Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

If a person links to his IMDB entry, does this make it reliable regarding his filmography?

I've recently created the Wesley Chu page. Here he provides a link on his publisher's page to his (first) IMDB entry. (Side remark: Wesley Chu I and Wesley Chu II are the same person.) At the moment, there is no Filmography section. Based on his publisher's web page, I feel confident at adding Fred Claus, although I note our entry didn't bother listing him in the cast. I notice that since his writing debut he doesn't seem to mention any film or TV roles anymore, so it's borderline UNDUE anyway. Choor monster (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It's usually not very difficult to validate a filmography without going to the IMDB. For example, this interview, this filmography listing at The New York Times' database, this cast list at TV Guide, etc. Just do a Google search. There are also lots of sources listed at WP:FILM/R. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how this is of any help. The first link is OK, but it only repeats the information from the link I gave. The other two are useless on WP: which "Wesley Chu" are they talking about? Getting a RS cast listing of something he did back in 2008 will almost certainly not include enough information to pin down the name as this writer, who first published in 2013.

In fact, I did find one usable hit through using Google to search for him and individual movie titles taken off of his IMDB filmography: on his own webpage he has a still from The Art of Pain, identified by title. Choor monster (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

You can ask which "Robert De Niro" they're talking about in Variety, too. It's not that complicated, and you're turning it into a much more complex problem than it is. The first link obviously proves which Wesley Chu it is, so I don't even know what you're complaining about. This is silly, and I'm not going to debate it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Your response is ridiculous. If "Wesley Chu" and his filmography were written up in Variety, I wouldn't be asking questions about whether this use of IMDB is acceptable. Guess what? They're not. Yes, the first link, the one that I pointed out that it duplicated the link I provided above (right down the IMDB link) makes it clear that the writer appeared in Fred Claus, information which I had already stated above.

I'm interested in verifying his other appearances, as listed in IMDB. The first link doesn't mention his other roles, so it obviously is not a source for anything whatsoever about his appearances in those other roles. Meanwhile, a bare naked mention of the name "Wesley Chu" in a cast list remains useless for WP. Choor monster (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say it's not reliable here. It would be like someone pointing to their Wikipedia bio page. That would be an indication that the page would be accurate at that very moment in time, but it would be subject to change. My understanding of IMDB is that anyone can log in and edit and (correct me if I'm wrong) there doesn't appear to be dedicated fact checking. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. That makes sense. I'm assuming that IMDB is not like WP where everyone usually has full access to the edit history? Choor monster (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I've always read that IMDb pages are generally not allowed as reliable sources for the reason given by Kingofaces43 above. (See WP:UGC, WP:EL/P#IMDb, and WP:FILM/R#Questionable resources). I've heard, however, that IMDb Pro pages are subject to some sort of editorial oversight and are pages which are controlled by the actual person or their management. Maybe such a page could be considered to be a primary source per WP:PSTS and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchjuly (talk • contribs) 06:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

IMDb Pro allows you to select your own headshot, post a resume, and make it easier to contact/be contacted by industry professionals. It's not a super-IMDb that's curated. You can see more at their info page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• [is a whole section about IMDb as a source]. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

  Right. Which is why I was asking if the person in question links to his own IMDB entry, does that given the entry additional credence? As King explained, no. Choor monster (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Is a yearbook a reliable source to confirm attendance at a school

This edit restored a link to this source at Classmates.com, which includes a yearbook entry for Jason Zimmerman. Zimmerman did live in Cinnaminson Township, New Jersey (there's a sourced entry for him there as a notable), but he's far from the only person named "Jason Zimmerman", even in that one place. Is the source reliable on its own and/or is it reliable in conjunction with a reliable source that he grew up in that community? Alansohn (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

There are really several issues here. First, the immediate source is classmates.com, not the yearbook. Who uploaded the yearbook there? Is classmates.com a reliable source for yearbook information? My understanding is that it's just a social networking site and makes no claims about the reliability of anything posted there (a search online makes it sound like they buy yearbooks from people in exchange for $25 gift cards.) Second, even if we accept that that's the accurate yearbook, it is at best a WP:PRIMARY source (classmates.com clearly isn't providing any of the fact-checking or commentary that would make it a secondary source.) Using it as a source to assert that Zimmerman went to that school strikes me as involving a degree of interpretation (for the reasons you mentioned), which means it's probably WP:OR. So I don't think it's a usable source, no. --Aquillion (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Might be proper, if it is being used for a non-contentious cite: Person X attended high school Y. Person X was 16 in YYYY. However, agree with Aquillion that it is not really wiki-reliable, it is a WP:CONVENIENCE link to a quasi-self-published WP:PRIMARY source which was almost certainly written by a bunch of highschoolers and then edited in haste by the teacher forced to run the yearbook-class that year by drawing the shortest straw in the tenure-lottery. If there is any dispute involved, best not use what classmates.com social network *claims* is the real yearbook, and even if you have a real physical yearbook in hand, the authors/editors/publishers of said yearbook are not going to be especially high on the reputation-for-fact-checking-and-oversight list, right? So it is probably not wiki-reliable in the WP:RS sense, but it is probably good enough to qualify as WP:SPS. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Excellent example of original research ... when you declare a high school yearbook as unreliable. I see no problem so long as the math works out properly, a person should be 17 or 18 when they graduate. If the math is off, then you might have the wrong person. Primary documents are acceptable ... when used with caution. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I have actually seen such. Person graduated high school at 14, according to WP:ABOUTSELF. Long-running edit war over their age, based on their yearbook (in this case it was a freshman-at-college yearbook) and the assumption they were 18 that year. Sources gave several conflicting numbers (including those with WP:CALC). So, whether the yearbook is wiki-reliable, depends almost entirely on whether someone saw fit to WP:PROVEIT related to the DOB factoid. See also, WP:DBTF, which is about making assumptions that link two same-name-but-otherwise-unrelated-people together. This is the reverse case: splitting one person in twain, and assuming there must be two, based on a yearbook number and the assumption that 'everybody graduates at age 18 or thereabouts'. Agree about the when-used-with-caution bit, of course, but I'm pretty cautious.  ;-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

