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, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210

Deseret News[edit]

This is a slightly stretching the remit of this board since it's a question of independence rather than reliability, but this's the closest we've got. The question is:

Whether or not, and to what extent, the Deseret News is independent on subjects touching the Mormon Church, for the purposes of WP:GNG, which requires coverage in reliable sources that are "independent of the subject".

The Deseret News is a notable and reliable source for the purposes of using it as a cite ref in an article, generally -- I think most people would probably agree with with that. They're a large and long-established general-audience world-and-local-news newspaper with a large circulation, a mainstream point of view, and, I'd assume, an active fact-checking arm.

That doesn't mean they are independent of the Mormom Church for the purposes of establishing whether a subject covered by them is notable enough to have an article (that's where the "independent of the subject" clause of WP:GNG comes in).

The paper is owned by the Mormon Church. While their editorial side appears to be pretty much like any other general-audience paper, I don't know if they would investigate wrongdoing in the Mormon Church with any vigor. Probably not.

And they do print Mormon Church news to a much greater degree than, say, the Boston Globe or whatever. On the other hand, they are based in Salt Lake City, where the doings of the Mormon Church are important regardless. If they didn't cover the church much it would be odd, and not good business.

So I dunno. My inclination is to read the "independent of the subject" clause fairly narrowly and the Deseret News would be outside that clause. It's a newspaper, the ownership is peripheral to what it is. Similarly as the Christian Science Monitor is independent of the Christian Science Church for WP:GNG purposes IMO.

Contrast with the magazine Ensign which is also owned by the Mormons, but is 1) mainly directed to Mormons, and 2) mainly has articles about Mormons, the Mormon Church, and so forth. It's a house organ, basically. The Deseret News isn't.

But I don't know. I don't read the Deseret News and I'm not really familiar with it. Maybe I have wrong idea about the paper. Anybody have an idea? Herostratus (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

  • There is a 2012 discussion about Deseret News from this noticeboard, at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_122#Deseret_News.  As far as I know, the Deseret News is considered to be a regional newspaper and a WP:RS reliable source.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Journalistic independence is a part of Journalism ethics and standards.  As per [1] from the Center for Journalism Ethics, there is a "long-standing principle that journalists should be independent from the groups they write about".  I reject the idea that a WP:RS can have a trial in the court of public opinion of Wikipedia editors, to determine that the source is in violation of the code of journalistic ethics.  Disparaging the journalists as a group like this without evidence I would think would be considered a form of WP:BLP, but I can't find it.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I think this (and the AfD from which this is a spawn of) is looking at a different question than the 2012 query was. The 2012 query was more about reliability than independence. In particular, the query was, "can we use Deseret News to source Mitt Romney?" That is not a question of WP:N, as hundreds of other RSes assert Mitt's notability and Deseret News need not be used to do that. pbp 03:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This gets more focused when identifying material that is from the "LDS Church News", which while still published by Deseret, does not present itself as the Deseret News.  Church News webpages state, "The LDS Church News is an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The publication's content supports the doctrines, principles and practices of the Church."  But at [2], we also get the name of the reporter, Jason Swensen.  So now, a claim that Jason Swensen has violated journalistic ethics regarding independence would appear to be a BLP issue.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
You're completely misunderstanding the question if you think this is a WP:BLP issue somehow, to the point that your contribution becomes less than useless if you are trying to quash any discussion of this sort of thing under some bizzaro overstretching of BLP. Don't do that. Writers are of course permitted to write any number of things for any number of employers for any number of reasons. No reasonable person could stretch this into any kind of accusation against anybody. Sheesh. Herostratus (talk) 04:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
It looks to me that the Deseret News is a reliable, local newspaper that would be very unlikely to criticize any members in "good-standing" of the LDS Church. Guy1890 (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Yup. The interesting question is, how "independent" of the LDS are they? Suppose the LDS promotes some people to Grand Poobah. How does it go down? Is it:
  1. The LDS Church tells them "Here's a list of our new Grand Poobahs. Print it."
  2. Or do they just figure on their own that their owner (the LDS Church) would be happy if they print it?
  3. Or maybe they figure "Well, most of our readers are LDS, a fair number of them would want to read about the LDS Church's new Grand Poobahs".
If it's the first they are not independent (for LDS personnel news), if its the last they certainly are, if its the middle one its debatable. Herostratus (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This may be an aside, but are not daily newspapers at the low tier when it comes to establishing notability via "significant coverage"? Local newspapers that cover topics of concern to a region are even more so, it would seem to me. The fact that a local newspaper covers a football game, for example, does not make a coach notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • We are not talking about a local paper, this is a regional newspaper, and given the absence of other large nearby cities, a rather large region.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Not independent: As noted on the AfD that necessitated this spinoff discussion, Deseret News is affiliated with the Mormon church, is used as an organ to promote church actions, and has a mission statement stating it follows Mormon guidelines. As such, it should not be used to assess notability of officials within the Mormon church (it can be used for other things how, including sourcing Mormon officials, provided there is also significant coverage from something not tied in to the LDS Church). Also, bad form to User:Herostratus for spinning this off. pbp 02:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not at all bad form to try bring in other minds and voices to consider this difficult question, particularly editors who aren't involved in any discussions directly bearing on the question. In fact, that is exactly what this noticeboard is for. So I don't take kindly to your absurd and insulting characterization of me, which is intended to quash free discussion at the Wikipedia. However, I'm not surprised, given the train wreck you your gang have made of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octaviano Tenorio. It's stone obvious that you have not considered the question for one nanosecond, you're just pursuing your agenda. So don't. It doesn't make you look good. Herostratus (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Dude, this is pretty clearly WP:FORUMSHOPPING. "My gang"? I don't have a "gang". Saying I have a "gang" is no more or less a personal attack than saying you have "bad form". pbp 05:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Bringing Deseret News up here is fine. It might help clarify future AFDs. --NeilN talk to me 05:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Moderately independent: It is slightly more openly faith-based in tone than the Christian Science Monitor, see here but it is a large regional newspaper, has standard journalistic fact-checking and ethics, carries Associated Press news stories, and the only other major paper in the area is the Salt Lake Tribune. Per the local/regional question, keep in mind that the SLC area is the largest metro area between Denver and Sacramento. Herostratus and Unscintillating pretty much outline the situation, though PBP rightly notes that it will most likely be relatively uncritical of current LDS Church leadership, though I believe it has adequate independence to meet the "multiple" source requirement if there is non-Mormon coverage on a topic. LDS members are not robotic zombies, no more than Catholics or Southern Baptists. They are a church that leans conservative but has a lot of diversity these days. This is not a mere propaganda outlet, it's a "real" newspaper and it is probably no more "biased" than a News Corporation paper. Frankly, upon a cursory review of today's edition, it's better quality paper than my town's local rag owned by a generic newspaper chain (Lee Enterprises). Montanabw(talk) 02:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Not at all independent when it comes to LDS-related activities and subjects. This should be self-evident. --NeilN talk to me 05:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Journalistic independence is a part of Journalism ethics and standards.  As per the link above from the Center for Journalism Ethics, there is a "long-standing principle that journalists should be independent from the groups they write about".  It is self-evident that no professional reporter is "independent" of a paycheck and living on the planet Earth.  Do you have any evidence that the journalism ethics standards of Deseret News are substandard?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • First off, Unscintillating, you need stop referencing a poorly-sourced article and decouple being independent and being ethical (This has been said to you numerous times by numerous people and you've ignored it each time). And there's plenty of evidence, including from Deseret News' own pages, that Deseret News is beholden to the interests of the LDS Church and therefore not independent of it. pbp 20:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Having read the AfDs that spawned this question, and this above discussions, I'm inclined to say that the Deseret News is not independent insofar as it seems a poor idea to use it to pass the GNG. If there isn't enough reliable sources that are independent of the Church to verify notability, I'm not sure how those dependent sources make the difference. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • AfD has closed with a conclusion that, "I consider the primary argument around the definition of 'independent source' to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what we mean by 'independent of the article subject'. The sources aren't directly connected to the article subject but to an organisation of which he's a part, and that degree of connection isn't sufficient to discount the sources, any more than we would discount the Journal of the American Statistical Association or The Spectator as sources for biographies because most of the people mentioned will be connected to the ASA or the Conservative Party."  Unscintillating (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
So? This isn't AfD, there's no consensus here right now that Deseret News is independent, and there's already considerable blowback to that statement made as part of a biased supervote. If the admin wants his opinion heard here, let him come here. pbp 03:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, no one is stopping you from pinging him, but what he said seems clear.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • One of your comments at AfD was, "Nobody here's saying that Deseret News is unethical.", diff.  If they are not unethical, then they practice independence in their journalism ethics.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Issue with sourcing at Hyder, Alaska[edit]

