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

Sources on Estonian police battalion

Sources:

• Collaboration with the Nazis: Public Discourse after the Holocaust, edited by Roni Stauber; chapter by Yitzhak Arad

• "The report deals with the role Estonian auxiliarry forces in crimes committed outside of Estonia. ... On 7 August 1942, Estonian police battalion No 36 took part in the round-up and execution of all remaining Jews..." (somewhat loose paraphrasing, exact quote in the link)

• The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933-1945; edited by Geoffrey P. Megargee:

• "On August 7 1942, the Germans and their collaborators (including Estonian Police Battalion 36 ...) took away the remaining inmates (...) and shot them there": link.

• In contrast, Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity states: "There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews". ("Estonian defence battalions / police battalions". In Toomas Hiio; Meelis Maripuu; Indrek Paavle. Estonia 1940–1945: Reports of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity. Tallinn. pp. 825–876)

Article: 36th Estonian Police Battalion

Content: "In August 1942, the battalion participated in the murder of Jews in Novogrudok, Belarus."

The relevant Talk page discussion can be found here: Talk:36th_Estonian_Police_Battalion#Novogrudok. Courtesy ping to Nug & Jaan. I would appreciate additional input on this matter. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It's very interesting that the West German investigation in the early '60s could not prove participation in the killing as I wouldn't think that they'd have any reason to whitewash the Communist gov't of the time. I think that what we have here is reliable sources on both sides, so I'd suggest laying out the evidence like so: "The battalion has been accused of participating in the killings of Jews at X, on Y, (sources) but a West German investigation in the early 1960s could not conclusively link its members to the action(source)" and let the reader decide. RSN isn't meant to decide which evidence is the "best", and that's all I'm afraid that we could accomplish here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if there might be some clarification in the text of the second source, or possibly in any sources these themselves cite. I say this because the sources don't necessarily contradict. The first states the role the police played in the killings cannot be determined, whereas the second states that there is no evidence they participated in the executions. If the two sources are taking very different interpretations of "involvement", they might actually agree. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The talk page discussion mentions WP:WPNOTRS, and claims that we shouldn't use tertiary sources. However, WP:WPNOTRS doesn't really say that - it says secondary sources are preferred but tertiary sources are reliable also. In practice, we use specialty encyclopedias quite a lot, as they are often written by experts in the field they cover. I'd consider The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos to be a specialty encyclopedia that is probably quite a good source for information on its subject matter. And I'll also note that the three volumes of the The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos are quite extensively researched and do actually include sources for most entries. I don't have the first volume available at the moment (even I quail at buying the books - they are pricey!) but I do have the second volume here at hand and a glance through shows every article has a list of sources as well as most having footnotes. I'd suggest getting the book through interlibrary loan and consulting whatever sources are used for the entry snippeted above. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

And the work on Collaboration is also post-Cold War and the section by Arad would definitely be considered a reliable source for this subject, as Arad is a researcher in the field of the Holocaust in the Baltics. His work is most definitely NOT a tertiary source, it is in fact a secondary source also. He may be wrong, but its equally likely the commission was wrong also - especially if it based its conclusions on a West German commission from 1971, prior to the opening of many archives after the Cold War. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Your point about the West German commission not having full access to archival data is a good one, but none of these sources can be impeached as they're all post-Cold War and the commission doesn't even have any Estonian nationals as members. I'd need to see the sources myself, to see which way the preponderance of evidence lies if I were writing this article myself. But really, this is disagreement between reliable sources and should be discussed either in the main body of the article or a footnote, not a RS issue at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think we should take sides on either side - it appears to be a disagreement between sources ... all of which appear reliable. The ideal solution is to cover the controversy in the article. Both sides should be presented, and other sources brought to bear. A good start would be getting the Encyclopedia and seeing what sources it used. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I would first also cite this close study in Estonian, that, based on historical documents and interviews with historians also comes to the conclusion that there is no evidence to suggest the police battalion participated in the roundup of the Jews. And let me also point out that this is not a case of poor or missing documentation. The main discrepancy between the sources seems to be generality vs. specificity. The sources that claim the role of the police battalion may be generally reliable and use reliable PS but in this specific case either do not specify their sources or rely on indirect evidence, e.g. "The reports of this squad report many entries on "military action against partisans," a phrase which conceals punitive measures against citizens and the killing of Jews."

The dispute between the sources is not notable enough to warrant a passage in the article so my suggestion is to include it in a footnote. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The Ekspress source appears to be a general newspaper - at least I see articles on movies and other such topics on the main page of it. Google translate gives a very very rough translation which appears to be either a letter to the editor or an editoriak, which is supported by the translation of "PEKKA ERELT, EESTI EKSPRESSI AJALOOKÜLGEDE TOIMETAJA" which google gives as "PEKKA Erelt, Eesti Ekspress HISTORY sides of EDITOR". I'd suggest that the Ekspress is not exactly a scholarly secondary source here. Certainly, there appears to be a commission that does not think the brigade took part in the events. Unfortunately, an unsigned newspaper article is not a strong source contradicting the United States Holocaust Museum's encyclopedia of the various German labor/extermination camps, nor Arad, who is a scholar working in the field. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Pekka Erelt is the editor of the history section of the Eesti Ekspress. His article may not be scholarly but it is investigative journalism. Even if we do not consider his own discussion, we should not dismiss the quotes by professional historians Meelis Maripuu, Argo Kaasik and Enn Kaup in his article. And again, this is a matter of specificity. The core of this problem is trusting a general RS over specific investigation on this matter. And, again, the conclusions of the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity are not another opinion of 'a commission' but the conclusions of the commission established to investigate crimes by Estonian citizens. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It appears that the commission does not rule out the possibility that the Police Battalion participated in the massacre. If I'm Google translating it correctly, the opening para of the Estee Ekspress reads:

