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

TorrentFreak, again

I just wanted to post that there's unsurprisingly a new debate over TorrentFreak at Talk:The Pirate Bay#torrentfreak.com. I'm mostly saying this here to attract more people to the discussion and because it's growing heated very quickly. Previous RSN posts have included this and this, and they have been referenced in this new discussion with some concern over their outcomes. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 12:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the discussion here. As always, RSN discussions need to indicate what content is in dispute. Please do so.

I previously identified past discussions about TorrentFreak [1]. In addition to those mentioned above, I'd found the following:

Talk:The_Pirate_Bay/Archive_5#TorrentFreak_as_a_reliable_source

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_28#Using_a_blog_to_reference_information_on_illegal_online_activity.3F

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_34#Reliability_check_on_TorrentFreak

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_118#Sources_at_Web_Sheriff (brief mention)

It appears to have (weak?) consensus as reliable for technology information. --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It would seem that using TorrentFreak as a source for The Pirate Bay would be a good start as the The_Pirate_Bay article uses TF as a direct source 43 times and many of the other refs just ref TF. Given that the TorrentFreak articles reffed use anonymous sources and TF is an activist blog, itself anonymous, that supports The Pirate Bay; this would seem problematic from an RS perspective. It also appears that all info about The Pirate Bay comes to us via TF. If so, is TF a de facto spokesperson for TPB, and therefore not an independent source? Objective3000 (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• The Financial Times refers to TF in [2] as "a popular news site in the file-sharing community".
• [3] "tech site, TorrentFreak".

It is not considered a blog. CFCF 💌 📧 14:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• The links require an account for access. How do the linked articles demonstrate reliability? --Ronz (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:USEBYOTHERS, among other things. CFCF 💌 📧 20:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC) 

And how is it used? --Ronz (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)--Ronz (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

You can go to Google and view the cached page. "In a December interview with TorrentFreak, a popular news site in the file-sharing community, Mr Dotcom said he was married with three children, including twin girls." and "[a quote] he told TorrentFreak."--Ondertitel (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

So they treat it as we treat a self-published source basically? That's nothing at all. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• I don't understand what you mean by saying it's not a blog?. Of course it's a blog. Even Wikipedia says "TorrentFreak (abbreviated TF) is a blog". Objective3000 (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources refer to it as a news site or tech site. CFCF 💌 📧 20:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It uses blog software, so technically it's a blog and sometimes cited as techblog too, but it is regarded as a news site by various reliable sources. (Which Wikipedia isn't) TorrentFreak describes itself as a publication. The site is used when searching for news in Google. Search in news on 'torrentfreak -torrentfreak.com' to see how others reference them. Just the results from past week show 3 pages already.--Ondertitel (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

For the good of the net: The Pirate Bay as strategic sovereign; Andersson, Jonas; Culture Machine, 2009, Vol.10, pp.64-108 [Peer Reviewed Journal] shows how a TorrentFreak article is referenced in a scientific journal. --Ondertitel (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you find someone that is not known to be pro-piracy? We are looking for unbiased, reliable sources -- not self-published activists whose main outlet appears to be TPB itself. Objective3000 (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll just quote others from previous discussions:

There's absolutely nothing wrong with using a non-neutral source, and as I mentioned on the talk page, there are very few sources in any subject area that could possibly be described as neutral. The fact that torrentfreak uses a non-neutral headline does not at all invalidate them as a source. Opinions in torrentfreak articles should only be included on Wikipedia with the regular opinion disclaimers, but the fact that their articles are frequently opinionated do not make them an invalid source for matters of simple fact. I have no idea why you think the fact that they have run editorials by Peter Sunde speaks against their reliability - many news sources run editorials by people who have opinions and/or people who are involved in controversial stuff.

— Kevin (kgorman-ucb) [4]

A source does not become unreliable just by publishing opinions favorable to a political party which one Wikipedian does not like. Squidfryerchef has said it well: The numerous citations of Torrentfreak in publications which are uncontroversially regarded as reliable sources (see also Google Scholar) show that the site has a reputation of being citeable with regard to its (limited) area of expertise. Given this reputation outside Wikipedia, it is irrelevant whether a Wikipedian is "struggling" to understand why all these scholarly articles, reputable newspapers etc. chose to cite TorrentFreak. Speculating about their editorial process also doesn't override this evidence.

