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

Colin Heaton's biography of Hans-Joachim Marseille

The source in question is Heaton, Colin; Lewis, Anne-Marie (2012). The Star of Africa: The Story of Hans Marseille, the Rogue Luftwaffe Ace. London, UK: Zenith Press. ISBN 978-0-7603-4393-7.

It is used several times for lengthy paragraphs in Hans-Joachim Marseille#Marseille and Nazism to make the case that Marseille was "openly anti-Nazi". I have argued at Talk:Hans-Joachim Marseille#Evidence for Marseille's "anti-Nazi" stand that these passages in Heaton's bio are almost exclusively based upon personal reminiscences by former comrades and Nazi persona like Karl Wolff, Artur Axmann, Hans Baur and Leni Riefenstahl, which are renowned for being talkative about the Nazi era and being apologetic at that. Their stories are not supported by other sources, but in fact appear to be very unlikely, if not impossible. Heaton's gives dates which contradict themselves and commits obvious errors. The stories he relates about Corporal Mathew Letulu [sic!], i.e. Mathew P. Letuku, contradict much better documented secondary literature. Apart from interviews, possibly conducted by himself, which is difficult to tell given the rudimentary nature of the footnotes, Heaton relies almost exclusively on two biographies, one by military pulp writer Franz Kurowski, the other a "tribute" by some Robert Tate. Based upon this evidence Heaton draws far reaching conclusions, namely that "Marseille was perhaps the most openly anti-Nazi warrior in the Third Reich." (p. 4) Given its focus upon oral evidence, collected somewhat 40 (?) years after the events, its poor editing and obvious errors, I consider that biography to be an unreliable source that should not be used excessively (and it is used for many more dubious claims) in a GA in the English Wikipedia, because it is misleading.--Assayer (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that this source is very weak for an article on a Nazi era figure. I wouldn't have a problem with it being mentioned as "some biographies say", i.e. carefully attributed. It seems to be overused at the moment. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be usable only as evidence for what unreliable sources say, and I'd use it only when it is explicitly described as unreliable. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Nothing but opinions from an agenda-driven Wikipedia editor. Assayer wants Heaton off Wikipedia. He has failed to show Heaton unreliable. Those are the facts that matter.

I am also concerned with the comments from Itsmejudith. What do you know about the literature of aerial warfare in World War II? And how could you say that about a book you've never read?

I'd encourage people to have a look at the talk page of Hans-Joachim Marseille - where the complainant makes accusation and assertion with no evidence. Dapi89 (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

See WP:HISTRS. Popular books by non-historians are not reliable for the history of WW2. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• You are miss quoting what is a guideline; see section: What is historical scholarship. The question as to the book for evaluation is whether it is considered WP:RS or not; I do not know this work and therefore cannot offer an opinion. Kierzek (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, biographical works by academic historians on members of the Wehrmacht or SS below the rank of general can be numbered on the fingers of one hand, so WP:HISTRS is useless and we must fall back upon the traditional methods of evaluating a book and its author like use of primary sources, use of puffery or biased language, etc. All that requires actually reading the book more thoroughly than a Google snippet can allow. I've never read Heaton so I really don't know if I'd consider him RS or not. Personally, I'd be most interested to see what Wübbe has to say.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: On Wubbe, here's input from an editor familiar with this work: The book is 20% text and 80% pictures and copies of the original documents plus newspaper clippings. Source: User_talk:Dapi89/Archive_1#Hans Joachim Marseille. I.e. it's about 80% primary material, including unreliable war-time propaganda, and 20% commentary, also potentially unreliable given the slant of the publisher. The book was published by Verlag Siegfried Bublies -- de:Verlag Bublies, "a small, extreme-right publisher from Beltheim". K.e.coffman (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

He doesnt have a biography here, but from what I can google online he probably passes muster as a reliable source. Ex-military, ex-history professor, current historian and consultant for TV/Film on WW2. He is qualified in the area, has been published on the subject as well as earning a living from it for a significant time. If the only thing being held against him requires second-guessing him, thats not how WP:V works and is bordering on original research. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

As to the argument that Heaton is "qualified in the area": According to Heaton's own CV on his own commercial website he holds a BA and two MA degrees in history, was consultant and adjunct professor to the online American Military University and guest historian for a single episode of a History channel programme. That's not very impressive. What is more, I looked for reviews of his works and could not find much. It seems, however, that Heaton regularly uses "oral testimony" from people involved. That is stressed by Stephen M. Miller in a recent review of Heaton's Four-War Boer for the Journal of African History (2016), commenting that the information of the interviews are not substantiated in the text or in the notes ("unfortunately") and Horst Boog, reviewing Heaton's Night Fighters (which is his MA thesis at Temple Univ.) for the Militärgeschichtliche Zeitschrift (2010). Boog also points to numerous errors, for example Heaton's estimate of 1.2 million civillian German bomb victims. (The highest estimate is actually 635,000 victims, recent research (Richard Overy) estimates 353,000 victims.) I might add that by now I am challenging the reliability of the book for a certain, controversial characterization of Jochen Marseille. Thus one does not need to read the whole book (which I did), because I refer to a couple of pages which are cited at length in the article, I point to the sources and how they are used and I point to the language.--Assayer (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The above is a combination of original research which we dont do and actual genuine concerns. If multiple reliable sources have cast doubt on his credibility (critical reviews, peers countering his claims etc) then that does shed doubt on his useability in an article. Could you make a list of the sources critical of him/his book? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I've looked. Nothing. I did say earlier in this thread, this claim of unreliability is just an opinion of one editor. This type of personal attack on sources has been made across multiple threads and articles with the same old result. Heaton qualifies as reliable. Dapi89 (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to add that you could find critical reviews about facets of any one of these academics work, even Overy and Miller. Using the differentials in casualty figures, which vary among all academics is a weak argument (never mind what the latest, supposedly new, research has to say, which doesn't automatically make it accurate anyway). And can you define victims? Anyone who suffered a gash from an air attack can be considered a victim. Such vague descriptions are unhelpful. Opinions are also unhelpful. Assayer is well aware of what is required here. Does this editor have reviews that are directly critical or not? Dapi89 (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: Could you please elaborate where you draw the line between OR and "genuine concerns"? Neither do I use unpublished sources nor do I come to a conclusion on my own. I simply hold what Heaton says against what other published sources say. Isn't that what User:Sturmvogel 66 asks for, if we don't have biographical works by academic historians at hand? How else could we evaluate the reliability of a publication, that is ignored by historiographical works? Please do also take into account how the material sourced to Heaton's biography is presented in the article, namely as factual accounts. Of course this is what Heaton does in his work: He weaves lengthy quotations of various anecdotes related to him through interviews into a coherent narrative. These anecdotes are not supported by third party sources and Heaton does not discuss their reliability. Thus many of the information can only be traced to oral testimony. Do we have to accept that as reliable, simply because Heaton does?

@Dapi89: Although I chose to ignore your continuous personal attacks I have to say that remarks like "Anyone who suffered a gash from an air attack can be considered a victim" are highly inappropriate. And the literature on aerial warfare in World War II is not that "vague".--Assayer (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not an attack it is an observation on your behaviour. Those comments are entirely appropriate unless you feel the wounded don't count. I didn't say it was vague. I said you're vague. All this is hot air. You're trying to use discrepancies and differentials in accounts and figures, and unbelievably spelling differences (!!), to try and have an author discredited. OR is being kind. You're views are personal and tendentious. You're a polemist. End of story. Dapi89 (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

If Horst Boog, one of the most respected German authorities on aerial warfare during WW II, devotes a whole paragraph of his review to a list of errors, concluding that there were even more errors, then this does not add to an author's reliability as a source. I take notice that this biography is predominantly cosidered to be a "very weak" source, to say the least. One editor questioned the applicability of WP:HISTRS in cases such as this, while yet another considered the evaluation of certain claims against the background of other published sources as OR. The contradictions between these different approaches were not resolved. One editor rather commented on me than on the content, so that my evidence remains unchallenged. Maybe, as a piece of WP:FANCRUFT, the article in question is fittingly based upon anecdotes told by veterans and former Nazis. I find it troubling, however, that this is a GA by Wikipedia standards and short of FA status only because of the prose, not because of dubious content or unreliable sources.--Assayer (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I've previously raised concerns about Heaton on the Talk page (Talk:Hans-Joachim Marseille#Unreliable sources tag) as a WP:QS source, due to problematic POV he exhibited in one of his articles. He has called an action of a German commander an "act of humanity". A "daring raid" or "skillful military ruse" would be okay, but "an act of humanity"? That is just bizarre. (See: Talk:2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich#Heaton. Comment from another editor was: "Heaton removed as biased pov and non WP:RS").

A related question, does Heaton indeed cite Franz Kurowski in his work? If yes, how extensively? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

"the applicability of WP:HISTRS" Assayer, what applicability? The link leads to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history), which is an essay, neither policy, nor guideline. Per Wikipedia:Essays: "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community as they may be created without approval. Following the instructions or advice given in an essay is optional. There are currently about 2,000 essays on a wide range of Wikipedia related topics."

And this particular essay does not discount works of popular history: "Where scholarly works are unavailable, the highest quality commercial or popular works should be used." Dimadick (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dimadick: I did not bring WP:HISTRS up, but User:Itsmejudith. I did find that comment more helpful than others, though, because it provided at least some kind of guidance. I did not argue, however, that "highest quality commercial or popular works" should never be used. In general the comments during this discussion were contradictory. But how would you determine the quality of sources?

@K.e.coffman: Heaton considers Kurowski's bio of Marseille to be "very good" (p. xiv). Given the number of Heaton's footnotes I would say about a third of them refer to Kurowski. I did not check every footnote, what and how much material he borrowed. Heaton's main source are his interviews. In chapter 4 "Learning the Ropes", for example, there are 21 references, six refer to Kurowski, the rest refer to interviews.--Assayer (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dimadick: Does the editor consider Heaton to be high quality commercial / popular work? K.e.coffman (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

If you mean me, I am not particularly convinced of Heaton's quality. I just noted that the discussion was using an essay to ban popular history works. Dimadick (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Assayer and K.e.coffman have used Wikipedia to attack sources about any German serviceman who served in World War II if it dares to complement their personal bravery or service record. Coffman has opposed the advancement of these articles, namely the Knight's Cross lists and has deleted hundreds of articles about these recipients. It should come as no surprise that their singular agenda here is to degrade and delete portions of the article that doesn't fit with their opinions. Assayer in particular has scoured the internet for anything he can find that is critical of Heaton. The tiny and weak tidbits of those academic(s) (just the one?) that are critical of small aspects of his work is nowhere near enough to decry Heaton. Virtually nothing else.

This attack on Heaton should be treated for what it is: OR and opinion by a pair of anonymous internet users. And they don't get to decide who is admitted to Wikipedia and who isn't. I'm glad at least one other editor can see that. Dapi89 (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dapi89: "at least one other editor can see that" -- Which other editor is that? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I found a review of Heaton's book on Marseille from Aviation History. Mar 2013, Vol. 23 Issue 4, p62-62. 1/2p.. It reads in part:

• "Writing the biography of a 22-year-old, most of whose life remains undocumented, isn't easy. The only way to turn it into a book is lots of photographs (Kurowski's method) or this husband-and-wife team's choice, spending way too many pages reciting the exact details of 158 aerial combats…which in turn requires suspension of disbelief on the part of readers. How, exactly, did the authors know which rudder Marseille kicked and what the airspeed read, whether he pulled full flaps or skidded to avoid a pursuer's rounds, just what Marseille saw through his windscreen and exactly when he saw it?"

K.e.coffman (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Which editor do you think? Or do you ignore posts you don't like?

So? If K.e.Coffman knew anything about Marseille, he'd know that through interviews with his commanding officers, and pilots in his units, Heaton is able to understand how he approached air combat. Marseille shared his knowledge with all those around him. I've seen interviews with Korner and Neumann that explicitly discuss Marseille's unorthodox tactics, some of which are sourced in the article. Simple really. Dapi89 (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps K.e.Coffman needs to remember (if he knew, which I doubt), that 109 of the 158 claims filed by Marseille are recorded which included many combat reports with short but vivid descriptions of how he engaged the enemy in successful combats. Dapi89 (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Editor Dapi89 state that criticism of Heaton was "nothing but opinions from an agenda-driven Wikipedia editor". I have provided a 3rd party review of Heaton's work on Marseille, which points out that the work is close to being historical fiction in its depictions of the areal battles ("requires suspension of disbelief on the part of readers"). Is this review also wrong? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

That says what exactly!? I repeat; the reviewer and it's number one wikipedia fan don't seem to understand that actions, tactics and the subject's point of view are quite easy to record.

