelligentsium 02:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think their TOS tells us everything we need to know (the "we do not guarantee that any of the information is correct" part, especially). It would also fail WP:USERGENERATED, since visitors can correct articles theirselves. It's not clear how they verify information. Nymf (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    To be fair, I'm not sure to what extent it's user-generated - the submit a correction link seems to link to an email form that someone will review rather than a direct edit link. However they seem to operate a totally unverifiable "black box" model which they call a "proprietary algorithm". On their About us it's not clear that any of the staff are qualified to do this kind of research. They seem to operate a Buzzfeed-like business model, though it doesn't seem CNW try to present the appearance of professional journalism that Buzzfeed does. Intelligentsium 14:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • In the end, most of the site is just a guess. They claim they start with publicly available info and then they figure out taxes, agent fees etc. Problem is, most of that isn't available, but just a guess based on norms. And not everything is publicly available. I'd have to say, as a general answer, I wouldn't call the site reliable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    (Outdent)

    Then what makes Forbes a reliable source? What makes Forbes' net worth assertions not just guesses? I do not see Forbes providing any guarantees of their assertions about net worth. And Forbes's reporters do not have to divulge their sources (or any other reputable newspaper for that matter).

    This topic has been dealt before with:

    and perhaps elsewhere.

    However, the External links tool reports that CNW is already in use on dozens of BLPs.

    --130.65.109.103 (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, Forbes has an established reputation for reliability and editorial oversight. They're staffed by professional journalists that specialize in financial analysis and reporting. An EMT and a MD can both put a bandage on your cut arm, but that doesn't make them equal. Telling me where it's already used isn't helpful. Just because someone used it or it hasn't been questioned doesn't make it legit. Examiner.com was used in dozens of articles before it was blacklisted. In the previous discussion you linked: First one, 3 experienced users said no, not a RS and none argued for it. The second discussion doesn't support using it either. The third one isn't really helping either. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't aware CNW was so widely used on Wikipedia. Thanks for the discussion links; it seems this has already been discussed on several occasions and the consensus definitely seems to be that this is not a reliable source. I consider possibly inaccurately reporting an individual's net worth could be a fairly serious BLP issue or even a gross privacy violation where such information is not material to the article (i.e., if it is due to relatives or because of irrelevant individual investments). I am especially alarmed that the site boasts reporting the net worths of public individuals worth only a few thousand dollars - i.e., when the individual is not even particularly wealthy. I'd like to assess consensus to to mass-remove net worths cited only to CNW, where a suitable alternative source cannot be found, or where such information is not obviously pertinent to the article. Intelligentsium 17:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if that were the case, then CNW would have gone under long ago under a flurry of invasion of privacy lawsuits by these very wealthy people. I wonder why that has not happened yet. They have had eight years to sue CNW into oblivion. They better get cracking. You know, there is a basic reality here: you can typo a notable person's name with the suffix of "net worth" into a Google search and got some results. Why does Google provide such information if it harms the reputation of Google?--130.65.109.103 (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is your argument really, "They're reliable because they haven't been sued yet"?? You can also type "vaccines cause autism" into a Google search and get results - not everything that you can find with a Google search belongs on Wikipedia. Reliability and Verifiability are central pillars of the Wikipedia philosophy. Maybe some of the net worths reported by the site are accurate. Maybe they're not. But there's more than enough information available from known reliable sources, like academic journals, newspapers, books by respected publishers, and online articles by professionals in their field. Not only is it inappropriate, but unnecessary, to rely on dodgy sources when we've got all that available. Intelligentsium 18:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    "Alexa rank" != "reliable source." See also prior discussion and another prior discussion. Collect (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • not reliable and support mass removal - look at their own disclaimer here: "All information presented on CelebrityNetWorth.com is gathered from sources which are thought to be reliable, but the viewer should not assume that such information is up to date or completely accurate or final. CelebrityNetWorth does not assume responsibility for any errors in the information it presents on this site. All information on this site is based solely on public information and is subject to change without notice." Our mission here is to provide articles that communicate accepted knowledge. This is just celebrity gossip. Please don't cite this. Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    not reliable and support mass removal shorouq★kadair 👱 04:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super ninja2 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 8 May 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

