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 Slatersteven (talk | contribs) at 20:16, 5 August 2017 (→‎notizie.tiscali.it). 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.

    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.
    Start a new discussion

    Sources on Estonian police battalion

    Sources:

    • "The report deals with the role Estonian auxiliarry forces in crimes committed outside of Estonia. ... On 7 August 1942, Estonian police battalion No 36 took part in the round-up and execution of all remaining Jews..." (somewhat loose paraphrasing, exact quote in the link)
    • The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933-1945; edited by Geoffrey P. Megargee:
    • "On August 7 1942, the Germans and their collaborators (including Estonian Police Battalion 36 ...) took away the remaining inmates (...) and shot them there": link.
    • In contrast, Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity states: "There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews". ("Estonian defence battalions / police battalions". In Toomas Hiio; Meelis Maripuu; Indrek Paavle. Estonia 1940–1945: Reports of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity. Tallinn. pp. 825–876)

    Article: 36th Estonian Police Battalion

    Content: "In August 1942, the battalion participated in the murder of Jews in Novogrudok, Belarus."

    The relevant Talk page discussion can be found here: Talk:36th_Estonian_Police_Battalion#Novogrudok. Courtesy ping to Nug & Jaan. I would appreciate additional input on this matter. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It's very interesting that the West German investigation in the early '60s could not prove participation in the killing as I wouldn't think that they'd have any reason to whitewash the Communist gov't of the time. I think that what we have here is reliable sources on both sides, so I'd suggest laying out the evidence like so: "The battalion has been accused of participating in the killings of Jews at X, on Y, (sources) but a West German investigation in the early 1960s could not conclusively link its members to the action(source)" and let the reader decide. RSN isn't meant to decide which evidence is the "best", and that's all I'm afraid that we could accomplish here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if there might be some clarification in the text of the second source, or possibly in any sources these themselves cite. I say this because the sources don't necessarily contradict. The first states the role the police played in the killings cannot be determined, whereas the second states that there is no evidence they participated in the executions. If the two sources are taking very different interpretations of "involvement", they might actually agree. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The talk page discussion mentions WP:WPNOTRS, and claims that we shouldn't use tertiary sources. However, WP:WPNOTRS doesn't really say that - it says secondary sources are preferred but tertiary sources are reliable also. In practice, we use specialty encyclopedias quite a lot, as they are often written by experts in the field they cover. I'd consider The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos to be a specialty encyclopedia that is probably quite a good source for information on its subject matter. And I'll also note that the three volumes of the The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos are quite extensively researched and do actually include sources for most entries. I don't have the first volume available at the moment (even I quail at buying the books - they are pricey!) but I do have the second volume here at hand and a glance through shows every article has a list of sources as well as most having footnotes. I'd suggest getting the book through interlibrary loan and consulting whatever sources are used for the entry snippeted above. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And the work on Collaboration is also post-Cold War and the section by Arad would definitely be considered a reliable source for this subject, as Arad is a researcher in the field of the Holocaust in the Baltics. His work is most definitely NOT a tertiary source, it is in fact a secondary source also. He may be wrong, but its equally likely the commission was wrong also - especially if it based its conclusions on a West German commission from 1971, prior to the opening of many archives after the Cold War. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your point about the West German commission not having full access to archival data is a good one, but none of these sources can be impeached as they're all post-Cold War and the commission doesn't even have any Estonian nationals as members. I'd need to see the sources myself, to see which way the preponderance of evidence lies if I were writing this article myself. But really, this is disagreement between reliable sources and should be discussed either in the main body of the article or a footnote, not a RS issue at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I don't think we should take sides on either side - it appears to be a disagreement between sources ... all of which appear reliable. The ideal solution is to cover the controversy in the article. Both sides should be presented, and other sources brought to bear. A good start would be getting the Encyclopedia and seeing what sources it used. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would first also cite this close study in Estonian, that, based on historical documents and interviews with historians also comes to the conclusion that there is no evidence to suggest the police battalion participated in the roundup of the Jews. And let me also point out that this is not a case of poor or missing documentation. The main discrepancy between the sources seems to be generality vs. specificity. The sources that claim the role of the police battalion may be generally reliable and use reliable PS but in this specific case either do not specify their sources or rely on indirect evidence, e.g. "The reports of this squad report many entries on "military action against partisans," a phrase which conceals punitive measures against citizens and the killing of Jews."
    The dispute between the sources is not notable enough to warrant a passage in the article so my suggestion is to include it in a footnote. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The Ekspress source appears to be a general newspaper - at least I see articles on movies and other such topics on the main page of it. Google translate gives a very very rough translation which appears to be either a letter to the editor or an editoriak, which is supported by the translation of "PEKKA ERELT, EESTI EKSPRESSI AJALOOKÜLGEDE TOIMETAJA" which google gives as "PEKKA Erelt, Eesti Ekspress HISTORY sides of EDITOR". I'd suggest that the Ekspress is not exactly a scholarly secondary source here. Certainly, there appears to be a commission that does not think the brigade took part in the events. Unfortunately, an unsigned newspaper article is not a strong source contradicting the United States Holocaust Museum's encyclopedia of the various German labor/extermination camps, nor Arad, who is a scholar working in the field. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Pekka Erelt is the editor of the history section of the Eesti Ekspress. His article may not be scholarly but it is investigative journalism. Even if we do not consider his own discussion, we should not dismiss the quotes by professional historians Meelis Maripuu, Argo Kaasik and Enn Kaup in his article. And again, this is a matter of specificity. The core of this problem is trusting a general RS over specific investigation on this matter. And, again, the conclusions of the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity are not another opinion of 'a commission' but the conclusions of the commission established to investigate crimes by Estonian citizens. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears that the commission does not rule out the possibility that the Police Battalion participated in the massacre. If I'm Google translating it correctly, the opening para of the Estee Ekspress reads:

    • Novogrudok, Belarus received notoriety among Estonians lately. Allegedly, the 36th Police Battalion took part in the mass murder of Jews committed there in August 1942. At least, Efraim Zuroff of the Simon Wiesenthal Center is certain of it. The wording in the report by the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity is more modest; the report, however, did not rule out the participation of the Estonians. (Not sure if "more modest" is the correct translation.) link
    It seems to be an incident of significance & deserves more than a footnote in the article, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The Eesti Ekspress article was written in 2002, while the commission's work was still in progress, so obviously the commission "did not rule out the participation of the Estonians" at that time because it hadn't completed it's review of all the available evidence, including the 1960's West German investigation and post-war Soviet investigations. The commission's final report, published in 2006, concluded there was no evidence found relating to the participation of 36th Battalion. --Nug (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    From the Talk page: The report states on page 861 that the 36th Police Battalion was investigated in the Federal Republic of Germany between 1967 to 1971 and no evidence was found -- "no evidence found" does not mean that the commission established that the Police Battalion did not participate. What was the commission's conclusion? (As an aside, I would not put too much weight into a criminal investigation in West Germany in the 1960-10s, due to various reasons, which are too long to get in here). K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why wouldn't you put too much weight on a criminal investigation of West German Police in 1960-70? I could understand your concern if they where investigating their own countrymen, but they spent four years investigating a non-German unit composed of nationals from the then Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. The Commission states on page 862 of their final report: According to data gathered by Israeli police in September 1963, about 2000 and atleast 3000 Jews were murdered in Diatlovo and Nowogrodek on 6 and 7 August 1942 respectively. There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews. Contemporary researchers accuse the local German gendarmerie, one Lithuanian unit and a Belorussian defence battalion of these specific actions.[163]. Footnote [163] cites Christian Gerlach, Kalkulierte Morde : Die deutche Wirtschafts und Vernichtungspolitik in Wießrußland 1941 bis 1944, Hamburg, 2000, pp. 701-702. --Nug (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note re: "investigating a non-German unit composed of nationals from the then Soviet Union" -- presumably, the members of the Battalion retreated with the Germans and were residing either in West Germany or elsewhere in Western Europe; the Battalion's commander, Harald Riipalu, emigrated to the U.K, for example. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't see how that is significant, given that the majority of the Battalion where captured by the Soviets. Upon what basis do you dismiss investigations of West German police? As I understand it, there was an issue in the late 1950's to early 1960's in regard to the Police investigating their own members who may have committed crimes during the Nazi period, but I think it is too much to claim that this would have impeded investigations of foreign personnel in the late 60's to early 70's. --Nug (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Conclusions of the Commission

    I tracked down the Commission's conclusions, and here's what the document says:

    • "The study of Estonian military units is complicated by frequent changes in unit designation, in personnel and in duties, some of which are poorly recorded. However, it has been possible by careful use of Soviet era trial records, matched against material from the Estonian archives, to determine that Estonian units took an active part in at least one well-documented round-up and mass murder in Belarus. The 36th Police Battalion participated on August 7, 1942 in the gathering together and shooting of almost all the Jews still surviving in the town of Novogrudok.
    "In the published records, this unit was described as fighting against partisans at the time. The Commission believes that although there clearly were numerous engagements between police units and partisans, "fighting against partisans" and "guarding prisoner of war camps" were at times ways of describing participation in actions against civilians, including Jews."

    This is stated on page XXI: Conclusions of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity (PDF). So I really don't see the contradiction between the finding of the Commission, The Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos and Yitzhak Arad.

    Does the statement "There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews" perhaps refer to the act of actually pulling the trigger? Unless I'm missing something, the sources agree that the Battalion in question was indeed involved. Ping those who have previously participated: @Nug, Ealdgyth, and Sturmvogel 66: to have a look. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems that both The Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos and Yitzhak Arad are paraphrasing this document you found, so obviously there would not be any contradiction. The basis of this appears to be the view that "fighting against partisans" was code for killing Jewish civilians. But it isn't clear how they arrived at that, as it appears to contradict the main body of the report itself, which devotes several pages to the activities of the Battalion and asserts there no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion. Are you able to access Gerlach's work and quote the original German here, perhaps that may shed further light, I've given the relevant page numbers above. --Nug (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This document [I] found comes from the website of the commission http://www.mnemosyne.ee/hc.ee/ and is called "Conclusions of the Commission". Are you saying that the Commission is contradicting its own conclusions? There's got to be more context around this. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I said it appears to contradict the main body of the report itself, which explicitly states "There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews". Do you have access to Gerlach's work Kalkulierte Morde, pp701-702? --Nug (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I don't have access to Gerlach. If I sent you an email, would you be able to scan and email the relevant pages from the main body of the report (assuming its in English)? I'd like to see more context around their conclusion. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a pity, with you being able to cite more obscure German historians, like Sönke Neitzel and Wolfgang Schneider, in other articles, you may have also had access to Gerlach. I can scan the relevant pages, but I don't have easy access to a scanner, perhaps I could go to the local library over the weekend. --Nug (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I would look forward to it. BTW, Sönke Neitzel is not at all obscure. He is a leading German military historian; his 2011 book Soldaten: German POWs on Fighting, Killing, and Dying (with Harald Welzer) was a sensation in Germany. The book was published in English and is even available as an audio book. It's a fascinating read; I highly recommend it. See also this interview (in English):
    K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nug: any luck? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nug: final ping. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally back, have been caught up in WP:REALLIFE. I've managed to scan the relevant pages and will post a link here in the next few days. --Nug (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nug: Hi, do you plan to post here, or should I drop you an email? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Yitzak Arad cites as his source the Estonian Institute of Historical Memory, which is the successor to the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity. The Commission was disbanded in 2007 and Arad wrote in 2011. You need to check what the Institute says. If they are cited correctly, then we have to prefer what they say over the Commission. I do not have full access to the Holocaust Museum Encyclopedia. The article may provide sources which can be checked. It was published in 2009, so it may be relying on the same info as Arad. This seems to be a case where an original conclusion was changed, but we cannot tell without looking at what the Institute says. TFD (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally got my scanner working and have the Holocaust Museum Encyclopedia from the library. If anyone wants the scans of the article ... send me an email and I will send pdfs. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Balfour Declaration

    I would be grateful if editors could find some time to comment on an RFC as to RS suitability at the talk page for the above article, thank you. The queried RS are

    https://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2017/06/the-forgotten-truth-about-the-balfour-declaration/

    & (for comparison)

    http://www.balfourproject.org/balfour-weizmann-and-the-creation-of-israel-by-charles-glass/

    Up date martial status - Shaun Williamson

    Hi I'd like to update my martial status from being married to divorced. How do I do this ? Can't see anywhere I can attach proof of this Thanks Shaun

    You will need to indentify a reliable published source in which this fact is stated; take a look at WP:BLPSOURCE and WP:TRUTH for more on this. Without such sources any statement on your marital status can (and probably will) simply be removed at any time. Althought this may seem odd to you the facts of the matter are not relevant here: the only thing which matters for Wikipedia is what reliable sources say about it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an administrator watching the page, so probably best to talk to him directly at Talk:Shaun Williamson. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The Intelligence Forum

    1. Source. Dravis, Michael (17 January 2000). "Andrew and Mitrokhin Part 1". The Intelligence Forum archives.

    2. Article. Mitrokhin Archive

    3. Content. This paragraph appears in the "Reception and reviews" section of the article:

    Reg Whitaker, a professor of Political Science at York University in Toronto, gave a review at the The Intelligence Forum about the book:

    "The Mitrokhin Archive arrives from a cache under a Russian dacha floor, courtesy of the British intelligence community itself, and its chosen historian, Chris Andrew. The provenance of this archive is itself a matter of some controversy." After questioning and discussing the source of the book he adds that "the hand of British intelligence is evident, and Andrew clearly has a 'special relationship' with SIS." Then, Reg Whitaker goes on to talk about the British Media when it comes to spies and says that "ever since Burgess and Maclean made their run to Moscow in 1951, the British have treated espionage as a branch of pornography", adding that "it is doubtful that many readers enticed by the advance publicity will actually get very far into this voluminous tome of close to 1000 name and date filled pages. A gripping read it ain't.","is remarkably restrained and reasonable in its handling of Westerners targeted by the KGB as agents or sources. The individuals outed by Mitrokhin appear to be what he says they were, but great care is generally taken to identify those who were unwitting dupes or, in many instances, uncooperative targets."

