Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.
Before posting, please be sure to include the following information, if available:
  • Source. The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example: [].
  • Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: [[Article name]].
  • Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y".
While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.
Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability.
If you are looking for a copy of a specific source, please ask at the resource exchange board.
Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187

Neuromuscular scientist's blog as an RS on religious practices - Reiki as pseudoscience[edit]

Reiki is a form of popular religious practice founded by a Buddhist monk. A blog post by neuromuscular scientist Steven Novella, a member of the skeptical movement, has described it as a "pseudoscience". He posted this on his blog, which is called A number of editors on the Reiki page have decided that Novella's blog post means that reiki is "now considered to be a form of pseudoscience". Is this a correct use of sources? Shii (tock) 13:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No. We need a good academic source to back up such a claim, not a self-published blog. -A1candidate 13:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Steven Novella is a published expert[1] on neurophysiology, so he can be cited for his opinions related to neurophysiology. That can include the opinion that Reiki is pseudoscience. However, the opinion should be directly attributed to him, not given in the passive voice as the opinion of unspecified people. Rhoark (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
That's sensible. I personally think this claim belongs further down in the article, where spurious medical claims related to reiki are discussed. I don't think it belongs in the lede, especially when reiki was not intended to be scientific in its original form. Shii (tock) 15:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is a "spiritual practice". However, it is widely used as alternative medicine. A few sources to consider:

  • Trends in Molecular Medicine says reiki is "pseudoscientific" and "faith healing". Research on reiki and similar "merely lend them legitimacy and take money away from more deserving projects" because in clinical trials reiki has "already been proved to have no benefits whatsoever".[2]
  • The National Council Against Health Fraud says, "There is no evidence that clinical Reiki's effects are due to anything other than suggestion, or that they are superior to massage or any other healing ritual. Reiki's metaphysical beliefs may be in conflict with an individual patient's religious beliefs. Full disclosure of the belief system should precede its use in any setting. An investigation of proponent literature casts serious doubt as to whether Reiki practitioners can be trusted with such full disclosure. Reiki literature presents misinformation as fact, and instructs practitioners on how to skirt the law in order to protect themselves from regulation and accountability."[3]
  • Edzard Ernst says reiki "defies scientific measurement and is biologically implausible. These circumstances render Reiki one of the least plausible therapies in the tool kit of alternative medicine."[4]
  • David Gorski says reiki is "highly implausible...pseudoscience", "dubious" and "quackery". Reiki is "as close to impossible from basic science considerations alone as you can imagine."[5]

As for "reiki was not intended to be scientific in its original form", organic farming (in its original form) was pretty much a religious practice. The common usage of "organic farming", however, has nothing to do with those beginnings (or, of course, the original meaning of "organic"). Reiki, whatever its original form, is now most widely known as "a healing technique".[6] - SummerPhD (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

As I understand the application of WP:FRINGE, the source should be fine. As with most discussions of this nature, editors bring up the subjects of original intent and history, but to use such arguments to censor information related to Reiki's scientific basis violates far too many of our core policies and goals. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You've now cited two different articles by Novella -- a blog post and a journal article. You've also twice cited David Gorski, an oncologist who is simply outspoken on the subject of pseudoscience and an advocate in this regard. You should quit relying on these POV citations, and focus on Edzard Ernst, an actual expert in alternative medicine, and the National Council Against Health Fraud. I would agree with mentioning "pseudoscience" somewhere in the lede if proper citations are provided and not blog posts. Shii (tock) 18:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The blog post is in the article and the subject of your complaint. A peer-reviewed journal article is a suitable alternative. I cite Gorski separately from the journal article as he was speaking independently. I see Lübeck in the article (among others) cited from more than one source (sources we have dates but not titles for). Yes, Gorski is a medical doctor; is that a problem? Lübeck, untainted by a medical degree, apparently gets his reliability from angels and living close to a "famous power spot".[7] Scientific studies of his various spiritual powers are available at his site. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, in my annoyance I overlooked the fact that the journal article does seem to be peer-reviewed and agreeable. Shii (tock) 19:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The blog is a poor source. Not only are blogs rarely peer-reviewed, WP:SELFPUB says we should not use self-published sources about third-parties. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter. Since reiki is obviously utter bollocks (mystic energy can flow through the hands and can be used for medical purposes ... riiiiiiight) any old source will do for the lightweight claim it's pseudoscience. Only more exceptional claims would require more exceptional sourcing. The "spinning plate" image from WP:RS illustrates the principle nicely:
Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim.

Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
No, just because something is wrong, doesn't make it pseudoscience. And no, we don't just get to ignore our rules about reliable sources just because we feel like it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The image and caption are from WP:RS – these are our guidelines: read and learn. We are a reality-based project and these commonplace facts can have commonplace sourcing, or stronger if you wish (no harm in that). WP:Lunatic charlatans don't get passage in Wikipedia articles. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
You are barking up the wrong tree. No one on this noticeboard would ever go to a Reiki practitioner. The question is not whether it makes sense, it's whether the label "pseudoscience" applies. I do not regularly pray, but that doesn't mean I think prayer is "pseudoscience". For claims like this a RS is needed and not just "any old source". Shii (tock) 19:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I think we're off on sidetrack here. We have a peer reviewed journal (among others) directly call reiki a pseudoscience. Whether or not a weaker source would suffice is immaterial to this discussion. Given that the OP agrees this is an acceptable source and no one else seems to be saying the label is inappropriate, I think we're done here. Objections? (Incidentally, I don't think reiki is "wrong". The proper term is "not even wrong".) - SummerPhD (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
We have a peer reviewed journal (among others) directly call reiki a pseudoscience.
I have access to the full text of that journal, and it doesn't appear to say that. Perhaps you may wish to quote the relevant section that I missed. -A1candidate 20:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
This article [8] quotes them as calling it pseudoscience. This [9] says it's widely considered pseudoscience. Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology characterises it as pseudoscience. This [10] also includes it along with homeopathy as an example of pseudoscience, quoting Gorski and thus establishing that Gorski is not just some random blogger but considered an expert in the field of pseudoscience. Are we done here yet? Guy (Help!) 23:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. I do not have my full access at the moment and I don't see a free text of it. I may have pulled the quotes from a press release or article about the article. Though i don't recall seeing this article (and don't typically use the Daily Mail for anything), it does seem to have everything I attributed to the journal article. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • the source is fine and inclusion in the lead is also appropriate. the lead should cover the major aspects of the subject, and the complete medical hokum is one of the major aspects. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The lede currently says, "Used as a medical treatment, reiki confers no benefit:[9] the American Cancer Society,[10] Cancer Research UK,[11] and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine[12] have found no clinical or scientific evidence supporting claims that Reiki is effective in the treatment of any illness." I think that covers it. Most/all of the skeptic sources raised here are valid for the relevant article section, but putting the pseudoscience label in the first sentence is WP:HOWEVER. These are matters of weight, though. RS questions have been answered. Rhoark (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
a clarification in the lead sentence that the pseudoscience attribution is related to the medical / health/ energy claims. again, the lead sentence clarifies what it is notable for and that is the pseudoscientific energy claims.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Shii, Gorski and Novella are both medically qualified, Gorski is a published research scientist, so is Ernst, and all three are prominent and widely recognised authorities on fraudulent alternative health practices. Wikipedia is not an "integrative encyclopaedia", freely mixing fact and nonsense. Reiki is an alternative medicine therapy, and it is promoted with the same kind of pseudoscientific gobbledegook as homeopathy, therapeutic touch and numerous other refuted therapies. To frame it as a religious practice in order to obscure this, is a violation of WP:NPOV, because that is not how it is sold by its practitioners. Also, Gorski and Novella's opinion is not self-published, it's in a peer-reviewed journal: [11] and we even have a source establishing its significance: [12]. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • To my eyes, the source might be minimally acceptable for the information it provides. However, I can and did find a few better ones rather easily on Google searching for the words pseudoscience and reiki. There is a good question whether the word should be included in the lead. That, I acknowledge, I am less sure of, and to an extent question, along the lines of Shii above. That would probably better be handled at the NPOVN. I guess the questions for that board would be whether the benefits claimed by reiki are of what might be called a "scientific" nature and whether it might be being effectively misused as a science, maybe like a theoretical case of a defrocked priest offering exorcisms for psychological benefits. John Carter (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • reliable Novella and Gorski are each widely recognized experts on quackery and pseudoscience. Per SPS :"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" - Quackwatch is a reliable source on these matters. Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC) (added 'reliable" at front Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC))
  • Not a reliable source: I don't believe a self-published blog from a neuroscienctist should be used in the Lead to define the subject. My understanding of expert sources is that merely being an academic and publishing works is not enough. Their work itself has to be the subject of significant discussion in other sources. Its actual application is much narrower than how it tends to be used to rationalize poor sources. However @SummerPhD: has already provided plenty of much better sources to replace it with and there's no reason to use weaker sources. CorporateM (Talk) 03:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
We don't need the blog in the lede, we have the peer-reviewed article by the same author. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
CorporateM pardon me, but did you read my post right above yours? Novella and Gorski are both well-known in the field of skepticism - they are experts in pseudoscience. please check out their WP articles and of course the sources cited there. POV-pushers of alt-med quackery hate HATE HATE when Novella/Gorski are cited and constantly try to make the argument their expertise is limited to neurology/neurosci for Novella and cancer for Gorski; its just distortion. thx. Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Nobody hates them. They are respecatable scientists who are free to publish any of their arguments in a review article which we could then cite, or they could post it on their blogs and be ignored. -A1candidate 15:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog, this is really unnecessary personalization and battleground mentality. I urge you to trim the snide comments about other editors and focus on the content issue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
i didn't say that anybody hates Novella or Gorski. i said that PoVPoAMQs hate when they are cited. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. Totally unnecessary, totally inappropriate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Unreliable. I'm no expert in WP:MEDRS matters, but my understanding is that WP:UGC's expert exception doesn't apply to medical claims (which are specifically addressed by a different section of WP:RS). Per WP:MEDRS, the broad and unqualified claim that reiki is pseudoscience should probably require a literature review. I also I think the rule that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources applies here. Despite the very reasonable skepticism over its efficacy, reiki is quite widespread and is offered by many hospitals. WaPo: "Reiki is now viewed by many as an effective, accepted alternative practice in mainstream America, where at least 1.2 million adults have tried the energy healing therapy." (source: [13]) The suggestions in this discussion such as "no one on this noticeboard would ever go to a reiki practitioner" are made in sheet ignorance. And derogatory comments (such as those dismissing reiki as "obviously utter bollocks") should be made more sensitively. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    Nonsense. MEDRS only applies to medical claims. FRINGE applies in this case. --Ronz (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    WP:MEDRS gives "specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article, including alternative medicine." -A1candidate 22:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense back at ya. :-) This is a medical claim, is it not? I agree that FRINGE trumps MEDRS, but to get into FRINGE-land there has to be a consensus in the medical community that reiki is pseudoscience. I'm pretty confident there's no such consensus. This falls pretty squarely in the "questionable science" bucket. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
As DrFleischman says, since reiki is not a medical procedure, but a delusional quack treatment, WP:FRINGE is the correct reference, not WP:MEDRS. You won't get reliable medical sources expending much effort on something that has no remotely plausible mechanism of action and no credible evidence base. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
MEDRS would be necessary to say that Reiki is not pseudoscience. A MEDRS is not needed to say that magical claims are pseudoscience. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Ian.thomson, the expert in the magic and medicine, has dubbed reiki magic, not medicine. I guess that settles it. Not to mention that this has nothing to do with the reliability of the source in question. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I haven't put words in your mouth, so it's not only dishonest but rude to do the same for me. I don't need to be an expert in medicine, I just have to see that there are no MEDRSs that describe Reiki as medicine, but there are sources describing it as the usual Vitalist Energy medicine magical pseudoscience. If we need a MEDRS to say that something has no medical value, we would need a MEDRS to describe Russian roulette as potentially lethal. The "MEDRS needed to say pseudoscience" argument demonstrates at best a major misunderstanding of NPOV, if not outright tendentious editing (not you, but I'm getting ready to name other names). Ian.thomson (talk) 06:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
If you can't find a reliable medical review article to back up a dubious claim about a treatment that is an "accepted alternative practice" for more than a million people (according to DrFleischman's source in the Washington Post), then it simply means that the claim is false and you should not use a self-published blog to support it. -A1candidate 13:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Huh? What claim is false and why? If I understand you correctly, you believe that because a treatment is widely used, that somehow means that it is not quackery? --Ronz (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I think what A1 is saying is that you need particularly reliable sourcing for the claim that a widely used treatment is quackery. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
On the note of needing a literature review, WP:PARITY applies here. For fringe topics, they typically don't get coverage in mainstream literature because they typically just get ignored. If we want to specifically use the term "scientific consensus", that usually requires literature reviews, but there are other variations to demonstrate an idea is fringe, quackery, psuedoscience, etc. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Reliable for this instance. WP:PARITY applies in this specific usage. We have a lower bar for considering something reliable when describing a fringe topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
This makes no sense at all. WP:PARITY has no bearing on the reliability of any particular source. It only comes into play when comparing two conflicting and otherwise reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
??? "In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal." Novella and Gorski are the most reliable sources out there for FRINGE stuff. That sentence is what validates their use in these contexts. Jytdog (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
So true. I had missed that, and my apology to Kingofaces43. Regardless, I still fail to understanding the basis for how we're in fringe theory-land as opposed questionable theory-land. I see an awful lot of "duh it's so obvious" comments, which makes me wonder if much of the skepticism I see here is little more than blind faith. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Are there MEDRSs describing Reiki as scientifically valid medicine? Ian.thomson (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
First, does Reiki at all make a claim to be medicine? To the best of my knowledge, they only talk about healing which is definitely not the same as "treating", as any cultural anthropologist will explain. They are not the only ones to "heal" - for example, clinical psychology also talks about healing. Yet, medical practitiones are usually not authoritative with respect to psychology, so I don't understand why they should be considered authority on healing or other "para" type things? Moreover, among doctors, you will find ones who support "alternative therapies" and those who oppose them, and both these categories do publish in peer-reviewed journals. Why should we take a medical doctor as an authority on Reiki, that fails my understanding. IMHO, it is sufficient to mention that medicine did not find any clinical evidence that Reiki could help in any medical condition (except perhaps for a well-recognised placebo effect which should always be kept in mind when writing about alternative trerapies). kashmiri TALK 17:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
^@Kashmiri:: Exactly. This same issue comes up on the other post on this noticeboard, where someone says that Reiki is "medicine". It has nothing to do with Western Medicine. David Tornheim (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm no expert in this area, but my understanding is that some people claim reiki to be an effective medical treatment while others see it more as a spiritual practice. There is certainly a debate out there about whether it's an effective medical treatment, and to that extent the question of whether it should be labeled a pseudoscience is an important one. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
there is no legitimate debate about it, as an effective treatment for anything. there are "lunatic charlatans" who claim it is effective for treating diseases or conditions, and the scientific communtity, which says "Baloney". that's not a debate. with regard to its use for pleasure or spiritual development, science has nothing to say and "pseudoscience" doesn't apply. if our article talks only about pleasure and spiritual uses, all the talk of pseudoscience could and should come out. (this is where our articles self-destruct. if people who like these techniques would limit themselves to just describing uses in traditional medicine, or uses for pleasure or spiritual growth, and not keep trying to say that they actually contribute to health or treat disease - in other words, if they would stay clear of making claims about health that are testable with the scientific method - then things could be lovely.) Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@DrFleischman: I see it this way: Some people swear by treating cancer with carrot juice. There is no clinical evidence, for whatever reasons. But should we then go to carrot article and quickly label eating carrots as pseudoscience? I am no expert, either, but I see a lot of people using Reiki simply as a relaxation technique (which is absolutely valid in light of contemporary psychology). Moreover, medical scientists tend to be cautious in formulating their conclusions (see here: doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2008.01729.x) and I see no reason why us Wikipedia editors should not follow this example. I've seen that a few editors here feel that Wikipedia should bring enlightenment to the dark masses, not noticing that science has evolved since 1960s and the former black-white categorisation of medical theories and treatments is now giving way to postmodernist approaches. kashmiri TALK 23:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree. In that way the article as currently written is not neutral. But that goes way beyond this particular discussion, which is about the reliability of a particular source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
hell no. mainstream science is not post-modernist. there are critical theory people who like to talk about that kind of handwavy junk, and alt-med POV-pushers love to try to relativize science, but that is not mainstream, realworld, science. 15:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, "realworld" science! Makes me laugh. Only last month I witnessed two acclaimed medical researchers arguing whether muscle tissue is affected in a particular medical condition or not. I guess your view is that one of them must have been a pseudo-scientist, no? Because only one can be true in your view, no? Try to understand that science, especially medical science, is not about truths cast in stone but about constant research, constant quest, and there is nothing relativist about it. Pity that neophytes memorise scientific discoveries but forget to display the same humility to the current state of knowledge as actual scientists. kashmiri TALK 18:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── oh blech. scientists in the life sciences are absolutely crawling around in the dark trying to figure stuff out. nobody sane would ever deny that. but going so far as to deploy that, and the real scientific debates that arise, to justify some po-mo radical relativism, is either ignorance or willful bullshitting (speech intended to persuade with regard for truth)... or most likely, a combination of them. the scientific method is all based on a realist model - there are actual facts out there, that we can discover. it is not just a wash of discourses embedded in power structures. phooey Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

  • unreliable -- self-published blog, by self-proclaimed "expert" from "fringe" movement Scientific skepticism* is no better than a self-published blog from self-proclaimed "expert" in Reiki. (* "fringe"--based on the definition I see applied on this notice board to very popular things like Reiki.) David Tornheim (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
WP:PARITY applies - Reiki is a WP:FRINGE claim; it "departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field." The particular fields are science and medicine. Reiki claims to tap invisible, undetectable, unlimited energy and apply it is some unknown way to treat any and all ailments, without regard to time and space. These claims, if true, would allow a reiki practitioner today to "treat" Abraham Lincoln's gunshot wound in the 19th century. This is a significant departure from testable (a.k.a. "scientific") claims. How "popular" the woo is has no bearing on the question. Please review Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Identifying_fringe_theories. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
This may be a bit of a straw man argument. Some people claim reiki has these sorts of magical powers, some don't. Some people say reiki is a spiritual practice, some people say it's just comforting, and some people say it may have some limited medical benefit. What I'm saying is you have to look at the specific claim. To say reiki is categorically fringe is going too far. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
^Exactly.David Tornheim (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, there are two basic questions involved here. One, is reiki pseudoscientific. So far as I can tell, yes, it is both somewhat inherently pseudoscientific, as its claims are more or less for physical improvement of some sort. The second question is harder. To what extent are all traditional Chinese medicine practices pretty much the same thing, including other possible "variants" on what might broadly be called qigong-type practices, and to what extent WEIGHT would be involved in how prominently to display the word pseudoscience in every article related to qi related therapies and/or TCM, both of which are themselves, so far as I can tell, counted as being fairly universally pseudoscientific. I have a feeling that question would probably better be handled at NPOVN for questions of WEIGHT and/or maybe an RfC specifically related to reiki or one about the amount of prominence or weight to give the word "pseudoscience" or some variation thereon in these specific articles relative to other roughly synonymous terms like TCM. John Carter (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • this has gone way off topic and become forum-y. to the extent that advocates for reiki make claims that it improves health by manipulating qi, those claims are pseudoscience. the source is valid for content about that. with regard to other uses of reiki (spiritual, relaxation, etc), those are not making claims about the physical world and science/pseudoscience is not relevant, and the source is not useful. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Reliable, per users SummerPhD, Jytdog and others. (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Publishers at reiki[edit]

In the process of cleaning out numerous self-published books at reiki, I have found several publishers that I cannot find anything about. Several of them are used by authors whose other works I had removed as self-published. They are being used to explain details of a fringe practice, the history of the practice, etc. As some of the claims are quite extraordinary, I don't want to have claims attributed to all reiki believers if the claims are actually limited to "some" believers.