    Maine Department of Education List

    Hello - There is currently a dispute on the European Graduate School webpage pertaining to the accreditation of this university. It appears on a published list of unaccredited institutions and diploma mills on the state of Maine's Department of Education website.[2] In the discussion at this page, a number of editors (including one who appears to be connected to the school) are arguing that the Maine list is "no longer valid" because a different page on their website simply refers readers to Wikipedia's own list of unaccredited schools.[3] Despite this alternative link, the Maine list is still very much live on their website. It also states on its landing page that "The Maine Department of Education has compiled the following list of post-secondary schools that are not accredited. The Department updates this list regularly, but non-accredited schools change frequently. Please conduct individual research before choosing a post-secondary institution." [4] This strikes me as a very clear case where the Maine source is reputable and should be included. It's from a state government website with regulatory authority over the validity of college degrees, and it is also used on several other WP articles about universities as a valid source for suspect accreditation status. Nonetheless a handful of editors are arguing very aggressively that it does not meet WP source standards and are trying to remove it from the article. Any advice and input is appreciated. Kizezs (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The Maine source you mention doesn't say that it has anything to do with Wikipedia. We can take it as authoritative information provided by Department. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the EGS has recently been accredited by a European body the relevance of the US state recognitions is less of an issue.Martinlc (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    EGS has not actually been "accredited". It is not that simple. The are licensed by Malta which means they self-accredit, and they are 'registered" in a swiss canton but not by the main swiss national body that actually accredits universities. It is funky. Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The licence to award qualifications granted by Malta within the EU qualification framework gives EGS's the same validity as all other awards in Europe. Martinlc (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The Malta license is a separate issue from the reliability of the Maine source. It also does not carry the university accreditation that is being claimed here. Rather, it is a temporary 5 year license that allows them to offer a list of 8 specific classes in Malta. See: [5] This does not meet the EU qualification framework standards to obtain reciprocal accreditation in the United States. Kizezs (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been trying to hold the middle policy/guideline based position on this article against rabid advocates for the school and advocates that claim it is a diploma mill, like the OP here. I have already explained all this there. The point of great frustration for this editor, is that the main page of the Maine website now looks like this. (Linked by OP and called "a different page" above) The page has been captured on the wayback machine, and if you go through the versions you can see that up to this version in May 2014, they maintained their own list of nonaccredited schools, but as of June 2014 (in this version) they had stopped maintaining their own list and no longer have a link to it (which is still how they do it today).
    Yes, like many webmasters, who ever runs that site didn't actually take down pages you can no longer navigate to within the site, but that you can find by googling. That is how you get to the Maine "E" page, that the OP links to. That page is about 2 years outdated and is just moldering there. I don't use such pages when I edit. And i don't think such a low quality source is useful on a hotly contested article. I don't consider it reliable. Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SYNTH states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Jytdog's reasons for excluding Maine as described above appear to be doing exactly that though - he's using an inferential reading from comparing old and new websites that is never explicitly stated by any of the sources, then using that to discredit and exclude a source that appears to easily meet WP:RS. Meanwhile the Maine list's statutory authority is very clearly stated at this link.[6] Kizezs (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No it is just basic research literacy. Lots of webmasters take down links but don't actually remove the page from the publicly-accessible portions of their servers. Jytdog (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Jytdog. And WP:SYNTH doesn't apply here, because it only applies to statements put in an article, not to the process of reasoning used to decide whether a source is acceptable to use. If, based on Jytdog's argument, all mention of the Maine source is excluded from the article, that couldn't possibly violate WP:SYNTH, since there would be no synthesis in the actual article text. SJK (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    stephenfollows.com