High school yearbooks are not reliable sources. ABOUTSELF does not apply he did not publish the yearbook and we do not know if anything attributed to him was actually said by him. Furthermore, we do not know if a person in a yearbook is the same person we are writing about. People can have relatives for example with the same name. Reliable secondary sources of course may use yearbooks as sources, but their authors are able to judge what is accurate and what is not. TFD (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I know this is the RS and not the BLP noticeboard, but this seems to fall under WP:BLPPRIMARY. Also, consider two things: Do we really need to know where this person went to high school? And perhaps in the interests of privacy we do not need to add certain biographical details to articles of people of marginal notability. A good rule of thumb is that if the fact is not important enough to be mentioned in a secondary source, you really don't need to track down a primary source about it. Gamaliel (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

news section of Vocativ website

Founder-slash-funding-source is redlinked Mati Kochavi; redlinked corporation Vocativ LLC is listed by Bloomberg, so they are a legit legal entity, albeit Bloomberg lists no details beyond corp-name and corp-website.[1] Publication itself *is* bluelinked, Vocativ. Being used in mainspace[2] for about two dozen nominally-WP:RS purposes, mostly "edgy" political-articles.

• Sex_drive-in#cite_note-11. Miet, Hannah (22 August 2013). "New drive-through brothel: Our 24-hour "sex boxes" are here to serve you. But there are rules.". Vocativ.com. Archived from the original on 3 November 2013. Retrieved 12 September 2013.[3]
• FEMEN#cite_note-vocaAT-129. Tunisia's Amina quits ‘Islamophobic’ Femen, France 24 (20 August 2013).[4]
• Timeline_of_the_Gezi_Park_protests#cite_note-239. "Gay rights in Turkey face uphill battle". Vocativ.com. 19 September 2013. Retrieved 2013-11-04.[5]
• Kingmaker#cite_note-11. http://www.vocativ.com/world/iraq-world/middle-easts-newest-kingmakers/, the Kurds in Iraq, Syria and Turkey now have a chance to become the Middle East's most unlikely power brokers
• Cave_dweller#cite_note-4. http://www.vocativ.com/culture/society/cave-houses/#!bQhbmJ

Also found in some BLP-articles, which are once again, mostly "edgy" politics-related BLP-articles.

• Imran_Khan#cite_note-79
• Ruslana#cite_note-68
• Vladimir_Putin#cite_note-391

Almost certainly qualifies prima facie as being WP:RS, to my wiki-eyes. They have professional editorial-oversight, and they use the real legal name of the founder. "Q: How big is your staff? A: Right now we’re over 50 people strong, and growing. We come from an array of pure-play digital and traditional media sources, both text and video. We’re learning a lot about creating a next-generation news operation. And we’re having fun. ...Q: So where’s the money coming from? A: We are privately funded, which gives us room to be ambitious and grow without having to compromise our quality. Our founder is Mati Kochavi, a global entrepreneur. Q: Does he call any shots when it comes to editorial content? A: No. We maintain a firewall between our founder and the daily editorial operation. ..."[6] Besides the founder, they have a corporation that can also be sued.[7][8] They don't let anybody edit (reader contributions are marked with the edgy new lingo My POV rather than Letters to the Editor but the principle is the same -- non-journalistic contributions from the peanut gallery are marked as such right on the tin). They use real names for journalist-pieces, and at least some of the staff-writers say they used to work at PrintMagazinesIveActuallyHeardOf before joining vocativ.

  But is it, you know, REALLY wiki-reliable? Not found in WP:RSN archives.[9] Honest question, never heard of these people before, not interested in removing the existing couple-dozen ref-cites that invoke Vocativ as a wiki-reliable publisher, not trying to get rid of the wiki-notability of the associated articles. (Methinks Vladimir Putin would probably not react well were his BLP-article to be sent to AfD... but since he has 442 cites besides vocativ prolly he's not too worried about the possibility either. Now, per WP:IAR, we actually *could* just delete his article... after all, Russia recently blocked wikipedia, so international geopolitical game theory says that tit for tat strategy applies, right? :-)     Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I think that use of each source should be weighed separately for each item sourced to them. So, instead of asking whether Vocativ is reliable overall, we should explore whether it's reliable for some specific item. One indication of reliability is use by other sources often considered reliable, and Vocative is referred to occasionally. The BBC refers to it as a "social news site" and the Guardian has "website". As you write, the material is a bit on the edgier side, which underlines that we need to decide reliability on an item-by-item basis. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. In the case I'm thinking of using it, the factoid is backed up elsewhere, so probably I'll just list both sources, vocativ 2nd. They seem pretty wiki-reliable to my eyes, but it may depend on the topic-area (or maybe on the particular author of the piece) as to whether they pass the really-have-a-reputation-for-reliability-threshold. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced Claims

What is the procedure to remove unsourced claims from the articles.. HIAS (talk) 04:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

gaskellguitars.com

Being unfamiliar with this area, I am unable to assess the quality of the website gaskellguitars.com. It has been added to multiple articles as a referenced and sometimes as an external link by just a few IPs (see this contributions of 122.106.89.77 (talk · contribs) and 122.106.95.53 (talk · contribs)). This gives me the impression that this is spam/promotion and therefore should probably be removed, but if it's actually a useful reliable source then I won't take any action. Deli nk (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

What on earth is it being used to source? I can imagine it being used to describe the existence of the company's own products (e.g., "Gaskell Guitars specializes in left-handed instruments") but even then only if the company has been mentioned in third-party sources. Can you give examples? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It is mainly being used to support text about different types of wood that are used in making guitars such as at Mahogany (diff) or Entandrophragma. Here's the linksearch results showing all its uses: linksearch. Deli nk (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Mr. and/or Ms. 122.106.95.53 has been shoehorning mentions of Gaskell Guitars into various of these articles. It's rather interesting that 122.etc geolocates to the Sydney, Australia area and Gaskell Guitars is also located in the Sydney area. No doubt this is purely coincidental. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Scoured Wikipedia of gaskellspam. I think I got it all. Really annoying stuff, lots of unsourced WP:COATRACK sections for linkspam purposes. Thanks for reporting it! --Ashenai (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, both, for your assistance. Deli nk (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

