Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 186

Fan-made wikia site - RS?
On the List of nuclear holocaust fiction, there is a comment made in the notes section of Mad Max 2. The comment is supported by this ref;, added after a brief discussion on this user talk page. The site is a fan-made wikia that "anyone can edit". The article cited has no references to support it's claims. Can this be used as a reliable source? Thanks - the WOLF  child  02:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC) note: The editor who added the comment and questionable cite has put forward another "source" on the discussion on his talk page. Could we review this now as well? (instead of later) Thanks again. - the WOLF  child  02:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Per WP:USERGENERATED we don't cite Wikis "with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff", which clearly isn't the case there - and accordingly, the Wiki isn't WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Is there a definition of "credentialed" in this context? In particular does it mean credentials with respect to the site administration or with respect to expertise on the subject matter? Rhoark (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * 'Editorial staff' don't include Wiki admins. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that depends entirely on whether the admins of any particular wiki choose to exercise an editorial function. Rhoark (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As for the second source, we don't cite user-uploaded scans - we cite the source they were scanned from, provided it meets WP:RS. To assess that, we need a proper reference. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll work on finding the proper reference. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Omni Screen Flights Screen Fantasies: The future according to SF cinema by Danny Peary, 1984. Thanks. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Assuming that 'GM' is George Miller, the Mad Max creator, I'd think the source would be valid: Mad Max and Mad Max 2 are "postapocalyptic", but not "postnuclear" - and accordingly, don't belong in the list of nuclear holocaust fiction. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

So, in closing... it's been determined that the wikia site mentioned is not a reliable source? And likewise, an uploaded scan is also not a reliable source? That was the purpose of my enquiry. I see that the comment in question, along with the "cite" have been removed, so I am satisfied. Thanks. - the WOLF  child  04:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The Wikia site isn't RS. The book the scan was from seems RS to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * A side question. In a case where we are "inspired" or helped by a non RS website, leading us to better RS sources, but still for example influencing the way we list and use them, should we consider adding such a website to the external links? I have raised the concern a few times over the years that when we are helped by a source, even just for a presentation idea, we could be accused of plagiarism if we do not find a way of indicating this. (Definitions of plagiarism tend to cover a wider ground than our sourcing rules.) I have never quite understood what the answer to that concern is.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are fairly particular guidelines on what makes an acceptable WP:EXTERNAL link. If a non-RS absolutely needs to be credited for helping locate a RS, an annotation to the RS citation seems like the best place. Rhoark (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Vicious Candy
Is Vicious Candy considered a reliable source, either generally or for birth date/place of a living person? Since the full birthdate and birthplace of Ashley Hinshaw appears in no journalistic cite but only on IMDb, which this appears to copy, I'm not sure and would like other editors' opinions: http://www.viciouscandy.com/happy-birthday-ashley-hinshaw/. (I had first posted this at WP:IRS, where an editor suggested I post here instead.) --Tenebrae (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't look reliable to me. There are a number of other sites with the same birthday, for example www.famousbirthdays.com. Which doesn't look any more reliable, but at least it's a better name than Vicious Candy. What I would do with either of these or IMDb is put a better source tag in the footnote, so that someone could replace it if a better source is found. Apparently she's engaged to be married. Journalistic coverage of the wedding might mention her birthdate. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This website seems utterly unreliable to me. It is mostly photos of scantily clad female models, with a few photos of expensive sports cars thrown in. I see no evidence of professional editorial control, or a reputation for accuracy, fact checking and correcting errors. It is just another online clickbait site, as I see it. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with Cullen's appraisal of this site. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, all! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Moviepilot.com
Is this website considered to be reliable per WP:RS? The site's Wikipedia article says "While Moviepilot has an in-house staff of editors and writers, much of their content comes from fan contributors, in the “open-posting" vein of Bleacher Report or Tumblr." I've checked the RSN archives for any references to "moviepilot.com", but did not find anything.

There's a "Join as a Creator" link at the top of every subpage on the site that leads here and it seems that anyone with a Facebook account, etc. can simply sign up and start posting stuff. Moreover, the Terms of Service page seems to be written as if the site is simply acting as host for user-generated content rather than a provider of fact-checked verified content of a credentialed editorial staff. The "Scope of Use" section of the TOS page says "This news and information is provided for the user’s entertainment purposes only. You acknowledge that much of the content available through the Services (including text, photos and movie clips) is obtained from third party sources and Moviepilot is not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of such information." again seems to imply that most of the content is generated by users. I'm not trying to claim that the site is unreliable strictly based upon what it's Wikipedia article says. It does, however, seem to primarily user-generated content with very little editorial control, if any, in place.

IMO, it is a source that should be considered to be usually unreliable per WP:V. It's probably OK to use as a primary source about itself, but I don't think it should be considered reliable as a source for other topics. Anyway, I am interested in hearing what other editors think. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If there are stories posted by staff members, I don't see them labeled from a cursory examination. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not reliable, as the website itself and you stated, it is a "place for fans to talk about movies". There is no fact-checking going on and is for entertainment purposes only. Seems about as reliable as IMDb... Meatsgains (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not reliable per reasons Meatsgains stated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Not reliable as per Meatsgains. Onel5969 (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the input. I came across the site because this page was being cited as a source for the Beetlejuice. My opinion is that this is nothing but self-published "OR" by a some unknown blog writer. The writer even cites an IMDB trivia page to support Burton's supposed reasons for using "Beetlejuice" over "Betelgeuse". Anyway, I just wanted to hear what other's think to see if I was missing something. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Is The Bay Magazine usable?
Hey guys, I've got a question. I've been asked to revisit an AfD I started where people have added a lot of sources to the article. Most of them are unusable and that's not entirely why I'm asking here (although if someone wants to go behind me and look at my rationales and either back them up or point out flaws, then that'd be great). The main reason is that someone added the Bay Magazine to the article. I do see an editorial process and the article was written by a staff member, but what's stopping me is that this is a free local publication and I can't really see a whole lot out there about the magazine. I've said that it's potentially usable, so some input on that could potentially save the article. There's another link to a Boston Globe source, but my Highbeam has expired so I can't verify that it's very in-depth. If both the Boston Globe and Bay Magazine articles can be used then it might be able to save the article, although I'm not entirely comfortable with it being kept on three articles with no reviews, but still- it could be someone's chance to to a Hail Mary at the last minute. 05:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, if anyone wants to go in and mediate in general, I'd appreciate that. I'm not comfortable with the tone of the discussion that was going on in that thread prior to me posting about the new sources, so if anyone wants to wade in there then that'd be awesome. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's OK to count that as a RS. It may be local and free, but it is edited and they are giving some thought to their responsibilities. For example, here is the reporter who did the interview participating in a round table with other reporters for that family of publications. It doesn't quote her speaking, but she was there. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I posted in the AfD, but I'll also comment here. I don't mind free, local publications.  I've seen some resistance to their use, but the vast majority of them seem fine to me.  When you get into zine/fanzine territory, I think a lot more judgment is required, as these will generally fail WP:SPS or WP:RS (or both).  For an established magazine like this, I'd say that it's legit.  One thing to remember is The Village Voice is a free alternative weekly, and I think few people would challenge that as a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No News Sources are verifiable
News sources are by any account subjective observations of things. Official statements are official statements. Official reports are official reports. They can always be traced back to their source. I am splitting this part of my inquiry from the one above because it differs, even though it was recently a part of it.

It is my opinion that since there have been so many scandals in the media in the last decade that we should not use News Sources at all. If a current event can not be described without them then the event should not be described. If we absolute have to use them then a lack of consensus or at least the lack of a majority vote should trump reliability and a report should not be inlcuded if it is seen as controversial or if logical or rational arguments can be raised against it which in turn leads to a vote that shows that there is no clear majority in support of including the article. Would anyone be in favour of this as a way to resolving disputes such as the one above? 78.68.210.173 (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * IP, I readily concede that I cannot even prove that New York Times is more reliable than New York Post especially since you can counter any evidence of the form, "X says so" with, "...and what makes X reliable?" etc. However this noticeboard is not the right venue for such epistemological questions. You may be interested in reading/participating in the related discussion at the wikipedia refernce desk instead. Abecedare (talk) 10:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As mentioned, this is a bit split from the above one. Your answer would better fit the post above. And even then, not quite. We need to be able to establish some standards on what is reliable and what is not. Independent Media Watchdogs in the US have more or less been able to prove that Fox News tends to be less reliable than other newsoutlets or at least that the audience of Fox News tends to be less informed than the audience of any other major newsoutlet. But even this doesn't quite answer the question. Still we'd better continue this above. This post concerns the reliability of news overall. Or more precisely the impossiblity to verify a subjective reporting of anything as it completely lacks academic standards. This becomes very evident when looking at how easy it is to stage entire documentaries. Not too long ago a Norwegian journalist faked an entire mini-documentary about the sniping of children in Syria by filming it in Malta. As there is no peer-review things may be reliable but they are not verifiable and as such everything (that is cited from a newspaper) should be open to inquiry. (http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-30057401). I'd like to add that ovviously news are reliable if used as a POV disseminator. So using news sources for witness reports is fine. But not as fact (in my opinion).78.68.210.173 (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No sources at all are perfectly reliable I guess. Why just pick on the media? Even peer review is a very imperfect system. So maybe Wikipedia can never work? On the other hand, maybe some of us are satisfied with making an ever improving encyclopedia, rather than a perfect one. The way we get around this problem is to give ourselves a more artificial aim: we at least try to make all information verifiable according to sources that have a reputation in the outside world for being accurate with respect to what we are sourcing them for. This is how our core content policies fit together.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly... there is no such thing as a 100% reliable source (any source can contain errors or omissions), nor is there such a thing as a 100% unreliable source (at a minimum, every source is reliable for a statement quoting that source). Reliability always depends on context. Thankfully, our standards don't require perfection.  When it comes to media sources, first we ask:  "does this media source usually report stuff like this with accuracy?" (if so, we can deem it generally reliable); but then we also have to ask "did the media source get this specific fact right?"  If not, then we can deem the source unreliable for that specific fact.  Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Nothing is perfectly reliable, but we still need to use sources. Even "Official sources"-- they are typically Primary sources, and like all primary source need   interpretation, and we therefore do not rely on them alone for controversial matters. "State media" sources are as much subject to bias as any other media, and they too are of varying reliability. That a government says something does not necessarily make it true, as is obvious from the contradictory statements of such media about any controversial issue.  The distinction between the reliability of various sources i na specific case is made by the editorial judgment of editors at the article talk page and here. Editing WP is not a mechanical process.  DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, bias is a given in state media sources, but they are the most (if not only) reliable sources for the statements of the positions adopted by officials of the respective governments. To the extent that the opinions of officials of such governments are relevant, the state media sources should be considered reliable.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Conversation continued here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources

Western VS Eastern news-sources
I'm trying to see how this works. In some articles people say that state media isn't reliable. This mainly goes for state media in countries with low press freedom, almost always in the East. PressTV, Chinese newsagencies and for example Russia Today. Now I would like to ask you if you can actually substantiate this. Has it been shown by any independent review that PressTV or RussiaToday is exceedingly incorrect in its reporting compared to other news agencies.

