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

Are they reliable sources

http://www.sps-automotive.com/en_sps/track/07Nt_zonda.html http://twinrev.com/cars/Fastest-Production-car-supercars-20.6km-Nurburgring-lap-times-under-9-03.30-7119945 http://www.mobisux.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3096509 http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/nordschleife http://www.zeperfs.com/en/classement-ci1.htm I have verified nurburgring laptimes in those site all the laptimes existing there seem to be correct.

Chinese tank pages and Chinese news sites

Type 99 talk page

Hi. I'm a new user here so I'm not very familiar with the rules but it seems like the the Type 99 pages has been embroiled in a back and forth and edits. Thus I seek clarification about a particular contentious source here.

Documentary This biographical documentary/interview of the Type 99's lead designer by CCTV has labelled propaganda and thus unreliable. I find it disturbing because although the documentary was filmed to achieve some kind of propaganda purpose, the source was not cited to support propaganda but to support other sources in explaining the development of the Type 99 tank.

I understand that CCTV has been in the news for continuous gaffes and being a state mouthpiece in general. But shouldn't this film be treated as a primary source first and foremost? The separation of fact and fiction would be harder than other news media but until contradictory information appears, must we not take the state media at face value? Shouldn't prefixing an "according to" or "it was claimed by" be sufficient, as seen by other claims on the page made by non-Chinese sources?

Maan News

Source. Maan News ['Locals: Settlers prevent Palestinian farmers from olive harvest,' Ma'an News Agency 31 October 2015]. Article. [[List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015]. Content. : **Farmers in Burin were blocked from harvesting their olives by settlers, who reportedly also stole olives and agricultural equipment in the Bab Sanna area of Burin,<

Is this source reliable for this claim?Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be? Also, to be clear, Ma'an is reporting what locals in Burin said and attributing the info in the quote you mention above to those locals. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

See for serious questions regarding their reliability. It looks like NGO Monitor and Palestinian Media Watch have found serious cases of quoting untrue reports and for espousing hate propaganda. I suggest they are not used as reliable sole sources for Wikipedia articles.

References

{{reflist-talk}} template added by GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 16:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Wiki is not a reliable source. The NYTs article mentions Ma'an Network which uses a Ynet video, hardly anything in this checks out. They do not cite the Ma'an newspaper on line we use, which is far more cautious. By the same token, all Israeli newspapers we use are not RS because in at least 7 cases they have unanimously reported throughout the day that a 'terrorist' was killed in a stabbing attack in cases where it is known or suspected no attack occurred or appears to be underway when the 'terrorists' are killed. Amnesty International has made the point. For that matter, the NYTs is not a RS, either, by these standards.Nishidani (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Every source in this area has critics. Ma'an News is routinely quoted in major media, including Vox, NYT, Wash Post, Guardian, Al-Jazeera, and Israeli newspapers, like JPost, Times of Israel. Links can be found by simply Googling for them, so I am not giving them explicitly. There is absolutely no evidence that Ma'an is unreliable in general. If there is evidence that it is unreliable in this particular case, one should provide it. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about the Arabic language site (whcih seems to be the focus of the thread you linked to), but the English language version of Ma'an News is a very valuable source for detailed coverage of the Palestinian territories and is a source of local (and sadly routine) stories that major international news simply don't cover. In the same way that Israeli news networks have value for local coverage of Israel, Ma'an News is valuable to the news coverage of Palestine. Nothing to me indicates that Ma'an is unreliable, even with that recent story where they reported a Palestinian teenager had been killed by Israeli soldiers, instead of wounded. Most news sites have made mistakes here and there, but that doesn't classify them as unreliable. If there is a real pattern of false or exaggerated reporting or racism, then I would consider that there is a real problem with reliability. That has not been demonstrated and again, I'm referring to the English language version. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Peter Dale Scott

1. Source. Peter Dale Scott's essay "Launching the U.S. Terror War: the CIA, 9/11, Afghanistan, and Central Asia; Bush’s Terror War and the Fixing of Intelligence".
2. Article. Safari Club
3. Content.

a) "Jimmy Carter discussed public concerns over secrecy in his campaign, and when he took office in January 1977 he attempted to reign in the scope of covert CIA operations."

b) "Thus even as Carter's new CIA director Stansfield Turner attempted to limit the scope of the agency's operations, Shackley, his deputy Thomas Clines, and agent Edwin P. Wilson secretly maintained their connections with the Safari Club and the BCCI."

After explaining that the War on Terror should be called "Bush's Terror War", Scott writes: "This essay will demonstrate that before 9/11 a small element inside the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit and related agencies, the so-called Alec Station Group, were also busy, 'fixing' intelligence by suppressing it, in a way which, accidentally or deliberately, enabled the Terror War." He heavily cites not only himself but 9/11 conspiracy authors Anthony Summers, Kevin Fenton, John Farmer, Jr., and an article in 911Truth.org by truthers Rory O'Connor (filmmaker) and Ray Nowosielski.

