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

Known issues section of Nexus 5

The known issues section of Nexus 5 was removed because none of the sources are considered valid. could an independent party check them one by one?

Breitbart again

The edit at issue:

Commenting on the reception, Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro said “It is absurd to have movie critics critiquing the politics of documentaries professionally; they seem unable to separate their artistic sensibilities from their political ones.”

IHO, Breitbart is a reliable source for opinions by its commentators clearly presented as opinion. The material has been repeatedly excised with comments: The "consensus" on BRD doesn't override WP policies involving questionable sources, they can't make claims about 3rd parties, reverted to revision 636802416 by Gamaliel: Per WP:BRD and WP:BLP concerns; please discuss on talk and reach consensus before edit warring to include contentious material, Dubious source commenting directly on living individuals, should be used with caution and only after consensus for inclusion, Undid revision 636723525 by Srich32977 (talk) Breitbart is QS and multiple past noticeboard discussions have concluded that it is not a reliable source, and Contentious claims about third parties is against wp:qs and wp:aboutself. Such quotes can only be used if "it does not involve claims about third parties" and "They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.

Again IMHO, the comment about "movie critics" is not directed at specific individuals, and is clearly an opinion about some critics who are not named or singled out here. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_176#Is_Breitbart.com_a_reliable_source_for_its_own_author.27s_film_review. seems to have a result, as did Talk:America:_Imagine_the_World_Without_Her#RFC_-_Is_Breitbart.com_a_reliable_source_for_its_own_film_review. which had a clear result - that is the cavil that it is not RS for opinions fails in a nanosecond. Leaving only the claim that WP:BLP is invoked for the reference to "movie critics". As the primary issue is asserted in the edit comments to be the one of WP:RS, this board is the place for discussion. Collect (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that Breitbart has a reputation of any sort for high-quality movie reviews, or for movie reviews at all. Maybe we should source movie opinion to third-party independent reviewers with actual reputations for offering critical opinions about movies? There are plenty of bloggers and questionable sources that write about movies they've seen; that doesn't make them RS for movie opinions.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure it is a reliable source for its own opinion, but the issue isweight - who cares what its opinions on film critics is? TFD (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, that there are potential WP:Weight problems, but that is a different issue. The question before us is if it is a reliable source for its own opinion in this matter, and the answer to that question I think is yes. --Obsidi (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It could theoretically be considered a reliable source for article content for some of its opinions, not all of them. If this is a questionable source, it can't be considered a reliable source for article content regarding its opinion about third-parties. That goes beyond WP:WEIGHT, it's from the WP:RS guideline.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but in this case, I don't think what they are talking about meets WP:BLPGROUP. --Obsidi (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about BLPGROUP. Third-parties are defined more broadly in WP:RS. Questionable sources shouldn't be used for opinions on third parties.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Reliable Source, Breitbart.com meets all the requirements set forth in WP:IRS, just as does the Huffington Post. It is partisan, just as Salon and Huffington Post are, but that does not make any of them unreliable. See WP:BIASED regarding Breitbart.com and others I listed. This board is not about weight issues that is for WP:NPOV/N.

I agree that at least in my opinion Breitbart is as reliable as Salon and Huffington Post, and probably more reliable then Rolling stone after this most recent UVA Rape Story (I mean talk about a poor reputation for checking the facts). In the past it has been considered a WP:Questionable sources but wp:Consensus can change. --Obsidi (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see evidence that its reputation has improved. Consensus could change, but that involves more actual agreement on the source. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Of course Breitbart is reliable for its own attributed, quoted opinions. The section in question is explicitly covering political commentary reaction to a political documentary (that means subjective opinions), and contains political punditry from sources like the Daily Kos, Salon.com, Media Matters, and others. Singling out the most prominent conservative news/opinion site for exclusion, one which employs professional reporters, editors, and critics (unlike many of the section's other, leftist sites), is not only absurd on the merits but would constitute a gross WP:NPOV violation. VictorD7 (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart isn't excluded from that page, it has at least another quote that is specifically about their opinion of the movie; the other opinion sources you mentioned are about their opinions of the movie, not each other or the general state of movie reviewing. There's no indication that Breitbart is a usable source for article material from its editorials, or to describe whether people are too liberal to review films.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart has already been found reliable for the film review on the basis that it's reliable for its own attributed opinions, so there's no legitimate, rational basis for asserting that it's somehow not reliable for its own attributed opinions on other topics, particularly ones where expertise is less of a factor. The controlling factor on inclusion would be WP:NPOV and due weight on a case by case basis, not sourcing policy. The section in question here is explicitly dedicated to political commentary, which Shapiro's article about the reception to this particular movie undeniably falls under, and there's no policy basis for prohibiting commentary about the reception to the movie in film articles (indeed there are numerous examples of such quoted opinion on receptions, particularly where there's some controversy at play). As long as the opinion is properly attributed it's allowable and important for us to cover. VictorD7 (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It does not follow that Breitbart should be used as a source for general "political commentary" just because there was an RfC that thought a single review of a movie could be used, in a limited context. Please understand: Found usable for one context, never means found usable for all contexts. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It does follow because the sourcing argument being used against it is the same rejected in the first RFC. Not only is this a similar situation (actually one that should be less, not more, restrictive, as I said above), but it's the same freaking article. RS status depends on context, but established precedents aren't irrelevant. VictorD7 (talk) 03:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

One use is not an established precedent, as has been explained many times. Looking at that RfC, more than a few supporters indicated Breitbart was a generally questionable source and shouldn't be used for more than a movie review. WP:RS says that opinions about groups, even very loosely defined, should be given more care, not less. Now, you're repeating yourself, so I can only repeat the policies. There's not much point in doing that. __ E L A Q U E A T E 04:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It establishes a precedent if the same issues are at play, especially in the same article. And no, most respondents approved Breitbart as RS because its own attributed opinions were being quoted. There was nothing singular or magical about film reviews somehow being ok when other opinions weren't. VictorD7 (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Breitbart.com is not a reliable source and qualifies as a questionable source as outlined by multiple facets of WP:QS.

"Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts" Even the WP article for Breitbart.com outlines multiple instances where the site did little to no fact checking and/or published stories that were blatantly false or had no evidence to support them. On Politifact Breitbart.com appears with a 100% "Pants on Fire" rating and has hosted numerous other blogs/articles that received "mostly false" to "pants on fire" ratings. Other news outlets have criticized Breitbart's lack of fact checking including the Washington Post, New York Magazine, and The Daily Beast.

"Questionable sources are those that have...an apparent conflict of interest." Conflict of interest is defined in WP:QS to include "Further examples of sources with conflicts of interest include but are not limited to articles by any media group that promote the holding company of the media group or discredit its competitors" Breitbart.com writes multiple articles promoting Fox News polls and their parent company which also advertises on the site. They have also written and published articles attacking their competitors like the New York Daily News when Shapiro called them "hacks". The WP:QS "conflict of interest" goes on to say "news reports by journalists having financial interests in the companies being reported or in their competitors." This article exposes an apparent conflict of interest in an article published by Breitbart.com. The sources for conflict of interest also go on to say "They may involve the relationships of staff members with readers, news sources, advocacy groups, advertisers, or competitors; with one another, or with the newspaper or its parent company." and "a conflict of interest implies only the potential for bias, not a likelihood." Breitbart.com has multiple apparent conflict of interest as defined by the references in WP:QS.

"Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional" This is backed up with multiple sources referring to Breitbart's articles, authors, and positions as extremist.

"Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that...rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip" This can be observed by reading numerous incidents on the WP breitbart.com article in the "Controversies" section. These instances include the "Friends of Hamas" controversy, the "Paul Krugmen" hoax, and the Loretta Lynch gossip story.

"Such sources include websites and publications expressing views...that rely heavily on...personal opinion." Breitbart.com relies heavily on its personal opinion blogs/articles from numerous contributors and editors. They rely so heavily on it that even the lead for the WP article refers to Breitbart.com as an "opinion website". It's not rare to see opinion pieces plastered all over their front page while only a few links are actually credited to "Breitbart News".

Breitbart.com is a questionable on multiple accounts. The funny thing is that it only needs to meet one of the identifiers to be considered a questionable source and here it clearly qualifies for multiple identifiers. Scoobydunk (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

A wall of text rehashing prior discussions on the RS/N noticeboard which repeatedly found Breitbart to be RS for opinions cited as opinions seems a waste here and the added implicit claim that Breitbart is so extremist as to be anathema is absurd. It is cited by WaPo, NYT, LAT etc. which would belie the claim that it is somehow to the extreme right of the KKK or the like. Sorry -- this has already been discussed - and dismissed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's questionable on multiple counts. This isn't a "dismissed" concern just because you disagree with the assessment. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

And banging the opinions cited as opinions drum ignores the fact that WP:RS does not treat all opinions the same. Being found reliable for some opinions not about people, does not translate to being found usable in articles for any opinion, and especially not about third parties. This is true of all sources, not just Breitbart. Every time you assert that Breitbart is a usable source for any opinion, you're misrepresenting actual policy. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

At least four discussions on the article talk page and at noticeboards disagree with your demurral. 0 for 4 is not a strong case for your position. Including at an article talk page closing of an RfC Consensus is yes/acceptable/reliable in response to the question. Samsara 06:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC), Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_176#Is_Breitbart.com_a_reliable_source_for_its_own_author.27s_film_review? et al. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a simple, simple point. Being found as a usable source for one item, doesn't whitelist it for all items. The RfC you point to is for a movie review, not an opinion about people. Looking through the archives here at the RS/N, I can't find any other discussions where Breitbart wasn't challenged as a questionable source. Your "et al" doesn't exist.

Those discussions don't override policy and you're trying to dismiss the arguments made with your own strawman argument. WP:QS clearly outlines when questionable sources can be used as reliable sources for their own comments. This was never in contention because it's clearly outlined in the policy. However, WP:QS and other policies do limit where questionable sources can be used as reliable sources. That's the part you and others have repeatedly ignored in the RFC and in the discussion. This issue has been raised by myself and others and ignored by you. WP:QS says they should ONLY be used on material about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. The WP article "America: Imagine a World Without Her" is not material about breitbart.com or Shapiro, nor is it an article about one of the two. So WP policy is clear that it can not be used. Now, on the WP Ben Shapiro article, if you want to say "On may 20, 2013 Shapiro criticized leftist film critics panning a movie" then you could use Breitbart.com as a reliable source because it would act as a primary source for material about itself. That's what those clauses in WP:QS apply to and they clearly include the aspect of the RFC that you and others are clinging to, but also include where and how it can be used and where and how it can't be used. You know, the part that you keep ignoring.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• The criteria for assessing a source's reliability include a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The Breitbart websites do not have such a reputation. In fact, quite the opposite: they have a reputation for publishing misleading or false information, often about living people, in service of their political agenda. (Examples include the deceptively edited videotape which led to the resignation of Shirley Sherrod; a news article falsely claiming that Paul Krugman had filed for bankruptcy; and publishing recklessly false criminal allegations which cost a private citizen his job; see [1] and [2], among others).

  It's puzzling to hear editors defend the use of a source with this sort of abominable history of dishonesty. We shouldn't be citing this source, because it lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and it has a history of recklessly harming people with false or misleading material. We should absolutely avoid its use in any situation with WP:BLP implications. And frankly, editors who defend the use of a source like this forfeit a lot of credibility when it comes to assessing source quality and reliability. MastCell ^Talk 20:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Reliability depends on context, and this context is about a subjective, attributed opinion in a section dedicated to such opinions and currently including them from far left blogs like the Daily Kos, Salon.com, Media Matters, etc., not for supporting facts in Wikipedia's voice. That said, I dispute your characterization of Breitbart. Breitbart did not edit the Sherrod tape (and indeed posted the video they received for the crowd reaction, not the comments seized on by other media outlets; it's not their fault a panicky administration jumped the gun and fired her for the wrong reason). By contrast, NBC actually did selectively edit a 911 tape to make George Zimmerman look racist and infamously rigged vehicles to explode in a fraudulent consumer reports investigation, CBS used a forged memo to try and sway a presidential election, CNN's chief news executive admitted after the fall of Baghdad in 2003 that for years the network had buried stories of atrocities and given Hussien's regime relatively favorable coverage in exchange for greater access and falsely accussed the US military of atrocities in the Tailwind scandal, The NY Times published numerous totally made up stories by reporter Jayson Blair in a major journalistic fraud scandal, a rabidly biased BBC drove one source to commit suicide after twisting his comments about Iraq for their own agenda, and there was massive irresponsible and inaccurate media coverage by numerous outlets (esp. the NY Times, NBC, and CNN) on issues ranging from the Duke lacrosse rape scandal to the recent Ferguson and Rolling Stone "gang rape" stories. I could go on and on, with more examples from these outlets and others. In at least most of these cases the fraud was discovered by outsiders, often conservative media. The outlets in question typically responded initially by digging in and doubling down on their fraudulent stories, only reluctantly issuing retractions and/or firing people as pressure grew. Don't even get me started on the serial dishonesty of blogs like Media Matters, the Daily Kos, etc. that are currently quoted in the section for their subjective opinions, and lack the type of professional editor/reporter/critic teams that Breitbart employs. The bottom line is that linking to 1-3 examples of alleged malfeasance by Breitbart, particularly when you're linking to leftist sources and the malfeasance is arguable at best, doesn't prove anything more about Breitbart's reliability than the above scandals do about those sources. Though, as I said above, it's irrelevant to this issue anyway since we're merely discussing attributed, quoted, subjective political opinions. If anything, editors who seek to exclude the internet's most prominent conservative site from a section explicitly dedicated to covering political pundits' opinions on such flimsy grounds forfeits a great deal of credibility when it comes to assessing sources, applying policy, and editing in a neutral fashion. VictorD7 (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Perfection is hard to achieve, and is not required for a general reputation for reliability. Yes, arguing from small sets of examples is problematic. But overall, all I can say is that "it's puzzling to hear editors defend the use of a source with this sort of abominable history of dishonesty. We shouldn't be citing this source, because it lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and it has a history of recklessly harming people with false or misleading material. We should absolutely avoid its use in any situation with WP:BLP implications. And frankly, editors who defend the use of a source like this forfeit a lot of credibility when it comes to assessing source quality and reliability." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Except your assertions are not only disputed, but you totally ignored the fact that we're discussing attributed quotes by political pundits, including political group blogs that have no editor staff (unlike Breitbart), so "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" don't enter into it. As for your baseless personal shot, beware the boomerang. VictorD7 (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If you think NBC News, or CBS, or the New York Times don't meet our criteria for reliability, then you should definitely raise that concern elsewhere on this board. However, it's not relevant to a discussion of Breitbart's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, or lack thereof. MastCell ^Talk 01:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I made no such claim. I pointed out that the argument used to attack Breitbart's reputation was pitifully inadequate, but that's a tangential issue. More importantly, its reputation for fact checking and accuracy is irrelevant to its reliability as a source for Shapiro's quoted words, unless you think the source is so untrustworthy that it can't be trusted to accurately relay its own editor's comments. VictorD7 (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I've told him how red herring arguments aren't relevant numerous times, I'm glad someone else understands that basic concept of reasoning and critical thinking.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Everything you're spewing are red herring arguments, as is the notion of "reputation for fact checking" when we're talking about covering attributed, subjective political pundit opinions, not news sources. VictorD7 (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope, we're talking about the reliability of a source and WP:QS specifically identifies sources that rely heavily on opinion pieces as questionable sources. So it makes ZERO sense to try and argue that because it's an opinion that suddenly it's reliable because WP policy explicitly says that sources that rely heavily on opinions are questionable and that they have very limited use in WP, limited to use on material about themselves. Again, that's why you can't make a false dichotomy on global climate change between "support/against" and then start citing Ken Hamm's opinions all over the place. Those opinions are mainly derived from questionable/self published sources and are limited to content about Ken Hamm himself. Also, if the source, Breitbart.com, is questionable then it quotes from it certainly can't be used to make contentious claims about others. That's directly in WP policy and it's not a red herring argument as it directly applies to the quote and source in question. You might want to look up what a red herring argument is.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart.com is no more a questionable source than CBS News, the Rolling Stone, or MSNBC.