If they try again, we can blacklist it. Guy (Help!) 13:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Cato Institute as a reliable source for BLPs

Editor Jajhill has been adding analysis from the Koch-founded Cato Institute to several US presidential candidate articles, for example Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz. I believe this is problematic inasmuch as the Cato Institute is not independent of the subjects. While the material is attributed, it is presented as authoritative and is probably WP:UNDUE. I would like to know what other editor's think about this. - MrX 18:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I added the analyses because the Cato Institute's trade and fiscal policy positions are in line with the near universal opinion among economists. The Cato Institute recently had a lengthly legal battle with the Koch brothers over the organization's independence from the Koch brothers, who wanted the organization more involved in their political activity and the scholars there refused. I would assert, that despite the Cato Institute's ideology, since most of their economic policy views are in line with the mainstream view among economists and is considered among the most influential think tanks in the world, it constitutes both a reliable source and a significant viewpoint, and therefore, does not violate our neutral POV policy. It was not presented as authoritative, merely as additional ratings of policy positions by officeholders and/or candidates for political office, just the same as NARAL, the NAACP, the NRA, the ACLU, etc. does. - Jajhill (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

References

I would definitely like to hear from other editors. I find it difficult to accept that your edits were neutral, for example: "The Cato Institute identifies Clinton as a "interventionist" during her U.S. Senate tenure, indicating a protectionist, anti-market, and pro-subsidies voting record." and "On trade policy, the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies has identified Cruz as a "free trader" during his U.S. Senate tenure, indicating a pro-free trade, pro-market, and anti-subsidies voting record." To write that an organization "identifies" something, suggests that they have standing to make such sweeping statements. - MrX 19:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The Cato Institute's opinions are just that; opinions. To claim that Cato is "in line with the near universal opinion among economists" is original research. Cato's opinions may be of interest in biographies, but must be presented as what they are: opinions of a group with a particular set of political beliefs and devoted to the promotion of those beliefs. It should not be presented as "authoritative" but as Cato's opinion only. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• I generally stay out of political stuff, but I will say the following. What is good about the diffs presented, is that the analyses are attributed; Cato is a reliable source for what Cato says. I have not dug into the source to see if there is WP:SYN going on there. There are other questions about UNDUE and where such content would fit in any given article. In my view, any partisan/ideological analysis (and Cato is highly ideological - currently influential yes, but nonetheless ideological) needs to be very carefully handled and would ideally happen in a section that makes clear the section is devoted to various organization's perspectives on the subject. See for example Project VoteSmart's page about Clinton, where all ratings are under a single tab. I'll note that Cato is named there, and percentages on a scale are given (not the binary description yes/no that the content has) and area also given for specific time periods in her career. So I have some concern about use of the sources. But this does not seem to be a matter for this board. Cato is reliable for what Cato says. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

In Wikipedia articles about politicians, it is common practice to provide ratings by organizations that support one ideology or another. This supplements information about the politicians' stance on particular issues. If that kind of ideological rating is provided, libertarians should not necessarily be excluded. On the other hand, I don't think we need ratings from George Soros-funded organizations or Koch-funded organizations if ratings are available from larger or more mainstream organizations. Cato is certainly a reliable source for what Cato thinks, but perhaps there is a better source of libertarian ratings. The main problem here is that Cato is being used not for providing a libertarian rating, but only for providing a "free trade" rating, and I don't think Cato is particularly well-known on that score (compared to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for example). In any event, such a specialized rating would belong amidst a discussion of free trade, rather than amidst introductory material about a politician's general ideology.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Those are all reasonable arguments. Ideally, we would cite one or more secondary sources that cite Cato. By doing so, we gain independent perspectives and address the WP:DUE problem.- MrX 19:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course we can include information from Cato, as it is a notable organization well-covered by the reliable sources, and to censor it from articles is just that, censorship. However, the information must always be framed the way NorthBySouthBaranof states above: as opinion. Then perhaps it could be followed by a reliably-sourced sentence of another notable organization giving the opposite opinion. MrX is correct that it ideally should come from a secondary source. All of this provides a NPOV service to our readers. Prhartcom (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, MrX, if the problem comes down to the one word "identifies," then the one word can be changed, perhaps to "rates." I honestly did not intend any kind of authoritative meaning or breach of neutrality because (perhaps only to me and I'm not an expert in semantics) when something states that "Such-and-such organization identifies...", it usually implies that it is a judgment within the organization's bias, not a sweeping claim. As such, please do not accuse me of lying and being dishonest, "I find it difficult to accept that your edits were neutral." As for the issues of original research raised by NorthBySouthBaranof and Jytdog, I'm referring to the survey study already cited on the Wikipedia Economics page, subsection Agreements, the Wikipedia Cato Institute page, along with the citations in the edits itself, where the Wikipedia page and Cato itself, identify the institute as a free market and free trade think tank. That's why I argue that the Cato Institute ratings are not an unreasonable barometer of free trade, which is also in fact, consistent with the near universal opinion of mainstream economists, as the survey study cited on the Wikipedia Economics page notes. Since the information is already cited, I don't see how that constitutes original research, but if it does, I apologize. As for the issue of whether there is a better source than Cato for libertarian opinions raised by Anythingyouwant, the Cato Institute is the preeminent libertarian organization in the United States, along with perhaps Reason Magazine/Reason Foundation, as the Wikipedia page Libertarianism in the United States notes, so no, there is probably not a better organization for finding libertarian ratings, and as argued above it is not an unreasonable barometer of free trade. And as for an opposite opinion, as suggested by MrX and Prhartcom, since I don't know of the organizations or citations that would provide an opposite opinion, I will leave that to others to do. But to everyone, could the edits remain please? I only put the edits where they were, because, with the exception of the Political positions of Bernie Sanders page, none of the other 2016 US presidential candidates have (as far as I know) Wikitables where that information, ratings by interest groups/policy organizations, is supplemented. - Jajhill (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe "describes" in place of "Identifies"? Writegeist (talk) 04:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion, I'm guess I'm fine with this source in general, provided that it is written as "Cato Institute 'describes', 'postulates', 'thinks', 'opines...' " or whatever. - MrX 18:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Jajhill on your uses of the source. here is your edit on the clinton article:

The Cato Institute identifies Clinton as a "interventionist" during her U.S. Senate tenure, indicating a protectionist, anti-market, and pro-subsidies voting record.

