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

Legal problem on Mariano Rajoy's article

Please, may someone who knows about law decide which source is more valid to determine when Mariano Rajoy's term ended? According to the Spanish Constitution (Art. 101) and the date the BOE published the Royal Decrees dismissing Rajoy and appointing Sánchez as Prime Minister, it should have ended on June 2, not on June 1: Art. 101 El Gobierno cesa tras la celebración de elecciones generales, en los casos de pérdida de la confianza parlamentaria previstos en la Constitución, o por dimisión o fallecimiento de su Presidente.

El Gobierno cesante continuará en funciones hasta la toma de posesión del nuevo Gobierno.

(TRANSLATION: 1. The Government shall resign after the holding of general elections, in the event of loss of Parliamentary confidence as provided in the Constitution, or on account of the resignation or death of the President. 2. THE OUTGOING GOVERNMENT SHALL CONTINUE IN POWER UNTIL THE NEW GOVERNMENT TAKES OFFICE).

https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2018/06/02/

However, one user hinders me from making the change (June 2 is stated as the date Rajoy's term ended in all other Wikipedias, although I know different-language Wikipedias are independent from each other) and insists on using a chart which appears in LaMoncloa's official website as a legal criterion to determine the date. However, LaMoncloa's website is not a legal source and that chart's data may have even been extracted from Wikipedia itself - workers who are in charge of the page are obviously not lawyers and their main job is to design a beautiful website with useful information and news about the Government, but it is not their aim to specify and solve subtle legal questions of this kind. Thank you and sorry for insisting. I just would like you to understand that the sources that are being used to support that date are not legally valid. This is the chart: http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/presidente/presidentes-desde-1823/Paginas/index.aspx

However, Rajoy's term ended on June 2, not on June 1. It specifically ended when Sánchez became Prime Minister. There cannot be a power vacuum between both days (Pedro Sánchez's term is already said to begin on June 2). The Royal Decrees published in the Official Diary of the State were signed on June 1, but were published the following day, and therefore did not come into force until that same day. The day the decree was signed has no legal validity. Please check how the Decree which made Rajoy Prime Minister in 2011 was also signed one day before it came into force - it was signed on December 20, the day he was elected by the Congress of Deputies, but Rajoy only became Prime Minister one day later, when the Decree was published and he was sworn in. This same article states that his first term began on December 21, so there is an obvious contradiction between both dates, because two different criteria are being followed. I can guarantee you that the correct criterium is the 21 December - 2 June one, which is the one that has been followed to fix the date Rajoy's term began and also to establish the dates when former Spanish Prime Ministers began and finished their terms. Thanks a lot for your attention. Check: http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2011/12/21/pdfs/BOE-A-2011-19861.pdf

So what do you think? Could someone answer please? Hello?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.8.194 (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2018‎

All of what you're saying might be true (I'm no expert on the matter), but it lacks a source which directly supports your statement, and thus appears to be your own conclusion. Finding a WP:RS (or actually, multiple ones) which gives the end of Rajoy's term as being on the 2nd of June would be a better start than arguing this based on the text of the law. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

VG (Norwegian newspaper)

Is this really a reliable source for Norway related articles, or should it be held in the same esteem as tabloid newspapers from the Anglosphere such as the Daily Mail, The Sun, New York Daily News, and the New York Post. If so, then why the double standard concerning tabloid newspapers from non-English speaking countries? (I would say it’s in between the New York Times and the National Enquirer in terms of credibility and reliability).— Preceding unsigned comment added by MBridges1996 (talk • contribs)

Over Sourcing

I started the Del Barber article a number of years ago. Recently, I've been adding more information and more sources. There are lots of sources on Del. Now, there are certain parts of the article in which I've sourced with lots of sources. Some of his influences have four sources. You always want to source information, but can you over source? Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 15:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

It's an essay, but WP:OVERCITE seems applicable here. --tronvillain (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and the section on influences looks like a cite farm designed to over emphasis a subjects notability by cite spamming. Also there is an over reliance on primary sources.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: What primary sources? I've removed some dead sources. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

DelBarber.com (the clue is in the name), Del Barber. Kickstarter.Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Have you bothered to actually look at the website? It's been changed. Those sources will be changed as well. Kickstarter is only used three times, even than the one instance is not applicable because you can't reference him hitting $13,000 in less than a week with the Kickstarter reference. Primary sources are not a problem. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 20:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

A question as asked it was answered, the fact you are now altering the sources does not make the answer wrong when given. As to the website being changed, changed in what way? It is a website for the promotion of his work, and is thus a primary source.Slatersteven (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: They were never a problem. That's the point. If you bothered to look, the website has been changed thus the things they sourced are no longer there. You can't just leave a source there if the source has changed or it is dead. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

My opinion is no, as long as the sources are reliable and useful. People who want to begin studying a particular issue can use the sources as good starting points, so they are of value. Praemonitus (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Independent sources

• Type of Constans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It has been suggested that sources such as The Catholic Encyclopedia and Catholic Answers are not WP:RS for assertions about the Catholic Church in general and papal infallibility in particular, because they are not "independent". Apparently, the only way to document facts about Catholicism is by anti-Catholic sources whose agenda is refutation of Catholic doctrines? Just how "independent" does a RS have to be? I was under the impression that this was designed to exclude press releases, company blogs, and advertisements from dominating sources. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• It depends on the material being sourced. Generally catholic sources are reliable for non controversial information about Catholicism. They will also be generally reliable for the opinion/Catholic stance on controversial issues. What they sometimes (mostly) won't be is reliable for statements of fact about controversial Catholic based issues. Is there a particular discussion this is a problem in? Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• There is also a time issue. JP2 and the current pope have challenged/refined/obsoleted a fair bit of previous dogma. So the Catholic encyclopedia for example is only going to be useful for a historical perspective. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Doctrine is not obsoleted or challenged. It is infallible, eternal, unchanging. The Catholic Encyclopedia is dated: there is much described that is based on pre-Code canon law, and discipline and liturgy that is no longer in universal usage. But as far as historical matters and scholarship, and doctrinal issues (it was published post-Vatican I) the Encyclopedia is a cornerstone of reliability, and that has been borne out by Wikipedia's heavy reliance on its Public Domain texts since the inception of our project. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Which edits are you referring to, the only ones I can find do not use The Catholic Encyclopedia as a source.Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

added here 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

That is not either of the sources you claim to be sourcing here.Slatersteven (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