I am sure there are editors here would would love to see this bias source be deemed non-reliable. Lets not do that. Breitbart.com is just as reliable as other bias sources, such as Huffington Post. So let us leave it at that. If it's a weight issue this is not the noticeboard to discuss such matters, but WP:NPOV/N--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but what WP qualifies as a questionable source has absolutely nothing to do with your opinions about other sources. The qualifications are explicitly outlined in WP:QS. So your red herring arguments based on false equivalencies are irrelevant and are logically fallacious.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Since you personally added partisan bloggers' quotes from the Huffington Post currently in the same section it's difficult to take your claims seriously. You also apparently support the numerous leftist quotes from other blogs that rely entirely on personal opinion that currently reside in the section, and haven't tried to remove a single one. Of course your flawed interpretation of QS has already been rejected by RFC, explicitly finding Breitbart RS for its own attributed opinions (material about itself) there to boot. VictorD7 (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Partisain bloggers has nothing to do with the reliability of a source. Opinions from reliable sources are allowed to be partisan and biased, but that only applies to sources that are considered reliable by WP guidelines. Breitbart.com is not a reliable source, it's a questionable source by nearly every single identifier described in WP:QS and I've specifically outlined them above. Also, I didn't interpret WP:QS, I've quoted it directly and an article about a film does not qualify as "material about itself". That's not interpretation, that's a basic understanding of the english language. Furthermore, the RFC ignored my arguments which is not rejection. Again, you misinterpret and misrepresent what actually occurred in the RFC and is happening here again. You and others blatantly ignoring WP policy to pursue red herring arguments or put forward arguments already refuted.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Your own argument asserts Breitbart is "QS" because it "relies heavily on personal opinion", so the sources you support being partisan blogs that rely entirely on personal opinion most definitely is relevant to reliability, by your own logic. Given that, and the rest of the debunked nonsense you've repeated here, the most charitable interpretation is that your own understanding of the English language is lacking. VictorD7 (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

That's merely one aspect of my argument and it's explicitly listed as an identifier of a questionable source in WP:QS polciy. Furthermore, the reliability of other blogs has no bearing on the reliability of Breitbart.com. That's why this is a red herring argument because an assessment of the reliability of other blogs is not relevant to an assessment of the reliability of Breitbart.com. Nothing in WP:QS policy mandates a comparison of sources to each other to establish reliability. Instead, they list empirical qualities that make a source a questionable source and Breitbart.com meets nearly every single one of those qualities, making it a questionable source. Also, though it's not relevant, those other blogs are from sources that are generally considered reliable, have a reputation for fact checking, and have meaningful editorial oversight. That's why those blogs are considered reliable since they are the extension of a reliable source. Breitbart.com is not a reliable source, so there is no reliability for Breitbart.com to lend to its blogs. Though blogs are primarily opinion, the reliable sources I've previously referenced are not reliant primarily on opinion. This is contrary to Breitbart.com whose almost entire front page is filled with hyperlinks to opinion pieces and even its own WP article calls it an "opinion website". Breitbart.com is not a reliable source, it's a questionable source and you've done NOTHING to actually refute the arguments above. Your rebuttals have mostly evoked a "But mommy, those other sites do it too" mentality which is a logical fallacy to begin with and is a false equivalency because most of those other sites/blogs more closely adhere to WP reliability standards than Breitbart.com does.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm exposing the numerous and intellectually fatal internal inconsistencies in your position, illustrating the fallacy of embracing it. And this noticeboard's sections frequently include comparative mentions or lists of other sources, so that's a lame dodge by you. Also, not that it matters to your QS interpretation since you've conceded your championed sources rely heavily on opinion (making them "questionable" by your logic), but none of them have been found "RS" in any conversation I've seen, while Breitbart, contrary to your claims, actually has been explicitly found to be RS by consensus, and on the article in question to boot. In fact they all have roughly similar or worse reputations than Breitbart. Again, most of them are merely opinion blogs, while Breitbart is a large, diverse news/opinion institution that employs teams of editors, reporters, and critics.VictorD7 (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The only thing you've exposed is your inability to construct a valid argument based on WP policy. After all of these responses you've YET to actually quote WP policy that says that questionable sources are determined by comparing them to other sources. On the other hand, I've quoted multiple parts of WP policy that do define questionable sources and explained in detail how Breitbart.com meets the qualifications of a questionable source. Again, your mentioning the RFC is pointless in determining whether Breitbart.com is a questionable source, since WP policy explicitly states that Questionable Sources should only be used as reliable sources on material about themselves. So a source can still be a questionable source and be reliable for opinions about itself, HOWEVER those sources/opinions can only be used in material about THEMSELVES which is the part you and the RFC blatantly ignored. Furthermore, your baseless assertions do nothing to refute the arguments made above. First of all, I never engaged you in conversation about other sources because I know it's a logical fallacy. Secondly, we never established whether those other sources were heavily reliant on personal opinion like Breitbart.com is. This is why your argument is also a false equivalency. The fact that you keep repeating this irrelevant and logically fallacious argument shows the dire situation you're in when it comes to trying to pretend that Breitbart.com is not a questionable source.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

To the extent your drivel here approaches coherence in places, it only further annihilates your own position while confirming mine. The RFC explicitly found Breitbart reliable for its own film review on the article, complete with a link to the review and article section in the RFC intro and everything, directly contracting your "QS" characterization and attempt to limit the source's use here. The RFC didn't "ignore" your argument, especially since the intro also linked to the discussion where we each laid out our arguments. It rejected your interpretation. I've refuted your position by quoting from numerous policies and guidelines explicitly stating that attributed opinions aren't held to the same standards as facts in Wikipedia's voice, observing that your characterization of Breitbart is disputed, examining the impractical empirical impact your interpretation would have on Wikipedia, and exposing your one sided application of your own invented policy, a gross WP:NPOV violation. You also provided no evidence supporting your preposterous claim that discussing more than one source in a discussion is somehow a "logical fallacy" or against policy. That you're actually implying there's dispute over whether sources like the Daily Kos, Media Matters, Salon.com, Slant, Indiewire, the Huffington Post, etc. rely heavily or entirely on personal opinion shows how desperately dire your own situation is. VictorD7 (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Your strawman arguments are indicative of your inability to substantiate your position. Never did I say that "discussing more than one source in a discussion is...against policy." It is a red herring issue, though, which is substantiated by understanding the definition of a red herring logical fallacy. Sorry, but the reliability of other sources is not relevant to the reliability of Breitbart.com. The only way it would be relevant is if I or others were arguing that WP should be represented by the "strongest of sources" which is not my argument. My arguments and others' arguments hinge on specific WP policy which you have NOT refuted. Instead, you resort to strawman arguments and red herring arguments, instead of addressing the policies. Also, linking to something is not addressing it or "rejecting" which actually requires comment on the arguments made and a valid refutation, neither of which were provided in the RFC. Again, you keep saying "interpretation" but there is none, I quote directly from WP:QS and WP:Questionable which explicitly limit questionable sources like Breitbart.com to "material about themselves" and furthermore, say that they can NOT make contentious claims about others. Sorry, but you nor a RFC gets to ignore WP policy.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Exposing the absurdity of your interpretation (in part) by showing the hypocritical and inconsistent way in which you seek to apply it is neither a straw man argument nor a red herring, as it gets to the heart of how logical your interpretation is. I and others have quoted from QS and other policies too. A difference of interpretation exists, including the meaning of "material about themselves" and how it applies to attributed quotes. You simply ignoring that doesn't make it go away, nor does your refusal to answer whether the other film critics and pundits quoted should be removed since they fall under the same QS criteria you attempted to single out Breitbart for give any credibility to your position. WP:NPOV is policy too, and you can't violate it. The RFC linked to the discussion where I did refute your QS argument, you repeated it and I addressed it in the RFC itself, and the closer directly told you when you pestered him on his talk page that the community was unpersuaded by your QS argument. The RFC consensus finding itself is in direct contradiction to your QS interpretation, as it finds Breitbart reliable for its own film review in that article. Policy and guidelines also speak of a hierarchy of sources, implying comparisons where editors seek the best one(s) they can find for certain situations, but that's a tangential note here. There is no rational, policy based reason to exclude Breitbart film reviewers and pundits, especially while leaving in the section's others. VictorD7 (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope, "material about themselves" requires no interpretation and a WP article about a movie isn't material about Breitbart.com or Shapiro. You didn't refute the QS argument because you don't understand how forensics work. This is why you constantly resort to logical fallacies and use red herring arguments, instead of making valid rebuttals. If you want to make noticeboard discussions about the reliability of other sources, then feel free. However, this discussion is about the reliability of Breitbart.com and the fact is that it's not a reliable source. I've given multiple examples and instances how it qualifies as a questionable source by WP policy and neither you nor anyone else has refuted those. The rationality of excluding Breitbart.com is because it's a questionable source. That's not a violation of NPOV, because there are other reliable sources that can be used instead. This assertion of yours if based on a false premise, which isn't surprising because it once again demonstrates that your arguments are inherently fallacious and invalid.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

All rules and laws require interpretation. Sometimes it's clear and easy, though in this case it's foggy enough that you have an interpretation that differs from that of most editors. Once again, everything you claimed above is false, and clearly your own mastery of forensics and logic is deficient. Rather than repeating my refutation of your interpretation yet again, I'll only add that WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV further reinforces that "material about themselves" includes quoted opinions, as it treats an attributed quote as simply reporting an opinion: "For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre."" In other words, quotes are treated by policy as material about those being quoted. I'll also point out again the absurdity of your entire QS argument here when you personally added partisan blogger quotes attacking D'Souza to the article, and have refused to answer whether the section's other sources, which almost all rely heavily on personal opinion and have no reputation for fact checking whatsoever, the inclusion of which you apparently support, are QS in your interpretation. Internal consistency is a cornerstone of rational discourse. VictorD7 (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

All rules don't require interpretation and there is no interpretation needed for a policy that explicitly says questionable sources are not allowed to make "contentious claims about others". Also, the part of WP:AttributePOV you reference only applies to reliable sources. Yes, if the source is reliable, then those sources can be used to make claims about others, like John Doe having baseball skills. If the source is not a reliable source, then it can't be used to make claims about others, especially if they're contentious. Nothing in what you've quoted refers to "material about themselves". Logical consistency is important but I haven't done anything inconsistent. You use false equivalency to try and equate Breitbart.com to other sites which is a logical fallacy. Furthermore, the additions that you reference were criticisms about a SCENE IN THE MOVIE and its inclusion by the director and not about D'Souza as a person. So they differ by two different reasons and there is nothing logically inconsistent. Again, the reliability of those other sources have no relevance to the reliability of Breitbart.com and this is, once again, a red herring argument that you're trying to pursue. You mention "rational discourse" but seem to not understand the basics of it.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Interpretation is the foundation of intelligence, so yes, everything requires interpretation. And no, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV establishes that policy treats attributed quotes as "factual statement(s) about the opinion". By contrast, "a contentious claim about others" might be "facts" about Ford on the Toyota website. If we were to present such info, we'd definitely need to attribute it, turning it into a claim about what Toyota says. WP:RSOPINION establishes that some sources may not be reliable for facts in Wikipedia's voice, but can be used with attribution. Your failure to acknowledge that (and the fact that RS "always depends on context", etc.) with your "only applies to reliable sources" refrain, as if sources are either inherently reliable or unreliable across the board, is one of your position's salient fatal flaws. It's always about context. The rest of your post is irrational drivel that I and other editors have already debunked. I'll continue to note your telling refusal to elucidate your interpretation (no "logical fallacy" on my part) by answering whether you believe QS applies to the section's other sources, especially the partisan blogs you added (which do personally attack D'Souza; it's unclear why you feel that and mentioning a scene are mutually exclusive, especially when their commentary transcends it; it's also unclear what that has to do with it being "questionable" or not; after all, Shapiro is merely commenting on publicly published works; talk about your virtually non stop logical inconsistencies.). Given your gross inconsistency in this matter, I'm being charitable by describing your position as an "interpretation". VictorD7 (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I've already addressed and refuted your claims about WP:attributepov and WP:rsopinion. They speak to reliable sources and specifically say "some" which does not mean "every" sources can be used with attribution. You've failed to refute the rebuttals I've made against these and the examples I've provided. Furthermore, sources are inherently reliable which is how we have an entire WP article describing which sources are generally/inherently reliable and which sources are generally not reliable, self published, or questionable. A self-published source will always be a self-published source and has to follow WP guidelines for self-published sources. It's the same thing for questionable sources, which have to follow the guidelines for questionable sources. WP:QS speaks to such guidelines and even includes examples where questionable sources may be used RELIABLY, but still sets LIMITS on what those sources can be used for. Nothing you've provided refutes this, and instead you're clearly still set on pursuing red herring arguments.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You've failed to refute anything I've said and the fallacies are all yours. WP:RSOPINION and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV help define "reliable sources for different contexts. "Some" is more than none, which shoots down your contention that the same standards that apply for general news coverage apply for covering attributed opinions, and "some" is vague enough that it could mean everything but napkin scribblings. "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says..."" Since Shapiro is employed as an editor at Breitbart, this is a classic example of Breitbart being a reliable source for his quoted, subjective opinion. You're simply wrong. Sources aren't inherently reliable or unreliable. Per the Identifying reliable sources FAQ: "Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"? No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual." There is no rational reason to conclude that Breitbart is anything but fine for sourcing its own editor's quote. Your QS argument, both how and if it applies to Breitbart (as opposed to the section's other, mostly partisan group blog sources?) and precisely whether the limitations prohibit editors from simply covering attributed opinions, has been heard and rejected. You don't have to keep repeating yourself. VictorD7 (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I've refuted you outright and completely. WP:attibutepov only describes how to use sources in a neutral point of view by attributing them. It has NOTHING to do with reliability which is why it's not on WP:reliable or WP:verifiable. Also, you've made yet another logical fallacy in the form of a strawman argument. No one said sources are "always" reliable, they are "generally" reliable. Yes, peer reviewed sources are the strongest and most reliable sources but a journal article about skin cancer can't be used as a reliable source to describe string theory. However, it is inherently reliable so long as it's related to the WP article barring a few other exceptions. Self-Published sources will ALWAYS be self published sources and the same is for questionable sources. So the parts of WP:reliable and WP:verifiable that outline the usage of such sources will ALWAYS apply. Sorry, you can't just ignore/reject WP policy and nothing in your post refutes this fact. WP:QS clearly describes when a questionable source can be used reliably, but places strict limits on where and how that source can be used. You are ignoring and violating these limits and there is no other Wikipedia policy that overrides those limits. Scoobydunk (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Setting aside the fact that WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV explicitly deals with verifiability and is one of many policy sections establishing different treatment for material when attribution is involved, I've assaulted no straw man. Your position has consistently relied on the concept of "inherent reliability", a concept you repeat in your latest post, and which does not exist, as I've shown. You attack Breitbart's journalistic behavior, despite us not using it for journalism here, and your QS interpretation seeks to apply the QS criteria about reputation for fact checking and not relying heavily on personal opinion, which is essentially the same criteria for identifying what you call "generally reliable" sources (suitable sources for news or facts in Wikipedia's voice), to attributed opinions. If not generally reliable sources are the same as "questionable" ones, and "questionable" ones aren't usable even with attribution in critical/pundit reaction sections, then why do WP:RSOPINION and other sections clearly state that some sources aren't reliable for facts in Wikipedia's voice but are usable with attribution? Heck, WP:BIASED gives examples of politicians and fringe activists being acceptably quoted. Hitler ad Stalin have noteworthy views worth covering. Mein Kampf is a generally questionable source, but is a preferred source when quoting Hitler's attributed opinion from it, per Quotations. You're ignoring the fact that other editors disagree with your interpretation of policy, you've failed to explain why Breitbart isn't a trustworthy source for its own editor's opinion (you're simply trying to use policy as an excuse to silence an opposing political view), and you're ignoring WP:NPOV policy by adding to the article quotes from partisan blogs that are as "questionable" as Breitbart under your own policy interpretation, while refusing to address that hypocritical logical inconsistency in a productive, collaborative manner. VictorD7 (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You haven't refuted anything I've said and you have made a strawman argument. You have not refuted this, you've merely asserted that you didn't, but you did. Your inclusion of the word "always" was not part of the argument. But just to be clear, if you're arguing the antithesis then you're saying that a self-published source can cease being a self-published source? Also, all the questions you've raised about politicians, Stalin, and Hitler, they can be quoted so long as the article is on "material about themselves". So when talking about WWII, then those quotes can be used because both were directly involved in the topic. Again, WP:BIASED speaks to sources that are already reliable and it explicitly says this. WP:RSOPINION speaks to both reliable sources and questionable sources but doesn't override the restrictions set in place regarding self-published sources and questionable sources. You and other editors have repeatedly ignored policy and haven't refuted the fact that questionable source can't make contentious claims about others. Also, I'm not ignoring WP:NPOV because I've said multiple times that reliable sources can be used to express those opinions. Also, Breitbart.com is a questionable source for more reasons that just it's poor reputation for fact checking and its heavy reliance on personal opinion, and I've outlined those without being refuted above. Even then, you've yet to prove that DailyKos, Salon, Huffpo, Alternet, WSJ and seemingly every source that gets presented qualify as questionable sources. So this is a red herring argument in the form of a false equivalency. The reliability of those other sources have nothing to do with the reliability of Breitbart.com which is a questionable source as is clearly defined by WP policy.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart isn't a self published source, and you've totally failed to establish that it meets any QS criteria that the other sources you list don't (though I don't believe anyone has called the WSJ "questionable"). Source comparisons are useful in explaining and examining your policy argument, particularly in regards to internal consistency, so they have a lot to do with this discussion. Since you repeatedly claimed sources can be "inherently" reliable (that means divorced from context), and I've quoted the guideline page stressing that reliability "always depends on context", your position on that score is refuted. No straw man. Your post contains such conceptual inaccuracies, fallacious claims of logical fallacies, and repeats material already addressed and/or debunked by me and other posters, including your false charges against others that actually apply to you. You failed to explain how your QS interpretation allows for sources considered not generally reliable for facts in Wikipedia's voice to be used with attribution, when Wikipedia undeniably establishes that a realm of such sources that become reliable with attribution exists. And no, WP:BIASED gives examples of Goldwater, Friedan, and Marxist economist Harry Magdoff being quoted for their opinions. It doesn't say the opinions themselves can only be about those people themselves (only example quote openings are provided, but their general nature implies the opposite), nor does it make any mention of their opinions being restricted to articles about themselves. It also just says that editors "should consider" whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliability; the comments involving attribution come in a separate sentence as something else for editors to consider, so it doesn't state that only generally reliable sources can have their opinions covered (that would contradict other sections). It also states that biased sources "may be reliable in the specific context", yet again underscoring the importance of context to reliability. At least you're quietly expanding your interpretation so that "material about themselves" includes events they're involved in, rather than the bio articles you almost exclusively used to mention. Of course "material about themselves" can easily refer to the fact about them having the quoted opinions rather than the article the content appears on. Where to cover opinions is governed by WP:NPOV/due weight rather than sourcing policy. Obviously it wouldn't be appropriate to quote Hitler or Stalin randomly, but Shapiro, by contrast, is a notable political pundit whose opinion carries weight in an article or section about the spectrum of such political pundit opinion, especially one in which the other pundits quoted (including the ones you added) are far less noteworthy than he is. VictorD7 (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question about if a self-published source ceases to be a self-published source. Why is that? You're the one saying I'm wrong about this which means you must believe that a self-published source can magically stop being a self-published source. Source comparisons do nothing to refute the multiple examples of evidence I gave that prove Breitbart.com is a questionable source. You haven't refuted those points/examples referring to conflict of interest, lack of meaningful fact checking, being heavily based on personal opinion, using unsubstantiated gossip/rumors, and considered extremist by other media publications/authorities in the field. If you did refute each and every single one of these then please provide the diffs, because I fear I might have missed them. To my knowledge, none of these examples I gave of how Breitbart.com is a questionable source were refuted. You and others have only engaged in red herring arguments which don't do anything to refute these claims about Breitbart.com. So how about instead of just asserting things, you actually link to the diffs. Final note, nothing in WP:Biased, WP:RSopinion, or WP:AttributeNPOV remove the limits set by WP:QS and WP:Aboutself. You've yet to prove/show that they do.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Was the open RfC regarding Breitbart's reliability in this context announced here? It's on the article's talk page. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• I would say that Breitbart is a textbook questionable source (as mentioned above, it has always been considered that in the past, and I'm not really seeing anything that would change that), especially due to its reputation for poor fact-checking. Simply having a political POV doesn't necessarily make a site questionable in all contexts, but having such an extensive history of fact-checking errors in combination with a style of writing that frequently blurs the line between opinion and fact certainly does. It can still sometimes be cited to illustrate the opinions of its commentators, like any other questionable source, but only when a more reputable site supports the relevance of those opinions. --Aquillion (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• I have never seen a discussion establishing a consensus that Breitbart is "questionable", and your assertion about its alleged "reputation" is disputed. VictorD7 (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• well, yes, you are disputing it. based apparently on ignoring the multiple sources presented the definitely show its questionable nature and none providing evidence that any sources see it as reliable. such a "dispute" is hard to give credence to.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• False. Lots of editors are disputing it, the invalid arguments against the source have been addressed, and numerous sources citing it, especially for its own opinions, meaning they view it as reliable for at least such purposes, have been provided. Again, I've seen no discussion establishing a consensus that Breitbart is "questionable" or non RS at all, especially for its own attributed opinions. VictorD7 (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• The problem with Breitbart is that its accuracy is not only dubious, but sources are often actively misrepresented. Consider the recent case with the Gun control articles, where a newspaper story claiming that general crime figures are being under-reported in the UK was spun by Breitbart into an article about how UK gun law wasn't working as gun homicide was clearly increasing. This is not simply synthesis, but actively untrue; there was no suggestion from the story that was the case, and it would actually be impossible as firearms crime is reported separately - something the writer would have known. Black Kite (talk) 12:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