— HaeB [5]

If you want specific things more neutral, bring on different reliable sources. See also WP:NOTTRUTH. --Ondertitel (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Their "reputation" is as a political, activist blog pushing an extremist view using anonymous sources. You claim that "scholarly articles" quote them. But, either they qualify their remarks as "TF claims" or they are themselves pushing a POV. And please, do not use Google searches as evidence of anything. Google searches, including searches of "scholarly articles", could provide evidence of the evidence that the world is flat. You need reliable sources -- not Google search results. Objective3000 (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The culturemachine.net article references [6] as (enigmax, 2007), using it as a source for "The site’s spokespeople have actually lamented the lack of competition from other trackers or torrent link indexes" (referring to The Pirate Bay). --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Given the examples so far, we may have to rethink prior consensus, and limit it to claims about themselves and the like. A TorrentFreak doesn't appear to lend much, if any, weight beyond. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Like the saying goes, "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence". [7] I'm new here, but what suddenly happened to "As always, RSN discussions need to indicate what content is in dispute. Please do so."? Or is the shotgun approach valid?

You said before: "So they treat it as we treat a self-published source basically? That's nothing at all." I think this is where your Wikipedia bias shows. In the same article they treat BBC exactly the same as TorrentFreak. So by that reasoning we should revisit the reliability of BBC too? Of course not. We use that wording to establish neutrality, but that does not mean a news outlet uses it for the same purpose. I think there it's more important to not pass off a story as your own and give due credit. As I understand the discussions, there were little or no objections to using TorrentFreak just like that.

WP:USEBYOTHERS was mentioned before, but I'd like to reference WP:BIASED. I think this is the problem people have with TF, and not the alleged reliability. (they are not the same!) Speaking of which, I still don't see a concrete issue pointed out. Or a reliable source that says TF reporting isn't reliable for that matter.

To conclude, "The concern with Torrent Freak is certainly misplaced as it is widely used as a source of original reporting on digital issues. Indeed, Barry Sookman regularly references their articles in his Twitter postings" [8] Don't be hang up again on it being a news blog. It's the domain experts that said/used it 5 years ago that counts. --Ondertitel (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem with TF in the TPB article is that nearly all of the 43 cites refer to TF posts that rely on anonymous sources. As a result, much of the TPB article relies on anonymous sources. Objective3000 (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Ondertitel, please WP:FOC.

We need evidence that it is reliable. So far, it appears as a reliable source for information directly from The Pirate Bay. That's it. So treat it as a primary source, and give it little or no weight without independent sources. --Ronz (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

And, it should be noted in any info sourced from TF, as it is by actual RS, that these are merely claims by TF of what TPB says (anonymous source of an anonymous source). All the serious reliable sources always qualify info that comes from TF. Also, 43 cites in one article from an anonymous source using an anonymous source are simply way too many for an encyclopedia. Objective3000 (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Amend:
"Serious reliable sources always qualify info that comes from TF"
    to
"serious reliable sources always qualify info that comes from [any source]"
    and you have a valid statement.
If you find any of the specific statements citing TF to be questionable we can discuss that. CFCF 💌 📧 12:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, that is backwards. As I said above, "We need evidence that it is reliable." --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable. TF has a staff of 4, and its pseudonymous editor-in-chief is a college professor and media consultant. TF has been relied on by a variety of high-quality reliable sources such as Ars Technica, Engadget, BBC, CNET, ZDNet, and PC World. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

It appears you're using an unreliable source (Money and the Music) to vouch for the reliability of another source (TF). Money and the Music is a blog that lasted five months five years ago and had zero followers. Objective3000 (talk) 12:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, DrFleischman! Looks like that list confirms reliability for tech info related to pirating. --Ronz (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

vault.com

From my talk page:

Hello Staszek Lem, thank you for your edits at the RBSC article. I wasn't aware of that problem, but your edits made me look into it more closely: it seems like vault.com is used c. 200 times on en-Wikipedia - most often as vanity "award" for the "best place to work in" in older references or, more recently, for relatively trivial branche-internal opinion polls. Especially articles about consultant companies with significant SPA edits seem to include that kind of reference to boost their reputation. Do you think, a discussion at WP:RSN could help to address this issue (or at least raise some awareness about it)? GermanJoe (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I look at vault.com once again, to figure out whether it is a reliable source for their ranking, and the following their statement raises a red flag for me: "Vault’s influential company rankings, ratings and reviews are sourced and verified through ongoing directed surveys of active employees and enrolled students. Vault also welcomes current and previous employees and students who were unable to participate in the surveys, to submit reviews on their experiences, salaries, interviews and more." There is no transparency it their rankings, just one more "gradeMyTeacher" or "yelp" crowdsourced opinion collection, and I would suggest to remove its rankings from wikipedia as vanity puffery (by a number of anons, such as recent

• 2.32.200.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 151.28.131.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 151.28.164.106 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 5.169.179.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Staszek Lem (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

P.S. GermanJoe wrote there were 200 hits, but today I see already 325.