See Talk:Hyder, Alaska#Law enforcement for background. Unscintillating opened a thread at Wikipedia talk:Editing policy#Hyder, Alaska, which another editor almost immediately closed as off-topic, suggesting passing the buck to this page instead. I suspect that this NYT story was the impetus behind resurrecting this issue from the dead after so many years. Both that story and Hyder's entry at the Community Database Online, maintained by the Alaska Division of Community and Regional Affairs, offer the impression that Hyder is served by the Ketchikan-area post of the Alaska State Troopers on a strictly infrequent basis and sees no other law enforcement presence. Neither goes into sufficient enough detail, but what mention they do make contradicts the sources Unscintillating mentioned. What little interaction I've had with Niteshift36 reveals a propensity for turning every discussion into a ridiculously protracted argument, which was providing me with zero incentive to seek out higher-quality sources. I'll give it a try if I make it to the library this week, though. As far as details: if Hyder's telephone service is tied into Stewart's local exchange, I would think that to mean that calling 9-1-1, even from the American side, gets you a dispatcher in Stewart rather than one in Ketchikan. Also, I know little about Canadian jurisprudence, but in Alaska, a town the size of Stewart wouldn't have a judge, but might have a magistrate. I also don't know enough to say whether or not that would make any difference, but I would tend to agree with an earlier comment that such a situation would require an international treaty. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 07:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks for starting a discussion with a personal attack on me (and not having the courtesy of leaving a notice about it for me). Your good faith and not bothering to try to discuss it at the talk page sets the best tone for productive discussion. The thread at the Editing policy page should be closed. That's not where that discussion belongs. The page clearly states: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Editing policy page." What is actually at issue here is the claim that the RCMP provides law enforcement services to Hyder. No source has been produced that says that. The NYT article you linked to does not make that claim. The Alaska Community Database doesn't make that claim. While you try to make this about me, you've ignored the fact that an IP editor removed it in June, which is what revived the issue. I have removed it, another experienced user (Reyk) and an admin (Drmies) have also agreed that the statement in question is unproven. I left it in the article for a month with a fact tag. None have been produced. That's exactly how it got left in so long.... people just quit caring that it was not sourced. This is the simplest of matters: The statement is unsourced and V clearly says it can (and should) be removed. Restoring unsourced material is little more than vandalism. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm confused about "not leaving a notice". Are you saying that I'm misunderstanding the purpose of {{U}} versus another template? Or are you saying that I didn't go to your talk page because I figured that a notification template would accomplish the same thing? I believe I already mentioned that I live in a place with limited amounts of summer. As such, I prefer to take what little time I have for this at present to try and get work done, not providing fodder for people who appear more interested in feeding off of others' energy all the time than in trying to really move the encyclopedia beyond being yet another website that's into aping other websites.
BTW, the rest of this was hair-splitting to the point of being mind-splitting. And what's up with "experienced user Reyk" and "admin Drmies"? It implies that you're trying to paint me as a newbie. Take a better look. I may choose to not be around tomorrow to celebrate the occasion. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 12:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Using that template isn't really a notificatio. It just shows I was mentioned in a comment. I don't necessarily go to those. It would have been appropriate to put a notice on my talk page. There's no hair splitting at all my friend. The part about the RCMP is unsourced. That's Wikipedia 101. Source it or don't restore it. Then you go back to complaining about how I answered you. Yes, I pointed out that ReyK was an experienced user and Drmies is an admin because you keep acting like the removal is something I just made up on my own. I haven't spent much time looking at your experience, but again, WP:V is Wikipedia 101, so I'm confused how someone with all your experience is struggling with that. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
"WP:V is Wikipedia 101". Sure enough, I just now read yet another article for the first time which was well-referenced, but was also incomprehensible when read as a whole because the existence of citations following statements happened to be the only element tying it together. So if you're one of the folks helping to lead us down that slippery slope, thanks a lot. It further begs the question I've been asking for years and no one has dared to answer: if we're following other websites that closely, why can't I just bypass the Wikipedia article and go straight to that other website and not have to deal with the inevitable errors in translation? I have to be concerned about whether that's already happened and that I'm continuing to contribute to something which has already jumped the shark. As for my experience: ever heard of BITNET or CompuServe (speaking of jumping the shark, but that was decades ago)? If any of you were as interesting as the folks I remember back during the glory days of alt.flame, then I just might have a lot more of a stomach for endless talk page discussions. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 13:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • There isn't a verifiable, reliable source that makes the claim. Period. And yes, I started on Compuserve... whatever that has to do with this. WP:V is the issue here, you don't have a source. So whay are we here? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • User:RadioKAOS, I don't really get your point. You're saying that it is possible that sources exist that make the claim that Canadian police monitor this US town? And that there are two primary sources published by an Alaska government service that "offer the impression" that this is the case? I think Wikipedia needs to do a lot better than that. "Offer the impression" is original research, and the NYT article which was claimed to be a source for such statements didn't actually verify them. In other words, I really don't know what we're doing here. This doesn't even amount to a discussion of reliable sources, since the clearly reliable source (NYT) does not support the statements. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Pretty much no and no except for the part about giving appropriate weight to the NYT (my search of their website indicates that this is the first time they've mentioned Hyder since 1961). If I read the previous thread and Unscintillating's comments correctly, there are a wide enough variety of sources out there which a) aren't exactly in lockstep; b) don't offer significant enough mention for anyone not intimately familiar with the situation to really know one way or the other. The latter is why I say "offer the impression", because nothing has surfaced which makes this clear. This opposed to the POV-pushing route of picking one particular source out of thin air and treating it as gospel truth. The further this discussion typifies "drama board", the less incentive I have to pour through my library or local public libraries, where conclusive sources are quite likely to reside. You know, just like at least some of us used to do back before there was such a thing as knowledge about the Internet beyond a few academics and government employees World Wide Web Google.
Unless there is a requirement to be a U.S. citizen to obtain a police certificate in Alaska, there is also the possibility of the RCMP sending Mounties assigned to the Stewart detachment to Sitka for cross-certification, but I've never heard of such a thing. I did, however, read something produced recently by historians for the Yukon–Charley Rivers National Preserve about the Klondike Gold Rush era which may be relevant. They told of an episode where two Mounties were chasing a suspect down the Yukon River from Dawson City and crossed the border. Shortly after, they were met by Joseph W. Ivey, the collector of customs for the District of Alaska. Ivey held the Mounties at gunpoint and asked if they had extradition papers. When told no, he told them to go back to where they came from, and subsequently apprehended the suspect on his own. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 12:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • What POV pushing? You keep acting like Unscintallting's source actually said this stuff. It didn't. It's unsourced and the matter is just that simple. BTW, I have tons of experience that's applicable to articles too, but that's not how Wikipedia works. We don't rely on WP:OR, WP:SYNTH or "I've heard of it" as the basis. We use relilable sources. Do you have one of those that makes the claim that the RCMP handles law enforcement in Hyder? If not, what are we doing here? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I was hoping the wikilink I provided in the second sentence at the top of this thread would suffice. Evidently not, so I'll repeat what Unscintillating said in the previous closed thread: "All sources agree, even if without satisfactory detail, that the RCMP are active across the international border at Hyder. The phrase that foreign police "pop in to say hello" is attributed to Ken Jennings. Three Google book sources repeat the phrase that "the police are of the Mountie variety". A Google book source from the University of British Columbia Press dated in 1975 calls the role an unofficial presence, but an editor in 2006 claims that Canadian judges in Stewart are paid by Alaska to handle misdemeanor cases under US law." So Unscintillating came up with a few scattered sources which say one thing. I came up with a few scattered sources which say another. None of them discuss the matter, as Unscintillating put it, in "satisfactory detail". That lack of detail, plus the jurisdictional issues brought up more than once, means that relying upon one source and discarding the rest may serve Wikipedian process, but may not serve the actual issue at hand. While the NYT is obviously farther removed from the issue than the sources Unscintillating mentioned, are you trying to say that they don't deserve appropriate weight? This addition of a further reading section is not entirely relevant to the specific article it was added to. The 1917 legislature passed the Bone Dry Law, initiating a Alaska-specific prohibition which both preceded and outlasted that of the rest of the United States, which means that Alaska's early saloon history largely predates the establishment of the territory in 1912. Tim may not have been aware of all this and instead likely added it because providing readers with exposure to the works of academic and other respected publishers could very well be a part of why we're here (and he's stated on his page that he performs this task regularly). Still, the jurisdictional issue remains. Without a sufficient explanation of how that might actually work, I would view the RCMP visting Hyder in the course of their official duties the same way I would view the military police from Fort Wainwright that I see walking through the bars around town on Friday and Saturday nights: they can certainly coordinate with civilian police if they witness or are involved with something, but the only thing they can actually do would involve their own boys and eventual prosecution under the UCMJ. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 13:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • A wikilink? How is that a reliable source? The rest of your long response is mainly how you interpret things or impressions you might get. Once again, you are lacking a source that supports that claim. So why are we here talking about MP's at Ft. Wainwright? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (responding to ping) I agree with Drmies and Niteshift36 here. The issue is not the reliability or unreliability of the sources. It's that they don't make the claim they're being cited for. I'm also not sure what the point is of attacking Niteshift36 in this discussion. It doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose. Reyk YO! 15:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • You should learn what aCOI is. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The point has been made that the recent discussion at Hyder has not been among neutral parties, including the admin.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • We're all neutral, even if you don't understand what a COI is. I think what you're grasping at is WP:INVOLVED, which is not a COI and only applies to admin actions, not discussions. Reading comprehension, try is sometime. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Is this referring to me and what I may have said about Niteshift36? I recall a recent RFC where Niteshift was completely dominating the discussion until they were told to stop. Specifically, they were told something along the lines of "It's obvious that you're more interested in pushing your POV than in gaining consensus, which is the purpose of an RFC". Does that ring any bells with anyone? It could be a double standard: there was a more recent RFC where another editor was doing the exact same thing, including making comments which were downright hostile. Not only was that editor not similary admonished, but his particular admin clique seemed to be encouraging his behavior. No surprise there, as they achieved the "consensus" they were seeking by likely scaring away potential commenters. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 12:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • First off, nobody told me to stop anything. Second, you clearly miss the point: That your limited experience in some other matter doesn't excuse you from not acting hostile right out of the gate. You started a discussion by attacking me, without any attempt to engage in any sort of discussion at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • RadioKAOS brought a new and high quality source to the table.  What have you brought to the discussion?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • What source? The NYT source doesn't make that claim. What have I brought? Well, the actual correct policies for a start. That already beats your offering. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I must apologize at least in part. Since I desire to have a life, I therefore have no desire to keep straight every single controversy. As such, I had some details wrong. I was actually referring to this failed TFD. Furthermore, it was me who had something to say in reply to an endless series of not-necessarily-useful responses not dissimilar what I'm seeing in this thread. Perhaps you missed it because you already had moved on once the keep votes started pouring in? Also, I wonder how many of those delete voters who harped about "reliability" would turn right around and try to claim that every bit of US-PD material found on here is 100 percent factually accurate. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 13:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • So your desire to "have a life" justifies starting off with a personal attack? If you bother to look, there are plenty of delete votes in that, so let's not pretend like I was the only one who thought it should go. And yes, yours was the very last comment, 9 days after the nom......and 3 days after my last response in it. So gee, I guess you'll have to excuse me for not remembering that you were there. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I started reading this section, but gave up halfway through the rants. From looking at the article talkpage, the sources, as used for the statement police services are provided by the mounties, do not support the material. Per WP:V "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material", "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article" and "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Here is a hint on how to get a decent answer from this noticeboard: "Material for inclusions" "Is this source reliable to use for this material?". Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, maybe this noticeboard doesn't address the proposed footnote to WP:V currently being discussed at WT:V, to balance WP:BURDEN with WP:PRESERVE, but then this discussion was initially posted at WP:Editing policy with a context of developing policy rather than resolving the issue at Hyder.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • To repeat what I said in 2012, still visible on the talk page,

    The statement in question says, "and calling the police means a Canadian Mountie will respond".  The source for this statement is, "the police are of the Mountie variety".  The editors here have shown general agreement that they think this source is reliable in this statement...Unscintillating (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

    My statement at WP:Editing policy was,

    All sources agree, even if without satisfactory detail, that the RCMP are active across the international border at Hyder.  The phrase that foreign police "pop in to say hello" is attributed to Ken Jennings.  Three Google book sources repeat the phrase that "the police are of the Mountie variety".  A Google book source from the University of British Columbia Press dated in 1975 calls the role an unofficial presence, but an editor in 2006 claims that Canadian judges in Stewart are paid by Alaska to handle misdemeanor cases under US law.

    One possible next step here is to restore the text that was acceptable for years, based on <ref name="Whitfield2004">.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • You've made claims before about what a source supports and they were found to be untrue. The talk page isn't a reliable source. You need to produce one. Period. Posting this at Editing policy was incorrect, as that is not where you discuss individual article. BURDEN and PRESERVE are just two of many policies/guidelines/essays that you grossly misrepresent. Restoring your unverifiable (and likely incorrect) information isn't a "possible solution" at all, as it runs contrary to WP:V. Find a source.... that is your only possible solution. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The general nature of your complaint about one of the two sources you removed is that if a source says that foreign police "pop in to say hello", this is a comment about social relationships, not a suggestion that the RCMP are also representing police authority.  I think that this is a simple matter to read for meaning.  On the other hand, I've not been able to verify the connection to Ken Jennings.  But for talk page analysis of WP:DUE weight, reading for meaning says that the meaning is that the RCMP are active as a police presence in Hyder.

    However, the second source you removed stated, "the police are of the Mountie variety".  Your claim is that this statement, "didn't even talk about the subject", diffUnscintillating (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

  • The 2 removed sources don't address the topic. That's a fact. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Fact?  What fact?  What topic?  I've not seen you discuss "the police are of the Mountie variety" for the entire length of time that you've been involved with this article.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I'm done with your trolling. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • You removed a source that said, "the police are of the Mountie variety", and you continue to insist that that phrase does not "address the topic", where "topic" is inferred to mean "RCMP in Hyder".  Unscintillating (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
This isn't a source, but as a resident of Southeast Alaska, to the best of my knowledge, if a police presence is required in Hyder, Alaska State Troopers are dispatched from the Ketchikan post and are flown in on a floatplane. Like many rural Alaskan communities, that is the full extent of police presence. Just because the RCMP are physically nearby doesn't mean they have any jurisdiction in Alaska. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The sum of your comments is that you are not aware of special rules in Hyder.  We have evidence from reliable sources that there is more happening.  The 1975 source from a university press called it an unofficial presence.  We have the book source, cited in the article for years, that states that "the police are of the Mountie variety".  Your viewpoint has been addressed repeatedly on the talk page of the article, and all sources, both reliable and unreliable, either continue to agree or don't disagree that there is something more going on.  The fact that someone in Southeast Alaska is not aware of an RCMP presence in Hyder is consistent with the fact that we don't have satisfactory detail about what is going on.  Please look at the theory presented on the talk page post in 2006 that separates the handling of felonies from the handling of misdemeanors.  A recent 2016 source states, "If you call the Alaska State Troopers, they’ll dispatch the Royal Canadian Mounted Police."  Compared with 1975, long distance phone calls have changed, so this is not a static story.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This is absurd. There is nobody here supporting inclusion except you. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Again, I'm done with your trolling. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • A good new 2016 source says, "If you call the Alaska State Troopers, they’ll dispatch the Royal Canadian Mounted Police."  We have "the police are of the Mountie variety", in the book source identified as Whitfield2004, and we also have the 1975 snippet that reads, "the RCMP in Stewart provide an unofficial 'presence' in the neighbouring town of Hyder, Alaska".  The citation for this snippet is: BC Studies. University of British Columbia Press. 1975. Retrieved 2016-07-27. 
Unscintillating (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Daily Mail[edit]

We're being hit with a Daily Mail controversy at Talk:2016 Nice attack, mainly due to User:John's tireless crusade against the newspaper: here, Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, something at Amber Rudd about the Daily Mail, Chris Grayling, David Davis, Amber Rudd, Theresa May[3][4], Tony Blair, Andrea Leadsom, Appropriate Adult (still using the "no tabloids on BLPs" line), and [ 2016 Ataturk Airport attack. And that's only in the span from July 1 to July 18!