How does that affect opinions from notable persons cited as opinion? Breitbart falsifies editorial columns to make people have different opinions that they write that they have? I generally feel that where an opinion is properly cited as opinion that fretting about anything else is worthless. Collect (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

There are really two parts to citing an opinion. First, of course, you need a source to prove that the person actually said that; Breitbart is a valid source to prove that one of its authors said something, since that doesn't really require that it be a WP:RS. However, you usually also need a source to show that their opinion is relevant per WP:UNDUE, which is usually more complicated; Breitbart can't be used for that because it's not a reliable source, so in most cases any quote from Breitbart has to be accompanied by another, more reliable ref to show that the specific opinion or author being quoted is relevant. WP:UNDUE states that we're supposed to give weight to opinions based on their coverage in reliable sources, essentially (this prevents people from just quoting whoever they want to insert their own opinions in a Wikipedia article); to quote Breitbart in an article, you therefore usually need a second source to show that whatever quote you're inserting meets that standard. --Aquillion (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, multiple facets of WP policy relies on sources being considered reliable and Breitbart.com is clearly not one. However, I don't feel you need to look at the specific various policies that limit their usage to reliable sources because WP:QS and WP:Questionable both limit the usage of questionable sources to material about themselves. That whole concept is what prevents people from "just quoting whoever they want to insert their own opinions in a Wikipedia article" and it remains consistent throughout multiple WP policies.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you acknowledge that Breitbart is RS for its own authors' opinions. That's the question here. WP:UNDUE is determined on a case by case basis, can't be properly addressed on this noticeboard sans context, and in this case involves a reception and explicitly titled "Political commentary" section quoting numerous subjective political opinions, including from blogs like the Daily Kos, Media Matters, and Salon.com ("questionable?"). The whole point is to cover the reaction to the film by salient political pundits from across the political spectrum. That said, regarding DUE, as the chief conservative website, the opinions expressed by Breitbart authors must be covered in such a section to avoid a gross WP:NPOV violation. I suppose one could say that Breitbart's noteworthiness in this context is established by other sources frequently citing it and/or documenting its extremely high traffic ratings. More specifically, Ben Shapiro himself is notable by Wikipedia standards, meaning he rates his own article (unlike most of the other pundits quoted in the section, and he's a UCLA/Harvard Law trained political scientist and media analyst who is a multiple times best selling author, has been interviewed as a professional pundit on virtually every major media tv network, and has had his work cited by countless media outlets. All this firmly establishes him as a political pundit worth quoting if we have a section dedicated to such punditry, and since he wrote an entire article about the reception to this film we would be derelict in omitting it, especially since his view is so widely shared by the population. VictorD7 (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No, trying to maintain NPOV doesn't mean that questionable sources suddenly become reliable and merit inclusion. Find a different source that's reliable instead of trying to include a questionable source which multiple WP policies explicitly prohibit.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Might you show me where opinions properly cited as opinions are likely at all to be falsified? Really? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Might you make a rebuttal that relevant to the arguments being made?Scoobydunk (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

He did. VictorD7 (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• As multiple editors have noted Breitbart is reliable for a statement about what is said in Breitbart.

This is yet another case of people choosing the wrong policy to argue about. This isn't a reliability issue... It's really more a DUE WEIGHT issue (and there are other policies and guideliens that we have to consider as well). The question isn't may we cite Breitbart for Breitbart's opinion (clearly we may)... the question we should be asking is: should we mention Breitbart's opinion in the first place?

That is more an editorial judgement call... The section in question (discussing the reception of a movie) can basically be boiled down to this: Reviewers with a liberal political bias panned the movie, reviewers with a conservative political bias praised it. The rest of the section consists of examples of liberals panning, and conservatives praising. The question is... do we need the examples (I am not sure we do), and (if so) which examples should we use?. There are lots of reliable conservative news outlets that reviewed the movie... and most of them essentially say the same thing that Breitbart says. This means that while we are allowed use Breitbart... we don't have to use Breitbart... we could use one of the others instead.

In other words... the debate that we should be having is: Given that the conservative viewpoint is that the movie was great... what is the best conservative source to use as an example of that viewpoint. Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Once you determine what weight is merited, the articles/opinions used to express that weight still must meet WP reliable source criteria. That's the part that's relevant here. You, as an editor, can't take a facebook post from Joe and quote that as the representation of the conservative viewpoint. Yes, there are numerous policies that need to be considered in every edit, but this is the relevant one that we're discussing now.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

and it is not reliable for claims made about living people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes This continual attempt to argue this issue is getting quite old. It appears simply to be an attempt to wear everyone out until they give up. Arzel (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

YES Ranks in the top 500 (US) on Alexa, and is as reliable as any of the top liberal sites. We accept the NY Times, a self-admitted liberal site as reliable despite its gaffs and mistakes. [3] [4]. [5] [6] [7], and I can go on and on. Atsme☯^Consult 15:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• No -- as demonstrated above (with reference to our own article on Breitbart), this source is squarely in the category of WP:QS. Ideology & politics have nothing to do with it -- what matters is that this source has a notable history of getting things wrong. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• QUESTIONABLE source, at best - The more I edit Breitbart (website) and research sources for the article, the more I realize that Breitbart has a troubling history of purposely misrepresenting sources, deception, exaggeration, trickery, sloppy fact checking, inadequate retraction/correction, and poor editorial oversight. I'm sure they have published some factually correct articles, but so much of their content is riddled with political commentary and inaccuracy, that it's difficult know what to trust. For our purposes, they should be avoided as a source of factual information. As a source of opinion, there may be some golden nuggets amongst the fool's gold, but their opinions should never end up in Wikipedia unless cited by well-respected sources (see WP:USEBYOTHERS).- MrX 16:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Um -- I take it that Breitbart forced boston.com to run the Krugman story and also forced a large number of other sources who used that story syndicated by boston.com? Sorry -- it appears that you are more desirous of removing it as a source usable for opinions cited as opinions than in actually following what the WP:RS page says. I would note that my position on opinions being usable when cited as opinions includes RT and a host of sources I do not agree with (including Breitbart, Pravda, and whater such source you might name), but saying that copying a syndicated story means they deliberately and "purposely" engage in "trickery" and "deception" is an invalid argument here -- we carry scads of "political commentary" from scads of sites, and the only valid issue here is whether that commentary is from a person notable in the field of such commentary - meaning their opinion is citable as opinion. Including RT commentary. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Interesting question. Boston.com was somewhere in the middle of the chain of reporting the hoax as a real story. My comments about deception apply more to cases like "Friends of Hamas" story. My comment about trickery applies more to cases like ACORN undercover videos, in which their reporter posed as a prostitute to trick ACORN. Commentator notability in the field is a criterion that we should consider, but we should also make sure that the opinion itself is notable, as evidenced by being cited by other sources.- MrX 17:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia isn't a valid source (circular), and numerous news outlets have conducted undercover reporter investigations with hidden cameras where they sought to "trick" people and institutions to see how they'd behave. There's nothing wrong with that. The "Friends of Hamas" story simply saw a Breitbart reporter state what a Senate source had told him, and the story was characterized as such. VictorD7 (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Breitbart can write whatever they want, or trick whomever they want, but it they want to be taken seriously in the field of journalism, they need to check their facts a little more often and stop making things up.- MrX 22:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
          • I reject the premise about "making things up" (even your examples don't support that), and it's mostly just hard core leftist partisans who give Breitbart no credence whatsoever. Breitbart is the conservative equivalent of the liberal Huffington Post (beware Twitter "witnesses"!). The NY Times actually has been caught making stuff completely up, for an extended period of time to boot, and many think outlets like NBC, CBS, and CNN are more in need of your advice than Breitbart is. Since Breitbart is a very busy, high traffic news site employing reporters and editors and so far managing to avoid the major journalistic fraud scandals that the sources I just listed have been scorched by, there's no reason to single it out as supposedly unreliable. Facts presented by Breitbart on a daily basis are generally reliable, as evidenced in part by how flimsy and subject to interpretation your own two examples are (presumably your best shot). Breitbart is certainly reliable for its own authors' attributed opinions. No argument otherwise has even been advanced. VictorD7 (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• If the above is what you are proposing as the basis for Breitbart's reliability, then add the nytimes.com to the top of that list - their mistakes are even bigger: [8] [9] Atsme☯^Consult 17:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The NYT has a 160+ year history of reporting, with 114 Pullizers. That they fell for a government-created misdirection is regrettable, but so did most other media. Reliability does not require perfection. And why you think the opinion of a WallMart corporate shill casts doubt on an article criticising WallMart is somewhat unclear to me. Breibart.com, on the other hand, has an 8 year history, and about one major scandal per year, even ignoring the overall bias. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

1 user loves this. - That's almost exactly what I was going to say, but I was too lazy to actually type it.- MrX 22:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, ok - so you're saying we can excuse mistakes by the NYTimes based on their history and Pulitzers, but we don't excuse mistakes made by others? Excuse me, but Snowden didn't even trust the Times, a pretty major blow for such a major story. [10]. PEW Research published the following a few months ago: [11] The 21st Century is an amazing time. Regardless, this isn't about NYT, it's about Breitbart, so I grabbed this link for you: [12] Atsme☯^Consult 23:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer you not put words in my mouth. But worded more neutrally: Yes, we do tolerate occasional mistakes by otherwise quality sources. We lose confidence if the proportion of mistakes is big enough. You seem to be at some kind of shotgun argumentation now - the decision of the Times not to publish a certain story may be regrettable (although, of course, in this case its hardly a sign of liberal bias, but rather the opposite). But it does not affect the reliability of stories they do publish. Why do you think the fact that Breibart gets its readers from Facebook and conservative echo chambers relevant? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I promise not to hand feed you. As for the NYT having a liberal bias....well, read the following: [13] As for their mistakes, please don't make me list them because as you stated above, they have a 160+ year history. Whoosh! Let's save that argument for a NYT debate. I do find it rather disconcerting that the liberal bias that dominates WP today absolutely challenges everything conservative, which in itself is POV and explains why there are so many disputes at ANI, etc. I don't typically cite any sources before I check multiple trusted sources (you call them reliable) to see if they corroborate the story. I did a brief stint as field producer/shooter for CNN years ago - back when the news was actually the news. I've written articles for various pubs & newspapers, published my own, and I've also been the poor sucker who was interviewed, so I have a pretty good handle on the way things operate. That's why I try to check several different sources before I use any of them. It's hard enough to get away from the political pundits, therefore the least we can do as editors is corroborate the information among the sources. I tend to keep a close eye on the anchors and reporters who break away from the politically and/or corporate controlled media, and an even closer eye on the ones who have the intestinal fortitude to blow the whistle. Bottomline, Breitbart is as reliable as any of the others in mainstream. They've ruffled a lot of feathers over the years, but oh well. That's the business of reporting. They ALL make mistakes. Do your homework, and don't believe everything you read. Check out multiple sources, and move along. Atsme☯^Consult 03:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• [14] Reliable source decrying breitbart.com's lack of care for accuracy and fact checking. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• It's one book by two authors almost no one has heard of whose own care for accuracy and fact checking hasn't been examined (not to mention bias), and it also criticized The Huffington Post and Salon.com: "A proliferation of Web-based outlets like the Huffington Post, the Drudge Report and Salon.com take the news and craft it to appeal to the political, social, and economic interests of niche audiences. What we see now, with the rise of subjectivity as news, are accounts of reality that jut away from journalistic norms and, too often, contain a litany of information that may or may not be true."

