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

Bones (season 11)[edit]

I was wondering if somebody could cast an eye over Bones (season 11). The article uses a number of citations from unverified Twitter accounts and discussion forums like {{cite tweet}} is used 7 times and is used 8 times. I tried removing one of these sources but it was reverted, twice now.[1][2] One of the editors who reverted me was also involved in the addition of WP:SYNTH at List of Better Call Saul episodes[3][4] and the ensuing discussion on the talk page there, so simply removing the offending citations there will only start an edit war. --AussieLegend () 19:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I've now tagged the unreliable discussion forum citations,[5] and tweets,[6] but would still appreciate a second (or third or fourth) opinion. I did have to remove one completely,[7] as it was not from the person who it claimed to be from, as can be seen by trying to verify the citation:

--AussieLegend () 17:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, since nobody seems interested in actually looking at the article, perhaps somebody could answer a simple question: Are the following tweets acceptable sources?

--AussieLegend () 05:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

If Silver and Peterson are writers for the show, and we have no cause to think that these aren't their real Twitter accounts, then I'd consider them reliable WP:SPS for what little info they contain (I'm guessing the name of the episode). Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm with you on disqus, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the Twitter accounts, doesn't that require an assumption though? --AussieLegend () 10:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't it require what assumption? That they're really who they say they are? I suppose some reasonable investigation would be appropriate, but they're not automatically unusable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The problem with Twitter is that anyone can create an account and say anything. Even people involved with a "product" might say something that isn't necessarily true. For example, someone who claims to be a writer might say "I started writing the 13th episode" when the episode that they are writing is the third production code, but will air as the 15th episode. As somebody not very high on the totem pole, they probably aren't privy to the higher level decisions. {{cite tweet}} actually includes the following banner:
Verified Twitter accounts have some degree of credibility, but unverified accounts belonging to mere staff members can't really be taken as authoritative. --AussieLegend () 08:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
You're making assumptions about several things that has no evidence to back them up. "unverified accounts belonging to mere staff members can't really be taken as authoritative" says who? "As somebody not very high on the totem pole, they probably aren't privy to the higher level decisions" how would you know that and what does that have to do with anything? They're some not assistant or someone who works for craft service, they're a writer for the series. There's nothing in WP:SPS or WP:TWITTER that says a Twitter account has to be verified, as long as it meets the requirements, which it does. There's nothing to suggest that the information being provided in anything but accurate. She posts images of script pages, on-set photos, production meetings, etc. The official Bones Twitter retweets her, she followed by Bones creator Hart Hanson, and Bones actors including Emily Deschanel, John Boyd, and Tamara Taylor–all verified accounts. Every time we've used her as a source for an upcoming episode for Bones (season 11), it has been correct, obviously. I went back and found her Tweets for episode title reveals for episodes that have already been aired, thus the information in then can be verified: episode 1 (of which includes replies by the official Bones Twitter), episode 2, episode 3, episode 5, episode 6, episode 10. Again, there is nothing to suggest the information being provided is false or not authentic, because she is proven to be reliable and correct. Please apply some common sense here. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
They're some not assistant or someone who works for craft service, they're a writer for the series. - You're assuming that they are a writer. As WP:SPS says, Anyone can create a personal web page ... and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason ... Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. --AussieLegend () 07:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
You're ignoring every fact I stated and piece of evidence I've used. To assume she is not who is she is absurd and illogical. Again, common sense would be nice. Clearly this isn't going anywhere. Moving on... Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Drovethrughosts: I agree with you 100% on everything you stated here. It is next to impossible to get AussieLegend to change his viewpoint on anything, so sometimes it just isn't worth trying. Not everything on Wikipedia boils down to policy, some things just need to be handled with common sense, and it appears that AussieLegend somewhat lacks in that department. Rswallis10 (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Please remain civil when commenting. Comment on content, not the contributor! --AussieLegend () 19:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC) --AussieLegend () 19:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: Apologies... Rswallis10 (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

