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

Venezuelananalysis

In the article Human rights in Venezuela I gave as reference for the text of an open letter by experts to the Board of Directors of Human Rights Watch. Another editor maintains the source is not reliable and, therefore, I can't use it. I have no information on any political slant of the source, but I think this is immaterial since the text is genuine. I would like to have more opinions. Againstdisinformation (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

References

It is reliable, there is little doubt that the letter was sent, its contents are reported accurately and the signatories signed it. What might be an issue is weight - you need to show that the letter has been widely reported. TFD (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

TFD, thank you for your help. Againstdisinformation (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Another commentator on talk disagrees. First, what is "venezuelaanalysis.com"? Second, this does seem undue. Volunteer Marek  02:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

And you're suppose to alert others involved in the discussion, like myself and User:Oscar. Volunteer Marek  03:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The letter was originally published by the North American Congress on Latin America and most of the signatories would qualify as experts in the field. The reliability of venezuelaanalysis.com is only pertinent if there's serious doubt they have correctly transcribed the letter. Here is the HRW's response to the letter[1]. The original "Decade Under Chavez" report, the open letter, and the response form a chain of successive qualifying viewpoints. Per WP:CHERRYPICKING if one of these sources is cited there is a duty to cite the successive responses. Rhoark (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• As follows from descripton, this is an "advocacy source". Such sources should not be generally used for criticizing their political opponents (as in this example). In essence, you are trying to use a less reliable source to discredit a more reliable source. This is not a good idea. My very best wishes (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• It is the wrong argument. In this instance, the source cannot be "more reliable" or "less reliable". Either the text it reproduces is genuine or it is not, and it is very clear that it is. Therefore, the fact that venezuelanalysis is or is not an "advocacy source" is irrelevant. Againstdisinformation (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The publisher is important as noted in WP:RS. That kind of letter would probably never be published in a scientific peer reviewed journal. My very best wishes (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course it wouldn't, it is not a research article. Scientific journals are not in the business of publishing open letters. This argument is irrelevant too, I am afraid. Againstdisinformation (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, precisely. This is not a research publication, but a letter on leftist web-site published to discredit a report by the HRW that can be reasonably viewed as research. This is like someone is trying to disprove science on political grounds. Can we trust that such letter actually exist? Yes, sure. Can we trust the claims in the letter? No. Should we use it for sourcing in this particular context? No. My very best wishes (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Again, you have it all wrong. You say that the open letter would not be published in a scientific journal, which is a truism, but that the HRW report "can be reasonably viewed as research". Well, I can't think of a referee I know who would accept it for publication in a scientific journal either. As for the epithet "leftist", you use it as a brand of infamy, which only serves to make your political leanings transparent. I have never seen you complain that the Wall Street Journal is right-wing and therefore not RS. Finally, most of the signatories of the letter are renowned specialists of Latin America and work with the most prestigious American Universities. For me, this is enough to give more weight to the open letter than to your personal POV. Againstdisinformation (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor, please. My very best wishes (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not a question of WP:RS but WP:WEIGHT. There is little doubt that the letter was sent. Here is the direct link to the NACLA website. And HRW has even responded to the letter, here (here is the link to HRW website which is reliable for claims about itself). The question to consider is whether it is worth including. That cannot be determined here, but should be on the talk page. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Tel Rumeida sourcing

An editor, User:Settleman, has twice removed sourced information at Tel Rumeida on the grounds, declared but not argued on the talk page, that they fail WP:RS. See

• here (17:57, 1 October 2015‎) and
• here 13:14, 30 September 2015‎

The multiple (6) sources are

• Yifa Yaakov, 'State funding archaeological dig in heart of Hebron,' The Times of Israel 9 January 2014.
• 'Israelis begin construction on new settlement in central Hebron,' Ma'an News Agency 5 January 2014.
• Haaretz Editorial, 'Hebron Dig: Annexation in the Guise of Archaeology,’ Haaretz 10 January 2014
• 'Losses continue to pile up for Abu Haikel family on Tel Rumeida,' Christian Peacemaker Teams January 17, 2015
• 'Settlers attempt construction of new access path at Tel Rumeida,' Christian Peacemakers Teams 27 March 2014.
• 'Land grab in the name of archaeology,' EAPPI 24 March 2014.

As explained on the talk page Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI) and Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPI) are NGOs that monitor events on the grounds in zones where conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is intense (as does B'tselem, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International all of which are accepted as RS (as are Haaretz, The Times of Israel and Ma'an News Agency). They have a constant presence, mainly accompanying people at risk, but also documenting through interviews the subjects’ histories, personal and legal. They are often our only source for information on these obscure tragedies. I think this behavior reportable because 3 of the removed sources are unquestionably reliable sources as newspapers. No one challenges their use on Wikipedia. The two ecuemical and avowedly peaceful (not 'activist') organizations are often our only sources for much of what happens in detail in these territories, and to rule them out categorically, rather than evaluating them contextually (6 sources indicate a consonance of intelligence) is, to my mind, ideological, and an instrumental use of RS theory to exclude important data.