It is the Public Domain The Catholic Encyclopedia hosted by New Advent. Chapman, John. "Pope Honorius I." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 23 Jun. 2018 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm>. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Why would you use a website rather than the Archive.org, Google Books, or Wikisource options? --tronvillain (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Why not? It's exactly the same text. Does the medium of publication have a germane effect on its reliability for certain facts as pertains to this noticeboard? 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

It would have made it more obvious you weren't linking to some random website (as would not simply using bare links), and at least in published versions one can be more confident the text hasn't been changed. --tronvillain (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is not good practice to use a privately hosted version because; a) there is no guarantee the text has not been modified b) the potential for WP:CITESPAM abuse c) private web sites are more likely to disappear and break the link than either Google Books and Archive.org. Jbh ^Talk 21:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

All of this really has nothing to do with the question I asked and the issue at hand. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not need to be independent, they merely must be accurate. Note that in academic articles, writers will cite facts to other writers who may hold widely different views, but nonetheless accurately report factual information. Certainly articles published in respected theological journals are reliable even if the writers belong to various churches. However, standards of scholarship have changed over the past century and further research has changed much of what was formerly believed. "Race, Negro" for example says, "The negro has a religious nature. His docile, cheerful, and emotional disposition is much influenced by his immediate environment, whether those surroundings be good or evil. Catholic faith and discipline are known to have a wholesome effect on the race."[1] While that may have represented academic consensus at the time, it does not today. TFD (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Independence of sources seems to be intrinsic to WP:RS policy. It uses "independent" as a synonym for "third-party". Surely, you would not say that a company-issued press release is acceptable for building an article about a product. The essay I linked covers common situations such as a company and an individual with a biography, but it does not cover a situation such as the Catholic Church, which is both a coherent body as well as thousands of semi-autonomous entities, approved and unapproved, operating with the same mission. It would seem that establishing "independence" of a source from the Catholic Church would be fraught with inconsistency. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 03:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Not really as it would mean "not affiliated with the catholic church", having a COI.Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

How would you define "affiliated"? Ian.thomson includes the 1911 CE in his affiliations, while I would hesitate there. Where is the line between affiliated and unaffiliated? 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The inferior reliability of privately-hosted sources

I have recently been informed that we should not link to "privately-hosted" sources because they are not "published". With a "published" source, we can "be confident that the text didn't change". What is a "privately-hosted" source? How is that defined by Wikipedia policy? What is the term for a "non-privately-hosted" site? Why is Google, a private company, not a private host? Why can we be more confident that nobody changed the text of a Wikisource article? Where is the previous discussion and consensus for this preference? I have been unaware of the policy up until this point. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

This is really an extension of the above conversation, so I've merged the two.

I'm pretty sure only ever seen New Advent used when citing the Catholic Encyclopedia. The only times I can start to imagine someone not linking to New Advent would be if someone was trying to hide what the source was saying. While I can see Jbhunley's reasoning applying to something like a Geocities site, New Advent has been an internet institution for ages. It's like citing something hosted on the Internet Sacred Text Archive. Those sites are probably more stable than Wikipedia simply because we're more active and so more likely to cause some sort of legal trouble.

The Catholic Church's own sources (including the Catholic Encyclopedia) would be appropriate for statements they made about themselves that are not contested. For example, "Catholic doctrine holds that the Pope is infallible when issuing statements ex cathedra." There's no arguing that they don't teach that.

That said, your prior statement Apparently, the only way to document facts about Catholicism is by anti-Catholic sources whose agenda is refutation of Catholic doctrines suggests bias on your part. It's not because you're Catholic, any time someone says "so the only way we can write about (group) is if we cite (anti-group) sources that disparage (group)?" that editor almost always has problems editing neutrally. You could be an exception, especially if you severely adjust your attitude.

That said, there's no reason that "this has been a problem" cannot be presented alongside "here's how the Catholics believe they have fixed it." Ian.thomson (talk) 03:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The host of a document is analogous to a documents printer. The publisher of a document is the one responsible for its contents in dead tree or byte format. Only hosts demonstrated to have adulterer works by republishing them in emended forms without declaring that emendation are suspicious—but This is not a reliability issue as much as fraud. Linking to a particular impression of a source is dodgy link spam anyway. Again not a reliability issue: another kind of bad conduct, advertising. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no "official" Catholic Encyclopedia, it has never been updated (and thus can only be used for history, not contemporary doctrinal positions). Moreover the New Advent version is not an exact transcription (unlike the The Catholic Answers one). So we would need to know what (if anything) had been altered.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

However all this may be moot, as the source does not say or support the statement " statements as defined by the First Vatican Council, and he was not in fact considered a heretic, as Pope Leo II described findings of the Council, that Honorius was merely negligent and should have done more to combat the heresy." because it says "It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact" and in fact it has nothing to say about anti-Catholics.Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Independence of sources from the Church

@Ian.thomson: what are "the Catholic Church's own sources"? How are they defined? It would seem unusual to claim an independently-published American encyclopedia as the Church's own. What level of involvement by the Church would designate the source as non-independent? Are all books by saints "the Church's own"? What about books written by Catholic scholars? What about novels by Catholic laymen? If they seek and receive ecclesiastical approbation, does that make a difference? Where is the line?