Good thing we're only discussing attributed opinion coverage in this context, and not news coverage, not that a single obscure opinion would be decisive on the latter front anyway. The question here is whether Breitbart is reliable for its own editor's opinion in a published article with his signature, and the answer is clearly "yes". VictorD7 (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• [15] Here's one where experts Peter Dreier and Christopher R. Martin talk about the unreliability of Breitbart and his websites. Peter Dreier is the Dr. E.P. Clapp Distinguished Professor of Politics, and chair of the Urban and Environmental Policy Department at Occidental College. Christopher Martin has a Ph.D. from University of Michigan. Both have numerous works that are published in scholarly journals pertaining to media, politics, and communication. When regarding Breitbart they say "His websites are propaganda vehicles for building a political movement." They've also published a peer reviewed scholarly article about how Breitbart used his websites to distort coverage of Acorn. Breitbart.com is still not a reliable source for the numerous reasons mentioned above, but having Ph.D.s that have been published in scholarly journals relay the point is worth mentioning.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• It's telling that you link to Alternet, a far left propaganda outfit whose very name is a boast about its own fringe status. That they publish there only serves as a classic Red Flag regarding their own credibility on this issue. That doesn't mean we couldn't use Dreier or Martin as sources, but it does mean we'd have to take their extreme political bias into account, and probably attribute anything we use from them. VictorD7 (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe this article originated on the Hufffington Post, but that doesn't matter as both persons have recognized and claimed the article on their professional websites. So now not only is breitbart.com a questionable source as defined by WP policy, but it's also denounced as a propaganda vehicle by experts in the field.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Your "expert" evidence based on far left propaganda blogs is unpersuasive. This is nothing more than leftists attacking a conservative source, as their embrace of Alternet shows. It's also irrelevant to this reliability discussion, since, again, we aren't using Breitbart as a news source in this case, but as a source for its own opinions. VictorD7 (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

No, this is the opinion of two experts with Ph.D's in the related field and multiple peer reviewed articles published about the subject who comment on the lack of reliability, distortion, and propaganda Breitbart's websites are used for. It's not irrelevant because it part of what determines a source's reliability is its perception in the field. Here we have two experts in the field who describe Breitbart's websites' reputations.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No, my description was accurate. You linked to their column on a far left propaganda blog. Having a degree doesn't automatically make someone an unquestioned authority, particularly when this isn't a scientific issue (or even a journalistic evaluation issue). That they publish far leftist propaganda is a classic red flag when deciding how much credence to give their evaluations of a conservative news/opinion source. That said, we're simply covering opinions here, not facts in Wikipedia's voice, so even without the extreme bias red flags their commentary is off point here. VictorD7 (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

They are authorities and have the credentials to prove it which are unrivaled by anyone you've presented as an "authority". If experts of this caliber in the related field think Breitbart.com is nothing more than a propaganda machine, then that is worth noting in this discussion. Scoobydunk (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

No, they aren't authorities on the topic actually being discussed, which isn't Breitbart's journalistic credentials, and we're under no obligation to treat an obviously partisan commentator posting on a far left propaganda blog as an unquestioned authority anyway. His activism is a classic red flag trumping his degree, meaning we should take his words with a caution. VictorD7 (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The topic being discussed here is the reliability of Breitbart.com, so "yes" they are authorities on the subject and are relevant to this discussion. FYI they are far more credible than Shapiro unless Shapiro also has a Ph.D. in the related field and has published multiple peer reviewed papers which is WP's highest standard of reliability.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It's awful to see this, as editors who don't share the sources political leanings attack a right leaning reliable news source, which has editorial oversight over its published content. I view this as a way of censoring Wikipedia because some editors do not like the view points of the source. Claims of poor fact checking are often from sources that oppose breitbart's political leaning. If the "poor reputation for checking the facts" line of reasoning were also used for NYT, CBS News, MSNBC, etc. (given documented instances of them making content up, or publishing content later found to be untrue) than those would also be deemed as Questionable sources as well. Lets all agree to disagree. Otherwise if we are to list Breitbart as questionable, we should list all sources that have been caught in a scandal or stating events falsely as requiring attribution due to their Questionable source status; therefore, we can all continue using all sources which others (whom you may not share their opinion) believe are biased or questionable, and continue to use breitbart.com, NYT, CBS News, MSNBC, etc. and work together towards creating balanced and neutral content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• If by "let's agree to disagree", you mean "let's use a source with an abymsal record of publishing false, harmful, ideologically motivated nonsense", then I'm not interested. Really, if you are asserting with a straight face that breitbart.com has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", as demanded by our sourcing criteria, then I think you have zero credibility when it comes to this sort of thing. If you seriously view breitbart.com as somehow equivalently reliable as the New York Times, then you have no business opining on sourcing questions and definitely should not be editing anything remotely related to WP:BLP. MastCell ^Talk 20:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

As someone already said above, "Breitbart is a textbook questionable source" - Cwobeel (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Nice personal attack there MastCell. Great use of Shooting the messenger fallacy.

What textbooks? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not "shooting the messenger". I'm saying that your message is so badly mistaken that it raises serious questions about your judgement with regard to sourcing. You've stated that you believe breitbart.com to possess a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking (our site's definition of reliability), and that it is more or less equivalently reliable as the New York Times or CBS News. Are those your actual beliefs? If so, I think we run a serious risk by allowing you to edit BLPs. MastCell ^Talk 01:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Again with the personal attacks, rather unbecoming from someone who holds a mop. Please stop, and focus on the subject!

Breitbart.com is the equivalent of Huffington Post, yet no one is attacking the Huffington Post.

If Breitbart.com was not on the right of the political spectrum it wouldn't be under the level of scrutiny it is. Same goes with Fox News, or as those who oppose its political leanings in its editorializing "Faux News"; whereas its counterpart on the left of the political spectrum, MSNBC also does not get the same level of scrutiny.

Disagree with the political leanings of the source all day long, but the source IMHO has a reputation for fact checking, as much as the other sources listed, and although a biased source, should be taken as a reliable source. If the content is questioned, corroborate it with other sources which the editor does not find objectionable. That adds additional reliable sources to verify the content, as well as adds weight to the content (as more than one source covers it).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If you raise the question of whether the Huffington Post is reliable, I'll give the same answer as I do for Breitbart: no. However, I'll admit that I do seem to be in the minority on the issue of the Huffington Post. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

While there are parts of the Huff Po that report on Bigfoot and UFOs, other parts of the Huff Po have won a Pulitzer. [16] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Can those who are claiming that Brietbart is a reliably published source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy please provide some evidence. Otherwise the multiple sources provided showing the reputation for not being a reliable source stand unopposed and your protestations to the contrary will be considered noted and disregarded. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you insisting that it is not a reliable source for opinions of notable persons properly cited as opinion? This is not a matter of "contentious claims about celebrities" but of whether what we would allow from an SPS of a notable person (whose opinions we can already use) is disallowed from an actual organization (Breitbart). I tend to be open to almost all opinions of notable persons being cited as opinion, even if they are published by RT. Or would you suggest the opinions are being somehow faked? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Good luck with that. I've been asking for evidence for six months and all I've gotten is insults and bluster. Gamaliel (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I already posted evidence of Breitbart and Shapiro being cited by the NY Times and other outfits on the appropriate talk page (e.g. [17], [18]), and a single Pulitzer doesn't make all that Bigfoot/UFO stuff at Huffpo go away. BTW, if you want some hilarity, here's the Daily Kos in 2011 with an extended piece accusing Breitbart of hacking Congressman Weiner's account and faking the scandal. They even attack the NY Times and CNN for covering Breitbart's report. Of course this was before Weiner retracted his false claims, apologized to Breitbart (after mainstream media prodding at the press conference) for lying, and ultimately resigned. The Daily Kos is currently used as a source in the same section at issue here. It was added by Gamaliel, the poster above who just made that false claim about other editors. That said, as Collect stated, this journalistic reputation line is irrelevant since we're just quoting these sources for their own opinions. VictorD7 (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

"is irrelevant since we're just quoting these sources for their own opinions" - ABOUT OTHER LIVING PEOPLE. Reliability and fact checking is absolutely relevant. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

From WP:BLPGROUP: "This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons". If it doesn't apply to specific companies, it sure as hell doesn't apply to a general political opinion about an entire industry's public works. You'd have a better case lodging a BLP claim against the critics attacking the movie (or any movie) and/or D'Souza personally. Also, see the comments below from WP:IRS on reliability standards changing when attribution is involved. VictorD7 (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

That's like asking Prove to me that you don't beat your wife/significant other/partner? It's a loaded question. Breitbart is a reliable source because it meets the criteria set forth in WP:IRS, it employs an editorial staff, stands behind what it publishes, and employees professional journalist, to write it stories. It cites is sources, saying where they get their information. It is not a group blog, but a source for news and information. Sure it is partisan, but so is HuffPo.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:IRS demands "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", which Breitbart lacks. Gamaliel (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Not when merely covering someone's opinion with attribution (per Quotations and WP:RSOPINION). That said, HuffPo and the partisan blogs you personally added (Daily Kos, Media Matters, etc.) don't enjoy any better reputation for fact checking and accuracy then Breitbart, and arguably have worse ones. VictorD7 (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe most of those sources should be in the article either, but if we are to lower the bar to include a low-quality source like Breitbart, then they are fair game. Gamaliel (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

So you disagree with dunk's contention that the inclusion of those other sources is irrelevant to the discussion about Breitbart? BTW, you personally adding them goes further than merely saying they're "fair game". I'll also note that I and others have rejected the premise that a news site like Breitbart is on the same level as group blogs like Kos or Salon, though I don't necessarily oppose covering the opinions of any of those sources. You equating them is a disputed, unilateral act. VictorD7 (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Jewish Virtual Library

[19] is being used to label a Roman Catholic as "Jewish" in his biography Michael Hahn and to add him to various "Jewish" categories. Does this source meet WP:RS for so labelling a person as "Jewish"? Note that it does not even appear to call the person "Jewish". Note this person is now also in [20] where the removal of the Roman Catholic is labelled "vandalism" by the editor, despite the discussion just above finding his original source to not meet WP:RS. Collect (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

What is the source for your claim that he's Roman Catholic? I don't see any decent citations in the article. Also, you removed a citation to Kurt Stone's book The Jews of Capitol Hill along with your removal of the Jewish Virtual Encyclopedia ([21]). Stone's book states that Hahn was born to Jewish parents but was a practicing Christian for most of his life. I don't know whether Stone's book meets our sourcing criteria, but at a bare minimum you need to present your question accurately and honestly—the "Jewish" identification was not sourced solely to the Jewish Virtual Encyclopedia, as you implied, but also to Stone's book. MastCell ^Talk 23:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The JVL biography does not say he was Jewish at all. Stone's work was already discussed above and was deemed not a reliable source for claims that a person is Jewish. When jumping in, please READ the prior discussion as it is not that hard to find. Or are you asserting that having Jewish ancestry makes a person Jewish for Wikipedia purposes? The same editor listed Barry Goldwater as Jewish, by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article has had "Catholic" as his religion since at least March 2007 -- I did not add that claim. Collect (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Right, but you keep saying here that he's Roman Catholic. What's the source for that assertion? MastCell ^Talk 02:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I presumed that something which even MastCell did not correct in seven years likely had a source. Clearly you demur, but I also did not change his birth date or anything else in the article - all I did was remove what was clearly not supported by any reliable sources. Cheers. Collect (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, there's no need to shout. My point is that the sourcing for Judaism is weak, but the sourcing for Roman Catholicism is non-existent. I don't understand why you accepted uncritically that Hahn was Roman Catholic, but applied a very strict level of scrutiny to the claim that he was Jewish. It just seemed odd to me. Anyhow, it would seem that the statement about Roman Catholicism should be removed, since Hahn is variously described by reliable sources as either Jewish (Encyclopedia Judaica) or Episcopalian (Louisiana Secretary of State website). Right? MastCell ^Talk 17:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The cited source for "Catholic" is apparently la-cemeteries.com. The official state bio from the Louisiana Secretary of State's office says he was Episcopalian. [22] Many sources that state in passing that he was Jewish, including the Encyclopedia Judaica [23] but I haven't come across any online source, other than Stone, that goes into detail. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

IOW, the Jewish Virtual Library bio which makes no claim at all that he was Jewish in the first place, is not even any sort of source for claiming he was Jewish - right? And sources which do not even create their own bio are not a source at all - just a copyfarm. Collect (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

As Arxiloxos pointed out, Encyclopedia Judaica describes Hahn as Jewish, and in fact as "the first Jewish governor in the United States". Presumably this is a reliable source, so it renders the discussion of the Virtual Jewish Library moot in this instance. I'm not sure what your reference to "copyfarms" is intended to mean. MastCell ^Talk 17:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I will give you a pass on the snark as soon as you tell me what sources the EJ used - listing its cites for the Hahn biography would be a good start. Meanwhile, I think you should note that encyclopedia's seem to fall into the category of "tertiary sources" at best, and where they offer no sources whatsoever for their biography, not even that high on the source chain. Collect (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your continued focus on the tertiary status of the source. Reliable tertiary sources may be used as a matter of policy, and the Encyclopedia Judaica seems to be a widely respected and reputable tertiary source. It is not essential that such sources provide separate footnotes for each of their findings. Your insistence here strikes me as a demand for a shrubbery rather than a serious sourcing concern, and seems particularly arbitrary since you accepted and repeated the claim that Hahn was Catholic with zero sources whatsoever. MastCell ^Talk 20:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Since there are different definitions of Jewish, we should always be explicit what is meant when someone is called Jewish. In this case the sources say he had Jewish ancestry, we should not imply that was his religion, unless a source says so. TFD (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I have added a number of citations to the article, but so far only found one source saying that the subject is of jewish heritage:

• Kurt F. Stone (29 December 2010). The Jews of Capitol Hill: A Compendium of Jewish Congressional Members. Scarecrow Press. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-8108-7738-2.

More than one source say that the subject was born a bastard, to a widower.

The question though I think is whether JVI is a reliable source. IMHO the book provided above is a better source, all things considered, as the editorial status of JVI and fact checking reliability of the source are up in the air. That doesn't mean that the source cannot be used, but the Scarecrow Press published source should be used to back it up.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Collect:, one thing though, the source says that the subject was Christian, but didn't specify which denomination. Trying to find a source now.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

This source says he is Catholic, but uses Wikipedia as a reference, thus unusable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Alas, Kurt Stone provides zero material indicating that he has any solid basis to label a person as Jewish here -- other than having, apparently, a "Jewish name" which was the criterion of a rather unlamented political party of the last century. Wikipedia has decided on requiring more than "Jewish name" IIRC. For religion, I sugest you look at his obit for the church of his funeral, by the way. Collect (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll give you a pass on the Godwin's Law violation, but it's been pointed out several times now that Encyclopedia Judaica describes Hahn as Jewish, and in fact as the first Jewish governor in the US ([24]). I would suggest that it's a reliable source for this sort of material. What is your view? MastCell ^Talk 19:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

See response above. An "encyclopedia" which offers no sources at all for its claims is barely even a tertiary source. Like Wikipedia would be if we did not require cites. Collect (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Let us centralize this discussion on the talk page of the article, I have already started a discussion on the subject's religion there.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

IS Encyclopedia books or webs reliable sources?

I'm not sure about discussing this issue here, but this is important for me to know the answer of the question as a wiki user. when i needed to saying about Literary Works of George Jordac(Christian Lebanese author),have used one of encyclopedia webs at draft of Gorge jordac article. By the way is that reliable source? Is there any permission for wiki user to use such as these sources?thanks.Samaneh-davoudi (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure... what can you tell us about the underlying website www.albabtainprize.org (note: the fact that the source is in Arabic does not affect it's reliability ... but it will make it harder for us to determine whether it is or isn't reliable... we may need to call in someone to translate it for us). Blueboar (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

My mean of encyclopedia is the book or websites that collected all information about a person or every subject by comprehensive summary like this encyclopedia website in English:[25]. That encyclopedia website [26] was introduced by me, is one of the encyclopedia website in Arabic. My main question is that is it acceptable to use encyclopedia web or books in Writing articles on Wikipedia? Thanks!Samaneh-davoudi (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

As for the Encyclopædia Iranica (the first of the two sources you link) - on first glance, I would call it reliable. Looking at their website's "about us" page, it lists an editorial staff (and so I would assume that it probably meets our requirement for fact checking and oversight). I hesitate, however, because I don't know if it has a good (or bad) reputation for accuracy.

As for albabtainprize.org - again I can't offer an opinion on it because I don't read Arabic. Another editor may be able to do so. Blueboar (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are generally "tertiary sources" and we should use the sources they cite for their articles - if they cite no sources, then normal practice is to dismiss their articles in any event. Technical or specialized encyclopedias generally show where they got their information. Collect (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this true? if one article at encyclopedias is written by known author and is taken from reliable sources, we can use it as reliable source!Samaneh-davoudi (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey Samaneh-davoudi: You can use the source if the authors are reliable and there is an obvious fact checking procedure. As you see, some encyclopedic sources are used here. Mhhossein (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Is HaKol HaYehudi a reliable site for facts?

Source: HaKol_HaYehudi

Article: List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015

Is HaKol HaYehudi, an Israeli extremist website, known for its support of violence, reliable for facts on the Israel-Palestinian conflict? I have raised the issue at the talk page of List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015 page. This is what an Israeli investigative news-site reports of its activities.

• (a)Yossi Gurvitz Government funding institutions supporting Jewish terrorism +972 magazine October 26, 2011

Ha’Kol Ha’Yehudi, the site which promotes the List of “price tag” pogroms, published on Monday an article by Yossi Elitzur, in which Elitzur called for the murder of terror suspects instead of their arrest

• (b)Yossi Gurvitz Settler 'price tag' pogroms against Palestinians go under the radar +972 magazine June 11, 2011

When a post mortem on Israeli democracy takes place, there’s a good chance that the “Ha’Kol Ha’Yehudi” will be considered akin to Radio Rwanda, which encouraged and led the murderers to the victims during that country’s genocide. The site (Hebrew), whose name means “The Jewish Voice,” is operated by the Yehudim Smechim (“Happy Jews”) Association (Hebrew), which is the active front of the students of the “Od Yoseph Khai” yeshiva in Yitzhar. Led by Yitzhak Ginzburg, this is in all likelihood the most extreme yeshiva around. It became famous, or rather infamous, when two of its rabbis wrote “Torat Ha’Melekh,” a treatise on the proper way – according to Jewish law – to kill gentiles.Nishidani (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

HaKol HaYehudi has been cited by major news outlets such as JPost and Haaretz. Major Israeli media does not publish small incidents. This is just as reliable as "local..." or many other reports where nobody even saw a 'settler' but they are the immediate suspect. Ashtul (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

That is not an argument for re 'a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy'. Mondoweiss is cited by Haaretz, too, but that technically does not make it reliable itself for facts. Please await independent editorial input. Nishidani (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I have another question: is uniquely biased +972 magazine - RS for evidence about other source "cited by major news outlets such as JPost and Haaretz".