Also in the wake of the many admissions, especially in european and US press about the involvement of intelligence assets in major newsoutlets such as BBC and Der Spiegel, should their reliability for that decrease? Does the generally false or at least regurgative reporting concerning the reasons for war in Iraq defile the reputation of almost all major newsorganisations in the west or not?

I am trying to see if we can establish a common standard for these things or not. Basically this is an open discussion with a few specific questions. What spurred my interest is an article in which basically every Eastern (excluding of course Ukrainian ones) newsource is disregarded in this article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Ilovaisk since the start of the article. People simply claim "it's not reliable" and others are force to accept it at face value. It even includes the main news agency Ria Novosti (now reformed). This is even when Western sources contradict each other. But this should discuss the wider issue, including China, Iran and other perceied oriental sources that often stand in opposition to occidental ones in key issues.78.68.210.173 (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For establishing common standards, you must use wikipedia guideleine talk page: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Conversation continued here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources

pakistanimusic.com
Is pakistanimusic.com a reliable source? For example, Waheed Murad uses http://www.pakistanimusic.com/articles/waheedmurad_onehundredandonefacts.html as the source for the second paragraph. --Geniac (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not reliable. In their "About us" section, they claim, "to promote Pakistan and its culture on the Internet." The website is promotional and consists of ideas and opinions of the pakistanmusic.com team. Meatsgains (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Bias is not automatic unreliability, and as biases go it's a mild one. What's important is their editorial structure and fact-checking procedures. The site doesn't reveal much in that vein. If someone were motivated they could use their contact form and ask. Rhoark (talk) 02:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Andrew L. Simon
Is Andrew L. Simon, who wrote the book Made in Hungary: Hungarian contributions to universal culture, Simon Publications LLC, 1998, that is referred at Demographics_of_Hungary, a reliable author when talkign about historical data? Apparently he is a "board-certified urologist practicing in Brick, NJ". 89.173.96.10 (talk) 09:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears to be self-pulished and is thus not a reliable source anyway. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. It's yet another self-published book promoted by Corvinus, a group of wannabe scholars who never let facts get in the way of their nationalist propagandizing.  Simon's book is actually much more carefully researched and less obviously biased than Corvinus's other offerings, but it still doesn't meet our criteria for reliable sources. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Yahoo Contributor Network
Has a final decision ever been reached on the reliability of Yahoo Contributor Network? I've checked the RSN archives and see that it has been discussed a few times, but I have not found anything definite either way. Do these "articles" simply need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis? If the latter is the case, then would it be acceptable to use Game of Thrones: Michelle Fairley is shunned by the Emmy Awards, but the show picks up 17 nominations for information about actress Michelle Fairley in the article Catelyn Stark. Does WP:NEWSBLOG or WP:BLPSPS apply here? On one hand, we have an article about a fictional character from a book/TV series; On the other hand, the source is being used to support this statement about real life person: "Fairley's portrayal as Catelyn has garnered critical acclaim, with many in particular praising her performance during the episode 'The Rains of Castamere'." Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Larson and Rhodes reliable sources for anti-cult view on Prem Rawat?
See User talk:Jimbo Wales. Please participate there. I explained the reasons why I initiated this there instead of here, but for the rest all WP:RSN conditions can apply as far as I'm concerned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You said you started the discussion there because you want to enable a topic-banned editor, that is not a good reason. Spumuq (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Retrieved the above from Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 182 for further treatment, while there appears to be no consensus yet regarding the reliability of the sources in the given context, see Talk:Prem Rawat.


 * Is the following sufficiently sourced for Prem Rawat?


 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No. Neither television evangelist Bob Larson, the author of such erudite works as "Satanism: the Seduction of America's Youth", "Rock & Roll: The Devil's Diversion" and "UFO's and the Alien Agenda", nor Ron Rhodes, who has also described the Mormon, Jehovah's Witness and Christian Scientist churches as 'cults' are appropriate sources, as Francis Schonken should be well aware from previous discussions. It was repeatedly claimed that there are proper academic sources making a similar characterisation - if so, we should be citing them, not tub-thumping Christian fundamentalist preachers who's self-evident bias against anyone not conforming to their narrow religious agenda makes them utterly useless as sources. This is a biography of a living person, and accordingly needs the best sources, not the worst. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * And incidentally, it should be noted that Rhodes is apparently being cited for a comment made in passing - 'Ron Enroth has noted that the authoritarian nature of cult leaders is often evident in their titles. Examples include "Guru Ma" (Elizabeth Clare Prophet of the Church Universal Triumphant), "Perfect Master" (Guru Maharaj Ji) [Rewat's former title], "Father David" (late leader of the Children of God), and "True Parent" (Reverand Moon, who heads the Unification Church).'  No analysis of Rewat. Nothing. Just a characterisation made in passing. As far as sources go, this looks like desperation... AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be clearer to describe those authors as 'Christian fundamentalist' authors or 'conservative Christian', instead of 'anti-cult'. Everybody in their right mind is anti-cult. It gives them a dignity they don't actually deserve. And of course every fundamentalist is 'anti-cult'. And IMO the issue can be mentioned in the 'Reception'-section as a historic tidbit, but is not representative enough for the lede.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest that if the source is not a RS its not a RS for anything in the article on Prem Rawat and cult. This is a BLP and sources and content should be scrupulous. However, a legitimate (RS, Verifiable, Mainstream) source and content which explore criticism of Rawat is legitimate whether the word cult is used or not. There are times when a a source even though heavily biased is reliable but this isn't one of them because as stated above there is  no analysis of Rawat and cult, barely a passing mention (the tea bag was quickly dragged through the water:) and second there are probably better sources as in more scholarly sources where the authors' opinions have a basis in deep thought  and educational background and there actually is discussion of Rawat To clarify, I'm  not against criticism; we have to make sure the criticism is based in good sources.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC))

I'd agree withfor now, until an agreement can be found on the two disputed sources (removing content from undisputed sources seems not the way to go).

--Francis Schonken (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Both sources are explicitely called 'tabloid' in WP. So, for precision, shouldn't it be: 'He has been termed a cult leader in tabloid journalism.' And that does not belong in the lede, but in Reception, if at all. I think it can be addressed and considered relevant, because it still continues to have an effect today.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The listed sources confirm the trivial fact that these particular publications/authors have called Prem Rawat's movement a cult. But given the tabloid nature of the newspapers (which often means sensationalistic presentation), and the strong POV nature of the books, why is that an important enough fact about Prem Rawat to include in an BLP? If reliable secondary sources have referred to Rawat as such themselves, or say that he is commonly referred to as a cult-leader in the popular/ideological press etc (cf Obama is a muslim), then this may be worth considering. But not based on the strength of these sources. Abecedare (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I have a feeling the Washington Post here is probably sufficient cause for the label though. Also, I guess, the Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion L-Z as per google books says and I quote "Elan Vital was previously known as the Divine Light Mission and attracted considerable negative publicity during the 1970s and 1980s when it was thought to be a cult." A search for "'Prem Rawat' cult" on Google books seems to reveal at least a few more sources. So, I guess, the sources listed above might not be sufficient, but there do seem to be other better sources out there which should be. John Carter (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion summary, or the chapter in Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America, From GuruMaharaj Ji to Prem Rawat by Ron Geaves, are the type of reliable academic sources I was talking about that can be used to support the claim that Prem Rawat's movement was seen as a cult, at least at one point. Aside: I am surprised that when such sources were available and so easily found, the above-discussed sources were even considered. Abecedare (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post mentions this very casually in the context of another story ("Deltek"): Over the decades, Rawat has attracted thousands of followers, although others have labeled him a cult leader and a fraud. Those 'others' remain hidden, may well be on the tabloid-level. Doesn't look like a strong source to me in this case, even when it's the Washington Post - when at the same time there are scientific quality sources that predominantly do not share or support this assessment. The Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion is more precise: The Divine Light Mission (...) attracted considerable negative publicity during the 1970s and 1980s when it was thought to be a cult. This might be mentioned in the article's section on the Divine Light Mission, but not in the lede of a BLP.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Scholars defined the movement as a cult, which is an accurate sociological description. The article already mentions this: During the 70s and 80s, the movement attracted substantial adverse publicity when it was thought to be a cult. A very different notion is defining a LP as a "cult leader" based in a passing mention in some sources. This is something to be discussed at WP:BLP/N rather than here. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  15:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had overlooked that one, and I see it is also being mentioned again with a different source in the Divine Light Mission section. So I withdraw my proposal I made on the article's talk page.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Use of online video as source on Boris Malagurski
My query relates to the use of this (an online video of an interview): as a source for this text: "In an interview for Marin Marinković's talk show One On One on Alternativna TV, Malagurski identified himself as being left-leaning,adding that he 'supports protests as a form of pressure on governments' and that 'elections are important, but democracy works only if we create the conditions under which any elected official will have to make decisions'.(this ref)". I have two concerns, which relate to the use of video as a source, and is this copyvio? The section in which it is used is linked to in the above text. … … ps I have now asked the copyvio question on the 'Media copyright questions' noticeboard, and it HAS been answered Pincrete (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Boris Malagurski would be a reliable source for his own opinions, but nothing more. bobrayner (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Is RiaNovosti not a reliable source for the Battle of Ilovaisk article?
Hey guys. I moved my main questions to the other site, asking specific here. I want some specific reason as to why the newsagency wouldn't be welcome in that article as per RGloucesters claim as you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Ilovaisk#This_agreement_was_not_honored-correct.2C_but_it_was_no_honored_by_Kiev.27s_forces_not_by_resistance_fighters No generalisations or personal opinions please, those guys are deleting my posts on the talkpage as "forum posts" so let's keep the same standards. What reporting in the past has shown that Ria Novosti is not a good outlet for the conflictzone and if none can we include their news for the article? 78.68.210.173 (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be a strand of some hydra-headed dispute involving    and, but also touches on a recurrent theme when it comes to reliable sourcing on articles related to Ukraine. While the ideal use of this noticeboard is to discuss a specific source for a specific diff, it is not uncommon to discuss general principles of reliable sourcing here. People are often encouraged to be more specific with their sources and diffs, but its not standard practice to hat a discussion about principles. Given that it's a recurring issue it would be better to hash this out here than spread across a dozen article talk, user talk, and enforcement pages. and may also be interested. That is a lot of personalities, so lets try to keep it about sources and policies rather than users.

