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

Source does not include Mike Singletary

[1]

Warren Sapp

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

Premananda Satsang Book 6

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

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

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

Is there an ISBN for the book? If there is no ISBN, there is no way to actually verify the information. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I looked and found none. I asked, and was told by the proposer that there is no ISBN. Jytdog (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider it a reliable source then. If there is no ISBN, there is literally no way to check the accuracy of the book. I mean, someone could publish an edition of the book, claim it to be the accurate version and no one would be able to verify that fact. Best to leave out sources like these. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with that. Am just looking for confirmation from the community. I'll be surprised if anybody says "use it" but am checking. Jytdog (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the article is a bit unbalanced – he was a religious leader as well as a convicted criminal. I think the content on his crimes is fine, but maybe the article could say a little bit more about what he taught in his capacity as a religious leader. While ideally a secondary source would be used to provide this info, in the absence of a secondary source, I think it could be acceptable to use a primary source, even a self-published source. It can be acceptable to quote a person's own words in their biography even if those words were self-published. Now, about this particular book – I think we have insufficient evidence it actually exists or really says what is claimed to accept it. But if stronger evidence of its existence and contents could be obtained, I think we should be willing to consider quoting from it. I also think it might be worthwhile to refer to the site maintained by his followers. I think that might be a sufficiently reliable source for the purpose of establishing his own teachings. SJK (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

If the only notability of the Swami is for his crime, then the page has no right to exist and it should be AfD'ed. For the subject to be notable there should be at least two good reliable sources that establish the notability.

Coming back to the issue raised, anything the Swami wrote or taught is WP:PRIMARY source. It can only be used to supplement what is covered in SECONDARY sources, but cannot be used as the main source on its own. This particular PRIMARY source is essentially self-published, and so it is doubly prohibited. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3 you or anybody is welcome to nominate the article for deletion. The discussion on this one would be interesting. I think it would pass, but others may differ. Jytdog (talk) 05:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

François Asselineau, ad.

• François Asselineau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thanks for the different replies about François Asselineau

One more, request -it was archived before replies-:

1. The following website leplus is the user-contributed/user-blog part of Le Nouvel Obs and is referred to at least 5 times on the page; this source shows some severe inacurracy in its quotes (of Asselineau), inaccurracy that was noted in the article TP. Should it be considered reliable though? Yours,--S.P.R. Lewitt (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: the archived case is here. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks, I had seen it but the section was archived before any reply to that very question.--S.P.R. Lewitt (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, user generated content is not reliable. Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

OK. Understood. I will leave a message on the TP of the article about this issue. Thanks a lot again--S.P.R. Lewitt (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

This leplus.nouvelobs.com article is referred to in the article François Asselineau as "The collaborative website Le Plus of the magazine L'Obs observed in an article edited by their news director Louise Pothier that ...", which explains it all: the author Louise Pothier is not just any external user, she is a professional journalist employed by this website, as he page says on the L'Obs website http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/journaliste/13660/louise-pothier.html ("Chef des infos du Plus, je suis également en charge de la rubrique médias.") Oliv0 (talk) 07:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

That source says it is by "Par C. M. Féministe" and edited by the person you name. But actually posted by some anonymous reader. Jytdog (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, in fact this is what is also said in the quote from the article above: "edited by their news director", and the citation used 5 times in the article starts "Pothier, Louise; Merlin, Caroline (23 September 2014)..." showing both as authors. Oliv0 (talk) 08:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

If a SPS like that is used, it needs to be attributed yes, but we only use SPS by someone who is an authority. Read WP:SPS. There is no reason to use user-generated content like this, especially not cited five times. That is not what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I also see the article starts with "LE PLUS", as if the website or their journalist and news director Louise Pothier was taking some responsibility for authorship, while WP:SPS seems to mean the opposite of this, no selection or editing, though indeed as the WP article says, it is a "collaborative website". Also note that this Le Plus article is mainly used as a secondary source in order to select for the WP article the most relevant information about his conspiracy theories within the primary sources given inline by Le Plus: an interview of François Asselineau at the popular TV program On n'est pas couché on Dailymotion, and one of the many videos explaining his views made by François Asselineau for Youtube. Oliv0 (talk) 09:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