Any information/opinions on the RS status of Lotus Press, New Leaf Distribution Company, Headway and Ulysses Press would be appreciated. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that Reiki is "Fringe"? According to this site there are 1 Million Practitioners. I have seen it in many cities. It is offered in universities and there are numerous organizations including international organizations, which list practitioners in every state in the U.S.David Tornheim (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
To clarify: I should have said WP:FRINGE. "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support." Reiki energy is unlimited and is not limited by time or space. Science does not recognize anything in any way resembling this. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Reliable -- All four publishers look as reliable as a mainstream publishers like Barnes & Noble (which publishes things like these and these) or Random House (that publishes these and these). Headway is part of Oxford University Press.David Tornheim (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
The publishers may be mainstream - that does not however necessarily make content regarding fringe medical practice reliable - see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Reiki is not a Western Medical Practice. It is an Eastern Healing Practice--originating in Japan. (see: here). Neither is Yoga a Western Medical Practice. David Tornheim (talk) 09:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
How exactly is that statement even supposed to be remotely relevant? Wikipedia does not apply different standards regarding sourcing depending on geography, or on the labels used by practitioners. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
You are judging the practice using the eyes of Western Medicine. The two system are totally different. See [14], [15], [16], [17]. I'm not sure why you call Reiki "fringe"--it is quite popular. Does Wikipedia advocate labeling the entirety of Eastern culture, thought, healing and medicine "fringe"? That's a scary prospect. David Tornheim (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I am making no such judgement - I am pointing out that Wikipedia does not apply differing standards regarding sourcing depending on the origins of medically-related practice. Feel free to propose that the policy be changed if you wish (not here though - the appropriate place would probably be Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) considering the significance of the proposal) but meanwhile, I ask that you refrain from giving misleading statements regarding existing policy on this noticeboard. 11:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Please don't accuse me of making misleading statements regarding existing policy. I did not make a statement about Wikipedia policy; I asked you a question, because of the slippery slope nature of your contention that an Eastern healing practice like Reiki is WP:Fringe.David Tornheim (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
This isn't western medicine vs eastern medicine, this is scientific medicine versus magic. The western equivalent of Reiki is not medical science, it's stuff along the lines of Radionics or Orgone "therapy." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Oxford's "Headway" is not a publisher of reiki books, it is an English course (take a closer look at your link). I am not talking about B&N or Random House, I am asking whether there is significant, meaningful evidence that these publishers meet our policy. I do not see any indication of this. (How popular they are is immaterial. Comic book publishers are quite popular, but don't expect Wikipedia to cite them any time soon for evidence that there is an alien living in NYC who flies around fighting super villains, while passing himself off as a reporter.) - SummerPhD (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
^You said, "I am not talking about B&N or Random House". I know that, but I am using it for comparison. Would you use the same standard of dismissing both B&N, Random House and most of the other major publishers completely as "unreliable" since they publish self-help books, religious awakening books, etc., that include claims that have not been scientific tested and sound pretty far fetched? If not, I don't see how you can dismiss the publishers in question here for publishing works that are equally unscientific in nature. These are not works of fiction like comic books. As I said below, if the sources make claims about either health or science that are testable, one could put them in quotes and put them adjacent to Western medical experts take on the practice. That would be NPOV. Entirely eliminating anything said by Reiki Masters about Reiki because they are not scientists or medical doctors or self-proclaimed "skeptics" is absurd. If the book is written by a Reiki Master (possibly even if it is self-published), it is likely reliable for describing Reiki, unless that Master is minority or WP:Fringe within the Reiki community of experts. That a Reiki Master's writing is published by these various presses is not a prima facie showing that the work in question is unreliable any more than if it was published by B&N, Random House or any of the other major publishers in the U.S. IMHO. David Tornheim (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
" could put them in quotes and put them adjacent to Western medical experts take on the practice. That would be NPOV." - No, that'd be WP:GEVAL. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
You are essentially saying that every source is reliable, unless we can prove it isn't. How do we know an author is a "fringe" reiki source or not a "legitimate" Reiki Master? Because they disagree with other reiki sources? Well, now those sources disagree with other reiki sources. Lotus Press does not say, "Reiki practitioners believe reiki energy is unlimited." Their books say, "Reiki energy is unlimited." They are, at best, primary sources for what their authors say. I would love to find academic sources discussing reiki objectively. If you can find some, that would be great. Lotus Press is not such a source. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Lotus Press publishes books on Astrology and Tarot Esoteric Arts. Their Science and Technology books are : Windows 95 how to. I do not see anything establishing a reputation for reliability from that one. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • New Leaf Distribution Company also seems particularly sketchy as in something that unquestioningly spews forth alt med / new age claims with no actual scientific background or oversight. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Everything I have read indicates that Reiki is not a scientific process. That a source is alt med, new age, self-help or spiritual does not make it unreliable, unless it is with regards to scientific claims or testable health claims (assuming the publisher has made no effort to fact check). It is more like psychotherapy or Freud's theories. One can say for example, "Practitioners claim Practice Q solves ailments X, Y and Z, but western scientists have found no evidence for such claims." That is an NPOV that DESCRIBES what the practice claims and what scientist or Western med. has to say about it. But to only put the West's view claiming that all of Reiki is WP:Fringe is terribly biased.David Tornheim (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Reiki makes scientifically testable claims regarding healing, and yet there are no WP:MEDRSs supporting it. It claims to be the "The miraculous medicine for all diseases," and has no scientific studies demonstrating this. It claims to be able to treat respiratory disorders, digestive disorders, circulatory disorders, anemia, nephritis, and even Typhoid fever. It is not just a spiritual belief, there are scientifically testable claims about it. Also, a spiritual belief is not automatic immunity to being disproven by science. Young Earth Creationism, Flat Earth, and Geocentrism are both spiritual beliefs and scientific frauds.
It is either complete ignorance or dishonesty (intellectual or commercial) to claim that Reiki does not make scientifically testable claims, and doubly so to pretend that such claims lack proof. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
^You said, "It claims to be the 'The miraculous medicine for all diseases'". Please cite an RS that says that from someone who actually is an expert in Reiki, not someone whose only goal is to discredit Reiki. Continuing you said: "It is not just a spiritual belief, there are scientifically testable claims about it. Also, a spiritual belief is not automatic immunity to being disproven by science. Young Earth Creationism, Flat Earth, and Geocentrism are both spiritual beliefs and scientific frauds." On this part I *do* agree and that is when it is appropriate to for scientific NPOV comments about it its effectiveness in treating specific ailments. About the spiritual aspects, including an energy, no. The energy aspect is more complicated but it is not like E-M waves or those other bizarre sites you listed from I believe Americans. The energy from Reiki is from Eastern Medicine and has a long tradition. I am no expert, but my understanding is that it is more like an "aura" or a "feeling" or an "emotion", or a non-quantifiable entity like "consciousness" or "life" that we experience but are not able to put into a formula like Maxwell's equations. That Qi is not a basic particle or energy (such as heat, E-M, kenetic, potential, etc.) or collection of both does not mean it does not exist. People know that emotions like laughter, fear, anger, etc. are contagious, but there is no physical particle or energy called fear that travels from one person to the next. That is the best way to understand Qi energy.David Tornheim (talk) 04:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Mikao Usui (the founder of Reiki) said that it was a form of medicine, as can be seen in the Reiki article, cited from a pro-Reiki source. The "energy" of Reiki is just another form of Vitalism, which is discredited by modern science. If it is not scientifically testable or measurable, it is not energy, which is physical. Scientifically, emotions and consciousness are a combination of synaptic impulses, hormones, and similar chemicals; while life is a complex interaction of chemicals -- and while they can involve energy (in the sense of electro-magnetic energy, kinetic energy, thermal energy, and so on), they are not energies in themselves. Emotion spreads through perception, "shared" emotions arise independently, they do not flow from one person to another via some magic force. Auras are regarded as pseudoscience as well. You clearly are not an expert on science or magic (despite being an advocate for the latter). Qi is rejected by modern science as yet another form of Vitalism. It is fine to claim that just because something can exist beyond the material, natural, or scientifically world, but to make scientifically testable claims based off of those beliefs goes outside the boundaries of non-overlapping magisteria into pseudoscience. No scientific evidence has been presented for the existence of Qi, and the burden of proof lies with those who claim it exists if they are going to make scientific claims about it.
Vitalism is also rooted in "long traditions" in Western medicine -- that doesn't mean that it's scientific medicine. In fact, it opens it to being out of date and rooted in magic. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: The continued assertion that Reiki is WP:Fringe is quite problematic. In another RS post above, a user admits that they believe no one here would even consider going to a Reiki practitioner to find out what it is about. This does not exactly sound like an open-minded crowd willing to look to experts in the FIELD of Reiki, but who instead have an a priori bias against Reiki, having decided without any real investigation that Reiki is a worthless practice and that anyone who advocates it can not be an expert in it and that only those who criticize it should have a voice about it, finding those people and then replacing the Reiki experts' voices with those of the critics they have found who share their POV instead. The other RS post even goes so far as to advocate use of a self-published blog from a skeptic! If this is indeed the plan, that is a very serious problem for NPOV -and- choice of RS.David Tornheim (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The continued push for the idea that magical energy healing with no scientific backing and no WP:MEDRSs supporting it is not pseudoscience is a bigger problem. The citation to about 1 million practitioners is a Argumentum ad populum from vested interest, pure and simple. That you cited it suggests a concerning a priori bias in favor of Reiki.
In "favor" of Reiki? What does that mean? I am neither for nor against Reiki. I am neither for nor against Western Medicine either. I want you be honest about what Reiki is using the descriptions of the experts in the field rather than people whose only goal is to dismiss it a priori as pseudo-science without any real effort to understand what it is actually about. It's a bit like saying that things in the Bible didn't actually happen exactly as described in Genesis and scientifically could not occur--e.g. Creation--and hence the entire Bible is pseudo-science and no Christians should comment on it because they are WP:Fringe and unreliable reporters and only scientists should comment on what in the Bible. Or that praying to God (a being that cannot be proven to exist) is pseudo-science. Many Christians (I am not one) understand that the events in Genesis and timeline of 4,000 years does not match scientific evidence, but that doesn't mean that the mythology of the Book of Genesis is completely worthless. For one, it's a much better written story than the Big Bang is, even if the Big Bang is more scientifically accurate, it doesn't mean the Genesis story has no truth and is nothing but pseudo-science. Ask any Scholar of Literature and they will tell you there is much truth in stories that has nothing to do with science. As Mythology, one might even argue that Genesis is compatible with the Big Bang Theory. Many Christians know that Genesis is not science and are not threatened by the Big Bang Theory. This is what you are doing with Reiki, trying to make it like science. It is more like the Book of Genesis. Scholars in Christian studies should explain what their religion is about, not scientists who think it is all bogus and magic. That's what you all are doing with Reiki.David Tornheim (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
That you just accept the Reiki website's claims wholesale and argue against anything that doesn't accept it as true makes it really hard to believe you're not a covert advocate. If you weren't for or against Reiki, you'd see that they make scientifically testable claims, ask for evidence for such claims, and not try to excuse their lack of evidence with more magical hogwash. I'm still not seeing any WP:MEDRSs from you.
If we're going to draw comparisons between Reiki and interpreting Genesis, Creation science is a closer analogy: using spiritual beliefs as a shield for pseudoscience. We do not allow Young Earth Creationists to explain their scientific claims, we get scientists to explain their dismissal. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Until valid WP:MEDRSs are presented that discuss Reiki as a valid medical practice, it is pseudoscience and falls under WP:FRINGE. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Reiki claims there is an invisible, undetectable energy. It is unlimited. It can treat ANY condition. It can treat anyone, anywhere at any point in time FROM any location and FROM any point in time. If I don't respond to this thread quickly enough, assume I (in the United States) am busy treating people with malaria in Africa who died 200 years ago. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
SummerPhd says: "Reiki claims there is an invisible, undetectable energy. It is unlimited. It is unlimited. It can treat ANY condition. It can treat anyone, anywhere at any point in time FROM any location and FROM any point in time." You keep saying this. Do you have an RS that says that? Or are you getting this from some skeptic who does not know what they are talking about? I should point out there are many particles and waves both in both Classical and Quantum Physics that have equally bizarre properties that are not understood. Consider the Neutrino originally was considered to have neither mass nor energy, but spin: How could such a thing even exist? Gravity as a "force" is particularly difficult to deal with, even though the formulas for its use are easy enough to describe, Physicists can not explain what it is. They have postulated the existence of Gravitons, but no one has ever seen such a thing. Is that pseudo-science or dealing with something one does not fully understand? David Tornheim (talk) 04:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
"Ellyard, Lawrence (2004). Reiki Healer: A Complete Guide to the Path and Practice of Reiki. Dorset, England: Lotus Press" p. 110 and 115 - Pro-Reiki source claiming that Reiki can heal across time and space. Please present WP:MEDRSs that support Reiki instead of repeating the same argument from ignorance ad nauseum and spouting more pseudoscience. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I "got this" absurd claim from the very sources we are discussing. That is why we are discussing them.
Reliable sources do not support the new trend of explaining fringe claims by throwing the word "quantum" into the mix.
It is interesting, however, that you both target the claim as coming from "some skeptic who does not know what they are talking about" and then turn around and defend the claim. We are here to talk about the sources. I see no indication of any kind that these sources 1) are independent of the reiki practitioners making the claims and 2) "have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy". Instead, I see a publisher used exclusively by new age-y practitioners making unsupported claims about their new age-y practices. We are looking for independent reliable sources about reiki, not merely people writing what they believe to be true about reiki. We have such sources for gravity, neutrino and quantum physics. Unless such sources can be found for reiki, much of the article is going away. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: circular logic -- To establish that Reiki is WP:Fringe, you use a quote from a book by Lotus Press about Reiki. But because Reiki and other things Lotus Press publishes are deemed WP:Fringe, the publisher is deemed unreliable. Hence, books by Lotus Press cannot be used to establish that Reiki is WP:Fringe.David Tornheim (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Strawman argument. You challenged me for a pro-Reiki source that says that Reiki practitioners consider their dealings to be medical. I provided a quote from Reiki's founder. That alone does not make them fringe. What does make them fringe is the medical claims combined with a lack of WP:MEDRSs supporting those claims. That means that we cannot use the source in the article, but it does not mean that it cannot be used in this discussion to establish the nature of Reiki according to its own founder. Your attempt to turn it into circular logic is just sticking your head in the sand -- Reiki claims to be medical, no medical sources back it up, ergo it is pseudoscience.
Until you present WP:MEDRSs that support Reiki (instead of superstitious babble), there is no such thing as a pro-Reiki that is also a non-fringe source. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Unreliable, per users SummerPhD, Ian.thomson and others. (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • unreliable for claims about reality; ok for X says Y; be careful with UNDUE - Small specialist presses - steer clear of them. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources used in the GamerGate Article[edit]