I think that the first step is to recognize that reliability is a spectrum rather than a binary yes/no proposition. In particular, it is not valid to argue that since source A is reliable and claims X, source B claiming "not X" must be unreliable. B may be unreliable on its own terms, but otherwise the way to proceed is to describe the controversy rather than taking sides. Some sources may not be independent from the events. That makes them primary sources and probably biased, but not unreliable in the nomenclature of Wikipedia. Primary sources can add valuable information that would otherwise be missing. It simply makes it necessary to use secondary sources for context and clearly describe how accepted those claims are or aren't. Rhoark (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * RIA Novosti is reliable for plain, simple statements of fact. That's about it. And in those cases, there's usually much better sources which say the same thing. RIA Novosti is most certainly NOT reliable in cases where it's contradicted by other, actually reliable, sources, as is the case here. Basically, this is a waste of time, of the sort that certain users appear to enjoy inflicting on others way too much.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What is the reason for you not asuming good faith about Ria Novosti? What independent body has reviewed it to be faulty? What string of articles have been shown to be false? Or do you have anything else but your prejudice to back your statements up?If it's a waste of your time simply stop responding. 78.68.210.173 (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith is something you can do with respect to editors not sources. Anyway, what determines reliability is outlined in WP:RS. "A reputation for fact checking and accuracy". Unfortunately pretty much none of the Kremlin-run outlets satisfy this requirement. Honestly, it's easier to find reliable sources discussing why outlets such as RN or RT or Russia Segodnya or whatever are crap, than it is to find reliable sources which have anything positive to say about them. Also, we've had this discussion before, a few times, in the context of similar outlets, like RT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a Russian-government agency. Reliable Western sources such as The Financial Times The Economist and the BBC say that the present Russian government tells a lot of very big lies.
 * BBC doesn't say anything about RiaNovosti, neither does the TFT, I refuse to even check the Economist which is a neo-liberal mouthpiece for corporate neo-colonialism. Again, I'm preferably looking for independent media watchdogs, journalist organisations and educational institutions that actually provide some references to when and where Ria Novosti has not been generally accountable and accurate. Do you have any except your own prejudice against Russian statemedia and other Eastern media? 78.68.210.173 (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * RiaNovosti is a reliable source for what RiaNovosti says, for what Russian state-controlled media say, and for what Russian-government officials and politicians say. It is doubtful for anything else.  This does not mean that it should not be used.  But appropriate hedging is needed when using it.--  Toddy1 (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that hits the nail on the head. In certain articles, the Russian party line is a significant minority viewpoint that must be included for the sake of neutrality. RiaNovosti or something like it may be the best source for those views. Also, its opinion is not a significant minority in every case where it has an opinion. In many cases it would be false balance. For example, Russian propaganda about anti-Semitism in Kiev has no place in the encyclopedia. For Russian involvement in the war, its not false balance. Rhoark (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No it didn't hit the nail on the head and that's precisely the type of argument that would never be accepted anywhere else. I could make the same unsubstantiated claim about about say the BBC (regardless of how accurate or not it was). It is not substantiated by anything. It is general. It has no value. What Toddy1 has said lacks any value. 78.68.210.173 (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The BBC is held to the same standards on Wikipedia as RiaNovosti. There's just a strong community consensus that the BBC does far better at meeting those standards. Now, you're not going to get the moon on a stick, but I think there's consensus that you could in principle use your sources to explain the Russian perspective on the battle of Iloviask. (Many possible objections could still be raised to a specific claim or wording on RS grounds or other grounds.) Rhoark (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that WP:RS is a three-prong criterion: publisher/text/author. In our case of RIAN (which is merged into Rossiya Segodnya in 2013), publisher+author is most probably one. Publishers' COI is clear: Russian government. As or text, you have to have a closer look: whether it is journalist's opinion, journalist's evidence or journalist's reporting someone's other opinion. As a conclusion IMO references from RIANo/RoSe almost always must be judged by individual merits, due to possible high degree of POV in political subjects. As for whether replacing by Western sources, I don't think it is always reasonable; what would be reasonable is to always try and add refs to Western sources. Examples: it is perfectly OK to cite RIANo/RoSe for "Putin said", but may be not OK for "Poroshenko said" (in the latter case one may suspect words taken out of context, etc.) Staszek Lem (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Essentially, previous extensive discussions here (and in other talk) have come to the same conclusion: yes, per Noam Chomsky (wearing his political commentator's hat rather than his linguist's hat), we're aware of state censorship and media self-censorship. Agencies need to be parsed within the context of the subject of the article by applying common sense and attribution which can been discussed on the talk page of relevant articles. Our first concern should be avoiding RECENTISM. We already know that a reputation for fact checking is a primary consideration, together with cross-referencing with care.


 * What is at issue in this instance is that of recognising which agencies have no doubt as to which side their bread is buttered on. A state mouthpiece, or yellow press variations on the mouthpiece's information (i.e., populist press like RiaNovosti, the English language version having been amalgamated with VoR to form Sputnik International as the top level umbrella company now,, in case you're working on those related articles) are only reliable for their opinion (per Toddy1) and direct quotes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No you are wrong. They are eligeble overall as being the main newsagency of a country without any proven history of distorting facts (as you refuse to provide any or even engage me in a discussion while removing links and calling people trolls, the reason why you are now reported to the administration board). 78.68.210.173 (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The official news agency of a nation is not a neutral source, and history has shown that it is wrong to assume that anything it says is reliable on matters concerning that country's politics or international relations.   RIA Novosti, as  the WP article says, is " Operating under the purview of the Russian Ministry of Communications and Mass Media" -- it is an official state agency. Nothing it says on conflicts in which its country is engaged can be assumed to be reliable, though some of it might be. It can be used as a source for uncontradicted plain facts, but not for controversial ones, except for the position that the government in question wishes to promulgate at the time--it cannot even be used for the true position of that government, which might be very different. The same is of course true for official agencies on the other side of he conflict. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I demand to know how it cannot be assumed to be reliable when information is contionously quoted from official Ukranian and US departments by western media as reliable, despite them having a stake in the conflict. How is it that the BBC which is a state media of the Britain can be used in conflict zones where Britain has a direct interest? Someone has claimed that there is a "broad consensus" that it is reliable. To me opinions are not enough to establish fact. Fact is established by presenting it and nothing has been presented in favour of either or in dismissal of either. You and the rest of the editors here can't simply make up positions based on your own prejudice. If this were the Chinese or Russian Wikipedia you'd be on the losing end of this subjective and horrendously weak position. In both cases the accusing party would be wrong, and forming a consensus around an ignorant statement is folly. 78.68.210.173 (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * reliable sources require a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. not only is it lacking in such a reputation, it has a reputation for the opposite. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Propaganda from Kremlin-controlled sources should not be presented as fact bobrayner (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Use of sources about a person under a previous name
Hi! This is possibly an unusual problem, so some advice would be great. Kate Edwards used to be known as Tom Edwards, but changed her name at some point around 2010. Accordingly, reliable sources pre-2010 use her earlier name, and sources after that use her new name. There isn't any doubt that she changed her name, and she remains very open about listing her achievements that she made under the previous name. I'd like to use some of the older sources, as they do a lot to establish notability, and they are the best independent sources for listing some of her achievements. However, the problem is that there's an argument that we can't use sources which use her old name, without an explicit source stating the name change. Can we use the older sources? - Bilby (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I really, really, really, don't particularly want to ask this question, but was the name the only thing changed here? Beyond that, personally, if there might be even one good independent source substantiating that Kate was previously known as Tom, I can't see any reasons not to include that information, provided there isn't, for instance, a separate person Tom Edwards, like maybe her brother?, who may have been involved in the earlier activity under that name. John Carter (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, she's also changed other aspects of her life. Otherwise I'd just knock this down as the same problem when someone changes their family name after marriage. It is more complex, but other than the change in name she has been consistent in listing all of her achievements over the years. I'll see if there's something that makes mention of this, but the problem is that she wasn't as public a figure in 2010 as she is now. - Bilby (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps or  can suggest a source or otherwise shed light on the problem. Rhoark (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Grr. A source citing the equivalence would be far better, but lacking it, I'm going to have to go with WP:IAR here. It is clear that it would be harmful to the encyclopedia if we had two unconnected articles about one person, each claiming the same items of notability. Since Kate Edwards has no compunction claiming to be the founder of Englobe, and since Tom Edwards is the founder of Englobe, it's clear it's not a deep dark secret. We're going to have to run with that. Here is the same source, the Puget Sound Business Journal, highly reliable, winner of national excellence awards saying Tom Edwards founded Englobe; saying Kate Edwards did. --GRuban (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Edwards_(geographer) shows 's word on it 67.188.142.154 (talk) 06:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that with so much circumstantial evidence, we should be able to use all the sources, but, as has been said, we don't have any policy or guideline we can point to other than WP:IAR to justify it. I'm hoping we can reach a solid consensus here that can be referred to in the future, since I'm sure this type of issue will recur. This is the second time I've been involved in such a situation. —Torchiest talkedits 15:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think its ever justifiable to IAR verifiability, but as long as the article doesn't make an unsourced explicit statement about the transition, we don't have to. Synthesis is permitted for the purpose of making editorial decisions like using sources on Tom and Kate as if they are the same person. The matter can be left unexplained in the article, as it is now. Alternatively, if we can find any instance whatsoever where Kate claims to have been Tom it can be used as a WP:SELFSOURCE. Rhoark (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We had a similar problem a couple of years ago, with the article about Aryeh Nusbacher / Lynette Nusbacher. That problem caused a lot of drama. I hope we can learn from that episode and avoid similar drama in future. A starting point would be: If we don't have any reliable sources connecting the two names as one real individual, making that connection in our article would be an obvious, and serious, WP:BLP failure. bobrayner (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah... I suspect that there is a reliable source out there somewhere that notes that Tom has became Kate. We just have to locate it.  Happy hunting. Blueboar (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The Merck Index
I've made a proposal to update citations of The Merck Index, formerly printed, and which is now published online. This will involve adding web links. The Merck Index is published by the Royal Society of Chemistry, where I am Wikimedian in Residence. Please comment on the proposal's talk page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Column on Donors Trust on (but not by) NBC

 * The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.  A summary of the conclusions reached follows.''
 * Consensus is that this source is reliable, and that correct attribution should ensure that neutrality is maintained. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Source:
 * Material sourced: Donors Trust donated to X.
 * Articles: Donors Trust, and a number of individual recipients.
 * Reason: Article is written by a third party, not affiliated with NBC.  It should be attributed either to him, alone, making it usually unreliable, or to his organization, making it reliable only if attributed in text.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ping: Recent significant contributors and admin actions to Donors Trust;, , , , , , , ,

