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

Books published Heally Gross (author) and if they qualify as a reliable 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.

---

On 1 August 2018, fellow co-editor, User:Huldra, deleted vital sources from the article Operation Ha-Har, surmising that perhaps the author was an "unreliable source." See the three diffs here, here and here. The author and her works were discussed by me in a reply to Huldra, seen here (Talk:Operation_Ha-Har#Heally_Gross_(author)) on the Talk-Page of Operation Ha-Har. The author is Heally Gross, and the two sources cited by us are as follows:

• Adullam: `veshavu banim ligevulam`, Jerusalem 2014 (Hebrew) [Hebrew title: עדולם: ושבו בנים לגבולם].
• Adamah Ahuvah, Jerusalem 2013 (Hebrew) [Hebrew title: אדמה אהובה].

If there may be any questions about her qualifications as an author, I would cordially advise that an opinion be given by a Wikipedia Administrator who may live in Israel.Davidbena (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

You have again ignored advice at ANI: After reading "I found no academic credentials online" there are only two reasonable responses: post evidence of academic credentials, or say "I see what you mean, sorry for raising this". Johnuniq (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

There's little available in English. In Hebrew "Heally Gross" is "היאלי גרוס" (first name spelling is a highly non-standard one) - which should be useful for anyone checking this out. I'm at this point unsure - it would also depend on the publisher of the book(s), I haven't uncovered a bio of Gross yet - though she has written quite a bit and also lectures (e.g. at The Museum of the Jewish People at Beit Hatfutsot) - there is quite a web presence in Hebrew on "היאלי גרוס" - but I haven't managed to filter out all the speaking engagements and find something meaningful yet.Icewhiz (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, the Hebrew spelling really helps. I can find much more of her work on WorldCat now, but nothing to alleviate my concerns about her writing as a source. So while we still know really nothing about Gross's credentials, I also don't see that any of her entries in WorldCat have publishers' names attached. Some items have an author listed as the publisher, and others are said to have been published by "Israel". It's possible that whomever is uploading these entries to WorldCat is having a language difficulty and doesn't know what that field means, or it could be that everything actually is self-published. WorldCat shows that Gross's work is held in remarkably few libraries - the most distributed book, a work of fiction, is held by four - which is very unusual for academic work. Her work also isn't even listed for sale by either Steimatzky or Tzomet Sfarim, the largest book sellers in Israel. All of these things point to an amateur academic who self-publishes. If Davidbena or someone else can present evidence that Gross is a recognized expert, or that her work is from a reputable academic publisher, I have an open mind. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The publisher for these two is "ישראלים" (translation - Israelis - which would explain the publisher "Israel" Someguy1221 has seen) - about page here (Hebrew). It seems this publisher mainly or exclusively publishes Gross's work - books here - though some have been commissioned/distributed by regional councils. The publisher would not confer reliability here. I will note that Gross might be considered an expert local historian (per what I do see on the web - she does seem to be respected by others) - but I'm undecided here (need to see an appropriate bio and 3rd party reference to her - I am seeing lots of speaking engagements which is an indication this might be the case, but... doesn't say it is the case).Icewhiz (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Per the publisher/herself - she has a BA and is a qualified tour guide. It seems the publisher/herself published 3 local histories (two of which are above) - though there might be more as she claims she did local histories on 20 settlements, a fiction book set in the Israeli Negev desert, and a history book about Dogs in warfare/Search and rescue dog throughout Zionist history.Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: On the talk page of the article in question, Davidbena states that he has Heally Gross's email address. Since Davidbena is also the editor pushing for the inclusion of this author who is borderline at best, I sense there is some sort of COI involved. Softlavender (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment 2: I agree with Icewhiz that the publisher(s) of the books in question is key. Why is the publisher(s) not listed? Also, why no page numbers? What are the IBSNs of the books? Softlavender (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Unreliable. Based on Someguy1221's research, Gross is an amateur self-published writer whose works are, basically, not held by libraries or booksellers. Softlavender (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• This seems to be Gross's self-publishing company: http://www.israel-im.co.il/Page3.html. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I strongly urge editors here to not be hasty in labeling Heally Gross' books as irrelevant or not on par with academic standards for reliable sources. Her books are catalogued in the Hebrew University library (as you can see here), but if I might make this one observation, Heally Gross's seminal work, Adamah Ahuvah (translated as: "Beloved Land"), does indeed have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, as most of her quotes are taken from historical war records contained at the Yad Tabenkin (Tabenkin Memorial) in Ramat Ef'al. Their web-page (in Hebrew) is seen here. See also a list of their collections here: Tzur, Ze'ev (1980). "The Archive of the Kibbutz Hameuhad Movement at Yad Tabenkin". Cathedra: For the History of Eretz Israel and Its Yishuv. 14: 203–206. Retrieved 26 July 2018 – via JSTOR. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |registration= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help). Bear in mind that their field of expertise is in the History of the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel) and its "Yishuv", meaning, Jewish settlement during the Ottoman period and during the period of the British Mandate over Palestine. One of the criterion for identifying Reliable sources is that her material can be fact checked, per WP:QUESTIONED. User:Softlavender, without actually looking at this work, has taken a hard line. User:Icewhiz who has more knowledge about this important work has taken a more conciliatory approach.Davidbena (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

As for User:Softlavender's question about publisher, the books' inner cover lists the Publishing House as: "Israelim" - whose web-page is www.Israel-im.co.il . Three of her books' publications (including Adamah Ahuvah) have been funded by the Mateh Yehuda Regional Council here, in Israel, and freely distributed among the Jewish collective farms and settlements in the Jerusalem / Adullam / Beit Lachish region.Davidbena (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The "publisher", as Softlavender ALREADY pointed out, is Gross herself. The books are self-published. --Calton | Talk 11:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

That is not entirely correct, as Heally Gross' books were published (funded) in conjunction with the Mateh Yehuda Regional Council and distributed freely by them to the Jewish settlements. And even if you should say that the works are "self-published," according to WP:IS, "Material available from sources that are self-published, primary sources, or biased because of a conflict of interest can play a role in writing an article, but it must be possible to source the information that establishes the subject's real-world notability to independent, third-party sources. Reliance on independent sources ensures that an article can be written from a balanced, disinterested viewpoint rather than from the person's own viewpoint" (END QUOTE). Heally Gross' Adamah Ahuvah ("Beloved Land") definitely meets this criterion, where all her citations are supported by works treating on Israel's War of Independence, both in published works and in War memorial collections which she so deftly has researched. Again, I urge editors here to soberly consider the vital information that will be lost from Operation Ha-Har if the source material is removed.Davidbena (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Davidbena - you'd do well to either find a replacement source, or to establish Gross's credentials (though even if you do - we still would be dealing with self-published work by an expert local historian - which would not be a good source). The only reason I'm holding off from saying a flat no here is that I have an inkling she might have some recognition as a local historian - though even if she does - that would still be a very weak source. If you have the book - you could perhaps use it for citation mining - and cite the source Heally is citing instead of Heally herself. As for the information itself that is challenged in Ha-Har - it seems relevant and correct - however you do want to pass WP:V via a good source here.Icewhiz (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