• Novogrudok, Belarus received notoriety among Estonians lately. Allegedly, the 36th Police Battalion took part in the mass murder of Jews committed there in August 1942. At least, Efraim Zuroff of the Simon Wiesenthal Center is certain of it. The wording in the report by the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity is more modest; the report, however, did not rule out the participation of the Estonians. (Not sure if "more modest" is the correct translation.) link

It seems to be an incident of significance & deserves more than a footnote in the article, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The Eesti Ekspress article was written in 2002, while the commission's work was still in progress, so obviously the commission "did not rule out the participation of the Estonians" at that time because it hadn't completed it's review of all the available evidence, including the 1960's West German investigation and post-war Soviet investigations. The commission's final report, published in 2006, concluded there was no evidence found relating to the participation of 36th Battalion. --Nug (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

From the Talk page: The report states on page 861 that the 36th Police Battalion was investigated in the Federal Republic of Germany between 1967 to 1971 and no evidence was found -- "no evidence found" does not mean that the commission established that the Police Battalion did not participate. What was the commission's conclusion? (As an aside, I would not put too much weight into a criminal investigation in West Germany in the 1960-10s, due to various reasons, which are too long to get in here). K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you put too much weight on a criminal investigation of West German Police in 1960-70? I could understand your concern if they where investigating their own countrymen, but they spent four years investigating a non-German unit composed of nationals from the then Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. The Commission states on page 862 of their final report: According to data gathered by Israeli police in September 1963, about 2000 and atleast 3000 Jews were murdered in Diatlovo and Nowogrodek on 6 and 7 August 1942 respectively. There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews. Contemporary researchers accuse the local German gendarmerie, one Lithuanian unit and a Belorussian defence battalion of these specific actions.^[163]. Footnote [163] cites Christian Gerlach, Kalkulierte Morde : Die deutche Wirtschafts und Vernichtungspolitik in Wießrußland 1941 bis 1944, Hamburg, 2000, pp. 701-702. --Nug (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Note re: "investigating a non-German unit composed of nationals from the then Soviet Union" -- presumably, the members of the Battalion retreated with the Germans and were residing either in West Germany or elsewhere in Western Europe; the Battalion's commander, Harald Riipalu, emigrated to the U.K, for example. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't see how that is significant, given that the majority of the Battalion where captured by the Soviets. Upon what basis do you dismiss investigations of West German police? As I understand it, there was an issue in the late 1950's to early 1960's in regard to the Police investigating their own members who may have committed crimes during the Nazi period, but I think it is too much to claim that this would have impeded investigations of foreign personnel in the late 60's to early 70's. --Nug (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Conclusions of the Commission

I tracked down the Commission's conclusions, and here's what the document says:

• "The study of Estonian military units is complicated by frequent changes in unit designation, in personnel and in duties, some of which are poorly recorded. However, it has been possible by careful use of Soviet era trial records, matched against material from the Estonian archives, to determine that Estonian units took an active part in at least one well-documented round-up and mass murder in Belarus. The 36th Police Battalion participated on August 7, 1942 in the gathering together and shooting of almost all the Jews still surviving in the town of Novogrudok.

"In the published records, this unit was described as fighting against partisans at the time. The Commission believes that although there clearly were numerous engagements between police units and partisans, "fighting against partisans" and "guarding prisoner of war camps" were at times ways of describing participation in actions against civilians, including Jews."

This is stated on page XXI: Conclusions of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity (PDF). So I really don't see the contradiction between the finding of the Commission, The Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos and Yitzhak Arad.

Does the statement "There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews" perhaps refer to the act of actually pulling the trigger? Unless I'm missing something, the sources agree that the Battalion in question was indeed involved. Ping those who have previously participated: @Nug, Ealdgyth, and Sturmvogel 66: to have a look. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems that both The Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos and Yitzhak Arad are paraphrasing this document you found, so obviously there would not be any contradiction. The basis of this appears to be the view that "fighting against partisans" was code for killing Jewish civilians. But it isn't clear how they arrived at that, as it appears to contradict the main body of the report itself, which devotes several pages to the activities of the Battalion and asserts there no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion. Are you able to access Gerlach's work and quote the original German here, perhaps that may shed further light, I've given the relevant page numbers above. --Nug (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