And even if this reviewer had something insightful and factually accurate to say, using it to attack and remove another source from Wikipedia shows the agenda driven nature of the attacking editor. It shows K.e.Coffman, you're not interested in researching the subject for its own sake, but scratching around for dirt you can throw at Heaton. It is absurd to contemplate labelling Heaton unreliable because he receives some form of criticism from someone who likely is not an authority on Marseille. Heaton is.

It should be obvious the reviewer, whoever they maybe, is too ignorant to be entertained. Dapi89 (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dapi89: please see: WP:no personal attacks.

The review is of the work under discussion, it's by "Wilkinson, Stephan" from the Aviation History magazine. Unless the magazine is not reputable, I don't see how a 3rd party review can be dismissed on the grounds that (in the opinion of one editor) it's been shared by "agenda-driven" contributor to "scratch around for dirt [to] throw at Heaton". K.e.coffman (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It isn't an attack. It's an observation. Understand the difference. I've lost count of the number of editors that have said the same thing.

Once more, you are using a non-expert source to attack the credibility of biographer. That is OR and Tendentious. You can see why a score or more of editors regard you as agenda driven. You've spent the last few months doing this type of thing. Your efforts to destroy the article on German personnel won't be tolerated without exceptionally good reason. Dapi89 (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Summary on Heaton

Summarising, as the discussion has been long and involved:

• this source is very weak for an article on a Nazi era figure via Itsmejudith
• It seems to be usable only as evidence for what unreliable sources say, and I'd use it only when it is explicitly described as unreliable via Richard Keatinge
• He doesnt have a biography here, but from what I can google online he probably passes muster as a reliable source. Ex-military, ex-history professor, current historian and consultant for TV/Film on WW2 via Only in death
• I've never read Heaton so I really don't know if I'd consider him RS or not via Sturmvogel 66
• I am not particularly convinced of Heaton's quality via Dimadick

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

How many times do you have to be told, that you don't get to decide whether a source is reliable. Neither does anybody else, unless they can provide good cause.

The personal opinions of Wikipedia editors are useless. Dapi89 (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: I was able to clarify that evaluation of sources is not original research; please see this discussion: Wikipedia talk:No original research#Evaluation of sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

You were not evaluating a source. You don't like it. You made a decision it had to go, then scoured the internet for anything that would support your pre-existing prejudices against sources that write about German military personnel and that don't label them Nazis or falsifiers of their own records. Using anonymous reviews, from non-experts to ban sources about which they offer only the very slightest of criticism is tendentious AND OR. Dapi89 (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Please visit Wikipedia talk:No original research#Evaluation of sources and engage with the editors there. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't need to. You're behaviour encompasses more than OR, also Tendentious and selective editing. Dapi89 (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The above comment incorrectly identifies historian Horst Boog as a "non-expert". He was the pre-eminent expert on the Luftwaffe operations during World War II, having contributed to three volumes of the seminal series Germany and the Second World War.

General note: this is a noticeboard to discuss reliability of sources, not user behaviour. For the latter, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Second summary on Heaton

• This discussion has been going on for more than a month now. It is fair to say that no consensus has developed that this source is unreliable. Let's close this discussion per WP:DROPTHESTICK. --Nug (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• I do not see it this way.

• Three editors expressed concerns about the source (see above).
• The nom expressed concerns.
• I've not considered Heaton to be reliable since encountering content cited to him at SS Division Das Reich.
• One editor stated that Heaton is probably RS and expressed concerns over OR in evaluating the source, but have not come back to the discussion.
• One editor has expressed an opinion that Heaton is RS.

Thus, the rough consensus seems clear to me that Heaton is not a suitable source for the claims in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Expressing a concern isn't the same as declaring it unreliable. You have misrepresented what the various editors have said in your summary. For example you quote Itsmejudith: this source is very weak for an article on a Nazi era figure but omit her next sentence: I wouldn't have a problem with it being ... carefully attributed. Only you have openly stated this source is unreliable, but two stated it is RS, well make that three since Itsmejudith thinks it okay if properly attributed, actually make that four as I think Heaton is a reliable source for his own opinion that "Marseille was perhaps the most openly anti-Nazi warrior in the Third Reich." --Nug (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

He's a reliable source for the decades-later reports of people with a strong point of view. This does not suggest that his interpretations are reliable for the sort of judgements that are being made about "anti-Nazi" attitudes in the early 1940s. He is on the margins of usability, and then only when appropriately framed and very carefully used. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I started this debate to get some additional input whether this particular source is reliable for the content it supports and I would like to thank you for the input. As a reminder: In the article in question Heaton's biography of Marseille is not simply used to present Heaton's opinion. Instead numerous anecdotes and stories related to Heaton through interviews and quoted by him at length are presented as facts.(Perma) It seems fair to summarize that Heaton is a reliable source for his own opinion and for the decades-later reports of people with a strong point of view. Thus the consensus of this debate is that these opinions and reports are to be carefully attributed.--Assayer (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

No I don't think that is a fair conclusion. While Heaton's opinion with respect to Marseille's anti-Nazi sentiment should be attributed, there is nothing to suggest that the numerous anecdotes and stories related to Heaton through interviews and quoted by him are unreliable. In fact a review of his book by the journal Military Review in the March-April 2015 edition states "A well-written, insightful, quality book, it entertains while it educates; it is highly recommended."[1] --Nug (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nug: Since you seem to offer dissent to my conclusion that opinions and "decades-later reports" were to be attributed, please clarify: Do you argue that the anecdotes and stories that can be found in Heaton's bio are to be accepted as fact and presented as such in a Wikipedia article? Because my argument is that anecdotes and "decades-later reports of people with a strong point of view" are in general biased and opinionated and thus should be dealt with according to WP:BIASED, i.e., with WP:INTEXT at the least, although in regard to the details I would point to WP:ONUS and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. That anecdotes by former Nazis and comrades are quoted at length by Colin Heaton may add color to the picture, but does not transform their anecdotes into truthful, objective, reliable, and accurate representations of historical truth. I have specified my concerns on the talk page of the article, so you might look for examples there.--Assayer (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a source that backs your conclusion? I've provided a review published in the journal Military Review that highly recommends the book. I see you have ignored that. This discussion has been going on for weeks here, perhaps time to accept there is no consensus for your opinion and WP:DROPTHESTICK now? --Nug (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification. So I'll take notice, that because of a review by Major Chris Buckham, a Logistics Officer in the Royal Canadian Air Force and graduate of the Royal Military College of Canada with a BA in Political Science and an MA in International Relations, you think that "first-person anecdotes and interviews with many of [Marseille's] former commanders and colleagues" (Buckham) conducted by Heaton are to be considered factual accounts and can be presented accordingly. Since you are asking for sources, please take note of the extensive material I have presented here and on the talk page of the article. I may remind you, moreover, that Dapi89, who is also very much in favor of those anecdotes, has already thrown out a slightly less favorable review of the book in question by stating, and I am quoting only his more civilized words, It is absurd to contemplate labelling Heaton unreliable because he receives some form of criticism from someone who likely is not an authority on Marseille. He considers this as OR and Tendentious. By that logic Heaton cannot be labelled reliable because of some praise he may have received by a non-expert, or can he? Unless, of course, this is not about sorting reviews by pre-existing prejudices in favor of Heaton. Consensus does not necessarily mean that every editor agrees on every issue. It is the quality of the argument that matters.--Assayer (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

So to clarify, are you saying that the opinion of an anonymous Wikipedia editor of unknown academic qualifications, self-published on this notice board, carries more weight than the opinion of an identified academically qualified military officer published in the leading professional journal of the US Army? Seriously? --Nug (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't say that Dapi89's opinions carry a particular weight, in fact, I find most of them unsubstantiated and focused on personal attacks rather than content. I would not summarily label any reviewer as unqualified, but wanted to point out, that you cannot choose reviews to your liking. I have done what is essential for any historian as for any Wikipedian, namely checked the source against other research sources. In view of the expertise by the MGFA and other evidence I consider Heaton's narrative to be WP:EXCEPTIONAL. It is almost exclusively based upon anecdotal evidence, which, as any textbook on the methods of oral history will tell you, is factually unreliable. As Marc Bloch has famously put it: "The most naĩve policeman knows that a witness should not always be taken at by his word, even if he does not always take full advantage of this theoretical knowledge". (The Historian's Craft, 1954ff.)--Assayer (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to your opinion, you seem to be saying that we should place more weight on your opinion than the opinions published in reliable sources like Military Review. Indeed, you cannot choose reviews to your liking, but you have not provided any other review of Heaton's book. MGFA does not mention Heaton's book, so where are you sourcing these reviews you claim call Heaton's work into question? --Nug (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

First of all, in his short and broad review Major Buckham does not address the specific issues I have raised. (I might add that he finds nearly every book that he reviews to be "insightful". See his blog, The military reviewer.) Second, above you'll find another reviewer being quoted, who asks how exactly the authors found out about all the details. That review has been discarded by Dapi89 as non-authorative with an argument which basically discards any review as non-authorative. Third, it remains undisputed that Heaton's evidence are anecdotes and interviews. He has somewhat routinely used this "oral history"-method in other books, too, and reviewers have been critical of the reliability of those interviews. And rightly so because, fourth, as of January 2013 the MGFA has denied that any serious historiographical study of Marseille existed, and did not bother to even mention Kurowski's, Tate's and Wübbe's earlier works either. It noted, however, that attempts by popular literature to suggest an ideological distance between Marseille and Nazism are misleading. Thus Heaton's claims are exceptional and should be backed up by multiple high-quality sources, before they are being accepted as plain facts. But I keep repeating myself and would suggest to take further discussion to the talk page.--Assayer (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I concur with the above; the strongest case against the Heaton source when used for the subject's anti-Nazi credentials is that the author's opinions are not supported (and in fact directly contradicted) by the military historians at the Center for Military History and Social Sciences of the Bundeswehr (formerly MGFA). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You would. More opinion, no proof. Again, lots of "I think" in all this. I am going to repeat Nug's question: where are you sourcing these reviews you claim call Heaton's work into question? I don't want more elaborate complaints and opinions as to why Heaton should be banned from wikipedia. I want you to tell me where there are concerns from other parties - preferably by published authorities on the Luftwaffe and Marseille. Dapi89 (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

One more thing: that Heaton is "directly contradicted by the military historians at the [[Center for Military History and Social Sciences of the Bundeswehr" is false. They do not say that he was or he wasn't a Nazi. They say they are not aware of any 'outstanding' deed to show he wasn't. One doesn't have to show any act or "deed" to show they are/were not a Nazi. Heaton's book is based on those who knew him. And they say his politics were in sharp contradiction to everything National Socialism stood for. Dapi89 (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Heaton's book is based on decades-later anecdotes related in a deeply-changed political climate. It is at best on the very margins of usability, if carefully attributed. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Source for your claim? Or is this another opinion? Dapi89 (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I was asked to comment on this issue, but can better make only a general comment about sources in this area:

Essentially all biographies emphasise the importance of their subject

All biographies contain quotation about what the subject has themselves said at various occasions. It can be assumed that all such statements are self-serving. There will be various statements at various times , and it is easy to cherry-pick the one that is desired..

All references to an author's work are intended to appear balanced, unless intended as an attack piece. They will therefore contain both positive and negative statements, and it is easy to cherry-pick the one that is desired.

All members of an organization involved in immoral or illegal behavior will try to minimize their personal responsibility. In particular, all members of the German army in world war Two writing for an external audience will claim to be anti-Nazi, at least as compared to other people. (though there are a few who will instead glorify their past actions)

It is almost impossible for an historian or biographer to avoid developing a bias about the period or events or people they are describing. Some do this more successfully than others, but bias always exists. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested a close

I've requested a close at Request for closure noticeboard. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it has been open for long enough and I would say that no consensus has occurred. But with that said, leave the finial word to the closer. Kierzek (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Popbitch as a RS?

Source: Popbitch

Article: WER v REW

Content: Mr Hutcheson gained an injunction but it was later partially lifted.