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Generally, NBC News may be sourced on WP without in-text attribution for possible bias. The publisher is clearly and unambiguously NBC News. The article is running under NBC News banner, under the category of "INVESTIGATIONS." The source is NOT flagged by NBC as "guest columnist" or "rambling round the web" or "op-ed" or any such. The source is already attributed to the author by name in the supplied, well-formatted reference. The primary organizational credential of the author is clearly declared in the source. The source is a report on an investigation of primary source documents, the federal filings of the subject of the article and its donors. The source is used in the article only for its identification of donors and recipients from those documents, not for its views or opinions. As the federal filings are publicly available, there can be little reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the identification of the donors and recipients. What is the issue here? Hugh (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, your addition of two editors to the ping both will not go through Echo, as it's an edit of an already-signed section, and is probably inappropriate WP:CANVASSI]ING, as neither of those editors edited [[Donors Trust or Talk:Donors Trust in the past month. However, they may have comment on some of the related articles; if significant contributors, the addition might not fall afoul of WP:CANVASS.  It won't WP:NOTIFY, though.   Thanks.,  Hugh (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The source is misidentified; it's an independent investigator posting on the NBC site. NBC has no control or verification of the investigator's work.
 * Due to the fact that it is public record, it might be reasonable for inclusion if The Center for Public Integrity has a reputation for accuracy. I haven't seen evidence for or against that.  It still would provide no (not just little) indication of significance or relevance.  Some of the statements which  has sourced to the article aren't actually in the article; for instance, he uses FreedomWorks while the source says FreedomWorks Foundation.  But that's a separate issue; except in that it casts question on your additions to articles as being incorrect.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The source is perfectly identified in a well-formatted reference as per WP policy and guidelines, including author and publisher. It is an investigative reporting on the NBC News website. The dependence or independence is not in evidenced in the source, in any case the financial relationship between an author and a publisher is irrelevant. The authors' organizational affiliation is irrelevant. NBC News is a gold star top shelf publisher by any reasonable assessment if there is one. Again, this investigation on the NBC News website is not flagged by NBC News as "independent" or "guest" or any such. The host for this source is http://investigations.nbcnews.com, not http://guestblog.nbc.com, for g*d's sake. NBC News has complete control over what appears on their website. You have no evidence to the contrary. Do you think NBC News was hacked? What is the issue here? Hugh (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I will thank you to please help us all focus here on the reliablity of the specific source in the OP above. Hugh (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * NBC certainly has "control or verification of the investigator's work" — if they weren't convinced of its veracity and fairness, they could have chosen not to publish it. The fact that they published it establishes it under NBC News' aegis. This is no different than the Miami Herald publishing an article from the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting or the Juneau Empire publishing an article from the Associated Press — news outlets republishing the work of shared-asset newsgathering organizations is as old as the media itself. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * News organizations also host blogs, which do not necessarily reflect their point of view or editorial control. The navigation links on NBCNews.com suggests that "Investigations" is parallel to "News", "Politics", "Sports", "Science", etc., which might very mean that it is not "News".  The fact that the author of the article is given an affiliation credit suggests that it is not part of the regular News site.  ( also uses actual blog entries at Forbes as if they were articles, so his word is not convincing to me.)  I admit that I'm not good at tracking down whether a web page represents news or commentary (including gest commentary aka op-ed), but this item doesn't have many of the hallmarks of an actual news article.  If you can find something at NBCNews.com which specifies what the "Investigations" section is, I would accept that.  But I really don't see that article as "news", without some specific statement by the mangement.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Again I ask that you please help us all focus here on the reliability of the specific source in the OP above. Thank you in advance.Hugh
 * Interesting use of navigation links. So the sports news is not news and the science news is not news either? Hugh (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence presented here that NBC News considers its "Investigations" section to be a "blog." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, see WP:NEWSBLOG. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Reliable (but): This is simply a republication of this CPI article, which is reliable. CPI is a veteran journalism outlet with a strong reputation. The author is a professional journalist whose work has been published at Mother Jones, WaPo, and NBC. The fact that this article in particular was republished by NBC is further evidence of reliability. The "(but)" in my !vote is because, optimally, we should be citing the original CPI source rather than the NBC republication. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The publisher is in fact NBC News, and the publisher in the well-formatted reference in the article is NBC News, exactly as per policy and guideline. Hugh (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't an RS issue, but by sourcing to NBC we are suggesting this is an NBC story, which is technically inaccurate. Citing the original source enables readers to better assess reliability for themselves. I don't see any counterargument for why citing NBC is somehow superior to citing CPI in this instance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is clearly and unambiguously an NBC News story. The provided ref is well-formatted and precisely accurate. NBC News is cited as the publisher because NBC News is the publisher. Hugh (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this an NBC story or a CPI story? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice try at a compromise, Doc, but I'm afraid I must ask you to please help us all focus here on the reliability of the above original post, the NBC News item. The The Center for Public Integrity article you mention is a different source. Thanks. The two sources are NOT equivalent, and you know it. One is way, WAY more noteworthy than the other. NBC News is an internationally renown news organization, and CPI is a fine, respected organization, but it ain't NBC News. The original poster above has already run around WP flagging all instances of the use of the NBC News item with "importance?." His backup plan in case the NBC News item were OMG found reliable is to run with noteworthiness. Do you support his multi-pronged approach to spiking this ref by any means necessary? Noteworthiness is key here. To take the above cogent analogy, often AP reports can be found in many venues. If the NYT held an AP report for their phat Sunday edition, would you insist on an earlier citation to the AP website? No you would not. This is no different. It's RS, no buts. Hugh (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "compromise" you think I'm proposing. I was quite explicit I think the NBC page is reliable. No buts about that. I just don't think that citing it is as informative and helpful to readers as citing the CPI page directly. Your preference for more "noteworthy" sources suggests to me you're more interested in convincing readers than informing them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Noteworthiness is a legitimate, important aspect in sourcing. An AP story, goes out on the AP wire, pops up on the AP website, but the NYT holds it for the front page on Sunda - would you insist on citation to the AP website? Hugh (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there's any policy, guideline, or essay supporting your personal view that "noteworthiness is a legitimate, important aspect in sourcing." Yes, I do think the AP page should be used whenever possible. Likewise for other syndicated sources. This is especially important for non-traditional watchdog groups such as CPI, whose politics and journalism credentials are questioned from time to time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Noteworthiness being an important aspect of sourcing is a personal view? Wow. I will ask you a question a 3rd time that you have not answered yet: An AP story appears on the front page of the NYT and in the classifieds of the Green Acres Weekly Shopper, which do you run with bro? Hugh (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I already said. I'd cite the AP website. If it's not on the AP website, I'd link to either one, doesn't matter, but I'd list AP as the publisher. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "I don't believe there's any policy, guideline, or essay..." WP:RSVETTING "What's their circulation? Size doesn't prove anything, but it's a data point. The New England Journal of Medicine and the North Carolina Literary Review are both scholarly journals, but they're not equal. Ditto the New York Times and the Easton (Maryland) Gazette. A bigger operation means more resources for fact-checking, a bigger reputation to uphold, and greater liklihood of employing top-tier people." Hugh (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can find evidence that the republishing entity did any independent fact checking then that would probably change my analysis. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "either one, doesn't matter" Another way the two sources are not equal is agenda. WP:RSVETTING "What about the publisher? What kind of outfit are they? What's their reputation? Do they have an agenda?" We have a fellow editor below who has weighed in with concerns regarding bias in The Center for Public Integrity, no such concerns expressed for NBC News. Hugh (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is exactly why the original source should be cited. Some editors have raised concerns about CPI's bias. It should be front-and-center that CPI's employees wrote and edited the content, so that readers can make that assessment for themselves. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In this particular case, to claim noteworthiness doesn't matter, do you have to sort of ignore the fact that the OP above has flagged as importance? each instance of the use of the reference in dispute, as documented below WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard? Hugh (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not the OP. Believe it or not this isn't you vs. the Borg. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you know I know you are not the OP, and I think you know I know you are not the Borg. I have seen a Dr. Fleischman who likes to call out snark, is that you or another Dr. Fleischman? Please may I ask again, are you aware that the OP has flagged this source as unimportant as you argue for substituting a much less noteworthy source for NBC News? Hugh (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Does it matter, and if so, how? (Can we take this to user talk please?) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Reliable per publication without disclaimers by NBC. I also don't find this particularly controversial (the donations may be, but the fact of the donations is not). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Reliable per DrFleischman. Lightbreather (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Reliable but use the original source per DrFleischman. He makes a solid case for using the Center for Public Integrity as the source. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support of the The Center for Public Integrity, a worthy organization, I agree, though off-topic. May I ask, do you have a vote on the source which is the original topic of this RSN request, above, the NBC News investigation? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Original source only and any use should include its internal disclaimer that it, itself, receives substantial funding from a larger trust supporting liberal groups. ("The California-based Tides Foundation, which Ball calls the “ideological opposite” of Donors Trust, also operates donor-advised funds. The Center has received funding from the Tides Foundation in the past. In 2011, Tides raised $91 million and made $96 million in grants, including $26 million to overseas recipients.") Once we use a source, we, perforce, use the entire source. Collect (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow! Way to find room on the right we didn't know was there. Of coruse, as you know, an article by a different publisher is a different source. Please help us all here focus on the original request, above, an NBC News investigative report, which is clearly RS without qualification, if any RS is RS without qualification. You may be interested in opening an RSN request specific to The Center for Public Integrity. Thank you Hugh (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The aim is to find "best source" - the disclaimer is also found in the NBC source, so there is no "room on the right" issue at all -- just a belief that better sources should displace copies from them.  The writer is not an NBC employee (By Paul Abowd, The Center for Public Integrity is moderately clear for that) so we have to identify him as his byline states.  Did you perhaps think NBC actually produced the report by itself?  Collect (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, NBC News generously provided the organization affiliation of the author as a credential after the byline in this reliable source. The employment relationship of an author and a publisher is irrelevant in an RS discussion. Many writers from many of our sources are not employees of their publisher. They may be employees or free lancers or other. Here the publisher is NBC News. Hugh (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll try the above, highly informative analogy from an uninvolved editor, above. An AP story may generally be found in many venues. Did you ever notice that? In such a case, would you cite the NYT or the Podunk Weekly Shopper? Hugh (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * AP stories get credited to the AP - not to the newspaper which happens to use the AP story.   Same here. Collect (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? Rut roh! This is going to require a lot of edits! Really? An AP story appears on the front page of the NYT, you would insist we cite it to a wire service's website? Doesn't that short change noteworthiness just a tad? Hugh (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The MoS is fairly clear on this -- that "some articles do not follow the rules" does not abrogate the rules. Wire service copy should be credited to the reporter and to the wire service. Collect (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Reliable - As I understand it, if NBC is the publisher, the material gets attributed to NBC and not to the actual author. Is there some policy that states otherwise? NickCT (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Reliable Publisher is NBC News, a reliable source. May be used without in-text attribution. Hugh (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Center for Public Integrity is a WP:RS and the author of this piece. It may be used and should be attributed as such. Champaign Supernova (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The author of the disputed reference is not in dispute, it is Paul Abowd. Please help us all stay focussed here on the above RSN request for comment, for the NBC News investigation. I agree the Center for Public Integrity is a fine organization, but please open a separate RSN request for comment for the Center for Public Integrity if you so desire. Do you have an opinion on whether the NBC News investigation is a reliable source? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Summary of positions
Hugh (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * NBC News reliable as published: NorthBySouthBaranof, Stephan Schulz, NickCT, HughD
 * NBC News not reliable, suggest The Center for Public Integrity alternative: Dr. Fleischman, Capitalismojo
 * Other: Collect