This document [I] found comes from the website of the commission http://www.mnemosyne.ee/hc.ee/ and is called "Conclusions of the Commission". Are you saying that the Commission is contradicting its own conclusions? There's got to be more context around this. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I said it appears to contradict the main body of the report itself, which explicitly states "There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews". Do you have access to Gerlach's work Kalkulierte Morde, pp701-702? --Nug (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have access to Gerlach. If I sent you an email, would you be able to scan and email the relevant pages from the main body of the report (assuming its in English)? I'd like to see more context around their conclusion. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

That is a pity, with you being able to cite more obscure German historians, like Sönke Neitzel and Wolfgang Schneider, in other articles, you may have also had access to Gerlach. I can scan the relevant pages, but I don't have easy access to a scanner, perhaps I could go to the local library over the weekend. --Nug (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I would look forward to it. BTW, Sönke Neitzel is not at all obscure. He is a leading German military historian; his 2011 book Soldaten: German POWs on Fighting, Killing, and Dying (with Harald Welzer) was a sensation in Germany. The book was published in English and is even available as an audio book. It's a fascinating read; I highly recommend it. See also this interview (in English):

• "Mindset of WWII German Soldiers": video interview with Neitzel discussing Soldaten, via the official YouTube channel of The Agenda (TVOntario).

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nug: any luck? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nug: final ping. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Finally back, have been caught up in WP:REALLIFE. I've managed to scan the relevant pages and will post a link here in the next few days. --Nug (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nug: Hi, do you plan to post here, or should I drop you an email? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that Yitzak Arad cites as his source the Estonian Institute of Historical Memory, which is the successor to the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity. The Commission was disbanded in 2007 and Arad wrote in 2011. You need to check what the Institute says. If they are cited correctly, then we have to prefer what they say over the Commission. I do not have full access to the Holocaust Museum Encyclopedia. The article may provide sources which can be checked. It was published in 2009, so it may be relying on the same info as Arad. This seems to be a case where an original conclusion was changed, but we cannot tell without looking at what the Institute says. TFD (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Finally got my scanner working and have the Holocaust Museum Encyclopedia from the library. If anyone wants the scans of the article ... send me an email and I will send pdfs. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration

I would be grateful if editors could find some time to comment on an RFC as to RS suitability at the talk page for the above article, thank you. The queried RS are

https://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2017/06/the-forgotten-truth-about-the-balfour-declaration/

& (for comparison)

http://www.balfourproject.org/balfour-weizmann-and-the-creation-of-israel-by-charles-glass/

The Intelligence Forum

1. Source. Dravis, Michael (17 January 2000). "Andrew and Mitrokhin Part 1". The Intelligence Forum archives.

2. Article. Mitrokhin Archive

3. Content. This paragraph appears in the "Reception and reviews" section of the article:

Reg Whitaker, a professor of Political Science at York University in Toronto, gave a review at the The Intelligence Forum about the book:

"The Mitrokhin Archive arrives from a cache under a Russian dacha floor, courtesy of the British intelligence community itself, and its chosen historian, Chris Andrew. The provenance of this archive is itself a matter of some controversy." After questioning and discussing the source of the book he adds that "the hand of British intelligence is evident, and Andrew clearly has a 'special relationship' with SIS." Then, Reg Whitaker goes on to talk about the British Media when it comes to spies and says that "ever since Burgess and Maclean made their run to Moscow in 1951, the British have treated espionage as a branch of pornography", adding that "it is doubtful that many readers enticed by the advance publicity will actually get very far into this voluminous tome of close to 1000 name and date filled pages. A gripping read it ain't.","is remarkably restrained and reasonable in its handling of Westerners targeted by the KGB as agents or sources. The individuals outed by Mitrokhin appear to be what he says they were, but great care is generally taken to identify those who were unwitting dupes or, in many instances, uncooperative targets."

The Intelligence Forum appears to have been an internet newsgroup or forum: [1]. As an academic, Whitaker appears to be qualified to give a review of the Mitrokhin Archive, however, I thought there was some prohibition on the use of newsgroups or forums. Looking for additional opinions. Thanks! -Location (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2017‎ (UTC)

Question regarding MEDRS and Handbook of Near Death Experiences

On the Near-death experience page some of my edits were rejected [2] because the source I used:

Janice Miner Holden, Bruce Greyson, Debbie James, eds. (2009). The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation. Praeger. ISBN 978-0-313-35865-4 page 218

was deemed non-MEDRS. Now, in the MEDRS policy they clearly state that "academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers" can be used. The above Handbook is from a respected Academic publisher [3] I believe, since it is both academic and educational. Also, the authors are some of the best known names in the field of near death experiences: Bruce Greyson, for instance, is either author or co-author on more than 27 publications mostly related to Near Death Experiences (NDEs) in Pubmed. Since I did not get an answer from the talk page [[Talk:Near-death_experience#The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation|The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences

The text I wish to support with this source is the following :

It has also been hypothesized that a "ketamine-like protective agent" was released during NDEs since the aesthetic agent has been reported to produce some features of NDEs such as "travelling through a dark tunnel into light, believing that one has died, or communicating with God". (ref HandBook) However, unlike NDEs, most ketamine experiences are frightening. Patients report their hallucinatory nature unlike subjects experiencing NDEs who are convinced of their authenticity. Also, some important features of NDEs are missing such as experiencing a life review or seeing deceased people. (ref Handbook)