Now the excuse is that he is against tabloids, but it is curious that Daily Mail, one of the UK's largest newspapers, is described in tabloid journalism as a "middle market" tabloid, as opposed to red tops. According to the Daily Mail article, it has received various awards on journalism. So it seems like he is single-handedly trying to create a policy against using this newspaper, which I don't think is really well rooted but in any case we should have a RSN verdict about. From what I've seen, Daily Mail tends to pick up everything it can, which occasionally means it has wrong facts but most of the time makes it an invaluable resource for digging deeper into an issue. My response would never be to delete it, but to find extra sources for contentious claims made from it. Anyway, I think we need people here to provide some guidance about the source. If we need a crusade against it, then is there a better way to do that than having one editor grinding his axe? And if we don't, can you tell him to knock it off? Wnt (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Previous discussions: 201 (hostile-ish), 196 (hostile), 192 (inconclusive), 163 (inconclusive), and something resembling a vote at 151, which said that it was OK to use for non-contentious claims and on a case by case basis. John was involved in many of these conversations as a detractor. The question is, do we have any real change from the previous consensus that it is OK to use unless there's a reason not to? In which case the current pattern of deletions is unjustifiable. Wnt (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Generally speaking the Daily Mail is not to be considered a reliable source, no matter how hot they may be on the news. I know this is one of John's interests, but, Wnt, what could be your problem with this edit? Did you see what was removed, and how poorly sourced it was? What was [14] supposed to mean? Note 14 was a council web link, now dead; another superscript note may have pointed to this, [5], a primary document which I think has nothing to do with the text it is possibly supposed to verify. That the Daily Mail is mentioned in those three paragraphs (once, with a note to "15", which is a BBC article) most likely has nothing to do with why John removed--I'm pretty sure he removed it because a. this is a BLP, and that trumps a hell of a lot, and b. it was so poorly formatted that the sourcing was completely unclear. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
@Drmies: I'm not going to try to argue that every edit was bad there; that's not my point. The question is whether we want editors seeking out and exterminating every reference to the Daily Mail on principle. And I am not convinced that's really the right thing to do. Wnt (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I understand, Wnt, but it's just unfortunate that the first one I clicked on didn't make your point for you. I think there are plenty of sources which should be looked at in context, and it is possible that the Daily Mail is one of them, that it should be accepted in some circumstances for some kinds of things if there's nothing else (oh, wait, you already pointed at something like that: "non-contentious claims and on a case by case basis"). But if that is the case, then the examples of crusadery should be well chosen, and they should come with some kind of annotation about why this citation in this case is OK but was removed for no good reason at all. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
@Drmies: My point is only that we presently have someone systematically removing Daily Mail references from a wide range of current events articles under the blanket justification that tabloids don't belong in BLPs, and the first thing we need to do is figure out if that's what we want. There's also a question of how this is done - should there be talk page notification to restore the fact with a better source if possible? - and whether there should be a way to whitelist exceptions. It isn't a good situation that RSN has left this source in an endless limbo where one editor can be enforcing a policy against it that nobody else knows about. Wnt (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Wnt, I don't see that it is proven that John is systematically culling this. In the one example I detailed, I think it is questionable that it be an instance of systematic culling. And do you want editors to notify the rest of the world for one particular edit? If the source is in limbo (I don't necessarily agree with the metaphor--"case by case basis" is not limbo), so be it. Any references that are kept by consensus can be marked as such on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the Daily Mail is reliable for matters outside the area of "celebrity gossip" and noting that headlines are not articles. Alas - I know of zero really "reliable sources" for celebrity gossip - thus I would favour elimination of such gossip even when sourced to The Guardian. I have pointed out a few times now that newspapers no longer perform "fact checking" and this has not changed. In fact, more "non-facts" than ever get into newspapers than ever before. Collect (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

  • This is definitively not the case. The Mail is very well known, as any swift Google search will confirm, for printing misleading or elven completely false stories to back up its own political POV. To quote what I said last time, "The Daily Mail is not a reliable source (for the simple reason that they often simply wildly exaggerate, take things ridiculously out of context or simply make stories up and shouldn't ever be used to source anything more contentious than water being wet." Laura Jamieson (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Kindly note, moreover, that actual studies of scientific "press releases" found a majority of "reliable sources" not doing any fact-checking on them, and the complaints about the DM are almost entirely about headlines, and not about the actual content of articles. I am a firm believer that no headlines should be used as a source of "fact" about a topic, and those who hate the DM because they think all of its articles show a political bias should examine their own biases, alas. And iterating one's own opinions about any source does not make then stronger arguments, as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Their political biases are irrelevant, it doesn't matter; what does matter is whether they print is reliable; and as you will see if you read the links I posted, it very often is not only unreliable, but false. Laura Jamieson (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Has it occurred to you that (Cory Doctorow has an article on "kickstarting" an anti-Trump comic: Dan Taylor sez, "Prepare for the TRUMPOCALYPSE! When there is no more room in HELL, the dead will TRUMP the Earth. An all-new comic book from the creative team that brought you HERO HAPPY HOUR. If you think the idea of Donald Trump as President of the United States is scary, wait until you get a look at him as a zombie overlord amassing an army of undead to rule the world.") might have a bias? That is not a reliable source in itself (10 Disgusting Facts About The Human Mouth! or 10 Fascinating Bastard Children of Popes!) ? Or that HuffPo might have a bias ("Labour equalities spokeswoman Baroness Thornton told the Lords today that ministers should “not to pander to the racists by echoing their messages for short term gain”. She said all mainstream democratic parties should ensure “racists and extremists are pushed back into the political margin where they belong” and that the government should make sure this was “reflected in the language its ministers and its MPs use”. - the editorial "article" is quoting political opponents of the DM as though it were "fact")? It is true, amazingly enough, that all newspaper headlines are not actually sources of separate "fact", and it is also true, amazingly enough, that people who hate the "racist fascist extremism of the Daily Heil" may be too involved in opinions, and not involved enough in facts. Collect (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The more important point, of course, being that if something is printed in the Daily Mail and actually true, then it will almost certainly be sourceable from somewhere else more reliable. If it's in the Daily Mail and you can't find it elsewhere, that probably tells you something. Laura Jamieson (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Which is not what WP:RS states, of course. The DM covers more medical press releases from medical journals than do other newspapers. Collect (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Why in the name of Satan would you want to use a tabloid newspaper to source something from a medical journal? I'm afraid you've lost me there. Laura Jamieson (talk) 09:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, while we certainly don't want to use the rabble-rousing stuff here, their solid facts are often true. One criterion for using "facts" from the Daily Mail would be that if it's discreditable, and said of someone who's in a position to take libel action, it's probably a reliable fact. Not necessarily correct, but OK for our purposes. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
The Daily Mail has been successfully sued for libel multiple times, so it doesn't seem like the possibility of a libel suit is much of a deterrent, and that standard would imply that we should treat contentious claims as more reliable than non-contentious ones.
[*insert obligatory caveats about reliability in context*] there's virtually never any good reason to use the Daily Mail for anything. There's no official policy banning Daily Mail citations, and best practices would dictate that editors try to find another source for materials that are non-problematic rather than simply removing them. Nevertheless: I have yet to see a case where the Daily Mail would be both necessary and sufficient as the lone source for a statement about an LP. Nblund talk 16:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Clearly people aren't reading what I posted above, or they're deliberately ignoring it because of their own political biases. There is never any reason to use the Mail as a source because if what they print is a fact, it will be covered in other sources of all political stripes, from the Guardian through the Times to the Telegraph. If you post something sourced to the Mail which can't be easily sourced elsewhere, any editor is absolutely correct to remove it, because there's a good chance it's unreliable. Ditto the Sun, the Mirror and the Express. And this isn't a right/left thing; one of the pieces removed by John above was a story about the Conservatives fiddling crime figures. Nor is it a "I hate the Daily Mail" thing; their sports journalism, for example, is notably excellent. Laura Jamieson (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • What Wnt writes does not seem quite right. He appeared on Talk:2016 Nice attack with the same diatribe about the Daily Mail and user:John. His posting was immediately hatted as a thinly disguised personal attack on John unrelated to creating the content of the article. He made a number of points but failed to understand what was involved in editing the article. At no stage will we use the Daily Mail for the article. The French newspapers and news services, BBC News, the British broadsheets, and the top US newspapers cover all new content. Sometimes the Daily Mail will put a salacious spin on a story and contain inaccuracies. So when it's a matter of an article on a national disaster and a moderate sensitively judged approaach, their sensationalism and errors are unacceptable. This is an example of an unacceptable report.[6] Nothing in it is reliable. They cannot even label the Palais de la Méditerranée properly. So John was quite right. We have to be very careful of sources allowed in articles like this. I am not quite sure what Wnt is hoping to achieve here. The Daily Mail's front page calling Tony Blair a MONSTER OF DELUSION made me want to vomit. As commentators on BBC News recalled, the Daily Mail had been gungho for the second gulf war. However having said that, their soduko is marvellous. And I like their reprints of the recipes of Elizabeth David, Cocquilles St Jacques, Tarte tatin, etc. Was there a Salade Niçoise? Mathsci (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
And might you tell me where in their article did it use that phrase "Monster of delusion"? [7] " Sounds to me like a headline - and I consider headlines to have been written by headline writers and generally aimed at attracting readers. Even the The Guardian headlines are not a "source" for claims of fact. Sorry - the fact that headlines in many newspapers are designed to get readers has been true for well over a century. What counts are the facts stated in actual articles. Collect (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@Mathsci: What's so bad about that "unacceptable" report? They have a huge amount of information there, pages and pages of text, photos of the driver being shot from multiple angles that Wikipedia should kill or die for, or at least write a Fair Use rationale to steal. They remind me a bit of Wikipedia, or at least what Wikipedia ought to be, vacuuming up data and not being terribly concerned if an occasional bit of it contains some minor error. And just like with Wikipedia, yeah, if you're citing them directly without looking for a source to back up what they say, you're committing a faux pas.
Now regarding the speed with which you "hatted" my response [8], which was raised after another editor (user:Ianmacm) said that this was something John was doing Wiki-wide and which I was simply looking to quantify ... well, I'm not sure what that proves except that you're good and fast at tearing down other people's comments. However important that skill seems to have become on Wikipedia as a royal road to power, I would express skepticism it actually applies to this RSN question. As for it being a "personal attack", well, it's not personal since it's about what happens to our articles, and whether it's an 'attack' is what I'd like RSN to figure out - I've determined he's doing this, and now I'd like an answer whether he's doing something wrong. Wnt (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
If you want to play Mr Obtuse, please go and do it with someone other than me. During the immediate aftermath of this national disaster, you already played the clown on the article talk page with the sensitivity of an enfant gaté. Look at the current wikipedia article. Read the content just added from Libération that came from the lips of the Procureur de la République à Paris, François Molins. BBC News has not attempted to lead their readers through a series of wild and hopelessly inaccurate conjectures totally wide of the mark. Amongst other things, they reported the French government directive about spreading false rumours, on the internet or through social media, that had been issued during the pre-existing state of emergency in France. Many of those rumours are like things that can be read in the Daily Mail. Does the headline mesh at all with what Procureur Molins said? No. That is just the start. If you want further discussions on this particular topic, I suggest you pack your bags, get on the next plane, train or packet boat to Nice and continue this conversation with any obliging Niçois in the foyer of the Hotel Negresco or a café in Nice, Vieille Ville. You should probably remember to buy medical insurance, because you're likely to be admitted to hospital with multiple bruising, possibly worse. Merci et bon voyage ! Mathsci (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Again - headlines != articles. Headlines = attempts to get readers. Only. Collect (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@Mathsci: If your goal was to write a comment I completely don't understand, you've succeeded. Oh, after a while I figured out what unflattering thing wikt:enfant gaté means - you might want to give it an entry in Wiktionary. But why people in Nice, France are going to beat me up if I suggest the Daily Mail is a passable source, or even if I suggest someone said the fanatic who did the killing yelled "allah akbar" first, according to not only the Daily Mail but a French news source, well, that is just so bizarre a thing to say I can't even see how you worked your way up to it. Wnt (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
If you had to look up enfant gaté, it's probably better that you don't visit Nice in the immediate future. The only documented material on someone crying Allahu Akbar is in the regional paper Nice-Matin in a 5:40 video of interviews they conducted with residents of Nice the day after. It's all recorded in the WP article. There's no mention of yelling. Pépé était chez lui, sur son balcon, lorsque le camion a percuté les corps sur la promenade des anglais. "On a entendu plusieurs fois Allahu akbar, trois fois", détaille-t-il. J'ai vu qu'il prenait le volant à droite, à gauche, dans tous les sens, pour viser un maximum de visite. C'était horrible, il y avait des enfants par terre, en morceaux, des femmes, des personnes âgées... Ce n'est pas évident, ni à vivre, ni à raconter. The Mail's no use for that. I'm quite surprised you can't read French. Mathsci (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
This is a perennial topic on the noticeboard. The Daily Mail often prints inaccurate or misleading stories, and is sensational in its presentation. However, it is a national newspaper which is a member of the IPSO regulatory body, subscribing to its Code of Conduct, and within the range of seriousness of editorial approach lies well above the Daily Star. When editors try to argue that it can never be used as a RS for anything, or for certain types of topic, they are conflating their dislike of its style and approach with an objective assessment of its editorial integrity and its usability as a source. For example, it hads on occasion obtained exlusive interviews with key players in a story and it would be ridiculous to exclude this material from the encyclopedia because you don't like the political slant of the the editor.Martinlc (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Relatively few people actually argue it can *never* be used. The general feeling is that it can sometimes be used, depending on the situation and content. This of course is unacceptable to those who want to use it to source gossip orthose who want a definitive 'it can/cant be used' decision. The real problem is of course, if the Daily Mail actually obeyed the various codes of conduct over the years this wouldnt be an issue. There are documented cases where they clearly have, premeditated, decided not to. So arguing it has editorial integrity is a red herring. For every time they have gotton an 'exclusive' there are instances where they just make shit up. To the point where how do you know an exclusive is an exclusive and not just fantasy? Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
"The Daily Mail has been awarded the National Newspaper of the Year in 1995, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2003 and 2012 by the British Press Awards". It's a reputable newspaper, however distasteful and occasioanlly mistaken it is.Martinlc (talk) 10:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
And the Daily Mail has been found guilty of libel in 2001, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2014. Its certainly a reputable newspaper. The substance of that reputation is arguable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I think we've got to accept the Daily Mail as a reliable source in Wikipedia terms though I have no great love of it. If what it says looks wrong instead of just deleting its rubbish could editors try to just find a better source that says something sensible please. If there is a real controversy both can be given as in documenting the controversy. It is probably right to document anything in it that looks a bit fishy to it rather than stating it as a fact. Dmcq (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: Recent cases England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions Daily Mail sued - as was everyone else including The Times, AP etc. [9] The Times. Actually a slew of them, for some reason. I fear we must consider The Times as "not reliable" as a result. [10] "The Times refused to act responsibly. It is such conduct which invokes the concept of deterrence as a marker and a warning that such conduct cannot represent responsible journalism". Collect (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Having read through this discussion and the one at Talk:2016 Nice attack, I have to say that I'm with the "rarely use this as a source" crowd. The way I see this is that the Daily Mail is worse than Fox News but better than Breitbart. Any fact sourced to it which could have a political bent is suspect. Anything else, however seems to be alright (with the obvious exception of celebrity gossip, for which I do not believe there exists any reliable sources). And again, we run into that old truism: If it's true and sourced to the DM, it can almost certainly be sourced to a more reputable voice. If it's only found in DM, then there's a good chance it's not true. But there will be cases where a fact doesn't have any political connotations, and was only reported on by the DM. In those cases, I'm okay with using it, although I would hope for a better source eventually. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