This is user generated content by some random person and you cannot use it as a source. Cannot. Especially not in a WP:BLP article. I am going to the article now and removing it. Do not add it back and until you have consensus that it is actually OK. Right now you do not have it. I am not going to respond further; we can see what others have to say. Jytdog (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Folks we could really use more input here. I am going to cross-post at BLPN. I just removed this source from the article per BLP - you can see how it was deployed there, especially the paragraph at the bottom. Jytdog (talk) 12:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog is absolutely correct. If you can verify that user generated content is accurate, then you can cite whatever source you used to verify it. So there are no cases in which user-generated content is useful on Wikipedia (except of course, for every word written in article space in all of wikipedia, naturally).
Don't let my little note confuse you: That was a joke (probably a bad one, but still). As a source, we NEVER use user generated content for stuff like this. We produce such content, but we do so with the strictest standards on the web, and we still can't cite other wikipedia pages. So if WP isn't an RS, then no other such source could even be considered. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: The specificity of this case is that the objected weak secondary source (and the one I replaced it with) added no content to the primary sources and only served to avoid WP:SYN / WP:CHERRYPICKING, meaning they show the relevant parts in the primary sources, which else could be easily manipulated towards non-WP:NEUTRAL and WP:UNDUE. Because we are speaking of a politician with meagre electoral results and little notoriety but very active on the web, so there are a lot of promotional primary sources and a few critical secondary sources; if we remove the few secondary sources, only the {{ad}} part will remain. Oliv0 (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Oliv0: If removing information which is poorly sourced leaves nothing left but information which doesn't meet WP's standards for inclusion, then the article should be deleted. The best heuristic for notability is "do we have enough reliable sources to create an article for this subject?" If the answer is no, then the subject probably doesn't meet our notability guidelines. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleting the article has been tried many times, which has always been considered a disgrace that could only stem from that frwiki with bizarre notability rules. :) (Nobody noticed yet that the main defender of the article there, Lawren00 had a big COI.) Now that François Asselineau has been deemed notable on frwiki, the article would certainly not be deleted here. Oliv0 (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

To be blunt, the fact that another language wiki has an article on the subject doesn't establish notability. If notability cannot be established using reliable sources, then notability is not established. If you can scrape together enough reliable sources to make for a stub article, then I'd take that route. With time, eventually enough news sources will cover the subject to expand the article then. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Youtube interview with show manager at Epcot

In IllumiNations: Reflections of Earth, this YouTube video is used as a source. The video does appear to include statements from a Disney employee; can these be treated as reliable sources for the description of the show? I am sceptical for a couple of reasons. I have no doubt this really is a Disney employee, and he's saying what he is supposed to say; in that sense these are "official" words. But the description is essentially the same as one might find on a Disney webpage marketing the event; there's no reason to treat it as a reliable source for anything other than "Disney describes it/markets it in this way". Is it good enough for that? Is it good for more than that? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if it's a copyright issue. Disney probably doesn't want visitors making videos that long and posting them on youtube. Even though it's pretty likely he's an employee, we can't really verify it. Depending on the context in the article, you could potentially cite Disney's promotional material as a primary source a little bit as long as it's attributed to what Disney says about themselves. But I don't think that should come from usergenerated content from youtube. —PermStrump(talk) 10:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, that's pretty much in line with what I was thinking. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hemp Line Journal