    The Intelligence Forum appears to have been an internet newsgroup or forum: [1]. As an academic, Whitaker appears to be qualified to give a review of the Mitrokhin Archive, however, I thought there was some prohibition on the use of newsgroups or forums. Looking for additional opinions. Thanks! -Location (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

    Checking if these two can be considered reliable sources

    My concerns is that these two sources are currently being used in Girls' Generation. This article is in a good article status, since December 2016, so the majority of the sources are good. But someone on its talk page mentioned that WatchMojo.com is not a reliable source and I am also not sure about the InsiderMonkey source below. Thus, I'm checking here to be safe. After each link (below), I included the quote from the article itself, so you know what I'm referring to. If they are not reliable sources, the article just needs a bit of tweak to make it good again. Note that the InsiderMonkey source is also being used in List of best-selling girl groups.

    [2] (Insider Monkey) "As of 2015, they have sold 57.1 million records, making them one of the best selling girl groups of all time."

    [3] (WatchMojo) "Spin labelled "Run Devil Run" and "Gee" the 11th and 5th greatest K-pop songs, respectively, while WatchMojo.com ranked "Gee" second on their list of Top 10 Iconic K-Pop Songs."

    Thanks!--TerryAlex (talk) 05:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Context matters when determining reliability ... in this case, the ref to WatchMojo is a primary source supporting the statement that WatchMojo itself gave a specific ranking to the band. Now, that information may or may not be worth mentioning in the article ... but that is a WP:Due weight issue, not a reliability issue. Purely focusing on reliability, WatchMojo is a reliable primary source for its own internal rankings.
    No comment on Insider Monkey. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In regards to Insider Monkey, portions of that site feature articles written by recognized authors and editors of that site. Those would likely be considered reliable depending on what claims are being sourced. Others written by contributors would need a closer look, and the article linked above resides in the Lists area, which seems less reliable. Plus that article's author is not listed at the site's author link. I would steer clear of that one. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Question regarding MEDRS and Handbook of Near Death Experiences

    On the Near-death experience page some of my edits were rejected [4] because the source I used:

    Janice Miner Holden, Bruce Greyson, Debbie James, eds. (2009). The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation. Praeger. ISBN 978-0-313-35865-4 page 218


    was deemed non-MEDRS. Now, in the MEDRS policy they clearly state that "academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers" can be used. The above Handbook is from a respected Academic publisher [5] I believe, since it is both academic and educational. Also, the authors are some of the best known names in the field of near death experiences: Bruce Greyson, for instance, is either author or co-author on more than 27 publications mostly related to Near Death Experiences (NDEs) in Pubmed. Since I did not get an answer from the talk page [[Talk:Near-death_experience#The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation|The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences


    The text I wish to support with this source is the following :

    It has also been hypothesized that a "ketamine-like protective agent" was released during NDEs since the aesthetic agent has been reported to produce some features of NDEs such as "travelling through a dark tunnel into light, believing that one has died, or communicating with God". (ref HandBook) However, unlike NDEs, most ketamine experiences are frightening. Patients report their hallucinatory nature unlike subjects experiencing NDEs who are convinced of their authenticity. Also, some important features of NDEs are missing such as experiencing a life review or seeing deceased people. (ref Handbook)

    The main difference between NDEs and neurochemicals is the duration of the effect. Endorphins' injections lead to hours long pain relief whereas NDEs’ effects are determined by the duration of the experience itself (few seconds for instance). Another difference is that endorphins do not produce transformative afteraffects, do not lead to out of body experiences, a life review etc.. which are all components of NDEs.(ref Handbook)

    Best - Josezetabal (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Fringe nonsense from a non-WP:MEDRS source. This source is not usable for anything other than citing its own views, and then the problem would be WP:WEIGHT and probably WP:PROFRINGE. Alexbrn (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Josezetabal: Bruce Greyson's associations would definitely put him outside the academic mainstream: the Division of Perceptual Studies, for instance, describes its mission as the "investigation of phenomena that challenge current physicalist brain/mind orthodoxy – including investigation of phenomena directly suggestive of post-mortem survival of consciousness. " This has an air of credibility, but they're own self-description implies that most researchers do not agree with their approach, so I wouldn't use it as a WP:MEDRS
    Even if this was mainstream material, I would be dubious about bare assertions such as "most ketamine experiences are frightening" - how do they know that? It seems mildly implausible given that people use ketamine recreationally. That's the sort of broad generalization you might make if you had access to really high quality meta-analyses, but these are essentially conference papers. Nblund talk 19:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "most ketamine experiences are frightening" - how do they know that? A drug that reliably (as in "most" cases) produced a fear response would be a very poor choice for use in anesthesia. In fact, a fear response is the exact opposite of a useful effect in anesthesia. I would say this is more than "mildly" implausible, and more along the lines of "bullshit thrown out with the hopes no-one will notice because it helps support an even less plausible line of bullshit being sold". Indeed, it contradicts much published material, which concludes that the psychological effects of ketamine use are highly subjective, except for a notable anti-depressant effect and the presence of hallucinations. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is published by Praeger, which is an academic publisher. The editors include two professors, one of whom is a psychiatrist with other 100 articles published in peer-reviewed journals.[6] The book shows 91 cites on Google scholar.[7] That meets reliability. MEDRS incidentally is irrelevant. It's reason for being is "Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information." While we don't want any articles to mislead readers, extra care must be taken to ensure that we do not provide false medical information that some readers my rely on to their detriment. I do not see how that applies here.
    You need to be careful however in using sources and clearly distinguish between primary and secondary sources, facts and opinions, and majority vs. minority opinions. The contributors to the book represent a minority view on NDE and have not conducted sufficient research to form conclusive findings.
    TFD (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree on the last point, but how would this not fall under biomedical information? The content in question making assertions about side-effects of a widely used anesthetic, the pain relieving effects of endorphins, and the characteristics of a condition that most scientists attribute to neurological changes in the brain. Elsewhere, Greyson is cited for claims about potential psychological aftereffects for people who have NDEs. This is all biomedical stuff, and it doesn't take a ton of imagination to think of ways it might factor in to a person's views about medical treatment.
    Greyson is an expert in something, I'm just not sure that he's an expert in the topics he's discussing in the cited sections. It seems like he might be useful for information about the subjective experiences of people who have near death experiences, but he probably shouldn't be cited as an expert on the causes of NDEs - that's more of a neuroscience question. Nblund talk 20:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Wikipedia:Biomedical information" is "an explanatory supplement to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines and has no more status than an essay." We do in fact provide "biomedical information" in many articles outside MEDRS guidelines. We talk about how many people died from a disease, how many were killed during a war. In crime articles, we recount injuries and the effects of drugs and alcohol without using medical sources. The source is inter-disciplinarian, since the study of NDE is necessarily so, which means it is fact-checked by people from various disciplines, including medicine and psychology. TFD (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Quora.com