 * Not terribly comprehensive. Conveniently leaves out me as well as Lightbreather who both interestingly didn't agree with you. Huh. At least your WP:CANVASSING yielded another opinion aligned with your own. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * so add yourself Hugh (talk) 04:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're not supposed to edit other peoples' talk page comments. Your attempt at "vote counting" appears incredibly disingenuous if you can't even be bothered to accurately represent the discussion, even when corrected. Zoinks. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * so, you won't add yourself, even after I asked you to, because you're too afraid I'll report you to some talk page etiquette notice board? Hugh (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Frankly I think this attempt to mischaracterize the consensus is pure disruptive bullshit. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Doc, some are declaring victory over NBC News in edit summaries. Hugh (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This isn't about "declaring victory", or it shouldn't be. Please review WP:HERE. DrFleischman made the most solid analysis on the point. I agreed with his analysis, as did Champagne, Lightbreather, Collect. Five editors from across the spectrum agreed. Then we had canvassing and a complete mischaracterization of the discussion. DrFleischman is right. This is disruptive and wrong. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Probably justified at this point. Regardless, two wrongs don't make a right, and your behavior here is pretty darn bad in my view. A lot worse than possibly jumping the gun on a forming consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I appear to have accidently edited this section through a software glitch. I was having trouble opening the correct section and so edited the page. The Diff is weird and shows non-contiguous deletions that it is hard to imagine I did. I apologize to the members of this discussion and could someone look at this and determine whether this material was supposed to be deleted? I think the diff is wrong, I don't see how I could have accidently made non-contiguous deletions. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Early consensus effected: NBC News not RS
Enthused by some early comments, and unwilling to wait for this RSN request for comment discussion to pan out, the OP and some fellow travellers have declared the consensus of this discussion to be that NBC News is not RS, and have been converting the NBC News reference to their much preferred, much less noteworthy version, with edit summaries citing this discussion: Hugh (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Donors Trust 10 March 2015 22:47 Capitalismojo: I think the discussion at RS/N suggested CPI as the ref)
 * Donors Trust 10 March 2015 23:40 Arthur Rubin: per discussion at WP:RSN
 * Donors Trust 11 March 2015 03:45 Champaign Supernova: Actually the apparent WP:CONSENSUS at WP:RSN is to attribute this to the original source, CPI, and not NBC


 * Gross mischaracterization of the discussion. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

More premature declaration of victory in the war against NBC News on a talk page: from Talk:Paul Singer: "It's mentioned trivially in one source, which is not NBC news, but the Center for Public Integrity, if you care to take a gander at the WP:CONSENSUS here . Champaign Supernova (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hugh, I don't understand what this is doing here and I lean toward hatting it. This is a content noticeboard, designed to resolve whether a source is reliable. Once a consensus is formed, the discussion ends and may be closed. If someone is editing against a consensus formed here then the solution is to report them to a conduct noticeboard or an administrator. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree on the hat; this material is germaine to the critical issue of the differential in noteworthiness of the two sources. The RSN request was hijacked from what is should be, an up/down consensus on a source, to an A/B choice. This direction on the part of some editors is an important part of the discussion. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Disputed reference flagged as importance? by OP
The OP of this RSN request for comment has flagged each occurrance of content drawn from the disputed reference as not important, in anticipation of noteworthiness discussions, once the reference is successfully knocked back from NBC News to the much less noteworthy Center for Public Integrity: Hugh (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Donors Trust
 * Richard DeVos
 * John M. Olin Foundation
 * Castle Rock Foundation
 * Philip Anschutz


 * Wrong noticeboard. Suggest removal. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Disagree on the hat; this material is germaine to the critical issue of the differential in noteworthiness of the two sources. This RSN request was hijacked from what is should be, an up/down consensus on a source, to an A/B choice. This direction on the part of some editors is an important part of the discussion. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Content of the disputed reference: "Koch-funded charity passes money to free-market think tanks in states."
I believe that the above objection to this reference may have as much or more to do with the content of the reference than the reliability of the source, NBC News. The reference is to an NBC News investigation entitled "Koch-funded charity passes money to free-market think tanks in states." The report details findings from an examination of IRS filings, and describes the role of Donors Trust in aggregating and distributing funds while maintaining anonymity. The report names names. As the report's primary documents are publicly available, there can be little reasonable doubt as to the claims in the report; the approach then to keeping the noteworthy content of the report out of WP is to undermine the noteworthiness of the source. Hugh (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why there's an issue. No one is saying that NBC is not a reliable source. What people are saying is that this particular piece was authored and first published by CPI, then re-published by NBC, so since CPI is itself a reliable source, it makes sense to use the original source--CPI. But we can still use this article, and it's still reliable. So I'm not sure why there's a problem. Champaign Supernova (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * - re "so since CPI is itself a reliable source, it makes sense to use the original source--CPI. But we can still use this article, and it's still reliable" - Wait a second. If you're agreed that the source is reliable and that the content is verifiable, why are you still pushing to exclude the material supported by the source? NickCT (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about Paul Singer (businessman), it's because the information that's been added to the article is not WP:NOTABLE and including it absent any evidence of notability is WP:UNDUE. As I've explained on that article's talk page, it's not about the reliability of the sourcing, but about whether the information is significant enough to include. I would encourage you to keep discussion about the Singer article on that article's talk page so as not to distract from the discussion happening here. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "this particular piece was authored and first published by CPI, then re-published by NBC" You have no evidence of this. There is no evidence of this in the sources. NBC News published the above RSN request for comment source on February 14, 2013. The much less noteworthy source you hope to use RSN to force a fellow editor to use instead was published the SAME DAY, February 14, 2013. So please lay off the silly order of pub argument. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The source you advocate as a substitute is not equivalent. It is not the same. It is not the "original." The two sources are very, very different in terms of noteworthiness, and that is a very important difference. Please help us all focus on whether or not the source described in the above RSN request is reliable, and please stop trying to change the subject, and please stop pretending you don't understand this. Hugh (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * - re "You have no evidence of this", "It is not the "original." " - Hugh, you do realize that they're correct in saying this is republished, right? It does actually state as much on the NBC article. It is actually the original. NickCT (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The above mentioned RSN request source NBC News does not flag their report as "republished from..." NBC News does include the author's organization affiliation as a credential in the byline. The publication date of the above mentioned RSN request source NBC News and the less noteworthy Center for Public Integrity source are the same. "Original" is ambiguous. There is no argument to be made here with respect to order of appearance. Hugh (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmmm.... I think by putting the author's name and affiliation in like that, they are flagging their report as "republished from...". That is common convention. Note at the bottom of the article they put in "The Center for Public Integrity is a non-profit independent investigative news outlet.". I don't think they'd put that in if it wasn't republished.
 * You do raise a good point though. It often isn't super clear who the original source is. NickCT (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The organizational affiliation credential in the byline, and the footer on the NBC News investigation, would read equally well had the article not appeared on the Center for Public Integrity website; the credential and the footer do not imply "republished from..." Hugh (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * With respect Hugh, I think you may have got this wrong. I'm pretty confident NBC is indicating that this is republished material. Look at the article published in the huffinton post. They attribute The Center for Public Integrity, not NBC. NickCT (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I think NBC may consider its "Investigations" section a blog, which would make the sourcing even more tenuous. NickCT (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As fellow WP editor pointed out 3 days and many thousands of words ago above: "There is no evidence presented here that NBC News considers its "Investigations" section to be a "blog."  Hugh (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok Hugh. Well whatever the case, I still think the material you're trying to source with the reference is accurate, verifiable and reliable. NickCT (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * good bottom line, thanks Hugh (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree HuffPo, a news aggregator, is bringing the Center for Public Integrity source to their readers' attention, but that is very different from what NBC News did: NBC News ran content under their banner on their website under "INVESTIGATIONS," just as if Brian Williams had read it on the evening news - ok, maybe that's not such a good analogy... Hugh (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

What a pointless discussion. There is unanimous agreement the source is reliable. End of story. Move along now. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - Still the minor point of who the source is. Is it NBC? Is it CPI? As mentioned below, I think this is a citation issue. But you're right..... Let's move on. NickCT (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why there is disagreement here, whilst original source may be preferable, where there IS a clear original, and that source is notable, is it not the case that any outlet accepts responsibility (legally and in terms of reputation and 'character'), for content it publishes. WHERE they got that material is irrelevant, they were sufficiently persuaded of its reliability, suitability and news-worthiness to publish it in their name. Proper attribution seems more of a 'courtesy issue' than a reliability issue in this case.Pincrete (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Policy Discussion Started
For the record, I'm a little surprised there isn't explicit guidance on citing republished sources. I'm going to try to start a policy discussion. NickCT (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. Looping in citing source talk was a great insight, perhaps even a breakthrough. Hugh (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

99 percent invisible (podcast)
I've been listening to this, now weekly, podcast recently and think it could qualify as a reliable source, but don't know enough about non-text sources to say for certain. The podcast is 10-20 minutes long and usually covers some interesting event or design; listen to the episode on the Centennial Light for a good example (that page has a summary of the episode in text too). The episodes always seem well researched and normally contain interviews with people involved in the topic. As such I think this could make a good source, thoughts? Sam Walton (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look top-shelf, but solid. Rhoark (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is definitely "reliable enough" to count towards establishing notability. For any contested claims, it would depend upon the subject and the "expert" guests quoted but would probably be at least a valid minority opinion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be helpful, when citing podcasts, to always include the name of the person being interviewed or offering factual statements. Shii (tock) 15:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It appears to be funded through sponsorships, donations and merchandise, which makes it not a personal blog. The staff appear to have a pedigree in professional reporting. While it's not mainstream, it looks very reliable to me. I have fewer reservations about it than prior commenters. CorporateM (Talk) 03:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Content removed because of link rot
I would welcome feedback both on linkrot in general and on this case specifically. Thank you.

Monsanto legal cases is a new article spun off from the original Monsanto article, in November 2012 with this this diff content was added to the Monsanto article with regard's a upheld complaint of false advertising against Monsanto, together with a response by Monsanto on its corporate website with regards the complaints against it.

On migration of pre-existing content to the new article it was discovered that the link (http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.php?uid=1875) to Monsanto's corporate response was dead, and it was tagged as such in February 2015, at about or soon after the migration of content to the new article. On 5 March, Monsanto's response together with the dead link was deleted from Monsanto legal cases because of the dead link. I undid this removal, and in the edit war that followed, the other user put forth the argument both in the edit history and on the talkpage (Talk:Monsanto_legal_cases) that since the link was dead, the content that relied upon that link was unverifiable, and should therefore be deleted in accordance Verifiability. I countered by quoting Link rot, namely "Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online."

My questions are threefold:-
 * 1) Is WP:Linkrot correct in saying that a reference need not now be working to be considered verifiable, just so long as it was at the time of its addition.
 * 2) When spinning off content from one article into a new article, do we need to examine every reference afresh and treat each as a newly added reference, or can we rely on the fact that a reference was scrutinised in the past and was previously found to have no problems.
 * 3) Does reverting a deletion because of a dead link, count as a restoration of existing content, even though the article is new. Or does it, because the article is new, count as adding new material to the article.