Hello, I'm wondering whether this is a reliable source or not. It seems to be from some journal called Hemp Line Journal (I have no idea if it has any association with Journal of Industrial Hemp?), and I've so far only found the study on two sites, namely ratical.org and sativa-power.de, however, the study in question is cited by numerous hemp books that were published in the 1990s (Google Books lists its citation in several books, if you search "Hemp Line Journal", and the study is from 1992), so it seems to be a legitimate source. I haven't found the study republished by PubMed or anything like that, but perhaps that's because the study didn't reach their attention or something. So I wonder if I can use it here on Wikipedia? HempFan (talk) 11:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hempfan, if you look at the instructions for this page, you have to tell the community what content you want to generate from the source, and provide the source. There is no blanket answer. (Although I can tell you that the source fails WP:MEDRS so if you want to write some content about health based on it, that will not fly. But let us know what content you want to support with that source. Jytdog (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Right, sorry about that. This is the content I wrote with the source in mind: Hemp protein is also very similar to human blood plasma, and generates anti-bodies as a result of its immunoglobulin protein content, and thereby improving the immune system. Which I added in this article/stub. I think the source is fine for that purpose, if it was actually a serious accredited journal at one point. The study seems like it knows what it's talking about, or serious enough anyway, although I'm no expert on antibodies so to say. How does it fail WP:MEDRS? HempFan (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd revert what you've written without looking at the source, basically due to the phrase "and thereby improving the immune system". If that is in your source, it is almost certainly not WP:MEDRS. Thinking further, it looks like somebody has been indulging in WP:OR. As the source is from 1992, and isn't a review, I'd say it doesn't meet our requirements. But I'd wait for more experienced and knowledgeable editors to respond as well. -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

That is a health claim, and that source fails MEDRS. We look for review articles published in the biomedical literature, generally indexed by pubmed (although some good journals are indexed by say Scopus that aren't pubmed indexed). here is what you get at pubmed. I don't see that "The Hemp Line Journal" even has a website, so we can't see where it is indexed. Jytdog (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, I'm no expert on antibodies, but reading up a bit on the article Albumin, it seems very much in line with what the Hemp Line Journal article/study says. Case in point, from the albumin article: Albumins are commonly found in blood plasma and differ from other blood proteins in that they are not glycosylated. Substances containing albumins, such as egg white, are called albuminoids. (unsourced by the way). So the question is if the two protein types in hemp actually are globular proteins, and have that blood plasma function as the Hemp Line Journal says. Also, immunoglobulins redirects to antibody, so it doesn't seem like it's a too far-fetched health claim. I'd use a better source from PubMed if I could, but I haven't seen this claim reproduced elsewhere for now, and this Hemp Line Journal study is the closest I've found to peer-review material on hemp protein properties (I don't know if it was peer-reviewed). I'm not trying to write original research, just citing sources. HempFan (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

So the question is if the two protein types in hemp actually are globular proteins, and have that blood plasma function as the Hemp Line Journal says. Well, as Jytdog and Roxy pointed out, this sources is not a WP:MEDRS source, so you can't use it for the claim you wanted to use it for. That's pretty much the end of the story. I'm commenting to offer you some advice: If you find a claim from a non-RS, and then do research yourself to determine whether or not that claim is likely true, you are engaging in Original research, even if you're using Wikipedia to do it. Nothing you discover by way of that original research can be added. Even if you were to find a MEDRS source which says hemp contains albumins, and another MEDRS source which says that injesting albumins boosts one's immune system, you would not be permitted to state that injesting hemp improves one's immune system. With any subject, there is the possibility of hidden variables, which can make a conclusion drawn from two well-supported facts wrong. This is especially true in medicine. In this case, the condition of the albumins in hemp might be unusable, or there might be additional chemical contents of the hemp that could render them inert, or there could be too many albumins in hemp for your body to process, leading your body to stop processing them at all or any of a number of other factors that could make your conclusion wrong. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, got it, I won't use that source then. HempFan (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Nutritional Outlook

While we're at it, I'd also like to ask if Nutritional Outlook is a reliable enough source, for the claim that hemp protein has a biological value of 87. The source in question, was denied/removed by Zefr in the same Hemp protein stub I'm working on, who called the source "spam", but it's actually not so much a random website as it is a magazine, I found out later. The PDF of the magazine can be downloaded here. On page 60, some guy named Richard Pierce, who's president of some Canadian hemp supplier, is quoted saying that hemp has a BV of 87. I don't think a magazine would lie about something trivial like that, and it's not a controversial claim either (it's not like they're saying that hemp has a super high BV). Unfortunately, not much information on hemp protein is available, so I'm working with what's available here. This is the only source on the entire internet I've found that lists the biological value of hemp protein. Also, quick question in case this source is meets your requirements, what reference template am I supposed to use when quoting magazines? Can someone point me to that? Thanks. HempFan (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