David, a local government commissioning a work by a little known travel guide for a battle from 1948 in a war that is extensively covered in scholarly works is not a reliable source, full stop. WP:IS is an essay. WP:RS however is a content guideline. And what that says is Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable. That you can find this book in a library does not make it reliable. That it covers something that you find vitally important likewise does not make it reliable. If the material in question actually is important to note in an encyclopedia article then you should be able to find it covered in any of the literally hundreds of books published by a university press that deal with this war. nableezy - 17:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

That is not entirely correct, as Heally Gross' books were published (funded) in conjunction with the Mateh Yehuda Regional Council and distributed freely by them...

No, it is ENTIRELY correct: where Gross got the money to self-publish her books is irrelevant to their being self-published. They're self-published. --Calton | Talk 10:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Icewhiz, thanks. I just received a reply on my e-mail from Heally Gross and she has acknowledged to me that she does indeed have a University degree in the "History of the people of Israel." Anyone wishing to contact her personally may do so at the following e-mail address: heallyg@gmail.com . With that said, it is the humble view of this editor that there ought to be a mechanism in place which keeps editors from making POV-based disruptive edits to historical texts, without first discussing the matter in the article's Talk-Page. My familiarity with User:Huldra goes back to January 2015, where we have interacted on various levels, in topics relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If for any reason, may God forbid, that this vital information is deleted from the Operation Ha-Har article, it will be a grave loss for western audiences seeking to better understand the events of that war, but not a great loss for Israeli audiences. I implore editors here to be more circumspect in their decision with respect to this author, Heally Gross, and her contributions to our overall knowledge. By the way, I do have Heally's books, which I purchased from her at 100 Israeli shekels apiece.Davidbena (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

A BA degree would not establish credentials here.Icewhiz (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

She did not say to me which degree she holds in her area of expertise. If you'd like, you can write her and ask her. If worse comes to worst, I will take your advice and use her works for citation mining - and cite the source Heally is citing instead of Heally herself. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you not listening, Davidbena? No one—at the disruptive ANI you initiated or the article talk page—has considered Huldra’s edit disruptive. The fact the only “evidence” you have to legitimize Gross’s reliability is an e-mail spells out a huge conflict-of-interest. Find a better source that is appropriate for the encyclopedia—as several editors have advised you to do.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, they have not worked as closely with User:Huldra as I have. I can avouch that I know her better than they do, and I have seen a clear tendency for POV editing. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Healy's contact info is freely available on the web - that's not an indication of COI - editors may mail sources/subjects. David - if you have the book and it has citations - use the citations in the book (assuming they are good RS).Icewhiz (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Davidbena, you have at various times said that I am a Palestinian Arab, or that I am married to an Arab, that a person with a Bachelor degree has more academic credentials than me...none of which is true. So yeah, you know me soooo well.</throws up her arms in despair>

And http://whois.domaintools.com/israel-im.co.il gives: descr: heally gross. (Thanks, User:Softlavender!)

And as Nableezy said above: there are countless sources for the 1948 war (I think I have more than a dozen books about it myself, even though the war is outside my main area of interest (which is pre 1948 history)), there is no way Heally Gross can be considered WP:RS.

As for me being disruptive, yeah, for Davidbena I am....just a week ago, I removed another of his sources, namely Joseph Tabenkin (see the top of this page): an IDF commander in the 1948 war, and later an engineer. And I promise I will keep being "disruptive", and keep removing non WP:RS material, Huldra (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

What a man becomes after his military career shouldn't matter to us. One does not need a PhD to write about his experiences or travels. As for your willingness to be "disruptive," using your own words, well I guess we'll just have to keep-up these dispute resolutions until something is resolved. By the way, I never said that you were married to an Arab, but only surmised that "perhaps" you may be.Davidbena (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Christ, Davidbena why did you even “surmise” Huldra was/is married to an Arab? Why was it any of your business? The only way this will be “resolved” if you continue making frivolous drama board threads is with a block or t-ban—for you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

May God forbid. There is nothing wrong with being married to an Arab, and, indeed, I made that clear to her in that post. I was only concerned then, as I am now, about User:Huldra's POV-based editing.Davidbena (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Wow. How do people in the P-I area tolerate this level of nonsense? It can only be Davidbena's breathtaking naivety that make people look the other way. However this level of cluelessness is not sustainable in such a sensitive topic and a TBAN is the least that should be applied. Johnuniq (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, editors in the P-I area (that is; the not so pro-Israeli editors) have mostly developed a very thick skin. See the death/rape-threaths on my user-page, amusing names, etc. Davidbena's preconceptions about me is a very small irritant in comparison. I am actually 1000 times more worried about his preconceptions about Palestinian history... We met on Talk:Bayt Nattif back in 2015 (he had expanded the article, leaving out all history between 12 CE and 1948 CE), and at that time he said he knew "absolutely nothing about" about Arab/Palestinian history. I have actually been quite impressed with the way he looks up sources...(Even when I feel I have to batter facts into him...). Though.....lately he has used several absolutely awful sources on some of the most controversial articles in the P-I area...sigh. Heally Gross isn't the last one. We seem to become regulars at this board.....a damn waste of time, IMO, Huldra (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Based on what is above and what I can find myself, Heally Gross is someone with a BA degree who qualified as a tour guide and now publishes books through a family publishing company. All of which indicates that she should not be used as a source. Zero^talk 23:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Although I do not know the extent of Heally Gross' education, only that she has a University degree in the "History of the people of Israel," can someone here please tell me why a book published by an author carrying at least a Bachelor of Arts degree, and which book deals in her specific area of university studies, is an unreliable source?Davidbena (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Because David, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that when it can uses scholarship for its sources. And scholarship means works published by peer reviewed journals and books published by university presses, often times by people who as their profession are academics working at the most prestigious universities on the planet. Not some tour guide around Jerusalem. You are seemingly oblivious to the utter and complete lack of self-awareness you demonstrate when you complain of POV-editing, but that really is a topic for another forum. But your comments about Huldra are both misinformed and misplaced in this forum. nableezy - 04:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Please excuse my ignorance, but I do think my question was legitimate. No reason to resort to ad hominem attacks on a person who is trying to do his utmost best here.Davidbena (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