I will readily accept that the Catholic Church has her own sources. Her Popes and bishops have written encyclicals and bulls and all manner of documents, published by the Church. She authorized and commissioned the Catechism of the Catholic Church among thousands of other books. Surely these are the Church's own sources. But now you say the 1911 CE is hers as well... where is the line? Does it matter, vis-a-vis Wikipedia policy and consensus, or only for a few pedantic editors? 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

There's not a fine line, it's always situational. In general, you might want to replace "Catholicism" with another religion and think "would I consider this a Jewish/Muslim source?"

A book about anything related to Catholicism that is written by a non-Catholic and published by a non-Catholic publisher would not be considered the Church's own source. This alone does not make it reliable, just (likely) independent. This doesn't mean that this is a source that "hates Catholicism," either -- I'm a Baptist but I love Catholics, Catholic history, Catholic mysticism, and look at the current Pope as a surrogate for my grandfather (who I'm currently living with, which should say something). I may have just enough disagreement to prevent me from actually joining, and those disagreements may include some historical incidents that I think the Church needs to say "ok, yeah, some of our members really fucked up here," but the few times I did not enjoy theological discussions with Catholics were anomalous exceptions with fringe individuals and I'll be angry if we don't both end up in the same place (whatever the arrangement). By contrast, whenever someone introduces themselves as a fellow Baptist, I go full Mentat analyzing their phrasing to figure out what point of theology we're going to end up arguing about (not looking for an argument, just aiming to end it as quickly and coldly as possible when it eventually starts). Now, I'm not a source, but I am proof that there's a whole lot more nuance than "Catholic" vs "hates Catholicism."

A peer-reviewed work from a secular university press by an author who happens to be (lay) Catholic but has received a degree from a secular university could not reasonably be regarded as the Catholic Church's own source, even if the subject matter was the minutiae of Catholic theology from a Catholic perspective (and anyone who tried to dismiss it as such would be derided by most other editors). The more elements of Catholicism are thrown in, the more of a grey area it becomes for some editors, though I would even say that a peer-reviewed work from a historical and highly reputable university press that happens to be a traditionally Catholic school, by an author who also happens to be even a bishop, whose degree comes from a similarly reputable institution that happens to be traditionally Catholic probably should not be considered a "Catholic source" if either the source can be shown to be accepted outside of Catholicism or at least the subject matter is something for which Catholicism cannot be accused (in good-faith) of having bias (arguing that "Catholics have weird math" would be reason to topic ban an editor).

However, the Catholic Encyclopedia was "was designed to serve the Roman Catholic Church, concentrating on information related to the Church and explaining matters from the Catholic point of view." Of its five editors, three were priests (two were them professors at the Catholic University of America), one was president of two different Catholic organizations, and the other was the editor of a variety of Catholic periodicals. It's pretty clearly a Catholic source.

Again, whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you also to them and say "would I consider this source an 'Anglican' or 'Buddhist' source?" and you'll generally do alright. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Can we attribute statements to Snopes?

One editor has removed the following text from The Daily Wire:

• According to Snopes, "DailyWire.com has a tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or not verified."[2] Among the falsehoods published on The Daily Wire include protesters digging up Confederate graves, Democratic congresspeople refusing to stand for a fallen Navy SEAL's widow, and Harvard University holding segregated commencement ceremonies.[3]

The editor argued that Snopes is not RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

That editor is wrong. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Going through past discussions, we have this, this, and this discussion with the general consensus that, yes it's reliable. We also have RSN being updated to a new Snopes piece on identifying fake news sites, because Snopes is not only reliable in general but especially for pointing out fake news sites. Additional examples include this, this, and this. In general, I've only ever seen its reliability called into question by far-right POV pushers who are upset that we let reality get in the way of politics (unlike some other sites). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Generally speaking, Snopes is a reliable source. In this particular instance, the use the of Snopes appears appropriate and accurate. The only change to the text that I might suggest is to use in-line attribution for the second sentence, too. For example:

• According to Snopes, "DailyWire.com has a tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or not verified."[4] Snopes reports that among the falsehoods published on The Daily Wire include protesters digging up Confederate graves, Democratic congresspeople refusing to stand for a fallen Navy SEAL's widow, and Harvard University holding segregated commencement ceremonies.[5]

My suggested change aside (with which other reasonable editors may or may not agree), the text and sourcing look spot on. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• I removed that content and that's not at all what I argued! @Snooganssnoogans, Ian.thomson, and A Quest For Knowledge: I did not say Snopes was unreliable. I said that that specific Snopes article was unreliable. I provided my reasoning on the talk page, but in short, I argued that Snopes falsely accused The Daily Wire of falsely claiming that Mohammed was the most common name for newborn boys in Netherlands. wumbolo ^^^ 16:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • While the specific page in question related to Mohammad is a separate issue, the paragraph about the Daily Wire points to other Snopes articles that outline the points in the given article text. And for each of those, Snopes outlines the sources it has used to demontrate why the Daily Wire (and others, like Daily Mail) are wrong or misreporting or the like. Following the lines of the three previous discussions (given by Ian.thomson above), this is a perfectly fine use of Snopes, but since they seem to be the only group noting this falibility of the Daily Wire, it is also fully appropriate to attribute that to Snopes (as effectively done already). --Masem (t) 16:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
    • @Masem: an issue on such a large scale renders the rest of the article unusable. If it points to other Snopes articles, then cite the other Snopes articles. wumbolo ^^^ 16:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
      • The paragraph in the Snopes article on the Mohammad piece that refers to the Daily Wire is sufficiently standalone. Even if the rest of the Snopes article is wrong (and reading through, I see reasons to question one or two things but I would not call it wrong) , this standalone piece is fine, as long as we're not stating it in WP's voice as factually true (eg, it is fine as long as we have "According to Snopes...". --Masem (t) 16:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
    • @Wumbolo: Just so that I make sure that I understand you, are you arguing that this Snopes article is wrong? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
      • @A Quest For Knowledge: Yes, I'm arguing that it is wrong regarding the Muhammad names story. wumbolo ^^^ 16:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo:Hmmm...well, that's a problem, because the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. As best I can see, you have three options:

1. Find a reliable source that directly says that this Snopes article is wrong.
2. Find a reliable source that directly says that the Daily Wire article is correct.
3. Convince your fellow editors on the article that your argument is correct. But since you're at dispute resolution (WP:RSN), I suspect that this will be difficult. You can open an RfC to see if other editors agree with you, although I suspect they will side with Snopes. Another option is to invite the editors at the Language Reference Desk to participate in the article talk page discussion. The latter might be your best option.