That is what is called a "trade rag", it is not a secondary source per MEDRS so no, you can't use that to make health claims in WP. Jytdog (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Is it really a health claim though? I mean, sure, it's related to health, but it is a nutritional claim first and foremost. HempFan (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is about nutrition which is about health. Jytdog (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Library of Congress using Wikipedia as a source

There is a longstanding dispute at Laura Branigan over how best to indicate her contested birth year - a footnote sets out the current consensus, but one editor in particular continues to bring forward sources in an attempt to set out the "true" position and change the article wording. Anyway, one of the sources is this, in which the Library of Congress appears to have used an earlier version of the Wikipedia article to give its apparently preferred birth year (as shown at Additional Information: Birth Date). Is this a matter of concern? Am I right in assuming that normally we would consider the LoC as a WP:RS? Does this have any wider implications? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

One would expect Library of Congress to be a reliable source, although in creating name authority files the information is usually based on the first published source found (so if this includes an error the error is reified). It is surprising to see Wikipedia being used by them as a source. In this case LoC's use of WP does not confer any additional or definitive weighting the the WP entry at that date - it would presumably have followed whichever date was in the revision at the point in time it was viewed. It is worth noting in the article though, since its inclusion in the LoC entry will mean that it will be propagated widely.Martinlc (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I say we cite the LoC for the birthdate and all scream "wheeeee!" as we spin round and round, down the drain... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Consider the advice of Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Conflict_between_sources Rhoark (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

At the time Wikipedia was cited it had used references that have since then been questioned and proven not a strong argument. Ultimately, Wikipedia can't reference past Wikipedia edits to prove that previous Wikipedia stance is now right after it being determined that it is not a month or two ago. To me, it is fair to say like with any source/reference, reading it and researching how they came to the conclusion is a far better way to know. I never trust a reference til I can trace its path to its source. Anytime a website makes a User-generated content page a source, that right there takes down usefulness of the source a peg, and in context here, (thank god they gave a date) we can see what was likely changed because of Wikipedia. The birthdate. Devilmanozzy (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Brad Pitt considered for Apollo 13?

Source: "Brad Pitt - A Quick Overview". Retrieved 1 January 2012.

Article: Apollo 13 (film)

Content:

Brad Pitt was offered a role in the film, but turned it down to star in Se7en.

• Nothing on this web site says what role Pitt was supposedly offered in Apollo 13. Implication is it would have been the lead Jim Lovell, but in 1995 he was a decade too young to play Lovell, or any of the other astronauts.
• The site does not say Pitt turned down Apollo 13 for Se7en; that would be OR.
• If Pitt was really considered, this should be verifiable through another Apollo 13-related source. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Coconut Cures: Preventing and Treating Common Health Problems with Coconut

Bruce Fife (2005), Coconut Cures: Preventing and Treating Common Health Problems with Coconut, Piccadilly Books, Ltd., p. 151, ISBN 978-0-94-159960-3{{citation}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)

Used in Yogurt in this edit.

Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The author, Bruce Fife, is a naturopath and therefore a charlatan-quack. The book is an advertisement for selling his publications and services, containing a long list of ludicrous, unproven health claims. Searching PubMed for any published record by Fife on topics he favors, there is not a single peer-reviewed article. The Coconut Cures book is not a WP:SECONDARY source, but rather WP:OR, and does not satisfy acceptable sourcing for a food or medical topic like yogurt per WP:MEDRS. Reviewing Fife's book titles, keep in mind consumer advice from the FTC: "take a dose of skepticism". --Zefr (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

This is easy to solve by just bringing a better source. I did so here, using Don Tribby. Yoghurt. Chapter 8 in The Sensory Evaluation of Dairy Products. Eds. Stephanie Clark, et al. Springer Science & Business Media, 2009 ISBN 9780387774084 Page 191 Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, Jytdog. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