To elaborate slightly on what nableezy has said, Wikipedia in areas like science and history, reports what the academic consensus states. This is established by using high quality reliable sources. The best sources are tertiary sources which by their nature report the existing academic consensus. Secondary sources are next, these generally need to be published in peer-reviewed journals and even then, things like how often they are cited elsewhere is significant on establishing a source's reliablity. In the case of books, the publisher's experience and reputation in the subject area as well as that of the author are important in establishing credibility and, of course, how often and by whom the book is cited. Primary sources, which includes self published books, can only be used in very limited circumstances. If the book is by an acknowledged expert in the field, then it may be used with care, but that hardly includes the writings of the holder of an undergraduate degree, no matter what the subject of that degree. - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

David... having a BA degree is not considered enough to make someone an expert in their subject area. Most of your fellow Wikipedia editors have BAs or BSs (and many have MAs or MSs)... we certainly don’t consider ourselves to be experts. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• A related issue is at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 05:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Question: User:Icewhiz, and User:Nick Thorne, in Heally Gross' book, Adamah Ahuvah (2013), there is a section where she interviews an elderly Arab woman from a certain region affected by the 1948 Arab Israeli War and who remembers fleeing from her village as a young lady. In the interview, she recounts events from that troubling period. Can Heally Gross' book be used to cite excerpts from her interview with this elderly Arab woman? If not, how does this differ from citing an interview from a newspaper, or an interview from the web-page Palestine-Rembered.com?Davidbena (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

As there is no publisher, there is an issue of lack of editorial oversight/vetting - which would not be an issue for a reputable newspaper, reputable publisher or Gross herself at an established publisher. (So what is lacking is someone looking over the author's shoulder and verifying lack of fabrication - though such verification is never foolproof). Such an interview would be PRIMARY. As for Palestine-Rembered.com - interviews there would probably fail on the same grounds (and maybe a few more) Gross fails on - but I have not looked into it - you would have to bring something specific (if Palestine Remembered is quoting another source - that's different from their own content for instance).Icewhiz (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz puts it well (Gosh, I agree with Icewhiz(!)). AFAIK, not a single interview from the pal.rem site is used on Wikipedia. I would compare Gross with the many hundreds of so-called ”village books” written about the Palestinian villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus; again, I have never cited directly from them (For two good reasons, other than that they are not RS: I don't have a copy of any of them...and in any case they are virtually all in Arabic, which I don't read). However, an academic did a study based on these village books, and published a book about them on Stanford University Press (the book co-won the Albert Hourani Book Award). In this book she sometimes quotes from interviews etc with villagers, if so: then that can be included, see eg Bayt Thul. Likewise, if, in the future, someone did an academic study of the interviews at the pal.rem site (not inconceivable...); again, that could be included. Huldra (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's sincere and constructive advice here, on this thread. Can I please ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close this discussion on Wikipedia? I believe that it has fully run its course. Thanks.Davidbena (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Non RS for most material; WP:SPS & questionable. Avoid. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:13, 5 August 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.

Is TechCrunch a reliable source?

Specifically, should an article written by TechCrunch staff (not contributors) be considered a reliable source when assessing a subject's notability?

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BTCJam, the company has coverage from two potentially reliable sources: a chapter in a Springer Science+Business Media publication (reliable), and a TechCrunch staff article (disputed). The TechCrunch article is more than a passing mention, but does simple reporting without significant analysis. The author is a TechCrunch editor. How would you evaluate this source? — Newslinger talk 22:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)​​​​​​​​

Do you mean for the purpose of AfD voting, or for the purpose of sourcing content? For the purpose of sourcing content it should be fine; it's focused on the tech industry and has editorial control. For the purpose of AfD? It likely doesn't meet the standards of WP:CORPDEPTH. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It meets the standards of WP:V but fails the requirements of WP:N and more specifically WP:ORGIND. It stopped being seriously considered for notability purposes in AfDs around mid-to-late 2016. Like most trade press, the stories are dependent primarily on sourcing from the company itself, and there is little to no editorial control beyond making sure they aren’t printing patent lies (and then it’s more through using qualifiers than actual fact checking.) RSN isn’t the place to determine whether or not something meets the requirements of WP:N and WP:NCORP: that is AfD, and the community consensus on TechCrunch as a source for notability purposes has been pretty consistent for a few years now. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable, that staff-composed news articles in trade press, without a specified person by-line, in particular those that are raw fact pieces with little to no analytical content, would not count toward notability in the Corp Depth analysis. This would apply to quite a lot of content which is on the cusp of churnalism, a term I became acquainted with only recently. I might make a note in WP:CORPDEPTH if there is not already a comparable note there (need to look at it again to check). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I should have been more clear here. The article names a TechCrunch editor in the byline, instead of using a generic "TechCrunch staff" tag. However, while the article does give an overview of the company, it looks like little to no investigative research was done.​ — Newslinger talk 17:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.​ --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, generally speaking TechCrunch is a reliable source. Yes, it's a valid source that can be used (in conjunction to other sources) to establish that the topic meets WP:GNG since it's an entire article (i.e. significant coverage) by a reliable source independent of its topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

TechCrunch, like most trade press, is not intellectually independent of the topic, and thus fails WP:ORGIND, which is the standard here. Byline or not doesn’t matter. This has been the consistent finding in AfDs for ages. The direct quote from WP:NCORP is: there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability as businesses frequently make use of these publications to increase their visibility.TonyBallioni (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

CarbonBrief

The CarbonBrief website states on their about page, "In 2018, Carbon Brief was “highly commended” for its investigative journalism by the Royal Statistical Society. In 2017, Carbon Brief won the “Best Specialist Site for Journalism” category at the prestigious Online Media Awards." The question for RS comes up involving this edit, with reasoning, "replace non-RS blog from advocacy group with tag CN", by editor NewsAndEventsGuy. Since the source seems to be based on empirical data, and often cited in the mainstream media, ie. here (qz), here (ecowatch), here (Washington Post), here (NYT), and also fetched by GoogleNews, it appears as a reliable source to me. prokaryotes (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

So what do third party sources say about this?Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The Royal Statistical Society did give them a 'high commendation' this year, although it was for specific piece of journalism rather than a blanket approval of the site. Having said that, their editorial board looks highly competent, composed of experience journalists and academics at well-respected institutions. They are clearly not just a blog, I think they'd be reliable for this. Girth Summit (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

An article in The Drum, noted, "Carbon Brief’s model is high quality science journalism". prokaryotes (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

A 2013 NYT article refers to, "a British climate and energy news blog". prokaryotes (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

CarbonBrief. prokaryotes (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

PNNL cites CB as, "a U.K.-based climate and energy journalism website". prokaryotes (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems pukka then.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Note that WP:Blogs as sources is a failed policy proposal. To review applicable policy.... CarbonBrief is an RS when talking about themself or we are saying they said something. (See WP:ABOUTSELF). Otherwise it may or may not be an RS for article content of general topics. The relevant policy there is WP:BLOGS which says in relevant part

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[8]Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.