The main difference between NDEs and neurochemicals is the duration of the effect. Endorphins' injections lead to hours long pain relief whereas NDEs’ effects are determined by the duration of the experience itself (few seconds for instance). Another difference is that endorphins do not produce transformative afteraffects, do not lead to out of body experiences, a life review etc.. which are all components of NDEs.(ref Handbook)

Best - Josezetabal (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Fringe nonsense from a non-WP:MEDRS source. This source is not usable for anything other than citing its own views, and then the problem would be WP:WEIGHT and probably WP:PROFRINGE. Alexbrn (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Josezetabal: Bruce Greyson's associations would definitely put him outside the academic mainstream: the Division of Perceptual Studies, for instance, describes its mission as the "investigation of phenomena that challenge current physicalist brain/mind orthodoxy – including investigation of phenomena directly suggestive of post-mortem survival of consciousness. " This has an air of credibility, but they're own self-description implies that most researchers do not agree with their approach, so I wouldn't use it as a WP:MEDRS

Even if this was mainstream material, I would be dubious about bare assertions such as "most ketamine experiences are frightening" - how do they know that? It seems mildly implausible given that people use ketamine recreationally. That's the sort of broad generalization you might make if you had access to really high quality meta-analyses, but these are essentially conference papers. Nblund ^talk 19:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

"most ketamine experiences are frightening" - how do they know that? A drug that reliably (as in "most" cases) produced a fear response would be a very poor choice for use in anesthesia. In fact, a fear response is the exact opposite of a useful effect in anesthesia. I would say this is more than "mildly" implausible, and more along the lines of "bullshit thrown out with the hopes no-one will notice because it helps support an even less plausible line of bullshit being sold". Indeed, it contradicts much published material, which concludes that the psychological effects of ketamine use are highly subjective, except for a notable anti-depressant effect and the presence of hallucinations. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

It is published by Praeger, which is an academic publisher. The editors include two professors, one of whom is a psychiatrist with other 100 articles published in peer-reviewed journals.[4] The book shows 91 cites on Google scholar.[5] That meets reliability. MEDRS incidentally is irrelevant. It's reason for being is "Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information." While we don't want any articles to mislead readers, extra care must be taken to ensure that we do not provide false medical information that some readers my rely on to their detriment. I do not see how that applies here.

You need to be careful however in using sources and clearly distinguish between primary and secondary sources, facts and opinions, and majority vs. minority opinions. The contributors to the book represent a minority view on NDE and have not conducted sufficient research to form conclusive findings.

TFD (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree on the last point, but how would this not fall under biomedical information? The content in question making assertions about side-effects of a widely used anesthetic, the pain relieving effects of endorphins, and the characteristics of a condition that most scientists attribute to neurological changes in the brain. Elsewhere, Greyson is cited for claims about potential psychological aftereffects for people who have NDEs. This is all biomedical stuff, and it doesn't take a ton of imagination to think of ways it might factor in to a person's views about medical treatment.

Greyson is an expert in something, I'm just not sure that he's an expert in the topics he's discussing in the cited sections. It seems like he might be useful for information about the subjective experiences of people who have near death experiences, but he probably shouldn't be cited as an expert on the causes of NDEs - that's more of a neuroscience question. Nblund ^talk 20:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Biomedical information" is "an explanatory supplement to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines and has no more status than an essay." We do in fact provide "biomedical information" in many articles outside MEDRS guidelines. We talk about how many people died from a disease, how many were killed during a war. In crime articles, we recount injuries and the effects of drugs and alcohol without using medical sources. The source is inter-disciplinarian, since the study of NDE is necessarily so, which means it is fact-checked by people from various disciplines, including medicine and psychology. TFD (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank-you TDF, Nblund, MjolnirPants for taking the time to jump in and for all your comments. I do agree with what some of you said about Ketamine. I have also researched the literature and was not able to find anything on ketamine's frightening effects. So we can consider discussion closed. Best Josezetabal (talk) 06:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Quora.com

Quora.com appears to be cited in more than 400 Wikipedia articles, although it mostly consists of user-generated discussions. Can it still be considered as a reliable source in some cases? Jarble (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a primary source, but in some cases it can be a reliable source. For example, on Instagram, the reference is to a statement by a person with a verified identity and direct knowledge of the topic. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

It is an "opinion source" and thus falls under the category of "blog and SPS" sourcing. Thus, if the individual publishing the opinion is notable in the field, it may be used, with consensus that the opinion is notable. Otherwise, many answers on Quora present sources for the claims made, especially claims of fact, and Wikipedia should examine those original sources. Collect (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmmmm...a reliable source is one that has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Does Quora.com have such a reputation? Honestly, I'm not that familiar with Quora.com, but I am familiar with a similar website, stackoverflow.com which has an excellent reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Yes, it's a crowd-sourced site, but per WP:RS, "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.". Food for thought. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

""Self-published sources" (SPS) says, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." It is also a reliable for source for the opinion of the writer, although that is of limited value, because we need to establish weight in order to mention an opinion. Quora has an open membership and invites members to post questions and answers. Members then vote on the best answer which goes to the top. So it is user-generated content similar to Wikipedia and hence generally not reliable. TFD (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with this assessment by The Four Deuces. Sagecandor (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

1. Quora identifies the writer of each answer.

2. Quora uses many people who are well-known in their field, they are not pseudonymous Wikipedia editors.

3. Quora "overweights" noted authors, so the "but the users vote on the answer" bit fails.

Thus, where a known author writes an answer on Quora, it has the exact same weight as any other SPS by an author noted in the field. I would note that among the authors on Quora are a fellow named "Jimmy Wales", "Richard A. Muller" etc. Posts by known authors are of the same ilk as for any SPS by a known writer. Collect (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

CPJ.org as source for person not mentioned in the source material?