Yes, I know. GamerGate ... But I think since this controversy already made Wikipedia look bad (ArbCom drama) we should insure that the article quality actually improves. And one massive problem standing in the way is the amount of factually wrong statements that are sourced but provably wrong and every argument regarding the truth is dismissed with a handwaving of WP:RS. My opinion is that the reliability of sources should be judged individually whenever possible.

There are many examples and I will start with only one. I don't want to waste anybody's time.


I will list what statement the source supports on the GamerGate article as well as if/why the statements are false/inacurate:

  • "Quinn's detractors falsely alleged that the relationship had induced Grayson to publish a favorable review of the game"

The accusation wasn't even that there was a review. But in any case: "Nathan Grayson has, provably, written twice about Zoe Quinn’s Depression Quest in a favorable manner without disclosure at both Kotaku, on March 31st, 2014, and Rock, Paper, Shotgun on January 8th, 2014. It was proven that Grayson and Quinn were close together since January 10th, 2014 and had at least known each other since June, 2012. Grayson was also thanked in the credits of Depression Quest." Source. To quote from the Rock, Paper, Shotgun article: "Anyway, standouts: powerful Twine darling Depression Quest, surrealist Thief usurper Tangiers, and sidescrolling epic Treasure Adventure World." (article about 50 games greenlit).

  • "Gamergate has been described as involving anti-feminist ideologies. Some supporters have denied this label, but acknowledge that there are misogynistic voices within it."

The according piece from Jesse Singal's article is supported by "proof". If you read the proof, it becomes quite clear that Jesse Singal misrepresented his source, in other words it is a lie (by accident?): The author of the "proof" only describes himself as antifeminist, but not GamerGate itself.

  • "Many Gamergate supporters contend that their actions are driven by a concern for ethics in videogame journalism, arguing that the close relationships between journalists and developers are evidence of an unethical conspiracy among reviewers to focus on progressive social issues."

I don't object to that, although the wording "unethical conspiracy" can be seen as judgemental and should be avoided. Another question would be what is to be considered a conspiracy. There were in fact ethical mishaps uncovered by GamerGate and several platforms changed their ethical guidelines - but this is going to far for this discussion.

  • "Because of its anonymous membership, lack of organization and leaderless nature, sources widely differ as to the goals or mission of Gamergate. With no single person or group able to speak for the Gamergate, defining it has been difficult."

  • "Singal was critical of the movement's lack of organization and leadership commenting on their "refus[al] to appoint a leader or write up a platform"."

No objection here (but relevance?).

  • "Jesse Singal, writing for New York based on a post he made to Reddit, stated that he had spoken to several Gamergate supporters to try to understand their concerns, but found conflicting ideals and incoherent messages. Singal observed that despite being told by supporters that Gamergate was not about misogyny, he saw Gamergate supporters making a constant series of attacks on Quinn, Sarkeesian, and other women."

The actual observation taken from Singal's article:

"When I visited KIA on Sunday, for example — again, the subreddit I was explicitly instructed to visit if I wanted to see the real Gamergate — three of the top six posts were about the indie developer Brianna Wu (a subject of harassment and threats), the feminist commentator Anita Sarkeesian (ditto), or the “social-justice warriors” (SJWs) that Gamergaters love to ridicule for polluting gaming with their "radical" ideas. Keep in mind that merely mentioning Wu or Sarkeesian or Quinn to many Gamergaters lights a white-hot fury in them — This is not about them, they will insist, ad nauseam, to the point that the more clever of their lot have started referring to them not by name but by the label "Literally Who" (or LW) 1, 2, and 3 (as in "I literally have no idea who that is")."

Singal just states that there are discussions about these women, but nothing remotely like "constant series of attacks".

To summarize: Not only contains the source inaccurate and false information, but these false informations are reprinted on Wikipedia but also is the source itself misrepresented (last point).