Thanks.KTo288 (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll just point out that the question of it being a "new" article is largely irrelevant here. That hasn't come up in discussion over the content, nor do I see anyone making justifications because the article is new. It's really just a question of the content in isolation regardless of which article it's in. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This conversation appears to be moot now that another editor found a replacement source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm still interested in the validity of once working links, and whether verifiability can be grandfathered from one article to another.--KTo288 (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * the question is petty and pointy. in the exact case in hand, it took about one minute to find a valid source of the content online. the content itself was trivia. why this is worth edit warring over and going to drama boards over, is beyond me.  if folks here want to theorize about angels dancing on pinheads, knock yourselves out. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Content needs to be WP:VERIFIABLE. If the link is still available in another reliable form - the Internet Archive is a good source, but there are others - replace the link and go on with life. If the link is dead, and there is no known way to get its content, it is no longer a valid reference. --GRuban (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

As says about question 1, WP:Linkrot is quite clear about deleting dead links. It says: "Do not delete". The policy here is the same as sources in foreign language (they are OK) and offline sources (they are also OK). If you want to delete a statement supported by an offline source, then it is your responsibility to go to the library, read the source, and prove that it doesn't support the statement.

About question 2, whether sources need to be verified again when spinning off content, there was an epic, month-long thread about this recently on the Citing sources talk page. One editor staked out a position that sources always need to be re-verified when moving content, and defended it at length, with graphs. There were many editors who disagreed with him. One of them said it was a case of "unique and rather extreme opinions that diverge noticeably from the community's actual practice." If you have the time you can read the whole discussion, but the conclusion seems to be that while there are opinions on both sides, the extreme position didn't have that much support.

So my answers to KTo288's questions would be 1. Yes, WP:Linkrot is correct; 2. Yes, we can rely on the fact that a reference was scrutinized in the past; and 3. No, reverting a deletion of old content is not adding new content.

However, it's also true that this is not the best state of affairs. Look to see if the link is archived, or if another source exists. There aren't that many cases where a dead link is absolutely crucial to the article. – Margin1522 (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:VERIFIABLE is policy. WP:LINKROT ... isn't. "verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." Yes, that includes having to go to the library. But if it is theoretically impossible to check that the information comes from a reliable source, then it's not verifiable, and can be deleted. It is not good enough that some other editor once added the information, claiming to have seen that link; that other editor is not a reliable source. That doesn't mean that content should be deleted immediately when a link dies, WP:LINKROT has lots of good advice on how to fix it, and the dead link can help fix it. But if the content can not be verified, then it needs to go. --GRuban (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

There is clearly some judgement involved here, but in my own experience the more dubious the claim, the more likely it is to be from a source that would take hours of time or large cash expenditures to check. Realistically, I'd say anything that cannot be verified in 1 hour and with an expenditure less than $50 is effectively unverifiable Formerly 98 (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:LINKROT is neither a policy nor a guideline. It is merely an essay, and can (and should) be freely ignored, particularly when BLPs are involved. Townlake (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:VERIFIABLE is policy, true. But it gives no specific guidance on the question of whether "verifiable" means "I can verify it today." Generally it doesn't mean that. Generally it means that someone can verify it. So the editor who deleted the link because he couldn't verify it yesterday was wrong. As it turns out, anyone can because the link in question was in the Wayback Machine, here, and at two other places on the web, here and here.
 * On the question of whether a source can be deleted because it would take over an hour and $50 to verify, that's ruled out in WP:Reliable sources/Cost. Which is an essay, true. But when the policy is silent on some specific question then a guideline or an essay that describes prevailing practice is better than someone's arbitrary interpretation of a general policy. The relevant content guideline here is WP:Citing sources, which says "5. Remove hopelessly lost web-only sources". So sure, we can follow that. But note that there are qualifications (it wasn't hopelessly lost), and that there are 4 other alternatives, and that the guideline refers editors to WP:Link rot. We have these guidelines because it's generally a good idea to follow them. It's usually not a good idea to ignore them because we think our interpretation of the policy is better. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * 1: Yes, WP:LINKROT is correct and supported by policy. The content should not be removed merely due to linkrot. The relevant policy is WP:SOURCEACCESS. The fact that a link has rotted does not mean the content is unverifiable, it just means editors will have to go elsewhere (online or offline) to find the source and verify the content.
 * 2: There is no policy or guideline saying when editors are required or not required to verify content. WP:V is purely about verifiABILITY of content. That said, because verifiability is so important to the project, you are encouraged to verify early and often. It's an especially good idea to verify content when you add it, as routinely or intentionally adding non-verifiable content is often seen as disruptive. I have a hard time seeing anyone getting in trouble for not verifying content when forking or otherwise copying it. It's a good idea to explain what you're doing in your edit summary.
 * 3: If you're referring to a requirement to verify, there is no duty to verify so reverting a deletion doesn't "count" as anything. I see nothing wrong with restoring content that was deleted merely due to linkrot. In the spirit of collaboration it's a good idea to at least try to find a new link. Using the Wayback Machine can be very helpful in this regard.
 * --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Found it. Use https://web.archive.org/web/20130513005749/http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.php?uid=1875   petrarchan47  t  c   06:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you to everyone who has taken time and effort on this, it is very much appreciated, again thanks. --KTo288 (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

bible-history.com
Hi all I came across an IP editor spamming the website above into ELs. This caused me to look up how much the site is used here and I was bummed to find it used 170 times. I checked the RSN archives and don't see that it has been discussed there.

So [ http://www.bible-history.com/biblehistoryonline_aboutbho.php here] is their "about" page and [ http://www.bible-history.com/links.php?cat=49&sub=4760&cat_name=Sites+-+Israel&subcat_name=Tel+Arad here] is one of the articles that was spammed into WP - which appears to be taken from WP so violates WP:CIRCULAR. It appears to me that everything on this website is derived from elsewhere. I don't think this should ever be used as a source in WP. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the amount of quality scholarship on the subject, a self-published site like this should never be used. --Ronz (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest taking this to WP:ELN. External links don't need to be to reliable sources (see WP:ELMAYBE #4), so whether bible-history.com pages are reliable or not isn't important. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree in part. ELMAYBE Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources indicates that we are still pointing to a reliable source, albeit indirectly. I.e., we have to establish whether this website leads to reliable info, which is the job of this noticeboard. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This is: Therefore I am inclined to consider all refs to this site as POV spam. WP:original research Staszek Lem (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC) WP:OR
 * a religious propaganda site
 * solicits donations
 * does not indicate the sources of its information (see eg [ http://www.bible-history.com/nero/NEROOverview.htm its article about Nero]), hence fails WP:ELN mentioned by user:srFleischman.
 * does not indicate scholarly credentials of the website owner
 * There are plenty of very very high quality sources on this subject. there is not any need at all to use marginal sources like this. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * if you click on the link at the top ([ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LinkSearch/*.bible-history.com this one]), you will see that the site is used as a reference, not just an EL, in many articles. it will take some work to check them one by one (which I intend to do) but before i started that i wanted to get a sense of the community about the source in general.  Seems like most folks view it like i do.... Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Site should be blacklisted as per WP:SELFPUBLISH, WP:FORK  and  WP:CIRCULAR - material added to the site is not vetted at all...in fact most pages are copy and pasted  directly from other sites with typos and all  ...thus WP:ELNEVER and WP:COPYLINK also applies. To put it simply as per WP:NOTRELIABLE "they have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest".  Adding the link as a source or external link in not what we are looking for here at all As per [ http://www.bible-history.com/biblehistoryonline_aboutbho.php bible-history.com] This site is constantly being updated with the help of writers, editors, researchers, print artists, musicians, voice artists, admin support and programmers most of whom contribute to this effort anonymously.-- Moxy (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blacklist per multiple. CorporateM (Talk) 02:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks all. I proposed it for the spam blacklist [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#bible-history.com here]. Jytdog (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅, Guy (Help!) 12:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Proving naturalized US citizenship (northern Cali)?
Hello! Does anyone have advice on how to support the claim that a person has become a naturalized citizen of the USA (processed through northern California)? I understand that northern California records up to 1989 are online, but this is a more recent naturalization. Does it make sense to reference the location of the archive, and if so, what would be a proper format?

Bonus question: Why 1989? Is there any law that restricts this kind of record from becoming searchable online if it was processed after 1989?

Thanks! -Eekiv 03:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Per WP:WPNOTRS, it is probably better to rely on secondary sources for such matters. Using primary records (particularly for BLP's) is often problematic, and may constitute WP:OR when it comes to actually ensuring the individual concerned is the correct one, and not another person of the same name. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You'll need a reliable secondary source. "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." BLPPRIMARY - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It may be worth noting that under WP:ABOUTSELF, you could probably use the subject themselves as a source, if they have published the claim that they are naturalized somewhere.Knight of Truth (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know that I would trust a BLP as a reliable source for naturalization, as I can see how someone might say they are, when they aren't really. Birthdays, degrees and graduation dates I'm more likely to take their word on - though people do lie about these as well. I would say you'll probably need a secondary source. CorporateM (Talk) 02:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I just note that the question does not explain context. It seems reasonable to assume this involves a living person in which case we have a reasonably clear policy not to use such primary records. But as a more general point, please explain context of RS questions when posting on this forum.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Question on a Youtube source
I know generally Youtube videos cannot be used as sources, but it is of an interview. Can you tell me if this can be used to verify if Drake Bell is a record producer and comedian or not? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to have linked a video. If there's no reasonable doubt that someone on a video is Drake Bell, it can be used as a source that Drake Bell said something about himself. Rhoark (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to link, . He didn't say it, but a reporter said it straight to him, no denial there, and it was taken as non-reliable, and it got to the point where the article was protected. Here.
 * Only what he says about himself would be usable. Interpreting the fact he didn't contradict the interviewer would be original research. If he's credited as producer on a record, that's enough to call him a record producer - no secondary required. Comedian is a bit trickier. Rhoark (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes,, I understand. He produced his album Telegraph, and his EP, A Reminder. And I've seen articles take actors that appeared in multiple sitcoms as comedians. And he appeared in The Amanda Show, All That, Drake & Josh, Zoey 101, Victorious, and on iCarly. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Absent any reliable source claiming that he is not a record producer or comedian, any further source to determine that he is is superfluous, YouTube included. Rhoark (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand your comment, if you could elaborate,, it's be great. But as far as I can tell, he has production, and is in several sitcoms, so I think nothing else is needed. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like a news broadcast that was re-published on YouTube, which should be A-ok. Because it is an interview, anything he says is self-published, because it's coming directly from him without vetting from an independent source; whereas anything she says is a secondary source. CorporateM (Talk) 03:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree about the things Bell says, but (to the extent CorporateM is suggesting it) I disagree that the things the interviewer says are reliable. Yes, this looks like some sort of published TV show, but the channel/producer can't be made out so there's no way to assess whether they have a reputation for fact checking. It could be a gossip channel with minimal fact checking. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Use of commercial locksmith site as ref versus a ref from The Guardian
After reverting some spammy references from User:Sarac12345, I noticed that this user has several times over the last few years added links to anytimelocksmiths.co.uk (e.g. this inline link. Suspecting COI/SEO, I reverted an edit that user has made using the same link on Mortise lock.  User:Andy Dingley reverted my revision with the comment Restore section and ref. Just because it's a commercial site doesn't make it implicitly spam. I found a link from The Guardian that supported the assertion regarding a particular lock and insurance, which Andy Dingley again reverted with the edit summary restore the locksmith. They are a more competent authority that a newspaper, they also explain what 3621 implies, which neither of your refs even try to.
 * Article: Mortise lock
 * Current reference: AnytimeLocksmiths.co.uk