Just in case anyone mentions WP:OR, it's only original research to include unverified information in an article. It is not original research to omit information from an article. Good luck! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Ian.thomson: Looking at [6] [7] it seems that it all depends on whether you count homophones as different names. It makes no sense to judge a different interpretation of the same data as straight false, so I am changing my opinion. The Snopes article is not wrong, but neither is The Daily Wire's, in my opinion. wumbolo ^^^ 17:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Where did this business about homophones come from? The second reference made clear that Oliver was the most popular name at the time and Muhammad came 15th. Dmcq (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• It seems to me that all of the sources are correct... for a given value of correct. The problem with statistical surveys is that you get different answers depending on HOW you compile the statistics (or “spin” them, if you are of a more cynical mind). Blueboar (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• Not in this case - Snopes is a well-regarded source. However, the specific phrase "has a tendency to" is a subjective judgement about a political matter, and thus ineligible for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Snopes can be used as a reference for statements of fact, including as a reference for specific errors made by the DailyWire.com, but the original phrasing needs to be changed. OtterAM (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC: JAMA opinion piece at Trump-related article

There is a RfC at Presidency of Donald Trump about a sentence which cites an opinion article (i.e. not peer-reviewed) in JAMA. Several editors dispute that the JAMA piece is a WP:RS or dispute the quality of the analysis in the opinion article (e.g. "Sounds ridiculous", "a out there guess", "ridiculous, POV, unencyclopedic, opinion-based (rather than fact- and/or evidence-based) nonsense", "seriously lacks credibility").[8] The disputed text reads as follows: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 07:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• In a 2018 analysis, David Cutler and Francesca Dominici of Harvard University found that under the most conservative estimate, the Trump administration's rollbacks and proposed reversals of environmental rules would likely "cost the lives of over 80 000 US residents per decade and lead to respiratory problems for many more than 1 million people."

References

• Unreliable – This analysis is an opinion piece in the JAMA Forum, not a peer-reviewed paper that would be published in JAMA itself. The source itself states: Disclaimer: Each entry in The JAMA Forum expresses the opinions of the author but does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of JAMA, the editorial staff, or the American Medical Association. — JFG ^talk 08:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Unreliable as currently used. By that I mean that the proposed text is not supported by the source. If you look at other secondary sources[9][10][11][12][13][14], they say "could" or "might". The proposed text states their prediction using the term "found" as if it were an unequivocal fact. Second, secondary sources tend to note that this is not a peer-reviewed article, but an opinion piece. This qualification is missing from the proposed text. Third, secondary sources also tend to note that this conclusion is contradicted by the EPA. The proposed text omits this information. Finally, "found" is a WP:WTA. See WP:CLAIM. Someone should suggest alternate text that addresses these issues. Until then, the source is unreliable for how it's being used. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:DONOTDEMOLISH seems like a good read. The source not being properly represented in the article does not mean it's unreliable - simply means that further discussion should take place on the article talk page to resolve the issue. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Unreliable- As made obvious by the disclaimer and media coverage [15] [16], it is not peer-reviewed and is an opinion piece. Being that there is an open RFC on this, it appears to be WP:FORUMSHOPPING and its probably best this discussion be closed.--Rusf10 (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Posting to the Reliable Sources Noticeboards is explicitly one of the methods of publicizing an RfC: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Publicizing_an_RfC. --tronvillain (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Needs to make provenance clear This is a scientific opinion, not just any opinion by people who are experts in the job as attested by others, plus it has been widely reported. It should be made clear that it is not peer reviewed. The only problem I can see is should it be considered as medical information? I don't think so. Personally I'll be surprised if it is as low as that but that's for the future to decide. Dmcq (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dmcq: In regards to if it is medical info, I think it might be. Under WP:MEDRS it lists biomedical information as a criterial. Under Wikipedia:Biomedical information, a supplement to MEDRS, in the Health effects section it states "Whether human health is affected by a particular substance, practice, environmental factor, or other variable; what those effects are, how and when they occur or how likely they are, at what levels they occur, and to what degree; whether the effects (or the original variables) are safe, nutritious, toxic, beneficial, detrimental, etc." which I think this fits the bill for and would require higher level sourcing. Unless I am reading it all wrong, I am not sure. What do you think? PackMecEng (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Reliable, but requires attribution This doesn't fall under MEDRS as it isn't a biomedical claim but a political one (i.e. without implying any bias, but this has to do with government policies, hence it's political). Thus, this isn't any different than citing an article from a newspaper - i.e. it's perfectly fine. The authors being scientists and not just random people on the street also adds enough credibility to the piece for it to be considered a reliable source. Of course, being an opinion, it would require attribution, per WP:BIASED (which clearly says that non-neutral sources are ok). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