I propose to declare this source unreliable and encourage all interested Wikipedians to check the reliability of other sources as well. Citogenitor[talk needed] 15:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Your "fact checking" does not counter the YEARS AND YEARS of reputation for scrupulous fact checking by that organization. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Logical fallacy: Appeal to tradition (Once considered reliable, always reliable). Sorry, this doesn't work. Challenging the status quo and old ideas is the fundament of progress. If we don't question the reliability of sources regularly nothing will improve in that department. And I don't ask to dismiss NY magazine (or whatever the publisher is called), I don't ask to dismiss everything Singal has written. I ask to dismiss this particular article. If a source supports claims with contradictory statements it can't be considered reliable.Citogenitor[talk needed] 17:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
No, it is quite literally policy. We accept as reliable sources those sources which have proven over the years to be reliable sources and gained a reputation for their fact checking accuracy and editorial oversight. this source has established such a reputation and your personal "fact checking" does nothing to alter that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so let's talk policy: Per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources I think we can agree that the article in question falls in the category WP:NEWSORG; we have to distinguish between news agencies (Reuters, Associated Press, AFP, DPA, etc.) on the one hand and magazines, news papers, etc. that rely on the news agencies on the other hand. I think the article in question is not published by a news agency and not based on a fact checked report of a news agency (their tool of trade is in fact fact-checking). Let's take a look at what WP:NEWSORG actually says:
  1. "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact" It is crystal clear that the article in question falls in this category, so without further justification this article (and almost every other source on the GamerGate page) can't be used as source for facts but merely to mention the opinion of the author.
  2. "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." I don't think Singal is some kind of specialist or recognized expert, if there is even such a thing if it comes to online movements.
  3. "If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact." I don't think Singal is some kind of authority (feds, government, etc.). So again DO NOT REPRESENT IT AS FACT.
  4. Next point is about using scholarly and other high-quality sources over news reports. Doesn't match in our case, but I even argue that the article is extremely low-quality, but this doesn't matter here. Next:
  5. "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value" I'd argue that in the light that the content in of said article is questionable this matter is borderline reporting of rumors but I think you will deny that - doesn't matter anyways. Count it as mismatch.
  6. "Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as a source for their work" Doesn't match (at least Wikipedia is not cited in said article).
  7. "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis." Here you go. If news stories are reliable should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. I think this is what I am doing here! And so far there are only arguments against reliability besides your "But regulations!".
  8. "Some stories are republished or passed along by multiple news organizations." I have no idea if this is republished, but a lot of sources in the GamerGate page look like republishing of the same stuff over and over. So a lot of those sources should possibly be removed.
  9. "News organizations are not required to publish their editorial policy or editorial board online. Many major newspapers do not publish their editorial policies." Quick search didn't show up some editorial policy. So we don't even know what their policy is. Possibly no fact checking whatsoever? We don't know.
  10. "One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections" Do we have publications of corrections for NYmag? Further, the article states that it was adapted from a post on reddit; I'm sure there were some people who pointed out some errors in his views. But I shouldn't do WP:OR, so I can't say for sure.
All in all: 5 points for Gryffindor - err, 5/10 points say either don't use it or attribute to author or discuss reliability. 3/10 points could be applicable that would say the article is not reliable, but we could argue about these points being applicable. And 2/10 points don't even apply at all. So your regulations state quite the opposite of what you want me to believe. It is up to you to prove that this article is reliable and regulations say that the party that argues for reliability has to bring arguments. And I don't want to read again definitions disguised as arguments and logical short circuits of the "I define this source as reliable; therefore it is reliable"-kind. If you can't do that this source should be dismissed immediately. So long. [Edit: some typos] Citogenitor[talk needed] 17:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure you understand. Republishing stories from a news agency doesn't make a source reliable, and news agencies themselves are not the only reliable sources. I could start my own newspaper today, exclusively republishing from Reuters and the AP and still not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" for many years, if ever. Sources can—and do—perform their own research and writing and perhaps gain this reputation on their own. Often, they will still republish agency articles simply to fill pages—especially for non-local stories—but this is by no means a requirement. New York magazine is generally considered reliable because they've published factual journalism for decades, are widely cited and republished by other reliable sources, they do in fact issue corrections, and so on. Jesse Singal is a staff writer for New York magazine, and before that wrote for the Boston Globe and Newsweek, both reliable sources. Most reliable sources will also clearly mark their editorial and opinion content as such, to differentiate it from factual journalism and republished stories. This article in particular makes no mention of it being an editorial or opinion piece, but is rather based on research performed by the author or the source. (Some sources have staff researchers.) So every indication we have is that this piece is considered factual journalism written by a staff author and published by a reliable source. Woodroar (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure you understand. I have never written that republishing from news agencies makes a source reliable. "Generally considered reliable" doesn't mean always reliable. And reputation doesn't mean everything. And again, I don't want to remove the NYmag from the imaginary list of RS (does such a list exist somewhere?), I challenge that this particular article is not reliable and I have given arguments. You only bring the argument that the magazine is generally considered reliable but not the article. And it is expressly stated that reliability should be assessed case-by-case and not for outlets but for articles. Show me some policy or list or whatever on Wikipedia that says that everything certain outlets print should be accepted as facts and I will stop arguing. But until then I stand by my arguments. I mean Rolling Stones Magazine is - I'm sure - considered a reliable source, and still they have published some rape hoax story - "research" done by the staff with years of experience and reputation of reliability. A lot of other people have taken it at face value even though it was fabricated. Further you say that "most reliable sources [...] clearly mark their editorial and opinion content as such"; does the NYmag do that? Are they doing it always? Is there an editorial policy that I could check? And even if, it wouldn't matter because the WP policy I quoted also covers "analysis" and not only editorial and opinion pieces. Citogenitor[talk needed] 13:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Your Rolling Stone example is a good one. Their factual journalism is widely considered reliable by other media. Obviously, everyone makes mistakes now and then, and a single discredited article—even one that causes an uproar—rarely leads to a permanent loss of the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that we require. Rather, it's uproar after uproar that makes other media—and, by extension, us—distrust a source. But here's the important part: that Rolling Stone article is considered discredited and unreliable to us because other reliable sources consider it so. No amount of fact-checking or investigation or assembling a timeline based on other sources on our parts, by you or me, will discredit an article. In other words, it doesn't matter if you think an author misrepresented a source or disagree with how they characterize attacks or feel they don't understand the arguments put forth by Gamergate supporters. WP:V (especially WP:SOURCE) and WP:RS require that we look at a lot of factors, but it all has to come from somewhere, and that nearly always comes back to what other trusted media say. Reuters has a great reputation because their articles are widely republished, even though there have been some controversies, and so we generally consider their articles reliable. If two otherwise reliable sources disagree, then we attribute both viewpoints, as long as there aren't extreme weighting issues. But if many reliable sources consider an article to be debunked, then that that article isn't considered reliable. On the other hand, if an otherwise reliable magazine publishes an article by a well-regarded author and we have no correction or retraction or disagreement or comment from other reliable sources or indication that the publisher considers it an editorial/opinion piece, then we can cite that article for factual statements. Woodroar (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Again, we argue about different things. I do not want to challenge the reliability status of NYmag as a whole. I can understand that stories from that publisher are in general accepted as reliable (but in general does not mean always). I am discussing solely this one article and I think that the rule from WP:NEWSORG "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis." does apply. See comment below. (I even only challenge that this article is used for statements of "facts" and have argued that at the most it can used to display the authors opinion) (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you have any reliable sources indicating that this specific article is questionable or an opinion piece? Woodroar (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
This is just WP:POINT. NYMag is an RS. If you want to correct them, write to their editors. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Seriously WP:POINT? I was sent here to this noticeboard to discuss the reliability of this article by TRPoD (I think, maybe someone else). Now you come here to tell me to just go away. Am I allowed to discuss here or not? I'm not disrupting anything at the GamerGate (talk) page. And I don't intend to. This is why I followed the advice to take it to this noticeboard. Can we please just discuss the topic and not point fingers and try to discredit each other? I start with a simple question: Does this rule "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis." per WP:NEWSORG apply? Yes or no? Citogenitor[talk needed] 13:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
There is a difference between "discussing" and understanding how Policies apply and "repeating your same - 'I dont think its reliable because of my research' i will keep making the same claims even when I have been told over and over that that is not how Wikipedia determines reliable sources. " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Not sure if this helps to frame the discussion in terms of more relevant community norms, but there is an old policy debate relevant to this noticeboard about what to do when we suspect a normally reliable publication contains a mistake. This is something which happens a lot of course, and such situations have sometimes led to silly editing and silly controversy. This has been discussed a lot, and the short answer is that we do not have to include material from any source, no matter how reliable it generally is. We can simply choose not to reproduce a sentence that for example includes an apparent typing error (something we can often identify doubts about by comparison to other sources, or to named primary sources that were supposed to be the origin). The only problem this can bring of course is that removal of selected sources is also an excellent way to try to bias what we report. So debate about such cases often revolves around there is any pattern of deliberate filtering in order to achieve a biased reporting in Wikipedia. For example, someone demanding that we stop using a source entirely because of a spelling mistake in one sentence would not be very convincing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: Yes! Finally some excellent information. Is there some link/archive of such a discussion you can provide? And @TheRedPenOfDoom: You sure, you don't describe your behaviour? You seem to bring always the same stone-walling answer. But that's besides the point. I brought up several rules from WP:IRS, especially the one that says that reliability should be assessed for a story case-by-case, and I am asking if this rule can be applied. A simple Yes or No would suffice. But instead you just ignore that and fall back to just "No. It's reliable because it's reliable". I find this not very helpful. And in light of the comment directly above I see enough reason to warrant an assessment of the reliability of the mentioned article; this I have already done in detail above, assessing it as unreliable. And since I highly doubt that the GamerGate article will fall apart without it there won't be any bias injected by its removal. Edit: Per FAQ on WT:IRS

Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"?

No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual. So @TheRedPenOfDoom: your argument that this article is reliable because New York Magazine is considered an RS is invalid.Citogenitor[talk needed] 17:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I have never asserted that a source is always reliable. However, your assertion that its decades long history of reliability should be tossed out because you are a more expert researcher is a non starter. And your endless repetition of that sole point is tendentious editing.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This report has no merit. Anything can be argued, but Wikipeida is not a debating society where every new editor can wear down policies by using to counter The nymag source is used six times in the article—three for strong claims, one for a sky-is-blue statement, and two for attributed comments. The three strong claims each have five other references, so any original research about this particular nymag source is irrelevant. Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@Citogenitor I do not think my description can be read as taking a side in this case. I was trying to give a framework for how to make this discussion relevant to Wikipedia norms. See my last three sentences. There are obvious concerns you need to address, and you do not seem to be convincing people about those.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@Andrew Lancaster: I am aware of that, and I think that I addressed that part in stating that the article doesn't seem to be essential to the GamerGate article on Wikipedia, so no injection of bias by removing it. See also the comment above yours: Some statements can also be supported by other sources. @TheRedPenOfDoom: Are you trying to intentionally misunderstand me? I never stated that I want to throw out New York Magazine's reputation for reliability. I indeed think that it is generally a reliable source. Just not this article. Now if you and @Johnuniq: don't want to consider a blogjob article because it's on blogjob despite having a lot of links to primary, secondary and tertiary sources, that's ok. But I am not ok with you attacking my argument by inserting that my Wikipedia-age or competence at reading sources makes my standpoint less valid (If you can't attack the argument attack the person, right?). So please stop that.
Now, if we disregard that blogjob thing, although I think it shows clearly problematic inaccuracies in the article, let's look at one of the other points. We can agree that this article is not automatically reliable although being published by nymag says that it is by high probability. We can agree that we need to look at the context to assess reliability. So context is for example the link present in the article that contradicts the article. To put it in simple terms: "Article says A and look here is proof for A. Proof says B." And all this just from reading the article and reading the content of the link provided by the article. No Google search, no original research on my part. Nothing. Still contradictory content which suggests that the author didn't look very careful at the evidence at hand and thus contradicted themselves. Therefore unreliable. So please, answer to this assessment and not to my Wikipedia-age or with some general assertion. Thank you. Citogenitor[talk needed] 10:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Larry Derfner at '972 magazine. Can the magazine be used for opinions?[edit]

An IP removed text from the article Pallywood

The text was sourced to +972 Magazine, the grounds for removal was that the source did not contain the the matter attributed to it. False edit summary.

I restored it and added an additional source from the same writer.

Larry Derfner was a columnist and feature writer for the Jerusalem Post, an Israeli correspondant for the U.S. News and World Report. He has written for the Sunday Times of London, and other newspapers like The Nation, Salon Tablet, The Forward etc.

I was reverted by User:Plot Spoiler His edit summary reads.’ Not WP:RS. Blog..’

At RSN this magazine has been discussed here and here for example. Precedent suggests that it can be used, for opinions, not facts.

In my edit, a fact was not being stated, an opinion that the word ‘Pallywood’ is an ethnic slur, containing a conspiracy theory POV was being referenced, to Derfner.

This looks fair to me. Automatic exclusion on sight without contextual evaluation, is not good practice. Comments only from independent, I/P neutral wikipedians would be appreciatedNishidani (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not familiar with any of this (not the term, or the authors, or the sources), but just looking at it in a general way would it be acceptable to specifically attribute to the author by name rather than saying slightly more strongly that the name is commonly understood this way? I am asking this in a purely practical way, because ending a discussion like this with a compromise is sometimes a "quick fix".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Of course. My point was, that was the obvious solution for both editors. They chose simply to erase the text, the first on false grounds, the second on spurious grounds, when the easy way out is (a) drop a note on the talk page (b) suggest, after checking around, a compromise.Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Not reliable: The author of the source] is listed under the "Voices" section, which is a term usually used to identify op-eds. This is consistent with the tone of the source, which is very opinionated. The magazine description[18] also does not give me confidence. I think saying a source is reliable for the opinions of the source is a frequently used and poor rationale to support using non-RS'. Every source is reliable for the opinion of the author and if that argumentation were sufficient, any source could be used. But it is not. CorporateM (Talk) 19:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand it has a record for investigative journalism of a kind ignored by the major newspapers. One example.

Unlike the majority of Israeli newspapers, whose coverage of events in the West Bank is supplied largely by reporters based in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, a number of +972’s contributors are either frequent participants in joint Israeli-Palestinian demonstrations behind the Green Line or are close with the activists who coordinate such protests. In September, for example, a clash broke out between residents and demonstrators outside the settlement of Anatot, not far from Jerusalem. Ynet, the website of Israel’s leading newspaper, Yediot Aharonot, reported that three people were lightly injured after settlers and leftists hurled rocks at each other. Shortly thereafter, Mairav Zonszein, a +972 contributor with deep ties to grassroots civil-rights organizations, provided a far more detailed account, revealing that the number of injured was 23 and that the violence was far from a two-way street: Eyewitness accounts, photographs, and videos all supplied evidence that laid the responsibility for the violence squarely with the settlers. The rest of the Israeli media soon followed suit, correcting the story.