When I say that some reasonable investigation is appropriate before using a Twitter account, I mean things like whether the account is retweeted by or otherwise clearly has the confidence of something official, whether it is attributed to an expert (a writer for a show is an expert on that show), etc. I'd say Drovethrughosts has done this investigation, and my take is that the Twitter account is usable with caution per WP:SPS unless some specific reason to doubt its veracity should emerge. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24:Fair enough, I'll respect your opinion. Interestingly though, after removing the tags from the article,[8] Drovethrughosts contacted the editor who apparently added the disqus links.[9] That editor subsequently replaced the {{unreliable source}} tags with notes claiming that the citations were reliable.[10] His claims are similar to those put forward by ChaosMaster16, an editor who was indef-blocked for insisting on using after this discussion. There still seems to be a strong belief in a number of editors, especially in the TV project, that unreliable sources can be used when there are no reliable sources (or it's too hard to find them). --AussieLegend () 06:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Well I certainly don't agree that unreliable sources are usable if there are no reliable ones available. Per my interpretation of WP:NEWSBLOG, it is never okay to use comments left by readers as sources. But what it looks like is going on here is that the information was in the body of a reliable source that used to be available. This is covered in the WP:LINKROT essay. If the Wikieditor saw the original source with his or her own eyes and that original source was RS, then he or she may cite that original source even if it is no longer available online. This does not apply if the Wikieditor only ever saw the current Disqus link and replies.
But the content here is just ratings. Can't you guys just look this up in TVBytheNumbers or something? Even a local paper might have this information. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that LINKROT applies here as the content was never cited to another website. The first source was added in October 2015, sourced to disqus.[11] The whole table was removed in November because of this,[12] but was restored, along with more citations sourced to the same forum.[13] There is no way for anyone to verify that these comments were ever part of another website. All we have is a discussion forum. Your suggestion regarding TVBytheNumbers is spot on. I've already mentioned this on the editor's talk page, and the article's talk page as well. Ironically, there are citations in the article's episode list. I don't know why these aren't being used. --AussieLegend () 14:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
If the other Wikieditor never saw the information in a reliable source, then the other Wikieditor never saw the information in a reliable source. What I'd do is contact the commenter, SonoftheBronx, and ask him where he found that ratings information, but the comment is not RS by itself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: Hello, I'm the "other Wikieditor" that you've been referring to. I think it's time for me to add to this discussion since it's pretty much about me. First of all in response to your most recent comment, I did see the information on TV Media Insights before the page was deleted because that is only way how I knew where to get the DISQUS URL. Second, SonoftheBronx has been providing Nielsen ratings since 2011, and has never been called into question once (see item 3 in the list below). Finally, here is a list of reasons why I think these DISQUS comments are reliable sources, I left on my talk page for AussieLegend to read:
1. DISQUS IS NOT A FORUM. I don't know how many times I can say that. It is a program that allows comments to be archived even after a page or website is deleted.
2. The data on that page comes from TV Media Insights (WHICH IS A RELIABLE SOURCE); however, that site was deleted, and therefore all of the content can no longer be found on the active web.
3. The person who runs the website (Douglas Pucci aka SONOFTHEBRONX) is a reliable source, because his data has been used on The Futon Critic [14][15] AND TV by the Numbers [16][17][18], both of which you refer to as "reliable sources".
4. I personally do not like the DISQUS link either, but it is the ONLY way to retrieve the RELIABLE data. The website was deleted, and the comments are NOT archived by the Wayback Machine since they are saved on the DISQUS servers rather than the TV Media Insights servers. Since they are stored offline, they were saved when the website went down.
5. There is no other "better" source to use, which is why I am using the DISQUS links. Bones is a show that doesn't always make the TVBTN Live+7 Top 25 lists, so when it doesnt, I use the data from Douglas Pucci to fill in the chart. If you looked at the Live+7 data from TVBTN, you would see that the data isn't always there.
6. Also, this one last thing should really help my case. You said that there is no way to tell if the data was ever ACTUALLY on the TV Media Insights page. I completely forgot that when Google Caches the pages, it does archive the comments. Here [19] is a link to a cached page from TVMI that has the comments in the bottom (this is from a season 10 rating). This proves that the comments were originally from the page and not "posted on a discussion forum". You too "can see with your own eyes" that the comments are there.
I hope this give you all the assurances you need about the validity and reliability of the data. If there was a better source to use, you'd better bet I would use that one instead, but there just isn't any other source. Rswallis10 (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Did you originally see this information in an article or in a comment/reply?
5. I can see why it's desirable to have the whole chart match, but if there's no reliable source for a piece of information, then it shouldn't be included, even if that leaves the article lopsided.
1. Yes, it's true that DISQUS is not a forum. But regardless of whether DISQUS articles are RS, replies and comments made to those articles by readers are not.
2. If you read this information in an article in TV Media Insights, then write up a ref tag citing that article. (I'd say that their contributor Marc Berman, for example, is a good source [20].) However, if you only saw this information in a comment/reply to that article, that's another matter.
3. Douglas Pucci looks like he meets WP:SPS expert criteria.
4. Sources do not have to have up-to-date links to be usable and valid, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Adding a convenience link to DISQUS could be acceptable, but it looks like citing it as the sole reference has led people to believe that it was the sole reference. It sounds like you're saying that's not the case.
It looks like the core question is one of these two things, "Is an article written by known expert Douglas Pucci acceptable as a source even after that article is no longer available online?" I say yes it is. However, "Is a reply or comment written by known expert Douglas Pucci a reliable source?" is a much grayer area, possibly worth an RfC. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
At this point I'd welcome an RfC, as Rswallis10 seems more interested in simply removing the tags in the article,[21] rather than determining whether the comments are acceptable. --AussieLegend () 20:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: When we are going for a consensus, isn't the protocal to return the page to the way it was BEFORE the problem started?? I think yes. You added the maintenance tags which caused this discussion, so if we are going to have an RfC, then we should return the page to the way it was before correct? Rswallis10 (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
If we were talking about content changes this might apply, but we're talking about verifiability and the appropriateness of sources. The addition of maintenance tags to highlight problems in an article is appropriate. You should be aware of this from your attempts to remove maintenance tags from List of Better Call Saul episodes, and Geraldo Perez had to revert your persistent removal of tags there.[22][23] --AussieLegend () 19:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: first of all, I appreciate you being reasonable about this, and trying to have a discussion. Second, to answer your question, YES I did originally see this information in a comment/reply on the article. Douglas Pucci said that he was going to stop adding L+7 tables in his articles. but we were welcome to request them in the comments, and he would answer them. There are many cases on Wikipedia where ratings are found in the comments section of a webpage. Most notably, in Summer 2009, TVBTN only provided the Top 20 shows in their articles, but the authors of the site (Robert Seidman and Bill Gorman) responded to requests in the comments. I think that as long as the information is coming from a reliable source (which we agree that Douglas Pucci is), the medium through which the information is coming from becomes irrelevant. Why is a number provided by Mr. Pucci on his website more reliable than that same number provided as a comment, or as a tweet? I think common sense would tell us that all 3 are reliable because it is essentially the same source (Mr. Pucci). The link to DISQUS is a convenience link as you said; you click the link, and it takes you right to where the rating is. However, if AussieLegend is as vehemently against DISQUS as he says he is, then I'll be perfectly fine linking it to the page that doesnt exist anymore (but really what would be the point of that?). I really think logic needs to prevail here, but based on my previous run-ins with AussieLegend, it will be his way or the highway. Rswallis10 (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't mean linking to the deadlink article. I mean writing out the ref for that article. Name the author and the title and the publisher and the date and all that. Use the "quote" option. Leave a hidden note explaining that SonoftheBronx is established expert Douglas Pucci. Make it very clear that the information did not come DISQUS initially and the link is only provided for convenience. The rules do not require you to use the long-form citation format every time, but if you had done so, it might have been obvious to AussieLegend and others that this was a reliable (or at least arguably reliable) source. Frankly, if I clicked the link and saw nothing but a comment by "SonoftheBronx," I'd delete it too.
As to whether the information should go out or stay in while the RfC is in progress, I could see this going either way. With the season not set to restart for a while yet, it's not heavily time-sensitive but neither do the facts seem to be in doubt. Either one of you could be gracious and defer to the other's preferences for the week or so that it would take to resolve this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: If you look at the references on the article that I wrote, all of them actually site the original article. The author says Douglas Pucci, the publisher says TV Media Insights, and I even included the date of the original article publication, rather than the date of the comment. The URL is to the disqus comment page, but everything else in the references relates to the original article itself. I personally don't like the way the table looks right now with the maintenance tags (and any readers who visit the page will not like them either), but AussieLegend needs to get his way, so I will allow them to stay until the RfC is done. Thank you for your input. Rswallis10 (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
So you did. I had your diff confused with someone else's. Sorry about that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
"SonoftheBronx has been providing Nielsen ratings since 2011, and has never been called into question once" - That's not correct. SonoftheBronx has been discussed many times here.[24][25] It is also listed at WP:TVFAQ#No consensus on reliability as not having achieved consensus as to reliability. Relevant discussions are here, here, here and here. The Son of the Bronx website was apparently closed because of copyright violations, which itself raises alarm bells.[26] Apparently he was posting raw Nielsen data, which other sites also have access to.
"that site was deleted, and therefore all of the content can no longer be found on the active web." - Let's get some perspective here. The episodes being cited are from October and November 2015 over a 7 week period. That's only 2-4 months ago and the citations were added at that time, with the site apparently dead as soon as episodes aired. It's not like we're talking ratings for a program that aired in the 1970s. Ratings are clearly available on other sites. The figures for episode 9, which aired in December 2015, are cited to Tv By the Numbers. That being the case, there is no reason that the comments section of a dead site should be used just because it's the preference of a single editor.
"Bones is a show that doesn't always make the TVBTN Live+7 Top 25 lists, so when it doesnt, I use the data from Douglas Pucci to fill in the chart." - If Bones doesn't always make the lists then do we really gain anything by having this information? For quite some time now, ratings tables have been problematic. Unnecessary pretty colours, multiple MOS violations (MOS:ACCESS/MOS:DTT, MOS:HASH, MOS:CAPS, MOS:BOLD are common problems), redundant HTML code, overcomplicated code and ridiculous formatting are just a few of the issues. For that reason, {{Television episode ratings}} was created to standardise ratings tables, and the information being added to the article exceeds what {{Television episode ratings}} includes. Ratings have been discussed on numerous occasions, including when we added a section on series overview tables to the MOS (see this discussion).
The citations added by Rswallis10 are, at the very best, confusing. They cite Douglas Pucci as the author, but he isn't mentioned anywhere in the source. They cite "TV Media Insights" in the |work= field, but the citations link to disqus, which is just forum type posts. Any reader without intricate knowledge is only going to see these as discussion forum posts, especially when the url includes the word "discussion". Even assuming that somebody can work out that the author is SonOfTheBronx, looking at the SonOfTheBronx disqus page provides no indication that Douglas Pucci = SonOfTheBronx. Following a link to "Programming Insider" from that page sends you to, which is clearly a discussion forum on disqus. Despite protestations to the contrary, these are all forums meant for discussions. "Disqus" is not a misspelling of "discus", it's a play on "discuss". The homepage includes the explanations "Great discussions are happening here" and "Disqus offers publishers the best tools in the universe to power discussions". Let's get rid of this silly notion that these "comments" sections are not discussion forums, when they clearly are. --AussieLegend () 04:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: "Let's get rid of this silly notion that these "comments" sections are not discussion forums, when they clearly are." <- Pardon my French, but that's bulls**t. Please pick any "discussion" from a Programming Insider or TV Media Insights page and find me an actual discussion. Sure, there are some sites that use DISQUS for discussions, but that is NOT the purpose of them on by these 2 sites. The DISQUS is a COMMENT SECTION, not a FORUM. Are things discussed in the comment section? Sure they are, that's the point of them, but IT IS NOT A FORUM. There is no grandiose topic that everything is talking about or adding advice about, it is simply a place for people to request Nielsen data from a reliable expert. SonOfTheBronx is NOT a reader, he is the person who writes the articles and has access to Nielsen data that most every people don't have. It's quite a simple fact that NOT EVERYTHING can make it into an article, so for the things that don't make the article, they are requested in the COMMENTS. In this case, DISQUS does NOT serve as a discussion forum, but rather an extension of he article itself and therefore reliable. @Darkfrog24: do you agree with that? Rswallis10 (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
If somebody posts something and somebody replies to it, as happens in the "comments" section, that's a discussion. It doesn't matter whether you call it a "comments" section, it's still a discussion forum. Regardless, these are exactly the sort of comments that WP:SPS is aimed at when it says "Internet forum posts". --AussieLegend () 18:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: I actually don't think that WP:SPS applies here at all. Simple fact: SonOfTheBronx writes the articles on which is published by Marc Berman (a known Television expert). While may be a self published source, Programming Insider obviously isn't, and that's what we're currently discussing. Rswallis10 (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:SPS applies everywhere. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core policy and can't be ignored. The citations you included are not on "Programming Insider". They are sourced to with no verifiable evidence that they came from anywhere else. The comments are allegedly from SonofTheBronx, not Marc Berman, and there is no consensus as to SonofTheBronx's acceptability as a source, as has already been discussed. --AussieLegend () 19:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I checked the links to old RSN discussions and they do not seem conclusive. The WikiProject Television archive similarly closed with no consensus either way. That doesn't mean that SotB is reliable but it doesn't mean he isn't either. I'd say an RfC specifically about Son of the Bronx might be appropriate.
As for whether there's any value in these ratings figures, yes, I'd say that if the other figures are notable then these are too. It's acceptable for a chart to be lopsided but it's best for it not to be. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The outcome of the previous discussions is why SoTB is listed in the "No consensus on reliability" section of WP:TVFAQ. However, the fact that SoTB website was closed because of copyright concerns is something we should be at least a little bit concerned about. Are the SoTB posts LINKVIOs? I don't know, and we do still use ratings figures from SoTB. I agree regarding the RfC. My question regarding the value of the ratings figures was probably a little bit ambiguous. Perhaps I should have asked, are the figures important enough that we are willing to accept using forum comments as a source, when forum comments are not reliable sources? --AussieLegend () 05:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: @Darkfrog24: What exactly are we trying to do here? How many RfC's do we need? Darkfrog24 has been very good at reading both sides of the story, and coming to the conclusion that we need an RfC on whether or not "comments/reply's from a reliable source are considered reliable" which is pretty much what your problem was origninally. Now, it looks like your problem is with THE WORLD itself. You want an RfC for the reliability of SonOfTheBronx, and one for the importance of a ratings table, etc. Second, It is pretty obvious to me that SonOfTheBronx is a reliable source, and even Darkfrog24 agrees that it's evident. AussieLegend please tell me what makes you so untrustworthy of people? First, you assume that the Twitter account of the Bones people are "fake" even though they are followed by members of the cast (all verified), and the show itself (verified), and now you assume that SonOfTheBronx isn't reliable because his site was shut down? Nielsen did not have his site shut down, it was blogger. He said that the pages were removed "Despite numerous references to sources of ratings information (included in every single blog post)," so I don't think that bogus copyright infringement should still not make SonOfTheBronx a relible source. Here is SonOfTheBronx's thoughts on this nonsense: [27] its a good read. Third, yes we could leave most of the ratings table blank, BUT WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT OF THAT? If we have a reliable source for the information (SOTB), then WHY WOULD WE LEAVE IT BLANK? That thinking just doesn't make any sense to me at all. Common sense REALLY, REALLY, REALLY needs to prevail here, and I truly hope that it does. There is only so much "policy quoting" that you can do (Seems to Aussie's favorite thing) before we just need to step back and look at this logically. Rswallis10 (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