It is political but making medical claims about the impact the polices would have on mortality and respiratory problems. PackMecEng (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a quite literal interpretation of WP:MEDRS (spirit of the rule vs. letter, anybody?). Nevertheless, that still doesn't mean we should exclude it - WP:MEDASSESS simply says that we should give due weight to it, and favour "more reliable" sources for it. In this case, since we have no higher level sources (and such source do not exist, i.e. it's hard to make scientific studies on future events...), we can stick with the expert opinion and simply properly attribute it. Quoting WP:BIASED, "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. [emphasis added]" By that criteria, the source is clearly acceptable. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the spirit of the rule, MEDRS starts with "Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are widely used as a source for health information." The sourced used here clearly isn't used to provide "health information", merely a viewpoint on government policy. Given that such sources are used without problem when there's no "medical information" involved, I fail to see why we should apply the stricter requirements of MEDRS for this, even if this could fall under such criteria under a strict literal interpretation of the policy (which is a policy not a law). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The issue here is not WP:BIASED, it is that the source is fairly unreliable overall for what it is being used for. I think we can agree to disagree on the MEDRS part of it. PackMecEng (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: the statement is being used as an attributed opinion. Experts are reliable for their opinions. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Note - note that everyone commenting here so far (myself included) also commented in the original discussion on the relevant talk page, which actually most likely lede to the posting on this board. So..... this doesn't really help to resolve the disagreement.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Counter-note Don't make hasty generalizations - I didn't. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Attributed expert opinion. I'm sure that estimates vary widely on Trump-related environmental deaths (for environmental related estimated deaths - I know they vary widely on various topics - as I am familiar with the estimates on various non-Trump environmental issues). Even if this were published in a RS, we would probably would attribute the estimate (as these estimates vary even with minor variations of assumptions - and typically one has a few competing estimates). In this particular case this was published as an opinion piece. David Cutler does appear to be an esteemed expert in the field. Therefore - this could be used attributed to him as an expert. The question of inclusion is a matter of WP:DUEness - not RS - if others (and this can be in other opinion pieces or in news reporting) quote Cutler's estimate it would be easy to say it is DUE in regards to Trump's environmental policy (which is clearly a matter that is discussed much in regard to Trump's presidency). If no one else refers to this estimate by Cutler, then saying it is DUE would be more difficult (due to the wide amount of publications about Trump's presidency) - but it would be possible to include it (i.e. on a less traveled topic - it would be easier to justify DUEness).Icewhiz (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

  I would tone done the language - cutting out analysis (suggests this was published), conservative estimate (suggest this is a lower bound estimate which is probably isn't), and "rollbacks and proposed reversals" (stmt of fact - unless this is accepted fact in the article) - instead of "In a 2018 analysis, David Cutler and Francesca Dominici of Harvard University found that under the most conservative estimate the Trump administration's rollbacks and proposed reversals of environmental rules would likely <quote>" I would go with "David Cutler and Francesca Dominici of Harvard University have estimated that the Trump administration's modifications to environmental rules would likely <quote>".Icewhiz (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

  But to strip 'conservative estimate' is to alter their analysis with WP:OR. This is not my field, but I have added plenty of peer-reviewed studies to articles which show far more drastic health impacts of regulations and pollution (and experts on the matter do seem to concur with the JAMA op-ed that the estimates are conservative, e.g. this Harvard health policy expert[17]), so I don't see any reason to doubt the lower bounds estimate. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Fairly confident in saying twitter posts are not reliable sources. PackMecEng (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

It's in response to Icewhiz's unsubstantiated non-expert assertions about the lower bounds estimate, his uninformed take on the state of research in this field, and his desire to introduce WP:OR to the article. At no point have I argued that a Twitter post by Harvard public health scholar Amitab Chandra should be added to any article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh I know you would never do that in an article, but it's not best anywhere on wiki really. PackMecEng (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Opinion pieces in JAMA are clearly and unarguably reliable under the provisions of WP:RSOPINION. Sure, it's probably better to use a word like "argued" rather than "found", but otherwise the proposed text is entirely appropriate and policy-compliant, and includes appropriate in-text attribution. More generally, I'm getting tired of what is either obvious contempt for, or obvious ignorance of, basic site policy when it comes to reliable sources. This trend is in evidence here. Note that I'm saying this as an admin; I am not going to use admin tools to enforce a content decision, but I am open to using them to deal with clear misrepresentations of site policy, particularly when those misrepresentations result in stonewalling and other disruption. MastCell ^Talk 14:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

  Actually a better verb would be wrote. (See WP:SAID) Found implies a rigorous scientific study, and argued implies an argument. 'Wrote is a neutral term that isn't loaded with other connotations. ~Awilley (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• The column falls within RSOPINION, and could be used with attribution. However, the opinion quote being used I believe fails WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. It is an extremely speculative statistic, akin to a scare tactic like the Doomsday clock, and its inclusion is meant to sway the reader, which is not what we should be doing. It's inclusion would only be merited if a large number of other RSes focused on the statistic. --Masem (t) 03:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Use of a newspaper article to cite an age for a person

Over at the article Mami Kawada, no age is given as she as, as far as I can tell, she has not publicly stated her year of birth. However, this article by Sports Hochi gives her age as 37; the article was published on February 4, 2018, and for reference, her birthday is February 13. Based on this source and the circumstances, what would be the best option here: list her year of birth as 1980, give a range for her year of birth (i.e. born 1980 or 1981), or omit the year of birth entirely (i.e. status quo)? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