My position on this is the same as Laura's, posted above: "There is never any reason to use the Mail as a source because if what they print is a fact, it will be covered in other sources ..., from the Guardian through the Times to the Telegraph. If you post something sourced to the Mail which can't be easily sourced elsewhere, any editor is absolutely correct to remove it, because there's a good chance it's unreliable." That's wholly sensible to me. Neutralitytalk 15:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It is said that when asked which books in the library of Alexandria should be burned, the caliph said: "all of them, for if they contradict the Quran, then they are are heretic and should be destroyed, while if they are in accordance with the Quran, then they are redundant because we already have the Quran, and they can be destroyed". Now, I find the Daily Mail usually ridiculous, but I don't find the above argument incredibly sensible. LjL (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Can you remember any information that was (1) reported by the Mail yet (2) was not reported by any other, more reliable source and (3) was still noteworthy enough to include in an encyclopedia article? A very small amount of material would seem to fit that bill.
Now, perhaps "never" is a little strong — if there was some opinion piece that was published in the Mail, that might be noteworthy to include as part of the spectrum of opinion, and if there was some minor detail that was only reported in the Mail but was not contentious, maybe that would qualify — but overall, the amount of data that can only be sourced to the Mail yet is still important enough to include is very, very small. Neutralitytalk 20:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Read the studies as to medical journal press releases - the DM covers more of them than do the other papers, and, according to the report, did so accurately. And as for "celebrity gossip" I would not even use the New York Times. Collect (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Collect, I'm not able to find the report you're citing, but the Daily Mail's coverage of science and medicine has been roundly criticized. Nblund talk 16:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, to add on to what Nblund is saying: the Daily Mail has been consistently criticized for its often misleading scientific and medical reporting. Ben Goldacre, for example, an academic, researcher, and writer on medical/science reporting, has often criticized the Mail, writing, for instance: "You will be familiar with the Daily Mail's ongoing project to divide all the inanimate objects in the world into ones that either cause or prevent cancer. Individual entries are now barely worth documenting, and the phenomenon is best appreciated in bulk..." Neutralitytalk 18:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
There is at least one case where it would seem eminently sensible to cite DM, and this would be for photos. They often have an extensive collection of photos that are very clearly taken at an event, and I strongly doubt you would accuse them of misrepresenting those. Wnt (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC) "Daily Mail and others public fake photos of Bently the dog". Osama Bin Laden Corpse photo is fake (grisly photo)Nblund talk 01:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, the second source says "It was used on the front pages of the Mail, Times, Telegraph, Sun and Mirror websites". The Sun and Mirror are listed in tabloid journalism as "red tops", but I wasn't aware of any special denigration of the Times or Telegraph. This doesn't suitably distinguish the Mail from other British media unless you want to source everything to the Guardian, which proudly says it wasn't taken in by this one (though it did link to it). Wnt (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, here's the sort of thing I like to source to the Mail: [11] There are times when I suspect what makes some people call the Mail "unreliable" is that they don't cooperate with a state-ordered deception; they don't call Ali Sonboly "David S.", and they let you see the raw video taken by the Hero of the Beer Bottle who provokes him into revealing himself. There's a lot to be said for a paper that just shows you what they know rather than putting effort into hiding it from you. Wnt (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Factchecking standards and use of press releases[edit]

See [12] for the discussion.

I suggest you note that press releases are used by just about every major newspaper now - recall that staffing levels at newspapers in general are down more than 40% in less than a decade. Revenues for newspapers are down about 60% in the same general time period. For medical press releases see [13] back in 1998 - " Of the 1060 newspaper stories analyzed, 142 referred to journal articles; of these, 119 (84%) referred to articles mentioned in press releases and 23 (16%) referred to journal articles not mentioned in press releases (comparison of proportions, P=.03). Articles described first or second were referenced in more newspapers than articles described later in the press release (P=.01 by chi2 analysis)." Yep - newspapers even back in 1998 relied very heavily on those press releases, and did not do too much work as journals not mentioned near the top of the release did not get mentioned in articles.
[14] 2003 "Maryland. In a breakthrough discovery that may change the face of scientific communication forever, a researcher has found that, although journalists rely on press releases to bring important discoveries to their attention, they do not write news stories about every press release they receive. Even more striking is the discovery that press releases from scientific journals sometimes present incomplete information about scientific findings.
“I’m shocked, just shocked”, said the author of the article, which appears in the current issue of Science Editor. “I never would have guessed that journalists would have such blatant disregard for what they are told is news, and I never would have suspected that journals aren’t neurotically meticulous in their press releases.” ("fake" press release used for real article following)
(actual finding) Woloshin and Schwartz found that 23% of the press releases mentioned study limitations, and 65% quantified study results. (JAMA study)
In short - often the fault is in the press release sent out by the actual medial journal, and something an editor would not normally call back on. (read the full article - it also deals with specific newspapers)
[15] (covering the Guardian, Independent, Daily Mail, and Times) In 2008, researchers at the Cardiff School of Journalism, UK, discovered that 60 percent of the articles in British newspapers the Daily Mail, the Guardian, the Times, the Daily Telegraph and the Independent had been copied from wire reports and press announcements issued by various corporations, businesses and universities. Three out of four such stories had also gone to print without being fact-checked, a trend that seems widespread: in 2012, an audit sponsored by the European Observatory of Journalism found factual errors in approximately half of all news stories published in Switzerland, Italy and the United States:60% - and including the "elite" newspapers in the same group. [16] "Most newspaper articles (72%) were written by named journalists (the unnamed journalist category refers to labels such as ‘Daily Mail Reporter’) and in nearly a quarter of cases were there was no clear identification of who had written the story (as is often the case with Nibs). Only 1% of stories were directly attributable to PA or other wire services (see Table 2.4). At first glance, then, these data suggest that the newspapers give the impression that they depend on their own journalists rather than wires or other outside sources." then " Indeed, 30% of the stories in our press sample replicated wire service copy almost directly, and a further 19% were largely dependent on wire copy. In other words, nearly half of all press stories appeared to come wholly or mainly from wire services. " Even where a "journalist" gets a by-line.
DM gets a hit "So, for example, a story about the health risks of eating oily fish (‘Why oily fish might not be so good for your health after all’, Daily Mail Reporter, Daily Mail, March 24th 2006, p7) directly replicates facts and quotations taken from two Press Association stories, and another from the regional news wire Mercury." but not for being "inaccurate" but for copying inaccurate material from what Wikipedia would normally accept as a "reliable source."
"Despite the covert nature of much PR activity, we expected to find examples of PR playing an agenda-setting role. However, in many cases the influence of PR goes much further. We found that nearly one in five newspaper stories and 17% of broadcast stories were verifiably derived mainly or wholly from PR material or activity (Table 2.6) – which suggests that the practice is rather more typical than John Lloyd’s critique suggests."
"For example, a Times story headlined ‘George Cross for Iraq War Hero’ (Michael Evans, The Times, 24th March 2006, p27) is an almost verbatim repetition of a press release issued by the Ministry of Defence. " also from The Times "An example of a print story that mainly consists of information from a single source of PR material is an article in The Times about a new league table of UK Heart Surgeons (‘Hand on heart, who is the best surgeon?’, Nigel Hawkes, The Times, 27th April 2006, p16). The article is almost wholly derived from a press release issued by the Healthcare Commission," uzw.
In short - even a decade or more ago, newspapers were dominated by press release material - and the situation is worse today by far (noting that US newspaper employment is down over 40% - and the number of actual newspaper journalists is down much more as the total "newsroom" count includes the "web editors.") Back in 1998 [17] " Like most news organizations, Business Week has no choice but to put its trust in the fairness and accuracy of its reporters, because neither money nor time allows for writers' work to be formally fact-checked. ", then "At the same time, newsmagazines are curtailing their fact-checking budgets and requiring their writers to verify those details once double-checked by others. And at many newspapers, those traditional sentinels of accuracy, editors and copy editors, are expected to focus more than ever on presentation of stories, less on their content." then " One more fact-checking caveat. Most researchers rarely trust newspaper clips. Not formally fact-checked before publication, say magazine staffers, they're just too prone to contain errors. "We're not going to trust that the New York Times has been fact-checked," says Forbes' Kroll. " Clear?
[18] from Forbes is fun to read - managing to note a newspaper which ran a headline "Amphibious Pitcher Makes Debut" But wait, there's more!
[19] The Times again " Karol Wojtyla was referred to in Saturday’s Credo column as “the first non-Catholic pope for 450 years”. This should, of course, have read “non-Italian”. We apologise for the error." In 2015 they should have caught it earlier. And delightfully The New York Times "An earlier version of this column misidentified the sea that God parted in the Book of Exodus. It is the Red Sea, not the Dead Sea." Although I suppose Lot parted the Dead Sea ...
What we have left? No newspaper is as assiduous in fact-checking as it was even 15 years ago. Even "elite" papers routinely use press releases without actually looking to the studies puffed. Silly proof-readers are no longer used at newspapers - they rely on automated spill chuckers. And thus the theoretical belief that "good newspapers always check facts" is gone with the wind. Sorry to burst everyone's bubble - but papers that used to have a dozen (low paid) fact checkers now generally have zero. Their old group of actual proofreaders - gone forever. One newspaper (?) [20] offers zero money for "volunteer proofreaders"! In 1909, New York City alone[21] had on the order of 1000 compositors and proofreaders. Many "working" proofreaders get well under $25K p.a. (bottom 10% get under $19K) In New York, a person at the proposed new minimum wage for fry cooks there will make over $30K p.a.
I trust the points are clear - so will leave with [22] The New York Times got rid of all its remaining 125 Linotype operators and proofreaders (many did both due to cutbacks) - by 1990. In short "elite" papers also run press releases. The main and substantiated difference is down to headline writing - and the job of the headline writer is the same as the "clickbait" writer - no more, no less. If anyone uses a newspaper article, note that the real journalist does not write the headlines. Until we have genuine amphibious pitchers in baseball.

As asked for in the prior section. Collect (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  • This entire wall of text is irrelevant to the point, which is the fact, as pointed out by many people above, that the Daily Mail has a long history of being an unreliable source for many things. Laura Jamieson (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The cites were requested and furnished. And note that your seeming absolute distaste for the Daily Mail is not shared by the authors of the report cited. Collect (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
@Collect is this directed at me? You stated that "the DM covers more of them than do the other papers, and, according to the report, did so accurately". I said I hadn't seen that report, and I still don't see any support for that statement in anything you're citing here. Nblund talk 01:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
You asked for the material regarding use of medical press releases. Presented here as a direct consequence. And again - read the sources cited - the DM is cited as accurately using the material as written in the press releases. " Even more striking is the discovery that press releases from scientific journals sometimes present incomplete information about scientific findings." clearly points out that the newspapers are not the ones who introduce inaccuracies. And " In 2008, researchers at the Cardiff School of Journalism, UK, discovered that 60 percent of the articles in British newspapers the Daily Mail, the Guardian, the Times, the Daily Telegraph and the Independent had been copied from wire reports and press announcements issued by various corporations, businesses and universities. Three out of four such stories had also gone to print without being fact-checked, a trend that seems widespread: in 2012, an audit sponsored by the European Observatory of Journalism found factual errors in approximately half of all news stories published in Switzerland, Italy and the United States." Note "all news stories" regardless of publisher or location. Lastly, no newspaper found did any fact checking whatsoever on medical news press releases. I suggest you read the original report for further edification. I know some people have an absolute hatred of the Daily Mail, but, with regard to medical news press releases, their hatred is quite misapplied. Collect (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Can the artist's Instagram be used as a source?[edit]

I don't seem to be getting an answer to this and I've searched the archives for one but found nothing. A lot of artists have an Instagram profile and most have been "verified" with a badge to show that the account legitimately belongs to the artist. These badges can be found beside their name. The issue I'm running into with this is that there's a lack of sources for rising artists that haven't become known enough yet. In my case I have been collecting sources for Nikki Yanofsky. However she makes a lot of posts on her verified Instagram account that contain information about her upcoming songs and albums but I'm not sure if those posts can be used in citations. For example, there's a lot of hype going around the fandom about her upcoming album called "Solid Gold" and yesterday she released a single off the album called "Young Love." This is HUGE news considering that no one has been able to hear any new music from her for more than a couple years now. But it's just barely making it on her Wikipedia articles, both for the album and the single. I and a few other editors added Instagram citations linking to the posts that include the correct info, but they're all being taken down with the summary saying that Instagram can't be used. It had the date, time, name, and site all in it with a direct quote from Nikki Yanofsky herself.