Could involved editors, other than of course Settleman, refrain from comment to allow external advice on this?Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani - Thanks got pinging me.

Whoever invest the time to help here, please be aware of the smokescreen here. The text in question is mainly During the period of the British Mandate the area of Tel Rumeida was an Islamic waqf property rented out to a Jewish association and managed by a Jewish farming family. In 1948 the land came under the control of the Jordanian government. The family of Abu Haikel, who had given sanctuary to Jews during the 1929 Hebron massacre, which was added in this edit. Sources 6,7 (on this diff) are an editorial or don't mention this info at all and source 8 (from it the info is actually copied) is a blog ran by activists. I can't see how it can be reliable for anything, not to mention be reliable for historical facts from ~85 years ago.

The touchy, feely implication the Human Right organization don't lie (or make mistakes) is a no-brainer. People have lied for worse reasons (Nishidani and me had similar interaction over similar issue where I proved an HR NGO spread lied). Settleman (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Your incompetence is such that you erased all of the nuanced information in that edit, and rewrote according to the one Ma'an report, ignoring the fact that further down the page, your material had already been conveyed, there in correct English. You rewrote as follows:

According to Abu Haikel, he rented the land from Jordanian government's Custodian of Enemy Property. After 1967, a new lease was signed with Israeli government's Custodian of Absentee Property. In 1981 the Custodian refused to charge the lease fees but later accepted the payment. Such incident reoccured in 2001 and 2002.

Had your eye studied the section, this ungrammatical and obliquely vague rewrite would have been understood to be utterly purposeless. For below it we have,

The Israeli Custodian of Absentee Property refused to accept the Abu Haikal's rent payments in 1981, but, after an agreement was renegotiated in 2000, the back rent for 1981-2000 was reportedly paid up by the family, and fees were regularly accepted for the following 2 years, after which the land was declared a closed military zone, rent payments were rejected and the family was refused further access,

The Haaretz editorial was evidently not appropriate, I'll concede that. As for the rest it is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT and disattentiveness. Now let us wait for external third party input.Nishidani (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

What 'sources' gave information about 1929 'sanctuary' beyond EAPPI blog? Answer the question and stop your elaborating sidetracking! Settleman (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Are we done here? Settleman (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

That is up to the RS experts who so far (it is a tradition now that even they are reluctant to touch the I/P field with anything short of a 10-foot pole) have withheld comment (if they have noticed at all). If no one comments either way, it means the RS-status is undetermined, and therefore I will use those sources with attribution, and you may tag them.Nishidani (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you answer to the point instead for inventing new policies? You can't use a blog for this and there is no consensus for that. Like I showed, your 'six' sources do not support what I removed, only the blog. Alternatively, you can try to represent this again in a neutral way and ask if EAPPI blog can be used for that one statement. Hopefully that won't scare the experts. Settleman (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Vanity press or MEDRS-compliant source?

This topic is about http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm as either WP:MEDRS-compliant source or vanity press, when entered as a source at Effects of pornography and Pornography addiction. The source is PubMed but not MedLine indexed.

Evidence for being predatory:

with low publishing fees paid by authors or their institutions.

— http://www.mdpi.com/journal/behavsci

Jeffrey Beall (18 February 2014), Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers, Scholarly Open Access: Critical analysis of scholarly open-access publishing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

"Fees paid by authors" is the very definition of vanity press. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

If Beall questions it that is a huge red flag - the source should not be used (if at all) for anything other than mundane non-controversial information. Alexbrn (talk) 09:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Our article MDPI does have a breakdown of issues with that source but also some positive statements. This publisher came up during a DYK review of mine because the fact of the hook I had supplied was sourced to a journal published by this group. The reviewers judged it reliable enough for that particular hook, but it was a somewhat weaker claim than what we need for medical claims (And in my case, other reliable sources were backing up the journal's statements).Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals

— WP:SCHOLARSHIP

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu is gaming the system on porn related Wiki pages

Tgeorgescu is gaming the system by blocking a PubMed indexed, peer-reviewed review of the literature related to the neuroscience of porn addiction. Tgeorgescu has blocked inclusion of this review based on 18 month old blog post has since been refuted by Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association. Furthermore, MDPI responded to Jeffrey Beall's allegations prior to the OASPA ruling. Since Beall had no response to MDPI, nor OASPA it must be assumed that there exists no official support for the blog post. Finally and most telling, Tgeorgescu has cited nothing specific to the Journal Behavioral Sciences, nor has Tgeorgescu refuted a single word of the review.

A simple fact - Open access journals, which accept pay, are in fact accepted as sources on Wikipedia, including MDPI. Until you can demonstrate that MDPI studies have been blocked from Wikipedia, you are gaming the system (gate-keeping).