A few things: 1) Neither I nor anyone else at this noticeboard gets to decide this issue. It's not binding arbitration. We're just adding our voices because at least one of you thought more voices were needed. 2) My own take is that if SonoftheBronx has been concretely identified as Douglas Pucci, and if Pucci is reliable then comments that he leaves in response to readers in articles that he wrote can sometimes be used if they're straightforward. This seems to be one of those times. 3) The issue is whether Pucci is reliable. So the question is this: Did those previous RfCs deal with Pucci specifically? Was there anything wrong or missing?

The other question: Is there anywhere else we could get this information that would not involve all this controversy? I think that discussing sources on RSN is a perfectly valid way to spend one's time and energy—if it doesn't produce results for this content then everyone involved gets more familiar with the policies for next time—but would reinvesting any of it in further searching be more helpful?

Hang on... Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Accuracy of SonoftheBronx figures[edit]

Sorry. I should have thought of this days ago. I searched for Bones ratings and found this and then I found this by searching for "Bones" and "6.197" These sources do not meet our expert criteria, but the information that they contain contradicts what we see in the DISQUS comment. Searches for "Bones" and "8.618" to corroborate SonoftheBronx's figures produced only forums. Regardless of whether Pucci is reliable in general, and even experts can make mistakes, the accuracy of this specific content is now in question. Determining whether or not he has expert status is not just a formality. I'd say "don't use." Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: Hi, can I clarify a couple things? The issue on the Bones article is with DVR ratings table, not the Live+SD ratings that appear in the episode table. The 6.197 refers to the number of L+SD (people who watched it on the night it aired), and that number can be found on other reliable sources including TV Media Insights (SonOfTheBronx himself reported it) [28], ShowBuzzDaily [29], and even TVBTN (but it was rounded) [30]. No one is questioning the validity of the 6.197 figure, as that can be found in many places, the thing being questioned is the number of people who watched the show on their DVR's (which is referred to as Live +7 ratings). The show had 2.42M DVR viewers in its first week (for a total of 8.62M, because 6.20M (Live) + 2.42M (DVR) = 8.62M) according to SonOfTheBronx here: [31]. As you can see from the TVBTN L+7 chart from that week [32], Bones is nowhere to be found (which is why it was requested).
Now that I hope I've shown that Douglas Pucci is reliable, let me bring up the TV Series Finale issue. Ironically, TV Series Finale also requests data from SonOfTheBronx, as you can see in the following links: [33], [34], [35], [36], and here [37]; there's more, but I think that more than proves my point. Rswallis10 (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay, so the figures differ because they're not talking about the same thing. Got it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24:. One more thing: I found 2 TVBTN articles that actually have 'Bones' in it. I'm going to link the TVBTN article, and the SonOfTheBronx reply, so you can do a side-by-side comparison of the data. You will see that both sources say the exact same thing. My point is that if SOTB's data matches the TVBTN data (for the 2 weeks that I have it), can't we use common sense to say that all of the SonOfTheBronx data is correct as well (even if it isn't on TVBTN for that week)???
Example 1. October 29 Episode: TVBTN [38]. SonOfTheBronx [39]
Example 2. December 10 Episode: TVBTN [40], SonOfTheBronx [41]
My thought is that, even though TVBTN doesn't have all of the Bones data, if the data it has DOES MATCH the data SonOfTheBronx provided for those 2 days, isn't logical to conclude that the rest of the data SOTB provided is also correct? Rswallis10 (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
My concerns about accuracy have been assuaged. I can see why the previous discussion couldn't form consensus on this source. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: So do you believe that these DISQUS comments are okay to use as citations on the page? That's pretty much what this whole discussion boils down to. Also, when you say "I can see why the previous discussion couldn't form consensus on this source" what exactly do you mean? Like in regards to the complexity of the issue, or something else? Again, I thank you for taking an active role in this discussion. Rswallis10 (talk) 03:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I think you need more than I can do for you. AussieLegend has agreed to do an RfC. If you guys have trouble agreeing on a neutral wording, I can review a draft. My belief is that the issue is whether Pucci is a reliable expert source per WP:SPS, not whether comments he makes in the articles he writes should be rejected because they are comments; they should not. However, if that is in dispute, it should also be addressed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: I know what an RfC is; however, I have never done one before. I'm ready to do one whenever @AussieLegend: wants to, but where is the proper place to put it, and how do we get more editors involved? I know you've reached your limit on what more you can do here, but some guidance on this process would be greatly appreciated. And yes, I think both of these issues need to be addressed in the RfC because AussieLegend seems have a problem with both aspects. Rswallis10 (talk) 03:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The RfC should be run at the Bones season 11 talk page. It should be phrased clearly and neutrally. The instructions are at WP:RFC. You are allowed to tell people that the RfC is in progress and to encourage them to participate. The instructions are at WP:CANVASS. A notice should probably be placed on Wikiproject: Television. The trick to a successful RfC is to phrase the issue at hand very clearly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Is Alex Massie in the Spectator a reliable source for a known and unchallenged legal distinction?[edit]

User:Bad Dryer excised an important clarification of statutory rape in a footnote to the lead of Ezra Nawi here. The given reason was that the source was a blog.’rmv blog. This is a BLP’

The source is:

Alex Massie The Last of Mr Norris, The Spectator.

'Most of the coverage of the case that I’ve seen has hyped the "rape" aspect of the matter and downplayed the "statutory" part. And with good reason since, oft-forgotten in the subsequent brouhaha, this was, and was accepted as such by the Israeli court, an episode of consensual sex. People may still find this an unsavoury episode but the Israeli court plainly accepted that though in a technical sense a crime had been committed there was no malice involved and no real victim. If that had not been the case one would have expected Nawi to spend more than just a month in prison. But that’s what happened.'

I can’t see why a clarification from a leading journalist, with a mainstream curriculum, writing in a highly respected weekly, on the distinction between rape and statutory rape, infringes WP:BLP. Indeed I put it in because I think introducing, as this and several other editors have, sources with headlines screaming ‘rapist’ (which he most definitely was not) was a BLP violation. A regular page hosted by a major journal for a noted journalist is not what we exclude as a blog (personal page run by anyone).

The editor in other words has no problem introducing Irish tabloid sources re a living person in Israel that blur a legal distinction, but objects to a major mainstream source written by an authoritative journalist which clarifies the distinction.