For the record, and so people don't think I'm a complete dip, I posted here to head off an edit war. See Talk:Yogurt#Disputed_source. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Zefr: First off, do you have a reliable source saying that Bruce Fife is a charlatan and quack, we cannot just assume that anyone who would write on food items or benefits of food would just be anything that we assume them to be. The link you provided for The book is an advertisement is a website posting by someone Kerry Wennersten, anyone is free to recommend anything in their personal capacity, it has nothing to do with the content of the book or the authenticity of the author. We cannot associate the author and the book with anyone who positively reviews it or recommends it. Second link you provided have an article by Bruce Fife. I know many authors who write books and who also write for newpapers and websites, i am not sure how this makes you or anyone else to discredit his book. Please keep in mind that the content being sourced has no ludicrous claims in it, just don't go by the name of the book, you are looking at the name of the book and not the content, there is no miracle claims in the content in the article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

User:SheriffIsInTown there is a good source there now that nobody can argue with, so there is no reason to continue the dispute. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I will like this discussion to continue to decide whether this source is reliable to use in food related articles because I can see that this source can be used in other food articles and I had a couple in mind where I wanted to use it after reading it. I found a Google Books url and added it on top of this discussion for further reference. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Certainly not; this is a WP:FRINGE source that cannot be used here, as it fails all our tests of reliability. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Orangemike: I had Kefir and Filmjolk in mind and not Coconut! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

See Zefr's advice above: this Fife guy is not a reliable source for anything whatsoever. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Iran–Iraq War

I'd like to know if the following can be counted reliable:

Molavi, Afshin (2005). The Soul of Iran: A Nation's Journey to Freedom (Revised ed.). England: W. W. Norton & Company. p. 152. ISBN 9780816049424.

Thanks. --Mhhossein (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The ISBN you have included is of some other book. The correct citation is: Molavi, Afshin (12 July 2010), The Soul of Iran: A Nation's Struggle for Freedom, W. W. Norton, ISBN 978-0-393-07875-6.

The book credits on the first page are quite complimentary. So I would say that it is a reliable source.

Why is there a question about it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

And the Afshin Molavi page gives pointers to some reviews too. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Census documents from FamilySearch

I'm engaged in a GA review of Gerri Major, and the nominator has asked me to check if the following three uses of FamilySearch are acceptable. I know that FamilySearch in general is not a reliable source, but in this case the original documents are imaged, so the source is not FamilySearch itself.

• Source: Brazilian immigration card. Used to support the following statements:
  • Major traveled to Brazil
  • Her father was Herbert Lloyd Hodges and her mother was Jessie May Powell.
  • During Major's marriage to Gilbert Holland she was known as Geraldyn Hodges Holland.
  • Her date of birth was 29 July 1894.

*Source: 1920 U.S. Census. Used to support:

• • She was adopted by her mother's sister, Maud Lawrence, and her husband David R. Lawrence.
• Source: Ontario death certificate. Used to support:
  • John Holland was listed as "colored" on a Canadian death certificate.

Thanks for any input. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Striking two of the above as the nominator has removed them from the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Issue on Northern Ireland 'flag'

The long standing position on Wikipedia is that Northern Ireland does not have a specific flag - it did at one stage (The Ulster Banner) but that is now associated with Unionism and has been excluded by various orders in Parliament from official use. There is currently a campaign over several articles by several SPA editors to reinstate it. As part of that argument they have advanced a recent video Northern Ireland Flag flown on horseback during the Queen's 90th birthday celebrations on 15th May 2016 - from 59m:50s, YouTube Mirror as evidence of official use. The video shows it briefly with horsemen in historical costumes there is no supporting material. It has been reverted by three experienced editors. Probably the best summary was: "A video is rarely a reliable source. That one certainly is not. It does not describe the flag or its significance, and interpreting it yourself is original research. Furthermore it is a copyright violation not an official news report, so not a reliable source or otherwise an appropriate link as we should never link to copyright violations" by User:JohnBlackburne. The discussion can be found here. No attempt is being made to reach consensus either, we simply have a series of editors inserting the material. Supporting evidence on the 'official' status can be found on the same talk page.

There are at least two questions that need attention:

1. Is the video a reliable source to establish official use of the Ulster banner in any way?
2. Is the insertion of a reference to its use at the 90th Birthday celebration valid in respect of sourcing or weight?