Further evidence that Tgeorgescu is gate-keeping both Effects of pornography and Pornography addiction is that he permits Ley, et al, which is not PubMed indexed, and published by a suspect Journal, Current Sexual Health Reports. The Journal Behan publishing in 2004, went on hiatus in 2008, only to be resurrected in 2014, just in time to feature Ley et al. It's well established that the Ley et al. editor, Charles Moser, has been a long-time vocal critic of porn and sex addiction, while David Ley is the author of the Myth of Sex Addiction. Ley et al has been exposed as nothing more than a biased an unsupported piece of propaganda

It must be stated that blogger Jeffrey Beall's opinion contains no more weight than any other Internet blogger. He has no official status in any organization that governs academic publishing. Beall has been roundly criticized for being judge. jury, and executioner, while being accountable to no one. A few of the Many scholar have critiqued Beall:

1) Parting Company with Jeffrey Beall

QUOTED "Since I first became aware of Beall’s List, however, I have been following some of Beall’s work with growing unease. Here and there some (to me) distasteful political ideology peeked through (with my pragmatic mindset, any kind of ideology makes me queasy), but you don’t have to agree with somebody all the time to agree with them some of the time. But now, in a recent screed, he has crossed the line."

2) Should We Retire the Term “Predatory Publishing”?

QUOTED "Beall’s List has been controversial since its establishment for a variety of reasons, some of them obvious (no publisher, whether legitimate or not, appreciates being publicly branded a “predator”), and some of them less so. One of the more subtle reasons for the controversy around Beall’s List lies in the fact that it focuses entirely on OA publishing. Predictably, this has aroused the ire of many in the OA community, who have accused Beall of targeting these publishers out of an animus towards OA itself—a charge to which Beall provided a fair amount of ammunition when he wrote an impassioned attack on the OA movement in the journal tripleC."

3) Beyond Beall’s List

QUOTED: Beall’s list has become a go-to tool and has even been featured in The New York Times,5 but it is not the final word on predatory publishing, partially because Beall himself has a complicated, and not entirely supportive, attitude toward OA in general. Another concerning aspect of Beall’s work is his evaluation of OA publishers from less economically developed countries. Crawford, Karen Coyle, and Jill Emery have all noted Beall’s bias against these publishers.10,11,12

4) Ethics and Access 1: The Sad Case of Jeffrey Beall.

QUOTED: I didn’t read all of Beall’s blog posts. I honestly don’t know whether the misleading items noted above are typical or special cases. As with most library folk, I was appalled when a publisher attempted to sue Beall for libel—but being sued for unfortunate reasons doesn’t automatically make the defendant a saint. As with a number of other people who’ve been involved with and writing about OA for years, I was growing increasingly nervous about Beall’s growing stridency about “predatory” OA publishers— and amazement that there never seem to be sketchy or predatory subscription publishers, even among those charging high page charges and other article fees.

5) A Response to Jeffrey Beall’s Critique of Open Access

QUOTED: Beall’s critiques of open access are not always as factual as they could be, so as an open access advocate I am concerned when his polemics are presented to an academic audience that may not know all the facts.

In summary, Tgeorgescu is basing his entire argument on a single blogger who has clear bias and who has been roundly criticized. The accusations by Beall against MDPI have been refuted or addressed by both MDPI and the OASPA. Most importantly, there exists no official Wikimedia statement banning MDPI studies. User Tgeorgescu proves his bias by accepting a review (Ley et al.) from a minor journal, which took a 6- yaer hiatus, has only publsihed for a few yaers is not PubMed indexed - yet he blocks this PubMed indexed review. The evidence is clear that Tgeorgescu is acting as the gate-keeper for porn-related Wiki pages.Gaborlewis (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, so not in MEDLINE either, another redflag per WP:MEDRS. I think only a POV-pusher would think this source okay for anything other than mundane information. Alexbrn (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that anything published by MDPI should be viewed with suspicion. --73.22.151.32 (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

First off, I'll note the question in the section heading ("MEDRS or vanity press"?) is a false dichotomy. MDPI journals appear to be neither. There's been a lot of publicity of their mis-steps, but there are is testimony from respected researchers and industry organization about their peer review process, revisions, and retractions. You can read the blow-by-blow here[2]. Charging a fee is fairly standard for open access and not probative at all. It does not look like they are one of the deliberate bad actors, but should still be regarded particularly critically. I've read the article in question, and there's no "there" there. It's a literature review, summarizing a lot of different papers, but the conclusions, as vague as they are, are formed out of thin air. There is no quantitative or systematic qualitative method by which they synthesize the different results they review. I would not recommend using this paper except as a secondary adjunct to validate the importance of the more substantive research they cite. Rhoark (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Theatre/opera/concert programme booklets