So I would guess that vault.com is being spammed into wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up here for discussion. Some of the search results are in userspace or other non-article pages (unfortunately external links search does not exclude them), hence my different guess. But aside from that minor detail I agree with your assessment of course (see above): the source information is of questionable reliability and relevance, and it is misused for company puffery. GermanJoe (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Down to 300 (total number of hits), but it looks like every single one of the entries would need a major overhaul to remove promotional COI editing and puffery. Maybe consultancy is especially vulnerable to that kind of self-adulation - that area of articles is a mess. GermanJoe (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I was an employee at a major consulting firm (Booz Allen Hamilton) and Vault was one of the rankings we participated in, alongside a few others. I think we did at my prior, non-consulting employer, too. Based on my experience, the survey methodology was legitimate - in other words, it's not one of those sketchy, Glassdoor-type sites or a random magazine that no one's heard of and exists only to help small companies get Wikipedia pages. That's not to say that cruddy consulting articles aren't using this to bolster how badly and PROMO they're written, but I wouldn't reject an otherwise sound article solely for citing Vault as a measure of notability. Alaynestone (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

This is your personal experience and opinion. The fact is that nothing is known about their ranking: the expertise of rankers, the criteria, the coverage, etc. I.e, how it is different from "a random magazine that no one's heard of". Staszek Lem (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

And my suggestion is not to reject articles, only to reject quotes 'from the vault'.~~

That's not quite true - we do know some things. Each survey lists its methodology (I've quoted the section from the Top 50 Consulting firms [9] as a reference). My concern is that this still wouldn't be enough detail for this group to come to a fair consensus on. It's not the level of detail at, say, a journalistic article going through its detailed experiment parameters. That leaves it in the realm of a judgment call for editors. There, I can only give you my insight that I don't think this is one of the bad ones. That could be worth literally nothing to you. If you're in the "unless I can 100% validate it, it shouldn't be used" camp, that's where you'll end up. If you're in the "there are bigger fish to fry and this passes the sniff test" camp, then it may be fine. Or not. Either way, I think we're ultimately in the same place, which is that the survey reflects on pages but isn't the only parameter, which was my major concern.

In order to properly reflect a company's status as an employer within the consulting industry, the Vault Consulting 50 for 2016 is based on the following weighted formula:

30 percent prestige 15 percent satisfaction 15 percent compensation 10 percent firm culture 10 percent work-life balance 10 percent overall business outlook 5 percent promotion policies 5 percent ability to challenge

As ever, our survey is only open to consultants who are currently employed at reputable firms in the industry. When rating quality of life issues, consultants are only permitted to rate their own firm. For prestige and practice area rankings, however, consultants are only allowed to rate competitors, and NOT their own firms. Alaynestone (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The site allegedly performs branche-internal surveys by "verified" employees in the branche itself. By its very nature such a survey could only give a vague first impression of a company's branche-internal reputation from the employees' PoV. It cannot make any reliable statement about 1) the general world-wide reputation of a company, or 2) its business success against other similar companies. Still it is regularly misused by COI-editors for these purposes - such promotional misuses need to be removed. Branche-internal opinion polls are given too much weight in these articles; they are hardly relevant in an encyclopedic article primarily about facts, not opinions. The site also publishes lengthy company profiles with enthusiastic descriptions of all their activities: these profiles are clearly based on the reviewed companies' own information. GermanJoe (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Vault.com states "This year, over 17,000 law associates rated law firms on a scale of 1 to 10 based on prestige. (Associates were not allowed to rate their own firms, and were asked only to rate firms with which they were familiar.)" This appears to be a reliable source representing the aggregate opinions of 17,000 law associates. These rankings have value. JeanLucMargot (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