Comments from experts on both WP:BLP and WP:RS are needed.Nishidani (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The blog is hosted by a conservative newspaper, written by a professional journalist, and in this case contains no defamatory or controversial information about Nawi. Above all BLP is meant to protect subjects against libel and defamation, obviously not things this source is being used for. -Darouet (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The is a serious misreading of the WP:BLP policy, which states " Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed " Bad Dryer (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
As an uninvolved party, I see merit in both arguments, and I would like to pose a question, upon which the relevant policy (quoted by Bad Dryer) hinges. Is the assertion in that footnote contentious? Specifically, is there a real debate over whether he received such a lenient sentence because the sex was consensual? If not, then I think the credentials of the author serve to establish it as an RS. If it is, then it should be removed. I wish I could say this brings the discussion down to a matter of verifying a simple fact, but that's only really the case if one can find the court documents and verify the judge's rationale in sentencing. Nonetheless, I hope this helps. Feel free to ignore me if it doesn't. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The relevant policy is not quoted by Bad Dryer, (since indeffed). There is nothing 'contentious' about a living person in citing a verbal clarification on the term used to describe his crime/offense.Nishidani (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
The court ruled that the relationship was 'consensual' per several sources. The defendant, while owning up to a grave flaw, went on the record as saying he thought the boy was one year older, 16, when such relationships are permitted by the law. Nishidani (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, Nawi admitted he knew the boy's age [42]. Also, please read the source closely, it's obvious the author is speculating. This is a blog. It's not his area of expertise. He's speculating. This should not be used in a BLP. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually he said that, and elsewhere said the opposite, stating he did not know the boy was under the legal age.
Agree with No More Mr Nice Guy. This is (a) writing about Norris, not about Nawi; (b) apparently a blog (though it is hosted on the site of a magazine, which often makes that under the magazine's control); (c) a highly controversial matter about a living person (even if you argue it couldn't hurt Nawi, it certainly could hurt the boy he statutorily raped); (d) as NMMNG notes, speculation, and interpretation of the court's ruling, that the journalist seems to be throwing out off-handedly, without going in depth. Possibly one of these points would be OK, but not all four. This is not a statement about whether Nawi grew up in city A or city B, or the color of his hair or eyes, this is a statement about his moral guilt in the statutory rape of a 15 year old boy. This is clearly a very big deal, and very much in the area of WP:BLP; we want to get this one right. --GRuban (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Read the article (a) Massie was writing about the Norris-Nawi affair in Ireland, dealing with both (b)'"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control.' See also Wikipedia:Verifiability#Newspaper and magazine blogs; (c) the subject of the article is Nawi, and failure to clarify the difference between rape and statutory rape potentially harms him; the boy is 40, and his identity is unknown; (d)The passage is a comment on bias in newspaper coverage, above all, bias against both Norris and Nawi, and WP:BLP strongly insists we be careful of precisely these issues. Many Irish headlines screamed 'rape', which is one thing, and left out or consigned to small print the fact that it was statutory rape, and, per other sources, deemed by the court to be 'consensual'. You say Massie is dealing with 'moral guilt'. NMMGG in asserting: I try 'to justify a 45 year old having sex with a 15 year old, NAMBLA does indeed come to mind,' is attributing to me a kind of 'moral guilt'. You don't find, I suppose, that problematical, while you think his editing out material that clarifies a legal distinction between rape and statutory rape problematical.Nishidani (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
...this is a statement about his moral guilt...If there are any statements about 'moral guilt' in that article, they need to be removed right now. Commenting on an individual's morality is not WP's purview, and is a blatant violation of WP:BLP. It may also be Defamation. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
On the talk page and at AN/1 both Nawi and my morality are questioned, mine because I tried to introduce legal complexities which are present in the case, and ignored by much of the tabloid press shouting at Nawi and Norris.Nishidani (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
It would be useful to understand the issue of what exactly the source is being sought to be used for. If it is simply a question of clarifying that the incident was statutory rape, that is fine. From what I understand of Brad Dyer's argument on the talkpage, they stated that the other sources make clear that it was statutory rape and not rape, so this source is not needed, which seems a reasonable position to me. Kingsindian   13:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
He said that, but was incorrect. He introduced this source, which states, unusually, in the headline and then in the summary that Nawi is a 'rapist'. Lower down in the body of the article, we have,

The letters to the Israeli court after Mr Nawi’s conviction for statutory rape in 1997, do not mention that the pair were former lovers.

(a) there is no clarification, but rather a use of 'statutory rape' as a synonym for the bolded header that he is a 'rapist'. In law, as in BLP articles, making the distinction, not known off-hand to many readers, clear, seems obligatory (I should add that the same source falsifies things by saying Norris did not mention to the Israeli court that they were lovers. The letter at several points makes their relationship, between two known homosexuals, with Norris openly declaring his gayness, and their reciprocal stays with each other over 15 years, obvious. The source is malicious and hostile). Having added this partisan source, with clearly inexact and erroneous content, he then
removed Massie and
argued that I made a

false claim that "The Irish Independent articles fail consistently to distinguish rape from statutory rape." - the article clearly describes "Mr Nawi’s conviction for statutory rape in 1997"

The II makes no such distinction. It mixes the terms which Massie, a journalist with strong international credentials, not a provincial, distinguishes.Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
(One should add that all reportage on this aspect of Nawi's life is deeply contaminated by understatement or exaggeration, and the only source we have indicates how far more complex the whole issue was is unusable (a primary source). Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Brad Dyer has been indeffed, so not much point in hashing out past stuff. Looking at the lead, I am not sure what exactly is the issue under consideration. The lead already states that it was statutory rape and that the sex was consensual, so I am unsure of what Massie is sought to be used for. As to the point about reportage, that is true, but unfortunately we are limited by the sources, so we can't really do much about it. Kingsindian   15:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The major point is not the lead at all. The query is general: I don't think that Alex Massie's credentials as a topline journalist are in doubt. There is absolutely no doubt that The Spectator is a top quality source with editorial oversight. The struggle to remove Massie (I intend to rewrite the whole Norris-Nawi section) is pinioned on this, to me, stretched objection to the fact that the noted journalist, on a highly notable magazine, published his piece in the section which is for his pieces only, defined explicitly as a 'blog'. That is what is consistently objected to, as if Wikipedia automatically excluded any 'blog' (’rmv blog. This is a BLP’)) It doesn't, as repeated clarifications on this board have shown.
Massie's point more generally is a judgement on how newspapers reported the Nawi-Norris Presidential story. I would appreciate experts therefore clarifying whether Massie, writing on his page on The Spectator, can be used for the Nawi article.Nishidani (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, it comes under WP:NEWSBLOG. Massie is Scotland editor for the Spectator. It should be treated as an opinion piece or column published in a newspaper and can be used with caution. News coverage of these kind of issues are often sensationalist and inaccurate, and a wide variety of sources should be used. Kingsindian   17:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

RT Watch Tumblr blog[edit]

I recently added the following to RT (TV network) (refs converted):

For much of 2015, graduate students at Columbia School of Journalism took part in the RT Watch project, monitoring RT's (US) output. Casey Michel, who worked on the project, wrote "RT ignores the inherent traits of journalism—checking sources, relaying facts, attempting honest reportage" and "you’ll find 'experts' lacking in expertise, conspiracy theories without backing, and, from time to time, outright fabrication for the sake of pushing a pro-Kremlin line".[43][44] The results were compiled in a Tumblr blog.[45]

I want a link to the Tumblr blog in there, but as has already happened, some editors are likely to remove it with the "Tumblr isn't RS" argument. While I'm pretty sure it is acceptable as is, I'm interested ideas to make it less of a point of conflict. Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd say Tumblr is at least as reliable as Twitter, so the question is whether this falls under WP:TWITTER or WP:BLOG. If this is the organization's official Tumblr blog and there is no reason to doubt its authenticity, then it is reliable for information about RT Watch, as in "On May 2, RT Watch announced a plan" but not "the report was inaccurate in five places." The gray area is whether it is reliable for quoting RT Watch's opinion about RT (which is a third party).
However, the hardcore facts here seem to be supported by other sources. It looks like you just want the readers to have access to the raw material. Would an external link to the Tumblr entry do the job? Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response. You're correct that I primarily want to give access to the material, I realized to use it as source I'd have to be careful, and went for the briefest option I could think of. Now I don't think that experienced users will have a problem with it, but it's somewhere that certain editors will look for any issue to remove. On that thought, isn't there a rule about no external links in the prose? The Politico source links to the blog, and I considered a one citing the other arrangement? But as I type I'm thinking that is element isn't really an RSN issue so I understand if you have other stuff to do. Cheers Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I meant an external link in the external links section. There are already two similar links there. Is there a reason why putting this information in the running text would improve the reader experience?
Other stuff? I wish. Long story. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
My primary concern was making the blog as easy to find as possible. My confidence that it will stick as is, has increased a little since I opened this post, so I think I'll see how it goes and keep the external link option as a plan b. Thanks for your help. Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

ATF quote regarding Gun show loophole[edit]

  • Source in question; [46] #3
  • Text/Reference in question; "The term refers to the viewpoint that there is an inadequacy in federal law, under which "[a]ny person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the State where he resides as long as he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms".

This cite, while relevant, doesn't speak directly to the article's subject, let alone in the context that this reference suggests, within the lead of the article. I'm referring to WP:SYNTH and WP:Original Research, here. While I have tried to improve it without removing it, I am now being told it must be used as a direct quote. Given that this source doesn't even mention the subject in this citation, I question the "exact" context and weight it is given in the Lead Section on GSL. Darknipples (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC) What do you think, Zwerg Nase? - Darknipples (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not see any argument here that the source is unreliable. Certainly, the ATF is a reliable source regarding US firearm laws and regulations. Whether or how best to use this quote seems to be a matter of editorial judgment and consensus, to be hashed out on the article's talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Cullen328, my question is whether this cite in particular is reliable in the context it is being used for. The original quote being used from this cite doesn't reference or mention GSL. How is it "reliable" in this context, let alone enough to be used as an exact quote? For example, the quote's use of the word "he" implies that it only refers to a specific gender. FYI this has been discussed on the TP. There was little to no participation, and no consensus was reached. Darknipples (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, keep in mind we are talking about a "Top Ten FAQ". Is this really Lead-worthy? Darknipples (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Like any other government web site, the ATF site is a primary source, not an RS. No peer review, just an administrative opinion, and a lawyer's (possibly politically driven) opinion, at that. It's use has both WP:OR and WP:RS problems. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The quote also makes no mention of background checks, which is a core aspect concerning the article's subject. Darknipples (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The source is from That's generally reliable. But it sounds like your core question is not "Is this page reliable?" but "Does it really support the text that it is cited to support?" I took a quick and dirty look, and the word "loophole" does not appear in this source. Since the sentence in question is meant to define the term "gun show loophole," I would say that this source does not support that specific sentence, though it may be useful elsewhere in the article. This isn't exactly an RS issue. The guys at WP:ORN might be able to tell you more.
Regarding the generic he ("state where he resides"), WP:MoS revisited that issue last year. See WP:S/HE The consensus was that Wikipedia articles may retain the generic he in direct quotes but should avoid it in Wikipedia's own voice. This is a direct quote, so the generic he is not against the rules. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • If you want to get this source declared unreliable so you can assert this in the content dispute, then I have bad news for you: that's not likely to happen. This question is not about the reliability of the source, it's about where it should fit in the article and whether it is appropriate for the definition of the gun show loophole. And that's not going to get solved here, so try WP:3O and other dispute resolution methods. Guy (Help!) 17:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    • The source is not "unreliable" -- it is a primary source. We don't quote IRS publications, US Post Office policies, Copyright publications, or any other primary source. In this case, the ATF is stating a policy interpretation of a statute, and the interpretation is some resolution of a disputed or ambiguous element of the law. Such interpretations are often driven by the politics of the moment -- administrative decisions about what to enforce and why. We don't use these primary sources to support the major premise of an article. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I love the fact that you declare it to be similarly primary and an interpretation (i.e. secondary). Guy (Help!) 11:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Verifiable sources[edit]