Submitted by --David Tornheim (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:bold? That is a really small article with low traffic and very few sources. Adding Sources can only help that article. Endercase (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase: I agree. I don't think there are any other better sources, except perhaps this. Here's a Google search. If this doesn't pass WP:RS, I will probably submit the article and a bunch of articles like it to WP:AfD. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks like we have 2 in favor of keeping and adding sources and 0 against, feel free to move forward. If you would like to talk about that sort of thing more come join me at my talk page I don't want to pollute here. Endercase (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• I just nominated those both for AFD. Non-notable subject, sourcing does not pass muster (Popbitch are actually a primary source here as they were the subject of the orginal injunction) and the other source are a niche specialist, not going to pass GNG. The party involved is non-notable and the case itself is insignificant as far as legal cases go. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree they should go to WP:AfD contrary to what Endercase said. I did submit a note to WikiProject Law to see if anyone on that project thinks any of those article should survive. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

There are notable cases RE Superinjunctions, but these are not them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Notice the WP:AfD on the two article is here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WER_v_REW --David Tornheim (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

To me I feel like "deleting" this or any non-(Libel, nonsense, and vandalism) article is a waste of effort, time, and hard drive space. The article gets saved anyway (takes up hard-drive space) and can still be found Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages. I feel like this is a case of seeing a "problem" {article is really small} and responding with a hammer. But if that is what makes y'all happy I guess use Wikipedia however you want. I personally don't care about this article. Endercase (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I didnt nominate it because it was small, I nominated it because it was sourced inadaquately, is not notable in any way, and concerns a living person who is themselves, not notable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

POV much? "inadaquately", "Notable". It still takes up hard drive space. No one forced you to read it. Endercase (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

No-one gives a crap about hard drive space here. This article needs to go the way of the dodo because it doesn't pass WP's standards for notability. We're an encyclopedia, not a compendium of all human knowledge. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

So why should we hide this article? BTW encyclopedias are a compendium of human knowledge... Also, it doesn't meet those standards in your POV; the peer who created it obviously thought differently and their POV needs to be represented in any NPOV stance. Endercase (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase: I can see you are a new user and are arguing with experienced editors who know the rules. Please read WP:RS and WP:GNG carefully. I have been more of an inclusionist for some of the reasons you gave, but after working at WP:AfD, I started to see how the standards for notability work and should be enforced over letting something like this article stick around. We can't police articles about everyone's favorite pet dog and a list of all their possession on Wikipedia for example. We can't list every single filing at every court. It's not the disk space, it's having articles that don't qualify as "knowledge". With notability requirements, the quality of the articles can be maintained, and the assertions checked via their WP:RS. Spend some time over at WP:AfD and it might become clear how much junk people try to put on Wikipedia that has no reliable sources. There's advertisements and people wanting to have an article because they were in the paper once, and people who were on a sports team think they should have a article, even though there is really nothing written about them. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I can see you begin by demeaning my POV with a logical fallacy (appeal to authority). #ChillingEffects I understand the pet dog case, but that doesn't even remotely apply here and is a very poor metaphor. I agree that things should be deleted. In this case, the article appears to be written by a third disinterested party, unlike every case you have mentioned. Endercase (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't mean to demean you or your point of view. I'm not trying to chill your speech. I agree the article is probably written or created by a disinterested person. But consider if someone tried to upload every single court case ever filed, every traffic ticket ever issued, etc.--I think that's what we are dealing with all these non-notable motions. I'm just trying to explain why the article will get deleted if more WP:RS is not provided. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, Wikipedia does not have rules. It has policies based on consensus. Endercase (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I have always thought the policy WP:IGNORE all the rules quite misleading. Just talk a look at WP:AN/I, WP:AE, WP:AN/3RR, WP:COI/N, WP:CCI, WP:SPI, WP:UAA and you will see countless people investigated, admonished, punished, blocked and banned for ignoring, skirting or breaking the many obtuse and arcane rules we have here. I sometimes think new users should be given pro-bono Wiki-counsel if they end up at AN/I. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll go to your talk page don't want to pollute here. Endercase (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

You are free to post your comments at the AFD as a reason for not deleting it. Bear in mind arguments that do not have a basis in policy like 'Its still taking up hard drive space' are likely to get little traction there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Endercase, this is going to be in list form because you've said quite a few problematic things:

1. Encyclopedias summarize knowledge, they do not purport to archive it all.
2. You removed the word "all" when you tried to use my words against me, which is rather disingenuous (and transparent). If you can't use someone's my exact phrase, don't attempt to throw their words back at them.
3. It's not a fallacy to point out that an inexperienced editor disagreeing with experienced editors is likely to be wrong. Nor is it a fallacy to point out that the editors an inexperienced editor is disagreeing with are experienced. In fact, it's a very good argument, as the experienced editors in this case most certainly can cite many occasions from memory where arguments fundamentally identical to your own have been found lacking by the community.
4. "Demeaning [your] argument" is the entire point of arguing with you. It does not reflect poorly on David at all that that is his goal. It is exactly what you are doing in response.
5. Your use of "#ChillingEffects" is extremely disingenuous and may be considered a personal attack or more likely, to be casting aspersions on another editor and could result in sanctions being placed against you.
6. There mere fact that an article lacks POV problems is not a reason for keeping it. AfD runs on arguments about Notability, not bias.
7. Policies are rules. Please do not create false distinctions that everyone can see through. It does not reflect well upon you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsI will address all of these points when I have time. Would you like me to do so here or on your talk page? Endercase (talk)

I would prefer you address them by taking them in and accepting that we're not here to collect every scrap of information on everything every individual editor considers interesting, and that it's not acceptable to try to 'win' an argument by any rhetorical means available to you. If you insist on arguing with me instead of taking my advice and corrections for what they are, then I'd prefer you do it where I don't have to deal with it. I'm not trying to crash down on you, I'm trying to help you figure out how WP works, but that doesn't mean I have any desire to engage in a drawn-out argument about your grand view of what WP is or should be. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Alright, so I'll leave everything else alone as you don't want to engage in discussion. However, can we agree that Demeaning is not the point of arguing? As that was the most upsetting portion of your list.Endercase (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Endercase, the point of arguing is to show that your opponent's argument is -in a word- worthless. That's demeaning the argument in the most literal sense. We can agree that demeaning your opponent is not the point, but no-one has demeaned you in this thread. If you make an argument and someone comes along and says "that is an incredibly ignorant argument," they're not attacking you, they're attacking your argument. Which is as it should be, assuming they go on to explain why the argument is ignorant. It's perfectly acceptable (even if it's not always good idea) to refer to arguments as ignorant, problematic, stupid, illogical, ridiculous and other adjectives that would be inappropriate to apply to a person, so long as you justify the claim. It is a common rhetorical device, used frequently in formal debates.

With respect to this particular instance, I will say this: "you are arguing with experienced editors" is an incredibly common shorthand for an explanation as to why you're wrong that would take a very long time to type out and would be so long as to make it unlikely that you would read it. It's not unique to Wikipedia by any means, and it's commonly recognized as a very legitimate argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

MjolnirPants Ah man, I thought the point of arguing was to come to a mutuality agreeable outcome and to exchange ideas. And not to make the other person look bad by attacking their argument in an ad hominem or otherwise logically irrelevant manner. Thanks for letting me know things are different here on Wikipedia. I guess that's the danger of using populism and voting to manage an information database instead of debate, discussion, sources, and consensus. Endercase (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah man, I thought the point of arguing was to come to a mutuality agreeable outcome and to exchange ideas. Read Argument, then. Or watch the way people argue in real life. Or watch some formal debates (IQ2 is a great series of them). Or get into an argument. Coming to a mutually agreeable outcome is desirable, but saying that's the point of arguing is like saying the point of having kids is to become the parent of a successful, happy person. It's just nonsensical.

And not to make the other person look bad by attacking their argument in an ad hominem... Read Straw man argument while you're at it, because that's what you're doing here. Also read ad hominem because if you think you can attack an argument with an ad hominem, then you don't know what an ad hominem is. Indeed, I've been trying to explain to you how to argue in a way that avoids ad hominems (which are usually fallacies), meanwhile you're presenting me with a situation in which an ad hominem argument would not be fallacious (it would, instead be a statistical syllogism), which is rather ironic and amusing if you think about it.

I guess that's the danger of using populism and voting to manage an information database instead of debate, discussion, sources, and consensus. Remember what I said in my last comment? Well this is one of those ignorant, ridiculous arguments it's acceptable to criticize. The reason it's so ignorant is because it ignores the fundamental definition of an argument, which is a statement that it intended to convince someone of something, which expounds into what I've said earlier, and results in discussion and consensus. It's also ignorant because it's made clear numerous times on WP that consensus is not a vote, that wikipedia runs on consensus, that our policies prohibit the devolvement of arguments into fights (see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA), and generally prohibit ad hominem arguments except in very specific circumstances. It's ridiculous because it's founded in an ignorance of a number of basic facts, yet it is still asserted with conviction in an obvious display of sarcasm, as if it were obvious that it was true.

I've already had one editor suggest to me that you are badly in need of being removed from this project, and while I'm not quite that far myself, I have to say that your flagrant disrespect for our policies and standards, your flagrant ignorance of basic philosophy combined with your insistence upon appealing to it, and your rather baffling apparent conviction that experienced editors couldn't possibly have anything to teach you is going a long way towards proving them right. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah man, I thought the point of arguing was to come to a mutuality[sic] agreeable outcome

No, you have "arguing" confused with "negotiating". Hard to imagine how. --Calton | Talk 07:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I agree, my actions in this post most particularly have been out of order. I didn't see these responses until just now. My final argument here was very strawman-esk. I was frustrated and let it out in an improper manner. I'm glad it was at least amusing to you. I was aware of WP:NOTVOTE and WP:CON but felt as if there were several major cases where these were not followed. I recognized the irony and even poor logic in my statement and said my ridiculous statement anyway. This was disruptive. I would like to thank you for your explanation as well as apologize for my uncalled for hostility. Endercase (talk) 07:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

GangRule.com

Hi, I'm reviewing mafia boss Giosue Gallucci for Good Article and came across GangRule.com. It contains information about organized crime groups (mostly the Italian mafia) in the United States. It has biographies, events, photographs, family charts, etc. It claims to use a list of sources here, but sometimes the articles just state information without letting the reader where exactly where the information was used. It seems to have a lot of information and a huge source of information for some of our Italian mafia articles. Thank you, and let me know if you have any questions. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 01:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Not reliable as it is an anonymous site. In the About tab there is nothing about who compiled the information. You should follow back to the sources it cites. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm helping with the same GA review as ComputerJA and here are my thoughts. Firstly, the site is not anonymous, there's an author listed with each page, usually Jon Black. The biography pages are sparsely written and unsourced (with the exceptions of Giuseppe Morello and Ignazio Lupo). The pages on subject like the Black Hand and the Morello gang are better written. I would like to point out that there is only one page in the article section, The Grocery Conspiracy. It is fully sourced and footnoted and would definitely be a reliable source. I think using GangRule should be on a case by case basis based on the page and what information is being sourced. Libertybison (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

But there's no detail about who Jon Black is or what accreditations or expertise he has, or what the site's editorial processes are. At first glance, it looks reasonably well put together, but that says nothing about veracity and doesn't necessarily stop the site being a glorified blog. Prima facie, although context always matters, it fails as WP:SPS. N-HH talk/edits 12:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi N-HH, Libertybison, Itsmejudith - GangRule seems to be based off two reliable books, The Origin of Organized Crime in America and The First Family. But there is no way to know which pages GangRule is basing its information from. If we can use these two books, that would count as a reliable source. I can access both of these books through by library account with the University of Texas at Austin. I'd be willing to work with DonCalo or anyone else to get this to GA, but that would mean we would need a different reviewer. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 15:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

That seems like a plan. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I still think there should be some exceptions for, say the grocery article mentioned above or instances where the site quotes original documents. Libertybison (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

List of European countries by average wage mistakes

User:TechnicianGB added in the article List of European countries by average wage a reference of Eurostat.

The article requires in a clear way ONLY net average wages and not the earnings working full time 100%.The average net wages are calculated considering all the net wages (part time,helps to families,invalid benefits and so on).In this reference there is nothing of all this.Italy and Spain haven't references from statal statistic agencies with official data about net average wages like others.TechnicianGB made so a creative editing inventing net and gross wages.His reference and so the data he posted are totally wrong in the article. They must be deleted.Thanks.Anioni (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

References

This article is a minefield. If adding something from Eurostat is problematic in an article about Europe, we have to wonder why. Can you justify the way it is currently put together, with so many sources, that may not be compatible? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Here it's all well explained [[2]]

For the ways this user acts, the english spelling he has, and the accusations/arguments he does i'm every day more convinced that's a sockpuppet user of User:Sad9721 and by consequent User:Mediolanum, an user with 60 potential sockpuppets which always acts the same, spells the same and edits the same topics.