An article like Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, where you reverted my improvements, violates Wikipedia's policies of WP:PROMO, WP:NPOV and WP:COI. The current lead version (and some of the later content) is actually a great example, why such blatant puffery and self-promotional COI-editing from a company's PoV is harming the neutral encyclopedic coverage of companies. I invite other editors to check the article for themselves. GermanJoe (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, the aggregate of 17,000 opinions in not a neutral point of view? Which other metric would qualify as neutral according to you? JeanLucMargot (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Not the source violates WP:NPOV, but how it is (mis)used out of context for non-neutral statements. Just analyze the information more closely: The survey asked "attorneys to score each of the law firms on a scale of 1 to 10 based on how prestigious it is to work for the firm." This source does not support the statement "The firm is one of the most prestigious and selective in the United States and ranks among the most successful firms globally." The only statement it could possibly verify is: "In a branche-internal survey by vault.com in 2015, the firm was ranked 11th in the top 100 most prestigious companies to work for." Any other usage is misrepresenting the source and WP:OR; a source must verify the complete referenced statement without any additional interpretation or analysis. GermanJoe (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Providing additional context for the source is certainly fine, but that is a different action than attempting to censor the source altogether. Note that there is nothing "internal" about the survey because associates were not allowed to rate their own firms. A more accurate statement would be: "In a survey of 17,000 law associates conducted by vault.com in 2015, the firm was ranked 11th on the basis of prestige." Does that sound reasonable? JeanLucMargot (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Your suggestion is an improvement, but the "for work" part is crucial. The survey is not about the company's general prestige, only about one partial aspect. And this needs to be clarified in the article. But a detailed phrasing discussion for a single article would probably be better held on that article's talkpage - we got a bit carried away here. If the source is reliable (that's still open for debate), its results need to be presented as neutral and unambiguous as possible. Also WP:WEIGHT should be checked. Currently the survey result is mentioned in the 2nd lead sentence - is it really the 2nd-most notable information about this company? But as I said, it's probably better to continue article-related fine-tuning on the article talkpage. GermanJoe (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Clarification: When I wrote " nothing is known about their ranking: the expertise of rankers, the criteria, the coverage, etc. " I meant nothing is is known about vault.com from independent sources. They can write whatever they want about themselves. They can claim 17,000 experts busily reviewing companies when for all we know they are hiring an Indian sweatshop to browse the web. You have to present a solid proof that the company is reputable. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

To put it in WP:V/WP:RS wording this seems to be my appreciation: Vault.com self-publishes their research. Unless a third party RS repeats the results of that research for a particular company, Vault.com cannot be used in the article of that company, per WP:SELFPUB.

Or, in WP:UNDUE wording: if the only place where the data can be found is Vault.com (and other non-RS-ses) it is undue weight to mention such things in the article on the company.

When the company mentions it on their own website (with no other sources than that website, Vault.com and non-RS-ses), the company website may be considered as a source that self-published about themselves, but would still not pass WP:SELFPUB, per criterion #1 "unduly self-serving". --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Summary Let me see if I can take the concerns and rebuttals specific to Vault (not the side tangent about the law firm) and summarize. Did I miss anything?

• Vault includes multiple types of content, including rankings and company-submitted profiles. For the purpose of this, I'll focus in on the rankings. I think this group would consider a self-published company profile pretty clearly not NPOV. (Correct me if I'm wrong)
• Vault doesn't publish its ranking methodology. They include methodology summaries in the individual reports (ex: [10]). This is not at the level of detail of an academic report, but addresses concerns such as whether it accepts anonymous reviews from the internet and the weighting.
• We don't know anything about Vault from independent resources. Vault is cited by other reliable sources. I don't believe any of these talk in detail about the methodology, but I also don't believe that's the standard we hold here. Other reliable sources are vouching for the quality of Vault's surveys by reporting on it, including on a quick search: Bloomberg, CNBC, Forbes (staff writer, not a blog).
• Vault publishes its own survey results, failing WP:SELFPUB. I don't think that's quite the right interpretation of WP:SELFPUB, but I'm open to other opinions. That gets at - for instance, if Vault did a survey and rated itself the top rating agency in the US and put that on its page, THAT'S self-publishing. If a law firm linked to its press release citing the Vault survey results, that's self-publishing. Citing an otherwise reliable source (see previous bullet point) that you didn't write yourself is fine. To put it another way, if I worked on a page about gun crime in the U.S. and the Washington Post wrote a major investigative report on the topic, would I have to cite NYT's coverage of the WaPo story or would I just link to WaPo and be done with it?
• Without other sources citing the data, it fails WP:UNDUE. Again, I'm not sure this is the right interpretation of WP:UNDUE. As I read it, that has to do with how much a particular source is used within the context of an article, not as a criteria for judging whether the source itself is reliable. This would be specific to each page and not relevant to this general discussion.
• Vault is not sufficient to show notability for a company page. The source appears to be notable enough via its 3rd party citations to support notability. I don't know if it alone could do so, but based on a very cursory review of the participants, it seems like most of those groups have other traits that also contribute to overall notability to pair with the Vault ratings. Again, in either case, this is going to be specific to each page and not a blanket judgement.
• Because Vault surveys employees, the rankings are inherently biased and not NPOV. This has two components which should be addressed separately. 1) The Vault rankings on prestige are not voted on by a company's own employees. You rank other firms, not yours. This is a clear pass. 2) If the Vault ranking is on employee satisfaction, the only way you can measure employee satisfaction is by interviewing employees. It becomes NPOV through comparison with other firms - you don't assign yourself #1 or a particular percentile. Alaynestone (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