There does not appear to be a source for her birth date of February 13. The article text mentions an album called "Best Birth" that was supposedly released on her birthday, but the cited source only contains the album track list. On that basis, I would suggest to remove the birth date entirely unless a RS can be found. Regarding the approximate birth year and age, we have a template specially made for such cases: use {{Birth based on age as of date}}. — JFG ^talk 21:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: The source for February 13 is her website ([18]). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, then add it as source. Birth year is still hard to define, because the February 4 article may have anticipated her birthday a few days later, and we must not perform synthesis if date and year are not found in the same source. Must cite both sources anyway, and would still use the birth template I mentioned. — JFG ^talk 21:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Age in newspaper reporting is often off by a year between outlets - you often see this when different outlets, on the same date, report different ages - some round, some truncate, and some report an out of date age (e.g. quoting age off a prior report on the same person that is a few months old), in some cases (less relevant here) an approximate age from a police report, or hearsay (e.g. based on a friend giving the age - which can suffer from the aforementioned issues). In short - any news report needs to be assume to be a range (and for a close bday - the truncate/rounding issue is very much in play).Icewhiz (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Springer book

'Eradicating Terrorism from the Middle East' says that 16,000 people were killed by MEK after 1979 in Iran and the author cites infoplease.com as the source. Is it reliable enough? I checked other sources; this one says: "Total: Since 1979 over 10,000 people have died in the conflict," and the other one says: "...Mojahedin was an organization of questionable reputation responsible for “the deaths of more than 10,000 Iranians”" --Mhhossein ^talk 18:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The author (Dr. Alexander R. Dawoody) and publisher (Springer) seem reputable, but infoplease doesn't really seem reliable at a quick glance. Do you have the exact URL that is used for the citation or does it just say it is from infoplease? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

It does say that, but I don't know what "infoplease.com" has to do with that. And sixteen thousand is over ten thousand, so that's not necessarily even a conflict.--tronvillain (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, it's also on a later page with the reference to infoplease.--tronvillain (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The book is a secondary source subject to scholarly peer-review. If it has passed through the Springer refereeing, I'd say that it is reliable. Pahlevun (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

They officially take pride in killing more than 63,000 in 1988 alone, taking credit of killing 55,000 in the "Operation Eternal Light", and 8,000 in the "Operation Forty Stars". Pahlevun (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The stringency and quality of editorial oversight and peer review varies in publications by commercial academic publishers. That the book cites infoplease.com for that fact is an indication of poor editorial oversight and poor peer review, and reflects poorly on the author. It is sometimes the case that editorial collections (such as this book) are not independently peer-reviewed, and are only comprehensively edited (in terms of substance, not copyediting) by the editor of the edited collection. The book should not be considered a RS for the 16,000 figure. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The chapter is derived from a journal article published by International Journal of Public Administration. Pahlevun (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

This article by RT mentions the same number: "More than 16,000 people have been killed in violent acts carried out by MEK since 1970s, including dozens of targeted assassinations against Iranian politicians". Pahlevun (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The journal article has the same citations to simply "www.infoplease.com", which makes one wonder about the journal. --tronvillain (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with Snooganssnoogans, infoplease.com is not a reliable source (which is where the author says he retrieved this figure), hence this figure cannot considered reliable. Also Iran-based media cannot be considered a reliable source of information for this article as it's in direct COI with this subject. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Harvard Divinity School

There is currently a dispute regarding the Syrian Turkmen population on Talk:Syrian Turkmen. I am seeking advice on whether the claims on Harvard Divinity School's website are reliable (as it suggests a population of 100,000 for the Turkmen see here and 160,000 for Kurds in Syria see here - which I have not found in any modern academic source). There is no publication date, author, or references. Is this a reliable source? Does it actually count as academic? Thanks in advance for any insight. O.celebi (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Umm. It definitely is not up to date, since any up to date estimate says pre-war, since the current population by demographic in Syria (deaths and more significantly refugess) is very difficult to estimate (and is done with a bracket). Another issue, is that if this is not an official census bracket (in which case it would be reported as such - and there are issues with the official census as well) - usually one has a range of estimates (particularly since both communities are partially assimilated and many speak Arabic - you would get a different number for Turkmen-origin than Turkmen-identifying).... This is definitely a very low quality source.Icewhiz (talk) 03:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I checked wayback.... and the Harvard numbers do go back to at least April of 2016 (See: here). I would hesitate to call anything from Harvard "low quality"... but given what has occurred in Syria since then, I think we can deem it "outdated". Then again, I don't know if any source could be up-to-date given the situation. Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 28 June Here, you can2018 (UTC)

2016 is hardly outdated, in fact it's about as up to date as we can hope for. By the way, O.celebi is msileading you guys, many sources give figures of 100,000-200,000, e.g. New York Times, Associated Press, and others. Khirurg (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Khirurg, Blueboar is saying that it goes back at least to 2016 on wayback; he/she has not suggested that it was published in 2016. O.celebi (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Correct... April of 2016 is the earliest date that wayback captured an image of that specific page from Harvard’s website... not necessarily the date when the page was created. This means that we know that the numbers are AT LEAST that old. They could be even older. We don’t know. Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of maintitles.net

Hello everyone. I was wondering if I could use the following source (1) for the The Beautician and the Beast article. I would be using to expand information on the film's soundtrack. However, I am assuming that this site would not be usable on Wikipedia, but I just wanted to double-check to make sure. Thank you in advance and I apologize if this is obvious. Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Not notable since it is a forum. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

For the most part, that seems like a personal website run by a few individuals. There are some articles and interviews that could be considered, but yeah if the material you're looking to cite is from a forum posting, then no it wouldn't be acceptable. This is explained at WP:USERG. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Understandable. Just wanted to make sure. I figured that it was not acceptable. I already have enough sources for the soundtrack either way. Aoba47 (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

VICE News

We have had a discussion at the Felix Abt page about whether VICE News was a reliable source. [url=https://news.vice.com/article/argument-for-investing-in-north-korea-felix-abt This] is the VICE article in question. I have just found that Abt has complained about the Wikipedia article in a self-published book (as quoted on the Talk page). I think it's clear that removal was the right decision, but I was wondering whether in general VICE is considered a reliable source.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Vice's use of native advertising and it's lack of clear editorial independence have been called in to question, and relying too heavily in Vice may raise NPOV or due weight concerns. That said, I think the stuff published under the Vice News header is generally reliable, or at least as reliable as similar digital outlets like Buzzfeed News or Vox. This is a few years old, but this report from the Reuters institute has some useful insights on how sites like these can differ from traditional media. Nblund ^talk 15:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of 'Religion En Libertad'

I was reading the Spanish version of wikipedia's article on teenager LGBT suicide (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicidio_entre_j%C3%B3venes_LGBT) and stumbled upon a new section called "Recent studies" (Estudios recientes).