I imagine this has been considered long since, but I can't find it anywhere: how do we stand on the verifiability of material sourced from programme booklets? Very often – e.g. at the Royal Opera House, National Theatre or Barbican Centre – they contain essays and articles by leading experts in the relevant field, and they obviously meet Wikipedia's definition of "made available to the public in some form". But on the whole they are sold or given out on the day of the performance and are not obtainable afterwards. The archivists of the major companies will keep copies – and in my experience have been very helpful in providing details from them – and some museums and academic institutions maintain theatre collections, but is this enough to satisfy the verifiability criterion? Grateful for guidance on this. – Tim riley talk 07:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I would imagine that this would be contingent on WP:V. If there is reasonable (define 'reasonable') distribution of programmes kept in public archives (or copies available thereof), I'd say they are. What is the likelihood of these programmes being available to editors for cite checking outside of the UK in this instance? It isn't required that publications still be in print, or that they be easily accessible, it strikes me as being a matter of just how inaccessible they are. It would also be dependent on who wrote the programmes. My experience is that, dependent on what is being staged/performed, there can be a lot of op-ed hype in these programmes. More specifically, I've encountered errors in historical content. What manner of content are you wanting to 'mine'? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that advice. There may be a few international collections that keep such material, but it will mostly, I think, be available for hands-on inspection only in the UK, at, e.g., the V&A though I suppose WP:SOURCEACCESS covers that. The material I have in mind is, e.g. Michael Kennedy on Elgar, Arthur Jacobs on Sullivan or Andrew Porter on Verdi. Such authorities have regularly contributed to programmes for British companies. Also, Covent Garden programmes include performance histories of the relevant opera or ballet, which are very informative and full of the sort of detail we want for WP articles, if the source is admissible. They can be inspected in situ at the Covent Garden archive but not (yet) online. Tim riley talk 10:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Apologies for the delay in responding. Given the credibility of the authors, I don't see any reasonable justification for these sources being precluded. As articles are written on a case by case, this should probably tested by consensus on the relevant articles. If you choose to be WP:BOLD in adding content using the programmes you've selected, just remember to be prepared to go through the WP:BRD process. If you prefer to test the waters, it's probably a good idea to create a new section on the talk page of each of the articles before you add content explaining the availability issue. You should be able to determine whether other editors are receptive to the sources or not. I'm sure I don't need to lead you through the process as you have ample experience as an editor. Should anyone be aghast at the proposal, and if you're feeling so inclined, you could always play the 'shock and awe' card by donning a flashing, whooping and spinning mechanised bow tie and distracting them while you strategically place your additional content in the articles. Good luck, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I shall make a note of your sage advice for my future guidance. Tim riley talk 06:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Are any of these reliable sources?

See the sources added in this edit reliable? The editor has been edit-warring to keep them in the article, and has not joined the discussion at the talk page. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Al-Masdar

I'm seeing this website pop up increasingly as a source for articles dealing with the very touchy subjects of the conflicts in Yemen and Syria. To my eye, the website has a very obvious bias against the U.S. and Gulf states and toward the Syrian and Iranian governments (and their allies in Russia and Yemen). To wit, in this recently cited story, the use of terms like "Saudi-US aggression units" (obviously not WP:NPOV), "Yemeni national military" (the country is in a civil war between two factions claiming to be the Yemeni government, with different military units backing each), "fugitive President Abed Rabbu Mansour Hadi" (implies he is a fugitive from justice), and "Saudi-led aggression" (again, not NPOV; the Saudis claim they are responding to Hadi's request for assistance). There's also this recent story that refers to "Islamist rebel factions from the Free Syrian Army", a secular group led by defected military officers, and this story that uses phrases like "the Zionist entity" and "Zionist forces" in apparent reference to Israel. There are plenty more examples. This website does not seem like it meets Wikipedia's standards as a reliable source; for what it's worth, it also doesn't have a Wikipedia article about it, and it provides exceedingly little information on its website about who is backing it and where it is based (beyond "the Arab world"). I'm inclined to consider it propaganda in nature. Thoughts? -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at it seems no worse than other biased sources we use here and The Israel Project has this to say about it "In contrast to the vast majority of news sites in the Arab world, Al Masdar delivers a balanced and honest picture of the Jewish world, Israel, and the international scene." [3]. Many Arab news sources use euphemisms when discussing Israel so that is not a red flag in my opinion. Just because a source has a non-Western POV does not make it unreliable. I see no reason to blanket exclude this as a source - sure it contains propaganda most news sources do, we just do not notice it if it comports with our expectations and world view. Examine individual pieces for individual claims just like we do with any other source here. Jbh^Talk 18:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kudzu1 - Looking on LexisNexis Academic, I see that Al-Masdar is referenced by middle eastern media as a Sanaa-based Yemeni news outlet. Sources that quote it include the Central Asian News Service, the Washington Post, The Guardian, The New York Times, Arutz 7 Radio in Israel, the Yemen Times, Gulf News from the UAE… I stopped searching through results at that point. LexisNexis doesn't actually collate Al-Masdar's articles so far as I can see.