Yes, we could continue gathering evidence and debating if the expert threshold is met in this case. BUT.... (A) as the text of the rule urges, its better to not ask eds to take time for that when there are other straightforward reliable secondary sources that say the same thing. (B) Even if a small group of eds agree today that it is RS, I've often seen new people appear at articles and start deleting self published sources and they will not know about this discussion. For longterm maintenence using WP:BLOGS when there are "normal" sources is dumb. (C) The OP and I are both regulars on the climate pages, a topic area where article text of this sort (2018 N hemisphere heat wave 5x more likely due to global warming) will be greeted by skeptics as an exceptional claim. This is another reason its extra-dumb to try to work through the expert-Blog exception rule instead of just using normal sources - doing so might promote the expert blog site, but invites future conflict and drama. Use the normal sources, and the purposes of WP:ARBCC in preventing drama are best supported.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, the cited rule is met "produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", since Zeke Hausfather has published several studies in reliable third-party publications. https://scholar.google.de/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=zeke+hausfather&btnG=&oq=Zeke+Haus In regards to your concerns of the edit about the heat wave, their article is based on this cited study by the World Weather Attribution consortium, hence your argument that it is self-published is void. prokaryotes (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Published studies of CB editor Robert McSweeney also establishes RS per your cited rule. prokaryotes (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Bottomline: CarbonBrief is a website such as Skeptical Science, or RealClimate, but with a more professional journalism scope. prokaryotes (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Reliable for factual analysis, no real opinion on any opinion or colour pieces but this is not especially controversial - if anyone really objects they can WP:ATT it. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Winning an award should matter, but gets ignored for other cases (see the Daily Mail RfC for example). Being cited by the Washington Post could matter, but this wasn't the paper it was the paper's "Capital Weather Gang" blog. Being mentioned at PNNL doesn't matter because it was about CarbonBrief interviewing their staff member -- would they in such circumstances be likely to say it's nothing? As for the suggestion that qz.com and ecowatch.com are "mainstream media", opinions might differ. Evidence that the organization (or blog if one accepts the NYT term) has a "reputation for fact-checking" appears to be lacking. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay more mainstream sources then, Forbes, BBC, The Guardian, HuffPost. prokaryotes (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Snopes, AlterNet, The Guardian prokaryotes (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Media Matters prokaryotes (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

In those sources Daisy Dunne who works for Carbon Brief refers to Carbon Brief, "contributors" to Forbes and HuffPost (both of which have had hundreds|thousands of paid|unpaid contributors) refer to Carbon Brief, and supposedly this is "more mainstream sources" to go along with the earlier claim that ecowatch.com and qz.com are mainstream sources. As before, opinions may differ. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• It looks pretty reliable to me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Alright, the use of this study is still problematic, but that's a subject for article talk. But just for a hint... the text to be supported says the northern Europe heat wave is up to 5x more likely due to global warming. The study says only 2x in Nederlands and for scandinavia it was increased but they could not quantify by how much. So with the full context in mind, the talking point "up to five times more likely" across all of N Europe is problematic. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC) PS In my edit sum just now i think I stupidly said "close". I meant I withdraw objection to reliability in this instance. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

We have to sort this out now, also because the Wikipedia search gives over 3000 results when searching for CarbonBrief. prokaryotes (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I did a rewrite at the source of the dispute using normal reliable secondary sources plus a link to the original "preliminary study". This avoided the "Up to five times more likely" EVERYWHERE (though the study didn't say that) problem created by the rhetorical headline at Carbon Brief. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, but there isn't really a dispute, this section serves to establish CB as a RS. The confusion about twice or five times, is because the study refers to factors and ratios. prokaryotes (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, its a case by case basis and as the policy says, if the info you want to support is really important there will be quality mainstream secondary sources without having to resort to expert-advocate blogs. Staying away from them also lessens the appearance of editorial POV too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

CB publishes clear, data-driven science explainers, interviews, analysis and factchecks, not exactly classic advocating. CB provides quality content and expertise, therefore mainstream media often cites them. On the contrary you have often articles published by news editors who are not experts on a topic, which can result in confusing coverage. Hence, why we currently witness such a rise of factcheck sites. prokaryotes (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

In their own words, they advocate for understanding of the science of climate change and policy response. This isn't a judgmental statement, just something to bear in mind when evaluating the best sources when this comes up again. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, and thanks for pointing this out. prokaryotes (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Does historical fiction establish notability?

[1]

Estela Sáenz de Méndez (1 January 1982). María de las Islas: novela histórica. Editorial Latinoamericana.

Silvia Plager; Elsa Fraga Vidal (1 March 2012). Malvinas, la ilusión y la pérdida: Luis Vernet y María Sáez, una historia de amor. Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial Argentina. ISBN 978-950-07-3809-5.

The above two works are works of historical fiction and refer to an individual María Sáez de Vernet, who was the spouse of Luis Vernet. David Eppstein is arguing that mention in fictional novels establishes notability.

Personally this doesn't gel with my interpretation of WP:RS but bringing it here for a second opinion and inviting David to explain his logic. WCM_email 00:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

WCM has been badgering participants in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/María Sáez de Vernet discussion at my talk page, at User talk:John Cummings, and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red, no doubt among others. I have already explained at two of those places why I think that despite being unusable as reliable sources (the only possible concern of relevance at this noticeboard) these books help contribute to the notability of the subject. Taking the dispute here smacks of forum shopping to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Are they a historical figure? Are they clearly identified as a historical figure, not a fictional invention in those texts? If so, then Dumas might have something to say.

Also, despite WP:NOTINHERITED, are they presented as notable as themselves, or as part of a notable married partnership? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Its worth noting that in the original article before I edited it contains the quote:

“ My little Malvinan woman! I have her in my arms. Her mouth avid as a rosebud and wants to suck. She overwhelms me with sweetness. It is a miracle. I kiss your little fingers. My perfect little island woman. My brave girl who was born on an island, now more than ever, as if we had raised a flag between the two... ”

Is actually sourced from:

Estela Sáenz de Méndez (1 January 1982). María de las Islas: novela histórica. Editorial Latinoamericana.