Hi, I am new to this whole thing and I wanted to do a page about the first donut shop in my hometown. I want to vote against the policy of having verifiable information from other source. My hometown heritage guild does not have info on the donut shop and I am working with them to build a history. The donut shop was started by my grandparents in 1962 and is still there as a donut shop but has been run by various people since my grandparents sold it in the mid 70's. How can I make a page for the donut shop? This is a staple of generations of people from Livermore Ca. It is even used for the facebook page,...You know you're from Livermore if....

I would appreciate any advice and help anyone is willing to give.. Thanks, Leslie≈≈≈≈

I'm not going to lie; you're probably not going to get a Wikipedia article on a local donut shop. This is less of an issue of reliable sources and more of WP:NOTABILITY. Click that link to get the page for how to tell if something is important enough to have its own article on Wikipedia.
However, maybe the shop is notable. Here's how you prove it: Has this donut shop ever been mentioned in...
  • ...a local newspaper?
  • ...any magazine?
  • ...any book?
  • ...a food or restaurant website, even if it's just a review?
  • ...your town's municipal website?
  • ...your heritage guild's newsletter or other publication (if any)?
  • And is it officially classified as a landmark by any organization?
Any of these might be RS.
I notice that there is a Wikipedia article for your town, Livermore, California. One way to make an article is, instead of starting it from a stub, create a sub-section of an existing article and then expand that sub-section until it's big enough to be its own article. I notice that Livermore has a section on local landmarks. Is this donut shop officially classified as a local landmark? I notice that Livermore has a section on industry. You could create a subsection on notable local businesses and include the donut shop. That way you could add information a little at a time, as you find each source, and other editors who work on the Livermore article would probably help you filter it (that means delete anything that doesn't belong there).
If that doesn't work, make the shop notable. Continue your work with the local heritage guild. Write your own article about the donut shop and try to get it published in a paper or magazine. Make your own website about it or write your own book. Then that might become the reliable source you'd need for a Wikipedia article. Good luck! Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
EDIT: So you're saying that Livermore, CA's official Facebook page has a picture of this donut shop? Facebook isn't usually RS. You couldn't write this article with that as your only source, but it is a good sign. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
This would be at least as much an issue of notability as sourcing. Bluntly put, Wikipedia is not going to have articles on the first donut shop in every town across the world. The shop needs to have some claim to fame that was noteworthy enough to be broadly commented upon. Did newspapers report hours-long traffic jams at the opening because people flocked to the first donut shop that opened in that part of the state? Was it the site of the famed "Donut Debate" (along the lines of the Kitchen Debate) that influenced international politics? That's the sort of thing you need to look for. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I would recommend that if you find it notable, add a mention of it on the town's article. It may be challenged for notability if someone out there is opposed to it being there for some reason, and then you'd need to find a source to keep it there. According to WP:RS, Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process. and The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. So, if there is a claim in an article that is not controversial and not stating anything harmful to any living or recently deceased person, then it's allowable according to the policy. People often think that sourcing is required for everything on Wikipedia but that's not actually the case. It's a process of challenge. If you are challenged on the notability then it can be removed. You also must be careful of conflict of interest. However, articles about towns often get a lot of material that is unsourced, and this is ok. It seems to be a culture of Wikipedia. There is the danger of too much "cruft" and clutter on hometown articles, but there's also the benefit of local knowledge by actual people. I like how it works. I do pare back my own hometown's page sometimes, a bit, but i certainly do not remove all unsourced statements -- that would be horribly unfriendly and counterproductive for the readers of Wikipedia, as well as mean to all the editors who added their own knowledge. SageRad (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Slight procedural distinction, SageRad. It's not strictly a matter of challenge. If the Wikieditor believes that the content is likely to be challenged, then he or she is required to add a source even if no one has actually challenged it yet. That's highly subjective and strictly on the honor system, though, and I wouldn't say it's possible (or wise) to enforce it. Also, Leslie here is a noob and people are likely to understand if she doesn't get all our ten million rules right away. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[edit]

Hi, I added some information to a website and provided a source to I was told do not re-add the references since it was unreliable and if I disagree to make my case here. all the entries were either biographies of long deceased Roman Catholic bishops or listings of bishops on the diocese/archdiocese wikipage. This website has been used for years on English Wikipedia and has not been questioned by its contributors; and there are literally 1000s of Wikipedia articles using the reference. It is also heavily used by Wikipedia in other languages.

The reason for the removal is non-reliable source which I disagree with as there is ample support on the internet that it is reliable. It is also self-published but as I read it " Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." So I went out to get a variety of sources that cite the website which I would include sufficient third party publications. Thanks for your consideration. is recommended by several archdioceses and archdioceses and referenced by Vatican Radio

Several prominent Catholic church watchers and journalists have used as a reference including:

Various libraries and similar organizations list as a reference

Mainstream newspapers cite as a resource

Catholic newspapers list as a reference

Numerous books cite in their bibliography

  • [52] The Next Pope By Anura Guruge
  • [53] The Virgin Mary and Catholic Identities in Chinese History By Jeremy Clarke
  • [54] Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices : Six Volumes by J. Gordon Melton and Martin Baumann
  • [55] Two Texts By Edward Everett Hale by Edward Everett Hale, Hsuan L. Hsu, Susan Kalter
  • [56] Uncertain Honor: Modern Motherhood in an African Crisis By Jennifer Johnson-Hanks
  • [57] Religion and Post-Conflict Statebuilding: Roman Catholic and Sunni Islamic Perspectives (Palgrave Studies in Compromise) Mar 4, 2015 by Denis Dragovi
  • [58] Imagining the Creole City : The Rise of Literary Culture in Nineteenth-Century New Orleans by Rien Fertel
  • [59] Church Confronts Modernity: Catholicism since 1950 in the United States, Ireland, and Quebec / Edition 1 - by Leslie Woodcock Tentler
  • [60] The Encyclopedia of Caribbean Religions: Volume 1: A-L; Volume 2: M-Z by Patrick Taylor
  • [61] Charity and the Great Hunger in Ireland: The Kindness of Strangers by Christine Kinealy
  • [62] Democracy, Culture, Catholicism: Voices from Four Continents edited by Michael Schuck, John Crowley-Buck
  • [63] Mission, Communion and Relationship: A Roman Catholic Response to the Crisis of Male Youths in Africa Mission, Communion and Relationship: A Roman Catholic Response to the Crisis of Male Youths in Africa by Peter Addai-Mensah
  • PLOS
  • [64] Diplomatic Missions of the Holy See in Hungary and East-Central Europe after theSecond World War by Margit BALOGH
  • [66] Light a Candle. Encounters and Friendship with China. Festschrift in Honour of Angelo S. Lazzarotto P.I.M.E. Edited by Roman MALEK and Gianni CRIVELLER. (Collectanea Serica). Sankt Augustin, Institut Monumenta Serica; Nettetal, Steyler Verlag, 2010. viii+564 pp.
  • [67] To Whom Does Christianity Belong?: Critical Issues in World Christianity By Dyron B. Daughrity
  • [68] The Changing World Religion Map: Sacred Places, Identities, Practices and Politics Feb 3, 2015 by Stanley D. Brunn
  • [69] Eine Marienerscheinung in Zeiten der Diktatur: der Konflikt um Peñablanca By Oliver Grasmück