    Don't know if this is worth looking into, but the recently created user Lars Prestegarde (talk · contribs) (hereby pinged) seems to be here to add content to various film related articles, with every edit (that I checked) including a link to a private website https://stephenfollows.com/ - DVdm (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The site is the blog of a film producer who does a lot of analytics on industry activity. I have been searching through his work for factual information not represented on wikipedia, or using his findings for existing uncited claims on relevant pages. Although I cannot vouch strongly for his reliability, he appears to meet the criteria of being a published expert in his field. Lars Prestegarde (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reply. Yes, I noticed that he at least appears to meet the criteria. But does he? I was not sure about whether this is appropriate. After all, these are all wp:primary sources, and your activity seems a bit wp:SPAish. I hope you don't mind my wondering. - DVdm (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a blog partly sourced to WP & IMDB. Not RS. SPECIFICO talk 17:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    SPECIFICO I replied to you re this on my talk page. The info sourced from WP & IMBD is for analytics of fairly uncontroversial information such as box office gross for films. The vast majority of the information on the site is original research or statistical analysis - I don't think it is fair to say the whole body of work is unreliable based only on what is, as far as I can tell, a rare use of IMBD ratings or wikipedia-sourced figures. Lars Prestegarde (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Original research on a self-hosted blog is an even worse source. Could you tell us whether you have any personal or professional relationship to the blog or its author? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Stephen is a widely recognized expert in film production and the UK film industry in particular. His work has been cited in Forbes, The Financial Times, The Guardian and the BBC among others. If he is being used as a source for film related pages, he is RS. Depauldem (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For full disclosure: I am working for Stephen's production company, and he has asked me to see if his findings are represented on wikipedia. Perhaps 'original research' is the wrong term if that comes across even worse, it is mostly just statistical analysis of existing data or surveys of industry professionals. If in doubt, please review the additions I have been making from the research and you should find it is just tidbits of data from the key findings of the research, no opinions or interpretations etc. Stephen (via the website in question, presumed to always be his work) is already cited on wikipedia on the many of the pages I have been checking, so past precedent suggests his findings are deemed credible. Lars Prestegarde (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not doing us a favor by disclosing that, you are obligated to disclose that per the WP:PAID policy and you have been violating that policy up until this moment. Not good. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog, I have added the disclosure and provided some more information in response to your request on my talk page. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I was not up to speed on the disclosure rules. Lars Prestegarde (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The citations to your employer's blog have been tenuous, many of them, e.g. about Hamlet, for which numerous better sources would exist if the text were to warrant inclusion. SPECIFICO talk 23:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Depauldem: Per this statement that you know Mr. Follows, please disclose the nature of your acquaintance with him and whether you also know User Lars Prestergarde? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know Lars. I have emailed Stephen a few times, but I have not met him. As an analyst in the industry, I follow his work. Depauldem (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's my take on the source. Definitely an SPS. So is he careful, and is he an expert? If you take him at his word and read the bottom of this post by him, he says he takes pains to fact check things. So that is good. His work has been cited by name in the NY Times here (his work on marketing for the Oscars), in the UK Evening Standard here (his work on gender/age disparity), in the Telegraph here (his work on movies shot in the UK), and in the Guardian here (his work on gender bias in film crews). And lots of other blogs. He seems to be a hustler (I mean that in a good sense) and see this blog from a film club he was part of as a teenager in the 1990s) and a serious person.
    I think this site could be considered reliable.
    btw while this was under discussion I went through and removed all the citations to his site - if you check the link I put at the top of this post you should find nothing, but who knows what has happened since I removed them all.
    All that said, I really don't like him tasking folks to add citations to his site in Wikipedia. Meh to that. But as long as it is done appropriately by posting suggested content and refs on the Talk page of the relevant article, with disclosure... if independent editors working on those articles find the proposals valuable, then no harm. And if that improves articles, that is a good thing. Jytdog (talk) 02:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your help on this @Jytdog:. It is unfortunate that the citations are removed as I had just come on to move the content to talk pages; I gather I can still find old versions of the pages to speed up the process though, so I will look into that. Additionally, I worry that if you have removed ALL citations to the site, you will have removed all the established ones from back through the years - I am by no means the first person to be citing the website. Perhaps that was your intention, but I thought I would highlight this in case it wasn't.
    Also while I'm here I'll add for completeness that I have no relation to Depauldem as he said earlier, and similar to him I know Stephen only via an exchange of emails regarding freelance data crunching I do for his company from time to time. Lars Prestegarde (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think it's unfortunate that any of Lars' edits have been removed. They added insignificant content which appears to have been chosen for the sole purpose of insinuating links to Follows' website. The content needs to be noteworthy and it needs to be verified by the source, not merely mentioned by the source or found on the source from aggregation of other websites. If Lars' future edits are similar to what he's shown so far, he will eventually be blocked. SPECIFICO talk 11:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand your perspective on this User:SPECIFICO. If I hadn't found high quality sources like I list above citing his work and found evidence that he does fact check I would have agreed that the source is generally not reliable but I think Follows' analyses are being accepted as useful and important in some ways. I'll add here that I don't edit in film topics and it may be wise to get folks from Wikipedia:WikiProject Film to weigh in here. I will ping their talk page. I do agree 100% that any time any ref is used, it needs to be because the content supported by it helps flesh out some part of an article and contributes to our mission to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge. We don't cite refs to promote the reference itself. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Jytdog, here is an example of using the reference solely to promote Follows, when far better sources are available in the published mainstream media [7]. SPECIFICO talk 00:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point. You are saying again there, what you are saying here. I am hoping that other folks will weigh in on the reliability of the Follows site, since really now it is just me and you. You are very much "no" and I am yes maybe. Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I'm a bit probably no, but indeed some users of the Wikiproject Film should have a look at this. - DVdm (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why we should be making such an effort to accommodate Lars, who is clearly WP:NOTHERE, who has not been forthright in this matter, and who can easily find sparsely-followed articles with relatively few followers on which to plant numerous links to his boss. Is that a good use of other editors' time and attention? SPECIFICO talk 15:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To be "up front", I just allowed a citation to Follows' website to remain in the Actor article. When I read the web page, and after reading the above discussion, it is obvious that Follows is an expert in the industry. As for the factual reliability of the page, my opinion is "yes and no" – "no" if the cited info comes from the Responses section and the post is from other-than Follows, and yes if the information is obviously authored by Follows. I seldom edit film industry articles and have no affiliation with the industry nor with Follows. He has uncovered some interesting facts about the Academy and its Oscar awards. If the Follows web page resides in a "gray area" of RSdom, then I must lean toward acceptance rather than rejection.  Stick to sources! Paine  22:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am with @Ellsworth. Depauldem (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Encyclopedia Brittanica?