I checked out the links you posted, including the reference to "aggression units" and the "zionist entity." It seems like other sources should be found to corroborate any controversial claims, but that the source could be used as a source of opinion or with attribution in certain cases, especially regarding events in the Middle East. -Darouet (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Mark Lane

1. Source. Mark Lane (author), specifically this magazine article: Lane, Mark (November 1977). "The Mysterious Death of a Key JFK Witness" (PDF). Gallery: 41–43, 106–107, 110, 112, 114. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) (Note that some images in pdf are NSFW.)
2. Article. George de Mohrenschildt
3. Content. The source is used multiple times in the article. The following are two examples:

a. At the time of the Kennedy assassination, he was attending a party when a radio broadcast the news. According to those present with him at the party, De Mohrenschildt paled and blurted out, "Could it have been Oswald? Was he involved?" As he became the center of attention, he continued, "The FBI in Dallas and the FBI in Fort Worth told me he was harmless." De Mohrenschildt had begun to talk about Oswald's possible connection to the assassination more than one hour before the rest of the world was to hear his name broadcast.

b. De Mohrenschildt told Willem Oltmans "I am very much afraid of this investigation by Jim Garrison because I believe that he is on the right track."

Mark Lane has plenty of supporters, but he has also frequently been described as a conspiracy theorist, and his critics state that the assertions in his writings are based on hearsay, innuendo, and rumor; cherry-picking of facts; or just plain fabrication (e.g. [4]). His "investigative report" in Gallery does appear to rely heavily on hearsay from another conspiracy theorist, Willem Oltmans, to state that George de Mohrenschildt was going to spill the bean on the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Thoughts? - Location (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Mark Lane's work has been proven to be full of inaccuracies and/or deliberate deceptions, including the fabrication of quotes of individuals. Gamaliel (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Not a RS - Mark Lane is a purveyor of fringe theories. He has been referred to by the New York Times as the "dean of conspiracy buffs." And this academic review of Bugliosi's Reclaiming History praises Bugliosi for exposing Lane's - and other conspiracy theorists' - "shameless lies and distortions." Those are just two examples pulled off of a quick database search - among historians it's basically common knowledge that Lane is a conspiracy theorist and that his claims aren't to be trusted. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, this author is famous for promoting KGB-funded conspiracy theories after meeting with Genrikh Borovik. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, Mark Lane is a theorist whose assumptions are based on rumors, etc. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Not RS Mark Lane is a patently Fringe source whose writings have been repeatedly debunked. I would treat any comment from him on almost any subject with suspicion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Jayce & the Wheeled Warriors tv guide scans - posted on blog

I've been having a discussion in the Jayce & the Wheeled Warriors article regarding the reliability of a source that posted scans of a comic strip that appeared in a French tv guide during 1987.

For example [5].The exact statement is

An uncredited, unfinished comic based on the series was published in the French comic magazine Pif Gadget #922. The 13-page adventure ended on a cliffhanger as the next issue did not include the follow-up story and the conclusion to that story was never published in Pif Gadget. It included characters created specifically for the comic, such as a white-haired young sorceress called Algora who was an ally of Saw Boss. The story, entitled "Le Sortilège d'Algora" ("Algora's Spell") was later re-printed and completed in Poche Junior, a free supplement for younger readers to the French television listing magazine Télé Poche, in several installments: Poche Junior #1 (May 1987),[14] Poche Junior #2 (May 1987),[15] Poche Junior #17 (August 1987),[16] Poche Junior n° 23 (October 1987),[17] and Poche Junior n° 25 (October 1987).[18]

The links provided are of a blog that has the scans available online. The discussion is regarding the fact that this is a blog and as such unreliable. However, the scans posted are of official publications, can probably be found and bought from collectors if so desired, and as such should be considered reliable regardless of being posted on a blog. A point was made that the scans could have been altered and I would agree if it concerned just an image of the guide. However, the entire thing was scanned and posted along with publication dates. So I figure this should be considered a reliable source. Maybe not based on location, but certainly on content provided. If it isn't, how would content such as this ever be verified?JalGorda (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Cite the material as though citing the publication directly ({{cite news}} or {{cite journal}} would work); the link to the scans can be used by you to verify what information is needed for attribution, but don't link directly to it in the article as it may involve a copyright breach. GRAPPLE ^X 15:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thought Catalog

Are articles on Thought Catalog considered reliable/notable for wikipedia? While many notable people publish on Thought Catalog, I am referring to content written by people who are otherwise un-notable. The website's policy for publishing articles is found here. In particular, I am wondering if the website would be considered acceptable for the relevant sentence currently in the lead at this article: Mirror Mirror (M2M song). Thanks in advance. Freikorp (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Robert Anton Wilson's Everything Is Under Control: Conspiracies, Cults and Cover-ups

1. Source. Robert Anton Wilson's Everything Is Under Control: Conspiracies, Cults and Cover-ups (pdf)
2. Article. Mary Pinchot Meyer
3. Content:

a. Mary Eno Pinchot Meyer (October 14, 1920 – October 12, 1964) was an American socialite, painter, former wife of Central Intelligence Agency official Cord Meyer and mistress of United States president John F. Kennedy who was often noted for her desirable physique and social skills.

b. Mary may also have done some work for the CIA during this time but her tendency towards spur-of-the-moment love affairs reportedly made the agency wary of her.

c. Mary Pinchot Meyer and John F. Kennedy reportedly had "about 30 trysts" and at least one author has claimed she brought marijuana or LSD to almost all of these meetings.