In your reading, such material, unless reported by Ynet or Haaretz etc., can't be mentioned (though the English editions of those newspapers often leave out much of what the Israeli Hebrew press writes, material mentioned by +972..
I don't use these sources frequently, but they do document, with photos, videos and direct field reportage, things that never appear in the mainstream press, and the writers are professional Israeli journalists.
The article uses many sources that are far inferior, not touched by the revert-warrior because they coincide, I guess, with his POV. I.e.SecondDraft, Mackenzie Institute,Michelle Malkin's blog, Melanie Phillips's blog, UPJF, Canada Free Press etc. The point is, why are we to agonize over a journalist of Derfner's range of professional experience and argue he is not quotable because he writes also for +972 magazine, which has far better investigative credentials and professionalism.Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Something to consider, which underscores the highly partisan if not fringe nature of Larry Derfner -- he was fired from his position at The Jerusalem Post in 2011 "after he penned a controversial blog post justifying terrorist attacks against Israelis"[19]. That's why he's at a highly partisan outfit like +972 Mag, which is quite open about its activist role. One has to wonder why Nishidani wouldn't mention this quite relevant information. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I note that you8 trawl the I/P area to remove anything that fails WP:RS in a strict reading, if it is identifiable not centre-right. Thus you automatically remove +972, Counterpunch, Mondoweiss. In those edits you never touch the kind of poorly sourced trash articles from sites like the above. That is why your judgement is flawed. It is unilateral POV removal, leaving the page intact of equally questionable sources for the other POV you probably approve of.Nishidani (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
But coming back to how to handle such a case on Wikipedia, if this writer is controversial we can still quote his sources with attribution? At first sight it seems to be a simple point about a word meaning anyway.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Plot Spoiler, no one is fired from office in Israel for calling on the mass killing of Palestinians to liberate the country from "terror" (don't ask me for quotes: I have a list of scores of prominent people justifying indiscriminate killing of children, mothers, etc., by such people, from rabbis to academics and politicians. Anyone can get that off the net). That Derfner's judgement was seriously wrong (though read the whole context) on this is obvious, as it is obvious that the whole substance of the Pallywood thesis, repeatedly asserted by authoritative Israeli figures, is absurd. In the ridiculous article here, suggesting that any filmed incident of arbitrary killing of Palestinians by the IDF is almost invariably "staged", a form of theatre developed by terrorists to manipulate public opinion, many Israeli politicians insist on this, in the face of repeated demonstrations to the contrary, and Derfner, on this, is detailed, analytical, moderate and reliable. See

@E.M.Gregory: - does this mean that Derfner should be treated with caution depending on the content? I, for one, am utterly underwhelmed by any reasoning that he is unreliable because he was fired from a mainstream Israeli journal for presenting opposing views. On the contrary, I believe that this enhances his NPOV value. I conclude this also because writing for a "partisan website" is by no means an exclusive criterion for Wiki. In fact, departing from the mainstream view (or employment) provides a possible foil to swamping by mainstream media commercial interests and political persuations, as per WP:BIASED - "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Seems a perfect fit and foil to me. In addition, I presume that, by your critique of Defner, you do not propose to paint the entire +972 website with the same brush. I find +972 to be a valuable website because it gives me access to (translated) Hebrew articles which I might not otherwise identify, let alone be able to read, and the fact that their writers are touted for "getting their hands dirty" and not writing from 5th-floor offices.

Some editors who have responded on this page have made a reputation for themselves by making deletions based on simple one-liners such as "Not WP:RS". They target the websites mentioned above - Counterpunch, Mondoweiss and +972. All of these have been shown to have value in reaching NPOV combinations of contrasting views. In fact, such "one-liners" transparently expose the editors own glaring non-neutral POV. Yet we see the same stale one-liners time and again. Nishidani (talk · contribs) has eloquently explained the Wiki process of contrasting opposing POVs time and again, and not obliterating those that an editor does no want to see, but seemingly to little effect. If Drefner contributes positively to such a process, then by Wiki definition, it is valuable. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Can I have some input from other editors whose 'votes' and 'judgements' are not reflections of a predictable POV one way or another?Nishidani (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Addressing the facts of Derfner's career. He worked for US News & World Report, then he worked for Jerusalem Post. After the firing, he did not return to work for a "regular" paper (although Israel has both local and international media representing ever shade of the political spectrum) Instead he publishes on an avowedly activist, one-subject, thinly funded website. And even there, he doesn't file regularly, as paid journalists (columnists and beat reporters alike) do. Moreover, kis stories are often not "reported" pieces, but reflective and opinion pieces in which he quarrels [20] with fellow posters of + 972. [21] He looks to be a chap who used to be a working journalist, and is now reduced to expressing himself on an underfunded, partisan website.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
So he is a partisan journalist? That is not so unusual, and does not normally mean we can not use them on Wikipedia?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
He certainly was a journalist. Since losing his job, he appears neither to have gotten another journalism job nor to be selling stories to publications who have an editorial process in which works goes through editing and fact-checking (at major publications). He writes as a political activist with other political activist writers on +972, a group blog that neither edits nor pays its writers. I suppose we might put it in a category with, for example The Volokh Conspiracy and am persuaded, in fact, that +772 should, like Volokh, be categorized as in political blogs, and removed form categories: Magazines established in 2010, Online magazines, and Israeli news websites since it does not appear to meet standards (editing, pay) that magazines do. Group political blogs can be very influential, Volokh and +972 certainly are. But they are not journalism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

As an opinion piece it can be used to verify the opinions of the author, but not as statements of fact. If used WP:WEIGHT and WP:ATTRIBUTE should be considered, but that is not the purpose of this noticeboard.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Agree with User:RightCowLeftCoast, obviously bloggers can be quoted for their own opinions. Just pointing out that [The Nation] here [[22] makes it very clear that while +972 dubs itself magazine, it is , in fact a group blog - editors check articles only for typos and legal liability, there is neither editorial assignment of articles, nor is there editorial oversight for tone, contents or accuracy, no fact-checkers, simply post-at-will by a union of bloggers, which now includes Derfner.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
My point about him being a partisan journalist (and such a person will always tend to write for partisan media) is that we have ways of handling such sources on Wikipedia. Most commonly, we simply use attribution, so as to avoid talking with Wikipedia's voice when we report such opinions. For better or worse, Wikipedia allows articles about controversial current affairs topics, where partisan opinions often are cited, and so given that fact we do at least need to make sure we do not filter out only one type of partisan and not their opponents.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC).
Certainly, but we are dealing here with Derfner, a non-notable writer, making a defamatory and original assertion on a blog: (that Pallywood (a portmanteau coined some years ago to describe/allege Palestinian fabrication of visuals for the press) is an "ethnic slur". This, to my knowledge is a new thought. That is, calling a news film clip "Pallywood" is certainly intended as pointed criticism of Palestinian PR activity. But that is not the same as "ethnic slur". If this usage gets widely discussed, it will be better to cite articles from RS that discuss the idea that "Pallywood" is an "ethnic slur". By allowing it to be cited, even as Derfner's opinion, Wikipedia allows itself to be used as a megaphone by a non-notable blogger. I assume that the reason that Wikipedia had strict limitations on the citing of blogs is that without these rules we open Wikipedia up to use by partisan activists. All that an activist would have to do is start a blog. Write stuff on it. And add that stuff to Wikipedia citing the blog.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
In the case of +972 Magazine, a group of primarily non-notable, partisan bloggers put together a group blog and cleverly named it a Magazine. Wikipedia editors, presumably acting in good faith and believing that it is a magazine, have been citing it on fact. But it is a blog, publishing facts on the sole authority of individual partisan activists. Like any blogger, these activists may indeed have the facts straight. Or they may not. But it remains a blog and should not be cited on Wikipedia to establish facts.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Just trying to understand the positions here, are you saying that the word is a slur, but not an ethnic slur? If the debate is only about whether an ethnic group is being singled out for slurring at least we can home in on that. (But the Pally stands for Palestinian I suppose.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I see the term Pallywood as political criticism, part of the Israeli-Arab contest for hearts and minds. The term is used to criticize a real or alleged tactic used (or allegedly used) by Palestinian activists. I cannot find that anyone except Derfner calls it an "ethnic slur" (I googled it). Surely there is a distinction between criticism of a Palestinian tactic and ethnic slur.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that, even without waiting for this thread to close or a clear consensus to develop, E.M.Gregory is going through articles, systematically removing citations to +972 Mag. This is tendentious and disruptive behaviour, from which s/he should desist unless and until it is agreed or ruled that the magazine is not a reliable source and should not be cited. RolandR (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly. I typed +972 into the function to search previous RS boards, and found previous discussions in which +972 is characterized as a blog and not a reliable source for facts. My understanding is that that is the purpose of this board. If a source is unreliable, the information sourced to it ought to be removed, or sourced eleewhere, or tagged as in in need of proper sourcing. Unless such policies are followed, Wikipedia incentivizes activists to create "magazines".E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
972 may have been characterised by some in these discussions as a blog; it was also characterised by others as a reliable source. There has certainly been no consensus or ruling about this, and you are simply cherry-picking the comments with which you agree. Please point, if you can, to any decision regarding 972 as a source. And if you cannot, please cease your disruptive removal of all citations to this source. RolandR (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

'I relied on Archive 171 (section +972 Magazine - interview with former Israeli attorney general Michael Ben-Yair)E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