This user edited with laugheable sources and non trustful/redundant sources (which even were talking about other thing) the article List of European countries by average wage which was edited a long time ago (and not by me, I just put the data another user wrote as it's the official EUROSTAT data) and "Anioni" started with those editions on 28th February, when all of this started.

He accuses me of "vandalism". Of being "anti-italian". That "I don't know what i'm doing". "I just write fake data". I'm really amazed how this user already can keep doing those kinds of editions on Wikipedia after it's clear which kinds of editions does and it's a clear clone of permanent banned wikipedia accounts (like User:Ambidibody or User:Sad9721) as acts exactly the same, replaces the same articles with fake data and wrong sources and then accuses anyone else which reverts his articles for "vandalism". --TechnicianGB (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to say! I didn't edit nothing. He started to change the page for redundant sources in 28th of February. Here is the proof [[3]] and now he tells that "I added a reference" while that reference and source was from many months ago. Funny! I won't even keep being a part of this discussion. I'm really amazed how far this has went after it's all clear. This user started to edit the page for his own likings and from 1 week he just accuses me of "vandalising" and "doing changes" when I keep reverting the aspect that the European average wages page achieved a long time ago! Just because I didn't let him to make what he does in the page and to put redundant sources which talk about other topics he now even believes he has done something good and I did something wrong. Whatever... my time is not deserved for this. --TechnicianGB (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

This could potentially waste a lot of people's time, but it seems that some things have to be sorted out. You were advised on ANI to take out a sock puppet investigation. You need to do that or stop making allegations of sock puppetry. Here we can only advise on sources and I will do that now. Eurostat is the best source for comparative statistical information about European countries. Indeed it is pretty much the only source unless you go to wider international bodies like the UN or OECD. Making up tables from individual countries' data is likely to count as Original Research for the obvious reason that the methods of counting may be different. A Request for Comment might be useful, and if the article can't be improved so that it is better founded in reliable stats it might have to be deleted. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

He tries to avoid the main point that caused this situation with non sense answers or not sharp answers about the numbers of reference with Eurostat data.I think User:Itsmejudith is right writing about the field full of mines and about the use of one method.Or people delete Eurostat data of Italy and Spain because reference can't be compared with other references( that derive generally-not all- from statal statistic sites and not official tax calculators) or Eurostat data net earnings for full (100%) workers must be set for all the states for which Eurostat provides the data.The article should be renamed "List of European countries by net earnings(wages) for full time workers".In this case naturally all data of states without data in the Eurostat table must be deleted.The third option could be to delete the data of Italy and Spain and to add below another table with only Eurostat data for full time (100%) net average wages.Anioni (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Most of your editions are redundant. What do you not understand about the sources you used are not useful in any case? I'm not the only one who told you that, even a wikipedia administrator told you that in your talk page.

Yes, I opened a sockpuppet case. Btw "Anioni" you misunderstood itsmejudith, Judith was saying to delete the entire article because it's always a mine field because many users edit it with unuseful sources or vandalize it. lol

You try to avoid anything and try to defend yourself with something which can't be defended. You changed the consesus old source and data to a data which you invented from an unuseful source. End of the story. Don't try now to mix up the things.

You are a brand new editor here very suspicious and which always edit the same topics. I've been caring for that page a long time before you made your 1st edition on Wikipedia so anytime when you call me a "vandal" I can't make nothing more than laughing. You also threatened me. You also talked any kind of bs you wanted. You called me "anti-italian" when I shown you sources. You called me that "i'm an ignorant and I not know nothing about statistics" and now called me "psichiatric case"[[4]] in your page because I put a suspicion on you to be potential clone of many permanent banned wikipedia users. And you also deleted your warns about the vandalism on the page of Italy which another user made to you! So conversation closed by my part.

You readed the entire comment of Itsmejudith? Partially says the same as me. EUROSTAT is the most useful source. Doesn't matter if other countries haven't got those data, because other countries have got official data. If you want seek by yourself in the Eurostat reference and add the Eurostat data for Belgium. The thing is here that both Italy and Spain have their Eurostat references and data so you can't say nothing more. Try evading now, as always. Not a reason anymore, stop putting Belgium as an example, you have a problem with Belgium data, then, edit it by yourself, I don't have any problem with it so I will not edit it. But I will keep the official sources for Spain and Italy. And EUROSTAT is the most useful. --TechnicianGB (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Those where the sources you used, not useful sources as other people told you, not only me a source talking about the politicans wages. Then a "net calcullator" page Then another redundant source which wasn't even good referenced

I just returned the consensual aspect of the page as the source was totally redundant/unuseful for Italy and with totally fake data, this one was the source a source which references this same Wikipedia article with fake data! A source which uses this wikipedia article as their main source. You know what Wikipedia rules are? One of the rules is clear. You can't use Wikipedia to reference another Wikipedia article. This is the same even being in another website! An anonymous user has maded that change and remained it, I just removed it to the official/real wages. As that page references Wikipedia, and the article of List of European countries by average wage was vandalized hundreds of times anytime it becomes unprotected... --TechnicianGB (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

References

You last in talking without aiming to solve the situation. The fact IS that for all the states must be used the same criteria and method.It isn't scientific setting on Italy and Spain Eurostat data of full time workers only and on other countries statal sites or not official sites references (with not official calculator tax aside).Changing only Belgium the whole situation doesn't change.An average net wage includes all kind of workers (e.g. part time) ,invalid and families benefits and so on.Eurostast 100% AW publishes only a kind of net wage so it's wrong in that article.Sometimes repetita iuvant.User:Itsmejudith is right about the possibility of deleting all and to use eventually only Eurostat data. 1)In this situation it needs italian and spanish statistic data published by their statal agencies and Eurostat reference must be deleted .People can post anyway a table with 100% (full time)net wages for all coutries based on it. 2)Another possibility is that reference of Eurostat with full time (100%)net wages is set for all states.In this case countries that haven't data provided by Eurostat or are deleted or are set aside with a particular note.

Belgium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage#cite_note-13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage#cite_note-12

Estonia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage#cite_note-31 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage#cite_note-30

Czech Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage#cite_note-27 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage#cite_note-26 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage#cite_note-25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage#cite_note-24

Even 4 references for Czech Republic of which 2 for wages.Useless to say that all tax calculator references aren't official like exchange rate sites (theoretically people should use the average exchange rates of the considered period published only by the ECB). It's impossible set in the same table Eurostat data and these ones.I already posted some ways to solve the disaster in that article.If there are better and rational ideas are welcome to solve this situation that derives from creativity .Anioni (talk) 09:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Let me make myself 100% clear. Eurostat is a very reliable source for statistics about Europe, which was the question asked. I went to look at the article and wished I hadn't because my brief comments are now giving rise to long acrimonious screeds. I think there may be underlying problems with the article. I don't think it probably needs deleting but may need a complete rewrite. I suggest that you go to a relevant wikiproject and ask for help. And stop arguing with each other. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree User:Itsmejudith.If i well realize people can rewrite all the article using only Eurostat as reference (may be explaining that reference reports full time workers net wages without considering benefits or other things and changing what it needs).I'm just waiting User:TechnicianGB to act as you suggested.Anioni (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

lol that's what I've said many days ago. If you have any problem with the source of another country edit it according to Eurostat. Already Italy and Spain and a few other countries have it. Feel free to start editing.

There are countries with official data from their governments, those ones shouldn't be changed. But in cases as Spain, Italy, Belgium etc which haven't got official government sources it's better EUROSTAT. --TechnicianGB (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok,i'll follow you User:TechnicianGB.I'll set Eurostat data for all the states that haven't references with official data from public statistic agencies .I'll do the same also for all the states that haven 't official statistic agencies taxation references or references that can't report average exchange rates reffered to a period.I'll add for states, that aren't expressed in Eurostat and that haven't average exchange rates references or taxation reference from official agencies ,that their data have these limits so not trustble like the Eurostat ones. What do you think about this agreement User:Itsmejudith?Anioni (talk) 09:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad you're starting to make an agreement. We always have to be careful when taking data from several sources that they are compatible. You might consider making a request for comment. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Where and when could ask me and User:TechnicianGB this request for a comment User:Itsmejudith?

I can see for some edition of 2016 when another Wikipedia user changed all the countries according to the EUROSTAT data. Want me to edit that? (unless the countries which have actual official data from their own governments) or you want to do it @Anioni: ? I don't have any problem. --TechnicianGB (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

User:TechnicianGB you can start editing immediately reference with Eurostat data where you like.Eurostat reference will ban a lot of every day vandalization and creativity from that article because in Eurostat all is official,net and with real average exchange rates.Thank you for asking me this.At the beginning of the article people must report that only net wages full time are considered.I'll add Eurostat data to all the states that haven't official references from their national statistic agencies or from official national taxation agency sites or average exchange rates.Gross wages can't be considered in this situation (with Eurostat).I checked references for all states in the article and the greatest part of them will be changed with Eurostat data.Even this morning for Czech Republic and Slovakia were edited data without official taxation and average exchange rate references.For states that haven't Eurostat data i'll warn about this in the article and also about their eventual limits for this reason, not official taxation and exchange rates.Thank you again.Anioni (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Anioni: you're welcome, I don't have time to make such a big edition of the page until the next Sunday, if you want feel free to start adding it, I will do it by the Sunday if not. Regards --TechnicianGB (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry ,i'll wait for you to rewrite the whole article that now is disaster.See you .Thank you again by Anioni.

New Observer

I'm surprised something about this site hasn't come up yet. I'd like to get some form of consensus on the general reliability of The New Observer. (It may be down today but most of its articles are viewable via Archive.org. The few reliability checks I've found so far include one from Media Bias/Fact Check, a site that so far seems dead-accurate in its judgments, and calls the New Observer a questionable source, with "extreme right wing bias. Publishes stories that are simply not true (fake news) and uses racist language." Snopes also describes a fake story the New Observer reported as fact. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 05:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Does nobody know more about this or simply not care? As it stands now, based on the material I've found, I would label it generally not a reliable source. I'll treat it that way, until or unless someone says otherwise here. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 12:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Could you give us some context? Many sources are reliable in one context, but unreliable in a different context... and this may be one of those. Blueboar (talk) 12:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure it's based on my diff removing content from this article, which doesn't appear to be supported by and contradicts more reliable sources it seems. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 12:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That would be a correct removal IMO. In this context the New Observer's opinion on right-wing issues would not be considered reliable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Since we cannot access the journal and the archive isn't working, here's a sample of their journalism: ""Donald Trump is making a “mistake” by continuing to have an “adversarial relationship” with CNN because that network “shapes [his] perception in capitals around the world,” the chief Jew in charge of the media giant has warned." While being right-wing is not a bar to being a reliable source, the sources promotes conspiracism and has no record for accuracy or professionalism. TFD (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Buzzfeed reporting remarks by unnamed senators

On March 9, 2017, from BuzzFeed News reported here that "BuzzFeed News spoke with more than half a dozen officials involved with the committee’s investigation, both Democrats and Republicans. All the officials requested anonymity to more openly discuss the sensitive investigation." and "Even some Democrats on the Intelligence Committee now quietly admit, after several briefings and preliminary inquiries, they don’t expect to find evidence of active, informed collusion between the Trump campaign and known Russian intelligence operatives, though investigators have only just begun reviewing raw intelligence." Why would this not be considered reliable? Humanengr (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Because Buzzfeed has kind of a terrible reputation for all sorts of reasons, and completely making up a story doesn't seem particularly beyond imagining. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Interesting that National Review cited Buzzfeed for the above material at http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/445666/sudden-public-skepticism-about-trump-russian-collusion. Also interesting that Business Insider in http://www.businessinsider.com/wikipedia-has-banned-the-daily-mail-as-an-unreliable-source-2017-2 on "Wikipedia has banned the Daily Mail as an 'unreliable source'" cited Buzzfeed as a source for "The decision by Wikipedia comes amid widespread debate over the rise of fake news, which has widened to include concerns about misleading information in traditional publications. A recent BuzzFeed analysis claimed that there was 'little appetite' for completely fabricated 'fake news' in the UK because the country already had a highly partisan press." Humanengr (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Heh. BuzzFeed says "The firm describes itself as a social news and entertainment company", so... it's not only not reliable, my guess is that this particular report probably actually false. Congresscritters (which what people "on the Intelligence Committee" are) don't speak off the record like that to relax; they do it for a reason. There's no good reason that I can think of for Democratic congresscritters to admit off the record at this point that they don't think there's a smoking gun. I don't see any upside. If they want to reassure the (rather nervous) country and help quash the investigation then they'd probably do it on the record where it'd have the desired effect. I also can't think of a reason they'd go to BuzzFeed for something like this; it's not like they have a couple drinks and start talking to whatever reporter is on the next stool. It doesn't work like that, I don't think. Since its about supposed off-the-record conversations it's difficult to disprove, which is probably why BuzzFeed felt OK to write it. 0/5, do not buy. Herostratus (talk) 06:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::I think you have to match this with other sources that are reliable. Right now, as far as I know, there are a number of investigations occurring. The onion is being peeled layer by layer as news reports come in. So, I am not sure this report is in agreement with other RS. Based on this article, it is too early to make a definitive statement in Wikikpedia'a voice, such as these investigations are not expected to pan out.