References

The source very specifically says it measures on 2 axes - barriers and subsidies. The " anti-market," thing is your own WP:OR. Also if your editing were truly neutral here, instead of the binary "indicating an X voting record" you would have added the detail: "they found that she opposed 31% trade barriers of the time and opposed subsidies 13% of the time" or the like or gone with Cato's much nuanced language, indicating an X overall voting record. Your use of the source is poor and includes OR. When editing political subjects please strive to be neutral. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

A simple solution would be to compromise. Leave the Cato edit as long as it explicitly states it is strictly in the "voice" of Cato and not Wikipedia's. Then, add an additional edit with a counter-view from a different RS. Issues with political articles like this are more easily solved with adding aditional viewpoints instead of a rev/del. Darknipples (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources from Chinese media

Hi, I would like to have the community's inputs regarding the following sources. I will first list the sources, then list the translations, including partial quotes in Chinese, that I feel will benefit the article. Do these meet Wikipedia's policy as being reliable sources?

Source

1. History of the tank from an army museum in China
2. Transcript of an interview with tank's chief engineer The interview itself was conducted by CCTV and can be found here.
3. Transcript of an interview with yet another tank's engineer
4. Contains quotes from Type 99A variant's engineer

Article Type 99 tank

Content 1. History of the tank from an army museum in China

The first prototype rolled out of the factory in spring of 1989. Following a year of trials, requirements for the tank were increased to 70. Four additional prototypes were produced in 1992 based on these new requirements. In 1993, the requirement for frontal armor protection was increased to 700 mm. Two prototypes were brought to southern China in summer of 1994 to test the tanks' ability to function in hot and humid environments. Another two prototypes were brought to rural Beijing for reliability and fording tests. From 1995 to 1996, three of the prototypes were brought to northern China for reliability tests under extreme cold environment. The design was accepted in December of 1996. (研制过程 1989年春....)

2. Transcript of an interview with tank's chief engineer

According to the tank's chief designer Zhu YuSheng, the choice of 125 mm gun was influenced by the fact that this gun can house 13.4 L of propellant, versus the 9.8 L of western 120 mm gun. China's propellant was relatively backward and weak at the time, so a higher calibre gun enables the rounds to attain comparable kinetic energy to those from western tanks. Additionally, changes were made to the steel composition, manufacturing techniques, and electroplating of the gun's innards to enhance the gun's performance. (From second page: 祝榆生：实际上呢，这个技术真是各有长处，120毫米口径啊，那个炮装火药啊，装那个发射药啊，装的是9.8公升...)

3. Transcript of an interview with yet another tank's engineer

At a distance of 2000 meters, Tungsten APFSDS rounds fired from Type 99 can penetrate 850 mm of steel armour. Penetration power can be enhanced to 950 mm by using an undisclosed type of penetrator. (可在2000米距离上击穿850毫米的均质装甲...) Frontal arc of Type 99 can offer protection equivalent to 700 mm of steel armour. This can be further increased to a range of 1000 mm to 1200 mm using add-on armor. (炮塔正面的防护达700毫米...)

4. Contains quotes from Type 99A variant's engineer

On Type 99A model, engine output has been increased to 1500 HP and automatic transmissions are fitted. Steering is now achieved by a steering wheel in-place of original dual gear-shift columns. (我们让99A坦克具备手动挡和自动挡操纵系统...)

86.146.24.230 (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Cracked.com on Fifty Shades of Grey

Source: Evans, Robert; Fennell, Julie. "7 Things 'Fifty Shades of Grey' gets Wrong about BDSM, from an Expert". Cracked.com.

Article: Fifty Shades of Grey

Content:

The book has also been criticised by practitioners of BDSM for being poorly researched, especially as to the "safe, sane and consentual" mantra of the community. An example of the lack of EL James's knowledge is her take on a "submissive's" role in the relationship, that the submissive is completely at the mercy of the Dominant. "In a healthy Dominant/submissive relationship, the reality is exactly the opposite. The [submissive partner] determines what happens. They are supposed to have the absolute power to make a "scene" stop, and that's kind of the point -- it's about trust... that's part of the art of being a bottom: communicating clearly to your top, while still letting them feel like they're guiding things."

Reliable or not? sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 14:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I love reading Cracked.com; a perfect blend of humor, sarcasm, and facts. They almost always cite reliable sources for their material; do they do so here? If so, I would cite those and not the Cracked.com article itself. Prhartcom (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

... Huh, kinda went off on a rant there, didn't I (removed now, it was distracting). Okay, to answer your actual question: I don't think a Cracked article can be considered a reliable source (it's a humor website, after all, and exaggeration is part of their stock in trade), but the links in it can certainly be useful. --Ashenai (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Everything except the last sentence above is inapplicable OR and must be ignored. The last sentence is applicable to this discussion. The jury is still out on whether Cracked.com is a reliable source (I'm torn, myself; hopefully we'll hear from others), but being a humor website has nothing whatsoever to do with it. It's whether the source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and provides access to it's own sources, and Cracked.com does all three of those, actually.

I killed the rant, it was distracting. Also, I agree that Cracked provides access to its sources, but I'd like to see a cite for it being known for accuracy. I think the only real criteria it has for its articles is that they be interesting. I've never heard of it being stringent about accuracy.

I also think the fact that it is a humor website is relevant (and this point is actually brought up in the discussion you linked), because that determines its goals: it is supposed to be entertaining, not informative. We don't cite The Daily Show (we don't, right?), even though a lot of people consider it surprisingly reliable. --Ashenai (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I found this topic of discussion has naturally come up before, and the result is no, it is not a reliable source.