Klaun raised the issue of this source in Talk:Mary Pinchot Meyer#Sourcing. I have enough doubts, too, that I thought it should be brought up here for feedback. Some other sources repeat the "30 trysts" + "marijuana or LSD" claims, but they look a bit sketchy to me, too. According to the article's edit history, the original citation for this article was Mary Pinchot Meyer in everything2.com with a note that Wilson is cited on that page. - Location (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Steven Levy / Backchannel

1. Source. Steven Levy, How Steve Jobs Fleeced Carly Fiorina: The former HP CEO boasted of her friendship with Apple’s leader — but he took her to the cleaners with the iPod, Backchannel (October 1, 2015).
2. Article. Carly Fiorina.
3. Content. The relevant diff is here. The content relates to a certain iPod cobranding project at Hewlett Packard during Fiorina's tenure as CEO.

• Background information/comment. Steven Levy is a business and technology journalist. His bio is here. He is the author of six books; the most relevant one here is The Perfect Thing: How the iPod Shuffles Commerce, Culture, and Coolness (Simon & Schuster, 2006). He was senior editor and chief technology correspondent at Newsweek for many years, then was a senior staff writer at Wired. More recently, Levy became the founder and editor-in-chief of The Backchannel, which is described here (in this DLD conference bio) as "a tech-based publication owned and operated by Medium." The Backchannel "about" page indicates that in addition to an editor-in-chief, the publication has an executive editor, an art director, staff writers, and contributing writers.

Two editors—myself and MrX—believe that the source is reliable and proper to use for the content here (which deals with the history of the iPad) since it has the hallmarks of editorial control. MrX notes on the article talk page that "Levy's work on Backchannel has been cited by Christian Science Monitor, Wired, Forbes, Venture Beat and Al Jazeera America, which strongly suggests it's a reliable source per WP:USEBYOTHERS." The particular Levy article cited here has been quoted from in this Fortune Magazine piece.

One editor (CFredkin) disagreed, and suggested that we flag the issue here for further comments, to which I agreed. We welcome comments. Neutrality^talk 05:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

My concern is that "Medium" is a blogging platform and "BackChannel" is a tech oriented blogging channel on Medium. I think we can and should provide better sourcing for BLP's.CFredkin (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:UGC is instructive in this case: ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." Backchannel is under full editorial control.- MrX 17:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Levy is a professional journalist whose work would be generally unquestionably RS. Backchannel is a subsection of Medium with professional editorial oversight., which satisfies any concerns we might have about this being somehow different from his other professional work. Gamaliel (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, there's an Executive Editor and Levy himself is Editor in Chief. I'm not sure that qualifies as editorial oversight. Also, the About page for the site includes this solicitation:

"Mining the tech world for lively and meaningful tales and analysis. Pitch guidelines here: https://medium.com/@lotto/would-you-like-to-pitch-medium-s-in-house-publications-matter-and-backchannel-27cb772e6705"

That doesn't exactly sound like the Blog page for the WP or WSJ....CFredkin (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Lots of publications, including the WP and the WSJ, publish writings by their EiCs. Gamaliel (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

In addition to what Gamaliel wrote above, the fact that Backstream invites pitches for possible stories is perfectly standard practice. Many publications do the same thing (see, e.g., Washington Post's "Talent Network" of freelancers (specifically noting story pitching)). Neutrality^talk 04:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Gulf News Journal

The source Gulf News Journal does not seem to meet the reliability standards, per WP:RELIABLE.

"Reliable sources must be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."

The website, "Gulf News Journal", was created only a few months ago (April 2, 2015) according to a Whois search. The site lists no physical address or telephone number, lists no editors, and shows no names of authors on any of its posts. It doesn't include any human names on its bylines, about page, or contact us page (or any page on the website that I can see).