You could summarize the concerns (at least from my PoV, others may have other priorities) more easily in 3 points:

1. Vault's company profiles and other articles are full of promotional, non-neutral fluff and lack critical, independent information about the companies (and clear authorship in many cases). Those profiles are most likely based on self-published company info. Similar to other unreflected publications from other branche-internal magazines and websites, this information is generally not usable. This point should be uncontroversial.
2. Their rankings of "branche-internal prestige to work for" are misused by COI editors to represent "general worldwide prestige". These are not a few sporadic accidental errors, but a systematic misrepresentation in dozens of consultancy-related articles on Wikipedia. Note, that Bloomberg, CNBC and Forbes take a different approach - they clearly explain the background and limitations of those surveys in their articles, and do not try to exaggerate their importance out of context.
3. Even being positive (ignoring the questions about Vault's reliability) and assuming such workplace prestige-rankings have some limited value, they are still the result of trivial opinion polls. Encyclopedic articles should focus on encyclopedic facts, not on the results of some subjective "prestige" votes from 1 to 10. Adding such trivial factoids in an article, let alone in an article's lead section, is undue WP:WEIGHT to begin with, unless the article is focussed on workplace quality, employee surveys or similar aspects. Lead and "Awards" section should focus on significant major accomplishments, being ranked in an opinion poll simply does not qualify. GermanJoe (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

#3 appears to be the sticking point, and I'm not sure how to get around that except through inviting others to comment. I agree absolutely that pages need to present these findings correctly (case in point: the law firm article in the side-tangent clearly did not). I disagree that this is a trivial opinion poll that does not demonstrate company notability, again pointing to the citations in other international, notable sources who wouldn't cover the poll otherwise. Alaynestone (talk) 03:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Andy Whitfield birth date

There is an ongoing dispute over Andy Whitfield's birth date and, consequently, his age at death. Pasting in the work already done by Niteshift36 (talk · contribs) and others:

• This LA Times article says 39 [11]
• ABC News says 39 [12]
• NY Times says 39 [13]
• MTV says 39 [14]
• Toronto Star says 39 [15]
• NY Daily News says 39 [16].
• Entertainment Weekly says 39 [17].
• The BBC Says 39 too. [18]
• And, while I realize it's not completely reliable, I think we can allow the corroborating evidence of a family member's Twitter feed and a tribute site mentioned in the Talk page.

Writing "age 37" or "born in 1974" for Andy Whitfield, of Sydney:

• [19]: Sources: not revealed; no Author name, neither Agency name; Published (in fullissue.com – no street address, no town): no date.
• [20]: Sources: not revealed; no Author name, neither Agency name; Published (in stuff.co.nz "Fairfax New Zealand Limited" – no street address, no town): Last updated 18:54 12/09/2011.
  – Still in URL: "Spartacus-star-Whitfield-dies-aged-39", Now written: "Whitfield's manager Sam Maydew said the 37-year-old actor died of non-Hodgkin Lymphoma in Sydney, Australia"

Please help sort this out. It seems obvious to me which is correct, but there's so much noise on Talk:Andy Whitfield, it's impossible to get a consensus, and certain people are staunchly refusing to allow a birth date to be added to the article at all. Krychek (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The news sources saying 39 should be fine. The only information that might put this in doubt would be publications written about him before he became famous, before there would be any benefit to misrepresent his age as happens in acting. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• As I've said all along, many of the one's saying 39 are top tier sources. Yes, big ones can get it wrong and yes, small ones can be right. But in this case, the evidence is overwhelming to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Use the most frequent number from the most reliable news sources and handle the dissenting age in a footnote: "Some sources use the age 37." There is a whole category for these people Category:Age controversies. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this source reliable for laws and ordinances of cities and towns?