Wikipedia Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/4
"Self-published media, where the author and publisher are the same, including newsletters, personal websites, books, patents, open wikis, personal or group blogs, and tweets, are usually not acceptable as sources. The general exception is where the author is an established expert with a previous record of third-party publications on a topic; in this case, their self-published work may be considered reliable for that topic (but not other topics). Even then, third-party publications are still preferable."

I'd argue that Nikki Yanofsky is an expert on the topic of Nikki Yanofsky.

Instagram Profile: (Subject to change.)

Me00lmeals (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The policy you are looking for is at Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves or as shorthand WP:SELFSOURCE. In short, yes - a person instagram (facebook, webpage, twitter, blog , etc.) can usually be used as on source on that person. However the restrictions given in the policy apply.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The only caveat here is that the source is only about what the artist is saying. Technically, you can use this to reference a statement that the artist says their next album is coming out next year - not that their next album is coming out next year. Wnt (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica and NPR sources as used in Chrysler for clear OR claims[edit]

Chrysler struggled to adapt to the changing environment of the 1970s. When consumer tastes shifted to smaller cars in the early 1970s, particularly after the [[1973 oil crisis]], Chrysler could not meet the demand. Additional burdens came from increased US import competition, and tougher government regulation of car safety, fuel economy, and emissions. As the smallest of the Big 3 US automakers, Chrysler lacked the financial resources to meet all of these challenges. In 1978, [[Lee Iacocca]] was brought in to turn the company around, and in 1979 Iacocca sought US government help, eventually convincing Congress to provide $1.5 billion in loan gurantees, on the condition that Chrysler find a combined $2 billion in additional financing or cost cutting.<ref name=Brittanica>{{Citation |url= |title=Chrysler |encyclopedia=[[Encyclopædia Britannica]] |year= 2016}}</ref><ref>[ Timeline: Tracing Chrysler's History]. [[NPR]]. May 14, 2007</ref>
After a period of plant closures and salary cuts agreed to by both management and the auto unions, the loans were repaid with interest in 1983. In November 1983 the [[Dodge Caravan|Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager]] was introduced, leading the establishment of the [[minivan]] as a major category, and initiating Chrysler's return to stability.<ref name=Brittanica/>

Is currently in the Chrysler article. Alas, the Encyclopaedia Britannica is not only a tertiary source, it does not make the claims ascribed to it! In fact, almost all of this section is unsupported OR, including the $2 billion claim or anything else. Nor does the NPR "timeline" remotely support anything more than "1979: CEO Lee Iacocca initiates a government bailout of the nearly bankrupt Chrysler Corp. 1980: Congress passes and President Jimmy Carter signs a loan guarantee act for Chrysler, in which the government essentially acts as a co-signer of a $1.5 billion loan for the company. During the next few years, Chrysler reports record profits. 1983: Chrysler pays off its federally guaranteed loans seven years early. The company introduces minivans, creating a new market niche with the Plymouth Voyager and Dodge Caravan." which is not what is claimed in the Chrysler Wikipedia article.

Would non-involved folks please note the clear verification problems with these claims, which, I fear, are the tip of the iceberg on this article? Collect (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Book without an ISBN[edit]

User:Lavrense thinks that a book without an ISBN (SILVA, Paulo Napoleão Nogueira da (1994) (in Portuguese). Monarquia: verdades e mentiras. São Paulo: GRD.) is an unreliable source.[23] I think it is a reliable source. Please comment at Talk:Line of succession to the former Brazilian throne#ISBNs. Thanks. DrKay (talk) 06:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Her Campus[edit]

I want to use some information from this link Taylor Swift Concert Review but I don't know it is a reliable source or not although Our Wiki have a article about this online magazine. Phamthuathienvan (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[edit]

The above is used in Charlotte Laws, specifically as the first reference in Charlotte Laws#Party crashing expert. It's used to support the claim that Laws is listed as the fourth most notorious party crasher in the world, beating Queen Elizabeth, Bill Murray, Lady Gaga and Serena Williams. The claim that a head of state is a "party crasher" sounds odd. Is this a reliable source? Autarch (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Possibly relevant quote from their T&C:

TheRichest is an entertainment based website providing commentary, general information in relation to celebrities, luxury items, athletes, businesspersons, public figures, lifestyles, wealthy individuals, current trends and entertainment. Information on the site may contain errors or inaccuracies; the Website does not make any warranty as to the correctness or reliability of the sites content. The Website does not provide any warranty or guarantee as to the accuracy of the information. You acknowledge that such information and materials may contain inaccuracies and errors and we expressly exclude liability for any such inaccuracies or errors.

So they're certainly not standing behind their clickbait listicles. Trivialist (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd say that it's not a reliable source for claims about BLPs, especially dubious claims. They openly don't even give a pretense of editorial oversight or fact checking, which is the minimum requirement for RS. PermStrump(talk) 02:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Clearly non-RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree with the above - not a reliable source for any claim. Neutralitytalk 13:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to all of you for your help! Autarch (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Festival Genius[edit]

Does anyone know whether is considered RS? I believe that the content is added with oversight from the actual festivals, but am not 100% sure. Can anyone familiar with the website confirm? --Jpcase (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

What do you want to use this site for? They seem to be a run of the mill small-time commercial site. They're probably OK for very basic factual information such as festival X occurred on date Y, but nothing beyond that, and even then only if no better sources are available. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
@Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: I was hoping to use this page [24] to show that the short film Fish Heads Fugue and Other Tales for Twilight screened at the 2006 Philadelphia Film Festival. Considering the amount of detail included on the page (exact dates, showtimes, venues, and even titles of the other short films that were part of the screening), I get the impression that the site is likely a well-run operation. I've searched extensively, even using the Way Back Machine, and haven't been able to find this info anywhere else online. Also, looking a little more closely, the website's FAQ says that it "works closely with the festival". [25] So does this seem okay? --Jpcase (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


Is an article written by Eric Markowitz[26] and published by Newsweek magazine a reliable source for this assertion?

  • The line has been such a success that it helped revive the Sig Sauer company's business.[27]

This is for the SIG MCX article. Felsic2 (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I would say Newsweek is reliable for that statement (I assume this is the piece you meant to link to?), but from the article's edit history, it looks like the question was whether material about the gun's nickname that was attributed to newsweek and was undue weight, not that newsweek was unreliable for all statements about the company/product. As far as reliability, yes, technically, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be included and I'd need to look into it more to form an opinion about weight. PermStrump(talk) 18:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The statement we're discussing here is the one posted above, concerning the success of the product and its effect on the company's bottom line. Some editors seem to be saying that only books written by firearms experts are acceptable sources. I believe that Newsweek is competent to report on general firearms issues, and company revenues, if not the technical workings of firearms. Felsic2 (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
It seems like a pretty straight forward statement. Unless there are higher quality sources (i.e., academic journals or books published by reputable publishers) questioning the validity of that claim, I think a well-respected mainstream media source is reliable for an uncontentious statement about the company's business success. The newsweek article says, "This article was originally published at International Business Times", which is also a respectable, mainstream media source. I don't see how a firearm expert would be better qualified to weigh in on whether that gun resurrected a company's sales figures. PermStrump(talk) 18:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Definitely reliable per the above. Facts such as company revenues, economic trends, what factors resulted in the rise and fall of a company's performance may all be cited to Newsweek. Neutralitytalk 20:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Gilbert Achcar in Mahmoud Abbas[edit]

The above source has been challenged as unreliable for the attributed view removed here. Is Gilbert Achcar writing in a book published by Henry Holt and Company a reliable source? Seems absurd even asking this, but seeking outside opinions on the quality of that source for that material. nableezy - 00:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I know it is not the question you asked, but the statement quoted is wry, satirical, and complex. It is of the nature of (1) opinion rather than fact, and that opinion is based on (2) an interpretation of (3) the preferences of (4) a large group of people and state policies (5) that cannot be objectively examined. That is not just one reason but a chain composed of five weak links. In short, it is not encyclopedic. Do we have a strong reason for using it? Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 00:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Because we often include the opinions of experts in the field. Is Achcar not qualified to give that opinion? nableezy - 03:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The statement sums up pages of analysis in what Achcar regards as a pattern in the Middle East, illustrating it with 2 examples.(b) we have thousands of sources saying Palestinians are Nazi-inspired maniacs, who deny the Holocaust: we have relatively few sources who examine the rhetorical manipulation of history by both parties, Israel and Palestinian leaders: this is one such source; it cites specifically the fact that Abbas is viewed as a friendly Palestinian, despite having diminished the Holocaust, which is a fact; the observation is made by Achcar who is one of the few experts thoroughly at home in the specific issue of the Holocaust and Arabs, which is the subject of that section; Matthew Levitt is an authority on Hamas, esp. financing. He is hostile and, having studied the topic in depth to rewrite that article, obviously spinning a political POV embedded in 'neutral prose'. I.e. stating as factual what is his selective use of facts. What do I do. I cited him over 20 times. Major scholars particularly in this area often are highly selective in their use of the available record, and spin it, highlighting what fits their POV. I note that privately, but give their views because they are area specialists (Levitt is for Hamas funding); Achcar differs in being highly critical of all parties at least; his opinion was given with attribution. I can't see any of your chain of weak links. An exception is being made of Achcar, in my view, and you are contesting the quality of his reasoning, which it is not our remit to do, except in cases where the scholar is known to provide flawed data (which is often, but not the case here, since it is a legitimate summary of an informed, attributed point of view.Nishidani (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)Nishidani (talk) 07:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Achcar is undoubtedly an expert in the field in which he is commenting. So he satisfies the 'RS' part for the purposes of inclusion. The only question I see is if his comments *should* be included. Which would be an NPOV issue. Personally I favour inclusion but there might be a slight BLP issue in that the selected quote effectively labels a living person a 'Jew hater'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I may need eventually to reedit my original version, because my paraphrase does not perhaps make it absolutely clear that the "Jew-hater" is Anwar Sadat, deceased, and certainly not Abbas, hence the WP:BLP worry can be buried, I should think. I must admit I was surprised to see Achcar brand Sadat a 'Jew-hater'. Expressions of contempt are in the record, - it was informal Israeli policy to brand him an anti-Semite when he made a peace overture to that country in Washington circles. Still, Achcar is an expert, and I feel obliged, as I did with Levitt, to register his view. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I am the one who challenged the source, but only because it is more of a suggestion. Another editor has called it euphemistically a rhetorical question. The expert is a know academic, but the statement that is used as a sourced sounds like a sentence from an op-ed opinion piece. Debresser (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

That's not a policy objection. All statements are rhetorical figures, even plain statements of fact, if one has been trained to see the shape of an argument (a normal piece of humanistic training- you can't read Shakespeare without it at your fingertips, but it is still true these days). All historians (Hayden White's Metahistory) understand this. Since that page, like many bios of Palestinian figures, is written ignoring most of the plain, banal political history to emphasize the 'scandalous', 'terroristic' or 'anti-Israeli' slant etc., side, it is probably necessary to have Achcar's very pertinent overview on the context in which such accusations about a living figure like Abbas are made. Most of our reportage, unfortunately, is rhetorical point-scoring, and at least Achcar brings this to the fore. That whole section started as an undermining of his credibility for stupid statements he, dispossessed, a militant in a nationalist cause, once made in a PhD thesis in the Soviet Union, statements whose import is belied by everything he has done since the late 1980s to find a compromise for peace with Israel, even to the point of being widely regarded in his homeland as a Quisling. It is thus an important corrective to the underlying POV thrust of the article, and that section.Nishidani (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
But it is! Also, Nishidani, this was posted to let uninvolved editors judge the case. You should really refrain from making more than one statement here. Debresser (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[edit]

I've been coming across a few references that use information from, and I am a bit concerned that there doesn't appear to be any editorial overview whatsoever on this site. There isn't any indication that this is being written by anyone but 2-3 fans with a lot of trek knowledge and absolutely no sourcing of statements. I know that fan sites are a slippery slop into OR (vigilance is an utter pain in the ass when it comes to series like Doctor Who and Game of Thrones), so I thought it best to help define what sorts of sites we are going to allow citing from. I didn't see from an archive search that this site has come up before, so thoughts on the matter would be helpful. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The site (and it's contents) claims to be copyrighted by CBS Studios Inc, the copyright holder on the Star Trek franchise. That would make it an official site, not a fan site. That is not to say that they may not get some real-world facts about the franchise wrong, but it's highly arguable that anything they say in-universe would be canon by dint of coming from the owner's official site. Unless it's used to support something quite contentious, I'd be fine with it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

List of people with bipolar disorder[edit]

Yesterday and today a few different IP addresses (that I assume are the s ame e ditor since they add similar material with the same citation template error) have added names to List of people with bipolar disorder that I felt were weakly sourced and reverted, but I've been unreverted multiple times despite my explanation about reliable sources, etc. on the IP's talkpage. Here's one example where they reinserted Winston Churchill for the 2nd time sourced to this blog written by a high school student. With one exception, all of the names they've added are historical figures with speculative, posthumous diagnoses, which I think is unencyclopedic per WP:SPECULATION and it's potentially harmful according to some academic sources or "fudged pseudoscience" according to others. One source actually talks about this specific list article (my emphasis):

Wikipedia lists some 65 prominent historical and contemporary figures who are considered Manic-depressives, including Frank Bruno, Winston Churchill, Charles Dickens, Jimi Hendrix, Vivien Leigh, Spike Milligan, Isaac Newton and Vincent Van Gogh. The accuracy with which these contemporary or post hoc diagnoses concur with ICD-10 criteria is variable.