Numerous Catholic churches and schools cite as a resource

  • [70] Archdiocese of Washington uses it as a resource for student assignments
  • [71] Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Westminister: "Obtaining Proof of Membership of the Catholic Church – Guidance for Schools"
  • [72] RC Church of Christ the King recommended websites
  • [73] Catholic Family News: "Dangerous Synod Proposal: New Language” for Natural Law" by John Vennari
  • [74] St Brendan the Navigator Parish recommended websites
  • [75] St Mary of the Desert Catholic Church recommended websites
  • Catholic Parish of St Gregory the Great recommended websites
  • [76] St Paul the Apostle Catholic Church recommended websites
  • [77] Our Lady of Mercy Church recommended websites
  • [78] St Pascal Church recommended websites
  • [79] St Paul Catholic Church recommended websites
  • [80] St Thomas Benedictine Abbey Kappadu recommended websites
  • [81] Sacred hearts of Jesus and Mary recommended websites
  • [82] Carmelites of Mary Immaculate recommended websites
  • [83] Holy Family Parish in Poland Ohio recommended websites
  • [84] St Mary of the Immaculate Conception Greenville recommended websites
  • [85] Blessed Sacrament Church of Buffalo recommended websites
  • [86] St Alphonsa Catholic Church recommended websites
  • [87] St Charles Borromeo Parish and School recommended websites
  • [88] Good Shepherd Parish recommended websites
  • [89] Claretian Missionaires Sri Lanka recommended websites
  • [90] Catholic Parish of Ivanhoe recommended websites
  • [91] The Catholic Community of Our Lady of Fatima recommended websites
  • [92] RC Church of Christ the King
  • [93] St Pius Parish bulletin
  • [94] St Francis Cathedral bulletin
  • [95] St Christopher Church recommended websites
  • [96] St Mary's Parish - Navan Ireland recommended websites
  • [97] Saint John Neuman Sunbury recommended websites
  • [98] Diocese of Plymouth: "Churches in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Plymouth An Architectural and Historical Review"
  • [99] St Joseph de Clairval Abbey in Flavigny Links
  • [100] St Hugh of Lincoln references it in a biography
  • [101] St William Catholic Church spiritual links
The website is actually named I have changed the topic thread to match. The reasons it is not acceptable on Wikipedia, as I have told Patapsco913, are manifold: (1) it is WP:USERG user-generated content. (2) it is a WP:SPS run by one guy, Dcheney (talk · contribs), with no "editorial oversight or reputation for fact-checking." (3) it has been proven inaccurate on many occasions, as it puts bishops in their sees after appointment rather than upon installation, in violation of Canon Law procedure. Elizium23 (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Technically, Elizium, that is not a violation of canon law. Instead, it is a difference between appointment and possession, which is rightly illustrated on the website. The Holy See website ( announces the appointment of the new bishop, and the diocese announces the date of the ceremonies of canonical possession and installation. This is true from the smallest diocese to the Diocese of Rome.Vlaams243 (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I cannot believe that all these Catholic churches and dioceses would use a webpage that is so horribly unreliable. The Archdiocese of Chicago lists it as one of four references on the page above. If it is seen as a good reference by the Catholic Church about the Catholic Church then we should use it on Wikipedia. It by and large only lists the names and terms of long-deceased bishops, the time line of various dioceses, and Catholic populations in those dioceses. John L. Allen, Jr. and Sandro Magister are top journalists regarding the Catholic church. I would think that they would investigate it before using it as a reference. The rule says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." There seem to be enough reliable third party publications. Anyhow, where has it been proven false in a reliable third party source?Patapsco913 (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't really matter, it fails the RS tests. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." is reliable and has a reputation for fact-checking based on the opinion of 1) the Catholic Church (as evidenced by all Archdiocese, Dioceses, and parishes that recommend it as a reliable source - and Vatican Radio even uses it); 2) the academic community (as evidenced by the numerous books and publications that use it as a reference); 3) the mainstream news community (Washington Post, Boston Globe) who use it as a reference; 4) prominent Catholic commentators (John L. Allen, Jr., Sandro Magister, Rocco Palmo) and canon lawyer (Edward N. Peters) who use it as a reference; and 5) Catholic institutions (Society of St Pius the X), university libraries (Stanford), and Catholic newspapers (The Tablet, National Catholic Reporter) who use it as a reference. So how does it fail?Patapsco913 (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

A source might be incredibly factually accurate, but that doesn't necessarily make it a reliable source for wikipedia. For instance, the WP articles about high-concept physics subjects tend to be extremely accurate and very detailed, but we can't use them as a source for other pages, because it's user generated content. It's a matter of verifiability, not truth. If that website provides its sources, however, you can probably use those. Don't just copy their citations though, check them out and verify them , first. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Patapsco913 (talk · contribs) has been busy making mass-postings to user talk pages to garner discussion on this thread. Patapsco, please limit your postings. Also, the text you have been using is not entirely neutral in tone. Elizium23 (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
There are somewhere between 3,500 and 4,000 wikipages that will be affected by this change - many that have been around for a long time - so I think it prudent that we should have as wide a discussion as possible. It should not be decided by five or six people.Patapsco913 (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not believe it is accurate to describe as unreliable or user-generated content. It is the reporting of facts from other sources, organized in a convenient and hyperlinked manner. Furthermore, if you were to look at the Sources/Bibliography section of the website ([102]), you would notice sources such as the Annuario Pontificio Collection from 1914, 1921, 1924, 1927-1928, 1931, 1933, 1937-1938, 1941, 1949, 1950-1953, and 1955-2015. The Annuario Pontificio is the ultimate source for pages such as this, and cannot be considered unreliable. Vlaams243 (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

So I can start a blogspot site and use the New York Times and Washington Post as sources, that doesn't make my blog a reliable source by Wikipedia's definition. I think that's important to note here that we're not talking about YOUR definition of "reliable" but WIKIPEDIA's definition. Elizium23 (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Catholic-Hierarchy would fit Wikipedia's definition based on Wikipedia's Scholarship, Self-published sources, and Usage by other sources policies. Vlaams243 (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the reliability of the site, since it's just a bunch of lists anyway. It is simple and convenient, as Vlaams says. The same is true for GigaCatholic, which is often used as a source here (and which I actually find more useful than Catholic-Hierarchy). Is it literally unreliable? Are there mistakes in it? If it's accurately reporting the information from its own sources, what does it matter? We could use those sources instead, I suppose, but why? What is a reliable source in this case? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it makes chronic mistakes, as I explained above. It can't be trusted for the time a bishop takes possession of a diocese. Elizium23 (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Right, but is that a mistake introduced by Catholic-Hierarchy, or is the same information in its sources (whatever they may be?) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Even though this discussion is whether or not Catholic Hierarchy is reliable, I would like to report my activites for WikiProject Catholicism articles. Since I joined Wikipedia in April 2014, I have completed assessments on thousands of WikiProject Catholicism articles. Here's what I have been doing:

  • If Catholic Hierarchy is in the References section, I add the Self-published source template.
  • If the CH entry is in the External links section, the article is a Stub, I add the Self-published source template, hoping this may help another editor to find reliable sources elsewhere.
  • If the CH entry is in the External links section, the article is not a Stub, I delete the CH External link line.

* Opinion: From the perspective of a Wikipedia reader, it's my opinion that leaving this Self-published source template in place serves as a cautionary alert that the reference is not held to the same higher standard of a Reliable source. What would be helpful is a BOT that tags articles for every CH Reference with the Self-published source template. Regards,  JoeHebda (talk)  02:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thought - I have read, studied and used the Catholic hierarchy website for many years, and I have no doubt it is a reliable source. In fact, I know the information it contains is reliable because it all comes from the Catholic Statistical yearbook Annuario Pontificio published by the Roman Catholic Church itself. I own several copies of this yearbook for various years, and the data is accurate. The trouble comes from the fact that the Vatican sells the yearbook and as far as I know there is no open source for this data, or even an online, easily accessible version of it for data crunching or easy access. Thus a vacuum is formed and people use this website instead of the yearbook itself, which cost 60$ and is printed in Italian paperback only. I am too close to this to render a definitive opinion about the website, but for this to be a Reliable Source for Wikipedia, we must at the least have strict assurances that all the facts and data are straight from the yearbook the church itself publishes. Otherwise, we must rely on those who have copies of the yearbook for reliable sourcing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to acknowledge that I am the author/owner/whatever of the website in question and I would be happy to answer any questions in that regard. I have no opinion whether or not it should be cited in Wikipedia - that is for others to decide.--Dcheney (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I take the Catholic Hierarchy site to be a "reliable source" under our normal usage of that term. The description of its publishing process doesn't make me shift that opinion. It has been pointed out that it provides reference material, rather than "original research", and from an authoritative source. If, in effect, it is an online version of a print publication that we would accept, this discussion seems overblown. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  • This is a reliable source. It has a reputation for accuracy and attention to detail. Some people seek to apply the term too narrowly. We need to use it broadly so that Wikipedia can reflect the understandings of a large swath of the population not just those of jet set yuppies living in lofts in NYC and avoiding flyover country and distaining the political goals of people in Uganda and Nigeria.