Source: Gulf News Journal - http://gulfnewsjournal.com

Articles and Content found in:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_Bahrain

However, travelers from approved countries can now get their visas online or when they arrive in the country. Bahrain has issued more visas since the policy was implemented than it did before

. Citation goes to: http://gulfnewsjournal.com/stories/510545844-new-visa-policy-in-bahrain-leads-to-sharp-rise-in-business-and-leisure-travelers

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_rankings_of_Qatar

Waste generation: Per capita, the waste generation rate in Qatar is one of the highest in the world. Each person in Qatar generates an average of four pounds of trash every day. Qatar’s population generates 2.5 million tons of solid waste every year

. Citation goes to http://gulfnewsjournal.com/stories/510634043-qatar-deploys-strategies-to-cope-with-huge-amounts-of-waste

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBQ

In July 2015, Fitch Ratings gave IBQ a long-term issuer default rating of A+. Fitch also gave the bank a “stable outlook and short-term issuer default rating” of F1

. Citation goes to http://gulfnewsjournal.com/stories/510626547-ibq-earns-a-rating-from-fitch

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_Charity

In July 2015, Vodafone Qatar and Qatar Charity created a partnership. Employees of Vodafone helped feed workers at camps in the Ras Laffan Industrial City with Iftar meals during Ramadan. Vodafone promised to donate $275 per hour that each employee volunteers. The donations will go to Qatar Charity’s Family Sponsorship program. The program helps low-income families throughout the Gulf area

. Citation goes to http://gulfnewsjournal.com/stories/510625796-vodafone-and-charity-qatar-team-to-deliver-ramadan-meals

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saedattaman (talk • contribs) 14:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I saw your post in Talk:Visa policy of Bahrain in which you make an argument that this is not a reliable source and state "the website appears to be a text spinner for press releases". The subject matter does not appear to be very contentious, however, I cannot find the names of people - authors or editors - who might be responsible for the content. I am leaning towards "not reliable". - Location (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

YourStory.com

yourstory.com is clearly not a RS: they exist as a promo platform as described by themselves http://yourstory.com/testimonials/ and http://yourstory.com/frequently-asked-questions/. Unfortunately this has been used as a source in many India-related articles [6]. Brianhe (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent, Voceditenore, Abecedare, and NawlinWiki: This source has been questioned by each of you here, here, here, here and here. Maybe you would like to comment further at this noticeboard? Brianhe (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. Brianhe. I have nothing to add, I am afraid. I doubted th RSness of the source, but I have not studied it in depth to determine more. My comment was more about the lack of mention of a topic in it as a reference than the medium itself (here). MY opinion is that it is the wrong side of the line. By how much I cannot say without more careful study. Fiddle Faddle 19:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see I mentioned it twice. My first comment is an even greater doubt than I recall. I would say, on that basis, not RS in any way whatsoever. Fiddle Faddle 19:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The Tab student newspaper

Any views on whether The Tab is reliable or not? I bumped into it in the Bullingdon Club article, where it's used to support a statement about the existence of a photograph and who's in it.[7] Obviously, in this particular case, it's more a question of whether or not The Mail is a RS when it comes to identifying those in the picture (as it was the source), but I was curious as to whether The Tab would be a RS if they hadn't been churning The Mail. Bromley86 (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Comicbookmovie.com: User-generated source for exclusive interviews?

I'm coming from the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Comicbookmovie.com discussion. A WP:Permalink for it is here. It's about using comicbookmovie.com as a WP:Reliable source or rather for exclusive interviews. While I've stated that I understand why two of the editors, per WP:QUESTIONABLE, have been removing the source from articles, I also pointed out that there have been cases at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and WP:BLP noticeboard where an exclusive interview from a source that is otherwise generally considered unreliable is deemed fine because the interview is exclusive from that website. For such an example, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive208#John Barrowman (BLPSOURCES vs CONTEXTMATTERS). The editors with a different view than mine or Drovethrughosts's on this consider comicbookmovie.com to completely unreliable because the source is user-generated. For example, one of them stated, "And actors/actresses are less likely to go after a self-described fan site like CBM than a major publication like the Daily Mail. Also the sources that re-print information from CBM avoid liability by attributing it to them. Besides the argument against CBM is not based on accuracy but on authorship. Wikipedia has strict guidelines against user-generated content. IMDb can be accurate but we're still not allowed to use it a source."