The question why Nishidani regularly leads +972, is also quite interesting :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The question is, why do editors remove those two sources on sight, as not compliant, while the same editors allow venues like the two Ashtul has introduced to be cited. If serious Israeli journalism is not RS, then crap sites not written by notable Israeli journalists, are automatically ruled out. I'm only being polite in raising these two sites here. I could have removed at sight Ashtul's edits from these sources since they obviously fail all RS criteria.Nishidani (talk) 08:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that this JPost story, that Ashtul claimed was an example of HaKol HaYehudi being cited by a reliable source, is nothing of the sort. Actually it cites Army Radio as saying that HaKol HaYehudi was raided by police who "arrested three of the site's operators on suspicion of incitement". So rather than providing evidence of the site's reliability, it demonstrates the opposite. Haaretz also did not cite HaKol HaYehudi for facts but only noted what could be seen on a video posted there. I think Nishidani was way too accommodating in bringing this issue here. To put it bluntly, if web sites like HaKol HaYehudi are wiki-reliable we might as well just delete WP:V and forget the concept of reliability. Zero^talk 09:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It was not accommodating. Where there are just 3 editors, and I am in a minority, the exercise of a policy right to remove non-RS compliant material etc. is pointless because the other two editors will or can revert one immediately, which is the case there. One has no alternative than to appeal to the larger community's judgement to establish what is obvious, and in flagrant breach of standard editorial principles, which are not being observed there. Could experienced wikipedians please clarify here and above the obvious reading of WP:RS. Though it is a formality, the editors in question cannot see the error. Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I do NOT suggest HaKol HaYehudi will be a WP:RS on any regular article. But on those lists Nishidani nurture, many sources are half-baked. Some Ma'an articles note 'locals say...' and I assume even the UN statistics work in similar nature. No major media outlet wastes time or effort on a Molotov cocktail that caused some damage. If no one was injured, it isn't reported. They are basically equivalent to burglaries - if no one was shot, in ain't interesting.

Pretending this article will ever be fully trustworthy is not serious. In many cases no one even saw Israelis make the damage. Think of this.

My bad (or good) or the JPost link. I mistook site->cite. Ashtul (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

These considerations are irrelevant to wiki policy. Wikipedia is not divided into 'regular' and 'irregular' articles, with different criteria governing the way each might be sourced. 'Locals say' is in the source, but has been replaced since. Please wait for external input.Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to ask any editor who answer to address the issue of Ma'an not standing behind some news by stating "Local say..." Ashtul (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

This is syntactically incoherent, and meaningless. As it stands, one editor has chipped it, and the point made is obvious. I am being too generous in even raising these questions of reliability. Both this and the earlier text are self-evidently in violation of elementary wiki definitions of WP:RS. Unless an independent editor challenges this judgement I will be removing both within three days. In the meantime, I have removed it. The sourcing, Facebook red alert pages, o404, and HaKol Hayehudi, is patently abusive and defiantly disruptive, and continued notwithstanding my opening this request. Nishidani (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Nish, nobody reply about 0404. Please edit those sources back!Ashtul (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No one deigned to reply because the answer, I presume, was obvious. I am held to strict standards by pro-Israel editors, who delete relatively good sources because they assert the brandname (Mondoweiss, Counterpunch, etc.) is unacceptable, even if the pieces carried are by authoritative scholars and journalists. 0404 is patently way below that level. I will repost the request since it was ignored, but it is only a formality. Such crap is removed without objection by serious editors on sight.Nishidani (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

IndiaGlitz

I have used IndiaGlitz as a reference in the article Vikram filmography. I wanna make sure if the source qualifies WP:RS. A point worth noting is that, ref #135 is taken from IndiaGlitz and republished by CNN IBN. There have been numerous instances where IBN have used source material from IndiaGlitz and published them, as can be seen here and here. Considering such information will be allowed as RS, coming from IBN, I think non-controversial claims from IndiaGlitz can also be qualified as RS. I rest my case. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 07:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a reliable citation for this kind of information. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Sriram, on the whole, it qualifies a an RS. Create an article on it and expand it using secondary sources like Hindu, TOI, CNN etc. which mention about it. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 07:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

International Business Times have made numerous references to IndiaGlitz and have quoted their reviews in their "review roundup" pages to determine how well a film or its music was received, as seen here. There is also this and [27], which are used for different purposes rather than collecting reviews. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kailash29792:Your point being? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 08:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

My point being that two internationally reputed sites (CNN-IBN and IBTimes) rely on IndiaGlitz for information, which should prove it's notability and reliability. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Mid Day has also used IndiaGlitz in this. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Tudor Place

Does anyone support the contention that the content of the website

• http://www.tudorplace.com

and more specifically this page

• http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/HUNGERFORD.htm ("the TP source")

is a Wikipedia reliable source

I have stated that I do not consider it to be a RS (diff), Kbabej stated "I don't agree that Tudor Place is an unreliable source. It is used all over Wikipedia. If you show me parameters that list Tudor Place as unreliable, then I'll remove it. Until then, it's a common practice." (diff)

The issue is over a relationship between two people. There is an article called Anthony Hungerford of Black Bourton (we have lots of articles called "Anthony Hungerford" it was a popular family name). This particular article is fully sourced using a Dictionary of National Biography article as a source for his family (see s:Hungerford, Anthony (1564-1627) (DNB00)). It states "By his first wife [Lucy] he was father of Sir Edward Hungerford (1596-1648) [q.v.], and by his second wife was father of Anthony [q.v.] and John, and two daughters."

Kbabej has created an article called Anne Hungerford Lee and justifies the inclusion of the statement "Anne Hungerford was born to Sir Anthony Hungerford of Black Bourton and his fifth cousin Lucy Hungerford" based on the TP source. I do not consider that the TP source to be reliable enough to support this statement (if it was to support a DOB of DOD, which might be supportable elsewhere that would be another issue where a {{better source}} would surfice) but this is in my opinion too large an issue to be left to an unreliable source such as a page www.tudorplace.com.ar.

What do others think, is "the TP source" a reliable source for this sort of information? -- PBS (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The Tudor Place article is used as an easier layout to read and supports the same information presented in Families Directly Descended from All the Royal Families in Europe (495 to 1932) and Mayflower Descendants bound with Supplement, which has been listed as another source for the information you are disputing, PBS. The information matches. --Kbabej (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a more reliable source. I am not disputing the information, I am questioning adding text to Wikipdia based on a source such as www.tudorplace.com.ar. You have stated that "I don't agree that Tudor Place is an unreliable source." as I disagree I think whether it is need to be discussed here to see where the consensus lies. If you are so sure that TP is a reliable source why have you felt the need to cite another one? -- PBS (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Good question. Two reasons: 1. To prove it matches other reliable sources. 2. So the information would not be removed. --Kbabej (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the about page shows it's a website put out by an amateur - I doubt it is reliable for much information, unless you can show that the guy Jorge H. Castelli is an expert in genealogy or history. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be useful if a few more of the editors who lurk here were to add their opinions to this section as to whether this website is or is not a reliable, because this it is used as a source on about 400 pages. -- PBS (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert Ankony, various articles

Robert Ankony is a Vietnam veteran, a veteran police officer and detective, and has a Ph.D in criminology. He has written a memoir, issued by a reputable publisher, as well as articles about his experiences in the Vietnam War, and has written numerous articles in scholarly criminology articles. He maintains a website with reprints of his published writings and a self-published blog: http://www.robertankony.com

Ankony has also contributed to Wikpedia as Icemanwcs (talk · contribs). Many of his contributions have been in the form of citations to his published works. Others have been verbatim copies of those works. It's my opinion, and just an opinion, that he's made those contributions to improve Wikipedia and not for any personal gain. His website does not carry any advertisements and it doesn't appear that he gains any monetary rewards by directing traffic to it. I believe he has contributed his scholarship in good faith, to the overall benefit of the project.

An editor using a variety of IPs (208.54.38.255, 172.56.8.192, 172.56.9.67) has decided that all of the references and external links to writings by Ankony are detrimental to Wikipedia, are in violation of policy, and must be removed immediately without any discussion. He has removed the citations but not the cited material. I've counseled a more cautious approach. In response the editor has made all kinds of accusations about my motives and methods. I don't want to deal with the IP editor any more which is why I'm bringing this here for the community to handle.

Ankony's "About me" webpage says:[28]

• He earned his bachelor's degree from the University of Michigan, a master's in correctional sciences from the University of Detroit; and an MS, MA, and PhD in sociology (criminology) from Wayne State University. He did graduate research in the former Soviet Union and other Warsaw Pact nations and now writes criminological, firearms, and military articles for scientific and professional journals and special-interest magazines. He is a member of the American Society of Criminology.

Here are some of the pages from which the IP editor has deleted citation's to Ankony's scholarly, peer reviewed publications or other published writings: Explosive material, Proactive policing, Long-range reconnaissance patrol. Please decide if these citations and contributions should be removed with prejudice or have value. Rezin (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• There's no rule against citing yourself on Wikipedia, if your work is indeed a reliable source on the matter. However, it does present a conflict of interest that should be treated with caution, especially when you're citing your own self-published work, which is why it is usually suggested that people refrain from citing themselves. But that guideline exists to prevent bad citations, not to remove good ones; if a citation is acceptable when placed by one person, then the identical citation is acceptable when placed by anyone.

Certainly, it is bad practice to remove citations but the material being cited; it not only leaves behind potentially incorrect information but does not let future editors figure out where the text came from, making improvement more difficult. As far as your conflict with that editor is concerned, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is not the forum for that. If you absolutely can't work anything out, consider WP:ARBCOM (keeping in mind that arbitration is about personal conduct, not article content). Knight of Truth (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Rezin is being very misleading here, maybe he did not delve into the history of this link spammer as I have. Robert Ankony is User Talk:Icemanwcs as he admitted on his talk page. Ankony has mostly used his Wikipedia account for self promoting link spam WP:Spammer as reported here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#www.robertankony.com After spending two days investigating and removing his gross amount of link spamming some things have become obvious. 1. He has been warned in the past about his link spamming (over a years time frame) and also asked to use sources other than himself (which he uses for reference link spam). 2. Most of his edits add very little and are mostly minor tweaks and shuffling stuff around with addition of link spam pointing to his own website and other material. In some cases he has removed good sources without explaining why and then adding himself as a source after citing his own opinion with himself as the reference. WP:COI 3. He constantly adds his website to many articles under external link which have no legitimate reasoning for being added other than link spamming his name and website all over Wikipedia. Additionally all we really know is he has a website and has been published in his own online magazine and a few other articles. I suspect he is a veteran and an ex police officer and may have some degrees but we have no easy way of substantiating that. It is all irrelevant as he is clearly misusing his account to link spam the snot out of many articles for self promoting reasons. 172.56.9.123 (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't confuse the behavioral issues concerning Icemanwcs with the question here, which simply concerns whether these references qualify as reliable sources. That issue isn't dependent on who added the citations. If you're claiming that the citations are falsified that's a serious accusation against another editor. It requires substantiation and should be pursued on a different noticeboard, WP:ANI perhaps. Rezin (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• You just confused the issue by insinuating I claimed they were falsified which is a serious insinuation. They are not helpful references as most are only added as link spam and many times to content that was already there before he showed up. The problem with your whole argument is you believe his sources are good (which we do not know) because you believe his claims of expertise make him a trusted authority. How did you come to that conclusion? Have you found evidence of know experts quoting or referencing his works? If you have you should be placing those citations as secondary sources where appropriate. It has been pointed out many times and even above by another editor that it is best not to cite oneself for obvious reasons. When it becomes readily obvious the reason for citing oneself is pure and simple self promotion WP:SPAMMER and the account has been mostly used to promote self interested goals then a reasonable person would also question the objectivity of the source. I have investigated his many edits and have found most to be of little consequence to the article and almost always a way to slip in link spam. It is so obvious that even you are finally acknowledging these "behavioral issues" (your words). The is ample evidence to bring his misuse of editing to arbcom and I believe the are many well respected editors who have previously warned him and would be willing to weigh in on his behavior. It is because of your dragging this around that you have flagged him and that may ultimately happen despite my original intention of warning him again and removing the link spam. He is now on two boards as a result. 172.56.9.123 (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This thread is solely concerned with whether the references are reliable. You have not presented any evidence why, for example, this reference:

• Robert C. Ankony and Thomas M. Kelly, "The Impact of Perceived Alienation on a Police Officers' Sense of Mastery and Subsequent Motivation for Proactive Enforcement," Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, vol. 22, no. 2 (1999): 120-32.

is unreliable for Wikipedia purposes. If there's no reason to question it's reliability then the presumption is that a journal like Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management is probably reliable.[29][30] Rezin (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• [User:Rezin|Rezin]] (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC) I appreciate your defense of my credentials and work. I posted my response on the talk page and I did so again below. I do hope this matter is resolved and that the references to my years of Wikipedia work are restored. I regret that it is viewed by (talk) as spam. I never made a dollar off it. I do it as a contributor to history and from my fields of expertise. I love history and that I happened to live some of it, researched it, and wrote about it shouldn't be taken as a negative. The question should be is my work valid and authoritative. The question by (talk) asking how much of my work has been referenced by known experts is unnecessary because the validity is the publication--editors of scholarly publications thought it was relevant to its readers. I also disagree with the statement that most of my edits add very little and that references were already there before I showed up. I'm sure over the years many of my edits were minor and at times some references were already there. On the other hand do all my edits have to be major and is it recognized that I created pages and cleaned some pages of ramblings, e.g., Proactive Enforcement. Equally important, why was the reference to the definition of Social Alienation or Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol, the lead sentences on each of the pages removed, which are respectively from my doctoral dissertation as published in the scientific journal Policing and from my book LURPS. That's years of my scholarly work erased by (talk). Thank you, Icemanwcs (talk) 09:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hello (talk) I only saw your notification today or I would have addressed your concerns immediately. First, it seems years of my published work and references were removed regardless of their relevance. Many of the deletions are from sites I created, e.g., Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP), a unit I spent six years researching and writing the first edition of my book LURPS and another four years writing the second revised edition. I also served with that unit in Vietnam. LURPS was published by an academic press and is an authoritative source. I was invited to Fort Benning, GA, by the US Army Rangers in 2006 to speak about the history of the unit. The other references cited on the page were placed by me. I do add additional sources where appropriate on other pages. The fact that LURPS is my work and I direct readers to my website is to further explain unit history or show battlefield photos that are not appropriate for Wikipedia and this should be recognized as a contribution to history, not as self-serving though it my appear so at a quick glance. Another example is the Wikipedia site Social Alienation. The very first sentence and definition on that page is from my doctoral dissertation which was published in the scientific journal Policing and the Police Chief magazine. And now that reference is gone as if that definition is not authoritative. There are many other sites where I either created or did extensive work and those references are also gone but my work was left intact without any references. This seems to have been done with a broad brush regardless of the individual content. I do agree that my reference on the Wikipedia site Running may have been wrong, however, I thought the article would be of interest and the site was requesting references. Yes, my reference on that page was not authoritative but my view was it's a starting point. As I said I worked for years on Wikipedia and I periodically come back to sites with new or additional information and source material or photos. On January 8 I received the following message ":NB On further review I see that Robert Ankony may very well be an expert on several of the relevant topics, per "The U.S. .45 Model 50 And 55 Reising Submachine Gun And Model 60 Semiautomatic Rifle" and Lurps: A Ranger's Diary of Tet, Khe Sanh, A Shau, and Quang Tri]. Still, it'd be good if you review the WP:EL to avoid any problems. Thanks for your contributions to WP and, if you're he, your service to the nation. Rezin (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)". I think it would serve history and Wikipedia users if the references and external links are restored. If they are I would be happy to review the sites and remove any links or references that are not of specific need and you could review my work. Thank you, Icemanwcs (talk) 07:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• When User Talk:Icemanwcs states: "That's years of my scholarly work that someone just erased. Thank you" that sums ups his intention of using Wikipedia to self promote his interests through Wikipedia. It matters not whether he made money but that sounds like a canard as he has books for sale and he is slinging his website all over wiki articles. I am sorry I don't buy it. And there are many other field experts with PhD's and books for sale who are not abusing Wikipedia with link spamming WP:SPAMMER. Adding references citing oneself and then adding links to all kinds of articles shows a definitive pattern of abuse that even Reziz has acknowledged. Again the argument against link spamming and misuse of self citing for self promotion does not hinge on whether it is reliable. And Robert Ankony acknowledges that he is not being cited by known experts on Wikipedia or for that matter elsewhere. He has written some articles for magazines which I have looked at and I do not believe a reasonable person would call most of them scholarly publications albeit there may be a few which qualify. Gun magazine and occupational magazines however are not academic publications. Again I will ask the obvious question: Why would such a person who claims to be a scholar not realize it is best not to cite oneself? Did he not learn that in his studies and realize the ethical conflict of interest when doing such? Surely such an academic would have many sources to back up his years of research as he claims he has done above. Why does he not use them and instead chooses to link spam to his website which he claims he never made a penny off of? He has been amply warned by many other editors and has had his link spammed removed many times in the past yet he continues to go on his merry way ignoring the concerns and advice of many editors over a 2 year period. In fact his actions have led to a concern over reliability due to his "Behavioral Issues" -Rezin's description. The constant link spamming of articles is a serious disruption of Wikipedia as it takes many editors time to police rogue behavior. Ankony cannot expect much respect in the wiki community for his view that he is contributing when he has a long record of abusing Wikipedia with link spamming. 172.56.9.123 (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