I decided to check the source of their claim for this fact so that the source could be used instead of the Cracked.com article. It's a bit tricky: Normally they cite their published sources, but this time their source, subject matter expert Dr. Julie Fennell, co-wrote their article (so we're right back where we started). Dr. Fennell's book intended for lay people that would verify the disputed fact is about to be published; not yet actually published. Her blog is here; I stopped short of an extensive search of it, but I don't know where her dissertation, etc. are. Not applicable, but I believe the fact is likely correct. Thoughts? Prhartcom (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Links to paywall login

What was the rule about links that lead to the paywall login. At one time I thought we had a rule to not have the link, or to hide the link. If hidden, the serious researcher can buy an account and cut and paste the link. It serves no purpose to the general reader since they just see the screen to type in the username and password. Someone logged in with a paid account will see the article, but the general reader will not. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you are asking about WP:PAYWALL? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• WP:Paywall doesnt say whether to display the link or hide the link. It used to address it in the past, I think. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly; it's fine. I have had to drive to the library and I've had to cough up a month's subscription to a paywall. Often, after gaining the information, I have provided it in a "quote=" parameter of the cite template. Prhartcom (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Help with an AfD?

I need some help and some backup, to be honest. I do not want anyone to vote one way or another on the AfD, but right now I have an issue: a new user is trying to claim that self-published sources like blogs and Lulu books can be used as sources to back up verifiability. They're also trying to say that Amazon rankings and reviews can count towards notability. (sighs) He's also trying to cite the author's website, his agent's website, Twitter reviews, blog reviews, your typical book blurbs (1-2 line sentences that are not reviews, but quotes to go on book jackets), and so on can count towards notability and as verifiable sources. This needs a lot of help. I'd removed the worst but it was reverted. The article in question is Secrets of the Last Nazi. I'd give a specific rundown of the sourcing, but there are 100+ links, some of which are cited multiple times. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstand (or you're distorting the situation, but I'm assuming good faith). I am not trying to claim self-published sources count to establish notability. Notability is clearly established. The other sources provide further information which enhance the article. Cantelo (talk) 10:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Possibly relevant discussion regarding the proposed inclusion of material on this book in our article on astrology: [10] Again, the issue was sourcing - or rather the lack of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• The issue here is twofold: first, the sources are almost entirely self-published and have little to no editorial oversight. WP:SPS should not be used to back up data in an article because they lack this editorial process and because there's no good way to verify the material via a secondary, reliable source. One of the sources you claim is reliable is a book published through Lulu, a self-publishing company whose books are notorious for their complete lack of editorial control. The site is actually on Wikipedia's blacklist for sites, if that gives you any indication as to how unreliable it should be considered as a source. The only usable sources were an unverified review in the tabloid The Sun (which I'm questioning because of the very rampant use of unreliable sources in the article) and a very short article in the Bookseller, which looks to have been heavily taken from a press release. I also need to note that part of the use of unreliable sources is for the reception section, where you cite blog reviews, Amazon reviews, and Twitter. These types of reviews are not the type that would be considered pertinent for a reception section - the only time these sort of things are pertinent is when a reliable secondary source (like a newspaper) covers them, as was the case with Bend, Not Break. I also noted that a lot of these sources are really the same source. For example, you list the Sun newspaper for one source. Then you link to the Sun's Twitter account later on. This same thing is done with multiple sources, which gives off the impression that there are more sources than there actually are. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that the appropriate course here is to cut to the chase, and ask Cantelo to provide proper complete citations of the three best sources, so we can take a look here - we don't need 100 references to demonstrate notability, and with the number being claimed, it shouldn't be a problem to select the best. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

What Andy said. I would add that even discounting the citations to tweets and other dubious practices, the article engages in some very misleading facts ("The book at one point outsold a book by John le Carre"—quite possibly true, but if the le Carre is question is The Naïve and Sentimental Lover or some other turkey then probably 95% of the books ever published have outsold it in at least one given week.) If this is genuinely notable, Cantelo should have no problem providing multiple, independent, non-trivial, reliable sources that say as much. ‑ iridescent 11:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm running through the sources here. I probably don't need to, but the fact is that I'm extremely disturbed by this since it seems very deceptive. I also want to know what the conflict of interest is here since I doubt seriously that a random fan would write something like this. This comes across like someone was paid to write this and given that the way things are cited are pretty duplicitous, I think that knowing the COI is very pertinent. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The use to which sources are being put certainly looks questionable: citing the author's own website [11] for quotations from reviews for instance. This is simply unacceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Your instincts are spot on: this is a rather transparent attempt to big up a book by someone who plainly wants to make a reputation for himself, published by a press that also plainly wants to make a reputation for themselves. Good luck to them both, but Wikipedia is not part of your PR. Also the article creator looks very fishy. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• I'm going to keep going through the sources, but I did want to make a bit of a statement because I know that SPS in articles is an ongoing topic: This is kind of an example as to why we shouldn't use SPS in articles in any context. People, especially editors on here, tend to look at sources in an article and assume that if one article used them, then they must be reliable sources that give notability and that they can use these sources in other articles. I do it and I know that others editors do it as well. There's also the issue of verifiability. In most cases book blogs are approached by someone, usually the publisher, author, or agent, to review the book. Not all bloggers will deliberately review a book positively in order to keep their book gravy train going, but people like that are out there. There are also people who will deliberately review a book negatively because of various factors, one of which can be because the author is seen as a "badly behaving author" and the reader's outlook is tainted by something the author supposedly did to someone. Bloggers also make claims in their reviews, claims about history, about the author, and so on. As can be seen in the specific book being mentioned here, the SPS are being used to back up various factoids in the article. But the issue here is that since there's no editorial oversight and most of these bloggers are normal Janes and Joes, that leaves Wikipedia potentially liable for any misinformation contained in the SPS. If the blog is wrong then people will ask "why was Wikipedia using a blog from a random person to back up something that should've been backed up with a more reliable source?" Or worse - the erroneous factoid will remain and be reported on as if it was true, all because it was on Wikipedia. This would only fuel arguments from the various people who view Wikipedia as the most unreliable of sources and shouldn't even be read at all (we all know that they're out there). The site isn't going to topple because of one article, but this stuff has a tendency of spreading. I've seen many people argue for blogs as RS after seeing someone else use them in an article, so I just think that we should continue with the current status quo: SPS can only be used if they have been thoroughly vetted by RS as reliable or heavily mentioned in RS as a pertinent addition to the article (ala Bend, Not Break and The Greek Seaman), otherwise they should not be on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Opening the path for blogs also opens up the path for books published through Lulu, student papers, and so on. If we allow one SPS, we have to allow all of them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Went through all of the sources (link again). The long and short (since I am verbose) is that the sources are predominantly primary and self-published. Several of the sources are grossly misrepresented, as in one case a one sentence comment is given the same weight as a full-length review and there are several instances of the editor referring to content that was posted by the author/publisher/editor, specifically book jacket quotes and the "about the author" section in various sources, things that are part of a press packet given to merchant sources, blogs, and other places. There is also an instance of the Amazon sources being used in a manner that gives off the impression of nationwide sales in bookstores and other outlets. The Bookseller source is most certainly a rephrasing of a press release, given its similarity to a marked press release. Definitely need to verify the radio show and the Sun review, given the abuse of sourcing in the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
• Redirected the page to Iain King#Novelist. It will become a separate page. Over time, I'm sure. But as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball I think a section on the author's article suffices for the time being. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yikes. A look at that article shows that the same thing is being done with sourcing. There's one instance where the book jacket blurb at Barnes & Noble is cited in the author's article as if it was a review. If this is the same editor that created the book article, I think that we'd need to ban him from editing anything King related. My biggest worry is that this is a separate editor that is making these edits, meaning that there are potentially more articles with this same issue. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm going through these sources. There's the same thing happening here, a misrepresentation of sources, original research, and primary sources. And I'm only up to the fifth source. This is absolutely awful. I have to say that this is probably the worst case of promotional editing I've ever seen in the entire time I've been on Wikipedia - and I've been on here for years and deal with Morning227 accounts. If this is multiple editors, I think that we're looking at a paid editing ring of epic proportions. I'm going to alert some of the other admins that specialize in COI and paid editing abuse to this situation. I think that it's very likely that I'll open up an ANI thread about this as well. This is absolutely awful. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Here's a source currently not mentioned in the author's article:
    • Oisín Tansey. Review of Peace at Any Price: How the World Failed Kosovo by Iain King, Whit Mason in International Journal, Vol. 62, No. 3, "What Kind of Security? Afghanistan and Beyond" (Summer, 2007), pp. 717-720.