  • More to the point, articles The Nation, Tablet Magazine and the About page of +772 itself are unanimous in describing +972 Magazine as a group blog, with editorial review extending only to typos and legal liability, not to anything else. It is a bloggers cooperative, not a Online magazine as defined by Wikipedia. Blogs are not treated as WP:RS.?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I object to the accusation that I engaged in disruptive behavior. Notice that at Bil'in I left the (plausible) text intact and merely replaced the unreliable source with a "fact" tag. Althogh not familiar with this issue until recently, when I discovered the "search" feature for this noticeboard, I read the previous discussions and understood them to have reached consensus. This was in tune with a consensus with which I was already familiar that blogs are not cited as reliable sources. A look at my edits will show that I first assumed that +972 was a partisan magazine, i.e. a partisan but edited and reliable source. But as I continued to look into +972, I began to edit the misleading Wikipedia page as it then existed (misleading because it seemed to be about a magazine), I edited it according to the two actual magazines that I was able to discover that have discussed +972 in any depth, The Nation, and Tablet Magazine. Having discovered that it is merely a blog, I admit to feeling mildly duped by these bloggers who style themselves "magazine". Putting out a real magazine is hard work. I did indeed seek, then tag or remove material from several articles sourced to +972. All of this may not have been done perfectly, but I assure you that it was all done in good faith.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The article that I can find on The Tablet does not describe +972 as a blog, but as a magazine; indeed, the very subtitle of the article is "The leftist Israeli magazine +972 wants to sound the alarm on a Jewish state it believes is destroying itself".[23] RolandR (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The Tablet article reads: "All the magazine’s bloggers have complete freedom to write whenever and whatever they want. The magazine has a top editor, but the bloggers can fire him or her if they please. And whoever comes on board does so gratis."[24]. The Nation goes into greater detail. Also the +972 "About" section. no one gets paid. no one gets edited. Editor has no control over content (beyond checking for typos and "discussing" possible legal liability issues with writer/bloggers. A blog, not a magazine for purposes of WP:RS. User:RolandR, I'm only guessing here, but is it possible that you assumed that it is a magazine, because it calles itself: magazine? I know I was. If so, you had reason to overract. And have reason to be ticked. I know that I was ticked to discover that something that calls itself "magazine" is, in fact, a blog.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
What E.M. Gregory is doing is automatically removing +972 citations without even looking at the source (which often has in-article links that allow one to independently authenticate the information given). He is not removbing blogs. He leaves in pro-Israeli blogs (all this is shown on the relevant talk pages). In other words, he is campaigning against a source he thinks gives a 'pro-Palestinian' slant, not defending a principle (WP:RS), and is indifferent to WP:NPOV.
Can we now stop transforming this into a personal war, and desist so that independent non I/P obsessed editors may review the gist, and tell us if +972 magazine may be used (please check the journalists' curriculums, which show notable work on mainstream newspapers in Israel) and if Derfner can be cited attributively via that source (His astute remarks on the media hype over a putative murder when a work accident occurred helped to delete an article conjured out of nothing other than hysteria Murder of Netanel Arami. perhaps that is why he is disliked.Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the hierarchical structure of +972 to be irrelevant here, or rather the model that should be thought of is that of the Kibbutz. This a uniquely Israeli model, (and one of its enduring triumphs, but thats' my POV). It's structures, economic concepts are uniquely Israeli, and +972 seems to echo that tradition. Therefore I would not simplistically argue it is a mere blog based on it's economic or hierarchical values. There are many Kibbutzim that produce world class software and other products. Should we dismiss their products just because the mode of production does not match more traditional models? Of course not. I would venture to suggest this is a Kibbutz-like model producing investigative journalism, by it's own lights. I think it's product is valid. And I am a Zionist, if that is relevant at all, so just giving my core POV. Irondome (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia has a definition of Online magazine - is edited. And of Blog - is not edited. +972 is a blog. Blogs are not WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
+972 is not WP:NEWSBLOG because its bloggers are not subject to "full editorial control". Nor does it fall under the category of WP:USERGENERATED that makes an exception of "established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications" these are non-notable bloggers, political activists, and activist writers. Even Derfner, who set this off, is not blue-linked and appears to have no credentials beyond the fact that he was once a working journalist. I am writing this in response to a parallel discussion on talk page of Bil'in, in an effort to centralize this discussion and settle this recurring (see previous discussions on this board) issue.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Um, that isnt what WP:RS says. It says Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. What needs to be examined is whether or not the writer of the piece is sufficiently reliable for the statement. Now when +972 publishes a PhD student it can be discounted. But Derfner? Cmon now. Yes, he wrote something that the Jerusalem Post did not like. But I see no evidence that something he writes and that +972 publishes is de facto unreliable. Whether or not somebody is blue-linked isnt a factor in this discussion. Derfner has written for the Jerusalem Post, Forward Magazine, US News and World Report and the Sunday Times. Working on this specific topic. It may just be me, but that seems to be an established expert whose work has been published by third-party reliable publications. nableezy - 22:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
He's an established activist, partisan pundit -- not expert. Big difference. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Just so.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Back to the question of using +972 Magazine as a source. It is being widely cited for facts in WP articles and I am under attack for removing it from some of those articles. Can we agree that it is blog, and should be treated like other blogs, i.e., as not a newspaper, (as it is now used in multiple articles)?E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Established activist? He's been published, as both a reporter and columnist, by several highly reputable sources. And no, E.M.Gregory, it is not simply a question of =972 magazine, a sources reliability depends on more than if it is just a blog. In this specific example, the source is Derfner published by +972. Derfner's qualifications meet the requirements of WP:RS for what he is cited for. Context matters, or at leas it is supposed to. nableezy - 03:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTINHERITED the fact that Derfner once worked for edited, mainstream publications does not confer status on him now. His present status is as a non-notable blogger. I say non-notable because we are not talking about Robert Fisk. A blog does not confer authority on articles it publishes the way a newspaper can. Ergo Derfner is not a RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Article submission for Q-Collection Comic Book Preservation Project[edit]

Hello, I'm currently writing an article about the Q-Collection Comic Book Preservation Project and I've had some issues with the reliability of my sources so an editor advised me to come here.


Article: Draft:Q-Collection

Statements: The Boston Globe link delivers the method that John Sindall is using "Over the last decade, Sindall has worked on developing a better preservation method. After some trial and error, he settled on a laminating process that uses five-millimeter, UV-resistant Mylar. He removes the individual pages from the bound comic books with a cutting machine made in Germany, and then laminates them with the Mylar. The laminate melts right into the fibers of the comic, sealing the pages, while also keeping them supple enough to be flipped, just like an untreated comic.

Michael Hill on his website Doctor Comics informs us about the contents of the binders "In addition to the comics the collection contains associated artifacts such as trading cards, bubble gum wrappers, photographs, ads, membership cards etc. These too, will be subject to the preservation process.

The Superman Home Page link gives some information about the contents "Each Information Page includes publication details, information on the series/particular issue/specific copy, below that info is extensive information on the series itself and below that is information on a primary character that appears in the comic book.

The French websites give various information about the genesis of the project, the comics in the collection and the contents of the binders but can I use them?

Finally, can one source be used in order to support different statements in the article?

CyrilG4 (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The Boston Globe blog you used indicates that it is not edited by the Globe staff. Thd at makes it a WP:Self-published source, which are often not reliable. (But may be in some cases.) Additionally, Doctor Comics is a self-published source. I'm not sure about the Superman Homepage, since it has editorial staff but I don't know what its process is for the kind of article you cited. (I can't comment on the French sources.) Of the ones you list, I think Doctor Comics is the most credible: the SPS policy notes that "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." This seems applicable to author Michael Hill.
As for whether one source can be used to support different statements, certainly. If a source is comprehensive enough, it could be used to support an entire article--in which case the article would be improved by adding more sources and alternate points of view, but there would be no problem with the inclusion of the content itself. Knight of Truth (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
The Brainiac disclaimer seems to be misleading; the column is a regular Boston Globe feature, and Kevin Hartnett is its regular author. [25][26][27] I would consider it fully reliable for your article. --GRuban (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

San Francisco Weekly[edit]

I had a question regarding San Francisco Weekly. Is this considered a reliable source when discussing birth names? Thank you. Marcos12 (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Depends on the coverage and the context you're using it for. Is it a birth notice? a death notice? news content? etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually it's neither. I wanted to use this article [28] as a reference in the entry for Violet Blue. Marcos12 (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
That seems reliable to me. Note that it doesn't give a birth name, only a partisan claim as to what a birth name might be, make sure you present it as such. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Marcos12 (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and made the edit. [29] Could someone please let me know if it is indeed acceptable? Marcos12 (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Well that certainly didn't last long. My edit was summarily removed and redacted. Not only that, but I was admonished by one of the Supervisors. San Francisco Weekly is an acceptable source, but not for BLP. Chastened, I will refrain from editing for the near future. Marcos12 (talk) 03:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The SF Weekly is likely to be a reliable source, but just because something is published in a reliable source doesn't mean we are required to include it. Inclusion or exclusion of given material is subject to editorial discussion, consensus and discretion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

San Francisco Weekly is a leading alternative newspaper, much like how the San Diego Reader is. So yes, it is reliable. Questions about WP:WEIGHT, which the above editor appears to be suggesting, is not for this noticeboard. If that is a question take it to the article's talk page where the source maybe used, or to WP:NPOV/N.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Side issue but I think we should avoid implying that any source is simply reliable or unreliable in any absolute way. Notability issues aside, nearly every published source could be useful for something. And no source would be reliable for every subject. Context is important always in these discussions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Jay Is Games/[edit]

There's a few indie horror games I'm considering writing an article for, but before I get started I wanted to know if Jay Is Games can be considered a usable (not a fantastic one, but usable) source for anything indie VG-related. I can't look directly at the site right now because of work firewalls blocking it, but as far as I can tell it might be kind of a Newgrounds-style site where games are hosted and reviews are strictly user-based and have no editorial process... but one detail I'm not certain of is the possibility that they actually have "legit" reviews written by a more official sort of news team or in-house reviewer base, and that they might hold some water wrt small indie games that don't have much larger press coverage aside from skillions of screeching Let's Players on Youtube.

So-- could JIG be considered in any way reliable in this specific context (coverage of small indie horror titles)? BlusterBlasterkablooie! 14:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It's been discussed a few times—summary of first three discussions and fourth discussion—by WPVG with the result that JIG is considered a situational source at WP:VG/RS: casual game reviews by Jay Bibby are reliable, everything else is unreliable. As you said, most reviewers are anonymous users, there doesn't appear to be any editorial control, and they can write about virtually anything so those articles are generally disregarded in VG-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, thanks-- I didn't know there was a specific VG/RS board to bring up RS questions, and I would have checked the archives. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 15:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikileaks source?[edit]

Article: Yōichi Masuzoe

Source: "ASO ELECTED PM; CABINET PICKS AIMED AT SOLIDIFYING LEADERSHIP". US Department of State. Retrieved 25 December 2013. "His book on welfare issues, his political commentary, and frequent television appearances have given him wide name recognition. Masuzoe is married without children. His second wife, Satsuki Katayama, is a first-term member of the LDP Lower House representing Shizuoka seventh district. Masuzoe's hobbies include horseback riding, golf, and skiing; he has a black belt in judo. He speaks excellent English and French, having been a visiting fellow at the University of Paris and the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, and was an engaging interlocutor during the May 2008 G8 Labor and Employment Ministers' Meeting."

Source cited three times in article, once for apparently non-controversial list of his hobbies, but also for the statements Prior to entering politics, he became well known in Japan as a television commentator on political issues. and He is conversationally fluent in English and French.

I don't think the quotation provided is adequate for "conversationally fluent in French" (an obvious implication being that he cannot read or write French accurately, and no mention of English) when it actually says he "speaks excellent English and French". It also says he was known for his book on welfare issues, his political commentary, and his television appearances, which is not the same as "he became well known in Japan as a television commentator on political issues".

I would rewrite the problematic sentences based on what the source actually says, but I'm not sure about the source itself since I've never used Wikileaks and all the references to it I have heard in secondary media imply that the current source might be a self-published source.


Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The text is correct that he was a political commentator. And you are correct that the wording of the source doesn't exactly support that. So I'd say the answer is to find a better source. That should be easy as it's common knowledge. Likewise with the fluency in English and French. The hobbies might take more searching, but in general wikileaks is not a RS because it's a confidential cable with no vetting that we know of. Published sources are better. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Rape stats help[edit]

The Rape in India article has some questionable sources:

In the lead ref #5: Niti Central [30]

In the lead ref #7: Messy Matters [31]

Regarding ref #8, I feel quite confident that this is taken out of a larger context and would be best not included. Thoughts on that?