Also, later in the Buzzfeed article it quotes a 'third' official' : "That take isn’t universally held...there’s a lot of room to find something significant.” So to me, this means this article is pretty much speculation and we should wait until a large portion of the facts have come to light, or the lack thereof. --Steve Quinn (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Herostratus and Steve Quinn: Re the author: Per [5]: "BuzzFeed today will announce … additions to its foreign reporting staff, continuing a build-out that started in mid-2013. … Watkins shared a finalist designation in Pulitzer Prize for coverage of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on CIA torture." Per [6]: "The Huffington Post announced Wednesday that Ali Watkins will join its DC bureau as a political reporter. The 2014 Temple grad’s name may ring as bell. As an intern for McClatchy this past Spring, she was part of the team that broke the story that the CIA spied on computers used by the Senate Intelligence Committee."(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/ali-watkins) Per https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins: "Ali Watkins is a national security correspondent for BuzzFeed News and is based in Washington, D.C." Humanengr (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that these days a lot of Buzzfeed content is as good (or bad) as any other non-tabloid media source, and this looks like a fairly standard piece of political reporting, where officials and/or politicians speak to journalists off the record – whether with a purpose and agenda or just more casually – and the outlet builds a narrative around what it's been told. I don't think you can just conclude that Buzzfeed is making this all up; plus it's reporting the comments fairly straight rather than seeming to be reading things into them that aren't there. So the source is surely reliable, up to a point, but it's more a question of how far removed any of this type of reporting, whether done by the NYT or anyone else, often is from being merely speculation based on gossip and what value it has for encyclopedic content. That said, I'm sure Trump-related pages are full of similar media-sourced content that reflects badly on him. N-HH talk/edits 15:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

This. We as WP editors need much more awareness of how the press operates today and how this type of poor reporting develops; it's more pervasive at sites like Buzzfeed compared to NY Times but it still happens across the board. We should be looking towards permanence of information and most of our current political articles really need more considerations about how the long-term view of the article will be rather than the day-to-day political mudslinging that the press also engage in. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but not just with politics, the Istanbul night club shooting page was having to be updates every few minutes, on stuff that could have been left out (such as perp ID) until later. I have argued we need to reexamine the whole use of news media as a source because they are becoming so unreliable. I would prefer a blanket ban on any new reports that are within a few hours of the subject, except for the most basic of information. For BLP's I think it needs to be days.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Although it's not about unreliability as such, or even poor reporting – as I said, I think this is probably reliable information on its own terms and actually perfectly proper and good political reporting. The question is more whether relying on this sort of political reporting – and equally as noted breaking news reports which by their nature invariably turn out to be false in many respects – and creating a running commentary on the minutiae of events is a good way to build encyclopedia content. And if we're going to nix this one, we need to gut a lot more content in this area besides. N-HH talk/edits 15:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Certain topics do work well with the current approach of adding info as shortly after it happens, but these also tend to be the areas where there's not as much subjective concern from sources: for example, natural disasters, terrorist attacks, sporting events, etc. I found it is nearly anything dealing with breaking political or idealogical topics where if we had a better sense of writing for topic permanence rather than trying to keep up-to-date, we'd avoid tons of issues related to RS, NPOV, and the like that have come up as of late. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it is clear I do not think it is, and I agree there will be a lot of work involved in stopping Wikipedia becomes (as it increasingly is) Wikenewsfeed. This (I think) far more then many other issues (such a fringe science or unnotabilty) affect the imagine of Wikipedia far more, it is repeating inaccuracies we are largely held in contempt for.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yes... the problem is more with the content (breaking news) than with the reliability of the sources. We need a stronger policy that says (in essence): Don't add breaking news ... perspective is needed... so WAIT for the story to develop before adding it to Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

It is reliable. It employs professional journalists. In this case the question is when their reporters say what unnamed legislators told them, can we be confident they are correctly reporting them. I would say as confident as we could be if it was reported by NBC reporters and in fact NBC is the major owner of BuzzFeed. TFD (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

NBC is also a major investor in SnapChat, and I read that there's a flying cat in Kentucky that's stalking Sen. McConnell's nephew. SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Except they describe Buzzfeed as news media whereas they do not describe Snapchat that way. NBC is also well known for many popular fiction shows. But reasonable viewers are able to distinguish between news and fiction broadcasting. TFD (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

They also describe MSNBC as a news outlet. What say you? SPECIFICO talk 21:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO, Blueboar, N-HH, Masem, Slatersteven, Steve Quinn, Herostratus, Thucydides411, and JFG: Re reliability: no one here has addressed the author's credentials. Re other issues raised here: 1) It's not 'far removed'; 2) this is not a case of "having … updates every few minutes" -- it's a report on a completed discussion(s); future discussions can be added as they are separate events; 3) it's not WikiNewsFeed -- I added this several days after the article was published. Humanengr (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Buzzfeed has tried to reposition itself as a 'quality' journalism source, and sometimes it does publishing interesting stuff that's similar to RS journalism. But some of their decisions have been problematic. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/04/the-eternal-return-of-buzzfeed/390270/ (search for Poynter) and they did come under fire when they published the Trump dossier w/on verification - and that wasn't because they got to it first, it was because the RSs that had a copy refused to publish it. NPalgan2 (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@User:Humanengr re the individual reporter's credentials... OK, the reporter was in a group of three people who were finalists for the 2015 Pultizer Prize in National Reporting. That's a data point and a good marker. It does not mean "this person is incapable of making a mistake or shading the truth". But it's a good start. It is more or less proof that the person is capable of reporting news properly, and it's a marker which is consistent with (although nowhere near proof of) being a dedicated (and therefore ethical) journalist, and of being a person with a news career that they probably know could be harmed if they play too fast and loose. What we really want to know is a person's actual character and integrity, but we can never know that, so then we want to know their reputation and track record showing character and integrity (and competence). But that's very hard to know for most reporters. We don't really know anything useful about this reporter.

Which is one reason why we tend to place more emphasis on the organization. What's their fact-checking operation like? What's their business model? Who is their news editor and what kind of ship does he run? I don't know anything about that for BuzzFeed so I'll have to defer to others, but they haven't really had time to build a solid reputation yet I guess.

But anyway, for the question at hand, it looks like you want place something like "Several congresspeople have said they don’t expect to find evidence of active, informed collusion between the Trump campaign and known Russian intelligence operatives" in an article... Based on off-the-record conversations... I dunno. I don't know how news sites work, but for a magazine, if it was an on-the-record interview, they would have an independent fact-checker go over the reporter's notes and call up the subject and say "We're about to print that you said such-and-so. Did you?". For anonymous sources.... you can't do that. All you have is the reporters notes... relying 100% on a BuzzFeed reporters's notes... that makes me a little nervous to be honest. Herostratus (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Herostratus: More than one data point re Ali Watkins: 1) breaking the story that the CIA spied on computers used by the Senate Intelligence Committee, 2) HuffPo Washington bureau chief Ryan Grim: “We knew Ali would be a fantastic hire back when she was a college senior and worked on the McClatchy team that broke the news that the CIA was spying on the Senate Intelligence Committee over the panel’s torture report.” On WP, September 11 attacks cites her 9/3/2013 McClatchy "Senate intelligence panel could seek to declassify documents; it just doesn’t”; Fake news website cites her 11/30/2016 BuzzFeed "Intel Officials Believe Russia Spreads Fake News” in 7 places; Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board cites her McClatchy 11/2013 "NSA Cites stop and frisk”. "It does not mean 'this person is incapable of making a mistake or shading the truth" seems out of place. Humanengr (talk) 05:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean out of place? Are you saying that those things you cite prove that she is incapable of error or shading the truth? Herostratus (talk) 06:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

A double negative is impossible to defend. If applied as a standard, that would eliminate all sources. Do you care to respond to the other points in my last post? Humanengr (talk) 10:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it's a single negative, like "I will never eat an apple" -- but the point is that highly trusted news outlets have systems to ensure that even when a journalist makes a mistake, the error does not end up being printed in the publication. Anyway, this content is UNDUE so the RS question is only part of the story. If it were not undue, there'd be many better RS references for it to verify and give proper weight. SPECIFICO talk 14:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

"not … incapable" = double negative; UNDUE on what grounds? Humanengr (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

This is the logical problem of induction, regardless of the predicate. I can just as well state that I cannot prove (positive) that all sturgeons have gills (positive). SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

?? Did you find Herostratus's statement ("It does not mean 'this person is incapable of making a mistake or shading the truth'") helpful? Humanengr (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think the issue here is not really the reliability of the source... but the appropriateness of the content. The question we need to ask isn't whether Buzzfeed is a reliable source for the information, but whether Wikipedia should mention this information in the first place (or at least should we mention it at this point in time). WP:NOTNEWS. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The article is replete with accusations, etc., "at this point in time." Humanengr (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

In a year, in 5 years, in a decade, are those comments from Congresspeople going to have any applicability to the topic? Very much likely no, so inclusion now, despite the siurce, makes no sense. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The article (particularly the U.S. Government response section) is replete with comments from Congresspeople. Humanengr (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Which probably means the article needs serious trimming. This is the problem alluded to above, that just because an RS (whether we consider Buzzfeed one or not) reports on some opinion statements in the midst of a controversy or event, if those comments really have long-term value towards encyclopedic nature. Most of the time, no they don't, but editors load up articles with these, which is something that needs to be discouraged. That is the issue in this case: no one seems to take great issue that the material comes from Buzzfeed, but simply that in the larger and long-term picture, even if the statement came from NYTimes, it isn't appropriate for inclusion. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Re trimming: is there anything you would retain? Humanengr (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It might be good to move the WP:WEIGHT / UNDUE discussion to the article talk thread at this point? SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed Humanengr (talk)

@Someguy1221, Herostratus, Steve Quinn, N-HH, Masem, Slatersteven, Blueboar, The Four Deuces, SPECIFICO, Thucydides411, and NPalgan2: Maybe we should try this again. Ali Watkins reported the story. The 'Nominated work' submitted to Pulitzer included 10 stories, several of which contained verbiage such as "Like all of those who spoke to McClatchy, the federal official requested anonymity because the case is highly sensitive, closely guarded and could potentially involve criminal charges." Ali Watkins was a Pulitzer finalist "For timely coverage of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on CIA torture, demonstrating initiative and perseverance in overcoming government efforts to hide the details.” On what basis does anyone still care to voice an objection to reverting the revert or, alternatively, delete most if not all of this article (in line with Masem’s suggestion)? Humanengr (talk)

There's basically no reason to remove it due only to the source, being Buzzfeed, per your arguments. It's all on the UNDUE/WEIGHT aspects, and that's a very separate matter. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

How UNDUE/WEIGHT? This is one completed event that was reported. Humanengr (talk)

You are looking to include someone's hypothesis , theories, and/or opinion, while well-attributed through a reliable source (with strong weight on the authorship's reputation), should be evaluated via UNDUE, given that we do not yet have resolve on the full situation. RS is met, but UNDUE is not. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

What in UNDUE applies here? Re "We do not yet have resolve on the full situation": Wouldn't that apply more readily to the entire article? Humanengr (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Humanengr The due weight fail is what you can continue to discuss on the article talk page if you'd like. SPECIFICO talk 16:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not a fail; it's an assertion that was made in this discussion; UNDUE is described on the same Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight page in discussion here. So best to continue here. Humanengr (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The question is not which sources are reliable to consider their viewpoint appropriate to include within UNDUE - all the sources including this buzzfeed one are "equally" reliable for this argument. The point to make is more about UNDUE appropriate per WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:DEADLINE and that intermediate comments made by authoritative figures in the midst of an unresolve debate are necessarily appropriate even if many many RSes exist to support those points. Which is no longer an issue about reliability but appropriateness, and thus separate from this board. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Anyone who cares to advise how WP:NOT#NEWS or WP:DEADLINE applies, kindly post on the article talk page here Humanengr (talk)

RedLetterMedia as a source of statistical analysis

In Ghostbusters (2016), RedLettermedia, a video production organization, is referenced:

RedLetterMedia analyzed the YouTube comments and found that in a random sampling of 1000 comments, only 60 were negative about women and only 2.5% of total viewers voted dislike. RLM and others also reported Sony did delete criticism, while letting grossly sexist, derogatory or "trolling" comments be, leading to "misogynistic" comments misrepresenting overall criticism of the quality of the movie which, however, made it "bomb" in revenues.[122]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghostbusters_(2016_film)&oldid=769813693

I can't find any other page that uses RedLetterMedia as a source of these sorts of statistical claims, and given the problematic nature of unobservable claims of what constitutes a random sample, it seems worrisome to rely on that source. cshirky (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

It may not be an issue of reliability in the sense that Wikipedia defines the concept but without evidence that the author(s) have significant experience with content analysis it's a poor source that probably shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

As I recall RLM make critical/film review videos, often of a humerous nature (I recommend their 'best of the worst' series) for distribution through social media. I would be unlikely to use them as a source other than the usual places we would use reviews/critical reception etc. But they do perform research etc, as they do a lot of older films. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a reliable source?