    Quora.com appears to be cited in more than 400 Wikipedia articles, although it mostly consists of user-generated discussions. Can it still be considered as a reliable source in some cases? Jarble (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a primary source, but in some cases it can be a reliable source. For example, on Instagram, the reference is to a statement by a person with a verified identity and direct knowledge of the topic. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is an "opinion source" and thus falls under the category of "blog and SPS" sourcing. Thus, if the individual publishing the opinion is notable in the field, it may be used, with consensus that the opinion is notable. Otherwise, many answers on Quora present sources for the claims made, especially claims of fact, and Wikipedia should examine those original sources. Collect (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmmm...a reliable source is one that has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Does Quora.com have such a reputation? Honestly, I'm not that familiar with Quora.com, but I am familiar with a similar website, stackoverflow.com which has an excellent reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Yes, it's a crowd-sourced site, but per WP:RS, "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.". Food for thought. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ""Self-published sources" (SPS) says, "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." It is also a reliable for source for the opinion of the writer, although that is of limited value, because we need to establish weight in order to mention an opinion. Quora has an open membership and invites members to post questions and answers. Members then vote on the best answer which goes to the top. So it is user-generated content similar to Wikipedia and hence generally not reliable. TFD (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with this assessment by The Four Deuces. Sagecandor (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Quora identifies the writer of each answer.
    2. Quora uses many people who are well-known in their field, they are not pseudonymous Wikipedia editors.
    3. Quora "overweights" noted authors, so the "but the users vote on the answer" bit fails.
    Thus, where a known author writes an answer on Quora, it has the exact same weight as any other SPS by an author noted in the field. I would note that among the authors on Quora are a fellow named "Jimmy Wales", "Richard A. Muller" etc. Posts by known authors are of the same ilk as for any SPS by a known writer. Collect (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Is Mother Jones magazine a reliable source for investigative reporting?

    Is Mother Jones magazine a reliable source for investigative reporting?

    Source was removed here: DIFF.

    Cite removed was:

    Thank you! Sagecandor (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    "While working on the Trump campaign, Caputo was placed in charge of communications for the candidate in New York." - Seems to be confirmed in other RS [8]NYT [9]CNN...MJ is a decent enough source in this case, IMO...DN (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, MoJo has won a number of journalistic awards, including for investigative reporting, and it has an established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It's certainly a source with a left/progressive editorial slant, but like The National Review on the right, is a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are some more sources that seem to reiterate as much [10] [11] - DN (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally speaking, yes Mother Jones is considered a reliable source, but reliability always depends on context. If there's some reason why this particular article is unreliable, we'll need more information on why it's unreliable. In absence of such evidence, our default position is that it's reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends on what type of article. In this case the first writer mentioned is a reporter, so it can be considered reliable. The reservation I generally have about sources such as Mother Jones is that they focus on stories that mainstream media ignores. So you can get into difficulty with "Balancing aspects": you don't want to add information that mainstream media has ignored. However, that becomes a benefit for articles about subjects that have little coverage in mainstream media. TFD (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Darknipples, NorthBySouthBaranof, A Quest For Knowledge, and The Four Deuces:It seems we are all in agreement, that for this source, used in this manner, for this article, for this assertion of fact, as backed up by other sources, this is a reliable source. Sagecandor (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the article mentioned that Caputo joined and left the Trump campaign, it seems reasonable to briefly mention what he did for the campaign. TFD (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's clearly a reliable source here. It has a perspective, which should sometimes be taken into account (eg. when worrying about WP:DUE or to make sure that an article's overall sourcing isn't unduly slanted), but that alone does not disqualify a source, and in every other respect it's very high-quality - it's won numerous awards, and it clearly has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. Concerns about putting too much weight on it are WP:NPOVN issues, not WP:RS ones; but in this case, it's being cited for a single sentence that does not seem particularly controversial, so I don't see how WP:NPOVN questions could apply. --Aquillion (talk) 01:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    LNo, it's a partisan mouthpiece similar to Breitbart. Facts reported by MJ should be easily obtainable through other mainstream sources. Facts that can't be verified are likely due to the partisan nature of MJ and would be false to report them as fact. MJ should never need to be cited outside articles about MJ. --DHeyward (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I strongly disagree, DHeyward. They are mildly left of center, but have a long record of award-winning investigative reporting and solid fact-checking. Breitbart, by contrast, is notorious for hoaxes and general hate-spewing. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't cite them on politically-contentious topics (like "is Breitbart News considered far-right"), but for facts like the one discussed here I think it is reliable. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    No similarity to Breitbart at all. MJ is an award winning investigative journal. Breitbart has clickbait conspiracy theories. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't intending to compare them to Breitbart; I was referencing (multiple) discussions at Talk:Breitbart News where I would not consider them to be a reliable source. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with DHeyward; Mother Jones cannot be used for stuff like this because of their rank partisanship. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Partisanship is not the question here; otherwise The National Review and FOX News would similarly be prohibited; of course, those outlets are not, because even though they both have distinct partisan slants, they also have fairly solid reputations for fact-checking, accuracy, reliability and responsible editorial policies. Breitbart is prohibited not because of its editorial slant, but because of its poor reputation for checking the facts and its undeniable history of publishing fabrications, lies, half-truths, distortions and the like about people it politically opposes, demonstrating that the site has no editorial oversight of a meaningful sort. The editorial and journalistic reputations of Breitbart and Mother Jones could not possibly be more different. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You guys have actually read WP:BIASED right? Quoting in its entirely here with the relevant parts bolded.

    "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. Although 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. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..."."