In this section it was argued that: 'several recent studies had stablished no relation between discrimination and LGBT suicide due to statistics from 'Scandinavian countries' and Holand. These statistics show that LGBT teenagers' suicide rate are mostly the same as in the rest of the world even though these countries have 'marginal homophobia. The citation linked to an article from (https://www.actuall.com/familia/la-alta-tasa-suicidios-homosexuales-se-la-homofobia-estudio-derriba-este-mito/) and the man responsible for that article is a regular writter at 'Religion en Libertad', website cited for the text that followed.

The text said: 'It has been verified that transexual people who transition (I assume it refers to both the hormonal treatments and surgical procedures) worsen their mental state. Citing as source: (https://www.religionenlibertad.com/blog/55533/transexualidad-datos-mentiras.html)

After the first reading, I thought the additions to the wikipedia article were highly biased considering their citation was a Religious 'blog' web page. Upon further inspection the articles failed to cite their sources for several of their statistics. They even stated that 'Already in the USA, laws are being approved that deny parents to seek alternatives methods like psychiatric treatment and leave the children to the inocent free will.'

Would you say the articles cited are reliable? If so, might they present bias? And if bias is present, what would be the best approach to changing the information written?

Neither actuall.com nor religionenlibertad.com are reliable sources. They are indeed religious blogs, or something very close. They should not be used on the English language Wikipedia. I am not familiar with the relevant policies of es.Wikipedia, but I hope this helps. Hunc (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a self-source.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• • Source: The following Wikipedia links are used as a general source;
• Awdry, Rev. W., Small Railway Engines
• Awdry, Rev. W., Oliver the Western Engine (cameos)
• Awdry, Rev. W., Duke the Lost Engine
• Awdry, Christopher, Jock the New Engine
• Awdry, Christopher, Wilbert the Forest Engine (Rex, Mike and Jock do not speak)
• Awdry, Rev. W. and G., The Island of Sodor: Its People, History and Railways
• Awdry, Christopher, Sodor: Reading Between the Lines
• Sibley, Brian, The Thomas the Tank Engine Man
  • Article: Arlesdale Railway
  • Content: Apparently the entire content is generally sourced and although WP:CIRCULAR seems pretty clear there appears to be some interpretation of an exemption for "in-universe" sourcing. Otr500 (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

As I've already told you at your frivolous ANI filing, these are not Wikipedia links are used as a general source, they're the Wikipedia articles about the books used as sources, which is correct practice when a book listed in a bibliography is itself the subject of a Wikipedia article. Stop forum-shopping. ‑ Iridescent 23:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Reply: Excuse me, If you care to look at the timelines, and re-read instead threatening me out of the gate, this was sent first asking about the use of the Wikipedia articles that are listed as a source" and referred to as "in-universe sources". The editors "mistakes" or your threats solve nothing for me. If we have Wikipedia links listed under "sources", and this is acceptable, then why in the world have WP:CIRCULAR. I have neither been uncivil nor trying to forum shop as you assert and according to policies and guidelines I am sure you are aware of, this is not an excuse to be rude, to harass, or to be uncivil. This source issue and the ANI are two separate issues. Otr500 (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2018, Small Arms Survey

I can't believe that I'm even having these discussions at the Talk:Gun ownership page. However, is the 2018, Small Arms Survey report a reliable source of information for firearm holding; "Civilian-Firearms-Numbers", "Military-Firearms-Numbers" and "Law-Enforcement-Firearms-Numbers"? Please see links below....

• http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/de/about-us/highlights/2018/highlight-bp-firearms-holdings.html
• http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/T-Briefing-Papers/SAS-BP-Civilian-Firearms-Numbers.pdf
• http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/T-Briefing-Papers/SAS-BP-Military-Firearms-Numbers.pdf
• http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/T-Briefing-Papers/SAS-BP-Law-Enforcement-Firearms-Numbers.pdf

Please comment below. --RAF910 (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support...of course it's a reliable source of information.--RAF910 (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: Content dispute between two editors, discussion has been on the talk page for less than 24 hours. I suggest that both of you stop replying per WP:BLUDGEON and give someone else a chance to weigh in. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

OK with me, that's why I brought it here.--RAF910 (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support* I'd say that this looks like a reliable source when it comes to estimating the number of firearms in the world. They're affiliated with a prestigious university, they list their staff members on their website, they are quoted by various news sources, they release at least some information on their methodology, and they seem to be used by several national governments and international organizations as a reference. I don't know if that means they're always accurate, but those are at least the signs of a reliable source. At the very least, their opinion is relevant and worth mentioning. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• The Small Arms Survey is as far as I know a highly reliable academic source. It's run by academics at a highly ranked institution and often cited by academics. The Small Arms Survey has been published multiple times in Cambridge University Press, which is a premier academic book publisher in the field of International Relations.[19] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Video interviews as RS for Thuy Bo massacre

On the page Thuy Bo massacre, these 6 video interviews: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25] from the Vietnam: A Television History documentary series are relied on as evidence of a massacre by US Marines. The 2 US Marines interviewed don't admit they massacred civilians. The 4 Vietnamese civilians claim there was a massacre. As these interviews were conducted in Vietnam in 1980/1 and were likely to have been Government controlled (the terms of the interviews are not revealed) at a time when the US and Vietnam had no diplomatic relations (and the US was conducting a proxy war against Vietnam in Cambodia) I believe that they are unreliable and at a minimum WP:BIASED, if not WP:PROPAGANDA. These interviews effectively form the entire basis for the claim that a massacre occurred rather than civilians having been killed during a battle with Viet Cong at the village as the official Marine history states. Mztourist (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Not reliable. Primary, inexpert. Bias doesn't matter: the lack of scholarly historical review matters. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