I can make some general observations about Catholic Hierarchy, as well as GCatholic. They both are reliable as long as they are based on reliable sources. Not all their sources are reliable. They are certainly very useful and highly reliable with regard to the recent appointments (I mean recent two centuries or so). They clearly base their data on official sources such as Annuario Pontificio. But deeper in the past, the things go worse. Miranda's website is a source for many data about cardinals in Catholic Hierarchy and GCatholic. Miranda's website, for 20th and 21 century is based mainly on the official reports of the Holy See, the best possible sources. For the centuries 13th to 19th it is based mainly on the nine volumes of Hierarchia Catholica by Eubel, Ritzler and Gauchat, which is generally a good source, but its earliest volumes (13th to 16th century) contain many errors. And for the period before 13th century, Miranda's website is completely unreliable (basing on outdated sources and contradicting modern prosopographies of the cardinals). Since Miranda is a source also for Catholic Hierarchy and GCatholic, the same can be told about them. In conclusion, all three websites are reliable for the most recent centuries, but with every earlier century, they became less and less reliable. CarlosPn (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to agree with this - Giga Catholic seems to be better for older stuff, earlier than (say) the 17th century, but only as good as its sources, like Eubel, which is itself only as good as its sources (Gams, Lequien, whoever else). The Vatican doesn't actually keep lists of bishops of all its dioceses, so they don't really know anything more than we do, using the same sources. There are often academic works which will have more up-to-date lists for medieval bishops, and I suppose the same is true for other eras. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • This seems a far, far more reliable source on most of the articles that it references than anything else we have and discussions over the publishing process are interesting but beside the point. SPS is a sound guideline, but it shouldn't be dogma. I'd prefer that we'd refer to the sources underneath the site, but until then the site should be sufficient. JASpencer (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • One other note of clarification, although the Annuario Pontificio (AP) is a good resource, the lag in its publication means that it is not a good source for recent changes. For example, changes that occurred in 2015 will be included in AP 2016 - which will be published in the next month or two. Other official sources such as Acta Apostolicae Sedis can have an even longer lag time. --Dcheney (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikisource-hosted content - if it's locked per the wikisource protection policy, and otherwise an acceptable source, can we use it?[edit]

There's a disagreement with respect to the usability of source material which is otherwise compliant with WP:RS, WP:NOTABLE, and our other guidelines for usable source material if it's hosted in the wikisource project. While I agree that unlocked wikisource material is like any other wiki, not stable, changeable by any editor, and not acceptable under WP:RS, what about wikisource material which has been locked per the wikisource protection policy?

I'm asking this because a template for citation of wikisource material in wikipedia articles exists, Template: Cite wikisource.

On the "Cite wikisource" template page, under Template Documentation, the template states:

  • "This template is used to cite sources in Wikipedia. It is specifically for works in the sister project Wikisource."

That template also provides the scan parameter, described in the template thus:

  • "scan: Many works hosted on Wikisource are proofread from scans also hosted by the project. This parameter will provide a link to the source scan on which the citation is based, if required. Enter the pagename of the source scan at Wikisource. This pagename should include both the namespace (Index: or Page:) and the filetype (usually .djvu). Example: |scan=Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 20.djvu/127"

I've been referred to WP:UGC, with the following exegesis of the guidelines:

  • "We cannot use any wiki as a citation link in Wikipedia articles, just like we can't use Wikipedia or indeed any MediaWiki source as a citation. The wikisource articles, whatever their original genesis, are publicly editable by anyone; therefore they are not reliable to link to as citations as there is no guarantee they accurately reflect the original at any given time."

However, those guidelines pertain to wikipedia articles "and other wikis."

The wikisource protection policy states, however:

  • " Preservation of integrity and featured texts
The vast majority of documents hosted by Wikisource are not meant to evolve or be edited, since Wikisource collects material that has been published in the past. Wikisource hosts these published documents without corrections (including any typographical errors or historical inaccuracies). Once a page has been fully proofread, no further changes are necessary and the page should be protected.
These pages should contain the template Locked."

It can be argued that this level of protection of a wikisource-hosted document is as secure as other similar sources we regard as usable for wikipedia article citations hosted elsewhere on the World Wide Web.

I'd like to stimulate discussion, preparatory to an RfC, on whether "locked" wikisource-hosted documents (as defined by the policy I just quoted) ought to be considered usable in wikipedia articles. This is a case where wikipedia's own guidelines and its internal documentation aren't consistent. loupgarous (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Even regular wikis have situations where they aren't publicly edited--just link to a specific diff or revision rather than linking to the article itself. Situations where we would want to use a regular wiki in this way are rare, but there's no reason we should prohibit them if they turn up. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Are these sources reliable?[edit]

Hi, can someone please verify if these sources are reliable or not? qubrex and GurgaonScoop are used continuously by a possible WP:COI editor to add negative content over Raheja Developers. Mr RD 05:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The QuBREX source is actually an article from the Hindustan Times. We probably shouldn't link to it because of copyright concerns but the information is prima facie ok. - Sitush (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
BTW, the Hindustan Times has an online presence - we may be able to link directly to their article. - Sitush (talk) 06:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Dear Sitush, we can take the link from Hindustan Times but point is these two references are nothing more than a mere opinionated blog by someone disgruntled from the company. I also found some evidences that the same person who is behind these websites is also contributing to the Raheja Developers page without disclosing his conflict of interest. Mr RD 16:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the Hindustan Times link, I added it in my last edit over the page which was reverted by you. I've also mentioned it on the talk page. Mr RD 16:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

ExxonMobil climate research publication count[edit]

Article: ExxonMobil climate change controversy

Summarization 1[edit]

Content 1[edit]

ExxonMobil researchers have published dozens of academic papers on the effects of fossil fuel emissions and the associated risks to society; ExxonMobil claims more than 50 peer reviewed papers on climate research and policy between 1980 and 2015.

Sources 1[edit]

Summarization 2[edit]

Content 2[edit]

Between 1980 and 2015, Exxon and ExxonMobil researchers and academic collaborators published more than 50 peer reviewed papers on climate research and climate policy.

Sources 2[edit]

Related diff

Attempted resolution at article talk: Talk:ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy#February_2016_OVERCITE_issues

Additional related primary source:


Comment: When sources conflict or may appear to conflict, include the conflict. Secondary sources are preferred to primary. Independent sources are preferred to self-published sources. Respectfully request feedback on alternative sourcing and summarizations. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this an RS issue or a neutral point of view issue? Try this at WP:NPOVN. Regarding reliability, those fifty academic papers are considered primary sources, so we defer to the secondary source assessment of them, especially given the conflict of interest. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. I believe consensus at article talk supports the due weight of some kind of characterization of the magnitude of ExxonMobils' publication count, thanks. I believe this is at least in part a sourcing issue. The second alternative is sourced to ExxonMobil, directly to ExxonMobil's public relations website and indirectly through an e-mail from ExxonMobil excerpted in a secondary source. The first alternative includes The New York Times. The issue is not the content of the pubs as much as which sources are best for characterizing the count in Wikipedia. Comments please? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC) The first alternative provides in-text attribution for possible bias for the portion of the claim sourced to ExxonMobil, while the second alternative states ExxonMobil's claim in Wikipedia voice. Request comments on the alternatives, but also advice on the appropriate venue for broadening community discussion of this issue. Apologies if this is not the best venue. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know why this discussion is here. No one on the article talk page raised a RS concern with regards to any of the sources in question as used. I'm not sure what HughD means by "consensus at the article talk supports the due weight...". All the sources seem reliable for what they are being used for. Springee (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • HughD, please notify the article talk page of this discussion.

Fabian Benko[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabian Benko is claiming that and are neither long enough for GNG and the second is claimed to definitely not be a reliable source. A journalism student who has editorial oversight seems to meed RS. (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Bundeslinga Fanatic, this is a tough one. The main page suggests that this isn't exactly user-generated content. The editorial team selects articles contributed by others. Sam May, the writer of this particular article, is not listed on their staff page.[103] As for the editorial oversight, Wittmann's bio says that he's written for other publications, so he might fit our expert criteria, but it's not clear whether he's a professional journalist or a hobbyist. Bundesliga Fanatic doesn't appear to be cited in other publications (the way, say The Washington Post is).
I'd really like to see further investigation, but if the claim being made is very lightweight (Benko's age, countries he's already visited but NOT assessments of his performance or plans for the future), then it might be good as-is. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Solidarity (Polish trade union)[edit]

disruptive editing – IP repeatedly inserting wild (WP:Fringe) non-WP:RS claims. [104]. What to do? Zezen (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a reliable source issue. For behavior, seek help at WP:AN/I. I'd give the IP's talk page a friendly message first just asking them to stop, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Darkfrog24, as I do not talk to numbers. Please note that it is a hopping IP. Zezen (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[edit]

Two websites, and, are being used as the sources at Targeted killings by Israel Defense Forces to explain to readers that the term Targeted killing is also referred to as targeted prevention, focused foiling and extrajudicial assassination. In restoring those alternative names and the two sources mentioned above Debresser explained, "Restore sourced information. In addition, I am not sure terms need much sourcing."