Is it okay to use CPJ.org as a source for a person not mentioned in the source material?

1. At article Michael R. Caputo:
2. Info in question: In 2000 Caputo worked for Gazprom media where he helped CEO Alfred Kokh explain the company's purchase and control of the independent NTV Television network.
3. Cite given: "Gazprom completes NTV takeover - Committee to Protect Journalists". cpj.org. Retrieved 2017-07-31.
4. Edits in question: [6] [7]

Problem: Source [8] does not even mention Caputo, at all.

Thank you! Sagecandor (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Darknipples, NorthBySouthBaranof, A Quest For Knowledge, and The Four Deuces:Any thoughts on this? Sagecandor (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

looks like you are dealing with reverts by a paid editor [9]. Not sure which channels you should go through, but, maybe ask the TeaHouse? - DN (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Darknipples:Starting with SPI and go from there hopefully. Sagecandor (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor Maybe COIN [10], as well? DN (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It is certainly wrong to use a source that does not mention a person, per "no synthesis." We don't know what connection if any he had. TFD (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Darknipples:Maybe after the CU is done. @The Four Deuces:Yes, definitely agree. Sagecandor (talk) 04:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

kooora.com

Hello, is this considered a reliable source? I'm dealing with a lot of blps where it is the only given source. Thanks for your help, Boleyn (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Does the source have any kind of review by editors? Sagecandor (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor, thanks for responding. I can't really see, my computer won't translate it (from Arabic, I think). Boleyn (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Inside the Magic

1. Source: Inside the Magic more specifically Video: Behind the walls at Mako Seaworld Orlando's new hyper-coaster! by Adam McCabe
2. Article: Mako (roller coaster)
3. Content: Mako (roller coaster)#Ride experience

• "The queue line of the ride consists of a wooden pier, which riders upon waiting are situated under.[24] During the queue, guests of the ride take on the point of view of a mako shark as it traverses through preying grounds.[25] Furthermore, as guests go through the queue, various educational displays and a Guy Harvey exhibit can be seen.[25] Mako's station is themed to a shipwreck as with being underwater.[26] Before dispatching, a panel located above the ride shows scenes of shadow figures and a grouping of fish with accommodating visuals and sound.[24]"
• Although sourced, I was wondering if "Inside the Magic" is a reliable source. The more specific source is the parts I wish to include and expand in the article about the detailing of the queue line and station of the attraction through a guided tour for the media. It seems to have a fairly large following and seems to have some notable figures in the 'amusement' industry as part of its team, but I wanted to make sure if it was reliable. (Currently Inside the Magic is not sourced in the article) Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 20:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Does the source have any kind of review by editors? Sagecandor (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems like they do according to their websites "About" page, which lists staff, history, following, and contact. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 22:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Do we know if all articles get a review by the editor(s) before posting? Sagecandor (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

From looking around it seems that it is probable, but I can't say for absolute sure. They're most likely checked by the owner/editor-in-chief, but I don't have any information to back that every article is reviewed. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 05:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Drunk Politician

I identified a new article with a POV problem, It includes a YouTube video of an allegedly drunk politician. I sought advice in the Teahouse and was told to excise that portion and post a note that restoration in its current form was prohibited. If it came back, I should give notice here. It did and here is your notice about Dan Huberty. I trust someone will pick up the ball and run with it. BTW, the other two articles created by the same editor were PRODded. Here's what I excised:

In October 2015, the American Phoenix Foundation released video showing an intoxicated Representative Huberty after just leaving the Texas House floor. The video was posted on YouTube and written about by Empower Texans, Breitbart, The Blaze and the Huffington Post.

According to Empower Texans: “Huberty drunkenly curses an APF reporter, calling him a “f*****g hack,” an “a*****e” and other derogatory names. At the conclusion of the video, while shouting expletives, Huberty fights his own staff and three DPS officers in an attempt to physically fight the reporter. His staff are forced to drag him back to his office.”