More over see WP:HISTIP. They're being used as the written equivalent of an unnecessary image gallery. Primary candidate for an external links section, if it isn't copyvio Fifelfoo (talk) 09:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - they are first hand accounts which should be treated with caution, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be used. From what I recall, when the Wikipedia article was first published, the accounts weren't treated as 'fact', but described clearly as accounts from survivors/military personnel on the scene. A valid question would be to ask how extensively we rely on these first hand accounts. I see Mztourist has reduced the length of the Wikipedia article but still seems to capture the main points made by the participants, which seems a good compromise. By their nature the interviews will be made from a particular person's point of view (from the military and the survivors alike), so to describe them as WP:BIASED is stating the obvious. There is a physical monument to the event, so the interviews are hardly the only evidence that something untoward happened. Sionk (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't even think it could qualify as WP:PRIMARY as it not clear if those who said what they said stand behind their words as there were coerced by the government.Shrike (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - reliable. there are corresponding sources or article discussions in academic works, e.g. nick turse and the other guy. its a secondary source discussion, but given there was no investigation onto the matter in the same way that my lai had been, or very little detail of it, it I don't see why it isn't regarded as reliable. since the actual interviews were conducted by a very reputable historian, Stanley karnow, without discussion of the merits of it, they don't seem to fall into WP:PROPAGANDA or WP:BIASED without accusing the authors of it as such. but they are perfectly valid in discussing differing reports or stories of the atrocities. by the way, the source states the two alleged perpetrators are not sure but do not deny the issue, and there are much more than 4 interviews with villagers. you should see the actual source.124.85.14.35 (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Reliable for the opinions expressed, not for those opinions being facts.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Could you atleast present the source material from an NPOV point of view? Its bad enough you already depreciated the article and deleted components you do not like. But to allege this event is a hoax is another matter, given its officially recorded and commemorated at the location it is reported to have occurred, according to the sources in the article in 1977, 5 years before these interviews were conducted and not as you claim "forms the basis of these allegations". 124.85.14.35 (talk) 12:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

A memorial erected by the Vietnamese Government is not WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Wrong question. The question should be "is Vietnam: A Television History a reliable source for details on an alleged massacre. When you start to say parts of an award-winning (including a Peabody Award) documentary 'relied on primary sources' you are engaging in WP:OR in order to discredit it. Its a documentary, of course it will take into account primary sources. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Is the NY Times a reliable source?

Nobody is saying it is not RS from what I can see. Issues about WP:DUE are not for here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A number of editors are fighting for the exclusion of content sourced to the NY Times (this NY Times piece[26]. This is the disputed text in question from the Amy Coney Barrett page: The New York Times reported that Barrett was a member of a small, tightly knit Christian group called People of Praise. According to The New York Times, "There are some indications that both Ms. Barrett and the People of Praise may have tried to obscure Ms. Barrett’s membership in the group." Members of this religious group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty to one another, and commit to be accountable to a personal advisor (either referred to as a "head" or a "handmaid"). The heads and handmaids instruct the member on important life decisions. Legal scholars say that such an oath raises legitimate questions about the ability to serve as an independent and impartial judge. Previously, in a scholarly article in 1998, Barrett herself had said that Catholic judges should recuse themselves in the sentencing phase of death penalty cases. One editor argues that the NY Times piece should be excluded because conservative op-eds characterize the piece as "politically motivated "hit piece"". Another editor claims that the piece contains "unsupported insinuation" and cite a conservative op-ed to justify the claim. A third editor claims that the content needs to go because readers might confuse it for the Handmaid's Tale, but I'm not sure that's a RS concern. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC) Yes the NYT is RS, if we start to exclude "bias" sources that leaves out all of the media.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC) This is not an RS issue and this is the wrong venue. The editors at Talk clearly accept NYT at RS as you can see by these quotes: "Are you saying that the New York Times is not a WP:RS?" Snoogans "No, please see above comment. That's clearly not what I'm saying." DynaGirl "we need to assess whether or not it is WP:DUE" Lionelt This is a frivolous thread. Snoogans is wasting everyone's time. – Lionel(talk) 10:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC) ^ This is the same user who called for the exclusion of the NY Times source because two conservative op-eds said the "the NYT article was a politically motivated "hit piece"". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC) I think the New York Times is a reliable source for that claim, but it appears that the debate on the talk page is over whether it should be included, not about whether it's verifiable. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC) (ec) Yes. This is about WP:DUE amongst other things. Not WP:RS. We should close this before anymore valuable editor time is wasted.– Lionel(talk) 10:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC) One editor removed the NY Times source because it contained "unsupported insinuation".[27] Lionelt himself is calling for the exclusion of the source because two conservative op-eds said the "the NYT article was a politically motivated "hit piece"" (i.e. "a published article or post aiming to sway public opinion by presenting false or biased information in a way that appears objective and truthful" per Wiktionary). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC) You brought up "politically motivated "hit piece" THREE TIMES. Do you know that this is a heavily watched board and it would be a bad idea to repeatedly beat everyone over the head with the same repetitive phrases? WP:TE WP:BLUDGEON – Lionel(talk) 10:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC) DUE has as a prerequisite RS. It did sound like you were saying it wasn’t DUE because it was a “politically motivated hit piece”, suggesting the source wasn’t RS and therefore the subject not DUE. In any case, since RS is established by all, this discussion is probably moot. O3000 (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)