  ... shows imho there's a lot of work, but aspersions against the philosopher's notability seem afaics unwarranted.

  Large cuts for content based on shallow sources should imho be proceeded with ASAP, but don't forget to replace it by solid content based on the kind of sources listed above.

  Also COI/paid editing/... etc "epic proportions" aspersions seem more than a bit over the top. Don't get carried away. I see primarily fan clumsiness, like we have to deal with a lot while WP:AGF on the editors. Opening an ANI thread about this now seems imho to be no more than WP:FORUMSHOP before this thread on this noticeboard has come to a reasonable conclusion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• This is actually in the article already, but it's not used as a review but to back up one of the claims in the article as citation 25. As for the claims of a paid editing ring, my concern stems from the fact that the way the sourcing is misused in the author's article is nearly identical to how Cantelo used and phrased his sourcing. Some of these edits are by editors that are decidedly not Cantelo. While sometimes people will mirror other people's edit pattern, there's usually a visible difference between the two. This is some pretty distinctive editing, complete to how multiple links will be in one citation. The bad thing? A look at Cantelo's edit history shows that he has not edited King's article. Given the similarity of the edits, I think it's reasonable to suspect that this is a paid editing ring, given how puffy the claims are. So far I have about four editors that I suspect with this and the thing about edit patterns like this is that where there's a handful, there's usually more. Normally most editors don't make edits like this unless they're paid and even then, most paid editors usually tone things down more than this. However as far as the article's claims go, the problem I'm running into is that there are multiple cases where the article claims one thing and the source claims something that's slightly different. At best this can be seen as original research and at worst, it's misrepresenting the sources. Basically what I'm saying here isn't that King is misrepresenting himself per se but that whomever wrote the sources is misrepresenting him. If I can find enough sourcing to back up notability when I'm done, this article will need to be deleted and re-posted because of how badly some of the sources are misused here. I doubt very, very seriously that this was written by someone who was only a fan and the similarity in the edit patterns suggest that this is a coordinated effort. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
• Also, I'm not going to be opening up an ANI thread until I have finished compiling the evidence, but so far this seems like a paid editing ring is very likely. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have to call it quits for today, but I only got to source 29. This is pretty bad sourcing so far. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Tx for all your work thus far. Yeah, the "editing ring" suspicions seem founded. ANI is however not the best way to deal with those in a first approach imho. Note also that if such suspicions are confirmed (in the right places), maybe what was said in connection to the recent Orangemoody ring uncovering may apply: meaning, most likely King would rather be a victim than a perp. So, let's try not to let this blow up in anybody's face, except in that of the ill-advised editors (if any, until confirmed). Wouldn't be surprised to learn they are in fact part of the Orangemoody ring, based on editor behaviour. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
    • In my opinion most of the clients of paid editing rings are usually the victims in these things, to be perfectly honest. (Couldn't help it, one last peek at WP.) They pay the editors, who claim to be savvy in Wikipedia editing, and trust that they will create a good article that doesn't violate policy. Some clients are aware that there might be some puffery, but most are not aware of how bad it can get or what their clients will be willing to do in order to keep that paycheck. (Many clients request part or all of the money back if the article is removed.) In the worst case scenarios this usually gets the attention of the media and the client's name is dragged through the mud as well, which is what happened with a lot of the Morning227 clients. Best case scenario, they're remembered on here as someone who hired an unscrupulous paid editor. I admit that the claim of "epic proportions" is probably some status dramaticus, but I do have to say that my claims that this is the worst case of sourcing abuse I've seen isn't. My experience with paid editing rings is usually that most will make some fairly normal claims but use unreliable sources. Some of the claims might be lofty (awards, role importance), but the're more straightforward and less bulky than the sourcing is in this article and they're far less prone to include original research. It's when they go out of their way to make big claims with bulky, unwieldy (and sometimes wrong) sourcing that it tends to involve a lot of accounts. But I do agree that King is most likely the victim in this circumstance. In any case, with ANI, I was thinking first to take it to the COI branch of ANI and file a formal SPI to check to see if there are any sockpuppets. I'm thinking that this is probably more meatpuppetry where an agency hires multiple people to make the edits, though, but sometimes these guys edit from the same office, area, or will use each other's accounts. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Orangemoody ring is (for a large part) editing prior to trying to steam the notable person into paying, so I'd be careful to allege King paid anything to anyone. This may be in the preparatory stage before attempting to steam the notable person. King may not be aware of anything, that's one reason to let this not go out of hand before the proper investigations (in closed rooms). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
      • FWIW, the earliest introduction of the oddly formatted refs (i.e. references added to vague puffery texts in the body, and then in the ref itself first some complementary text and then linking to some vaguely related blog-like website, instead of to an actual RS) is here (June 2012). Seems to have been going on for quite some time, and by quite somewhat more user IDs, but the style is so characteristic that it would be hard to believe they're not socks of the same editor. The more I look into it the less likely I think the author (King) being involved in any way in this. As an author King has a clear writing style, to the point etc. The puffery added to Wikipedia is quite different in style afaics, can't imagine King would even have condoned it if he'd be aware of this going on. Would have made an OTRS complaint or something similar a long time ago I imagine. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Linked In's "Pulse" as source