Nothing is ever easy on issues here and of course we have the general 1RR restriction on Troubles articles. So some experienced and independent views would be appreciated ----Snowded ^TALK 20:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It is a primary source that the flag appeared to have been used. As with primary sources, the problem is that it is left up tio editirs to interpret that this was an officially authorised and deliberate use intended to reflect that the UK authorities considered the flag to represent modern Northern Ireland. Such an interpretation would need significantly stronger sources since there are alternative explanations which appear to be more likely. Unless the issue has been noted in otehr sources, inclusion here is UNDUE.Martinlc (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Snowded misrepresented how the source is used in the article. The article just says "used at royal events", nothing like what Snowded has inserted here in this claim. Yes, it is a primary source, but no interpretation is required other than saying that the flag was used. As policy states "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source". Even Snowded admits this to be the case from that source that the Northern Ireland flag was used in this royal event, hence supporting the text to that effect in the article.IrishBriton (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Snowded has misrepresented the usage of the source in the article. All the Flag of Northern Ireland article states using that source is that the flag is "used at British Royal events" (As even Snowded admits is true). The video clearly illustrates this use at a British royal event, and video is perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia. The post above is full of irrelevant spurious material by mentioning many other issues which do not refer source in question such as status of being "official" or not. Snowded is also in a minority in objecting the inclusion of a perfectly valid source, most likely due to his own political biases, and is against the majority consensus in favour of using the source. IrishBriton (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the video is a primary source for the simple fact that the flag was flown at this event. The point about copyright above is well made. However, ITV itself has made the whole event available to view online here [2], for another 22 days. After that, it will be archived, and per WP:Identifying Reliable Sources "audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet." In this instance, ITV is the reliable third party recording, broadcasting and archiving this event that was organised and staged by another party - the organising committee of The Queen's 90th Birthday Celebration. No interpretation is required that the flags of the four nations were flown at this royal event, simple observation will suffice, and I note that the video has been added to Flag of England, Flag of Scotland and Flag of Wales without controversy. I would add this to Snowded's query here: if the officially-printed order-of-event and programme should indicate that the four flags were in fact flown to represent the four constituent countries, would that support language to that effect being added to the articles? Miles Creagh (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• To work things out here at RSN we need the actual statement and the source. Here is one of the ways it was used (dif) (the underlined parts are what were deleted here)

It is still in common use; especially by loyalists/unionists, by some local government authorities under unionist control, to represent Northern Ireland internationally in some sporting competitions, and during some British royal events.

References

In my view, the youtube video is out per WP:ELNEVER. The itv.com source is kind of OK but

• it cannot be used to generalize - the proposed content is plural, and this was one event.
• there are issues of UNDUE that always arise when using sources like this. It would be much better to have some secondary source noting that the use of the flag was at all significant. this report on the horse pageant from The Telegraph doesn't mention it, for example. In fact, per this google search, the only site that noted the use of the flag in the horse pageant is... our article. ack.

So this is making a mountain out of a molehill, and I would leave it out. There must be better sources describing the general use of the flag at royal events. And let me just say, what a bummer to make such an ugly dispute from such a sweet event. Jytdog (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, this is helpful. I agree that the youtube vid is out, and that the itv.com source is ok. I also agree that it would be optimum to have secondary sourcing. For instance, the article currently includes in this section [3] the statement that - "When flags representing the "Home Countries" of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are flown at official ceremonies, Northern Ireland is sometimes represented by the St. Patrick's Cross, for instance on the barge Gloriana during the 2012 Thames Diamond Jubilee Pageant. - sourced to a guide to the flags flown at the Thames Pagaent published by The Flag Institute. Is this the sort of secondary sourcing you have in mind?

References

Miles Creagh (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Well that is still a one-off. I have this notion that may be wrong, that royal stuff has protocol up the wazoo. Maybe if this is true much of it is oral tradition, but are there published protocols for how N Ireland is represented flagwise at royal events, generally? Or any reliable sources with general statements? Jytdog (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking less of a general statement, and more something like this, from the Flag of England article:

In May 2016, the St George's cross was flown from horseback during The Queen's 90th birthday celebration at Windsor, alongside the flags of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales

References

-— Preceding unsigned comment added by Miles Creagh (talk • contribs) 05:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Yikes, the Saint Patrick's Saltire is not the flag of northern ireland, is it? Seems like that content is inaccurate. But yes that content is completely supported by the source. Yes. Now you all just have to work out the UNDUE issue, which is more difficult. As I said in my view, this is kind of a one-off and not really encyclopedic; a WP:NOTNEWS kind of thing. I wouldn't use it in either article. That's my view. Jytdog (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC) (it actually was the UB not the saltire. Jytdog (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC))

No, the Saint Patrick's Saltire is not the flag of NI and yes, I agree the ITV video supports that content, i.e. a simple statement that the flag was flown at that event alongside the other flags of the Countries of the United Kingdom. As to UNDUE, it does seem like a lot of vexillology articles include observational-type information about particular - even singular - uses. I do agree a secondary source offering interpretation and establishing significance would be optimum here though.Miles Creagh (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The event in question was organised by the Royal Windsor Horse Show to honour the Queen, as such it was not an official event and there have been no citations to support or comment on its significance, There are orders in Parliament that do not include the UB in the list of flags which may be flow and the context of those orders is disputes over flags - something that is not the case in the other three countries of the UK. The real problem here is original research in that clip from the video is being used to provide evidence to support statements that the UB is the official flag of Northern Ireland: a sectarian position. No one disputes it is used in some limited contexts along with several other symbols. Hence my identifying two questions that need to be resolved. I don't think that the video can be used in any way to support the official status question (but I brought that one here for some independent views). If it is used to say it was used at an event then we would need to day that the it was organised by the Royal Windsor Horse Show to avoid people drawing the wrong conclusions and then we have to ask how relevant it is if there was no commentary in any other source? ----Snowded ^TALK 05:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

No, the event was held at the Royal Windsor Horse show arena, it was organised by - oddly enough - the organising committee for The Queen's 90th Birthday Celebration, (Patron HRH The Prince of Wales, Chairman Sir Mike Rake). Can you provide the diffs where the video is "being used to support statements that the UB is the official flag of NI"? I haven't seen that at the various articles at all. Thanks! Miles Creagh (talk) 06:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I think Miles is advocating for a very limited statement here akin to the statement above from the other article, which is different from how it was used before. The specific content for which the source is being used really does matter. Snowded do you object to that? Jytdog (talk) 06:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the specific wording I suggest would be simply: "In May 2016 the Ulster Banner was flown from horseback during The Queen's 90th birthday celebration at Windsor, alongside the flags of England, Scotland and Wales." Miles Creagh (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

There are still significant issues with UNDUE, but unless he has changed his mind Miles ambitions for the source are not so limited. His opening statement here and other comments on the Flag article indicate otherwise. We have a concerted attempt here to re-establish the UB as representing Northern Ireland by a small group of largely SP editors against a long standing position supported by references and this video was put forward as supporting that position. Ideally any statement on the one time use should indicate it was at a historical pageant or the reference to the other country flags should not be included. So either ""In May 2016 the Ulster Banner was flown from horseback during a historical pageant at the Queen's 90th birthday celebration at Windsor, alongside the flags of England, Scotland and Wales." or ""In May 2016 the Ulster Banner was flown from horseback during The Queen's 90th birthday celebration at Windsor." Either wording avoids the danger of misinterpretation. However I suspect Miles is not prepared to withdraw the assertion that this is evidence for wider use of the UB on other articles, That is his position on the two RfCs on the flag article and in the reference given in the opening link on my comment. If I am wrong on that great but lets have it on record. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

you are getting into some nitty gritty details there. The first version you propose seems reasonable to me. Deals made on noticeboards are pretty much "binding" so the use should be limited to that sentence, in the body of the article. I would struggle with that being added to the lead as it is not generalizable. This seems to be a reasonable compromise. Miles can you live with that? Jytdog (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