But apparently when I try and engage with editors to explain this, this is badgering. In answer to the question, the person involved is only known really as the spouse of Luis Vernet. Her diary has been used in some narratives as part of Argentine claims over the Falkland Islands but this is unrelated to the individual. Malvinan as a word didn't exist in 1829, its a modern invention since 1947. WCM_email 00:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Removing inappropriate material is not badgering. Starting an AfD because the article had some material that needed removing may be a bad idea, but it is also not badgering. But going to a bunch of different AfDs from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Article alerts and plastering big warnings across the AfD that they had an automated project alert on them, when this is standard practice for most WikiProjects and AfDs, merely because some project participants started participating in a project-related AfD, starts to rise to the level of badgering. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Its interesting that shortly after my AFD was listed, 10 people from that project turned up voting keep. Since I did that on other AFD, there has not been a re-occurrence. Thats not badgering. It would be appreciate if you would stop the bad faith accusations, I'm getting rather irritated. WCM_email 14:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• My 2 cents - Generally coverage in historical fiction does not establish notability of the historical figure - though it might establish notability for the fictional figure (just as other fictional figures are notable) and in some cases may be an indication that the figure is likely to be notable - however, one must note that sometimes historical fiction / alternate history takes very minor historical figures that nearly nothing is known about - and develops them purposefully (so as not to alter, in the novel, well known historical facts while providing room for the author's plot) into full fledged characters (in which case the fictional character might be notable, but this literary fabrication does not make the historical figure notable).Icewhiz (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "Generally coverage in historical fiction does not establish notability of the historical figure" My view is the opposite on this subject. If a historical figure has not attracted the attention of historical fiction writers, he/she is probably not significant enough to have an article. Many historical figures owe much of their fame to being regularly featured in historical fiction for the last two or three centuries. Dimadick (talk) 09:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I would say is, as Dimadick says if someone had not noted them they would not appear. But by the same token it might just be they had an interesting name, or the writer just picked a name that he did not know was real. Thus I have to lean towards no they do not in and off themselves confer notability, but that may well indicate that there are other sources that could.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Look at Titus Pullo (Rome character) and Lucius Vorenus (Rome character) as examples (in this case we do have an article - Vorenus and Pullo). In some cases - fiction writers purposefully choose the main hero, or heros for plot arcs, based off of a figure that might only have a brief mention (e.g. one-liner - even briefer than this example) in historical documents - the fiction writing doing this so that their plot does not conflict with established history (so all plot elements that are not historically established are on fictional characters or semi-fictional characters about which nothing is known beyond their brief mention). In some cases - there can even be serial use of the fictional character.Icewhiz (talk) 09:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• A work of fiction in which previously obscure historical character plays a role can establish notability. Provided that the work of historical fiction is notable, and that publication of the work of fiction and the character's role in it generates secondary coverage. Note for example Angelica Hamilton, who has an article supported by coverage of her life generated by a recent work of historical fiction Hamilton (musical).E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• I would say that appearing as a character in a work of fiction can supplement a historical person's notability... but it does not establish or create that notability. That said, the fictional character that is based upon that person may become notable on its own (as a fictional character). Blueboar (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• I generally agree with the sentiments that the 'historical fiction' does not create notability, but it might draw attention to non-fiction sources that existed before the fictional creation (in which case there was a probability of 'Notablity' before the fiction) and/or the fiction may cause non-fiction sources to then publish on the historical person (in which case the 'Notability' arises or enhances after the fiction). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• I would definitely default that the existence of historical fiction about a person/topic doesn't mean that person/topic is notable; instead, we should hope that a good piece of historical fiction will lead to more coverage of the historical person/topic. For example, Adrian Cronauer would likely never have been notable if Good Morning, Vietnam wasn't a critically praised film that led into people looking into his life. --Masem (t) 16:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Affinity magazine

• Source: http://culture.affinitymagazine.us/an-interview-with-melanie-faye-rb-artist-on-the-rise/
• Article: Melanie Faye

It doesn't seem like Affinity Magazine has been mentioned on RS noticeboard before. Does this count as a reliable/significant source? Would like feedback before I vote on the AfD. originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 01:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Originalmess The website belongs to Affinity Magazine, a “by teens, for teens, always controversial” site. Reading this, I doubt it is a reliable source. It seems to be an online platform where teens write articles. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Oof! Thanks! originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 02:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should Hope not Hate publications be considered reliable sources?

Should Hope not Hate publications be considered reliable sources provided they are properly attributed? E.g. Anti-hate organisation Hope not Hate report that... --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion thread

Doesn’t this discussion belong on the noticeboard? And don’t we normally discuss the reliability of a source within the context of its use? Work permit (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay done. I'm not sure what you mean by within the context of its use though, it's whenever it is used. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Scroll up to the instructions at the top of the page. Reliability always depends on context. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with Work permit regarding need to evaluate context. Hope not Hate is apparently an advocacy group, so it seems WP:BIASED would apply to potential use of this as a source.DynaGirl (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• We can not give an opinion on reliability unless we know the specific context in which a source is being cited. For example, a source might be unreliable if cited to support a statistic, yet quite reliable if used to support a quote, or a paraphrase of the author's opinion. Also, be aware that reliability might not be the only issue ... WP:UNDUE WEIGHT can be a factor (ie a source can be reliable for verifying the opinion of it's author, but that leaves open the question of whether the author's opinion is important enough be mentioned in the first place.) Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with DynaGirl. It's an advocacy group, so it's not going to be a good source for facts. It's a notable and influential one, that gets results, so may be useful as an opinion in some cases, but that's hardly the classic use of reliable sources. --GRuban (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• No, a political pressure group with an angle can't really be considered as RS, particularly when it is highly likely there is no editorial oversight. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Perhaps. Contra The C of E, the publications of a political pressure group might be RS for the views of their spokesperson, or the group as a whole, and may undertake and report on research. Conisertaion of possible bias or balance would depend on the context of use.Martinlc (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• No, in reply to the specific question at the start, which was "Should Hope not Hate publications be considered reliable sources provided they are properly attributed? E.g. 'Anti-hate organisation Hope not Hate report that...'". That is not "proper attribution" -- "report" makes it sound like they're passing on news rather than opinions, and "anti-hate organisation" is an assertion in Wikipedia voice that they are what they claim to be. Others say otherwise. Maajid Nawaz (who persuaded SPLC to withdraw similar stuff) called one of their reports a "witch-hunt that conflates Muslim reformers and critics of Islam, with bigots". And, since context has been brought up: coincidentally I tried to remove a not-attributed-in-text hopenothate.org.uk cite from a BLP yesterday but Newimpartial quickly re-inserted it. I assume though that The Vintage Feminist has a different case in mind. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan: that looks like a pretty good example of a case where a group like Hope Not Hate would be perfectly fine. It's a totally non-controversial statement of fact that can also be verified by looking at primary sources - better sources might exist, but they're certainly reliable enough for something like "such and such published this book". Nblund ^talk 15:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes it can be verified by primary sources, and one is already cited, adding unreliable sources adds nothing. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I would say notable for what they claim (many RS seem to use them in just this way "hope not hate said). But not RS for putting as if it is an irrefutable fact.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The Vintage Feminist, please note the instructions for this page:
Before posting, please be sure to include any of the following information that is available:

1. YSource. The book or web page being used as the source. If it's a book, please include author, title, publisher, page number, etc. If it's an online source, please link to it. For example: [http://www.website.com/webpage.html].
2. NArticle. The Wikipedia article(s) in which it is being used. For example: Article name.
3. NContent. The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting. Please supply a WP:DIFF or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y".

I suggest/request that you delete the RFC template. Discussions here generally aren't tagged as RFCs, and you've already gotten about the best answers that you're going to get for a question that doesn't identify the Article or Content involved. Alsee (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alsee, There now exists a list WP:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, the original idea for the list was mine and I was asked to contribute diff. I thought of adding Hope not Hate (the source mentioned in the RfC) but realized there was no discussion / consensus on the group. So I created this RfC to see what the community thinks. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Psychology Today piece?

Source: [2] - On things impacting IQ, secularity and religiosity

Article: Religiosity and intelligence

Content: Diff : [3]

Background on the source: I wanted to get other opinions on this. The source at hand is blog entry by an expert in IQ and religion research named Nigel Barber (some examples of his expertise in this area: [4], [5], [6], [7]). The publisher is Psychology Today, a mainstream printed and online periodical like Scientific American that transfers scientific research to lay people by experts, scholars, professionals and etc. In its history, Psychology Today was owned and operated by the American Psychological Association [8] at one point too. Furthermore, it is controlled by experts [9] and it even has contributions by the American Psychological Association’s Division 15 [10].

• It think that this source is a reliable source because Nigel Barber certainly has experience in the field of intelligence research and even religion. I also think that the source is reliable because it was published by an organization that is not self-published, has a pretty good historical reputation, provides some degree of fact checking and oversight on what it publishes, is handled by experts in the fields. I think that this source by Nigel Barber falls under WP:NEWSORG and also WP:NEWSBLOG.

I did attribution to the author since it is his view, per the guidelines in WP:NEWSBLOG.

So would it be ok for use in wikipedia? Rewording? Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Psychology today is a site along the lines of sciencedaily - a solid example of science churnalism. Just look at the name of the blog that publishe the article "The Human Beast", and the article title "The Real Reason Atheists Have Higher IQs". It is just 1 step away from "doctors hate him!" or "one quick trick", or "number 7 will shock you". Petergstrom (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• It looks like a reliable source to me. It's an article on a website operating under the masthead of a popular-science magazine written by a PHD on his area of specialty. Simonm223 (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Since the article is used as a source for an opinion rather than a source for facts, then the relevant consideration is weight. Instead of just saying this is what Dr. Barber said, you need to explain the degree to which this opinion is held. You need secondary sources for that. Generally it is best to avoid this type of source since are written for a general audience. However, the list of articles he provides is a good starting point. TFD (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• This source is a reliable source for the context being requested and the article at hand. For sure the source is not a self published blog or by a non expert so it is good there. The source looks to be by an expert on the matter and the publisher does do some degree of oversight on its content to keep its respectability as a mainstream science publication in print and online. The context is important here. The attribution to Nigel Barber makes it appropriate for use on wikipedia since it is the opinion of the expert, per WP:NEWSBLOG. Also for such things, WP:RS does mention "editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author..." Not all cases qualify and attribution is key since it places weight on who said it. This case looks straight forward, however.desmay (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• No - Psychology Today is a reliable source for some things, but not for scientific claims like connections between [anything] and intelligence. WikiProject Psychology specifically says to avoid using blogs, and our standards for claims related to health and medicine says to avoid popular press. It should also be obvious just reading it that this isn't a particularly rigorous piece of writing. That's not to say he's necessarily wrong, but that he's playing the same "parlor game" to make a "probably because" claim. But that's all secondary. It's ultimately just not a very good source for this sort of psychological claim. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

See the reason I like it for a RS here is because the author is specifically pointing out the difficulty of creating a causal link due to the presence of so many correlative factors. A scientist working in publication on popular science explaining the difficulty of establishing causality seems not only reliable but also to the benefit of the article in general from a WP:NPOV perspective.Simonm223 (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

There are reliable sources that explain the difference between causation and correlation. Do his own peer reviewed sources that he cites in this article really not make the same distinctions/claims he makes here? They would be much better sources for the article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The WikiProject Psychology link says it is not a policy but an essay for advice. Even there it certainly notes that there are exceptions too with blogs, depending on the level of expertise of the author. The "popular press" link also says the same thing in that "high-quality popular press" (it mentions New Scientist and Scientific American as examples) can be good sources for background and context of the issues involved. That is the point of the source to expand on things that are known to correlate with IQ, in context of claims of IQ and religiosity. It all depends on who says it, a general writer or an expert on the matter that can provide context for the issues involved.

I think that rewording, to something more compact and condensed would solve any issues. For instance, something like "According to biopsychologist Nigel Barber, some of the variance in national IQ and religiosity in Lynn et al's study are explainable by various social, environmental, and wealth conditions among countries." Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Psychology Today has lots and lots of blogs and historically speaking they have, um, varied in quality (classic eg). So while they may technically qualify as newsblogs, I wouldn't recommend them as sources for the relevant scientific discipline except for the most anodyne, non-controversial claims. And setting aside WP:RS for the moment, if you can't find a proper secondary source (ideally a review article or textbook) for the claim in a blog entry, it is likely undue for most wikipedia articles.