    By quoting WP:BIASED you are actually providing the relevant guideline that shows in this situation MJ is perfectly useable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Only in death: Touché! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The Register

    Is The Register a reliable source for its discussion of our Wikipedian in residence program? At issue is this diff. (Source) Andrew Orlowski is the writer of the piece, giving his opinion. This question about The Register has come up before with inconclusive results. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Its an opinion piece, so the question isn't 'Is the register reliable' (it generally is for most tech-related stuff) the question is 'Is the opinion of Orlowski worth mentioning?'
    Orlowski has history with Wikipedia, so personally I would hesitate to use his opinion on Wikipedia. While I would probably use it for most other things. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A perfect reply. It may be WP:DUE to post strong criticism as a response, but not when the writer has a history of taking every opportunity to criticize the subject. A reader would be misled into thinking that the response was just that—a response from someone who had considered the issue. The reader would be totally misled unless an independent source were used to note the writer's habit. Consider the last US Presidential election. Would Hillary Clinton have had a responses section that included a strong criticism from Donald Trump without any record of the background? Johnuniq (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For what its worth, I actually agree with his opinion on the paid editing wikipedian-in-residence money-pit project. I just wouldn't use it in a Wikipedia article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    CPJ.org as source for person not mentioned in the source material?

    Is it okay to use CPJ.org as a source for a person not mentioned in the source material?

    1. At article Michael R. Caputo:
    2. Info in question: In 2000 Caputo worked for Gazprom media where he helped CEO Alfred Kokh explain the company's purchase and control of the independent NTV Television network.
    3. Cite given: "Gazprom completes NTV takeover - Committee to Protect Journalists". cpj.org. Retrieved 2017-07-31.
    4. Edits in question: [12] [13]

    Problem: Source [14] does not even mention Caputo, at all.

    Thank you! Sagecandor (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Darknipples, NorthBySouthBaranof, A Quest For Knowledge, and The Four Deuces:Any thoughts on this? Sagecandor (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    looks like you are dealing with reverts by a paid editor [15]. Not sure which channels you should go through, but, maybe ask the TeaHouse? - DN (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Darknipples:Starting with SPI and go from there hopefully. Sagecandor (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sagecandor Maybe COIN [16], as well? DN (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is certainly wrong to use a source that does not mention a person, per "no synthesis." We don't know what connection if any he had. TFD (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Darknipples:Maybe after the CU is done. @The Four Deuces:Yes, definitely agree. Sagecandor (talk) 04:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Potentially serious issue

    Transcribed from Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources

    Dahn, a coeditor from Romania, drew my attention to the fact that leading Romanian historians closely cooperated with authors who allegedly denied Holocaust or were convinced for pedofilia. I think if Dahn is right, this is a serious issue, because we should not refer to such historians when editing articles. All comments were highly appreciated on this page. Thank you for your contribution. Borsoka (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I reviewed the talk linked. The poster conflates two issues:
    1. One author, Larry L. Watts is accused of historical denialism -- IMO here the answer is clear, if there are multiple reliable sources say that Watts is a denialist.
    2. Another one, Kurt W. Treptow is a convicted pedophile. -- Here the issue in not expertise, but morality of the author. What is wikipedia's position here?
    Staszek Lem (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Treptow (a convicted and jailed pedophile, not just an accused one) is also questioned as an author, for his links with neofascist and national-communist groups -- which is also an accusation brought up against Watts. Their (quite serious) critics suggest that they acted as legitimating agents for a political and historiographic school which gives the veneer of credibility to the nationalist synthesis of the late Ceaușescu era. The accusation, for instance, is that Treptow's child abuse was known and condoned by his contacts in the crypto-communist cell of Iași, and by some in the post-communist secret services (the same services who repressed democratic protests), because he lent them credibility; and that Treptow agreed to join in the charade precisely because the authorities granted him access to victims. Dahn (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This for instance is an article outlining the case against Treptow and his associates, published by a respected literary critic and journalist in the leading literary magazine of Romania. Running it through google translate will probably clarify enough of the meaning. Highlights include his links with ultranationalists, open praise for the fascist leader Codreanu, and apparent lack of scholarly credentials (contrasting his intense promotion by a select group of Romanian institutions, all with the same agenda and connections). This is Treptow, not just Watts. Dahn (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I do not believe that all authors who published with Watts and Treptow should be automatically seen as unreliable/unquotable. I do however have to ask if the books which have Watts and Treptow as editors of coauthors can be seen as RSes, regardless of whether other authors are reliable. Dahn (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • While Holocaust denialism is a serious blow to a historian's credibility, whether or not they were convicted of pedophilia is not. I know it's disgusting in the extreme, but it really has no bearing on their work, unless they're writing about historical pedophilia and/or pederasty. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about the other accusations levied against Treptow? For instance those that are identical to those against his associate Watts, namely that he praises fascists and denies or obscures Romania's participation in the Holocaust? (In addition to the article cited above:[17], [18], [19] etc.) Dahn (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What about them? If they're true, then Treptow would be an unreliable source on matters dealing with Romanian nationalism, Jewish history and other related subjects. If they're not true, then they have no bearing on his reliability. Understand that I'm not familiar with either of these authors. I'm commenting as an editor who is about as dispassionate as one can be. I would tend to err on the side of caution (assuming less reliability of sources facing accusations that pertain to their reliability). In the end though, we will need to see how widely leveled these accusations are. If it's just one or two people making them, we can safely discount them. But if there's a large number of people (or a significant percentage of experts) repeating the accusations, then we must presume there's something to them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect that. I feel however that the discussion was framed from the start as "Is Treptow unreliable because he is a pedophile?", when in fact that is primarily a most scandalous aspect of his career, but by no means the only one. I feel that readers like you were not given the whole info, and let to ponder whether being a pedophile made Treptow unreliable, which is likely to enlist more "nos". Dahn (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To be perfectly honest, the best thing for you and the OP to have done would have been to leave out the pedophilia thing entirely. It looks to me as if you are either of the opinion that either pedophiles are by definition inveterate and compulsive liars incapable of being sincere or earnest about anything else, or that you are attempting to weigh the discussion against these individuals by making sure all participants are aware of their moral failings. In fact, as I expressed before, I tend to agree that we should be cautious, based on the other concerns. But the pedophilia thing really has absolutely nothing to do with their reliability as a historian, and should never have been brought up. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, well it might look like this to you, but this is because you were led on by the way I was misquoted above. Also above, I explain why I brought it up and precisely how it relates to the other issues affecting his credibility. Dahn (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You were not misquoted. You were asked repeatedly to explain why you felt that Treptow was unreliable. The first direct answer which I can see that you gave was "I'd let others weigh in if Treptow, a convicted pedophile who praised Codreanu and Antonescu and was reportedly an agent of influence for SIE, is a reliable source, and more reliable than Bain.". Again: I agree, based on what you've said since that Treptow seems to be an unreliable source. But you muddied the waters by bringing up the pedophilia conviction. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read even that very sentence through, you will see I was misquoted. But no biggie. Dahn (talk) 07:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Folks, this really needs to be at RSN. This page is for discussing changes and improvements to this guideline. Would someone care to copy this over to there? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • The Wiesel Commission report, which is signed by tens of historians, including Watts and Treptow's one-time co-editor Scurtu mentions a book authored by Treptow and Holocaust denier Gheorghe Buzatu:

    [Holocaust revisionists] started by presenting excerpts from what they claimed was the 1955 testimony of the former leader of the Federation of Jewish Communities in Romania, Wilhelm Filderman, before a Swiss court. The document has never been produced and whether it really exists is doubtful. The alleged testimony had been mentioned for the first time in a 1994 volume in an editor's note written by American historian Kurt Treptow, who was residing in Romania. Treptow, whose pro-Legion and pro-Antonescu sympathies were well known, had long benefited from support on the part of the Romanian authorities. Coja wrote that it was from this tome that he had first learned about the existence of the Swiss 'testimony.' According to Treptow, the document could be found in the archives of the Buzatu-managed Iași Center for European History and Civilization. However, Buzatu was eventually forced to admit that the alleged 'testimony' had been simply lifted from an article published in the tabloid Baricada. The tabloid's editors claimed to have received it from Matei Cazacu, a historian of Romanian origins born in France. Upon being contacted by the Theodor Wexler, the vice president of the Filderman Foundation, Cazacu declined any knowledge of the 'document.' ... Treptow ... would again cite from it (while avoiding indicating the source) in Kurt Treptow (ed.), A History of Romania (Iași: The Center for Romanian Studies, The Romanian Cultural Foundation, 1995), pp. 485, 499-500. This tome was massively disseminated abroad by the Romanian Cultural Foundation, which enlisted the help of Romanian embassies for the purpose. Several Romanian officials and some historians were forced to face an embarrassing situation in 2002, when Treptow was put on trial and sentenced for pedophilia. (pages 357-358 in 2004 edition).

    On Watts:

    Also important was the role of Iosif Constantin Drăgan, a former Iron Guard sympathizer, who became a millionaire in the West and later a persona grata with Romania's dictator. Having metamorphosed into Antonescu's most fierce advocate, Drăgan contributed to the campaign waged abroad by the regime to rehabilitate the Marshal and recruited domestic and foreign historians into the rehabilitation drive. Among them were Mihai Pelin, Gheorghe Buzatu, and Larry Watts. (page 348) ... Larry Watts and Mircea Ionnițiu turned Irving [i. e. David Irving] into a legitimate and respectable scholarly authority by citing his work in arguments meant to exonerate Antonescu. (page 362) ... Nor have only Romanians embraced the argument [that Antonescu saved Jews]. According to Larry L. Watts, a U.S. historian who resides in Bucharest, the Marshal had been the 'de facto' protector of Jews against plans to implement the 'Final Solution,' because he shared the 'Western standards... concerning human and fundamental civic rights.' (page 373)

    Also see Paul A. Shapiro or Michael Shafir, as well as Irina Livezeanu's review of the very book used in the Stephen article, with Watts and Treptow as authors, together. Dahn (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Galkayo Article

    There is a dispute in Galkayo article about which source is more reliable. The dispute is about which state controls the neighborhoods of Garsoor and Horumar in Galkayo city. And if Galkayo city consists of four neighborhoods or five neighborhoods.

    The english language sources say: "Galkayo is characterized by being divided under two different regional administrations: [Puntland] in the north, and [Galmudug] to the south." "Safety and security District baseline report -" (PDF). page 8. Observatory of Conflict and Violence Prevention (OCVP). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) Geographically the city is divided into four main districts. Districts in the northern part of the city that is under Puntland state control are Garsoor and Hormar. "Safety and security District baseline report -" (PDF). page 8. Observatory of Conflict and Violence Prevention (OCVP). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) [1] [2] All of these English language sources written by NGO organizations say [Puntland] state control neighborhoods of Garsoor, Horumar and the city consists of four neighborhoods.


    On the other side of the argument:

    There is another user named Mohamed958543 who says the city consists of five neighborhoods and Galmudug state controls parts of horumar and garsoor districts in Galkayo city. And he is using non-english article from a website that supports Galmudug as a source. [3]


    Here is the difference on Wikipedia article [20]

    References

    1. ^ http://m.reliefweb.int/report/103519/ethiopia/monthly-nutrition-update-for-somalia-jun-2002
    2. ^ http://reliefweb.int/report/somalia/inter-agency-initial-investigation-report-floods-gaalkacyo-gaalkacyo-mudug-region
    3. ^ http://mudug24.com/2015/01/16/dhageyso-gudoomiyaha-xaafada-howl-wadaag-ee-galmudug-oo-ka-warbaxshay-suuq-cusub-oo-laga-hirgalshay-halkasi/

    Faarax200 (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    kooora.com

    Hello, is this considered a reliable source? I'm dealing with a lot of blps where it is the only given source. Thanks for your help, Boleyn (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Does the source have any kind of review by editors? Sagecandor (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Inside the Magic

    1. Source: Inside the Magic more specifically Video: Behind the walls at Mako Seaworld Orlando's new hyper-coaster! by Adam McCabe
    2. Article: Mako (roller coaster)
    3. Content: Mako (roller coaster)#Ride experience
    • "The queue line of the ride consists of a wooden pier, which riders upon waiting are situated under.[24] During the queue, guests of the ride take on the point of view of a mako shark as it traverses through preying grounds.[25] Furthermore, as guests go through the queue, various educational displays and a Guy Harvey exhibit can be seen.[25] Mako's station is themed to a shipwreck as with being underwater.[26] Before dispatching, a panel located above the ride shows scenes of shadow figures and a grouping of fish with accommodating visuals and sound.[24]"
    • Although sourced, I was wondering if "Inside the Magic" is a reliable source. The more specific source is the parts I wish to include and expand in the article about the detailing of the queue line and station of the attraction through a guided tour for the media. It seems to have a fairly large following and seems to have some notable figures in the 'amusement' industry as part of its team, but I wanted to make sure if it was reliable. (Currently Inside the Magic is not sourced in the article) Adog104 Talk to me 20:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the source have any kind of review by editors? Sagecandor (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like they do according to their websites "About" page, which lists staff, history, following, and contact. Adog104 Talk to me 22:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we know if all articles get a review by the editor(s) before posting? Sagecandor (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Drunk Politician

    I identified a new article with a POV problem, It includes a YouTube video of an allegedly drunk politician. I sought advice in the Teahouse and was told to excise that portion and post a note that restoration in its current form was prohibited. If it came back, I should give notice here. It did and here is your notice about Dan Huberty. I trust someone will pick up the ball and run with it. BTW, the other two articles created by the same editor were PRODded. Here's what I excised:

    In October 2015, the American Phoenix Foundation released video showing an intoxicated Representative Huberty after just leaving the Texas House floor. The video was posted on YouTube[1] and written about by Empower Texans, Breitbart, The Blaze and the Huffington Post.
    According to Empower Texans:[2] “Huberty drunkenly curses an APF reporter, calling him a “f*****g hack,” an “a*****e” and other derogatory names. At the conclusion of the video, while shouting expletives, Huberty fights his own staff and three DPS officers in an attempt to physically fight the reporter. His staff are forced to drag him back to his office.”
    1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkR4TTsQkwA
    2. ^ http://www.empowertexans.com/features/caught-on-tape-intoxicated-legislator-restrained-by-dps-and-staff/
    DESiegel -- Let me know if you think I made the wrong call. Have a nice day. Rhadow (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Rhadow, I think you made a good call. Another editor has since reverted the re-addition of the "Videotape controversy" section. I have posted on Talk:Dan Huberty and on the talk pages of those editors who inserted the content, noting that the article is subject to Discretionary sanctions. I would welcome confirmation from other experienced users that the cited source is not sufficient to support this content under WP:BLP. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Some really poor sources there. Absent any serious repercussions, would seem to be tabloid stuff WP:NOTTABLOID. And IMO, linking to videos of stupid human tricks in an encyclopedia BLP is just plain bad form. Objective3000 (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't find anything on HuffPo. There's one article, but it predates the event. Bromley86 (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Bromley86 - Frankly, I'm sick of this article. The author made stuff up as he went along, like the age of the candidate's wife. He copied the names of the candidate's children into the article, which is really bad form, and he used every opportunity to recount that the candidate is a Roman Catholic. It doesn't mean anything to me, but maybe being a carpetbagger and an RC means something. The voice, tone, and attitude depress me. If I could improve it, I wouldn't be any happier, so why try? Rhadow (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    wnd.com (i.e. World Net Daily) and citizenwells.net (i.e. Citizen News) for use in Suicide of Vince Foster (third listing)

    The reliability of wnd.com (i.e. World Net Daily) and citizenwells.net (i.e. Citizen News) for use in Suicide of Vince Foster has been brought up twice here previously by Autarch: 6 August 2016 and 23 July 2017. Although citizenwells.net appears only to have been discussed on this noticeboard those two times, wnd.com has been the subject of multiple discussions pertaining to various articles. On the article's talk page, Froglich has challenged the consensus reached in the earlier discussions by stating that he was not notified of them. -Location (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Not close to reliable, as has been stated previously. Objective3000 (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a chance. Fun fact: WND.com was the originator of that insane "Chobani imports Muslims" claim that got Alex Jones sued. In other words, they published a story so crazy that even Infowars retracted it. "CitizenWells" appears to just be someone's WP:BLOG. This is about as clear-cut as it gets: neither of these sources are reliable for claims of fact, particularly when it comes to this kind of right-leaning clickbait. Nblund talk 01:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    1) And Mary Mapes and Dan Rather were sacked from CBS News for lying. -- If publishing stories so "crazy" that key personnel end up being fired represents an even greater "match" per Nblund's analogy, then the following must be considered at least equally unreliable per Nblund:
    ABC (Alexis Debat resigned before being fired for lying)
    CNN canned three liars in its employee just last week, as well as Eason Jordan and Peter Arnett back in the hazy mists. Lied throughout the Operation Tailwind debacle. For some reason, the liar Jonathan Karl still has a job.
    CBS (see above; also had to fire Lara Logan)
    Associated Press (fired Bob Lewis, Dena Potter, and Christopher Newton for lying)
    BBC (liars Andrew Gilligan and David Kelly resigned and committed suicide respectively)
    Boston Globe (fired Patricia Smith, suspended Ron Borges)
    Los Angeles Times (dumped Eric Slater and Brian Walski)
    MSNBC (fired Keith Olbermann for lying, but still hasn't fired Ed Schultz and Mike Barnicle for lying)
    New York Times (fired Michael Finkel and Jayson Blair, but didn't fire Rick Bragg, Alexis Debat, Herbert L. Matthews, or Fox Butterfield for lying, and is still tenaciously hanging onto its tarnished Duranty Pulitzer)
    New Yorker (Jonah Lehrer resigned before being fired for lying)
    National Review (let Stephen Glass get away with lying for three straight years)
    New Republic (fired Ruth Shalit for lying)
    Newsweek (Michael Isikoff, source of the infamous "flushed Koran" lie)
    NBC (fired Brian Williams and Peter Arnett; see also Dateline exploding trucks debacle)
    NPR (promoted the "Jenin massacre" lie along with most of the rest of the establishment press; still employs liar and plagiarist Nina Totenberg)
    Reuters (Adnan Hajj's absurdly fake Photoshopped news pics)
    Sacramento Bee (fired Dennis Love for lying)
    Salon (Jason Leopold)
    Slate (Jay Forman)
    USA Today (dumped Jack Kelly)
    Washington Post (Janet Cooke lied her way to Pulitzer Prize)
    - But obviously we're not going to stop using these as RS, are we? Hence the provided rationale is one selectively and hypocritically applied.
    2) NBlund claims WND "was the originator" of the Chobani story. NBlund's provided link contains an internal link to an earlier WND article which itself linked an Idaho newspaper. Assuming NBlund's "originator" claim is a relay from Snopes, then Snopes either lied or is in error itself, and he must therefore account his own analogy centerpiece as unreliable per his own argument. And, oh dear, this looks embarrassing. --Froglich (talk) 05:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    None of this does anything to demonstrate that WorldNetDaily is a well-established news outlet, nor does it rebut the fact that WND has, to quote WP:NOTRELIABLE, a poor reputation for checking the facts, lacks meaningful editorial oversight ... (and is known for) expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) Every entity on the list above has "a poor reputation for checking the facts". Yeah, I know: WP:OTHERSTUFF. But, that's almost 'all of the other stuff on that list. Ergo, what's going on here is typical, hypocritical partisanship in which some entities are held to standards that others routinely flout.
    (2) That Miguel Rodriguez (a) exists, (b) was Kenneth Starr's lead prosecutor, and (c) wrote a resignation letter detailing his reasons for doing so, and (d) the text of that letter is available, are four points that no editor I am aware so far has considered a "contentious claim" (i.e., they flat-out don't believe it, and are brave enough to say it out loud).--Froglich (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    NFW these are reliable. Especially for this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Several of the examples provided by Froglich as lying are in fact not lies but errors, making this list a BLP violation. Objective3000 (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    No source is infallible, but reliable sources retract stories (and even fire people) when they get it wrong. Issuing corrections is actually part of the criteria for judging a reliable source because it demonstrates editorial oversight and a concern for fact-checking. WND doesn't do this: it never retracted any of it's Chobani reporting, or its claims about Barack Obama's birth certificate.
    Rodriguez is probably real, but I don't actually see him being described as the "lead prosecutor". The problem isn't just that this particular claim might be false, it's that WND frequently omits important facts, casts stories in a misleading light, and credulously accepts reports gossip and claims from sources that have very low credibility. Since - as WND admits - reliable sources didn't run with his story, there's a good chance that key context is missing, and it's nearly impossible to gauge due weight for the claim. Nblund talk 16:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Pile-on "no". Hard to think of any subject these would be reliable for. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Never reliable. Neutralitytalk 00:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    1)"Lying Dan" was a fixture of CBS for over forty years before they canned him. -- It's not like Mary was going to fire him.--Froglich (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    2) We appear to be in agreement (I note no objections, and no response from Nblund) that the example of alleged WND perfidy provided in this ANI was erroneously-presented. I.e., it wasn't the "originator" of Nblund's Chobani story (Nblund foray's into Alex Jones, who isn't the subject of discussion, smearing by association). WND merely relayed an Idaho newspaper piece, which is something every media organization does on a daily basis. Certainly the story was presented with "spin" (also something every media organization does on a daily basis). WND's source is considered RS by Wikipedia, as is equally-and-more-so biased Snopes by many here. (It should also be noted that WND wasn't sued, whereas Alex Jones was, per NBlund's account.)--Froglich (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you strike "lying Dan" as this is another BLP violation. Objective3000 (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That Idaho newspaper story doesn't mention Chobani, Ulukaya, or Muslims - so no, this isn't the source for the claims about Chobani. But this is really a moot point: you're the lone dissenter out of roughly a dozen participants across three separate noticeboard discussions regarding this content. I understand that you think the mainstream press is equally unreliable, it's clear that you're not going to persuade many editors to agree with you. Probably time to move on to other issues. Nblund talk 23:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like Froglich has the facts wrong on Keith Olbermann too. I wonder how many other BLP-violating false accusations are on that list? Morty C-137 (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No evidence of reliability This discussion seems to have taken a wayward turn. It's not the case that any website is a RS unless proven otherwise. Rather, the source needs to have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:SOURCE). I see no evidence presented for such a reputation. Do they have any "professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments"? What mainstream news organization have relied on their reports? What journalistic awards have they won? None that I can see at the moment. Eperoton (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unreliable - discussion of other publications is irrelevant here. Doug Weller talk 12:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reality Check Reliability always relies on context. There's not enough information in the OP to even give an opinion. Even Alex Jones can be a reliable source for what Jones claims. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point... any source is reliable for a quote from (or close paraphrase of) that source (in fact, a source will be the most reliable source possible for itself). However... we often get so wrapped up in debates about the reliability of the source that we forget that there are other policies and guidelines that might apply. For example, we also have to consider the WP:Due weight clause of NPOV. Would even mentioning what Alex Jones (for example) says give UNDUE weight to a fringe view? In most cases the answer will be "yes, it would". In which case we should not mention what Jones says.
    In other words... It may be that everyone is focused on the wrong policy. It may not matter whether the source is reliable for the statement... because the underlying issue is whether the article should contain the statement in the first place? Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Linking directly to a .gz file?