Hi,

Linked In now has an editorial publication called "Pulse". Normally, of course, I'd never cite to Linked In because it doesn't meet the criteria of WP:RS But I looked into Pulse and it seems to be a fully staffed professional news organization, with a mainstream executive editor and independently produced stories. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/meet-linkedin-next-wave-150-professionals-35-under-who-daniel-roth

Do you agree?

If so, is the following addition as the last sentence of the "Awards" section OK for Ale Resnik? I'd need an independent reviewer to add it as I can't do direct article edits under WP:COI as I am a paid consultant to the subject's company.

• In 2015, Resnik was named by Pulse to the LinkedIn "New Wave List" of the top 10 professionals under 35 influencing "what and how we drive."

References

BC1278 (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278

I would think not. The criteria to publish to Pulse is only that you have an external blog and that it have a "share on LinkedIn" button. [12] Michaelmalak (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Michaelmalak I would agree on any blog content. But they're also now producing independent editorial content and edit packages under the supervision of editorial staff. They hired this guy from Fortune and Wired to be the executive editor. https://www.linkedin.com/in/danielroth1?trk=pulse-det-athr_prof-art_hdr See https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/meet-linkedin-next-wave-150-professionals-35-under-who-daniel-roth for a discussion of methodology for this large package, for example. I think there's a distinction between the blog content here and the independently produced staff content that they're starting to do, but since I have a COI, I leave it to your consensus. BC1278 (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278

How can one tell the difference, on LinkedIn Pulse, between self-published content and content manually curated by LinkedIn staff? Michaelmalak (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Michaelmalak If a staff member wrote the article or created an editorial package, their name and editorial title are on the entry. As here, where the Executive Editor's name is on the article and there's a detailed description of their editorial process and methodology for this package. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/meet-linkedin-next-wave-150-professionals-35-under-who-daniel-roth But I agree you shouldn't have a blanket ruling for Pulse because there's still mostly blog content.BC1278 (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278

Michaelmalak I looked at a wider variety of articles. The editorial articles do always identify the staff writer by their editorial title at Pulse. e.g. International editor, Senior editor, News editor. But otherwise, they do not give a different graphic treatment to their editorial and the blogs from outsiders, which admittedly, is not ideal for the average person trying to sort one from the other.BC1278 (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278

Gun show loophole (Rolling Stone & Washington Post)

• Source: Washington Post [13] (starting at the fourth paragraph from the bottom)
• Article: Gun show loophole.
• Content.

  But his spokesman, McClellan, said Bush "has consistently supported closing the gun show loophole for a number of years." As for why he did not back Danburg's bill--which would have angered the gun lobby here--McClellan said Bush thinks it is up to Congress to deal with the loophole. "Federal legislation created it," McClellan said. "Federal legislation should close it."

  .
• The dif [14]

The original source and quote used by Rolling Stone... [15] (tenth paragraph from the bottom)

Bush justifies those positions as narrow disagreements over jurisdiction. Background checks are a good idea, he says, but because federal law created the gun-show loophole, federal law ought to correct it. That's why he didn't back Danburg's bill, says his spokesman Scott McClellan.

I presented the sources and quotes on the talk page but received the same answer here..."It's Dan Baum's characterization of what Scott McClellan said. To attribute it all to McClellan in the manner in question isn't necessarily his words, so it's erroneous. The next paragraph in the source shows a direct quote, which is preferable, though it deviates from the topic at hand in this article unfortunately. Same sort of issue with the second source." Darknipples (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

(Additional/more specific objection by said editor) "This diff is also relevant, as it is when the quotation marks were added. Adding them to my comment above as well, as they are a large part of the issue." Darknipples (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a bit confusing. It looks like the text that was actually added included the following sentence: according to his spokesman, Scott McClellan, "He felt because federal law created the gun-show loophole, federal law ought to correct it." which was sourced to the Rolling Stone article and a NYTimes article (not the Washington Post article). The quote in that sentence can't be attributed to McClellan based on the Rolling Stone article because in that article, the "he says" refers back to Bush in the preceding sentence, which means that the quote being used is attributed to Bush.

The revised content listed above is all a direct quote from the Washington Post article and if used, must be fully attributed to that article.

Is there some reason why you couldn't say something like, "Bush's position was that the loophole could only be closed by federal legislation since the loophole was a byproduct of previous federal legislation." sourced to the Washington Post and Rolling Stone articles? Ca2james (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Help sorting out multiple relaiable sourcing issues

An article called Conduit (publisher network and platform) attracted many visitors over the years who didn't like the company's software and used the article and Talk pages to complain about it. Two admins worked for years to remove statements from sources like online discussion forums and single author blogs. For some period of time, I think until about a year ago, the article was on protected status.