    Can we use source information from it as references within articles? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    yes it is a fine WP:TERTIARY source. We prefer secondary sources but this one is fine. Jytdog (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Only in extremis. Besides the fact that the text gets changed so what it says one year may not what it says the next year (since it's become online only), for many things we should use proper academic sources. Among other things encyclopedias simplify issues too often and the author may not be nearly as expert as other sources that can be found. And of course Britannica makes mistakes. Doug Weller talk 18:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Avoid the online edition as they can, and do, take suggested edits from users and often use them. Stick to printed versions for claims. Collect (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Google maps

    An editor is insisting that Google maps is a reliable source for the statement in the Lead of the Iran article that the modern country Iran is "also known as Persia". I disagree with that statement as well, but this is RSN, so we'll stick to the source.

    If one types "Persia" into Google Maps, it displays the map of Iran. It doesn't call it Persia, but it does outline the modern state. Here's the result; you can type in Persia yourself to confirm. The editor claims that this indicates that Google Maps is therefore support for the statement, in the Lead, that Iran is also known as Persia.

    I maintain that it's not, and that the maps search engine is just clever enough to figure out what you want. C.f. Albion and Loegria leading to maps displaying modern England. Again, this is purely to do with the Lead, and the situation has come up because the article is really short on support for Persia being a common alternative name for the modern country of Iran. It seems obvious to me, I've explained it to him, but he doesn't get it. Or maybe it's me that doesn't get it. Anyway, opinions? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem here is in defining context... while the area is almost always referred to as "Iran" in a modern political context, it is sometimes referred to as "Persia" in a geographical context... And frequently so when discussing the region in a historical context. In other words... The article isn't wrong in saying it is "also known as Persia"... But it needs to expand on that fact, and better explain the contexts in which it is called by these different names. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Blueboar. The first sentence of the Lead of country articles only deals with common names of the country, rather than geographical regions, etc; I think I should have been clear about that. So it's used in this context:
    Iran (/aɪˈræn/ or Listeni/ɪˈrɑːn/;[11] Persian: Irān – ایران‎‎ [ʔiːˈɾɒːn] ( listen)), also known as Persia (/ˈpɜːrʒə/ or /ˈpɜːrʃə/), [12][13][14][15][16] officially the Islamic Republic of Iran (جمهوری اسلامی ایران – Jomhuri ye Eslāmi ye Irān [d͡ʒomhuːˌɾije eslɒːˌmije ʔiːˈɾɒːn])
    And the question here is about the validity of Google Maps as a citation when it doesn't actually say Persia anywhere, it merely returns modern Iran if you search for Persia. Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Although, this matter has been discussed in Iran talk page, but because it has been also mentioned here I prefer to say my reason such that Google Map says "Iran known as Persia" or "Persia known as Iran". Using Google Map, when you are looking for Persia Geographical Region, it shows you Current Iran Map which means where you're looking for as "Persia" is the same country of Iran which means Persia = Iran. Although, other related references have been mentioned in Iran talk page about this matter. Meanwhile it has been expanded in etymology section of current Iran article. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bromley86: To add to this debate, in the past it used to be possible for any user to edit a location on Google maps. This has changed in recent times, and this link between Persia/Iran may be a legacy of that change. I have since notified Google regarding the error, so hopefully they will respond and change that. It is still not worthy of Wikipedia to use google maps to decide what a country is called, and what it isn't. Vormeph (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I just can say that speaking without reference means nothing. Personally, I always rely on references for my claim and avoid misleading to achieve my purposes. Anyway, as I mentioned previously, "Google Map is not included in 5 current references in Iran article." since there are better than Google Map, generally it's possible to ignore this one. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aidepikiwnirotide: Good, then I suggest you start looking for other sources to back-up your claims. :-) Vormeph (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    They have been mentioned previously (at least five references) just they need an open eye. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Google Maps isn't a suitable source for the claim here, not least as it marks its (Australian version at least) map of the search result for "Persia" with a very prominent "Iran" only. It actually supports a claim that modern Iran is not called Persia in current English language maps. Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A redirect definitely doesn't indicate that the alternate term is correct: "Amlerica" redirect to the United States. "Zrussia" redirects to "Russia", and "Sweoden" links to "Sweden". Nblund (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Dispute over sourcing at Columbia University Rape Controversy