IMO they're basically saying that WP indiscriminately lists historical figures as being "manic depressives". Some academics have claimed Beethoven had autism, some say depression, some bipolar. He'd be on every list. Where does it stop? Obviously the blog by the HS student isn't RS, but what, if any, source is reliable for a speculative, retrospective diagnosis of a mental disorder? Personally, I'm inclined to err on the side of not including, but I wonder what other people think? PermStrump(talk) 03:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

In practical terms, you might have better success if you create a separate section or otherwise mark such entries as being speculative posthumous diagnoses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
concur--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree with this - move all the retrospective diagnoses to a separate section, and cut the garbage ones (so only list retrospective diagnosis if there is some reliable journal or academic source backing it. Neutralitytalk 13:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, given the addition of poorly sourced content (including for some living persons), I've semiprotected the list for a ten-day period. Neutralitytalk 13:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "Essay contest winners" != "reliable sources". And the List should separate deceased persons for hown the "diagnosis" is speculative in any event. Collect (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

These are good ideas. I'm going to work on breaking it up into separate sections for retrospective diagnoses later tonight when I get off work. PermStrump(talk) 22:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
There's also the question of wp:weight. Of the many millions of people who could have had this diagnosis, only a very few will appear on such a list. What source backs the selections of the few from the many? What criteria? Such lists are almost always a bad idea except for extremely rare conditions. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
LeadSongDog, I agree, but wasn't feeling confident about AFDing this one even though a few similar ones did get deleted recently.[28][29][30] I'm not sure why, but I felt like there'd be more pushback on this one and wasn't sure if I had the energy for it. I could be talked into it. Do you think it should be AFDed? PermStrump(talk) 08:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Official Chinese government sources[edit]

So here's the question in a nutshell: can official Chinese government sources be used for claims about the position of governments other than the Chinese government regarding the Philippines_v._China case? There's a massive sprawling discussion of the issue currently taking up most of that article's talk page, with many specific sources involved (Xinhua, the Chinese Embassy, etc.), so it's hard to be as specific as the guidelines at the top of this noticeboard recommend, but we'd really benefit from some opinions from editors not previously involved in the dispute. Chris Hallquist (talk) 06:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Chinese state run media (as with any media in which the state controls editorial policy) has to be treated basically as a self-published source: it can be used for attributed statements when China's official position is relevant. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
It would be foolish to simply declare these sources can't be used, but for anything that isn't a simple statement of fact - for instance another country's claims - then attribution to the state media source would certainly be required. -Darouet (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
@Darouet Yes, I think everyone on the relevant talk page agrees that using Chinese government sources for, say, the Chinese government's position is fine. Chris Hallquist (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Outcome of the Sino-Vietnamese War[edit]

Hello all. I am posting to this noticeboard in the hopes that a resolution can be come to with more input from impartial editors who are experienced in dealing with the concept of reliable sources. On Sino-Vietnamese War, a dispute has been ongoing for several days now regarding the outcome of the conflict in the infobox. The article initially stated that "both sides claimed victory"; recently User:Spartacus! changed this to suggest that the conflict was instead a Vietnamese victory. A series of discussions followed, with User:Jon Hydro Jets and User:Rajmaan arguing against the change. I noticed this dispute after Jon Hydro Jets, editing under his IP, contacted a couple of admins accusing Spartacus! of vandalism and requesting blocks. User:NeilN denied the request and reminded Jon Hydro Jets to assume good faith and not accuse others of vandalism, an opinion I share, in light of the rather aggressive approach Jon Hydro Jets and Rajmaan have taken (that issue may be better addressed elsewhere).

After attempting to mediate the conflict as an uninvolved third party, my personal assessment is that the discussion has reached an impasse and no progress is going to made as none of the parties seem willing to budge. In summary, here are the arguments, and sources used:

  • Spartacus! cites this book in favour of the change. He also then included several other book sources, which can be found in the discussions on the talk page.
  • Jon Hydro Jets and Rajmaan cite this paper in favour of maintaining the status quo. They further argue that because the sources that Spartacus!'s sources are not written by military historians, but rather by economists, that those sources' assessments cannot be RS. To quote Rajmaan: "A book on economics which cites Macquarie Research and Norman Friedman [reliable sources] is not RS if it draws its own conclusions from the data".
  • As an uninvolved mediator, the views which I tried to offer in compromise were a disagreement that books by economists and other social scientists should not be discounted because they are of fields which may be relevant to a country's objectives in a war and/or they may assess a war from a non-military perspective, which can still be relevant to a war's outcome. I then suggested, based on this source that it appears that there has been a shift in academic opinion over time from one of Vietnamese victory to a more equivocal result, and that it would benefit the article to include a mention of how this view has changed over time.

It looked to me like both sides agreed with my suggestion, but then a continuation of the debate regarding reliability of sources brought forth by Spartacus continued immediately after, so I think at this point, the discussion would really benefit from further impartial opinions (beyond the IP who offered to be another uninvolved mediator, considering their fairly opinionated stance on the issue, as well as lack of edits and apparent copying of my first line when I first commented on the discussion).

A reminder to involved users, if you are commenting on this, to keep your tone civil. Continued personal attacks on people just because they have different opinions from you will probably not be appreciated by the people who are attempting to help resolve this dispute here. If I've missed or mis-represented your ideas, just present your reasons, sources, and refute the sources; there is no need to make comments about other editors' abilities to use and interpret sources. Brambleclawx 14:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion by involved editors

Him, Brambleclawx. Spartacus did budge on the outcome of the war. He already agreed with your conclusion. Therefore, there is no need to change the article. The argument is now between Spartacus and Rajmaan on weather Spartacus' other sources are reliable.

--Jon Hydro Jets (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me, who are you to put options down my throat? I agree to what Brambleclawx said about adding facts at aftermath section. The 6-7 reliable sources I provided clearly states chinese military failure or Vietnam victory. I stand by my comment. Spartacus! (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

No you did not! You clearly agreed with Brambleclawx's conclusion.

Brambleclawx's original quote:

"That said, after reviewing the sources, I would tend to say that a conclusion that "both sides claim victory" is more appropriate. This is not, however, because I think one source is trumping another due to being cited, or because I think anyone is acting in bad faith. I have an entirely different reasoning, which I hope both of you will consider. Perhaps the most important source to my conclusion is one brought up by Spartacus: Blinders, Blunders, and Wars. The key idea expressed here, is that in the past, scholars viewed the result to be a Chinese failure, but that more recently, scholars are interpreting it more favourably for the Chinese (i.e., not a complete failure after all). I believe the best way to move forward here, is to actually present this idea in the page itself, perhaps in the Aftermath section. It seems that nowadays, the prevalent view is that the results were not quite a failure for either side, but it would make for a much more balanced and informative article to actually discuss how that interpretation has changed over time. If anything, because you've all brought up so many sources, there is easily enough material now to present a section discussing how this view has changed, with good references to both the previous school of thought, and more recent changes in interpretation. I think this solution works well as a compromise: neither idea is completely shut out, and the article gets to be more balanced and detailed."

Spartacus clearly said: "What Brambleclawx said I agree with them."

The 6-7 sources you provided:

One is an internet source quoting directly from Wikipedia.

One is a book about economy without any information regarding the war, only a blurry picture.

One is a book about culture and strategy.

One is a book about foreign policy.

One is a book discussing blunders and blinders and wars. This is a source where Brambleclawx drew his conclusion. You however, did not even read your own source, instead you quoted from the book. The book is actually concluding the war in China's favor as it was pointed out by Brambleclawx.,+Blunders,+and+Wars&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjP5JWY_JPOAhUC2IMKHbJ0BdUQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=Blinders%2C%20Blunders%2C%20and%20Wars&f=false

One is a book summarizing military history, which it used my source as its foundation and it falsely stated that China was "defeated", in reality, the source stated that: "both sides claimed victory."

You used the source: Military History to support your claim. However, your source lied about the outcome of the war. Most important of all, your source used my source as its foundation. You source stated that: "Perhaps the best two books on the Sino-Vietbamese war of 1979 are CHEN (1983), A military analysis of the Sino-Vietnamese War written by CHEN (1987)." Your source stated that my source: Sino-Vietbamese war of 1979: A military Analysis written by King C. CHEN is the best source and you agreed with it because you used this source !! However, my source clearly stated that: ""In spite of the fact that both China and Vietnam had claimed victory over the other, no one had achieved its major objectives." On page 32 under evaluation section.

  • At last, Spartacus also removed one of my comment form the talk page for his own personal gains.

  • Hello admins, Spartacus once again removed my comments on the talk section.

--Jon Hydro Jets (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't want to say anything more here, It would be better if uninvolved editors give their inputs. a last comment, that I've already replied to above user WP:OR and WP:WALLOFTEXT on talk page, see [31]. do look at the talk page. Thank you.Spartacus! (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Brambleclawx is that person. He is the non-involved editor! Most important of all, you Spartacus agreed with his conclusion, that: "Both Sides Claimed Victory" is the more appropriate outcome. You wrote them down in black and white, now you and Rajmaan are battling over your first source's credibility !

At last, you can not remove other people's comment in the talk section!

Remember what you Spartacus has been telling everyone ?? You are literally flip flopping, on one hand you are complaining that other people suppressing your views by debunking your bad sources. On the other hand, you remove other people's comments without any justifications and keep getting caught at it !

--Jon Hydro Jets (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Admin Airplaneman. That is me, I have not registered an account by then. I already notified everyone on the talk section and admin NeilN about this.

--Jon Hydro Jets (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Please stop giving your opinions. We're here at "RSN" for the uninvolved editors inputs over the sources and the outcome of the war. Spartacus! (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I have collapsed the discussion by involved editors above because this is really forum to get input from uninvolved editors, especially on the reliability of sources. Please feel free to copy it back to the article talk page if you wish to preserve it.
As mentioned in WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, the reliability of sources depends on the context. To assess the military outcome, I think the view of the military historians is the most important. However, the views of political/social historians cannot be dismissed. The body of the article needs to discuss the situation in detail, and the infobox should be filled in based on what is mentioned in the body. It seems to me that the situation was not a clear-cut victory for either side. Rather China and Vietnam both had their own objectives which are believed to have been achieved. It is probably better to use a few more words in the infobox to state what was meant by "victory" to each side. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Show the whole discussion.Rajmaan (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion by involved editors

Hello, I have found a great source for the result of the war. This source is solely dedicated to the war. It had over 200 pages of content discussing the objectives, strategies and outcomes of the war. This source fully qualifies as a Wikipedia reliable source and is far more credible than the source previous editors used which is an economic article and merely mentioning the war in a paragraph.

This source clearly stated that both sides claimed victory.

On page 32

"In spite of the fact that both China and Vietnam had both claimed victory. No one had achieved its major objectives."

This source is dedicated to the Sino-Vietnamese war, not some article regarding economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Six Seven One Seven Five One Six One Five Zero! I don't particularly care about who gets to thump their chest the loudest, but could you please stop edit warring, and could you stop making unexplained reverts like this that restore the silly circular references that you added, and that I explained why it was silly in my edit summary? Thanks. LX (talk, contribs) 12:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

-- (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC) is sockpuppet of, who are disrupting and vandalizing Soviet, Vietnam, China related articles from quite sometime. The IP again removed reliable source [32] on spurious ground. It is a third party independent source which clearly states vietnam won the conflict. The source further cites "Macquarie Research (Aug 2010), Norman Friedman (1999)" both RS. Spartacus! (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

First, I am not a sockpuppet. I am just using internet at two different locations. I do not have two different registered account.

The source I provided is more reliable than Spartacus'. His source has nothing to do with Sino-Vietnamese war and Sino-Soviet border conflict. It is an economy related article and thus not credible !

The source I provided are all dedicated war articles. The results were clearly stated and the war was thoroughly discussed !

-- (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello again Hello Six Seven One Seven Five One Six One Five Zero! (Maybe you should register an account, so we can have a proper interaction with a person instead of with some randomly changing numbers.) You once again reinstated the circular reference to Could you please explain why you think this is a good idea and why our policies don't apply to you? LX (talk, contribs) 13:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry that I used a circular reference. I am not very experience at editing Wikipedia. However, I am good at looking for reliable sources. I will remove that circular source. -- (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Sources don't become unreliable because you say so? [33] it meets the standards listed at wp:rs. the source has dedicated a full table with heading "Wars and armed conflicts in asia, 1946-2000", and further cites RS "Macquarie Research (Aug 2010), Norman Friedman (1999)" . Spartacus! (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I just looked at your source !! It has a very blurry picture merely stating the conflicts !! It is only 1 page !!

No where in your source described any details, objectives, strategy and outcome of any conflicts !!

The sources I provided:



These sources are 100% reliable and satisfy every Wikipedia requirement as a reliable source. They were both over 200 pages long and described each war in absolute details, they are fully dedicated to each war not some economic article you privided!! They both stated the result of the war !!

In short you failed!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

-- (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

You looked at the source and you found it blurry? then buy it and read it at your home! This is not the excuse, It is clearly written Victorious - Vietnam : Defeated - China. The sources has failry represented wars and armed conflicts in Asia since 1946-2000, they have cited further sources from where they've taken the stats. And now about the sources you presented. The first source doesn't say what you're trying to say to us "both sides were victor". Your second source (as you said page no.32) In spite of the fact that both China and Vietnam had both claimed a victory over the other,107 No one had achieved its major objectives. While 107 says "China claims have been repeatedly cited above"! This is your source? stop this bs nonsense. Spartacus! (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

No, you are the one need to stop !!