Regarding the content in question, the only statement in the article that mentions Jimmy Carter, Stansfield Turner, Theodore Shackley, or Thomas Clines states: "Then senior CIA officers and ex-officers (notably Richard Helms), who were dissatisfied with the CIA cutbacks instituted under Jimmy Carter’s CIA director, Stansfield Turner, organized an alternative network, the so-called Safari Club. Subordinated to intelligence chiefs from France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and (under the Shah) Iran, the Safari Club provided a home to CIA officers like Theodore Shackley and Thomas Clines, who had been marginalized or fired by CIA Director Turner." Edwin P. Wilson is not even mentioned in the article. Thanks! - Location (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Not rs. The main determinant of rs is the publication, whether or not it has a record of fact-checking. If it does not then it then the articles it publishes should generally not be used. It is best anyway to avoid claims that only appear in obscure or non-mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Bob Mosher

Source: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=65438816

Article: Bob Mosher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This source was recently added to the page to source the names of Mosher's parents. However, the edits adding the source also removed any mention of Mosher being Jewish (backed up by another source of dubious reliability), presumably because the source claims the elder Mosher to be an Episcopalian. My instinct is that Find A Grave is unreliable due to its user-editable nature, but I'd like to get a few other opinions if possible. clpo13_(talk) 03:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC announce: What does Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) cover?

There is a request for comments at [ Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#What does MEDRS cover? ].

At issue is whether the lead paragraph OF WP:MEDRS should remain...

"Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."

...or whether it should be changed to...

"Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical and health information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."

This has the potential to change the sourcing policy from WP:RS to WP:MEDRS on a large number of Wikipedia pages, so please help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Is Breitbart reliable for its own opinion.

My understanding is that a source is generally always reliable for its own opinion, but numerous people at Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian#Censoring_any_criticism appear to contest that. Is Breitbart reliable for the statement: The conservative website, Breitbart, was critical of Sarkeesian's ability as an art critic. sourced to "Let's Stop Pretending Anita Sarkeesian Is an Art Critic". Breitbart. Retrieved 2015-11-03. Thanks, Second Quantization (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart is generally considered a questionable or unreliable source, especially when it comes to claims about living persons. The publication is also not known for its opinions regarding art criticism. It would not be appropriate to source claims about a living person to a non-expert questionable/unreliable source. Woodroar (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart is about as unreliable a source as it is possible to be. Per WP:RS a reliable source has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Breitbart has a reputation for fabrication and defamation; and should never, ever, be used to source what seems to be criticism of a living person. Daveosaurus (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Not a reliable source as the above users have already stated. It is especially not reliable when it comes to BLP's. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying we can't rely on Breitbart to reliably report their own opinion despite WP:NEWSORG ("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")? Second Quantization (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Plenty of people have their own opinions, but that doesn't mean we must include them, especially when the sources aren't experts. In addition, claims regarding living persons require a higher standard for sourcing, fact versus mere opinion. Woodroar (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that this is not a statement by Breitbart about its own opinion but by Mytheos Holt about his own opinion. Not that that changes the arguments above greatly. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Opinion sources are generally usable for opinions cited as opinions. Those who think that a source can not be used for its own opinions are mistaken. For material about celebrities in any nation on earth, it is hard to find any truly reliable source for contentious facts or claims of fact. Mao was a reliable source for the opinions of Mao - yet I would not use him for claims of fact about his reign (yes - I know he is dead, but I am referring to written opinions here). If the issue is "what is art criticism?", then we may consider whether the person (apparently Mytheos Holt) holding the opinion is notable enough for his or her opinions about what is or is not art criticism (in the case at hand whether the person holding an opinion can state that the material is not construed by him as art criticism), but that has nothing to do with whether the opinion is printed by the NYT or the Daily Mail - the opinion at issue belongs to the person voicing it, not to the publisher. One might note this is exactly the same position I cite for all such matters and sources from RT onwards. Collect (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

A lot of ink was spilled on pretty much the same question last year.[1][2][3][4][5] Rhoark (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Do we have an FAQ section, we really need an FAQ section --ℕ ℱ 02:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Even bothering to mention somebody's opinion of somebody else's art criticism as posted on breitbart.com is a violation of WP:UNDUE anyway. A reputable art critic, published in a reputable, reliable source: that might be relevant to the article. But breitbart.com is not known for discussion of artistic issues any more than Juggs is known for tofu recipes. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Give In to Me

There is a dispute over whether to include Slash as a featured artist on this song. The single cover (not to mention the Discogs entry) indeed has Slash listed, but some users disagree. (I brought the issue here because that article's talk page doesn't see much activity.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources on Presley

Recently multiply removed from Toilet-related injuries and deaths:

[[Elvis Presley]] was found dead on his bathroom floor on August 16, 1977. According to the medical investigator, Presley had "stumbled or crawled several feet before he died"; he had been using the toilet at the time. Elvis biographer Peter Guralnick writes, "It was certainly possible that he had died while 'straining at stool.' "<ref>Peter Guralnick, ''Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley'' (1999), p.651-652.</ref> Elvis' personal physician, Dr. George Nicopolous, wrote in his 2009 book, ''The King and Dr. Nick'' that "We believe Elvis died from a normal physiological event brought into play called 'Valsalva Maneuver.' This ... caused the heart to stop when the body strained. When Elvis compressed his abdominal aorta by straining, his heart, in response, went into arrhythmia and quit working suddenly." According to Guralnick, "the large intestine was clogged with fecal matter, indicating a painful and longstanding bowel condition. The bowel condition alone would have strongly suggested ... that drug use was heavily implicated in this unanticipated death ..."