Are these websites reliable sources for these alternative terms? And is Debresser correct that these terms may not "need much sourcing?" Help would be appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

They're just being used to define the terms? That shouldn't be too big of a deal if the terms are widely used elsewhere and they're only serving as examples. However, I suspect that the core issue here is NPOV, not RS.
Does have an English version? For now, all I can say is that per WP:NONENG not being in English doesn't automatically disqualify it. However, but you do have the right to ask that the author who's using it quote the text for you in English. describes itself as an independent research and media organization, involved in publishing and education. It looks RS. While WP:BIASED may come into play, the page is just being used to establish the definition of a term, which is a relatively straightforward claim. One minute while I check the specific page being cited in the article. EDIT: Okay designates this specific article as a Global Research Article, which means...
The views expressed in Global Research articles are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be held responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in Global Research articles.
For this reason, I think we should evaluate this particular article under WP:USERG and WP:SPS even if other articles at are RS. The author of this specific article, Stephen Lendman, is cited as a blogger but also as a published author and he's had a radio show. His publisher, Clarity Press, does seem to have a political slant, but again that's an NPOV issue. The question is whether he is generally considered an expert. I'm looking up reviews of Lendman's book. EDIT: Okay, the only one I could find was in VNN and it's not really in-depth. Here's a better one by Dr. Ludwig Watzal I'd say this source isn't great, but it meets the bare minimum. If the Israeli conflicts weren't so contentious I wouldn't be concerned about using it. Is there any controversy about saying that "extrajudicial assassination" is another term for "targeted killing"?
Per relevance, I'd say that this specific article does support the assertion that "extrajudicial assassination" is another word for "targeted killing" (but not for the other two terms; it does not mention them) but I have to wonder if there isn't something more solid out there that could do the job just as well. EDIT: This article in The Guardian supplies a few synonyms for targeted killing. It might do. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC) is not RS. The quality is really variable, from decent pieces to conspiracy theories. One must use it carefully, if at all. is not RS either for the same reason. Kingsindian   09:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Women Write About Comics: Reliable for editorial opinions/reviews of comics, et al?[edit]

Hi. Is this source reliable as a source for this addition to the Saga (comic book) article? One of the reasons why I ask is that when I look at the site's staff page, it's 14 pages long, with 10 writers on each page. Also, when clicking on the "About" link at the top of the site's pages, one of the sublinks is "Pitch to Us".

I've also noticed, when doing a search here on WP, that that site is cited as a source in five other articles. The five passages in those articles in which it is cited are as follows. Each link directs to the passage in the Wikipedia article in question, and the type of info for which it is cited is presented as the text of the external link:

  1. Used to relate a personal incident of stalking, first citesecond cite
  2. Critic's opinion that a character is transphobic
  3. Critic's editorial reaction to a comic
  4. Factual information about a comic book's content
  5. Existence of a comic book

So is it reliable? Nightscream (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

This one's tricky, could go either way. I ran a search for "of Women Write about Comics" to see if any other materials cite them as an expert source. We just had a discussion about Dear Author, and my own take is that if an independently published source cites a web site as an example of something, that's not an expert endorsement, but if they rely on the site's opinion or conclusions, then it is. I'd also say that something doesn't have to be RS for the endorsement to count. If bloggers consider someone an expert, they might well be an expert.
Uncanny Magazine article "Representation Matters: Embracing Change in Comics" by Caitlin Rosberg: "As Megan Byrd of Women Write About Comics points out, people are voting with their dollars in complicated ways, demanding to see the kinds of stories they want..." Endorsement.
The Mary Sue article about playlists by Tom Speelman: "...the best comics-affiliated playlist is the soundtrack to IDW’s Transformers: More Than Meets the Eye. It adds an extra dimension to what’s already the best sci-fi comic you’re not reading (as decreed by Lindsay Ellis, Hannibal Tabu, Rachel Stevens of Women Write About Comics and, um, me)." Endorsement on lightweight topic
A person in a Latinas in Comics panel mentions being interviewed by Women Write About Comics. Endorsement from personal site.
Women Write about Comics Christa Seely interviewed by Ten Tweets Endorsement from non-RS
Toweleroad "Batgirl Creative Team Apologizes for Transphobic Villain" by Charles Pulliam Moore: "Many fans of the series interpreted Dagger Type’s outing as being transphobic ... 'Murderous or deceptive men disguising themselves as women has been a trope in fiction long before the creation of cinema, and it’s shown up too many times to list or even count,’ wrote Rachel Stevens of Women Write About Comics. 'The trope isn’t even subverted here, which is the hell of it.'" I'd call this an example.
I'd say that that particular article in WWaC is sufficient for the relatively lightweight claim that the series contains sexual, racial and aesthetic diversity. If you want to play it safe, change "is distinguished by" to "contains." I also feel pretty confident about the observation that it breaks stereotypes. I've read some of the staff bios and writer Nadya Bauman lists some relevant certifications but not a lot of publications on her LinkedIn page, so I don't know if we'd rely on her for complex literary analysis. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if "contains" would make the passage relevant for inclusion in the Saga article's Lead, so I changed it to "lauded for". Do you think that's acceptable? Nightscream (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
It sounds like it would do better in critical reception. I feel pretty good about "lauded for" but when I stop and think about it, "contains" is probably best. "Lauded for" suggests that more than one set of critics took notice. I wouldn't contest either one personally, though. There's wiggle room. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Miss World as a source for specific biographical information for Miss World contestants[edit]

Source: [105].   For information about the publisher, [106] identifies the publisher as "Miss World Limited (registered in Jersey under Company no. 17598) ('MWL')".

Article (deleted): Tamar Nemsitsveridze

Content supported by the source:

  1. Born:


  2. Age, which varies over the years, and assumes that the person is alive:

    1986/1987 (age 28–30)

  3. Birthplace:


  4. The sentence:

    She studied at the American University for Humanities.

RSN request submitted by Unscintillating (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:ABOUTSELF the Miss World site is reliable for information about the Miss World pageant. Please provide a link to the Wikipedia page upon which this site is being used or proposed for use as a source. Because the information is about a living person, it must be subject to extra scrutiny. WP:BLP Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
(1) I have reviewed the issue of being self-published at WP:IRS, and I am unable to verify that Miss World falls into the category of a self-published source, anymore than would be considered self-published.  A Google search on ["miss world limited" legal] shows an active legal presence.  (2) As for the link to the article, I have provided this.  For non-admins, mirrors exist.  (3) I've reviewed WP:BLP.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[edit]

Is this considered a reliable source of news? Its seems pretty horrifically biased to me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey there Jack. Per WP:BIASED, it is okay to use biased sources in some cases. What's it being used for? Some parts of Wikipedia, like the Israeli-Palestine conflict, are under discretionary sanctions and benefit from extra scrutiny. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I went to check out this specific site and there doesn't seem to be one. Do you mean or EDIT: Holy crud; realjewnews looks WP:FRINGE on its face. The Newsvine site looks WP:USERG, so it depends on the specific author, the specific credentials and the specific context. I can't tell more without seeing the exact page in question. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Okay, yes I see what you're talking about. Their About Us page does not list any staff credentials. The author of the first article up is not named. It just says "admin" and the staff bio is blank. On the surface, I'd say is not reliable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

List of ministers of the Universal Life Church[edit]

uses sources directly linked to the ULC and published by the ULC. specifically states the famous people are claimed by the ULC, not they are ministers as a statement of fact has Glenn Beck making an apparent joke about the ULC - as he is a LDS member, I think this must be interpreted in a manner other than as seriously being connected to the ULC

"The Modesto messiah: The famous mail-order minister" published by the ULC is used as a source for famous persons being members and ministers. In the case at hand, is this SPS a reliable source for claims about membership and ordinations? mentions the ULC claims - then notes the ministership was not valid for the writer (anecdote) is a blog - which also attributes the "famous names" to the ... ULC

And on and on and on. (like "" etc.)

Labeling any person as having a specific "religion" is problematic in itself, but using any SPS to label a person as an "ordained minister" of that religion should be at least as problematic. The question is -- are there any actual "reliable sources" in that entire "list" that the famous people are or were "ordained ministers" in that church? Many thanks. Collect (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you list the articles or (preferably) add the difs showing where these sources were used? Is it BLP infoboxes? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The sources above are used as cites in the list. The list article includes over eighty persons - including Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Doris Day, James Stewart, Ringo Starr, and Mae West. All of whom are only mentioned in ... sources published by the ULC, and where there are zero outside references (there are about five who "performed marriages" but it is likely that the "ordination" had no effect on the paperwork at all). In many cases, the person self-identified with a church other than the ULC, so it is possible that the ULC manufactured some of the "ordinations" and possible that pranksters obtained "ordinations" in the names of famous persons. The ULC did not require any actual identification in order to for a person to be "ordained." Any editor could get "Jimbo Wales" placed onto the list for a few dollars <g>. And yes - there were a few living persons on the "list". Thanks. Collect (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

"electronic harassment" term coined by Roger Tolces but he is not a RS?[edit]

I am attempting to contribute to the controversial Electronic Harassment article and battling with the troubling fact that the person who coined the phrase has not been reported in mainstream media or anywhere else that I can find that would be regarded as a RS. However, there are many mainstream articles that use the term and as far as I can see they are accepting his definition of the term. The term has gone up there, but not the coiner of the term. He has popularized that term in radio interviews many on Coast to Coast AM, which I expect would not be regarded as a RS as they talk about conspiracy theories. He has been a guest 67 times since 2003. He has a website in which he has clearly defined the term in ways that do not involve a conspiracy theory. He only talks about "harassers" but does not speculate or theorize about who. It has however not been RS reviewed anywhere that I can find. His intro at Coast to Coast AM: "Biography: Roger Tolces is a Los Angeles private investigator who specializes in electronic countermeasures. In the past thirty years he has swept over 2500 locations for bugs and wiretaps. In recent years his business has included helping victims of electronic harassment and mind control. Electronic harassment takes place if someone uses any electronic device to aid them in invading your person or property for the purpose of gathering information illegally, or for the purpose of causing physical harm. Mr. Tolces uses over $100,000 of high-tech equipment to try to identify the sources of electronic harassment. ." So, is there some way that I can put his definition of the term into the "electronic harassment" article? It seems the article gets a bit lost without the original definition of the term.Jed Stuart (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)