    There is a dispute over sourcing on the entry for Columbia University Rape Controversy. A quotation and a statement about the length of messages are both sourced to an opinion piece by Naomi Schaeffer Riley from the NYPOST. I have argued that this is not a reliable source for a statement of fact about a person or a quotation because it's an opinion piece from a tabloid, and we need better sourcing for the statement. Additional contested sources are a post from Jezebel.com (a Gawker Media affiliate), and a Daily Beast article by Cathy Young, a political commentator who is highly critical of Sulkowicz. There is also some question regarding whether these are reliable sources for statements of fact elsewhere in the article. Nblund (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    In regards to a subject's reception, anything is technically an opinion piece. Also the Jezebel piece is her own defense. Are you removing it because you find it weak? It states her views plainly which is a core principle in NPOV. Valoem talk contrib 15:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear: the question is whether these are reliable sources for statements of fact or quotations. They're obviously reliable sources for statements of the opinions of the authors. Nblund (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that both parties have confirmed the authenticity and time stamps of the message [8], therefore mentioning the message is NPOV. Sulkowicz gave her annotated reasoning for the message. This can be included as we have included both side's viewpoints. Valoem talk contrib 05:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If an opinion piece published in a major newspaper (tabloid or not) makes a factual claim, I think it is fine to cite that claim so long as it is attributed. All the article will say then is "Journalist X writing in newspaper Y claimed that Z"; it is left to the reader to decide for themselves whether X's claims deserve credence or not. SJK (talk) 11:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Orangecounty.com