The page List of vaping bans in the United States. Currently no discussion on this source is on the talk page. The source "States and Municipalities with Laws Regulating Use of Electronic Cigarettes"

This source is produced by the "Americans for nonsmokers rights foundation"[21] an advocacy group. I see nor can find any indication that they are known for fact checking or that they have any editorial control. I am sure the information can and should be cited to reliable sources like news sites. AlbinoFerret 15:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The pdf in question says, "Please note, this document shows the number of places, not the number of laws. Some places have multiple laws. Please visit our lists page to see information by law in chart format." Poking around their website I found this page, which seems to be what they are referring to. It has links to that and other information on local smokefree laws. Looking at this pdf, there is an actual list of the ordinances involved, whereas the original pdf was just a list of locations. I would say the ordinances in that second list serve as citations for the sources of the information in the first list. I would say it's a reliable source.

Generally speaking (though not in every instance) I take information produced by advocacy groups as reliable to the extent that they provide sources for the information and keeping in mind that they are never NPOV, and one must watch for POV distortions and make sure that doesn't get into a WP article. But for a simple thing like listing locations that have a certain type of law, they are reliable. Now, if they say that e-cigs are dangerous, that's POV information. If they cite studies showing the danger, cite the study in the article, not the advocacy group, and make sure you look to see what other organizations have said regarding that and similar studies. You can say in an article that the advocacy group says blah, but don't state blah as fact. But for this purpose, yes I would say that pdf is reliable. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 23:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer ONUnicorn, but my main concern was not finding any indication that they are known for fact checking or that they have any editorial control. Could you please speak to that point? AlbinoFerret 01:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Not reliable. ANRF's stated goal is not to provide factually accurate information but to reduce the harmful effects of smoking. Moreover ANRF is the educational "arm" of ANR, a political advocacy organization -- same e-mail address. There is no evidence this source was subjected to any source of fact-checking or oversight. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing that concern. AlbinoFerret 00:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable The list is maintained by an organization that has tracked, collected, and analyzed tobacco control laws around the country since the early 1980s [22] "At least 194 peer-reviewed journal articles and/or reports have cited the Database since 2000 including five NCI monographs and three Surgeon's General Reports which have used the ANR Foundation data as a primary data source." [23] It would be hard to find a more reliable source for this subject. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Retraction Watch

Is retractionwatch.com a "reliable source" for claims about living persons? Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ariel_Fernandez has editors discussing the issues raised about that blog, and clearly the issue is implicit as to whether it is a reliable source for the purposes to which it is proposed being used or accepted. Collect (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It strikes me as similar to Beall's List. Only here the issues are more straightforward (i.e., whether an article is in question or indeed has been retracted). There's no reason to doubt what the source is saying in this situation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that the claim is contentious if one believes RW's assertion that a lawsuit was threatened? And last I looked, blogs in general are not allowed as a rule as a "reliable source" unless under the aegis of a reliable source. Did you note that? Collect (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no blanket prohibition on blogs, but on self-published sources. Retraction Watch is published and overseen by The Center For Scientific Integrity, whose board is populated by experts in various fields. Gamaliel (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, there's no reason to doubt that what Retraction Watch reports is true -- particularly given what we see in the primary sources that RW is itself using. Gamaliel's point is also entirely cogent. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

There are really two questions here, aren't there? Whether the paper was retracted or not strikes me as uncontentious (it's a straightforward fact that is easily verified.) Assuming Retraction Watch does have some form of professional oversight, it would be a decent source for that. But the second and more important issue is whether the retraction matters -- whether it's worth covering or whether this is giving it WP:UNDUE weight. My feeling is that Retraction Watch is not useful as a source for establishing that, because as I understand it publishes retractions indiscriminately. --Aquillion (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• absolutely reliable for content about retractions and surrounding drama. This is not like Beaall's list where there is judgement about whether a journal or article is "predatory" - Retraction Watch reports about retractions, which are actions that others take. See descriptions of RW and its editor in:

NY Times and again in NY Times

Nature and Nature Medicine (editorial) ](many more)