DESiegel -- Let me know if you think I made the wrong call. Have a nice day. Rhadow (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Rhadow, I think you made a good call. Another editor has since reverted the re-addition of the "Videotape controversy" section. I have posted on Talk:Dan Huberty and on the talk pages of those editors who inserted the content, noting that the article is subject to Discretionary sanctions. I would welcome confirmation from other experienced users that the cited source is not sufficient to support this content under WP:BLP. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Some really poor sources there. Absent any serious repercussions, would seem to be tabloid stuff WP:NOTTABLOID. And IMO, linking to videos of stupid human tricks in an encyclopedia BLP is just plain bad form. Objective3000 (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything on HuffPo. There's one article, but it predates the event. Bromley86 (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bromley86 - Frankly, I'm sick of this article. The author made stuff up as he went along, like the age of the candidate's wife. He copied the names of the candidate's children into the article, which is really bad form, and he used every opportunity to recount that the candidate is a Roman Catholic. It doesn't mean anything to me, but maybe being a carpetbagger and an RC means something. The voice, tone, and attitude depress me. If I could improve it, I wouldn't be any happier, so why try? Rhadow (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

wnd.com (i.e. World Net Daily) and citizenwells.net (i.e. Citizen News) for use in Suicide of Vince Foster (third listing)

The reliability of wnd.com (i.e. World Net Daily) and citizenwells.net (i.e. Citizen News) for use in Suicide of Vince Foster has been brought up twice here previously by Autarch: 6 August 2016 and 23 July 2017. Although citizenwells.net appears only to have been discussed on this noticeboard those two times, wnd.com has been the subject of multiple discussions pertaining to various articles. On the article's talk page, Froglich has challenged the consensus reached in the earlier discussions by stating that he was not notified of them. -Location (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Not close to reliable, as has been stated previously. Objective3000 (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Not a chance. Fun fact: WND.com was the originator of that insane "Chobani imports Muslims" claim that got Alex Jones sued. In other words, they published a story so crazy that even Infowars retracted it. "CitizenWells" appears to just be someone's WP:BLOG. This is about as clear-cut as it gets: neither of these sources are reliable for claims of fact, particularly when it comes to this kind of right-leaning clickbait. Nblund ^talk 01:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

1) And Mary Mapes and Dan Rather were sacked from CBS News for lying. -- If publishing stories so "crazy" that key personnel end up being fired represents an even greater "match" per Nblund's analogy, then the following must be considered at least equally unreliable per Nblund:

ABC (Alexis Debat resigned before being fired for lying)

CNN canned three liars in its employee just last week, as well as Eason Jordan and Peter Arnett back in the hazy mists. Lied throughout the Operation Tailwind debacle. For some reason, the liar Jonathan Karl still has a job.

CBS (see above; also had to fire Lara Logan)

Associated Press (fired Bob Lewis, Dena Potter, and Christopher Newton for lying)

BBC (liars Andrew Gilligan and David Kelly resigned and committed suicide respectively)

Boston Globe (fired Patricia Smith, suspended Ron Borges)

Los Angeles Times (dumped Eric Slater and Brian Walski)

MSNBC (fired Keith Olbermann for lying, but still hasn't fired Ed Schultz and Mike Barnicle for lying)

New York Times (fired Michael Finkel and Jayson Blair, but didn't fire Rick Bragg, Alexis Debat, Herbert L. Matthews, or Fox Butterfield for lying, and is still tenaciously hanging onto its tarnished Duranty Pulitzer)

New Yorker (Jonah Lehrer resigned before being fired for lying)

National Review (let Stephen Glass get away with lying for three straight years)

New Republic (fired Ruth Shalit for lying)

Newsweek (Michael Isikoff, source of the infamous "flushed Koran" lie)

NBC (fired Brian Williams and Peter Arnett; see also Dateline exploding trucks debacle)

NPR (promoted the "Jenin massacre" lie along with most of the rest of the establishment press; still employs liar and plagiarist Nina Totenberg)

Reuters (Adnan Hajj's absurdly fake Photoshopped news pics)

Sacramento Bee (fired Dennis Love for lying)

Salon (Jason Leopold)

Slate (Jay Forman)

USA Today (dumped Jack Kelly)

Washington Post (Janet Cooke lied her way to Pulitzer Prize)

- But obviously we're not going to stop using these as RS, are we? Hence the provided rationale is one selectively and hypocritically applied.

2) NBlund claims WND "was the originator" of the Chobani story. NBlund's provided link contains an internal link to an earlier WND article which itself linked an Idaho newspaper. Assuming NBlund's "originator" claim is a relay from Snopes, then Snopes either lied or is in error itself, and he must therefore account his own analogy centerpiece as unreliable per his own argument. And, oh dear, this looks embarrassing. --Froglich (talk) 05:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

None of this does anything to demonstrate that WorldNetDaily is a well-established news outlet, nor does it rebut the fact that WND has, to quote WP:NOTRELIABLE, a poor reputation for checking the facts, lacks meaningful editorial oversight ... (and is known for) expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

(1) Every entity on the list above has "a poor reputation for checking the facts". Yeah, I know: WP:OTHERSTUFF. But, that's almost 'all of the other stuff on that list. Ergo, what's going on here is typical, hypocritical partisanship in which some entities are held to standards that others routinely flout.

(2) That Miguel Rodriguez (a) exists, (b) was Kenneth Starr's lead prosecutor, and (c) wrote a resignation letter detailing his reasons for doing so, and (d) the text of that letter is available, are four points that no editor I am aware so far has considered a "contentious claim" (i.e., they flat-out don't believe it, and are brave enough to say it out loud).--Froglich (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

NFW these are reliable. Especially for this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Several of the examples provided by Froglich as lying are in fact not lies but errors, making this list a BLP violation. Objective3000 (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

No source is infallible, but reliable sources retract stories (and even fire people) when they get it wrong. Issuing corrections is actually part of the criteria for judging a reliable source because it demonstrates editorial oversight and a concern for fact-checking. WND doesn't do this: it never retracted any of it's Chobani reporting, or its claims about Barack Obama's birth certificate.