Wikipedia has identified several well-known publications, including long-established newspapers, as "unreliable sources". I suggest that Wikipedia needs to publish structured criteria for evaluating reliability of a source, and to evaluate wikipedia itself against these criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.255.62 (talk • contribs)

 Done Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source Mduvekot (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Mduvekot, I see what you did there. Traveling back in time seven years to answer a question before it was asked. Pretty cool.

109.145.255.62, obvious Daily mail shill is obvious. Tell your buddies at the Mail to read WP:DAILYMAILRFC for a comprehensive list of reasons why Wikipedia considers TDM to be an unreliable source. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Guy Macon, WP:NPA applies to IPs too. That particular IP geolocates to Thornton Heath, not Kensington, so I fail to see how obvious Daily mail shill is warranted, even if the IP is quite probably a troll. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I stand by my comment. I am seeing a pattern of comments, all from the UK, all with similar "well-known publication / long-established newspaper" language, all failing to mention "The Daily mail" by name, and all repeating the bogus argument from The Daily Mail that implies that one has to be a reliable source in order to identify a reliable source. None of them ever respond when someone points out that Wikipedia explicitly claims not to be a reliable source. I hear a WP:DUCK quacking. Calling an obvious TDM shill an obvious TDM shill is no worse than calling an obvious troll and obvious troll. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

They might also want to read blacklisting and Godwin's law before telling anyone that blacklisting is a term which in its modern context was popularised by the Nazis. Also, as the Mail said, it "should be noted here that, ironically enough, the Mail wrote to all its writers and reporters three years ago instructing them never to rely on Wikipedia as a single source, such were the concerns about its accuracy." Which implies that up till 2014 they'd failed to read Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, and were happy to print any old rubbish unchecked. Which they still do, but not plagiarising it from the 'Pedia, we hope. . . dave souza, talk

Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia content. Period. For any other uses, it's caveat emptor - but at least, unlike the DM, it is free! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

In fairness, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and for some topic areas it's been examined and found about as good as some other tertiary sources. Against that, some editors just make stuff up and article improvement grinds slowly, so at any moment it can be unreliable. Citing reliable references makes WP a good starting point for checking with better sources., this noticeboard helps . . dave souza, talk 07:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

As stated Wikipedia and other online encyclopedias, such as Encyclopædia Britannica, are good for general information and a starting point, but are not WP:RS sources in and of itself. Kierzek (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not quite true or at least a bit misleadsing. Reputable tertiary sources (such as the Britannica) may be used as sources Wikipedia however may not.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hindawi journal and WP:MEDRS

This is about [7]. The source is not WP:MEDRS compliant on several counts:

• it is not a review;
• the journal is not MEDLINE indexed;
• Hindawi was called "a borderline case" by Jeffrey Beall. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This is PMID 22505818 . The bigger problem is that it is a primary source used to support WP:Biomedical content. Yes not MEDRS and MEDRS is needed. A recent review from a good journal. Jytdog (talk) 05:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The Orion - Student Newspaper

See for previous discussions on student newspapers here and here. I would like to discuss The Orion, the student newspaper of California State University, Chico. The paper is around since 1975. This web-page gives a long list of awards won, and the paper's mission statement which says that "The Orion’s goal is to build journalistic excellence at Chico State by striving to inspire our readers to think critically, with complete, accurate and unbiased journalism." Still, an opinion piece on the Orion's site was removed as source from an "External views"-section since "student papers are not reliable sources." Was that done correctly? Or could an opinion on a student-newspaper-site be regarded as reliable as an external view? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I must say that I disagree with Czar's reason for deleting the source. There is no reason that student newspapers should be considered as not reliable sources. I actually already reverted the edit that you brought up above. However, while later reviewing the source, it says that it is filed under the 'opinion' section. Opinion pieces in News sources are generally not considered as reliable sources except for the views of the author and therefore must be attributed (i.e. "Roberto Fonseca of the Orion said..."). However, in this case the person writing the op ed usually needs to be someone who is themselves a notable person (i.e. an opinion that is notable), which in this case the writer does not seem to be. That's why I later removed the source a second time.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I had also removed the quote before, for pretty much those reasons. The article's topic is mentioned only briefly by the source as part of an open-ended list, and the quote being added was from a later paragraph. Even if the author, Roberto Fonseca (journalist), were recognized as an expert, it would still be debatable. I wouldn't consider the Orion to be blanket unreliable, however. It seems as usable as any other smaller local paper. Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• All it takes is a simple search of this page's archives to see how student papers/newspapers are treated. They typically do not even approach the editorial standards of a regional/national paper. There are exceptions, but there are no indications that The Orion has any detailed fact-checking or editorial credibility with the source in question. czar 01:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

For this source I have made my position against it clear by removing it myself, but it is your blanket statement "student papers are not reliable sources" that I disagree with. The reliability of any source always depends on context, so statements like this are both false and unhelpful.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Student papers are categorically unreliable sources. Burden is on the editor to prove that the source has a reputation for editorial quality, and most student publications have none. czar 06:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a difference between a source that is not reliable, and an unreliable source, at least in WP policy. Unreliable sources have a 'poor reputation for editorial quality' per WP:UNRELIABLE Whereas sources that have unknown reputation (most student papers) simply don't qualify to be a 'reliable source' (no proven reputation for editorial quality) but nor can you call them an 'unreliable source'. In other words they are marginal sources, not categorically unreliable sources.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with CZAR's statement. As it was put by Blueboar on 1 October 2009 : Unfortunately, this isn't something that we can make a blanket statement on... It really depends on the reputation of the specific student-run newspaper in question. Some have high editorial standards and are quite reliable, others are not reliable at all. In this case, the Orion has won lots of awards on their excellence, (and continues to win them this month). Moreover, a first look on their site doesn't look like that they have a reputation on "gratuitous photos of students engaging in nude mud wrestling," as some other student publication have. Thus, I think the Orion is OK.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Sources are judged in context. A well-run (in this case the Orion has plenty of awards) student newspaper may be reliable for some things and not others. Its opinion pieces are less likely to, for the aforementioned issue with the writer being likely a completely non-notable person whose opinion has no weight. Even here there may be exceptions, a student newspaper's opinion pieces on issues that primarily affect students (campus rape for example) may be relevant depending on the context. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• From looking at (what I think) is the usage - on the article Carl Benjamin - no the Orion is not a suitable source here. An Op-ed on a BLP has quite narrow uses, and the Orion does not fall within that scope that I can see. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Disappearance of Dorothy Forstein

Disappearance of Dorothy Forstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am not convinced by any of the references in this article, nor by internet searching. I proposed deletion, but someone has objected.

I'd like further opinions on the sourcing.

Here is my PROD reasoning;

This case does not seem notable. Except one small newspaper reference to the missing person, none of the sources are reliable. Blogs, facebook, and 'mystery sites' do not establish notability. I can find no hard information about this in mainstream media; it even says "oddly by the end of October, only one week after being printed in the newspapers, the story had largely died down" - referenced to a facebook group. Even if a person of this name did 'disappear', it doesn't seem worthy of an article, with so little information in RS. It seems possible this is partly, or mostly, an 'urban legend' story.

Thanks. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Lots of dodgy sources, needs a lot of work.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

And a user just reverted the tags I placed on blogs, tumblr and youtube.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Geology Underfoot in Death Valley

Is https://books.google.it/books?hl=de&id=EvfgqYRyCUAC&q=lake#v=onepage&q=manly&f=false a reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Its publisher, Mountain Press Publishing Company, appears to be a legitimate book publisher, one that has been around for nearly 70 years and is independent of the author, and not just an e-book imprint or an operation run out of the author's own spare bedroom. So I would treat it as any other book: probably reliable, but details depend on what it's being used to source. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The authors have been favorably reviewed for another of their Geology Underfoot series in The Journal of Geology (University of Chicago Press) [8]. I think it is fair to conclude they are a RS for Wikipedia. - Bri (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Now putting that source to use... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Gomolo.com - Indian movie database

Gomolo.com describes itself as "Gomolo is the IMDb for Indian movies". Since IMDb is considered a non RS in most cases, is this any different? Same problems exist: their movie synopses don't seem to have an editorial credit, do we have evidence of a complete and correct compilation here?

An example of its use is this: it is the sole source for Albela (1971 film). - Bri (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Mondoweiss again

This is getting farcical. I add material from Israel-advocacy mags like The Tablet (which hosts commentators I regard as inflammatory rightwing zealots] like Liel Leibovitz) or The Forward and, from the other American Jewish anti-Zionist perspective I cite on occasion material from Mondoweiss where appropriate. No one objects to my use of pro Israeli mags: the objection is to my use of a perfectly respectable magazine that hosts views from the other, balancing perspective. This has been repeatedly challenged but in the past years the verdict has been Mondoweiss is not revertible on sight, as was frequently done in the past. The most recent instance is here Notwithstanding the RSN verdict, opposing editors still insisted that I gain their consensus to reintroduce the edit. One can also consult this, where two sockpuppets, User:Averysoda and User:Brad Dyer, weighed in negatively. The independent advice from User:Rhoark allowed its inclusion, depending on context. This discussion was again disturbed by a pro-Israeli sockpuppet User:Epson Salts. In the present case, we are talking about Mondoweiss for an absolutely innocuous piece of independently verifiable opinion, in an article that has nothing intemperate or controversial.

The advice is again being ignored. At Michael Sfard, User:Shrike, with the above judgement fresh in mind, immediately reverted out an wholly innocuous addition sourced to Mondoweiss. Maybe true but you have to find WP:RS that tells in this WP:BLP

What was the putative WP:BLP violation?

'Michael Sfard (is) - - the grandchild of Holocaust survivors. His parents had been expelled from Poland for their activist work on behalf of democratic ideals.(Robert Herbst,'Unfortunately there are many more decent than brave people,’ Mondoweiss 12 March 2017)

Why on earth is it a violation of a person's biography to note his grandparents survived the Holocaust? Wildly absurd.

The editor states that he had done a google search to verify if this innocuous statement was true or not before reverting, but could find no evidence of it and hence had WP:BLP worries.

• Saying a human rights lawyer’s grandparents were holocaust survivors nowhere violates BLP, and this is therefore a false edit summary.
• The simplest google checks yield numerous citations in other sources for this fact. (Michael Sfard+holocaust+grandparents, or variants).