Now, most of the unreliable sources have been reinserted. Some are clearly not allowed (e.g. discussion forums) and others, such as instruction manuals for software, don't seem valid to me, but someone with more experience would know better.

Actually, most of the criticism of the company's software can be maintained even without the unreliable sources, but that doesn't mean unreliable sources should be allowed anyway.

I have a WP:COI as a paid consultant to the company, so I can't touch the article directly. But I did prepare a Talk memo that goes through each of the sourcing issues one at a time. It's here: Talk:Conduit_(publisher_network_and_platform)#Request_for_assistance_correcting_poorly_source_material

User: Graeme Bartlett, an admin, began the work of sorting out some of the issues (the editor split the existing article into two distinct articles), but didn't get past the intro.

I'm hoping someone with some considerable experience in separating out reliable from unreliable sourcing might have some time to look at the article and its sourcing. Reliable sourcing is an issue from top to bottom.

ThanksBC1278 (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278

News articles for birth date

Sources: Poughkeepsie Journal and Hudson Valley Magazine
Article: List of oldest living people
Content: The table entry on Vera Van Wagner seen in this revision of the page, particularly for her date of birth.

Some editors object to use of these sources for two reasons: a) the Poughkeepsie Journal says that the person's age has not been validated by the GRG so the person's entry shouldn't be included, and b) age validation is a recognised field of study and so only sources that perform age validation can be used for birth dates; entries sourced to news articles should be identified as age claims, not verified ages. Other editors (including myself) think that these two news sources are reliable sources for this person's date of birth and her age.

This question involves the World's Oldest People wikiproject. There is a separate but related RfC going on asking whether table entries in these articles should indicate which entries have been validated by an age validation agency at WT:WOP.

Thank you for any help you can provide. Ca2james (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, my proposal for this article is that we have two separate tables: one which is a ranked list of the oldest living people whose age has been verified (i.e. proven to be true) by an independent organisation such as the Gerontology Research Group, and another which is an unranked list of people who have been reported on in other sources, such as newspaper articles, whose age has not been verified an independent organisation. The reason that organisations like the GRG attempt to verify the ages of longevity claimants is because many longevity claims are false. So, unless any particular source like a newspaper actually says that they've attempted to verify the person's age and explained how they've done it, how can it be a reliable source for their birth date?

A distinction needs to be made here: is this source reliable enough to say "this person is aged 111", or is it only reliable enough to say "this person claims to be 111"? I would say the latter, and would say the same with virtually every claim sourced only to a newspaper article. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there is a distinction between "this person is 111 years old" and "this person claims to be 111 years old". Not sure if you need two separate lists, however. I think the issue could be dealt with by adding an asterix and a footnote that says something like: "Reported age - not verified by an independent organisation such as the Gerontology Research Group". Blueboar (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussions about things like that are going on elsewhere. My biggest concern is that some users don't seem to want to acknowledge that age verification is a concept that exists outside Wikipedia. There's a reason why Guinness World Records demand that "world's oldest person" claimants provide documentation to prove their age, because anyone can claim to be any age, even if they're not. However, some people want to make no distinction between people whose ages have been verified by an independent organisation (and hence known to be true) and those whose ages have not (and therefore subject to doubt). I suggested having separate tables for three reasons: Firstly, so that we don't have to have an RSN discussion for EVERY newspaper report. Secondly because it allows users to see easily view a list of the "official oldest living people" and then a list of claims, and thirdly so that different viewpoints are fairly represented in accordance with WP:NPOV. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Have you suggested separate tables at the RfC at WT:WOP? To avoid having to repeat that discussion, your suggestion should be made there so that the community can comment on it. Ca2james (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I'm hoping to find out whether these particular news sources are reliable for the person's birth date and age here as opposed to discussing how to present the data since that's already being discussed at the RfC. A similar suggestion (to indicate via a note that the birth date has not been validated) was put forward when I asked about the reliability of family- or self-written obituaries for birth dates in similar articles. What does the rest of the community think? Ca2james (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Longwarjournal

Is Long War Journal a reliable source? http://www.longwarjournal.org/ Volunteer Marek is challenging this source and claiming it is unreliable.

I'm asking in general for all terrorist related articles. Because its not just me who is using it, type in longwarjournal into the search box and you will find many other wikipedia articles citing longwarjournal as a source.

Such as 2015 Park Palace guesthouse attack, Abdullah Said al Libi, Amirli, Yathrib, Iraq, 055 Brigade, First Battle of Tikrit, Raskamboni Movement, Adnan Gulshair el Shukrijumah, Afghan National Army, List of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant members, Ahmed Abdi Godane, Afghan National Civil Order Police, 201st Corps (Afghanistan), Nasir al-Wuhayshi, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Qari Hussain, 1st Division (Iraq), Operation Augurs of Prosperity, Sadr City, Iraqi Special Operations Forces, Mullah Mohammad Hasan , Iraqi Navy, Saudi detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Tehrik-e-Jafaria, Iraqi Light Armored Vehicle, Mukhtar Army, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Camp Speicher.

Long War Journal has also been cited by Academics in books published by Columbia University Press, Georgetown University Press, University of Pennsylvania Press, Naval Institute Press United States Naval Institute, in addition to New York Times (two of which were on the newspaper's front page), Reuters, Associated Press, United Press International, Sunday Times, The Hindu, Cable News Network, the Times of India, The Australian, CTC Sentinel, Time, The Nation, Washington Times, and The Atlantic. Marc Thiessen in the the Washington Post. and by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Thomas E. Ricks in The Gamble.

Some news organizations have an entire category devoted to articles where they cited Long War Journal on articles about terrorist groups such as Christian Science Monitor and The Daily Star

See the sources at Bill_Roggio#Long_War_Journal.

Rajmaan (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you clarify what the links to CSM and the DailyStar actually show?  Volunteer Marek  05:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

They show a long list of articles by the news agency where they cited Long War Journal.Rajmaan (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Quoting on WP pages is not a proof of anything, but it is frequently quoted by books - as Google books search shows [16]. So, yes, I think it can be used. However, I agree with VM here that primary sources (like twitter) should be generally avoided, especially on highly controversial subjects, suh as that one. My very best wishes (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)