Rodriguez is probably real, but I don't actually see him being described as the "lead prosecutor". The problem isn't just that this particular claim might be false, it's that WND frequently omits important facts, casts stories in a misleading light, and credulously accepts reports gossip and claims from sources that have very low credibility. Since - as WND admits - reliable sources didn't run with his story, there's a good chance that key context is missing, and it's nearly impossible to gauge due weight for the claim. Nblund ^talk 16:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Pile-on "no". Hard to think of any subject these would be reliable for. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Never reliable. Neutrality^talk 00:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• Even assuming that list Froglich gave was accurate, I don't think it was well thought through. If CBS News will fire one of it's reporters for lying, then that strongly suggests that CBS Nes is reliable, because they fire employees who gets caught lying FFS. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

1)"Lying Dan" was a fixture of CBS for over forty years before they canned him. -- It's not like Mary was going to fire him.--Froglich (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

2) We appear to be in agreement (I note no objections, and no response from Nblund) that the example of alleged WND perfidy provided in this ANI was erroneously-presented. I.e., it wasn't the "originator" of Nblund's Chobani story (Nblund foray's into Alex Jones, who isn't the subject of discussion, smearing by association). WND merely relayed an Idaho newspaper piece, which is something every media organization does on a daily basis. Certainly the story was presented with "spin" (also something every media organization does on a daily basis). WND's source is considered RS by Wikipedia, as is equally-and-more-so biased Snopes by many here. (It should also be noted that WND wasn't sued, whereas Alex Jones was, per NBlund's account.)--Froglich (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you strike "lying Dan" as this is another BLP violation. Objective3000 (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

That Idaho newspaper story doesn't mention Chobani, Ulukaya, or Muslims - so no, this isn't the source for the claims about Chobani. But this is really a moot point: you're the lone dissenter out of roughly a dozen participants across three separate noticeboard discussions regarding this content. I understand that you think the mainstream press is equally unreliable, it's clear that you're not going to persuade many editors to agree with you. Probably time to move on to other issues. Nblund ^talk 23:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks like Froglich has the facts wrong on Keith Olbermann too. I wonder how many other BLP-violating false accusations are on that list? Morty C-137 (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• Unreliable. This is not a forum for airing out grievances about the lamestream media. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• No evidence of reliability This discussion seems to have taken a wayward turn. It's not the case that any website is a RS unless proven otherwise. Rather, the source needs to have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:SOURCE). I see no evidence presented for such a reputation. Do they have any "professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments"? What mainstream news organization have relied on their reports? What journalistic awards have they won? None that I can see at the moment. Eperoton (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
• Unreliable - discussion of other publications is irrelevant here. Doug Weller talk 12:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
• Reality Check Reliability always relies on context. There's not enough information in the OP to even give an opinion. Even Alex Jones can be a reliable source for what Jones claims. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Good point... any source is reliable for a quote from (or close paraphrase of) that source (in fact, a source will be the most reliable source possible for itself). However... we often get so wrapped up in debates about the reliability of the source that we forget that there are other policies and guidelines that might apply. For example, we also have to consider the WP:Due weight clause of NPOV. Would even mentioning what Alex Jones (for example) says give UNDUE weight to a fringe view? In most cases the answer will be "yes, it would". In which case we should not mention what Jones says.

In other words... It may be that everyone is focused on the wrong policy. It may not matter whether the source is reliable for the statement... because the underlying issue is whether the article should contain the statement in the first place? Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

While I don't really know much about the topic, given the subject, World Net Daily might very well be reliable as a primary source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• As reliable as all the other bait-click MSM sources on the internet today...and I'm including the rampant misinformation we've been inundated with by publishers who are using anonymous sources for 75% of their articles; most recent example, The New York Times with its off-the-wall crap such as this. Editors have to exercise a bit more caution than before when it comes to verifying any publication that's considered a "news source". Bait-click headlines and fallacious content are rampant, and none of them are immune. They face no consequences under the law with the repeal of the Smith-Mundt Act and absence of FCC permitting, neither of which have helped ethical journalism issues. The internet has become the "Wild, Wild West of Journalism". The news we're getting now is mostly propaganda, and written to satisfy the voracious appetites of high-up execs, and their respective political views. To think "editorial review" changes anything is laughable in light of the retractions - retractions don't make a publication trustworthy rather it proves they are not dependable - they all make mistakes. Notice if you will that retractions only come when the publication is challenged. Lots of people have an insatiable appetite for conspiracy theories and sensationalism - news is now entertainment - it's far more profitable - and that's exactly how it's being handled in numerous MSM published sources, regardless of political leanings. Use inline text attribution, follow the RS guideline for material that may be challenged, avoid policy noncompliance and apply BRD to rid an article of biased garbage and fallacious claims. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Linking directly to a .gz file?