I disagree with completely discarding comicbookmovie.com per the site not having had any issues with its reliability noted in WP:Reliable sources, per it not appearing to have fabricated any of its interviews, and per the aforementioned "exclusive interviews from a poor source" aspect. Erik cited WP:USEBYOTHERS, and pointed to this Google Books link, which shows some WP:Reliable sources citing comicbookmovie.com as though it is reliable. And, like I stated in the aforementioned discussion, in addition to the WP:Reliable book sources that seemingly trust comicbookmovie.com, comicbookmovie.com interviews are cited by online sources that pass the WP:Reliable sources guideline for certain content, such as this and this slashfilm.com source, and this Mstars News source. These facts, and that celebrities, writers and directors seem to trust this source, and that this source does not have any sort of bad reputation, should factor into any decision regarding its use on Wikipedia. I brought this matter here for wider input. I will also alert Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to this discussion. This matter affects a lot of Wikipedia articles, and I think it needs as much input as it can get. Flyer22 (talk) 07:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:USERGENERATED states, "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, content farms, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." Comicbookmovie.com does not employ "credentialed members", so it's "exclusive" content should not be treated any differently. Per their website: "We are the #1 comic book movie fansite on the web, and completely user-generated by the FANS! Join our 6 million PLUS community and start contributing!"--TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat is one of the editors I was referring to above. In that aforementioned discussion, I noted that WP:USERGENERATED does not state that such sources are never reliable and/or can never be used on Wikipedia. I also noted that it's a guideline, not a policy. There is not a lot more that I have to state on this matter. I will point out, though, that comicbookmovie.com includes the following disclaimer: "This article was submitted by a volunteer contributor who has agreed to our code of conduct. ComicBookMovie.com is protected from liability under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) and 'safe harbor' provisions. CBM will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please contact us for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. You may also learn more about our copyright and trademark policies HERE." So they clearly take their reliability seriously in some regard. WhatamIdoing, you often give good advice on matters such as these. Any opinions on this case? And, Viriditas, are you sure you want to bow out of this discussion? If so, I understand. Flyer22 (talk) 07:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Eh, taking care in removing plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement is by no means the same as making sure that the remainder of the material is factually correct - it does not mean that they take reliability serious, at all. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

For this case, I disagree on that; I stated "in some regard" because I don't know for certain how far their "code of conduct" goes. But it seems like it includes making sure all of the content is reliable. Again, their interviews, for example, seem legit. And the non-interview content they report on can be easily found in more reliable sources. But, again, I await other opinions regarding the use of this source for exclusive interviews, per what I and others have stated about this case. Flyer22 (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Signed again for extra content I added on to this post. Flyer22 (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

If normally unreliable sources have an exclusive interview, I think it's OK to use. Treat as if it's a self-published statement by the interviewee, and don't source it for contentious facts. If the interviewee states their full name, age, place of birth, and gender, then I don't see any reason why we can't source those details from an interview, no matter where it's hosted. If the interview looks like a hoax, then obviously don't cite it. But just because it's not at a reliable source doesn't mean that it's completely unusable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

My initial thought is very similar to NinjaRobotPirate's. It's not technically a self-published source by the interviewee, but you could—if you really needed to use it—handle it like one. This type of source has, at best, borderline reliability for anything beyond the fact that the source exists and says a particular thing. I would avoid using it unless it were the only available source of information that would routinely be included in an article, and I would use it with WP:INTEXT attribution. (Would you cite Wikinews? This is very similar.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

There's absolutely no issue in using interviews from otherwise unreliable sources. WP:USERGENERATED is not policy and even the essay includes the caveat "are largely not acceptable". Unless there is concern that a source is literally making up the interview there should be no issue in using it. Such sources are used often in articles about subjects that are fairly fringe or not immensely notable as they simply don't get interviews in larger, more reliable publications. Capeo (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Norman Borlaug and source from Science

Over at Norman Borlaug, the idea that there was a food shortage in India in the mid-1960s has been challenged by SageRad here claiming the source is "hagiographic". There's a little tweaking that can be done on the text, but the idea that's mainly being challenged is that there was a food shortage at all. The source is from the journal Science from its science news section. It's an article on Borlaug receiving the Nobel peace prize and a bit of his general biography. The text is:

One need only recall the close brush with famine on the Indian-Pakistan subcontinent in 1966 and 1967, a famine that was averted only by shipping one-fifth of the U.S. wheat crop to India, and the projection of massive famine in Asia in the 1970's, to realize that the new seeds are a godsend.[8]

The seeds are in reference to the varieties that resulted in Borlaug's Nobel prize and is part of the second paragraph here. There isn't a whole lot of editor traffic on the article in the time it's been on my watchlist, so could some folks here comment on the reliability of this source in terms of saying there was a food shortage, crop failure, etc.? Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Just on my personal note, academic publications have news and commentary sections, especially for bibliographic content and news in the specific field. There shouldn't be anything considered unreliable in this source simply for saying there was a food shortage at the time in the context of Borlaug's biographic information. Those sections are considered just as reliable as a newspaper documentation of an event if not more so sometimes. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)\

Let's be accurate. I challenged the content:

During the mid-1960s, the Indian subcontinent was at war and experiencing widespread famine[citation needed] and starvation

Of course i know there were food shortages in Bihar. I know people died. I know there was a famine that Indian state. It is described on Wikipedia here. The section does begin with "The Bihar famine of 1966–7 was a minor famine with relatively very few deaths from starvation as compared to the famines of the British era."

I was also not challenging the journal Science as a source, in general. I was challenging the interpretation of the source article into the content that was in the Wikipedia article.

You have misrepresented the whole issue on many levels. I hope that was not deliberate, but i'd like to work with you, and we need to be accurate in order to do so. SageRad (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)