=LInks to Link Spamming on Spam-Blacklist Notice board

I have provided links to the spam blacklit noticeboard which lists some of the spamming by Robert Ankony and his talk page which also shows the warnings given by editors. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=642808855#www.robertankony.com and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Icemanwcs&oldid=642810110#External_links

• (talk) It appears you removed all references from years of work yet you left all of my text on the pages. Another editor addressed if a reference can be cited by one person it can be cited by anyone. The question is are my references reliable. Rezin and another editor thought they were. You took the position that because it is my work they must be removed because it is "self-promoting spamming." On the Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol page you stated I have been "spamming the snot out of the page." That's very unfortunate. I put a lot of work into that page and as mentioned have spent ten years researching LURPS. A book that was Nominated for the Army Historical Foundation's Distinguish Writing Award in 2006 and 2009. LURPS was also favorably reviewed by Dr. Erik Villard, US Army Center of Military History, Washington, D.C. And Jason Foster of Vietnam magazine wrote that "LURPS is among the best war diaries available." Vietnam magazine also published some of my work as their cover story "No Peace in the Valley" Oct. 2008. That magazines such as Vietnam or Small Arms of the World are not scholarly is true but they are authoritative sources in their field. Does a source have to be as notable as the New England Journal of Medicine to be referenced on Wikipedia. I think not--but if so why did you remove Policing: An Internal Journal of Police Science and Management? The other issue is the links to my website. I acknowledge this can appear self-serving but it is not for that purpose. Review my website, especially LURPS Gallery it presents a unique contribution to the history of the Vietnam War. It's an archive of photos and scholarly captions that have been complied over many years. Many of the photos are not appropriate for Wikipedia but they show 1968, the most pivotal year of the war. It also depicts the biggest battle of the war, the Tet Offensive, as well as the second largest battle of the war, the Siege of the Marine combat base at Khe Sanh. In addition, it shows the First Air Cavalry Division's assault into A Shau Valley--the most formidable enemy-held territory in South Vietnam. Yes, I served in each of these battles and spent much of my life writing about them because I owe that to the men I served with and to all who died. Please read the work that the links were connected to and see if you still think it is self-promoting. Read "No Peace in the Valley" Oct. 2008, it's on my website. I don't even mention I was there in the article, yet I was. I only use my references or at times direct readers to my website if it adds more relevant detail. I'm sorry you determined that because I researched and wrote articles you believe all my work is self-serving. I consider it an honor to have served with the men I did, both in the military and in law enforcement. I was fortunate that I had the chance to move on in life from a GED to a PhD. Perhaps you should also take a look at the link you removed from Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP) about Sgt. Douglas Parkinson titled "Team Leader and Mentor." Doug was a giant in Company E and once said, "Bob get the story out and let people know what happened in Vietnam, or the men we lost will just disappear." I hope you repost the references and links and I will give them an editing which you can review. Thank you,Icemanwcs (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• (talk) You erroneously quoted me when you stated: "And Robert Ankony acknowledges that he is not being cited by known experts on Wikipedia or for that matter elsewhere." Please note, I never said that and as an editor you too should be more careful. What I said is this: "The question by (talk) asking how much of my work has been referenced by known experts is unnecessary because the validity is the publication--editors of scholarly publications thought it was relevant to its readers." You also state: "He has written some articles for magazines which I have looked at and I do not believe a reasonable person would call most of them scholarly publications albeit there may be a few which qualify. Gun magazine and occupational magazines however are not academic publications." Did I ever say that everything I wrote is an academic publication? Do you require this of other editors and contributors? Have you looked at the books on Wikipedia pages? Can you really say that all citations are from scientific journals or from an academic press? Thank you,Icemanwcs (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• (talk) I think the external link to the Photographic History of 1st Cav LRRP Rangers in Vietnam (1968) should be re-installed as it provides a vivid and scholarly account of key battles of the war that would be of interest to Wikipedia military historians.Icemanwcs (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Gun show loophole

Are the sources for the following lead sentence for the gun show loophole article WP:RS?

Gun show loophole is a term referring to the ability of private buyers at gun shows being able to purchase firearms from private sellers without a background check.

--Lightbreather (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Quote from source 1: [Clinton] directed the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General to close the gun show loophole.
• Quote from source 2: The term "gun show loophole" is often used to describe the fact that federal law allows private sellers to sell firearms without background checks or recordkeeping.
• Quote from source 3: According to a 1999 report by the Department of the Treasury and DOJ, this is known as the "gun show loophole."

I can provide dozens of others if requested. Lightbreather (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is sufficient sourcing, why would somebody challenge it? Spumuq (talk) 10:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The argument is that the lead sentence "is not factually correct," and that "there is no loophole in the law." There are people who believe that, and it needs to be addressed in the article, and mentioned in the lead, too, but not in the lead sentence. That would give it undue weight (POV), which is where I'll probably head next, depending on the outcome here.

Thanks for your feedback. Lightbreather (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Old, outdated information & non-information being used as source in attempt to verify majority shareholding of wrestling company...

1. Source(s): [31] [32] [33]

2. Article: Total Nonstop Action Wrestling

3. Content

|key_people = Robert Carter
(Majority stakeholder - 71%)

76.235.248.47 (talk) 10:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Larson and Rhodes reliable sources for anti-cult view on Prem Rawat?

See User talk:Jimbo Wales#Larson and Rhodes reliable sources for anti-cult view on Prem Rawat?. Please participate there. I explained the reasons why I initiated this there instead of here, but for the rest all WP:RSN conditions can apply as far as I'm concerned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• You said you started the discussion there because you want to enable a topic-banned editor, that is not a good reason. Spumuq (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Musa I of Mali richest man to have lived

Some sources say [Mansa Musa http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/meet-mansa-musa-i-of-mali--the-richest-human-being-in-all-history-8213453.html independent] and Huffand Daily Mail are these enough to verify a statement that he was one of the richest men to have ever lived? including Henry Louis Gates saying it also gates and he is a historian. Many Thanks--Inayity (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Those are simply reproductions of the original claim, which on close inspection is not particularly reliable. The Independent's a reputable newspaper, but I think it's necessary to exercise a bit of judgement over newspaper stalwart Phil Space putting in something cute from some Website on a slow news day. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that this probably not reliable. Reliability is not all-encompassing; a newspaper that has a great news section might print horoscopes or crazy op-eds, or as User:Pinkbeast mentioned, include something on a "slow newsday" with less rigorous editorial standards than normal. Knight of Truth (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

When taking into account the original source "Celebrity net worth", I think the answer is no. This is a fluff piece for fun, not a serious claim. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately Henry Louis Gates is a historian and the second he uses it, it becomes notable. And please remember your comments MUST deal with RS, not opinions on what is "slow newsday" that is not an academic reply to the criteria of RS. Nor is fluff for fun a serious remark to the validity of a source, it is a personal bias-- and everyone has them. If there is a problem with RS you must have a serious discussion ABOUT the specific source and why that information is (in specific terms) not RS. Fluff piece, Slow day = are name calling, not refutations of a source. We are not discussing Horoscopes, or Op-eds, we are discussing if this source, used by many, including a senior world historian in the said article--Inayity (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yet when it comes to other historical figures you find this same kind of ref being used. Sure it is not scholarly, but it is Notable enough to be included (when used so widely) in the article. I cannot be washed out. --Inayity (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Full source inaccessible

1. http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729685,00.html html

2. Ann Dunham

3.

In late 1994, Dunham was living and working in Indonesia. One night, during dinner at a friend's house in Jakarta, she experienced stomach pain. A visit to a local physician led to an initial diagnosis of indigestion.

I noticed that you can only see the first section of this article. Is this source reliable, since most of it (including the part about Dunham being diagnosed with Uterine cancer) is not viewable to most people? I've read the page for reliable sources, but unfortunately came up with no answer regarding this issue. Thanks, 2607:FB90:42B:9201:86E5:F4F6:D92F:95E (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

In general, yes. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access_to_sources. Time is a pretty top tier source. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Although we cannot cite this page, as a Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Convenience_links link you can see the full article at http://fmcsg.tripod.com/id19.html Gaijin42 (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I just wanted to bring it to your attention in case it wasn't a credible source. Thanks for the link to the full article. :) - 2607:FB90:42B:9201:86E5:F4F6:D92F:95E (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable source when cited by another source

Can the think-tank Palestinian Media Watch, which supposedly reports content from Palestinian TV programs and newspapers, be used as a source if they're cited by another, potentially more reliable source? The claim, in 2012_Olympics_one_minute_of_silence_campaign, is that the Palestinian Authority newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida referred to the Munich Olympics massacre as the "Munich operation." It's my view that we can't cite an unreliable source at any remove, and that if Al-Hayat said this, a reliable source which says so, or the actual Al-Hayat article saying so, should be available - otherwise it's not verifiable. User:I invented "it's not you, it's me"'s view is that being cited in Commentary magazine legitimizes this source (its report is that "PMW said this"). I'll also note that the Commentary piece appears to be an opinion column, so the broader issue may be moot. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

While I see your concern, the general answer is yes, assuming the repeating source is itself reliable. See the current controversy at Steve Scalise where we have a random blogger, who found an anonymous posting on stormfront, but his claims are repeated by reliable sources, so the information is BLP complaint. WP:GRAPEVINE would be the obvious counter argument, but in this case if PMW is mistranslating something that is getting coverage in mainstream sources, someone will certainly call them out on it. In any case, the Al-Hayat source itself would be sourcing for whatever they said, which is easy to WP:V (assuming one speaks Arabic) so I think this particular issue is a non issue along multiple avenues of argument. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

also, Commentary is not attributing that statement to PMW (although it is reasonable to assume thats where they got it). its in their own voice, which makes the whole thing further reliable. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

If you mean that there is good reason to think Palestinian Media Watch provides inaccurate information, and therefore its information shouldn't be included in Wikipedia even if it is mentioned in a normally reliable source, that would essentially be arguing that the normally reliable source made an error in mentioning Palestinian Media Watch. A normally reliable source can be ignored if it's clear it made a mistake.

If you mean that reliable sources have to follow Wikipedia's Verifiability policy and can't use any source Wikipedia wouldn't use, no, that's nonsense. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Violet Brown

There are five sources in the stub article on Violet Brown, an old woman:

1. "Oldest Validated Living Supercentenarians". Gerontology Research Group. Retrieved 18 December 2012.
2. Tashieka Mair (16 July 2007). The independent Mrs Violet Brown. The Jamaica Star. Accessed January 2015.
3. Horace Hines (29 March 2013). An extraordinary senior citizen - ‘Aunt V’ turns 113. Jamaica Observer. Accessed January 2015.
4. Horace Hines (19 March 2009). Violet Moss-Brown... 109, not out. Jamaica Observer. Accessed January 2015.
5. Sheena Gayle (8 March 2010). 110-y-o Trelawny woman reveals secret to long life. Jamaica Gleaner. Accessed January 2014.

Between them they give three different dates of birth for her. Is there any reason to consider any of them unreliable, or to consider any one of them to be indubitably more reliable than the others? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Out of these sources, the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) appears to be the only one which actually verifies the age of supercentenarians. Thus, the GRG's dates should receive priority here. Futurist110 (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

All of these are probably reliable sources (I can only judge the GRG by their Wikipedia article). Three of them agree on a March 15 DOB, one says March 10, one March 4. Four of them (the four newspaper articles) report on an event - the celebration of her birthday - and cite sources. It's pretty clear that her birthday was celebrated on March 15 in 2007, 2009 and 2013. It's also pretty clear that her birthday was celebrated 11 days earlier than that in 2010.

While the GRG reportedly verified her age, their source isn't given. And if it is her birth certificate, it's important to note that birth certificates are not necessarily accurate - my grandfather's (born 1906, in Trinidad, which would have had a very similar system of birth registration as Jamaica) DOB is, reportedly, wrong on his birth certificate because there was a fine for reporting a birth more than a week late. A friend's father, born around 1940, has two different birth certificates with different first and surnames. Without more information, I wouldn't take the date supplied by the GRG as a fact, while disregarding the other reported birth dates. That amounts to privileging the most opaque of the five sources. Guettarda (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The GRG requires early & mid-life documentation, as well as later life identification, to verify a supercentenarian claim. That includes a birth certificate, marriage record, census records, and other ID documents. Of course we cannot be completely certain that her claim is true - there is always the chance of misidentification, for example - but you can have a 99% confidence level in verified cases. The point is, they have verified her claim with a birth date of 10 March 1900, so that's the most likely birth date, and that's what should be included in the article. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The GRG website is a single source. Typos happen all the time. As do transcription errors. As do errors in the creation of official documents. Due to the fact that the GRG website is utterly opaque in this regard, it's impossible to state that the odds of an error are ~1%. Errors in birth registration, for example, are commonplace. Proof may be required now, but when most births occurred at home (as they did in Jamaica circa 1900) proof was impossible to come by. And registrars make mistakes too. You tell someone something, and they write it down. Errors can also occur when you transcribe records. The original entries were transcribed by hand when copies were made. (I don't know if Jamaica has computerised or microfilmed their records recently.) The volunteers themselves can make errors.

The simple fact is that an official DOB is a data point around which there exists a certain amount of error. What that error is, I don't know. But a 1% error rate in a country of 2.8 million amounts to 28,000 errors. Even a 0.1% error rate still means that 2,800 DOBs are wrong. And we're talking about record keeping over 100 years ago. My experience with a country whose bureaucracy was, at the time, run by the same colonial civil service as Jamaica makes me suspect that the rate of accuracy was probably on the higher end. To that error rate we must compound the error rate of researchers (who are volunteers, so who knows how well they are trained in data collection) and the error rate of transcription onto the web site. Against that we have the error rate of the news stories. Maybe journalists make more mistakes than GRG researchers (though I would never assume that a priori); the problem lies not in the possibility of error, but in the coincidence of error. And here's the thing - the newspaper reports are tied to events. It's far easier to transpose a digit when typing than it is to confuse "last Sunday" with "last week Tuesday".

Unless you're willing to assume that Jamaicans as ignorant and First World sources are authoritative, I see no way to privilege that one source while dismissing the others. Guettarda (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, The Gerontology Research Group is the world's leading authority in extreme longevity tracking. The confidentiality of the data provided and presented by the Gerontology Research Group is beyond any further doubts, once an authenticity of an age is verified just as it happened in Mrs. Violet Brown's case. She was indeed born on Mar. 10, 1900. The verification of a supercentenarian case is a process, in which many different aspects are taken into consideration and it does take time. Firstly a case is pending and then, after further review the final decision is made. A case can be positively verified only when there has been gathered the substantial evidence on the particular case. A news report is not substantial evidence of an age. The Gerontology Research Group bases on the original documentation. Moreover, one document is not enough to verify a case. The multiple number of documents, records, certifications and other sources eliminate the possibility of incompatibility. Then, even if one of these sources was indeed in range of error, the researchers can distinguish it. The researchers, GRG Correspondents are trusted members of the GRG, who have previously proven their credibility and signed the confidentiality agreement. The Gerontology Research Group is a professional organization, cooperates with Guiness World Records as well as with other gerontological and sociological institutions. Its correspondents, apart from collecting the evidence, also often perform the research "in field" by contacting the families of supercentenarians, supercentenarians themselves and exchanging the information with them. Waenceslaus (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Gameranx on 8chan

Yesterday, I had added this page to 8chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to support a statement connecting something to the Gamergate controversy in addition to its stated connection to 8chan in various other reliable sources. Weedwacker has been repeatedly reverting my addition of this page, claiming that because Gameranx is a website for video game news and because it is absent from WP:VG/RS that it is not a reliable source at all. I attempted to retort that because the article the source is used on is not about a video game that should not matter and also that the website is already used extensively on the English Wikipedia and they have a clearly defined editorial team. This two year old discussion is all I can find about it on the video games project, but it's established usage on Wikipedia should suggest that it is considered a reliable source already. I believe that the only reason that this particular source is being contested is because the author of the article in question, Ian Miles Cheong, is a known critic and harassment target of Gamergate, and Weedwacker has been mostly pro-Gamergate since he returned to editing Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable. Their content is cited by Game Informer, GameSetWatch, Kotaku, Gamasutra, and VG247 (all of which are considered reliable sources by WPVG) and MCVUK, which is used across the project as well. Their editors—one of them being the author of the piece in question—previously worked for other publications which have been similarly cited. This is the definition of the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that we look for. Woodroar (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• I'd have to agree with Woodroar. If you do a Google search for "according to gameranx", you get quite a few prominent reliable sources who quote the site, including PC Gamer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Republic Report

Is Republic Report a reliable source? It is being used for several citations at For-profit higher education in the United States. It is a site owned by an organization called Essential Information. If it is a reliable source in general, should it be used in connection with individuals per WP:BLP? See this diff. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it can be used with caution. They are a non profit, started by Ralph Nader. They don't appear to have significant editorial oversight, so for contentious claims on WP:BLPs they may run afoul of WP:SPS.They are likely reliable for their own statements of opinion, especially when not used in a BLP context tho. For opinions about BLPs, it would likely depend on how contentious the opinion is Gaijin42 (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The report has very strong editorial positions reflected in its articles, and should primarily be used as an opinion source and not as a source for anything remotely approaching a contentious claim about living persons for sure.