    Is this a reliable source? http://www.ocregister.com/articles/movie-530330-gravity-space.html--HerbSewell (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Source: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/movie-530330-gravity-space.html
    Article: Gravity (film)
    Content: "Visors in space reflect sunlight, and thus would be opaque, in contrast to their transparency of the helmets in the film."--HerbSewell (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is fine in the context of the film article, but I would attribute the statement to Dr. Clarke Gabel, clarifying he's a film critic for the Coalition for Accuracy in Hollywood Movies of Anaheim. I.e., he's not a part of the space program. I'm not a regular here, so you might want to wait for a second opinion. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 05:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Check that source again, 009o9. "Dr. Clarke Gabel" is a fictional character who heads a fictional coalition. He can't be a source for anything. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've said several times now, I wasn't using that "fictional character" as a source, so your objection is irrelevant. Are you going to refer to me by the name as this character, or start repeating yourself to make your point again?--HerbSewell (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor responding to your question did not catch that this was a fictional character and suggested you attribute the claim to him. Explaining this was wholly relevant. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the response. For the same article and content, is this source sufficient to insert the content without attribution? http://seradata.com/SSI/2013/11/review-gravity-downsides-space-cadets-overall-pull-obvious/ Seradata has been used several times as a source. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=Search&search=seradata&searchToken=191abc00nofaomiqa3j8j2waf --HerbSewell (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like seradata is cited by a couple of RS publishers [9], [10], [11] and [12]. If it is just being used for support (convenience link) I'd say it's fine. I would not try to use the website to establish notability for an article though. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 06:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The source here is not Seradata, the company, it is a blogger on Seradata's site. Who is that blogger? No help here. As for the examples of others citing Seradata, the aren't citing the blog, they're citing the company. Foreign Policy is a reliable source for some material. In the example, they're citing Seradata's database, not the blog. The second source, Gawker is itself a blog, not a reliable source. Further, it doesn't cite Seradata at all. Someone in the comments section does... The question here is whether the blog on Seradata's site is a reliable source: Does it have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? The link from the site's logo is a 404 page. I can't really find anything to indicate what kind of oversite, if any, the blog has. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If had looked at the section enumerating the team behind seradata.com, you would have found that it did give a bio for David Todd. "David has been Editor of SpaceTrak since being the database’s 'midwife' in 1997. He also writes for and produces the widely read Hyperbola Space Intelligence News blog, and provides consulting services to the space and insurance industries. David holds three engineering degrees including a Master of Science degree in Astronautics and Space Engineering. During his degree studies, David also won the British Airways prize for Air Transport Engineering and a Guinness Peat Aviation Fellowship, and is currently a Fellow of the British Interplanetary Society." Did you try doing that?--HerbSewell (talk) 03:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather than discussing what would have happened had something that didn't happen had happened, please explain how you feel this blog entry has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The question as to whether or not the content matches the source is discussed, per WP:BRD on the article's talk page. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather than discussing what would have happened had something that didn't happen had happened
    A simple "no" would have sufficed, but I suppose if you make almost no effort to look up the information you're challenging me to provide, I can't fault you for it, but it probably would have saved time if you just made the attempt to find the information you were asking for. Let's just pretend I didn't ask the question, because I was clearly asking too much.--HerbSewell (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as the reliability is concerned, I don't see why it's any less reliable than another blog post that was used for content in the same section.--HerbSewell (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The Chicago Tribune "There have been no fatal suborbital manned flights and three fatal orbital space shots, including the space shuttles Challenger and Columbia with 14 deaths, and a Soyuz flight that killed one, according to the Seradata SpaceTrak database." Isn't this the database they are referencing? David Todd has 78 pages of article results dating back to April 2009.[13] Sorry, I missed the parody in the OCRegister, they usually are not like that, I would not doubt that a "Coalition for Accuracy in Hollywood Movies" would be a thriving organization. All this over, "Visors in space reflect sunlight, and thus would be opaque," in a film article? 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 05:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to the cutline, not the interview itself.--HerbSewell (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, all of this over a visor in a film. Why? Otherwise articles like this start to gather entries from "Dr. Gabel" and people like him who want to identify and point out what they see as mistakes in films, often based on original research. (Dig in to the article and talk page history and you'll find several "Dr. Gabel"s have taken shots.) When several notable scientists are discussing errors and their discussions are discussed in Slate, Wired, the Washington Post, the BBC, UCLA and Time, it's noteworthy. When it's a fictional character in a satirical interview (or the photo caption for same) or stretching a blog entry to the breaking point, it's Dr. Gabel trying to turn a trivial change made to make expensive stars* visible into a glaring* inaccuracy. *(Puns totally intended.) As the new source pretty much explains, they used clear visors so the audience could see the expensive actors they cast. (Heck, I'd rather see Foster in undies rather than "space diapers". Those aren't "mistakes" those are "we're-making-a-Hollywood-movie-not-a-documentary" changes to make the film marketable. A scientifically accurate Jurassic Park would be nothing but scientists in a lab failing to extract enough dino DNA from amber. It would air on PBS at off hours or some third rate cable channel. The movie they made instead made millions. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Tractors Wikia as a reliable source?

    There is a discussion here which would benefit from additional input. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Questionable reliability. It's an open-edit wiki but, more importantly, it makes no mention of one of the engines used in the Motocart (the one that may have been the most common, to boot). So I'd be hesitant to use it, except where it provides visual support (scans, photos, etc.) But then that leaves the problem that future editors, and readers of the article, might not know that the wikia is selectively reliable.
    I moved it to Further Reading for the moment and used its own source to support the point. Bromley86 (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Heck no. it is a wiki. Jytdog (talk) 04:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anything at Wikia meets the definition of a reliable source. SJK (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Justia.com

    Is this source appropriate to support a small section on patents like this? Please note my COI disclosure. Pinging @Timtempleton:, who added the section. I kind of need to address this item and the corresponding tag before I can nominate for GA and we seem to disagree on it. CorporateM (Talk) 13:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Doesnt the USPTO have a public accessible database? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Like this? Personally I don't doubt the accuracy of Justia, just the appropriateness of primary sources in this scenario. CorporateM (Talk) 17:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Are self-published sources reliable if given attribution?