Your source is an economy article which does NOT qualify for a war article. Your source with a merely one page blurry picture does not even qualify for war article. If your reason is sound then anyone can write a book and place a picture in it and gain credibility.

My sources are both fully dedicated to war articles. The results were clearly stated.

Both sides claimed victory because neither side fully achieved their goals but manage to achieve certain goals.

For China: 1. China showed the world that USSR at that time could not protect its new ally Vietnam which ended a possible two front war scenario for China. ( This is one of the major goals for China, this was clearly written in the article and thoroughly discussed. Your source did not mention any strategic values, reason for war, the course of the war what so ever, just a blurry picture that no one can even read !)
2. China gained wild support in ASEAN countries for its attempt to stop Vietnamese aggression in South East Asia.
3. The war was a major blow to Vietnam's economy !
4. China gain territory from Vietnam.

For Vietnam: 1. China did not force Vietnam's withdraw from Cambodia.
2. China did not force Vietnam to change its policy towards Chinese residents in Vietnam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Since when Springer publications become unreliable? You labelling reliable sources as unreliable, who are you to say that? How many times should I need to tell you that your OR matters nothing to us. If you're having trouble reading "Victorious - Vietnam : Defeated - China" then take out the print of the source from any other website or buy it! Also, As i said above, your sources doesn't say what are you saying to us. Your OR will be ignored. Spartacus! (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I am kinda of tired of endlessly arguing.

What kind of agreement do you want to reach?

We can settle a consensus agreement and stop this editing chaos together.

Thank you.

-- (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Spartacus! has zero concept of what reliable source means. A source is not reliable if it includes a table or if it cites from other reliable sources. A source is reliable if the author has credentials in the field he is writing in, such as a military historian writing about war. An economist's field is in economy. The main topic of The Global Rise of Asian Transformation: Trends and Developments in Economic Growth Dynamics is mainly about economy where the war is briefly mentioned and the main topic is not about war. It can be cited in an article about economy but not war in contentious cases. Just like a person with a degree in pottery and writing a book on pottery where he briefly mentions a war where soldiers destroyed pottery, is not a qualified source on that war even if that pottery book is published by Springer. A journal on medical injuries by a doctor describing injuries soldiers suffered during the war, is not a RS on the outcome of that war. Its only an RS on injuries and casualties but not who an RS on who won the war. Doesn't matter if it was published in a scientific medical journal, its not about military science. Its an RS on medicine, the work on economics Spartacus! cites is an RS on economics, neither of them are RS on war. An RS would be a military historian writing in a military journal. The author of the source Spartacus! uses has zero credentials in the field- modern warfare in Southeast Asia. If citing from reliable sources made a source RS, then any random person can start writing blogs by citing reliable sources and get considered a reliable source.Rajmaan (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Rajmaan for backing me up.

As I have shown above, his source shows a merely picture and it is blurry !! To make matter even worse, his source was solely related to economic issue.

My source is dedicated to wars.

Could you please keep an eye on this page, I know that Spartacus will be back messing with it again.

As for you Spartacus, please stop now.

-- (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Rajmaan enlighten me how can a reliable source from Springer publications, citing other reliable sources for the stats, unreliable??? you said, "A source is reliable if the author has credentials in the field he is writing in.." why you think the source which the author of The Global Rise of Asian Transformation cited "Macquarie Research (Aug 2010), Norman Friedman (1999)" for their stats, don't?
quick google book search about "Norman Friedman" [34] shows, they have credentials in the field of military, same about Macquarie Research.
I have more sources which states Vietnam's victory and Chinese military failure. [35] pg 285 and page 297 [36] [37] [38] [39]
IP, should we take this to Dispute resolution requests?Spartacus! (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I just registered this account.

Spartacus you added more useless sources.


This source quotes from Wikipedia itself !! " According to Wikipedia: Within a single day, the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) had advanced some eight kilometers into Vietnam along a broad front. It then slowed and nearly stalled because of heavy Vietnamese resistance and difficulties within the Chinese supply system. On 21 February, the advance resumed against Cao Bang in the far north and against the all-important regional hub of Lang Son. Chinese troops entered Cao Bang on 27 February, but the city was not secured completely until 2 March. Lang Son fell two days later. On 5 March, the Chinese, saying Vietnam had been sufficiently chastised, announced that the campaign was over. Beijing declared its "lesson" finished and the PLA withdrawal was completed on 16 March."

Then in this source, China did tremendous damage to Vietnam: "According to the Website, the legacy of the war is enduring, particularly in Vietnam. In this nation already devastated by two recent wars, the Chinese in all essence, implemented a "scorched-earth policy" as they retreated back to China, causing extensive damage to the Vietnamese countryside and infrastructure. Villages were reduced to rubble, roads and railroads received damage at the hands of the Chinese."

It also stated that the main objective of China attacking Vietnam is to expose Soviet assurances of military support to Vietnam as a fraud.
"Still, as Wikipedia relates, Bruce Elleman argued that "one of the primary diplomatic goals behind China's attack was to expose Soviet assurances of military support to Vietnam as a fraud. Seen in this light, Beijing's policy was actually a diplomatic success, since Moscow did not actively intervene, thus showing the practical limitations of the Soviet-Vietnamese military pact... China achieved a strategic victory by minimizing the future possibility of a two-front war against the USSR and Vietnam."

"1979 Sino- Vietnamese war was China's most important foreign policy failure since 1949".
Again, this source has ZERO credential in war, because it is titled foreign policy !!
Chinese Strategic Culture and Foreign Policy Decision-Making: Confucianism
This source has ZERO credential in war, it is titled: Strategic Culture and Foreign Policy.


This source titled " Military History ". It is a summary book about all the wars from year ancient time to 2000. No where in that source described any details such as: strategic goals, tactics, course of the war, outcome, aftermath, ect. It has more credential than the other junk sources you provided but it is still no where near the source I provided:

Most important of all !!!!!!

Your source:

Used the exactly the same source I provided:

China's war against Vietnam, 1979: A Military Analysis . A book written by King C. Chen. In other words. Your source: Military History is utterly quoting from the source that I provided !! Therefore, my source has total supremacy over your source !!

Your source:

Stated that:

"Perhaps the best two books on the Sino-Vietbamese war of 1979 are CHEN (1983), A military analysis of the Sino-Vietnamese War and CHEN (1987)."

Therefore, your source is utterly telling everyone that my source: ( China's War Against Vietnam, 1979: A Military Analysis, a book written by CHEN in 1983 ) is the best source and must be used as the undisputed source for this article.

In my source on page 32 section 2, Evaluation.

It clearly stated that: "In spite of the fact that both China and Vietnam had claimed victory over the other, no one had achieved its major objectives." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Hydro Jets (talkcontribs) 14:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

(I suggest you go take some time reading this page: Your source:

and see where your source is quoting and copying from !!

Do you remember what Rajmaan told you about reliable source? If not, I suggest you go read his contents.

It seems that you just do not get the idea of what a reliable source is. Even when Rajmaan "enlightened" you, or not.

At last, Spartacus. You need to stop your endless arguing. The main source you provided has no credential in this article. There is not going to be a dispute resolution request.

If you continue to vandalize this page. Your edits will be reverted for disruptive editing and you will be blocked. You have already been warned by admin.

--Jon Hydro Jets (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Spartacus! is either trying to stall by pretending not to understand or has a hard time understanding the concept of reliable source. I just said, a source is NOT AN RS if it just cites from another RS. If a source (such as a random blog on the internet) cites from a reliable source such as a military journal but the blog draws its own conclusion such as claiming that X side won the war (which the original RS military journal does not say) that blog is NOT AN RS. You are not an RS just because you cite from an RS. The writers of The Global Rise of Asian Transformation: Trends and Developments in Economic Growth Dynamics do not have credentials in military science and are not publishing their work in a military journal. Citing from an RS does not make your work an RS.Rajmaan (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment Rajmaan.

You are 100% correct. To matter even worse. Spartacus' latest source directly used my source as its foundation and his source mistakenly stated that China was "defeated". However, my source which is the one his source cited from, NEVER said that. In fact, it clearly cited that both sides claimed victory. This means that his source is a junk source despite being a book and it used my source as its foundations!!!

Spartacus used that source, this means that he agrees with what that source agree; which is that my source is the best source. Yet he continuously pretending that he does not get that concept.

--Jon Hydro Jets (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Spartacus' source:

This source is a book using other source especially my source as its foundation. It Stated that:

"Perhaps the best two books on the Sino-Vietbamese war of 1979 are CHEN (1983), A military analysis of the Sino-Vietnamese War written by CHEN (1987)."

Therefore, Spartacus' source is utterly telling everyone that my source: ( China's War Against Vietnam, 1979: A Military Analysis, a book written by CHEN in 1983 ) is the best source and must be used as the undisputed source for this article.

In my source on page 32 section 2, Evaluation.

It clearly stated that: "In spite of the fact that both China and Vietnam had claimed victory over the other, no one had achieved its major objectives."

In the light of all the evidences and fact provided by Spartacus himself.

My source should be used as the permanent source.

--Jon Hydro Jets (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Jon Hydro Jets, you need to tone it down and stop with the "musts" and "shalls" and exclamation points. Both you and Spartacus! need to read WP:NOTBATTLE. --NeilN talk to me 15:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

you are only producing wp:or and misrepresenting my sources.

  1. salem-news source relies on Wikipedia,, I agree, I didn't read sources mentioned below in that website but it's ok. move on to further sources.
  2. [40] this source titled "Defending China" is wp:rs and publication of "Oxford University Press". It says "1979 Sino-Vietnamese war was China's most important foreign policy failure since 1949, and the main reason for this failure was the poor performance of the PLA"
  3. I think you need to stop misleading others. [41] this source titled, "Chinese Strategic Culture and Foreign Policy Decision-Making": Confucianism, Leadership and War "Asian Security Studies" is wp:rs publication of Routledge. It examines politics, wars, foreign policy, strategic culture, international relations, etc stuff. Source states [42] China's 1979 war against Vietnam was a strategic failure.
  4. page 285 &page 297 of this reliable source titled "Modern Chinese Warfare, 1795-1989" publication of Routledge. you can read about the author here [43] also states the same, in short "Chinese military failure".
  5. [44] this source, titled "Blinders, Blunders, and Wars: What America and China Can Learn" publication of Rand Corporation states the same, in short "Chinese Chinese militiary failure".
  6. [45] this source, which you are talking about mentions, "Perhaps the best two books on the Sino-Vietnamese war of 1979 are CHEN (1983), a military analysis of the Sino-Vietnamese War" and the reasons behind the Chinese defeat in that conflict, and CHEN (1987).
  7. my first source itself is reliable and these sources are back up to it.while you have proved nothing, you are just producing wp:or and wp:pov.

I've replied to you yesterday about your source, page no.32 says, "In spite of the fact that both China and Vietnam had both claimed a victory over the other",107 No one had achieved its major objectives. While 107 says "China claims have been repeatedly cited above" which is not a neutral or independent. Spartacus! (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Admin NeilN. At this point, I feel there is absolutely no need to ever talk to Spartacus again. He still has zero concept of what a reliable source means. He has himself trapped beautifully with his own sources and moves.

I will keep a close eye on this article and if he ever revert this article or the other article with his sources. I will notify you and other admins.