As for the particular blog entry: the author is clearly just thinking aloud and making plausible hand-wavy arguments here, which is perfectly fine for the medium he chose, but that does not make it a good source for us (eg, the sentence "I doubt that religion causes stupidity if only because some of the most brilliant people of history, such as Isaac Newton, were highly religious like most of their contemporaries", won't survive any scientific review process). Fwiw, his thoughts and speculation are reasonable and if you find better sources making similar points, include them in the article. If not, leave them out per WP:RS/WP:DUE.

In short, I'm with User:Rhododendrites on this. Abecedare (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the viewpoint in that blog is, like, the standard one. There are many recent studies on this subject and even reviews on it. I'm sure something relevant can be gotten from one of those. Some of them are already cited in the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The Monthly

I am requiring independent editor's opinions please on whether this subjective 'essay' from the The Monthly which is on the international List of political magazines is a reliable source to be used in The Australian which is one of the largest mainstream newspapers in Australia. Specifically my question is in relation to this edit [11] placed within the 'Editorial and opinion pages' section of the article. It seems to also give undue weight to this essay writer's subjective opinion and swamp the other sources within that section. If the source is used I am also questioning the undue weight of the long quote that has been included. I would like to resolve the dispute at Talk:The Australian under the title "Questionable source" as quickly as possible through consensus and have not reverted the bold edit that was made.Merphee (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

As is so common, Merphee is forum shopping because he is not getting his way on the Talk page of an article. And I would like to see evidence that The Australian "is one of the largest mainstream newspapers in Australia". I'm not sure why he has to resolve the dispute as quickly as possible either. I regard getting our encyclopaedia right as more important that speed. I think it's also worth noting that Merphee has not advised anyone at the Talk page in question about this thread, and that he was the subject of a recent thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, which unfortunately got derailed and was never resolved. HiLo48 (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realise you had posted here already Merphee, you may want to check my suggestion on the talk page of The Australian. Curdle (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Again HiLo48 please stop the personal attacks, you've been blocked for a month in the past for personal attacks and belittling. So give it a rest will you. Curdle the discussion we were having at Talk:The Australian sat there for a week before I decided to post here to get some independent opinions so it was hardly out of the blue. As soon as I did you immediately commented on talk. Anyway I've replied to you on Talk:The Australian, thanks for your input. However I posted here to get other independent eyes on the edit HiLo48 made. I'm sure we can come to a consensus and I'll look at a couple of other sources and possible wording you suggested tomorrow. In the meantime I'd appreciate others actually having a look at the source I'm talking about and the edit itself including the undue weight issue I've raised in that section of the article. The edit outweighs all of the other sources is my point.Merphee (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 

Something you might also want to consider is the author of the piece, Margaret Simons. She is currently Associate Professor of Media Studies at Monash University, so is as an academic well versed on the subject (indeed is listed at Melbourne University as an expert here. One of her "essays" for the Monthly won a Walkley award for Journalism in 2015. She has written several books, including co writing a previous (liberal/conservative) Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser's, memoirs. As for the undue weight, I addressed that on the talk page of the Australian (suggesting we drop the long quote you have a problem with), so won't go into it here. Curdle (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Curdle I agree your suggestion to drop the long quote, that's what I meant by undue weight and the extreme quote drowning out other reliable sources that had been in that section of the article for a long time. I also suggest we wait for other uninvolved editors to give their opinion before we change anything and we can develop consensus. No rush. Some reasonable comments like this one [12] and this comment [13] both from uninvolved editors also support the point I was trying to make and was why I chose to post here.Merphee (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Merphee, can you please provide evidence in the form of references to reliable sources that support your claim that The Monthly is a "far left wing magazine" so extreme that it cannot be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia? Do you have evidence that it is a Marxist-Leninist publication advocating armed revolution, or an anarchist publication fomenting violence? Does it publish outlandish conspiracy theories devoid of evidence? Have professional journalists routinely described it as a purveyor of lies? More specifically, is the assessment by Margaret Simons obviously wrong, or is it in line with how other reliable sources assess the political orientation of The Australian? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I can't see anywhere on this page where Merphee asserts that The Monthly is a far left wing magazine or a Marxist-Leninist publication advocating armed revolution or an anarchist publication fomenting violence or a publisher of outlandish conspiracy theories devoid of evidence; or any of the other categorisations included in your comment. Reliability is not transitive - Unreliable sources do not become reliable through (occasional) agreement with reliable sources. The question is not whether the author is correct, but whether the content is verified by a reliable source. And that reliability comes down to a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a current discussion on Talk:The Australian about this and an attempt to reach consensus. It is the long quote selected from the 'essay' that is my issue and I've explained it, and as neutrally as I can. It is about undue weight given to Margaret Simon's viewpoint in relation to the other perspectives in that section of the article. The quote selected from the essay makes The Australian look like some radical far right wing extremist publication, which it is obviously not.Merphee (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

If this is a question of WP:Weight, rather than the reliability of the source, then surely this isn't the right forum for this conversation. If there is a discussion going on at the talk page, that's the right place for a content dispute about due weight. The author is an academic in the relevant field at a respected university, and there's nothing obviously dodgy about the magazine - I can't see any reason to question reliability. Girth Summit (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• There are reasonable questions as regards the source. Firstly that it is WP:PRIMARY for the article content that it is/was used to support; it is the criticism itself, not an independent documentation of that criticism, and should, per that policy, be used with caution. That is is WP:BIASED, and should be used with attribution. And whether the source is reliable for fact, or reliable for opinion. At initial inspection, I would vouch the latter; that The Monthly is a publication of opinion, not of fact; and that it should be used with attribution. As comparison, I would assert the same for The Spectator. As for the questions of WP:WEIGHT, phrasing, jurisdictions et al, for mine, as WP:NPOV applies to all content, it can inform anywhere that content is discussed (cf. WP:NOTBURO). - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Thanks to everyone for commenting. Consensus was reached and the original edit was changed. The Monthly was one of three sources used for the revised edit.Merphee (talk) 05:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Subject of an article critiquing his bio on YouTube as a source

This has to be the strangest sourcing I've seen and I'd like some additional opinions on it: Recently an editor added this youtube video as a source for a date of birth where the subject of the article (Dan Avidan) appears to critique the Wikipedia page about him. That's got to be the weirdest WP:SPS source I've run across. Do folks feel that this is a reliable source as used here? Toddst1 (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we can say it is RS for his saying it is wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, as this is a verified account (tick mark next to GameGrumps, and Dan Avidan is one of the duo in GameGrumps). Per WP:ABOUTSELF the subject may be used for info such as DOB (assuming it's in there in the 13 minutes(4 parts - 79 minutes in all - listening to it). Actually a great way to correct one's Wikipedia's article while providing a RS for the article. Kudos to the article subject.Icewhiz (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• To a limited degree, yes. Simple facts that make no claims about third parties might be judged reliable. Date of birth can be cited to self-published sources, for example. If the subject makes exceptional claims, obviously that's not going in the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