    An editor removed "self-published" templates with this edit with the edit summary, "no need for continual "Self-published" tags if you make it clear who is saying what." One example is a sentence that says, Nitschke has stated that nitrogen has a lower risk of an adverse reaction by the body than helium. Nitrogen has been advocated as a replacement for helium not because of reactions to helium, but due to a "temporary restriction on the availability of disposable helium in Australia (and New Zealand), helium has been difficult to procure." This is sourced to a newsletter written by Nitschke. Are self-published sources reliable as long as attribution is given? That's not my understanding of WP:SELFPUB. PermStrump(talk) 07:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    A self-published newsletter should generally not be used, and especially not to convey scientific/medical information as in the above example (this is more an NPOV/weight issue rather than one of reliability since strictly the source is reliable for what "Nitschke has stated ..."). Alexbrn (talk) 07:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's reliable for his opinion, which is what the article is giving, especially as he's an acknowledged expert in published reliable sources. The relevant policy is just above the one you link to:
    "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Bromley86 (talk) 07:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The persons quoted are experts in their fields, so this is acceptable according to WP:SELFPUBLISH. No need for scare tags. Ratel (talk) 08:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Is a person notable enough (in the context of a particular topic) that it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to note their opinion on that topic? If the answer is yes, then whether the source is self-published by that person or not doesn't matter much. Nitschke is notable as a doctor who advocates for euthanasia, so citing his opinion on euthanasia-related issues is appropriate; given that appropriateness, it doesn't really matter whether his opinion is cited to a self-published newsletter or anything else, so long as it is qualified as his opinion. Of course, for NPOV/balance, one should avoid excessively citing his opinion to the exclusion of other persons whose positions on euthanasia are notable; but assuming his opinion is being cited in a due proportion, I don't think it matters whether it comes from a self-published source or not. Citing the self-published opinion of a person notable in the context is very different from citing the self-published opinion of some random blogger that no one has heard of. SJK (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    SJK: Nitschke is notable on suicide, which is a separate article. This topic is "suicide bags" which I guess he's notable for trying to sell and promote them, so IMHO citing his self-published website and newsletter is pushing linkspam and I would think his financial interest would make it less/un- desirable as a source for content that directly relates to a product he sells. Also, his medical license was revoked, so is his newsletter (in which he advertises the sale of nitrogen tanks and suicide bags, other related products) a reliable source for a statement that says using nitrogen to kill yourself has a lower risk of adverse reaction? (My question is directed to anyone.) PermStrump(talk) 15:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia usually plays blind when discrediting self-published sources as a blanket policy. There are some, probably many subjects where the foremost expert in the field is the operator of a self published blog or in a paper mode, a self published magazine or newsletter. That even could go to scientific information. The structure of scientific research gives us a basis for evaluating these sources. Peer review is the method in academia. When one's research is duplicable, respected and quoted, that would make it reliable regardless of the publishing method. That should hold true in other subjects and in wikipedia. Within a given subject, if a source is often quoted and referenced, we should respect that. Conversely, there are major corporate media with editorial boards and the appearance of being journalists, whose content is controlled by forces which use their credibility as a means of propaganda to advance an agenda. In many countries, the government, the largest entity in the country, assumes that role and use their position of power to control the propaganda. It is a common objective. In those situations, where does truth come from? The little guy on the street. It can happen anywhere. Remember the scientists who were trying to convince the public there was nothing wrong with smoking. Wikipedia should tally the frequency of disproven content and discredit the reports of that source. Once deemed credible, a news source becomes the target of corporate take overs, with an ultimate propaganda objective. This could be an evolving situation. We have billionaires buying local newspapers to try to control the news in their home town. Cash strapped newspapers are highly vulnerable. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. We accept the credibility of the sites who are better at deception, the ones who look like they are professional and slick. We don't know who is making decisions, particularly as time passes. Behind the facade of a name, it could change. A source is only as reliable as their last post. When the information from a source stops being reliable, whatever the name or (former) reputation, we should notice and stop allowing that source's bad information from infecting wikipedia if we are not diligent. Wikipedia is the ultimate in peer review, but that function does not work if we are blind to reality. Trackinfo (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Permstrump: I don't think Nitschke's primary motivation in selling suicide devices was making money. His primary motivation was that he believes (rightly or wrongly) that he was doing the right thing. He wasn't getting rich off them. Now about his "medical license" being revoked. Firstly I should point out that "medical license" is US terminology, and isn't actually correct in Australia – the official term in Australia is medical registration (even though some Australian journalists incorrectly use the US term in media articles.) Furthermore, his registration was never cancelled; it was indefinitely suspended. He appealed his suspension to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory and the Court overturned it. He then enterred into a negotiated settlement in which conditions were imposed on his registration to not advise patients about committing suicide, or supply them with means of comitting suicide. (I'd also question whether he still is selling suicide devices, since it appears the conditions agreed to in his settlment with the Medical Board would prevent him from doing that.) This all happened because a suicidal depressed man contacted him, and Nitschke offered the man advice about how to commit suicide (which the man followed) but never any professional help for his depression. I think Nitschke's behaviour was reprehensibly unethical, but nonetheless doesn't give us any reason to doubt his factual claims about the efficiacy of different methods of suicide – while some breaches of medical ethics are relevant to one's veracity as a reliable source (e.g. research fraud or pushing quack therapies), others aren't (e.g. drug abuse, sexual misconduct), and I believe this case falls into the later category rather than the former. SJK (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to respond at Talk:Suicide bag#WP:SELFPUBLISH to keep the conversation all one place. I should have directed the conversation there in my original question, but didn't think about it until after-the-fact. PermStrump(talk) 23:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Quite a few incorrect assumptions here: Firstly, Nitschke does NOT sell suicide bags or exit bags, secondly he decided to walk away from his medical career rather than agree to limitations on what he could talk to people about, thirdly he never offered advice to Brayley about how to commit suicide (Brayley just wanted to let Nitschke know of his predetermined plans), and lastly I do not see why Permstrump is moving the query about WP:SELFPUBLISH back to the local talk page, when this is the place to discuss it. Is it perhaps because they are not getting their way here? Ratel (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ratel, I do not see why Permstrump is moving the query about WP:SELFPUBLISH back to the local talk page, when this is the place to discuss it. Is it perhaps because they are not getting their way here? Seriously? I couldn't have been more transparent. I linked to the talkpage thread here and I made a comment on the talkpage. Then I tagged the editors who replied here in my response on the talkpage (except Ratel, who I'd just pinged in a comment directly above <5 minutes earlier, so I didn't want to be annoying with another ping when I knew you'd see the comment). Like I said here (and on the talkpage), I redirected the conversation to the talkpage, so that it wouldn't be split on two pages, making it easier for more of the editors that are interested in the topic to participate. There's a policy somewhere that suggests this and it was meant to be a helpful move, not deceitful. Editors need to cut it out with the ridiculous accusations against me or submit an AN/I, because I'm done wasting my time responding to unfounded accusations. PermStrump(talk) 02:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Premananda Satsang Book 6