Is it acceptable to link directly to a .gz file in references? Here is the reference in question. I don't know if this has been discussed before, but it seems like linking directly to compressed files could introduce a vector for malware. Andrew³²⁷ 19:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Link can be removed and the DOI link itself is sufficient. Sagecandor (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed: DOI is enough, although I think it's good to also offer ungated versions if they're available. Users should be warned that the link opens a file. You could also just link to the publication on the author's university webpage: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/matthias/papers.html#scp91-felleisen. Users can download it from there if needed. Nblund ^talk 19:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Loops of reference?

I'm requesting some help re advice I rec'd when editing Feynman diagram, when I tried to request a citation. The issue is whether we should use references that repeat without primary source things already in Wikipedia. A user replied to me I think understanding my worry that Wikipedia might play a role in a sort of information loop where unverified statements once they appear here could get repeated in expository articles and themselves become then references for the unverified statements.

The discussion here below advises me to go to the physics noticeboard if there is one, but maybe the Reliable Sources noticeboard is the right place.

Why "citatio not needed"?

I'm vaguely aware that Feynman diagrams are credited with accurately calculating the Lamb shift, although the two authors who independently got the same result were eventually considered to have got the wrong result. It is not clear in that case whether the Feynman diagrams were only a heuristic (with how they are calculated and determined done a posteriori to match the known experimental value). Is there any case where an ab initio calculation was done with Feynman diagrams (of a new type, not belonging to a known family of calculations) that later matched experimental data? Does this only happen with collision/scattering experiments, where such a heuristic might be appropriate anyway? Surely if more is true, a reference would be appropriate?

PS I notice the Wikipedia line "calculations using Feynman diagrams match experimental results with very high accuracy," is quoted nearly verbatim by some jouralists in some recent expository articles in New Scientist magazine and elsewhere which say "...predict the outcome of experiments to astonishing precision;" so it should matter to get it right. And it *can't* be OK to use a source which in turn had just quoted the Wikipedia article(!) in the first place. If it is beyond question that the diagrams have given an correct ab initio value of some constant somewhere I am not too worried, but is this just an anecdote or is it established in reliable sources. Createangelos (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia should not be used as a reliable source. You might like to take your concerns to the physics noticeboard. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC).

Anyway, someone with particular expertise might help find references or clarify in this particular example whether or why they aren't needed.Createangelos (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Reliability of a source

Hi. I am currently working on the Syed Shahabuddin article with the hope of promoting to GA status. I am wondering whether this Source can be considered as a reliable source for quoting information about Mr.Shahabuddin's educational details, political and diplomatic career amongst others. The author of the text of the source is a former Indian Foreign Service officer and someone close to Shahabuddin. Please give your thoughts. Thanks. RRD (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Should be fine for simple biographical facts, though not for flattering (or obviously unflattering) assessments. WP:BLPSELFPUB allows such use even for sources published by the subject, which applies a fortiori to an obituary published by a respected figure in a respected journal. Eperoton (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Jigsaw article sources

Main article: Jigsaw (2017 film)

I'm just checking to be sure (I am unfamiliar with these sites), but are The Reel World and Film School Rejects considered reliable sources for news on upcoming films? DarkKnight2149 02:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Minor edit to avoid pre-mature archive. DarkKnight2149 22:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

notizie.tiscali.it

Is this RS (it is being called a newpaper)? It is being used for this "Today Italy is officially a NATO nuclear weapons sharing state but it's common belief in the country that it stores its own nuclear weapons in La Spezia Italian Navy arsenal."?Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not a newspaper, it's a news portal run by a major telco. I'm not sure they have a newsroom, since they mostly seem to be republishing reports from ANSA, which is a RS. Eperoton (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but are they RS?Slatersteven (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "they" refers to. An ANSA report republished by this portal would be reliable. Eperoton (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

They refers to Tiscali themselves, not who they repeat. ANSA is RS, so that would be the go to source. What about someone using Tiscali and not ANSA? As I understand it just because a sources uses RS does not confer RS status on it.Slatersteven (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Here (sorry I forgot) is the page in question [[11]].Slatersteven (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Ha, yes that helps. First, the statement is not in the source. Second, the report isn't from ANSA. Third, it simply quotes a 2008 conversation between Francesco Cossiga and an unnamed journalist, which was also reported in La Repubblica, but didn't seem to get much coverage otherwise. Eperoton (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Which is the point, it is just a repeat of another article, and thus they do not appear to have an editorial policy, correct?Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The story you linked to seems to be a bit of political gossip published directly on the Tiscali portal. Its reliability as an independent news organization is unclear, but does that really matter when the same gossip was published in a mainstream newspaper (la Repubblica) and its relationship to your quote above appears to be a case of source misrepresentation? Eperoton (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as it is the one being used as a source, and maybe again.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

In practical terms: 1) The story you linked to can't be used to source the statement you quoted regardless of what we say about the portal, because that's source misrepresentation; 2) Its reliability to source the actual Cossiga quote is questionable, but la Repubblica could be used instead (if judged to be due); 3) Reliability is context-dependent, and I don't think we can make a sweeping generalization about the portal. Eperoton (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)