Once more could neutral editors clarify if, as looks to be the case with a group of editors, regular or sockpuppets, Mondoweiss is absolutely under ban on wiki, as Shrike and others keep apparently insisting by reverting it on sight? Nishidani (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Mondowiess is WP:SPS and not secondary source and can't used in WP:BLP.Your statemement contain WP:BLP violation I suggest that you will fix it.--Shrike (talk) 07:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Please don't comment if you ignore reading the links above, which show neutral editors have not determined Mondoweiss is WP:SPS. User:Rhoark indeed denied it was any such thing, replying to a number of sockpuppets who assert it is. One cannot repeat a charge in an edit summary that ignores what informed external opinions on the RSN board variously state.Nishidani (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see Mondoweiss is not case of WP:SPS, as it has an editorial staff and infrastructure of small news portal. However not being WP:SPS doesn't it make a reputable or reliable news source yet. Considering that the site is somewhat controversial (at least to many) and not mainstream news either, I would avoid using it if possible and try to source the content in question by other means.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

And we talking here about WP:BLP so we should carefully choose our sources.--Shrike (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, WP:BLP suggest additional caution, however the content that is sourced here seems completely uncontroversial afaik.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• 1. Yes its a BLP so we should be careful. 2. Mondoweiss is not an SPS but may be problematic with controversial content in the IP area. 3.I cannot see any BLP issue that would prevent noting this subject's grandparents survived the holocaust (unless we were perhaps inferring they survived due to untoward reasons). 4. Taking into account the previous, imho Mondoweiss is reliable for the content sourced in that article in this instance. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem it is about I/P conflict this information meant to give more positive light to the political activist in question.And according to the blp policy it doesn't matter really " that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable"--Shrike (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem it is about I/P conflict this information meant to give more positive light to the political activist in question

So you are saying you excised mention that Michael Sfard has forebears who survived the Holocaust or Polish anti-Semitism because this human rights lawyer, in your spin a political activist because, if this is added, it would make themn appear in a more positive light? Do you realize the implications of what you wrote here? I.e. that you edited out information of critics of Israeli policies regarding Palestinians whenever it shows them in 'a positive light', let's say, their human dimension or the motivation for their humanitarian causes?Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Shrike. It took me 3 seconds, and the other editor no doubt not much more time, to verify that the information given was corroborated. He said the correct procedure was to google round. You said you did before reverting. That means, if true, that you couldn't google the simplest request. In your edit summary you allowed it might be true, so you reverted not because the information was a BLP violation, but because you dislike Mondoweiss for its 'controversial content'. All sources on the I/P conflict are controversial, including the New York Times, as scholars have repeatedly shown. That goes for the many Israeli sources, which comprehensively give as facts what turn out to be direct transcripts of army bulletins. No one objects to this partisan sourcing for those reasons. Watchdog mags like Mondoweiss, and +972 magazine are necessary to balance the WP:Systemic bias we have in our news circuits. They report what the corporative news outlets often miss, ignore or traduce. I don't use 99% of the material I read on that, or most other outlets. I use my judgement as to the appropriateness encyclopedically of the information given, and if it is uncontroversial matter from a minor but significant source, as in this and several other cases recently, I include it. None of the regular reverters has challenged my use of Mondoweiss at Taha Muhammad Ali here, and rightly so. Nishidani (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I pretty much read that the same as Nishidani, if you are seriously making the argument that because including details of his grandparents (alledgedly) paints him in a positive light, it shouldnt be included, I am pretty sure thats a non-starter. Its neither a reliability issue, nor a BLP issue. At best its a NPOV issue and even then I doubt that will get any traction. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

High Fructose Corn Syrup

I'm writing you to receive guidance in how to deal with a dispute I have with the editor Zefr regarding my contribution to the High-fructose corn syrup article. I have attempted to resolve this using the High Fructose Corn Syrup talk page and Wikipedia’s third opinion, with little success and now would like to turn to you for help.

In the past weeks or so I have tried to contribute multiple times (March 8, March 11, March 14) to an article about High-fructose corn syrup in the section titled "Safety and Manufacturing Concerns" (original title was Manufacturing Contaminants). This section discusses the possible of mercury contamination of HFCS. I tried to remain neutral’' in my contribution by presenting "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" In this case it was towards contamination of mercury in products that contain HFCS. I wrote about research that both has found traces of mercury, as well as research that has found no traces of mercury. The research that found traces were conducted in 2009 [9] [10] and 2010 [11] and were supported by Scientific journals’’ . The research that has found no traces of mercury is the "Duke study" [12] The "Duke study" is A) a Popular press’’ and not Scientific journals’' B) not the most recent study in this debate C) Somewhat biased for it was commissioned on behalf of the Corn Refiners Association. I have tried multiple times to add meaningful contribution to this article that takes all this science into account. Yet at each time an editor by the name Zefr would revert my work (reverted on March 8, reverted on march 11,reverted on march 14). I will admit that initially I added a lot and went into details about the studies, and I understand that Wikipedia is not WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. But I thought my most recent contributions was succinct and addressed all concerns brought up by Zefr on Talk:High-fructose_corn_syrup. Yet each time he reverts my contribution with the exception of the Duke study [13] which is I contend is biased, not recent and not supported by a proper citation.

He recently redid the entire section changing the name from “manufacturing contaminants” to “safety and manufacturing concerns”. He has added the Duke Citations to the text twice, with a preface that HFCS is safe for consumption, and has added text that is not supported by citations. He won’t allow me to add peer-reviewed studies with relevant information to this article.

Why is Zefr Popular press allowed but Scientific journals not? Why is Zefr allowed to contribute to Wikipedia but what he adds is not backed up by their citations? And what I contribute that is back by citations is not allowed? Thatwhoiswise (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The issue here is not sourcing, but interpretation. Other sources also note the contamination but say that it isn't significant. You are trying to suppress this and emphasize sources that omit that assessment. Mangoe (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Thatwhoiswise: Your logic looks sound to me. I reviewed Zefr's analysis that said the studies should be excluded because of determinations of safety by the FDA and CDC. That makes no sense--those agencies are highly influenced by industry. We use top quality secondary sources by independent scientists. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

As Mangoe points out, the sources are reliable (including FDA and CDC), this is the wrong place to discuss them, and the issue is interpretation. To summarize, tiny amounts of mercury have been found, but these do not appear to pose a threat to health. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a difference between quantifiable/significant and "health threat". It would be WP:OR to claim there is no Mercury just because the FDA and CDC say it is "safe". After all, different countries have different regulatory safety standards. The U.S. usually has fairly lax standards compared to other industrial countries, such as in the E.U. that uses the Precautionary Principle: considering something like Mobile phone radiation and health, where I know the E.U. has much tighter standards. I have not looked up the standard in E.U. compared to FDA on Mercury, but I have a hunch the FDA's permissible level on Mercury is significantly higher. Consider for example, the highly politicized Mercury issue with Bush [14]EPA Ignored Science When Regulating Power Plant Mercury Emissions. Again, the regulatory agencies are highly politicized. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not hard to find the EU information, and I note that they conclude that "Taking into account the outcome of the SCOOP-task 3.2.11, EFSA concluded that the levels of mercury found in foods, other than fish and seafood, were of lower concern." (from here) In another publication they say, "Food sources other than fish and seafood products may contain mercury, but mostly in the form of inorganic mercury. Based on the available data the contribution to methylmercury exposure from these foods is considered to be insignificant." (See here) There's no reputable source that says the mercury contamination is significant. Mangoe (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

David Tornheim: It's ridiculous to suggest the CDC and FDA are influenced by industry or do not apply the highest scientific standards. By contrast, the CDC monitors and expertly studies diseases worldwide and the FDA regulates industry for public safety. You'll need more rigorous secondary sources to support such assertions, and you won't find them. These two agencies and their scientific processes are also the highest standards represented in Wikipedia Medicine guidelines for sourcing, as they are integrated into the pinnacle for sourcing in the WP:MEDASSESS pyramids shown here. Turning to the issue of mercury levels in HFCS - which I will take up with you or Thatwhoiswise at that article - no one is disputing that mercury was found in isolated samples of HFCS years ago (before 2008 manufacturing). There are no reports of it since the report on 2008 samples. My edits of possible prior contamination acknowledged those previous findings, as stated in the article today. The dispute with Thatwhoiswise is not about whether mercury was found, but rather about that editor's insistence to editorialize per WP:SOAP and use other sources (one merely an opinion comment) to reference the same finding as the one analytical source used. Lastly, I agree this is the wrong forum for discussing these issues. No one is disputing the reliability of the current sources used in the HFCS article on safety and manufacturing concerns. That the CDC and FDA do not discuss safety risks from manufacturing of HFCS means the product is safe to consume, plain and simple. --Zefr (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The absence of a statement about safety risks from the CDC or FDA does not mean there are no safety risks. (You can't prove a negative). I support the idea that CDC and FDA are not going to be significantly influenced by corporate measures and thus are generally high reliable sources, but their absence of mentioning manufacturing risks should not be taken that there aren't any. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. When there is a safety concern about elemental mercury in the food supply, it is quantified (usually by the USDA), then reported to the FDA who make a safety statement to consumers as exists for mercury in some seafoods. In the HFCS article, we cite the FDA's statement on HFCS where no mention is made about mercury risk. That is the main point of the current manufacturing of HFCS is safe and not mercury-contaminated. --Zefr (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I would need time to review how the FDA or CDC present safety information about food safety and if it is done in a standardized way, as the closest think I can compare to would be MSDS sheets for chemicals and the like, and here there are "required" elements to be considered a proper MSDS sheet, such as known LD50 information, for instance. In such cases there is strong clarity (or at least, there should be strong clarity) between where an LD50 value is not yet known because such tests haven't be carried out, or where there is no LD50 value because the chemical is safe at extremely high levels. But in either way, the safety relative to LD50 is addressed. What I am reading from this discussion is that neither the FDA or CDC reports address the safety, even if just to say "there are no known safety issues with the manufacture of HFCS", which I would expect that if they had a standard form/template, would be included. So the absence of these statements does not allow us to presume that the FDA/CDC have concluded there are no safety issues; that's basically SYNTH research. (Also just trying to search, there's clearly an issue with junk science around this based on a 2009 study, and claims the FDA is hiding this).

That said, there do appear to be legit papers that warn that mercury could enter into the production of HFCS via the caustic soda. [15], and the 2009 study at least is a data point to be made that one test in 2009 found several sources with trace mercury levels. It's also probably necessary to point out what the manufactures said in response to the 2009 study (Eg [16]) that they have switched away from the chlor-alkyl source of caustic soda to one that would be mercury-free. What I can't find is any recent study to affirm if current products of HFCS have mercury or not, with most all relaying on the 2009 study. Hence, this is an area to take caution: It would be improper to say HFCS is factually safe, but it would also be improper to say all HFCS contains mercury. It is probably best to take a median ground here. --MASEM (t) 06:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

We do not have the absence of a statement: the EU source I cited specifically denies a significant risk. Basically the argument here is around substituting lay fears and analysis of the result for competent, official sources. We don't do that. Mangoe (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, not really. First, that EU report was in 2006 (if I'm reading it right), and it doesn't specifically call out HFCS so while not as much an OR violation as assuming absence of safety warning = safe, it's still making some assumptions; the report that sparked the issue (which I'm not saying is necessarily right) was 2009. I think it is factually appropriate to say that HFCS made from caustic soda that is produced from chloro-alkyl plants may have mercury in it, but organizations like the EU have said that the levels are well below risk levels in humans, and that the manufacturers of HFCS have switched off chloro-alkyl caustic soda to further eliminate any possible mercury contamination. And then discussion the 2009 "scare" from the IATP report. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• This is a mess. Reviewing the OP's OP and the three diffs they cite, it seems that they want to add content about mercury in HFCS, and the dangers of that mercury, based on the following four refs, which I have taken the liberty of formatting with pmid etc to the extent they are available.:

• • Dufault, R; LeBlanc, B; Schnoll, R; Cornett, C; Schweitzer, L; Wallinga, D; Hightower, J; Patrick, L; Lukiw, WJ (26 January 2009). "Mercury from chlor-alkali plants: measured concentrations in food product sugar". Environmental health : a global access science source. 8: 2. PMC 2637263. PMID 19171026.
  • Wallinga, David (2009). "Not So Sweet: Missing Mercury and High Fructose Corn Syrup" (PDF). Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.</ref>
  • Rideout, Karen (21 July 2010). "Comment on the paper by Dufault et al.: Mercury in foods containing high-fructose corn syrup in Canada". Environmental Health. Retrieved 14 March 2017.
  • Dufault, Renee (2015). "Blood inorganic mercury is directly associated with glucose levels in the human population and may be linked to processed food intake". Integrative Molecular Medicine. 2: 166–179. Retrieved 8 March 2017.