Is this use of Guralnick and/or Nicopolous proper? (I ask here rather than on the article's talk page because there have recently been similar removals and replacements elsewhere.)

Pinging @Excelse, Onefortyone, and 182.77.82.62:. -- Hoary (talk) 07:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Several problems here:

• Onefortyone is misquoting the medical examiner, who merely conjectured that Elvis was using the toilet at the start of the ordeal based on the location of the vomit. The source then reads "it looked to the medical examiner as if he had 'stumbled or crawled several feet before he died'". We're definitively writing that Elvis was on the toilet and did stumble and crawl based on the conjecture of the medical examiner. That's a misinterpretation and misuse of Guralnick.
• It's Guralnick's own conjecture that Elvis died "straining at the stool" and is actually counter to the opinion of the medical examiner. Guralnick isn't an expert, and he's merely spreading a rumor based on zero scientific evidence. His opinion shouldn't be taken seriously or used to source text in an encyclopedia.
• Nicopolous seems to be OK to back up the claim that Elvis had a bowel condition, but it's not cited properly (I had to go searching for the page number) and it's being improperly mixed with Guralnick in violation of WP:SYNTH to come to the conclusion that Elvis died on the toilet.

In conclusion, Guralnick needs to be thrown out completely in this context and the bowel condition sections belongs elsewhere. This passage does not belong in this article. --Laser brain (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Apart from Guralnick and Nicopolous, several other independent sources say that Elvis died on the toilet, among them studies published by university presses. See [6]. Do you really think that these sources are not reliable enough? Onefortyone (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying that you're misinterpreting them or cherry-picking because you want to write that Elvis died on the toilet. The preponderance of what you've provided indicate that he was on the toilet (again, this is popular extrapolation from the medical examiner's conjecture and repeated across sources) and that he stumbled or crawled several feet before dying. So, he didn't "die on the toilet" and there is no scientific evidence to that effect. --Laser brain (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Not much about the source, I even failed to find many of these quotes if they exist or not. It is more about the information which is indeed unreliable. When we give such undue weight to these theories, we must also give similar weight to theories that the singer died from bone cancer, but that is clearly not going to take place. Excelse (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Excelse: I have found the quotations in the sources given without a problem, although I've come across a couple of page number mismatched. This may be attributable to different versions of the book. The real question is whether the sources are reliable (probably yes) and whether they're being used appropriately (likely not). --Laser brain (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Mainstream biographers are of the opinion that "Elvis died on the toilet". See Greil Marcus, Dead Elvis: A Chronicle of a Cultural Obsession (Harvard University Press 1991), p.154. If you have a problem with the fact that Elvis had a heart attack while straining at stool (a phenomenon called the Valsalva maneuver) and, after suddenly having risen from his wallhung ceramic toilet, stumbled or crawled several feet before he died, his pyjamas still being around his ankles (as is common when using the toilet), what about this version:

Elvis Presley presumably died while using the toilet in his bathroom. "Most sources indicate that Elvis was likely sitting in the toilet area, partially nude, and reading when he collapsed." See Joshua A. Perper and Stephen J. Cina, When Doctors Kill: Who, Why, and How (Springer Science 2010), p.211. One plausible cause is "a phenomenon called the Valsalva maneuver (essentially straining on the toilet leading to heart stoppage — plausible because Elvis suffered constipation, a common reaction to drug use)." See Frank Coffey, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Elvis (1997), p.247.

This wording, including direct quotes from some reliable sources, should cover the opinion of most medical examiners. Interestingly, the people around Elvis tried to hide the real cause of his death. Here is a statement by Billy Smith, Elvis' first cousin, cited in Alanna Nash, Elvis Aaron Presley: Revelations from the Memphis Mafia (1995): "we never really wanted to say this, but Elvis was actually sitting on the toilet, with his pajama bottoms down. His colon was bothering him. And he fell over, and, best I understand, he crawled several feet. So this was not an instantaneous death. Or a painless one. They know that from all these little hemorrhages he had from the waist up, where the blood vessels had burst after he fell. That goes along with a drug death." (p.719) Onefortyone (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Query: did user Excelse present irrefutable arguments for his massive removals of content? No, he didn't. Where are his reliable sources contradicting my edits? I have cited many independent sources supporting my view. And this is what counts on Wikipedia, not the personal opinions of some Elvis fans who don't like the circumstances of Elvis's death. Furthermore, it should be noted that it was another user who added some additional details to the article on 'Toilet-related injuries and deaths', quoting Elvis's personal physician, as the history of the article shows. See [7] and [8] These passages were also deleted by Excelse. Onefortyone (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we're making headway here. My main issue is that we not repeat various non-medical opinions or misquote sources. I like "Mainstream biographers are of the opinion" because that's precise and it doesn't suggest that the biographers are medical experts. --Laser brain (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)