--Jon Hydro Jets (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC) --Jon Hydro Jets (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello all. I am an uninvolved editor who has come across this ongoing dispute, and I'm hoping that I can assist in some way to find a resolution. First, I have renamed this talk page section; it is inflammatory and not civil, which should be avoided. I have left an anchor with the original section heading in case any links to this section were ever placed elsewhere.
Jon Hydro Jets (a.k.a User:, I strongly urge you to remember to be Civil and to assume good faith. Refrain from attacking other editors with personal attacks; assume all editors are here because they want to help. I offer similar advice to Rajmaan. Without commenting on the referencing issue at hand, I want to point out to both of you that Spartacus! has at least not been accusing you of "stalling", or asserting that your sources are "useless", and expressed a willingness to try to negotiate a resolution by offering additional sources in support of his position, and offering to go to a dispute noticeboard.
I took a look at some of the sources being discussed here. From what I understand, and correct me if I am wrong, the pre-existing page stated that the conflict was a Vietnamese victory, as suggested by several sources brought forth by Spartacus!. Jon Hydro Jets, you are advocating for a source which supports the claim that both sides claimed victory.
Here is what I have to offer:
  • I disagree with the idea that only sources by military historians can be considered reliable sources here. There are numerous problems with such a claim. First, the title of "military historian" is not some sort of regulated title, unlike, say a "medical doctor" or "engineer", who must be licensed in order to use such a title. Of course, there comes a certain level of experience from doing a lot of military history work for an entire career, but what qualifies someone to be a "military historian"? Number of publications? An assertion as such on their University profile? Furthermore, different historians, military or otherwise, approach their historical analyses from different perspectives, placing emphasis on different things. Thus, the point of view of an economist can be relevant, especially to historians who want to make an assertion of victory based on economic outcomes. I therefore disagree that Spartacus!'s sources have "zero" reliability simply because they are not written by so-called "military historians".
  • Spartacus! has produced several sources which are books, published by fairly well-known and reputable publishers, which suggests that they likely went through some sort of editorial process. As these aren't sources that are simply random websites, or self-published books, but rather, are actual scholarly works published by reputable publishers, I don't think you can simply overrule the weight of evidence with a single other reliable source.
  • Just because one source cites another, does not give the cited source "supremacy" over the citing source. Historians regularly refer to the works of others, often synthesizing different information together and come to their own conclusions, which may differ from that of any of the individual sources. This does not illegitimize their new conclusions because it may be meant to be a synthesis or re-examination of previous conclusions.
I do recognize that your source is a reliable source, with specific focus on this conflict, and was originally published in a peer-reviewed journal. But seeing as Spartacus has also produced a range of what I would argue are reliable sources which assert a different conclusion, I think the responsibility lies with you, Jon Hydro Jets, to find additional reliable sources that support your position. One reliable source, no matter how excellent in quality, cannot overrule several others if they are also of good quality.
I hope you are all able to resolve this conflict in a civil, patient manner from this point on. In this case, I suspect that it would be best to bring this issue to a dispute resolution noticeboard. The reliable source one in particular looks well-suited to your particular dispute. I say this simply because I suspect what will happen is that once Jon Hydro Jets locates more sources that support a "both sides claim victory", then an impasse may be reached in which it becomes extremely difficult to come to an agreement how to weigh the evidence on both sides. Brambleclawx 00:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Brambleclawx thank you and I hope your viewpoint can assist in to find a resolution. Jon Hydro Jets source's page 32 states very clearly at the bottom that 107 chinese claims have been repeatedly cited above which are not independent or third party views. I ask Jon just one thing, how he will justify suppressing views of reliable sources if he don't have preconceived bias. Spartacus! (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Brambleclawx A military historian is someone such as Edward C. O'Dowd who actually wrote a book on the topic- Chinese Military Strategy in the Third Indochina War: The Last Maoist War, Robert R Leonhard, an officer who graduated from the School of Advanced Military Studies, Clay Blair, a Navy veteran widely recognized as a military expert. Hoontrakul is none of them and has zero credentials in military science. Neither is his book about military or even about the Sino-Vietnamese war. Its a book on economics in Southeast Asia which mentions the Sino Vietnamese War. A source by an economist is not a reliable source on a war. A source by a medical doctor who treats injuries but knows nothing about military science is not a reliable source on the military. An RS on a war, is a book about that war by a military historian - Chinese Military Strategy in the Third Indochina War: The Last Maoist War The fact that Spartacus! is dragging up a book on economics by an economist smacks of desperation and failure to find an actual RS.Rajmaan (talk) 04:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

"From what I understand, and correct me if I am wrong, the pre-existing page stated that the conflict was a Vietnamese victory, as suggested by several sources brought forth by Spartacus!."

Brambleclawx. The pre-existing page stated that both sides claimed victory, please see the links below:

However, Spartacus used his totally unreliable source titled: "The Global Rise of Asian Transformation: Trends and Developments in Economic Growth Dynamics." to alter the article. His source merely has a single page of blurry picture to "support" his claim, and not to mention totally none credential as it is titled: Trends and Developments in Economic Growth Dynamics.

I reverted his edit by adding the most credible source there is: China's war against Vietnam, 1979: A military analysis. written by King C. Chen.

Spartacus ultimately agrees with this source, because he stated this source:

It is a poorly written book in military history. His source completely used my source as its foundation. The title of my source and its author King C. CHEN is clearly shown in first paragraph. In his source, it stated that: "Perhaps the best two books on the Sino-Vietbamese war of 1979 are CHEN (1983), A military analysis of the Sino-Vietnamese War and CHEN (1987)." Which means that his source 100% agrees that my source: China's war against Vietnam, 1979: A military analysis. written by King C. Chen, is the best source. Spartacus' source is poorly written because it falsely stated that Vietnam "won", but in the real source, the source which Spartacus' book is founded which is my source: China's war against Vietnam, 1979: A military analysis. written by King C. Chen. Never stated that!!

In fact. It clearly stated that: "In spite of the fact that both China and Vietnam had claimed victory over the other, no one had achieved its major objectives." This is on page 32, under section Evaluation.

Therefore, Spartacus has himself beaten and totally trapped by his own source and moves. Not only is his source lying, it is also quoting from a real reliable source. Both conditions make his source totally worthless ! In addition, he also listed many other bad sources such as internet source quoting directly from Wikipedia, however he only list the content "supporting" Vietnam but not the other materials that supports China ! ( Please see the discussion above. )

Here is a counter example:

This is a source stated that: "After a brief incursion into northern Vietnam, Chinese troops withdrew less than a month later, and both sides claimed victory." This source is a source that quotes from Wikipedia itself.

He also listed several books that are related to foreign policy and culture which are totally not reliable source as was shown by Rajmaan. ( Please see the discussion above ).

--Jon Hydro Jets (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all for helping summarize all the material and ideas from above. It took a bit of time, but it really helped me get a feel for which sources to be looking at, and what to be looking for in them. I also want to thank Rajmaan and Jon Hydro Jets for using a much less aggressive tone: it helps a lot with keeping clear what the arguments are as they pertain to their issue at hand.
After taking a look at what you've all pointed out in reply to my comment, here are some additional thoughts:
  • I still disagree with Rajmaan and Jon Hydro Jets that sources on the economy and foreign policy have no relevance to war. Wars directly impact the economy, and are an aspect of foreign policy/relations; an analysis of the economic outcomes, or effects on foreign relations, can be relevant when it comes to assessing the outcome of a war. Yes, a doctor making an argument about, say, the critical-ness of firearms manufacturing on a war would not hold much weight, but a doctor arguing a point based on a study of the health effects on the soldiers or civilians due to a war could be relevant.
  • That said, after reviewing the sources, I would tend to say that a conclusion that "both sides claim victory" is more appropriate. This is not, however, because I think one source is trumping another due to being cited, or because I think anyone is acting in bad faith. I have an entirely different reasoning, which I hope both of you will consider. Perhaps the most important source to my conclusion is one brought up by Spartacus: Blinders, Blunders, and Wars. The key idea expressed here, is that in the past, scholars viewed the result to be a Chinese failure, but that more recently, scholars are interpreting it more favourably for the Chinese (i.e., not a complete failure after all). I believe the best way to move forward here, is to actually present this idea in the page itself, perhaps in the Aftermath section. It seems that nowadays, the prevalent view is that the results were not quite a failure for either side, but it would make for a much more balanced and informative article to actually discuss how that interpretation has changed over time. If anything, because you've all brought up so many sources, there is easily enough material now to present a section discussing how this view has changed, with good references to both the previous school of thought, and more recent changes in interpretation. I think this solution works well as a compromise: neither idea is completely shut out, and the article gets to be more balanced and detailed.
  • As a quick note to Spartacus, the footnote you mention in Jon's source does not suggest that Chinese claims of victory are not RS; it's just a reflection of the fact that the author has already cited where Chinese claims of victory came from. Actually, the statement supports that both sides claimed victory (and does not make any comment on how others perceived who won).
  • While I have agreed with your position, Jon and Rajmaan, this does not mean I think Spartacus is misguided or acting in bad faith; if anything, I think this discussion has the potential to help the article, because Spartacus has brought up a different perspective which can now allow for an opportunity to expand the article to treat the subject with more detail and balance. I hope you can see it in this light too, and perhaps collaborate in working to take these suggestions in order to take advantage of the fact that you now have a whole set of reference that can be used to discuss the way the interpretations have changed over time (and continue to be a subject of debate, as noted in that source).
Brambleclawx 15:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

What Brambleclawx said I agree with them. It will be better if we will present facts in the Aftermath section. I agree with that. And for users, who are suppressing views of reliable sources, I would to say, your personal commentary and WP:OR has no value to us. you can't suppress WP:RS views on spurious ground, that it is written by a economist? And I also want to mention others editors those who say they can't read the given source because the picture is blurry. For your kind information sources don't need to be always available online. You can take out the print it from other webs or you can buy the book also. Thank you. Spartacus! (talk) 09:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

What is spurious is Spartacus! refusing to recognize the fact that RS have to be written by qualified experts in the field you are using their source to back up. An economist has zero qualifications in military history and his book in general is not even about the war. A medical doctor's work is citing in medicine, a economist's work is cited in economics, a military historian who graduated from a military school or who has degrees in military science is cited in military related matters. We don't cite historians with PhDs in art history for military matters.Rajmaan (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello all. I am an uninvolved editor who has come across this ongoing dispute, and I'm hoping that I can assist in some way to find a resolution.
  1. I think Spartacus! have slight advantages over Jon Hydro Jets bz Spartacus! gave more wp:rs than Jon Hydro Jets.
  2. obviously it was Vietnamese victory bcz we all know, 1. "China withdrew it's forces from Vietnam". 2. Vietnamese occupation continued in Cambodia till 1989.
  3. so, above results proof Vietnamese victory easily. I repeat, I'm agree with Spartacus! that Vietnam won the war. (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The dispute was over. Spartacus himself, me, Rajmaan, and Brambleclawx all agree that " Both sides Claimed Victory " is the the finial consensus result.
The argument now is between Rajmaan and Spartacus, weather Spartacus' sources are reliable or not. Rajmaan has showed Spartacus what reliable sources means but Spartacus has a really hard time understanding it. Most of Spartacus' sources are totally unreliable, only a few of them has credential, yet all of his reliable sources that have credential directly or indirectly supported our current agreement !

--Jon Hydro Jets (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

"An economist has zero qualifications in military history" your personal commentary matters nothing to me, see what Brambleclawx said to you. furthermore, source stats are obviously acceptable, their work also rely on Macquarie Research (Aug 2010), Norman Friedman (1999). you can't suppress rs views. take it to reliable sources noticeboard if you have problem with the source and because two editors disagree with you. Spartacus! (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Spartacus! is deliberately misleading and sidetracking again. If Macquarie Research (Aug 2010) and Norman Friedman (1999) are RS then why aren't they being cited DIRECTLY?' A source is NOT AN RS if it contains citations to sources that are RS. An internet blog which cites Macquarie Research and Norman Friedman is not RS because the blog owner has zero qualifications in any field, let alone military history. A book on economics which cites Macquarie Research and Norman Friedman is not RS if it draws its own conclusions from the data. Its obvious that Macquarie Research and Friedman are either (1) not accessible to you, or (2) they are accessible and don't say Vietnamese victory which is why you refuse to cite them directly and use Hoontrakul's book on economics. Your personal commentary claiming economists are reliable sources on military matters is irrelevant.
It says right at Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
* The piece of work itself (the article, book)
* The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

The piece of work and creator of the work are both relevant. The piece of work is a book on economics in Southeast Asia. The creators of the work are economists. Neither of them are related to military affairs. According to this policy on identifying reliable sources, this book and authots are not reliable sources.Rajmaan (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Please stop misleading other editors and distorting things. Macquarie Research (Aug 2010) and Norman Friedman (1999) can't cited directly because these items are not accessible. Here we are not talking about internet blog but a reliable source ([46]) published by Springer, 2014, ISBN:9781137412362, edited by many well qualified authors (P. Hoontrakul, C. Balding, R. Marwah). page number 37 (Wars and armed conflicts in Asia since....) appear in the "selected pages" list [47] so it is definitely reliable. It may be the author worked with Sydney based Macquarie Research and Norman Friedman and then came to a conclusion or can be anything else. authors often cites work of others. see what Brambleclawx told you. you can't suppress rs and I won't let you do that anyway. Spartacus! (talk) 07:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

What part of credentials in the relevant field do you not understand. A random blog on the internet citing Macquarie Research and Norman Friedman and drawing its own conclusions is not a reliable source because that blog has zero credentials in military affairs. An economist citing Macquarie Research and Norman Friedman in a book about economics with one sentence-paragraph-page about a war's outcome is not a reliable source because that economist has zero credentials in military affairs. Draw directly from Macquarie and Friedman and show what they say and stop trying to shove sources onto article because you agree with what they say. Edward C. O'Dowd is used because he has credentials in military affairs and his entire book is about the war. The creator of the work and the work itself are relevant in establishing if it is RS or not. We don't cite pottery experts on military matters no matter how many PhDs they have in playing with clay. A medical journal describing injuries written by a doctor with an MD published by a medical school is not an RS on military affairs. Nobody cares how many PhDs the author has in non related fields. The relevant field is war.Rajmaan (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Note to editors involved: it looks to me like this dispute isn't going anywhere, so I have posted this to the Reliable Source Noticeboard for other editors to offer their opinions. Brambleclawx 14:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Endgame: Singularity[edit]

Which if any of these sources [48][49][50][51] are reliable and support the following claims about the computer game Endgame: Singularity?

The game was originally written in August 2005 by a programmer with the pseudonym "evilmrhenry" (EMH software) in one week for the first PyWeek competition.


I humbly ask that both myself and the other involved editor refrain from commenting here. — (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Sarah Tiana[edit]

I am posting here based upon advice received from Tokyogirl79 at Talk:Sarah Tiana#Possible sources and would appreciate any feedback on whether this and this are considered reliable sources, paricularly for establishing Wikipedia notability for Sarah Tiana. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The sources seem as reliable to me as an interview article can be, but I’m not sure how far interviews are considered to establish notability. I did find this essay that you may find helpful: WP:Interviews#Notability67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)