Science

I could go on and on, but really this is ~the~ authority on retractions of scientific papers. This is exactly the kind of thing that WP:SPS has explicit exceptions for. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes for specific retractions, generally for the reasons behind retractions, case-by-case for commentary on the general landscape of science and retractions. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, RetractionWatch is, in general, useable for material about living people. WP:BLP states that blogs may be acceptable if written by professionals and subject to good editorial control. In this case, the editors of RetractionWatch are both reputable professionals with extensive experience in scientific publishing, and the site is subject to their full editorial control. Moreover, RetractionWatch has a pretty decent track record in terms of accuracy and is, if anything, quite conservative in avoiding unfounded claims. (In the interest of full disclosure, I once met Ivan Oransky, one of the editors of the site, very briefly when he came to my institution to give a lecture. That's another point; the site is well-regarded enough that its editors are often invited to major academic institutions to lecture on the subject of retractions). MastCell ^Talk 00:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Not reliable. This appears to be a self-published blog. There is no evidence that these sources received any editorial review. Now, I agree that these authors, Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus, are established scientific journalists. Does that make them subject matter experts exempt from WP:SPS? No, no more than other journalists blogging about subjects they have reported on during their day jobs. They are simply journalists doing a little unreviewed, independent research in their spare time. These people might be experts on scientific journalism or retractions generally (especially Oransky). But they are not experts on the subject matter at issue, which is whether 4 specific journals have "questioned" a specific scientist's papers. That kind of factual conclusion can only be considered verifiable if it is (a) the result of journalism that has been subjected to editorial review by reputable news outlets, or (b) carefully supported by primary sources. In this case the latter is easy to do, as Retraction Watch helpfully points us to all of the relevant primary sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

In your opinion. But lots of independent sources consider it reliable, so we do as well, at least for the statements of sourced fact (e.g. retraction of a specific paper). For commentary, we take it on a case by case basis. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Guy, examples with links please? I found sources using Oransky for general commentary on retractions, but not Retraction Watch as a fact source for what happened in specific instances. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait a minute. RetractionWatch is not a self-published blog. It is published by the Center for Scientific Integrity, a reputable organization with a board of directors full of reputable scientists and funded by a MacArthur grant. Editorial oversight is exercised by Oransky and Marcus, who are both experienced professional scientific editors. In fact, they are arguably the leading experts in the US when it comes to scientific retractions, and are often quoted as such by major media when a retraction hits the news. MastCell ^Talk 21:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Aquillion is right on: This is a reliable source but by itself likely insufficient to establish notability or meet the burden of due weight. ElKevbo (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Nokia Lumia 920T GPU

Another editor is disputing inclusion of the Lumia 920T having an Adreno 320 GPU at Nokia Lumia 920. I contend it should be included, per the following sources:

• http://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_lumia_920t_has_adreno_320_gpu_instead_of_adreno_225-news-5062.php
• http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/09/lumia-920t-snapdragon-s4-pro
• http://www.neowin.net/news/chinas-nokia-lumia-920t-gets-supercharged-with-a-faster-adreno-320-gpu
• http://www.slashgear.com/nokia-lumia-920t-leaks-comes-with-faster-snapdragon-s4-and-adreno-320-gpu-09256354
• http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/china-s-rumored-lumia-920t-has-faster-processor-than-us-version-1111492

Can those sources be considered reliable enough to support the inclusion of that information? Indrek (talk) 12:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't find much on GSMarena, but the other 4 outlets are frequently cited by high-quality reliable sources (e.g. Forbes, Yahoo News, etc. etc.) and should therefore be considered reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Lifenews.com

[24] is being insisted upon as a source for a claim:

Cooper persuaded Neal to have an abortion when she became pregnant with his child

With a talk page comment:

It needs to be mentioned that Cooper forced Patricia Neal to have an abortion in October 1950, as this was the most infamous episode of his life and career in Hollywood. It also turned her into a pro-life activist.

This has been previously discussed and found not to be proper for the Cooper biography, and I fear the source may not meet WP:RS in the first place. I am absolutely barred by ArbCom from touching this again as it is now asserted (apparently) by its proponent to be a "political issue" and not a "biographical issue." Other opinions welcomed. Collect (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Removed it for now, life news is obviously not a rs on this. Looking for a better source to see if this should be reinstated, but not turning up anything other than tabloid so far. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, clearly not a WP:RS for this. Or probably anything else. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)