PopCrush

I noticed this discussion from 2012 when looking for verification of another source and wanted to open a new discussion. PopCrush is a subsidiary of Townsquare Media, which operates about 320 radio stations in the United States. The previous argument against certifying PopCrush as a reliable source was that editors could not find any evidence of editorial oversight. While I can't cite such, per say, I know as someone that spent 15+ years working in the radio industry that Townsquare heavily vets their employees in all divisions these days and has a significant online / interactive management team that would have oversight of PopCrush. Strikerforce^Talk 18:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

website Resilience

The website "Resilience" looks like an environmentalist blog to me. What do others think? It's referenced a lot at article Doomer NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

It belongs to Post Carbon Institute, and its aim is to promote transition from fossil fuels. The articles I read do not seem to be of any academic value. It is hardly a reliable source. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Goat Canyon Trestle#Inaccuracies

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Goat Canyon Trestle#Inaccuracies. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48

Digital Spy's reliability in general

Hello everyone. I'm sorry, but I feel that I have to pester you a bit about Digital Spy's reliability as a source in general. I have gone through the archives but did not feel I got a clear and definitive consensus about the reliability of this source. Looking at their website and what they put out, they look like a trashy pile of garbage that should not be used as a source for anything never mind an encyclopedia. However, that is just my personal feeling as someone who rarely watches TV. Digital Spy has been inflicted on several Wiki articles, and I would like some assistance from the community as to the reliability of this phenomenon called Digital Spy. Is DS reliable for anything other than itself? If yes, what? Thanks. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Part of the Hearst UK Entertainment Network? Doesn't obviously say unreliable to me. --tronvillain (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Crayola crayon colors

There is currently an RfC at Talk:History of Crayola crayons regarding whether or not History of Crayola crayons should include a list of Hex/RGB/HSV color values for each crayon. Part of the question involves the verifiability of these values: Newer colors are sourced to http://www.crayola.com/explore-colors.aspx while older colors are sourced to "Color values estimated using swatch of original crayon." Do these sources meet Wikipedia's verifiability requirements? Note that the same sources are also used at List of Crayola crayon colors. –dlthewave ☎ 02:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

As has been stated repeatedly in this debate, crayons are a reliable primary source for their own attributes, such as their size, appearance, and the color of their wax, in the same way that a book or a painting or a statue is a primary source for its objectively verifiable qualities. Illustrations representing those colors are entitled to the presumption that they accurately represent the thing depicted, unless there's some evidence that they do not. Anyone can look at a swatch of a crayon color and compare it with the illustration to verify whether the hue, saturation, and value are reasonably described by the illustration. To use Wikipedia's language on the subject, any educated person with access to the source—in this case a crayon, a swatch of wax from the crayon, or a faithful reproduction of such a swatch—is able to verify the color without specialist knowledge, simply by visual comparison. However, any reader can easily determine the attributes of a swatch of color using common and abundant apps or desk accessories to sample swatches depicted on-line. Such tools require no specialized knowledge, and vary only to the extent that slight variations due to the thickness and natural variability of the wax and manner of digitizing the swatch make them approximate; but so long as this limitation is clearly stated in giving an approximate value, there should be nothing wrong with giving a value approximating the color, and indicating what the values of the color used to illustrate it are. RGB, HSV, and hexadecimal color codes are nothing more than three ways to depict the same colors, each of which has its own use and value to readers, and all of which are determinable through routine calculation—which by definition is not original research. They are precise mathematical equivalents of one another, and listing them separately makes the color tables sortable.

Beyond all of this, however, I think it worth noting that there seems to be a concerted campaign to expunge topics related to Crayola and Crayola crayons from Wikipedia. On July 22, six articles related to these topics were nominated for deletion, chiefly on the grounds that lists of, discussion of, and depictions of Crayola crayons and related topics were either "fancruft" and thus not notable, or fell afoul of WP:NOTCATALOG. When these arguments were rebuffed, the deletionists began to argue that none of the sources were reliable, and that most or all of the colors should be eliminated as original research. Three of the six articles have been deleted, and two of the remaining ones are the subject of lengthy debates that would, if the arguments of the deletionists carry the day, be reduced to little more than stubs. The arguments have been carried over from AfD to article talk pages to here; and every time the debate reaches a standstill a new "survey" or discussion topic is added with the same goal: eliminating as much data as possible, not because any of it has ever been disputed by the people seeking to remove it, but because the sources and methods of illustrating the colors can all be excluded, even though they seem to be perfectly reliable. Nobody has yet argued that you can't tell what color a crayon is by coloring with it, or that the swatches made from crayons don't accurately depict them, or that the research done by the expert on the topic (an external source, quoted and documented by published third-party sources) is in any way inaccurate, or that Crayola's own nominal colors as depicted on their web site don't accurately represent the colors of their crayons. In other words, neither the accuracy of the sources, nor the reasons for believing them to be accurate, nor the accuracy of the illustrations depicting the colors, nor the accuracy of the color codes describing those colors has ever been disputed, yet they're all on the verge of being swept out of Wikipedia en masse, despite the apparent ease with which all of the information can be verified by "any educated person with access to the source", without any evidence—or even the allegation—that the information or the sources from which it's drawn are inaccurate. P Aculeius (talk) 04:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that "no" is an accurate response to everything you just wrote. Guessing the precise coordinates of a color from a photograph is going to be influenced by everything that went into that photograph, and the process of scanning it to digital if it started as something else. It's absolutely original research. You can state with confidence what the color is in a specific digital image, but that's it. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Colour disclaimers are a common feature of websites: wool, paint, blinds. It's easy enough to use tools like Pixie to find out the coordinates of a colour, but colour disclaimers by manufacturers point out that computer monitors, photographs etc can vary considerably and do not always guarantee that what you see is what you get. The values given for the Crayola crayons have been added in good faith, but they are a form of WP:OR unless they come from Crayola directly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Here comes the science

It is impossible to match subtractive colors with additive colors. If Crayola says that a particular RGB additive color is a close match to the particular subtractive color of a crayon, we can include that information, but it really needs at least a footnote explaining that it is impossible to match subtractive colors with additive colors. There are a lot more subtleties to this; see Color. Color model, Color space and Gamut.

Related question: what is the source for the RGB values shown in Pantone#Color of the Year? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Related: User talk:Guy Macon#Impossible colors: --Guy Macon (talk) 05:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)