Thanks for the help - you guys are great and I appreciate the work you do. Gandydancer (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Ref #5 seems like RS as it has an editor. Ref #7 is a blog and not RS. The source in ref #8 is a reliable source and can be verified here. I agree though that it is mischaracterized on the article though. Those are official statistic and don't necessarily reflect actual rates of crime. That needs to be discussed on the article's talk page though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Neither NitiCentral, nor Messy matters are appropriate sources for the article. As mentioned above, the latter is a personal blog; and the former is an opinion column in a even otherwise borderline (and highly POV) source. Note the disclaimer at the bottom:

Opinions expressed in this article are the author's personal opinions. Information, facts or opinions shared by the Author do not reflect the views of Niti Central and Niti Central is not responsible or liable for the same. The Author is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.

The Deviant Behavior reference seems fine in itself, although it would be better to cite the United Nations survey of crime report itself (I assume it is available online somewhere), since the latter is likely to provide more details and context. (Also second the points made by EvergreeFir in that regard) Abecedare (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Good catch on that niti site caveat. Not rs. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The Raben Group - Are they able to use their website as main source[edit]

Help requested on this page which is currently advertising for a lobbying company - They are whitewashing facts. Richie1921 (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggest posting instead to WP:NPOVN or even WP:COIN. Also, as of right now the page is protected and can only be edited by administrators, which might help mitigate the problem you're seeing. TheBlueCanoe 02:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
we are working on it. new user is running all over the place instead of working slowly/calmly. we'll get there. Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[edit]

Is a reliable source? is given as the source for Jamie Brewer's date of birth. I contacted the site and received a reply: "Im pretty sure the writer of that column gets most of the dates from IMDB." IMDb is WP:USERGENERATED. They have various other sections such as news, reviews and interviews that may or may not be reliable, but can we agree that this site is definitely not reliable for dates of birth? --Geniac (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's reliable. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree - it is a republication of trivia and does not promise any fact checking or editorial process. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Socialism and Democracy[edit]

Is Socialism and Democracy reliable? It doesn't seem to be academic.Xx236 (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Xx236: Hard to say without any context. Could you look at the "Before posting..." section at the top of this page and give us the article, a link to the Socialism and Democracy source, and the exact statement that is being supported? – Margin1522 (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The specyfic article is apparently idiotic, so I don't think that discussing it would be useful. I'm interested in Socialism and Democracy in general, Google doesn't give much informations. The journal has impact factor 0.00 (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Publisher: City University of New York. Research Group on Socialism and Democracy, Taylor & Francis (Routledge), wow! Xx236 (talk) 11:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not my particular area, but to me it looks like a specialised but reliable journal. CUNY is a serious university and Routledge is an academic publisher. The journal website is and the T&F/Routledge page is --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I have been confused by the two pages, now I can see it's one journal. Xx236 (talk) 07:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Two items from at Fossil fuel divestment[edit]

Whaddya'll think of these two items from as RS? (I'm asking the RS question, not the NPOV question.)

"By September 2014, 837 institutions and individuals had committed to divest over $50 billion."
Sourced to "Rapid increase in institutions pulling money out of fossil fuels"
"==Economic risks of divestment from fossil fuels==
In 2013 the Aperio Group calculated using a multi-factor model that there is a 0.0002% theoretical return penalty in divesting from fossil fuel companies in the [[Russell 3000 Index]] stating: "the portfolio does become riskier, but by such a trivial amount that the impact is statistically irrelevant" (Patrick Geddes, Chief Investment Officer, Aperio Group)" That's the entire section under this heading, so far.
This is sourced to "Do the Investment Math: Building a Carbon-Free Portfolio", a paper from that Aperio Group that is posted at the GoFossilFree.Org website

Thanks for thoughts. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC) is an advocacy site, it's not a WP:RS. The Aperio Group document might be a WP:RS, but if it is, it's not apparent from this context. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, which I have stated before, the reliability of a paper depends on the reliability of the original author. It doesn't matter where a copy of the paper is hosted, unless there is reason to think that it's not a true copy. In this case, the best URL for the Aperio Group paper is the Aperio Group website. Unfortunately that paper has been updated and the current version doesn't contain the quoted statement. But the 2013 version of the paper did, and it was in the Wayback Machine. So I changed the URL from to, via the Wayback Machine.
I did the same thing for the IEA report quoted in Rolling Stone. The Rolling Stone summary was accurate but it didn't cite the report so it couldn't be verified. So I located the report, found the page, and changed the URL to the IEA website instead of the Rolling Stone article.
As for the divestment totals report, that should also link to the original report, if possible. But the reliability of the report isn't affected because a copy is hosted at The copy is as reliable as the original was. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Stuartyeates says that GoFossilFree is not reliable because it is an advocacy site. I disagree with that position, because I think that advocacy publishes can be excellent sources for biased positions and information which should be included in Wikipedia. NPOV means including all positions, not judging sources for neutrality or bias.
That said, GoFossilFree is not a reliable source because it makes no claim for integrity in publishing. It has no editorial process, does not name authors, makes no attempt to tie the research it presents with any research publications, and otherwise seeks to be sensation and removed from other publication in its sector. It would be appropriate to cite advocacy organizations in that sector but this one is low quality due to its neither making a claim of expertise nor tying its publication to other expertise. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of whether GoFossilFree is an RS, the article did not cite GoFossilFree. It cited someone else. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Subsequent to my opening post, you made the wise bold edit to change Example 2's url from a paper hosted by GoFossilFree to the paper's original source, Asperio. Good idea, and that took care of Example 2. However, what about Example 1? That was and still is attributed to GoFossilFree, no? If you changed that too, please be more precise by using DIFFs. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
No, I hadn't done that, but I have now, so for these particular facts we can discuss the reliability of the original Arabella and Aperio papers instead of being distracted by the agenda of GoFossilFree, which cited the papers. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah-ha! I had not realized, until now, that Example 1 was from anyone other than GoFossilFree. Thanks for pointing that out. I agree the article should point to the original sources. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Foreign Policy magazine[edit]

Primarily asking on behalf of another editor... Is a Foreign Policy article such as this reliable in making assessments of the media's role during 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, i.e., statements such as "Never in the history of Latin America had the media played quite so prominent a role in facilitating the overthrow of a democratically elected government"?  Mbinebri  talk ← 21:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a problem, providing you WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV - Cwobeel (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Foreign Policy, is a reliable source. Usage of the source is best left for discussion on the talk page of the intended article or WP:NPOV/N.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely, Foreign Policy is a highly reliable source for world politics. Simonm223 (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Just as User:Cwobeel says, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, FP has a POV, like pretty much all journals in this field, but it is a highly reliable source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Tercer Sector magazine[edit]

Was wondering if this magazine would be a reliable source:— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 23:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to tell since you can't physically see and look through the magazine, but it does look quite professional. However, a reliable source according to Wiki policy has three characteristics: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. As long as you can accurately identify all three of these things, then the magazine should be a reliable source. For more information, you can look to or WP: reliable. Cheers Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 03:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Mario Gregorio as a recognized authority on Nostradamus.[edit]

There appears to have been a series of long-running disputes on the Nostradamus page over the use of a page set up by someone called Mario Gregorio as a source; as far as I can tell, Mario Gregorio edited the article extensively early on, which may have contributed to the issue. The source being cited in particular is his webpage. WARNING: The page currently reports as infected with malware for me, although I gather it isn't for everyone. I won't hyperlink it for that reason, but the page is; from what I saw of it when my antivirus allowed it to load before, it looked like a Tripod-style affair. An editor on the talk page insists that Mario Gregorio is a recognized authority on Nostradamus; as far as I can tell, he only has one publication on the topic to his name, which I think was published through a vanity press (although it's hard to be certain since it's all in Italian.) Anyway, since this dispute appears to have plagued that page for a while, could someone take a look (through some sort of sandbox, I guess, in case the source really is infected), look up Mario Gregorio, and weigh in themselves on his suitability as a source? I'll grant that the individual things on the page cited to this source do not, on the face of it, seem to be particularly controversial (mostly minor factual details on Nostradamus' life), but I still don't feel that his page is usable as a source, even assuming he cleans up the reports of malware infection. --Aquillion (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Certainly not a reliable authority on Nostradamus, and in fact qualifies as a fringe-source. Didn't find him referenced by any reliable source on the subject (ie article or book by an academic or published bya mainstream publisher) either on jstor, or on Google Books. Worldcat lists only one book by the author, which is held by only 1 library, and the title is: Nostradamus predise l'attentato di New York ! : Quale sarà il prossimo evento ? ("Nostradamus predicted the attack in New York! : What will be the next event?") Abecedare (talk) 06:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Sales in Argentine[edit]

I found the sales for Spice Girls first CD in Argentine, the source is "Para Ti" Magazine, from "Televisa Editorial", i know it's an important magazine in that country.

Is a reliable source? Coolcoolmen16 (talk) 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The link goes to a search results page. Do you have a link to the source?- MrX 10:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[edit]

I'd like to get some input about whether or not could be considered a reliable source. I encountered this site at Lingaa in these edits which was supporting the statement "Lingaa got mixed to positive reviews" among other data. The site appears to be a copycat, acting as a motion picture review aggregator for the Bollywood film industry.

Their aggregation methodology isn't quite clear. There is a vague explanation of it here. Per their description, the above assertion "mixed to positive" wouldn't be accurate, the determination for this film falls in "white chicken" or "average" range. The site appears to have opened in 2012.

One thing that is very important to note, is that the Bollywood film industry is very cutthroat and there is corruption abundant, with deliberate inaccuracies in box office data (inflated to make film A look better, and deflated to make film B look worse), paid POV editing and promotional sockpuppetry at Wikipedia, questionable reviewers, questionable sites, etc. The Times of India once discontinued their box office column because of the corruption. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Also encountered at Dolly Ki Doli in this edit, since reverted. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The review sites which are in the aggregations appear to include some very good quality sources. See: The Times of India, NDTV, Hindustan Times & Bollywood Hungama. Links to the aggregated reviews are also included, providing verifiability. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Podcast and WP:ABOUTSELF[edit]

The article is about Burnie Burns, a filmmaker. Burns runs his own podcast (here) wherein he mentions his middle name around minute 32. Multiple users have tried to add the middle name to the article over the past days; all such edits have been reverted. Is it acceptable to include his middle name in the lede (which would then read Burnie <middlename> Burns) based only on this citation? I've looked online and there are no other reliable websites indicating his middle name, so it's this podcast or nothing. Thanks, wia (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that video/podcast is a reliable sources for his middle name (index 0:33:22). See WP:CITE#Film,_TV,_or_video_recordings and Template:Cite podcast for information about citing the source. Bear in mind that just because something is reliably sourced, doesn't mean that it should be included in an article. You still have to gain consensus.- MrX 10:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)