There's seems little doubt that the consensus (if such there ever was ) around "no flag" for Northern Ireland is currently shifting across the encyclopaedia. But that's a broader set of issues involving multiple sources, most of which are not in dispute. We are concerned here with a single source, and a single proposed statement. What do you think would be the sourcing for the interpretation that this was "a historical paegant"? Why not just use the official name, also used by the ITV source, "The Queen's 90th Birthday Celebration"? Also, what would be the justification for omitting reference to the other country flags? They are clearly visible in the video and all part of the same sequence, no? (I do agree that the lead is probably not the place for this, however). Miles Creagh (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Your opening sentence (which is inaccurate) emphases why I brought this matter here for independent editors to examine. We are concerned with two issues here not one. The first is if the reference can be used as a reliable source to support any enhanced status for the UB as representing Northern Ireland as a whole, the second is the specific quote. I've suggested a compromise on the latter point and I'm looking for formal clarification on the first (the more important issue). ----Snowded ^TALK 07:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, let's allow other editors to examine the bigger issue, here and elsewhere. We won't resolve that here. We can and should work together to resolve the question of the specific source and quote. In that regard, it would be useful if you could respond to my questions about what would be the sourcing for the interpretation that this was "a historical paegant", and what would be the justification for omitting reference to the other country flags, which are all part of the same sequence? Miles Creagh (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The same source as you - observation of the video. Personally I don't think the source supports any inclusion of any material. if it is used then the phrasing must not be used to make a wider statement - hence my giving you two options. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• Miles, Snowded's first proposal that I mentioned was: "In May 2016 the Ulster Banner was flown from horseback during a historical pageant at the Queen's 90th birthday celebration at Windsor, alongside the flags of England, Scotland and Wales." sourced to this in the body. That mentions all the flags. That seems reasonable. Do you accept this? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The UNDUE issue appears insurmountable. If the only people ever to note the appearance of the flag in the show are wikipedia editors, it cannot be said to be of sufficient significance to merit inclusion in the article.Martinlc (talk) 09:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

There is also the commonsense requirement to not twist the facts in that displays like that are seen by millions of people and she is the sovereign. It shows that saying outright that it is deprecated or unofficial is not altogether right even if the opposite would just be wrong. I don't think one can just remove it but straight factual description should be okay. As far as documents saying it is unofficial or must not be used are concerned it means I think one would have to qualify a little as in describing that as the main position but not a definitive position. Basically it gives proof of something that cannot be ignored whatever UNDUE says. Dmcq (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

What people saw on television is not encyclopedic content. It is your interpretation that it shows that the flag's use is not deprecate or unofficial, rather than, say, historical. It should not be hard to find reliable sources which are aware of the debate on the flag's status and which have noted its appearance here. And if it is hard, then it doesn't belong on the Wikipedia page. Martinlc (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• Jytdog, yes that is perfectly acceptable to me. Miles Creagh (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Miles, great. User:Dmcq it would be invalid to use the source for anything other than the narrow statement that is under discussion; you cannot use it the way you are discussing. If you don't intend to use it that way, then making the claim you did above is just inflammatory and gets in the way of reaching consensus. Please clarify if you intend to use the source the way you are discussing. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with a straightforward statement like you put forward. I do have a problem with removing it based on that people did not write about it. I explained why. And there's no getting round that a straightforward statement of the facts will qualify the sources saying it is unofficial and deprecated. It doesn't have to be used for anything more in the article but that will be the implication. And we can't write any suppositions about it implying anything or not implying anything. That is why there is an argument over it and why some people are so intent on removing it and others on keeping it. Dmcq (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Your answer is unclear. Are you going to use sourced content to make some claim refuting "unofficial and deprecated" or not? The only valid answer here is "no"; if you say "yes" I will shift my support away from allowing use of this source because it is primary and highly liable to abuse, and using it to refute a claim refuting "unofficial and deprecated" would be abuse. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I thought I had made myself extremely clear that I support what you said and no more but also no less. I was pointing out that even though it isn't written to refute a claim and is written about as neutrally and factually as possible, it will in the real world affect the claims in the citations saying it is unofficial and deprecated to make them less definitive. Dmcq (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

If we had a biography about a person and there was lots of citations saying they had died when they were 95 but a picture showed them under a reliably sourced banner saying Happy 100 years and giving their name would it be right to exclude the picture because the citations said they died earlier? No we have to put in both and just report neutrally what the picture shows. Dmcq (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

FreeBMD

The reliability of FreeBMD.com has probably been discussed here before but I couldn't seem to find it. There is a post on BLPN regarding the birthplace of an individual. Determining the reliability of this source will help in resolving the birthplace dispute. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)