    Is it acceptable to link directly to a .gz file in references? Here is the reference in question. I don't know if this has been discussed before, but it seems like linking directly to compressed files could introduce a vector for malware. Andrew327 19:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Link can be removed and the DOI link itself is sufficient. Sagecandor (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed: DOI is enough, although I think it's good to also offer ungated versions if they're available. Users should be warned that the link opens a file. You could also just link to the publication on the author's university webpage: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/matthias/papers.html#scp91-felleisen. Users can download it from there if needed. Nblund talk 19:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Loops of reference?

    I'm requesting some help re advice I rec'd when editing Feynman diagram, when I tried to request a citation. The issue is whether we should use references that repeat without primary source things already in Wikipedia. A user replied to me I think understanding my worry that Wikipedia might play a role in a sort of information loop where unverified statements once they appear here could get repeated in expository articles and themselves become then references for the unverified statements.

    The discussion here below advises me to go to the physics noticeboard if there is one, but maybe the Reliable Sources noticeboard is the right place.

    Why "citatio not needed"?
    I'm vaguely aware that Feynman diagrams are credited with accurately calculating the Lamb shift, although the two authors who independently got the same result were eventually considered to have got the wrong result. It is not clear in that case whether the Feynman diagrams were only a heuristic (with how they are calculated and determined done a posteriori to match the known experimental value). Is there any case where an ab initio calculation was done with Feynman diagrams (of a new type, not belonging to a known family of calculations) that later matched experimental data? Does this only happen with collision/scattering experiments, where such a heuristic might be appropriate anyway? Surely if more is true, a reference would be appropriate?
    PS I notice the Wikipedia line "calculations using Feynman diagrams match experimental results with very high accuracy," is quoted nearly verbatim by some jouralists in some recent expository articles in New Scientist magazine and elsewhere which say "...predict the outcome of experiments to astonishing precision;" so it should matter to get it right. And it *can't* be OK to use a source which in turn had just quoted the Wikipedia article(!) in the first place. If it is beyond question that the diagrams have given an correct ab initio value of some constant somewhere I am not too worried, but is this just an anecdote or is it established in reliable sources. Createangelos (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    I agree that Wikipedia should not be used as a reliable source. You might like to take your concerns to the physics noticeboard. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC).

    Anyway, someone with particular expertise might help find references or clarify in this particular example whether or why they aren't needed.Createangelos (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliability of a source

    Hi. I am currently working on the Syed Shahabuddin article with the hope of promoting to GA status. I am wondering whether this Source can be considered as a reliable source for quoting information about Mr.Shahabuddin's educational details, political and diplomatic career amongst others. The author of the text of the source is a former Indian Foreign Service officer and someone close to Shahabuddin. Please give your thoughts. Thanks. RRD (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Should be fine for simple biographical facts, though not for flattering (or obviously unflattering) assessments. WP:BLPSELFPUB allows such use even for sources published by the subject, which applies a fortiori to an obituary published by a respected figure in a respected journal. Eperoton (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Jigsaw article sources

    Main article: Jigsaw (2017 film)

    I'm just checking to be sure (I am unfamiliar with these sites), but are The Reel World and Film School Rejects considered reliable sources for news on upcoming films? DarkKnight2149 02:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    notizie.tiscali.it

    Is this RS (it is being called a newpaper)? It is being used for this "Today Italy is officially a NATO nuclear weapons sharing state but it's common belief in the country that it stores its own nuclear weapons in La Spezia Italian Navy arsenal."?Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not a newspaper, it's a news portal run by a major telco. I'm not sure they have a newsroom, since they mostly seem to be republishing reports from ANSA, which is a RS. Eperoton (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but are they RS?Slatersteven (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what "they" refers to. An ANSA report republished by this portal would be reliable. Eperoton (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    They refers to Tiscali themselves, not who they repeat. ANSA is RS, so that would be the go to source. What about someone using Tiscali and not ANSA? As I understand it just because a sources uses RS does not confer RS status on it.Slatersteven (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Here (sorry I forgot) is the page in question [[21]].Slatersteven (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=794096780"