Corruption of our politics poses an existential threat to our republic. Will we be a self-governing nation of the people, by the people and for the people, or will we be ruled by special interests and big money lobbyists?

seems a clear declaration that it is not intended to state facts in a neutral manner, to be sure. No way for contentious claims of fact about living persons - if it is a fact, try to find a solid reliable source. Collect (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

David Halperin is a lawyer in Washington, DC who would vouch for his credibility and trustworthiness. Please let me know of any deletions, so that I can notify Mr. Halperin. Dahnshaulis (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, in terms of credibility of the subject in question, Rep. Alcee Hastings.... Then watch the video Dahnshaulis (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Dahnshaulis Are you saying that a lawyer may be involved if we delete content sourced to Republic Report? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No. I saying that I will let Mr. Halperin know of the status of any deletions of his references. If you delete anything, I'd just like to have an explanation so that I can inform my sources. This also applies to any other sources with authors I have made personal contact with. Dahnshaulis (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You may notify whoever you wish, but wikipedia doesn't really care if he cares. Beyond the general policies and discussion which we are having now and on the article talk page nobody is required to give any reasons to justify wikipedia's actions to outside individuals. This site and report is not reliable for the claim made, and the source should be removed. However, there are better sources available which make the same claim so could be used instead. [34] [35] [36][37] [38][39][40] Gaijin42 (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It says, "The views expressed in a given piece reflect those of the Republic Report writer authoring the piece." So each article must be evaluated seperately using the section "News organizations" in RS: "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, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Assuming an article meets RS, the next hurdle is weight - if the information is only found there, is it significant? Probably not. TFD (talk) 05:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Open Democracy, Andreas Umland and Anton Sheckhovtsov, ADL in question of Wolfsangel use

Is Andreas Umland, German political scientist and historian, specializing in contemporary Russian and Ukrainian history, reliable source to speak about use of Wolfsangel by Social-National Party of Ukraine ?

link - https://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/andreas-umland/kyiv%E2%80%99s-next-image-problem

Are Anton Sheckhovtsov's articles at Open Democracy site reliable to speak about use of Wolfsangel by Social-National Assembly and Azov Battalion?

links: https://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/anton-shekhovtsov/provoking-euromaidan https://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/anton-shekhovtsov/look-far-right-and-look-right-again-avaz-batalion-neo-pagan-neo-nazi

Is Anti-Defamation League site reliable source to state racist Aryan Nations organization uses Wolfsangel as emblema?

http://www.adl.org/mobilehatesymbols/symbol-20.html

I think yes, but Iryna Harpy names it "soapboxing, advertising or promotion" Cathry (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

News 0404 Second request, since the first was unanswered

is the new Israeli private news channel, News 0404 founded by journalist Boaz Golan, and self-identified as promoting a 'Zionist-patriotic' perspective according to the stub dedicated to it on the Hebrew Wikipedia (חדשות 0404),reliable for facts? I have raised the issue at the talk page of List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015 Repeatedly, we have affirmed that even long-established websites full of competent journalists or scholars (Counterpunch, Mondoweiss) (basically anti-Zionist with regard to the I/P area) cannot be used for facts. So on that precedent, it seems self-evident that a new POV-pushing news outlet based on user contributions with no notable names, run by a private entrepreneur, should not be used for facts. Thirdly, the reports are all in Hebrew, and the newbie editor using them supplies no details of their content, which means third parties unfamiliar with that language have to take on trust the veracity of his reports. Could experienced RS hands please set forth the relevant policy on this for that editor's benefit. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

News 0404 does not profess a bias or attempt to make a point on their "about" page.[41] There is absolutely nothing wrong with sources in languages other than English (unless the standards changed over the last couple of years). However, their over-eagerness to embrace social media, a limited staff, and some potential sensationalism is worth being concerned. Hard to say without knowing the exact edit in question but, as usual, I would be surprised if whatever it is wasn't covered elsewhere and it probably isn't worth article space if it isn't.Cptnono (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

As I see we may follow on such RS considering 0404 as RS:

• jpost.com
• haaretz.co.il
• jewishpress.com --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• israelhayom.co.il --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• timesofisrael.com
• walla.co.il
• ynet.co.il

--Igorp_lj (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

So if the New York Times quoted Pravda, the citation ipso facto makes Pravda reliable for facts. Really, really. You should actually study Wikipedia practice and policy before making such queer inferences.Nishidani (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It's worse than that. Igorp's links are for mentions of 0404, not citations of it. Let's consider the first one (Jerusalem Post) for example. There are five hits. (1) Mention that 0404 posted a selfie of smiling settler youths who were "proud of themselves" after being arrested for violence against Arabs. (2) A credit to 0404 for a photoshopped image, no other mention. (3) Report of a complaint made against 0404 for publishing the private phone number of a politician leading to her harassment. (4) A mention of 0404 in an anonymous reader's letter. (5) Mention that 0404 posted a video. Out of all these, the only citation of 0404 for facts is the "proud of themselves" in (1), the rest are irrelevant or about 0404. Igorp, what is your excuse for posting such a misleading comment? Zero^talk 23:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Zero, regarding to jpost.com: you're only right, that jpost links are references only, but you missed one point: above mentioned comment is a copy from the article in jewishpress.com (not from my list and I'll add it too):

• "A passenger named Rina who travels on the Light Rail told the Hebrew-language 0404 website, “The Light Rail in the direction of Pisgat Ze’ev already terminates at Ammunition Hill and no longer enters the danger zone. The driver announces that the last stop is at Ammunition Hill, and tells everyone to disembark,” she said."
• A CityPass spokesperson confirmed the decision to 0404, saying it made sense in light of the reduced commuter ridership during the intermediate days of the Sukkot holiday".

So what would be your "excuse for posting such a misleading comment" (@Zero) based on one of my links only ? :)

Here are the references from others sites referenced either its pictures or as ~"according to news website 0404":

• http://www.haaretz.co.il/polopoly_fs/1.2106506.1377506285!/image/154803200.jpg_gen/derivatives/size_936xAuto/154803200.jpg
• http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/politics/1.2322693
• http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/politics/1.2308769
• http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/politics/1.2313194
• http://www.haaretz.co.il/gallery/art/1.2505736
• http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=12735
• http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=17667
• http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=20709
• http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=21475
• http://www.israelhayom.co.il/article/225015
• http://www.israelhayom.co.il/article/121391
• http://www.timesofisrael.com/righteous-dude-gives-back-nis-400000/
• http://cdn.timesofisrael.com/uploads/2014/05/jews-e1400184606101.jpg
• http://cdn.timesofisrael.com/uploads/2014/11/zoabi-e1415181343541.jpg
• http://www.timesofisrael.com/two-stabbed-in-attack-at-west-bank-supermarket/
• http://news.walla.co.il/item/2746626
• http://tech.walla.co.il/item/2729065
• http://news.walla.co.il/item/2760707
• http://news.walla.co.il/item/2760854
• http://news.walla.co.il/item/2799683
• http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4520357,00.html
• http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4556173,00.html
• http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4577339,00.html
• http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4434955,00.html
• http://images1.ynet.co.il/PicServer3/2013/11/09/4963295/496328901001590640360no.jpg
• http://images1.ynet.co.il/PicServer3/2013/09/30/4885763/488575901002769640360no.jpg
• http://images1.ynet.co.il/PicServer3/2013/08/04/4778592/47785851279959640360no.jpg

... --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani:, I only repeat here from my prev. reply to your comments:

• "Nishidani, as I already told you that your choice and approach to RS is very specific. For example I do not see any difference between either The Pyongyang Times from your reply here or Pravda from your RFS reply and your favorite Maan, what may write such passages as
  • "As a result, local youths sometimes respond by targeting vehicles belonging to settlers on the area's main roads"
• But I do not follow your practice and do not propose remove Maan refs from your article what is mainly based on its biased info.
• It's not reminding about Mondoweiss & +972 Magazine what you regularly try to "sale" here in Wiki. :(
• Again and essentially: I do not see any problem to use 0404's info with appropriate attribution. --Igorp_lj (talk) 19 January 2015"

--Igorp_lj (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

What's Israel Hayom doing there? It's run by a casino magnate, Sheldon Adelson, explicitly to undermine Israel's mainstream newspapers (free distribution) and support one politician, Binjamin Netanyahu. It utterly fails WP:RS, and its use of .0404 doesn't validate that site.

Igorp, as I have said elsewhere, very high standards are placed on the use of any website, of long-standing notability and often cited in scholarly works, which is deemed to have a favourable view of Palestinians. On Wikipedia, any material re Palestinians is expected to be sourced to mainstream newspapers, even if that means they are mainly Israeli or pro-Israeli. This high bar is never mentioned if there is a dispute about the use of unknown Israeli or Jewish, marginal, contributor-compiled websites with an agenda. I usually don't complain about editors using on occasion Arutz Sheva, Jewish Press com and Algemeiner Journal, though like .0404 they are certainly nowhere adequate with WP:RS rules regarding the sourcing of facts, being frequently opinionated or rumour-mongering, and directed at particular community audiences. One cannot have it both ways, opposing anything but mainstream sources for Palestinians, while accepting any source for Israelis. This practice violatesd WP:NPOV by its deleterious effects to maintain underreportage on one of the two parties to an historic dispute. It's methodological hypocrisy. Ma'an is the regular, Western funded and independent Palestinian newssite, and is essentially unrhetorical and factual. There is no parallel between it, and private websites like .0404. lastly, please await for experienced independent commentary here.Nishidani (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Real news organisations have their own means of fact checking and their own standards for citing claims from unreliable sources. Our standards are very clear; we aren't allowed to cite unreliable sources for facts at all. As Nishidani has spelt out with his usual eloquence, being quoted in a reliable source does not make something reliable. 0404 is a site where anyone, even you or me, can sign up and post "news stories" after signing an agreement that the site won't be held responsible for them. As far as wiki-reliability goes, it is hard to get lower than that. This source is not going to be accepted; you need to get over it. Zero^talk 12:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

So one claim gone, and next came. :) Now I'd ask both you to evaluate above-mentioned quote from Nishidani's Maan - is it suatable for RS or no:

• "As a result, local youths sometimes respond by targeting vehicles belonging to settlers on the area's main roads"

and to let me know what kind of "their own means of fact checking and their own standards" (@Zero) it has? --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Veterans Today

Is this website http://www.veteranstoday.com/ a reliable site for reference? How about this one http://en.shafaqna.com/?

Typically you should note the article where the source is being used and what content it's being used to support. That said, Veterans Today seems like it meets the guidelines. I couldn't find any information about editorial control for the second website. TimidGuy (talk) 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Secondary vs primary sources for population genetics in Mexicans of European descent

HI, another editor and I are having a disagreement about sourcing in the article Mexicans of European descent. Brief intro, then I will show the current content and the content I proposed.

Intro: The content we want to include is about Genetic genealogy in Mexico, particularly for Mexicans of european descent. The current content is based on old, WP:PRIMARY sources, one of which is just a conference abstract. I introduced content from a recent WP:SECONDARY source and it was reverted by Aergas.

In my view, all WP's content policies strongly urge us to use recent secondary sources (see WP:OR and WP:NPOV) as does the WP:RS guideline.

On Talk, Aergas had:

• 1) claimed that the secondary source is "incorrect" because it has sample bias, (see the diff for Aergas' analysis of that, which in my view is WP:OR). When I asked for a source for the analysis and claim that the source is incorrect, Aergas just reiterated his argument that the source is "incorrect".
• 2) He then made an argument that the source is "is focused in Amerindian genetic diversity". I replied that the source is called "Interethnic admixture and the evolution of Latin American populations" and as its abstract says, "A general introduction to the origins and history of Latin American populations is followed by a systematic review of the data from molecular autosomal assessments of the ethnic/continental (European, African, Amerindian) ancestries for 24 Latin American countries or territories.".
• 3) in response to my citing PAG on secondary sources, Aergas wrote that use of secondary sources is "not mandatory" and when I asked for a good reason not to use the recent secondary source, Aergas continued his argument about the secondary source being incorrect due to sample bias.

• current content, with its sources:

Despite that extra-official sources estimate the modern white population of Mexico to be only 9-16%, in genetic studies Mexico consistently shows a European admixture comparable to countries that report white populations of 52% - 77% (in the case of Chile and Costa Rica, who average 51% & 60% European admixture respectively, while studies in the general Mexican population have found overall European ancestry at 58.96% ranging from 56% to 50-60%, and up to 78% ).

• proposed content, with its source:

A 2014 publication summarizing population genetics research in Mexico, which have included three nationwide surveys and several region-specific surveys, found that in the studies done to date, "Amerindian ancestry is most prevalent (51% to 56%) in the three general estimates, followed by European ancestry (40% to 45%); the African share represents only 2% to 5%.... In Mexico City, the European contribution was estimated as 21% to 32% in six of the seven reports, with the anomalous value of 57% obtained in a single sample of 19 subjects. European ancestry is most prevalent in the north (Chihuahua, 50%; Sonora, 62%; Nuevo León, 55%), but in a recent sample from Nuevo León and elsewhere in the country, Amerindian ancestry is dominant."

Please comment on the sourcing issues here. Should we use a pile of old primary sources or a recent secondary source? Note - I am very open to changing the content based on the secondary source - the focus here is on sourcing. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

This is almost more of a weight question somewhat. In terms of reliability though, we are in no position to assess whether a study is "correct" or not. Guidelines like WP:MEDRS (though this isn't a medical topic) explicitly state "Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions." That single piece is applicable to all areas of science on Wikipedia though. The secondary source is indeed reliable and there is no reason to dismiss it for the specific content. To strike the secondary source in favor of the primary sources would be ignoring how scientific research works (i.e., ideas change as time progresses). I wouldn't consider a conference abstract a reliable source (no peer-review), and if the newer secondary source is at odds with old primary sources, I wouldn't consider the primary sources reliable for asserting those specific facts anymore. In terms of weight without digging into content (WP:NPOVN would be better suited for that), we'd generally need another secondary source if this secondary source was going to be supplanted. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking (quickly) at ref 4 in the old text: Geographic Patterns of Genome Admixture in Latin American Mestizos|journal=Plos genetics |date=2008-03-21 , I can't see where the 56% figure it supports is. The averages in Table 1 aren't that. Go with the new, i'd say, though the wording for what the figures actually represent needs clarifying (as in the old version). Wiki CRUK John (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll add another somewhat off-topic response: I doubt that the average reader will understand what the article says there. Does that mean that all Mexicans have a mix of 55% native Amerindian genes, 40% European genes, and 5% African genes? Or does it mean that 55% of the Mexicans are 100% native Amerindian, 40% are 100% European, and 5% are 100% African? The answer is presumably somewhere in between, but I think that different readers will understand that passage differently. It might be more useful (if you can find sources for it) to say something like "10% of Mexicans are believed to have pure Amerindian ancestry. 5% are believed to have pure European ancestry, and 5% have pure African ancestry. Most Mexicans have a mix of genes from different continents. On average, they have somewhat more Amerindian ancestry than European genes." (or something like that). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

"Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions." is very important and secondary sources should always prevail--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Safety of electronic cigarettes

1. A 2014 Postgraduate Medical Journal stated that e-cigarettes have concentrated liquids that are packed in colorful containers and combined with flavors that appear to be made to attract children. The flavors include Gummy Bears and bubble gum. It was concluded that it is recommended that e-cigarettes be kept in a safe place, where children and pets do not have access them.
2. A 2014 Postgraduate Medical Journal stated that the proponents of e-cigarettes assert that nicotine is "as safe as caffeine".it has become clear that this is not true.
3. A 2014 Postgraduate Medical Journal stated that proponents frequently assert that e-cigarettes is only water vapor.this is not true.

• McKee, M. (2014). "Electronic cigarettes: peering through the smokescreen". Postgraduate Medical Journal. 90 (1069): 607–609. doi:10.1136/postgradmedj-2014-133029. ISSN 0032-5473. PMID 25294933.

Is the [ Postgraduate Medical Journal] reliable to use at Safety of electronic cigarettes for the claims above. According to WP:RS/MC, Being a "medical source" is not an intrinsic property of the source itself; a source becomes a medical source only when it is used to support a medical claim. It is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge. For the non-medical claims above I think this source is reliable for the claims. For example, stating that there are flavors that include Gummy Bears and bubble gum and claims made by advocates or proponents are non-medical claims.