First ref is a primary source that is 8 years old. Not MEDRS.

2nd ref is a white paper by Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, an advocacy organization. Not MEDRS.

3rd ref is a letter to the editor. Not a MEDRS source.

4th ref is a primary source published in a journal put out by a predatory publisher. ("open access text" was on beall's list). It is also not MEDLINE indexed. Not MEDRS by miles.

None of that is OK. Maybe there are other sources i missed. Jytdog (talk) 05:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, checking above, the 2nd ref is rather key - even if it is not MEDRS, as it started this "scare" of mercury in HFCS in 2009. It needs to be mentioned in that context, but it can't be used to state factually about mercury content or the lack thereof in HFCS. --MASEM (t) 06:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Carsalesbase.com

The site carsalesbase.com (or its former name, left-lane.com) has been added to a large number of articles mostly by a single-purpose account. The only information about the site is from the about page, where it says the author is Bart Demandt in the Netherlands, and he has worked in car sales. In other words, it's a personal blog.

The reason why this particular personal blog might be a desirable source is that it contains lots of vehicle sales figures, which are generally proprietary data. Bart tells us "Sources: Manufacturers, ANDC" for the Toyota data cited here in Toyota 4Runner. The ANDC is probably the New Automotive News Data Center ($159 per year), "manufacturers" is vague. I assume Bart is getting this from internal sales documents from one or more car makers, either about themselves or their competitors. Regardless of where Bart gets his data, it's still self-published. Here's all the artiels that have cited this site:

If Bart were to edit Wikipedia himself, and cite his sources directly, that would be fine. And it would be great if WP:The Wikipedia Library could get access to ANDC, ACEA, JAMA and other proprietary car industry databases, but citing some guy's personal website isn't really a substitute for a reliable source. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Journal of Hebrew Scriptures?

Re This is from the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, which is open access, and therefore not a reliable source.

Does this journal meet RS? Should it be removed summarily, as here? Are open access journals implicitly non-RS?

Is Journal of Hebrew Scriptures open-access (whatever that is meaning here), how are its articles selected or reviewed and does this meet RS?

The problem with this edit and source removal is that it appears to be based on the hypothesis that all open access journals fail RS, presumably because some free-to-read open access journals are funding themselves by paid publishing from the authors and an uncritical acceptance policy. At least from the evidence here, there's no reason to extend that (which is a real problem with some journals) to Journal of Hebrew Scriptures.

I'd note that the article content was also removed when the source was removed. There is no indication the content was incorrect, breached BLP or couldn't be sourced otherwise. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't speak specifically as to the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, but Andy is clearly correct that open-access journals and predatory open-access journals are not the same thing. Many open-access journals are perfectly legitimate, and it's improper to remove cites or text solely because it is published in an OA journal. It requires a little bit more thought than that.

Some criteria can be seen in Tom Hill, Identifying legitimate open access journals: some suggestions from a publisher, Learned Publishing 28: 59–62, doi:10.1087/20150109. Hill's criteria are very straightforward: (1) does the journal serve readers, and not just authors? Does journal "provide services that are not directed towards attracting submissions, and ... publishing fees"? Does the journal have a "policy on publication of corrections, expressions of concern, and retraction"? (2) is the journal indexed (i.e, included in respected bibliographic databases)? (3) does the journal show awareness of ethical and legal issues? Does it have policies on plagiarism, declaring funding sources and competing interests, and ethical requirements in research? Is it a member of a body such as the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association that requires compliance with ethical rules? (4) Is the journal pay-to-publish or not? Does the journal demonstrate independent editorial decision making and peer review? Neutrality^talk 15:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the "predatory" link, I hadn't noticed we had the specific article, but that's just the distinction I was thinking of. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

And BTW, I can't find Journal of Hebrew Scriptures on Beall's List. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Beall has not updated/maintained his list for quite awhile and as far as I know has now actively withdrawn it. Treat that as you will. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

By "quite a while" I presume you mean January? I have laundry that's older than that. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Second time I have had to trout myself today, I read it as Jan 2016. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Many open access journals republish articles, which should be weighed based on the original publication. This article for example was written by a renowned Old Testament scholar,Gordon Wenham, and published by the reputable Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,[17] and therefore passes rs. TFD (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Barking Creek

Battle of Barking Creek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's some problems with references on this article, and it's hard to figure out. Wyresider (talk · contribs) has explained the issues on the talk page, under Talk:Battle of Barking Creek#Lucking was not OC 56 Squadron.

(Actually, he posted his questions there 6 months ago, but nobody answered; he's asked again today on helpdesk)

Can anyone help out? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Branimir Štulić

A spokesman for the subject has made a request at WP:BLPN which alledges a number of issues, primarily "Most of the references taken as a sources for this article are fabricated fake interviews which was a very common practice among journalists in a communist society at that time (also after Yugoslavia's breakup)." Could someone who either has experience in the area, or speaks Serbian and/or Croatian please take a look at the article and opine at BLPN. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Cary Grant middle name-reliable sources?

Cary Grant

Sources

• Free BMD UK
• Find A Death

The article was written and approved as a Good Article with his middle name as Alexander. It has now been changed to Alec on the basis of these 2 sources. Grant's US naturalization documents list his birth name as Archibald Alexander Leach. We hope (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• See Alec - its a shortening for Alexander. So both are likely correct depending on where used/at different times. A formal government document is more likely to have the longer formal name (hence Alexander on his naturalization documents) while a more relaxed usage might be Alec. Generally for forenames, we go by the name they are commonly known by (see Alec Baldwin) but for middle names I dont think there is a naming guideline? Apparantly its at WP:MIDDLENAME - which to my reading would indicate Alexander as I do not consider the two above sources 'reliable' for biographical material. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, neither did I. Now what to do about the changes and those who are sold on "Alec" without needing to have an RFC? We hope (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Cary Grant: A Biography by Marc Elliot, p. 390: "Archibald Alec Leach. Alec is the familiar form of Alexander (as Dick is to Richard) and is the way the name appears on the birth records.". [18] - Nunh-huh 18:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The sources above include actual scans of two different official birth records, both of which confirm what that Elliot source says (i.e., that "Alec" is what appears on the official birth records). I think it's therefore very clear that his middle name at birth was officially registered as "Alec". It's possible that most people in 1904 (and even in 1942 when he filled out his naturalization papers) didn't think the difference between Alec and Alexander as a middle name was worth a lot of fuss, but his official middle name at birth was clearly Alec. Note that his original name is prefixed by the word "born" in the lead, so it should reflect the name used when he was born, not whatever alternative form he may have also used later in life. There was also a prior discussion (now at Talk:Cary Grant/Archive 1#Middle name) that settled on "Alec" as the birth name. We don't really seem to have any dispute here about the basic facts. The article includes a mention that when he filled out his naturalization application in 1942, he listed his middle name as "Alexander", so no information is being suppressed here. In my view, it is important to note that it is not the reliability of the source articles that is under discussion, but only the reliability of the scanned documents that are depicted in those articles. Unless someone faked the scans, which is extremely unlikely, the scans should be considered OK. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why anyone thinks there is only one "correct" middle name, or that it's up to Wikipedia editors to choose it. According to the sources, his middle name was Alec at birth, and he used the middle name "Alexander" on his naturalization form. So both were used as his middle name. Why not give his name at birth, with a footnote indicating his later use of Alexander? - Nunh-huh 20:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I just did that in the article; let's see what others think. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Bill Cunningham

Hi. Hopefully someone can me with this. During a GA review some more biographical information on Bill Cunningham (rugby union)'s family was requested. Some information was added but I have questions regarding some of the sources.

• Cunningham was the son of Hera (Sarah) Ngaihika Halbert and her second husband, James Cunningham.[2] Hera was the daughter of Thomas Halbert, a whaler and trader who landed in Poverty Bay in about 1832, and his fifth wife, Keita Kaikiri, who belonged to the Rongowhakaata iwi. Hera later remarried Paratene Tatae,[2]
  • [2] links here cerberuscoins.wordpress.com
• Cunningham married Ethel Minnie Dance of Waihi on 23 September 1907.[5][6] The same year, Ethel gave birth to their son, William Henry Cunningham,[7] however he died at only a day old.[8] This was the only child the couple had and never had anymore.
  • [5] -- I am happy with this reference.
  • [6] -- "Marriage search – use Cunningham in 'Groom's family name' field, and 23/9/1907 in 'Search from date' and 'Search to date' fields". Internal Affairs. Retrieved 19 January 2016.
  • [7] -- "Birth search – use Cunningham in 'Given name' and William Henry in 'Family Name' and 'Ethel' in 'Mother's name' field, and 01/01/1907 in 'Search from date' and 'Search to date' fields". Internal Affairs. Retrieved 27 December 2016.
  • [8] -- "Death search – use Cunningham in 'Given name' and William Henry in 'Family Name' field, and 01/01/1907 in 'Search from date' and 'Search to date' fields". Internal Affairs. Retrieved 27 December 2016.

My questions are, is [2] reliable or not, are [6]-[8] too primary? I may take this article to WP:FAC at some point so any help from the experts here would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Shudde ^talk 09:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Two sources in the lede of Alkaline diet

Source: https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/coral2.html
Article: Alkaline Diet
Content:

The idea that this diet can materially affect blood pH, or treat a range of diseases, is incorrect.

This doesn't seem near to being a reliable source to me but I was reverted and told that it is a "reliable source on quackery" by Dbrodbeck.

For the second source:
Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20150327162238/http://www.intelihealth.com/article/alkaline-diets-and-cancer-fact-or-fiction? Alkaline Diet
Content:

Due to the lack of credible evidence supporting the benefits of this diet, it is not recommended by dietitians or other health professionals.

This one seems borderline, especially as it is currently being used in the lede of the article as an anchor to the hard criticism of the first paragraph.

 InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what the problem is. Quackwatch "cites peer-reviewed journal articles and has received several awards" according to the article about it. I don't know about intellihealth and it would be a pity to cite an archived page in the lead but the article is by a proper nutritionist at a hospital. Perhaps you could be more specific about what the problem you see is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by dmcq (talk • contribs)

I think this (QW) has discussed quite a bit. [19]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see too much of an issue using Quackwatch but I would at least attributed that statement to Quackwatch - it would be similar to sourcing a urban legand to Snopes.com, which has recognition in that area, though not the utmost authority. The other source seems fine. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, seems like a good analysis. It is a reliable source but we should use better ones if available. It seems a bit much there the insistence of some in that discussion of ultra high standards for Quackwatch but not for the proponents of fringe ideas. I would say if the OP has more reliable sources for Alkaline diet either pro or anti then produce them otherwise why are they complaining about Quackwatch? Dmcq (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

On the point of any actual science in the article I believe it would come under WP:MEDRS which is rather more rigorous than the standards applied anywhere else in Wikipedia. I'm not sure how they cope about things that don't have much written about them. Dmcq (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

"[T]he insistence of some in that discussion of ultra high standards for Quackwatch but not for the proponents of fringe ideas" – I've been involved in that discussion and I don't think anyone is insisting on that. The discussion isn't about sources that are "pro" or "anti", but rather which sources help most in writing a neutral and impartial description of the topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

US Uncut

Is the defunct liberal news site US Uncut a reliable source for straightforward statements of fact? It is currently used this way in several articles, such as Salman of Saudi Arabia and 2017 Women's March. Based on US Uncut#Criticisms and my general impression from other sites that discuss US Uncut, I'm inclined to think it's not reliable for these kinds of statements, but I'd like to get other editors' opinions before I remove the citations from those articles and others. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Fox/ScienceNews/JerusalemPost/Phys

This is a rather quick question to a more experienced editor regarding what can be considered a reliable source. Do any of the following qualify?

1. http://www.foxnews.com/ -- Fox News

2. http://www.jpost.com/ -- Jerusalem Post

3. https://www.sciencenews.org/ -- Science News

4. https://phys.org/ -- Phys

If there is another place in Wikipedia where I can simply ask others regarding whether Wikipedia has determined a reliable source in the past aside from RSN, I'd like to know too. Thanks.Korvex (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

We can't really answer generalized questions like that... reliability always depends on context... and a lot depends on exactly what information you are trying to support by citing the source, and how you phrase it in the article. So... if you could give us that context, it would help. Blueboar (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I just meant that, if by definition, one of these websites simply would not be allowed to be cited (or something similar to what happened to Daily Mail, is what I'm trying to get at). Korvex (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)