    So a devotee of a swami would like to add some content about their teachings to the Wikipedia article, most of which is about his conviction as a rapist. I've found no reliable sources that summarize the teachings. The devotee has suggested a passage from a book where the swami summarized his teachings. The book is "Premananda Satsang Book 6". The book was apparently published by the Sri Premananda Trust (the swamis' estate) and you can get copies from the ashram in India or from various devotees.

    See Talk:Swami_Premananda_(guru)#Premananda_Satsang_Book_6 for the content, which is a list of teachings.

    In my view this is not a reliable source. Rather than just declaring that on the Talk page, I am getting input from the community here. Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there an ISBN for the book? If there is no ISBN, there is no way to actually verify the information. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked and found none. I asked, and was told by the proposer that there is no ISBN. Jytdog (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    a listserve

    Hello, Can you tell me if this can be used as a reliable source or not.

    http://listserv.oclc.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind9912&L=publib&D=1&F=P&P=17100

    The article is Censorship in Cuba

    And the content its supporting is "An article published on 19 November 1999 by Maria Elena Rodriguez, a journalist for the Cuba-Verdad Press, described the burning and burying of hundreds of books donated to Cuba by the government of Spain" currently footnote 25

    It would appear that it's referring to an article on https://www.cubanet.org/ (where exactly, I dont know) and I dont know whether that is a reliable source either but as I have only got the link to the list serve and that is what is being cited it seems that is the one to investigate/challenge.


    Many thanks for your help. What do I do if your opinion is that its not reliable ? PS If you think it is reliable thats fine by me too, this, procedural thing, is after all a learning curve. Thanx again. Hmcst1 (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    TheJoeKorner

    1. TheJoeKorner, http://www.thejoekorner.com

    2. All NYC Subway car type articles, example [R62 (New York City Subway Car)]

    3.

    | lines =

    *This line is a part of the page's infobox. This site is a forum, which I have read does not qualify as a reliable source 72.226.15.68 (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=719955083"