According to WP:RSOPINION, Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. I prefer to include in-text attribution to the source as above for the non-medical claims. QuackGuru (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

There has already been a long discussion on this source link QuackGuru has not informed the other editors involved of bringing this here. The source is an Editorial and he is seeking to use it on a medical page, in a medical section. AlbinoFerret 05:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

In terms of reliability, an editorial in a journal (much different than a newspaper) would be a hazy middle ground between a primary source and a review article. The article is still doing a review in a secondary source fashion, but authors tend to be able to be allowed more flexibility it stating their own opinions, and generally it's just the editor determining if it's appropriate for publication.In a review, a statement needs to be much more concretely supported by sources, is peer-reviewed, etc. Seeing some of the stuff that gets into editorials in journals though, I wouldn't consider them reliable to the point of in text attribution, but definitely for a opinion. You can still have fringe opinions in editorials, so weight would really need to be considered for including the opinion in the article. If we're talking about in-text attribution, we really should be reaching for those designated as review articles and not editorials. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If there are important aspects of this editorial that should go into the article, then it should be sourced from some more reliable review articles. And if these aspects cannot be sourced from other secondary sources... then there is a problem. Because then both weight and reliability speak against using those aspects. --Kim D. Petersen 18:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not saying there's anything inherently unreliable about the source that would preclude its content from the article. It's still a kind of secondary source that can take the position of a WP:NOTEWORTHY opinion (i.e., some scientists think X) unless there are other sources brought to the table that establish it as a fringe idea. Basically, it's reliable enough for inclusion, but it needs to be stated not in Wikipedia's voice and probably closer to how it's currently presented as the opinion on behalf of the journal. The "not true" bit in the last two lines though is begging for an explanation, so either the why behind that not true needs to be added (still in the statement of the opinion from the source if it has it), or else a review is needed to back the claim up if fact is going to be asserted.

I should also point out I was thinking more about letters to the editor in my above post. Since this is actually an editorial, it's a bit more reliable towards asserting fact, but still not enough for Wikipedia's voice. Definitely reliable enough for saying there's a significant minority (at a minimum) when determining weight though without competing sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Well there is a consensus consisting of every editor, including Doc James with the only exception being QG, for not using that source at the article. So it doesn't really matter. And general consensus on E-cig articles is that only full reviews are used for medical information. So why QG brings it here is rather curious. --Kim D. Petersen 20:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Kim D. Petersen wrote "And general consensus on E-cig articles is that only full reviews are used for medical information." I agree we should use review articles not editorials for medical information. That's not the issue here. I want to use the source for mundane claims there are not specifically about medical information. I think there is no argument being made not to use this source for non-medical claims. Consensus is based on the arguments not a vote. So what is the reason not to use a reliable source for non-medical claims when there was in-text attribution to the journal? The text was not asserted as fact. QuackGuru (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

In terms of non-medical vs. non-medical, 1. (just added formatting to your original post) would be non-medical and is pretty mundane as you say, and 3. could be hazy since it is about chemistry, but it relates to health. 2. definitely would be medical content though. At RSN, we don't really care what the consensus is at the article; we're here to just give outside input on reliability. How(if) you all use the source is more of a weight question that's better left for elsewhere. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

How about only the proponents claim for 2? A 2014 Postgraduate Medical Journal stated that the proponents of e-cigarettes assert that nicotine is "as safe as caffeine". I striked the last part for both 2 and 3. I think the proponents view brings balance to the article. QuackGuru (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

That would still be a medical claim. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

1) A 2014 Postgraduate Medical Journal stated that e-cigarettes have concentrated liquids that are packed in colorful containers and combined with flavors that appear to be made to attract children. The flavors include Gummy Bears and bubble gum. It was concluded that it is recommended that e-cigarettes be kept in a safe place, where children and pets do not have access them.

3) A 2014 Postgraduate Medical Journal stated that proponents frequently assert that e-cigarettes is only water vapor.

1 is non-medical and 3 is the assertion of the proponents. I shortened 3 from the original wording. Is the Postgraduate Medical Journal reliable for these claims? QuackGuru (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Find another source for your information - just as has been repeated again and again on the talk-page. You can't just dismiss consensus... that would be gaming the system. [never mind the fact that it isn't the "postgraduate medical journal" that makes these claims - but Martin McKee] --Kim D. Petersen 23:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if you could get around consensus, which you cant. 1 is a medical claim because it is warning of dangers of ingestion of a chemical. AlbinoFerret 23:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it would be the opinion of the journal, hence the distinction between an editorial versus a letter to the editor. The latter would be strictly the opinion of McKee, but the former is commissioned and approved of by the journal itself. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: now that is a curious assertion. Do you have any evidence that this is the case for BMJ editorials - because it certainly isn't the general case - here for instance is the JAMA description of what an editorial in medical journals is[42]:

Editorials in medical journals are short essays that express the views of the authors, often regarding a research or review article published in the same issue. Editorials provide perspective on how the current article fits with other information on the same topic.

And considering that - i'd like you to expand a bit on that. --Kim D. Petersen 00:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

In fact for the Postgraduate medical journal the description is[43]:

Editorials should deal with contemporary issues of importance to clinicians. Their content can be clinical, social, political, legal or related to research issues. Although they may be controversial, they should attempt to provide a balanced view. Editorials provide a personal view and, as such, will not be routinely submitted to peer review.

The underlined part is mine. So please expand how these represent the view of the journal? --Kim D. Petersen 01:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Read at the end under Footnotes. The source said it is a "Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed."[44] QuackGuru (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't change that editorials are "personal view[s]", as has already been stated on the talk page. And internal peer-review is not real peer-review QG. (not that it would've changed it if it had been through real peer-review) --Kim D. Petersen 01:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Opinion of the journal, which is why they have the internal peer-review. Remember that editorials generally are intended to reflect the view of the publisher, not just the author. If it was just a letter to the editor (journals have those too) it wouldn't be peer-reviewed. That being said, the section Kim D. found on personal views is interesting. That seems to suggest the journal blurs the two a bit and also calls what's normally letters to the editor editorials too. However, that they specifically state the editorial was both commissioned and internally reviewed suggests the journal's approval in the form of what we'd typically call an editorial in most journals I'm familiar with at least. If it was volunteered and not reviewed, it'd be a letter to the editor and the opinion of strictly the author. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: According to both JAMA and the PMJ the major difference between editorials and letters is length, with editorials being essay length. For both publishing companies, editorials are not the views of the journal. So you will have to demonstrate that editorials (in medical publishing) is the view of the journal. I've done my part in demonstrating that it certainly isn't the case in the PMJ (or the JAMA line of) journal[s]. Therefore we cannot state this is the view of the journal, and we have to treat it as the views of its author - since that is what is verifiable. --Kim D. Petersen 07:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

One more case where we should stick to citing opinions as opinions. Opinions from notable persons are citable as opinions from notable persons. Opinions in editorial columns are still opinions. And if there is a consensus that the opinions are not from a notable person, and are not an official view of a publication, than it is a matter of editorial discussion as to whether to use the opinions. The gist is at the end of the column where it is clear that the author is opposed to tobacco companies "reinventing themselves as legitimate businesses" which is not a "medical statement" but a strongly political statement. Usable if cited as opinion ascribed to its (non-notable) author, not to the publication. And subject to the consensus of other editors. Were this a column by a notable person I would more strongly suggest consensus ought to allow its use. Collect (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• I remind all that Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion... yes, the source may reliably verify that the author of the source has an opinion on E-cigs... However, that is not the real issue here. The issue is whether the article should mention that opinion in the first place. That is a question of DUE WEIGHT and editorial consensus. Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

RS issues at G. Edward Griffin

While there is an RfC (dated 3 January 2015) still ongoing at Talk:G. Edward Griffin#Survey, it is a separate issue that references only the first line of the lede. The requester provided a list of sources which he included with his RfC statement (which I've not seen done before now) but I am mentioning them here as the proper venue for RS discussion. I believe the overwhelmingly negative influence that was created by poorly sourced contentious material has resulted in a WP:COATRACK. It prevents Griffin from advancing as a potential GA candidate, which is my primary interest. I doubt it would pass a less stringent DYK review as it is now. A few involved editors are actually OK with the article as is, and don't appear to have any problems maintaining the SQ which is why I brought the RS issues here.

Sources supported as reliable that have raised question

Some of the sources contain less than notable mention of Griffin (not even qualifying as trivial) but are still being used to justify contentious material in this BLP.

• [45] - Srich32977 parsed the first 5 sources footnoted in the lede. Below is an indented list with some of the same sources plus two more:
  • [46] - only parenthetical mention in a totally unrelated article;
  • [47] - partisan bias that was used to criticize the subject, therefore Beck can be used to dispute it;
  • [48] - partisan bias actually aimed at criticizing Ron Paul using Griffin to do so;
  • [49] - passing mention which contains two references to Griffin, the first listing Griffin as an "author, lecturer, filmmaker", the 2nd referencing conspiracy-theorist;
  • [50] - May 1979 - RS, but antiquated. See MSKCC below;
  • [51] - Feb 1984 - RS, but antiquated. See MSKCC and PUBMED below which were criticized as unreliable sources;

Other questionable sources, some of which don't pass the smell test for WP:RS but are used in the article to justify contentious material:

• [52] - Popular Paranoia cited in the last sentence of the lede.
• [53] - An old archive of Public Eye (partisan website along the lines of Media Matters) used to discredit the BLP. Their disclaimer states: "Please remember that this is an archive of an older website for researchers, and it is not being updated. Therefore, much of the material here is not current."
• [54] - NIH (1984) report used to justify the term, "a canonical example of quackery", with regards to a topic in Griffin's book, World Without Cancer. Note: While I do not dispute proven science to be the prevailing view, there were approaches to 30 yo research that no longer apply in the 21st Century, therefore citations using updated scientific research are more desirable, correct?
• Inclusion of inline templates for not in citation given or citation needed in the article itself.

Sources that were criticized as not reliable that have raised question

The following sources have, for the most part, been criticized as not RS for citing even generalizations of positive reviews about Griffin as an author and lecturer. I suggested using them to balance (NPOV, V, UNDUE, BLP) what critics have alleged about Griffin and his books:

• [55] Forbes - (ranked 75 US Alexa) - This battle continued up through the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, whose rather dubious creation was nicely described in G. Edward Griffin’s book The Creature from Jekyll Island.
• [56] RT - (67 Russia, 382 Global) - Griffin also takes us back in time, and reminds us how the Fed even came to be – the money trust meeting in secret on Jekyll Island in order to draft a cartel agreement that would eventually be known as the "Federal Reserve Act. RT is consistently under scrutiny by its competitors and critics. Their nominations for an International Emmy as a top News Source is a recognition given by "a membership-based organization comprised of leading media and entertainment figures from over 50 countries and 500 companies from all sectors of television including Internet, mobile and technology."
• [57] NPR.org - (129 US Alexa) - quote by Senator Bunning to Bernanke: You put the printing presses into overdrive to fund the government's spending and hand out cheap money to your masters on Wall Street. Your Fed has become the Creature from Jekyll Island. Thank you.
• [58] Natural News - (2,023 US Alexa)
• [59] GoldSilver.com - (ranked 22,303 US Alexa). G. Edward Griffin is an American film producer, author, and political lecturer. He is best known as the author of The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look At The Federal Reserve, a critique of much modern economic theory and practice, specifically the Federal Reserve System.
• [60], Casey Research - (35,748 US Alexa)
• [61], The Daily Bell - (49,221 US Alexa)
• [62] Financial Sense - (ranked 49,730 US Alexa). "Listed in Who’s Who in America, he is well known because of his talent for researching difficult topics and presenting them in clear terms that all can understand. One of his best-known books is his critical history of the beginnings of the Federal Reserve, The Creature from Jekyll Island.
• [63] Corbett Report - (88,282 US Alexa) - not to be confused with TV's Colbert
• [64] Social Studies of Science, an international peer reviewed academic journal — May, 1979 - Vol 9, pgs 139-166;
• [65] - update from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center which states: With the recent discovery of anticancer properties of amygdalin through previously unknown mechanisms (12) (13) (14) (15) (16), there is renewed interest in developing this agent as an anticancer treatment.
  • [66] - PUBMED — Anti-tumor promoting effect of glycosides from Prunus persica seeds. (see MSKCC update);
  • [67] - PUBMED — Amygdalin inhibits genes related to cell cycle in SNU-C4 human colon cancer cells. (see MSKCC update);
  • [68] - PUBMED — Amygdalin induces apoptosis in human cervical cancer cell line HeLa cells. (see MSKCC update);
  • [69] - PUBMED — Amygdalin isolated from Semen Persicae (Tao Ren) extracts induces the expression of follistatin in HepG2 and C2C12 cell lines. (see MSKCC update);
  • [70] - PUBMED — Amygdalin blocks bladder cancer cell growth in vitro by diminishing cyclin A and cdk2. (see MSKCC update);
  • [71] - PUBMED — which states This small study indicates that amygdalin in the doses employed produces few clinical side effects. A definite hazard of cyanide toxic reaction must be assumed, however, and possible long-term side effects remain unknown.
• [72] which documents this particular doctor's clinical history, and what inspired Griffin's book;
• [73] only as a general reference to statements in the thesis that are well-sourced;
• [74] October 2008 research by Giuseppe Nacci, M.D., 500 pgs from EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE: 1,700 official scientific publications 1,750 various bibliographical references with particular emphasis on pgs 17-25, and pgs 159-166 (which includes documented case histories);

Disclaimer - Griffin is a BLP, but one of the books he has written brings PS-Fringe into play. I am not advocating for laetrile (amygdalin, B17) by any means, and I certainly am not suggesting that we, as editors, promote Griffin's book, World Without Cancer, as the end-all cure for cancer. Hell no! I am simply asking the community for input re: RS. My only purpose here is to fix the WP:COATRACK problem created by poorly sourced contentious material, not all of which is PS. I hope to provide proper balance (without WP:UNDUE) by citing sources I listed above to balance the criticism cited by questionable sources used to justify contentious material. I realize BLPs and PS-Fringe are hot topics, which is another reason I'm looking for input from uninvolved editors. If I have misstated anything, please advise and I will be happy to correct it. Thank you. Atsme☯^Consult 23:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

No offense, but things are likely to go better if you can condense this down a bit. Cut the obvious dross (Natural News, goldandsilver.com, etc.) so that we can focus on the sources requiring more thought. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thx, Boris - I probably could have gotten away with listing a few of the PUBMED sources. If one is considered a RS, they all are, right? Atsme☯^Consult 23:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme: My comments here are general notes; I have not specifically examined the sources provided here. I am only posting this to clarify some apparent misconceptions about how sources and reliability work.

A common misunderstanding among editors who don't have a medical or scientific background is that PubMed is a 'source' or publisher; it is not. PubMed is just a really big index (sort of like a library catalog) that collects citation information for a vast amount of science- and medicine-related content from thousands of different journals. So of this material is of high quality, some...not so much. For instance, the first "PubMed" link above (this one) is just a pointer to a catalog entry for a 2003 paper by Fukuda et al. published originally in Biological & pharmaceutical bulletin.

A second common misconception is that a source can be declared "reliable", and that declaration is a fixed, absolute judgement. Reliability depends both on the source itself and on how it is used. This board cannot provide a blanket approval that a source is reliable for all purposes. Some of the most important guidelines for evaluating the use of specific sources to support specific claims can be found in WP:MEDRS. (Of course, a source can be reliable for a particular claim and yet still be omitted from an article for reasons of (ir)relevance, undue weight, or to avoid implying conclusions not actually supported. The greater context of the article matters.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thx, for that explanation. So with reference to "greater context", any passing mention or parenthetical mention (trivial) would not be supported, correct? Is there a statement regarding trivial mention somewhere other than establishing notability, or would it apply anywhere? Atsme☯^Consult 00:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not precisely sure what you're asking. Are you trying to establish notability of a topic – that is, whether or not there is enough material out there to create a proper Wikipedia article – or are you asking about reliability—that is, whether or not a given source supports a particular claim in an article? Those are two often very different questions.

This noticeboard is for addressing questions of reliability. If you read the instructions that appear at the top of this page whenever you edit it (or whenever you create a new section), you'll find three specific pieces of information that you should provide with any request here: a clear identification of the source you would like to use, the article where you would like to use it, and – and this is important – the specific text that you would like to use it to support.

Consider what you see when reading the introduction to an academic paper. You'll read a sentence (or paragraph), and then you'll see a footnote or other citation that identifies the source for the assertions in the preceding text. That's the type of information that we need here, on this noticeboard, to evaluate the question of reliability. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a huge laundry list, and it's not really our job to sort through those at RSN as you present. Instead, you need to specify the specific content either used or proposed and ask whether a one specific or handful of sources is reliable for that specific content. We can't give blanket statements of reliability without the content as TenOfAllTrades mentioned. That's why we have the note at the top of the page under "Before posting, please be sure to include the following information. . ." As it appears you were told at the article talk page, you need to base the discussion on a specific piece of content, so pay special attention to "3. Content. The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting. . ." Otherwise we can't really do anything at RSN to help until we have that specific context. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)