I don't see how a locksmith company link would be superior to a ref from The Guardian which, while not as detailed as the commercial link, clearly supports the one-sentence assertion regarding locks and insurance policies. I don't want to edit war over this, so I'm seeking additional community feedback.OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * commercial sites rarely meet WP:RS - their primary function is to push their wares and services, not to provide accurate and factual information. and the guardian is FAR superior site. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's self-published (and self-promotional), so it has no business being in the article when better sources are available. --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

A merchant site could be reliable for very basic facts about a product they offer, such as its physical dimensions. A licensed locksmith is likely an expert on laws or insurance policies related to locks, but the usual standard for self-published experts applies - they must have been separately published on the topic by a reliable publisher. Rhoark (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "this user has several times over the last few years " . This user has 35 edits in total, having started last September. Isn't basic accuracy a requirement before accusing editors of being habitual spammers?
 * I restored the ref because it's a reasonable ref and I certainly see no problem with the editor's past history. They have edited a number of articles about locks, they haven't "spammed" by any reasonable interpretation.
 * The crux of this matter is that it's common knowledge to UK householders that insurance companies demand locks to BS3621(sic). The encyclopedic aspect to this is to explain, not that BS3621 is required, but what BS3621 is. The locksmith source does this, with a useful illustration. The Grauniad ref does not.
 * The first ref added to replace the "spammy" locksmith was to Confused.com, a purely web-hosted price comparison website. Now if I saw an illustrative ref to a minor local locksmith being replaced with a content-free link to such a web business, then that's a change that I'd regard as far more suspicious for "spam" than this ever was. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This should full in any questions the Guardian left unresolved Rhoark (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What does that ref explain that the Guardian ref doesn't? It still fails to describe anything about what 3621 requires.
 * The original ref The 5 Lever Mortice Deadlock is still the only one given that in any way describes what this standard means for a lock. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If it is a standard, then there should be the official document for this standard, something like this one, so that . Staszek Lem (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a source from a commercial lock maker, rather than a commercial lock seller. Is that really a significant difference?
 * That source is a page of impenetrable text. Standards, in raw form, are rarely readable.
 * That source isn't actually about BS3621. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not from commercial lock make, this is from a union of lock makers.The text is pretty much penetrable. A standard is a standard is a standard; readability irrelevant; precise interpretation is. I didn't say this is the ref to be added (I could have done it myself): I wrote "something like this one". Staszek Lem (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Can someone explain why we're comparing websites? We don't search for all the sources that contain a certain piece of information and then choose the most reliable one. We look at each source independently. If it's reliable according to our standards, it can be cited. If it's not reliable, it can't be cited. This means there may well be no reliable source for any given content, in which case the content generally gets deleted. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to second Rhoark: First, you have to have  an official source, then you can add interpretation from sources less definitive but more verbose. We have no idea what this particular vendor chose to tweak the description of standard to their advantage. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Not reliable Appears to be a locksmith company, not a union as specified. Commercial links are not forbidden; Symantec for example is known for providing one of the most widely read annual IT security reports and those reports are probably reliable. But in this case I see no special reason to believe they have a reputation for fact-checking. CorporateM (Talk) 02:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Reliable for the purposes of defining the product; the web sites of commercial companies are often by far the most reliable source for technical descriptions, and in particular can serve to interpret the standards, which are primary sources. No commercial company of note could possibly publish such material and be inaccurate about it: their business depends on it.  Some have even evolved into universally used publications, such as the Merck Manual. Such is the manner of publications in industry, and the failure to use such sites is a contributory factor towards the   ridiculously poor WP coverage in most of the less exciting technical fields.  The only real alternatives are trade textbooks and trade journals, which are poorly index and difficult to access, often known only to practical workers in the subject--and very likely to be out of date (especially textbooks).  It mainly needs to be kept in mind that most technical sources in practical fields are very much country-specific, and an article should ideally try to cover equivalents in at least the major English-speaking countries, although it is usually difficult for any one person to do this--at least, the article should indicate very clearly the applicable country.     DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Big Data to Knowledge - self published sources?
Hello. A user would like to use a series of sources to develop the Big Data to Knowledge article. I think we are in agreement that all the sources cited are written and published by the funder and organizer of the subject of this article. Some of the sources might be published by direct recipients of funding from the main government funder.

Can someone please comment at the article talk page about evaluating the appropriateness of sources? I take the position that the sources seem self published. The other user takes the position that they are not.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  23:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ and watchlisted. CorporateM (Talk) 03:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Vimeo link
Would this vimeo link be considered reliable to source the information in Sahaja Yoga. It was added to the article with by an IP who might actually be the person in the video. (See Talk:Sahaja Yoga). Would that make it a "primary source" and, therefore, OK to use per WP:PSTS or are there other issues in play here such as WP:UNDUE and WP:BLPSPS that should take precedence here? Any suggestions on what should be done would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Probably even a more appropriate self-published source wouldn't pass muster for that kind of claim. However, I usually see self-published sources being official bios and whatnot, and not every comment he makes in front of a video camera. Also, is there any proof that's him in the video? All I saw was "young poet" or something like that. CorporateM (Talk) 03:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure CorporateM. I only stumbled upon that article after seeing posted at WT:Talk page guidelines. Not sure who the person in the actually video is and was guessing by what I read at Talk:Sahaja Yoga and WNew Section" right below it. Anyway, I saw that you removed the entire section. I've have a feeling it's going to be re-added by the same IP. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No. That would be WP:OR. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

HangWith as a Production Diary
I'm currently working on Con Man (web series) and the production team is using video broadcasts through the social media platform Hang W/ (http://www.hangwith.com/) as a sort of production blog, both under accounts to the team members themselves and to an account unique to the series. They mentioned fan conventions they will be filming at in a recent one with the co-producer, and I currently wish to use it as a source, but I'm not entirely sure if it fulfils WP:TWITTER. (I'm somewhat sure it does, but I'm not certain.) As it stands, the single Hang W/ video will replace two Twitter references and moves it from an intention to a confirmation. Even if it's ill-advised for this particular statement, the team has expressed these videos in the future will turn into a production diary, as indicated on their Indiegogo campaign and a news items listed on Nasdaq, and I want to make sure for the future should something more weighty arise. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  22:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no question about the accuracy of the information. What is to be considered is whether the information should be included in Wikipedia. The usual answer would be no, the information is WP:PROMOTIONAL, because the only source covering it is self published. If there is an extraordinary reason to include it, like for example if it gives necessary context to other information presented by reliable sources, then it could be included. In that case, make a note on the talk page of why you included it.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  23:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In general, we tend to cover events that already happened, as oppose to plans for the future. This is covered under the Crystal Ball policy. The exception is when there is substantial analysis by a credible source, or for subjects like future-tech. We definitely shouldn't be covering future-looking plans with a primary source though. CorporateM (Talk) 02:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So, I shouldn't use it to source future plans or anything that doesn't really have enough weight to include in the article, to make sure I'm understanding correctly? I'll just hope reliable secondary sources publish the filming locations as the date approaches. If it's appropriate to ask, if, hypothetically, they discuss specific inspirations or creative process of the work through this and it cannot be sourced through another source, would it be alright to use? ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  15:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Using government sites such as the DOJ as a source
I have a broad question about the use of government sites such as, this and this  The use of the final source I've included was refused on March 6, with this edit summary: '' Remove press release as source per WP:SELFPUB. Remove health claims lacking WP:MEDRS sourcing''. Diff here  I'd like some feedback about using these and similar government sites as sources. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course primary sources can be used, but without third party analysis, they are easy to misuse. A press release is a poor source for the content that you added, in my opinion, but I disagree with Formerly 98 that it violates WP:MEDRS.- MrX 15:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The source is a reliable primary, fine for the attorney general's statement. Secondaries should be sought for context. Saying pesticides are toxic is a "sky is blue" level claim, not a medical claim. It doesn't seem necessary to include though. For the purposes of that article, it would do just as well to begin the quote at "By misleading consumers about the potential dangers...". Formerly98's edit to "illegal safety claims" is vague and uninformative. Rhoark (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Formerly 98 Gandy's summary here does not properly summarize my argument and it was posted without informing me, though I am the other party in the content dispute. I would like to explain my edits here:

The exclusion of this material was based on WP:SELFPUBLISH, which is part of the Wikipedia POLICY WP:VERIFIABILITY. Specifically, the policy states:


 * "self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources."

Footenote 9 of that same article further states:
 * "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases...."

The policy further elaborates the situations in which the use of self-published sources is acceptable: They may be used for non-exceptional claims about the organization that published the press release or other document but never to make claims about third parties.

This is not merely a guideline, but is part of a Wikipedia policy. To me it seems very clear. Formerly 98 (talk) 11:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you agree that Rhoark's response pretty much covers how you can apply policy in this case or does this need more discussion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughtful response. Rhoark's response was also thoughtful and well reasoned, but I disagree with his statement that "Pesticides are toxic is a blue sky statement". Methoprene, for example, is recommended by WHO for addition to drinking water cisterns to control malaria mosquito breeding, as its tox is lower than many natural food components. In any case, I believe the issue of whether a source is sufficient to establish toxicity falls under MEDRS, which would clearly exclude the DOJ as a reliable source for such statements. I realize its a quote, but if we allow quotes about health effects from non MEDRS sources, I think MEDRS then becomes so easy to circumvent we open a real can of worms.
 * Perhaps the critical question here is this: Is the PR being used as a source for the fact that a statement was made by the AG, or is it being used as a source for an attributed statement about the toxicity of the pesticide under discussion? I would argue both, and that it therefore is excluded by MEDRS. Respectfully Formerly 98 (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that where a specific compound is concerned, its toxicity should be backed by peer-reviewed research. As for self-publishing, don't focus overmuch on the listing of press releases as an example. What matters is not the form or style of the work, but whether there is a degree of oversight or gatekeeping between the author and final dissemination of the work. The press office of a government body should have copyeditors and legal advice, so that requirement is fulfilled. The usual cautions of WP:PRIMARY and WP:BIASED still apply. Rhoark (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. According to WP:SELFPUBLISHED, the characteristic feature of self-published sources that makes them unsuitable is "the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents."  Do I understand correctly that your position is that the legal advisors in the DOJ and Attorney General offices are able to provide independent review and thus overcome this issue?  This is my area of concern.  Respectfully, Formerly 98 (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No less independent than the relationship of a journalist and editor at the same newspaper. Rhoark (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This is not really a reliable source issue. In the diff the reference is used to cite a quotation, and those should get as close to the primary source as possible. I see more of an issue as to whether the quotation adds anything to the article. Rejecting government publications as a general policy isimply because they come out of the GPO is so ridiculous as to hardly merit discussion. Mangoe (talk) 11:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As I noted above, in my opinion Gandy miscast the issue. I never objected to the use of "Government sources". I pointed out that policy as described in WP:SELFPUBLISH prohibits the use of press releases other than for self-description.Formerly 98 (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Realizing that there are a couple of other issues here as well, I think it reasonable to point out that a press release from a private entity, like, for instance, a movie production company, is a lot different from a press release from, say, the National Institute of Health, NASA, or other governmental bodies and/or scientific research centers. The former very rarely have any sort of independent review in advance, the latter will be in general reviewed by at least the in-house lawyers immediately prior to release and will often discuss the results of scientific research which might be for the first time made available through the press releases. In general, the governmental/research center press releases might be seen by some as being more in the vague range between primary and secondary sources, as they tend to be written or at least reviewed before publication by individuals independent of the researchers and thus in a sense make them more secondary sources than primary sources. Particularly in press releases from government or research entities disclosing the results of prior research, I can't myself see any reasonable objections to using them, anymore than I would object to using academic journal articles written by the researchers about their studies. John Carter (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with you in principle, especially with respect to scientific and regulatory agencies such as NASA and the FDA. (Though I think that we need to edit WP:SELFPUBLISHED and not simply ignore it.  But somehow the PRs coming out of AG offices and the DOJ seem much more political.  They read like they were written by, well, prosecutors, and worse yet, ones that are explaining the importance of what they have achieved to the electorate.  In the courtroom they are balanced by defense attorneys - the U.S. constitution requires that the office of judge and prosecutor be separate, and prosecutorial misconduct gets hundreds of cases dismissed every year.  This is my gut feeling though it is hard to express it in a way that is easy to defend. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right that they are biased and primary, not to be treated as gospel. Useable, though. Rhoark (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Especially for factual details of court rulings, which is how they were being used in many of the cases. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This discussion is getting rather abstract, but in practice the answer is usually obvious. For example, here is one of the citations removed by Formerly 98 :
 * Source:
 * Article: Chevron Corporation
 * Content:

"In 2000, after violating the Clean Air Act at an offline loading terminal in El Segundo, California, Chevron paid, a $6 million penalty as well as $1 million for environmental improvement projects."
 * This is a statement about an objective fact, and the DoJ citation is obviously both relevant and reliable as a source to support this statement. There is no ambiguity whatsoever.  67.188.230.128 (talk) 07:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And this from March 8:  BTW, I want to add that Formerly 98 stated that I had brought a debate here without notifying him.  That was not the case at all--we were not in a debate re using government announcements, but I was aware that I have seen them widely used and have used them myself and needed to know if they are acceptable or not. Gandydancer (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It probably would have been best practice to notify Formerly 98, to avoid any suspicion of deviousness. Formerly 98 might think that by not notifying him, you wanted the luxury of presenting your argument here unopposed, grabbing a quicker/easier consensus in your favor, and slipping it into your back pocket so that you could use it in an anticipated confrontation with him over the issue.  I am not saying this was your intention; I am only saying these are the sorts of suspicions which can be avoided by notifying all parties. Xanthis (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not at all fair to me to suggest that I may have been acting in a devious fashion and it makes me angry to see my name used in that way. Please note that I asked my question "in general" and first gave a DOJ announcement that I used in the Cracker Barrel article where I was stunned to find that the article brushed over the fact that as late as 2004 Cracker Barrel restaurants were blatantly discriminating against black customers, the second one was a DOJ announcement related to Dow since that was the article I was currently working on, and the third one was a state government example, the one in which I was told that it was a "press report" and not usable.  This is/was not a case where I was asking about the use of a certain site for a certain claim in which I wanted to win an argument, but a broad question about the use of government announcements.  This question is important to me as I go about my WP editing.  To come here and have it suggested that I may have planned trickery is not at all fair to me and I resent it. Gandydancer (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Gandydancer, I did not suggest that you were acting deviously, or that it was your intention to do so. I merely pointed out what the other editor - who made the edit which you used as an example, and with whom you were in an ongoing discussion - might think and how those are the sorts of thoughts that can be best avoided by notifying all parties.Xanthis (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

This case is a misapplication of WP:SELFPUBLISH. The idea behind the policy (and the real-world concept) is that "X has paid to have his work published, and we have no reason to trust it except for the word of X him/herself", which in almost all cases is where the term is applied is not worth much. However in case of the source under consideration, its factuality is backed by the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York, which is certainly at least as credible as a generic popular publisher. Yes, there may be concerns about relative expertise, WP:PRIMARY etc, which mean that the source may need to be used with proper care and attribution. But dismissing this as a self-published source is simply not acceptable; if this is a common (mis)interpretation of the policy than it needs to be clarified, but I don't think that is the case. Abecedare (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Reliable. I must agree with Rhoark, Mr. X, Mangoe, and John Carter, and Abecedare. (But see my caveat about WP:MEDRS, below.)
 * Formerly 98, I know it must be frustrating for you that press releases from private individuals and companies carry little weight, while press releases from government offices have a certain currency. Frustrating though it may be, I believe it is quite true.  The "WP:SELFPUBLISH" policy must be read in the appropriate context.  It begins by saying, "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book..."  The wiki policy then goes on to talk about things like "newsletters, personal websites, open wikis," etc.


 * I could agree that this is WP:SELFPUBLISH if the attorney general were making these statements on his own Facebook page, but that is not the case here. A press release by a government agency relating to its official functions is probably not "WP:SELFPUBLISH."  If we take your (Formerly 98's) argument to its logical conclusion, then the bound volumes containing the original certified copies of the acts and resolves passed by a legislature in each year would arguably be "WP:SELFPUBLISH" in many cases.


 * The fact is that government bodies retain a certain neutrality even when they are engaged in regulatory, enforcement, and prosecutorial activities. Certainly at least as much neutrality as any publishing house.  The fact that these government officials are democratically elected by the people whom they govern does not make this any less true (you spoke about the taint of politics).  After all, unlike a private entity they are not engaged in litigation for their own pecuniary benefit.  Here, the published press release by the Atty. General's office is given additional weight by the fact that there is a referenced (and attached) court judgement supporting it - which really makes it more of a secondary source.


 * To apply these principles to the quote at issue: I believe that the official press release is perfectly usable as evidence that Dow paid a fine (especially since the court judgement itself is linked to). As the other users have mentioned, this doesn't mean that this is necessarily the best source we can find.  To address your "gut feeling": of course statements by government officials are not always gospel.  Just because a source meets the criteria for being cited to does not necessarily mean that it must always be true.  But that is a separate issue.


 * As for the statement, "Pesticides are toxic substances that should be used with great caution," in a medical or toxicology context this sentence would defintitely be problematic per WP:MEDRS. I am not a chemist (just a microbiologist) but I know that "pesticide" encompasses such a broad galaxy of chemicals that any general statement about toxicity is bound to be nonsensical.  There is a big difference between chlorantraniliprole (which is so non-toxic to mammals that it doesn't require a signal word on packages - not even "CAUTION") vs. the organophosphate pesticide tetraethyl pyrophosphate (which will kill a rat within seconds if a drop is applied to an eye or mucous membrane).  Here, the attorney general, with all respect, is wandering outside of his official bailiwick.  If he were the surgeon general it might be a different story.  But in the context of this diff ("environmental record of the company") it is really more of a question of relevance.  See also my comments on the article talk page. Xanthis (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Let me play devil's advocate with a reducto ad absurdum argument:  Would this press release from the office of U.S. Senator Rand Paul be a WP:RS for the political positions of Loretta Lynch?  This is also a government office.  In most states, the Attorney General, like the state's senators, are elected officials.  thanks.  Formerly 98 (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think your argument is hardly reductio ad absurdum: it is an excellent example that tests the point. To answer your question, I would say no, Sen. Paul's press release is not a reliable source for the political positions of another person.  But neither would a statement by the attorney general be a particularly reliable source for the political positions of another person -- judging political positions is outside of the scope of the official duties of that office.  It is simple electioneering, and if the attorney general were to release such a statement (even on official letterhead) he could not really claim to be clothed with the presumption of neutrality that comes when his office is discharging official duties.


 * There is an additional distinction that I think is very important: an individual senator is a private person. They are members of the senate, but the senate as an entity can act only by vote.  The senate can therefore "speak" only through its clerk.  Because of this, I would say that statements made by individual senators -- even statements directly pertaining to legislation which they claim was passed/not passed -- will never count as a primary source.  The attorney general, by contrast, is empowered by law to act individually in an official capacity, and to speak on behalf of the government.


 * In your particular example, the fact that Sen. Paul repeatedly uses the pronoun "I" is a strong clue. If the attorney general were to speak in terms of "I" (rather than in terms of "The State of New York"), IMO that would be good evidence that he is speaking his personal mind, rather than speaking on behalf of the State of New York.  Xanthis (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Unreliable. I agree with Formerly98 that these are self-published press releases and my analysis pretty much ends there. Government agencies use press releases like these for political reasons, e.g. to show off their accomplishments. Agencies such as the DOJ and the NY AG's office answer to elected politicians, whose reputation for accuracy is, well, I don't need to finish this sentence. There is no evidence these press releases have been fact-checked for scientific accuracy. They were probably written by lawyers or press secretaries rather than by journalists or scientists. They are certainly not peer reviewed in the scientific sense. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Dr. Fleischman, I have a question. I agree with you that WP:MEDRS statements made by an attorney general's office (e.g., "Pesticides are toxic chemicals.") are probably unreliable, as I mentioned in my comment.  But I wonder, do you feel the same way even about publications from a government office making factual statements directly concerning their official duties  (e.g., "Dow has agreed to pay a $2M fine to the State of New York"), and maybe even referencing a primary source such as the court judgement?
 * Second, I can understand your suspicions that certain government agencies may try to use certain types of publications as a form of subtle electioneering. But I propose that "self-serving" does not necessarily mean "self-published" in the sense meant by WP:SELFPUBLISH (personal websites, blogs, open wikis, etc).  While we might argue that certain publications from various government offices can be unreliable for other reasons (and possibly exclude them on that basis), it doesn't necessarily mean that they are WP:SELFPUBLISH. Xanthis (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * On your first question: A closer issue that depends on the specific content. WP:ABOUTSELF would apply in some circumstances. In all cases attribution would be necessary for such self-published statements. Regardless, it doesn't depend on the public-private distinction. Two private companies can settle a dispute and put out similar press releases, and the analysis would be the same. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * On your second question: "Self-published" doesn't just mean web content. See WP:V footnote 9 - press releases are expressly and squarely included. There is no exception for press releases from government agencies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This has been quite an interesting discussion, but right now it seems that the majority of commentators are taking a position that directly contradicts the literal language of WP:V, which is a POLICY. It is my understanding that policies cannot be overridden by local consensus, one needs to get consensus to change the policy.

What is the next step here? I don't mean to forum shop, but I don't think the conclusion of this noticeboard discussion can be to ignore the literal language of WP:V. I don't usually get involved in these sorts of things, should this discussion be moved to the WP:V talk page? Thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion should run its course. Contributions are still coming in. If they stall you might want to consider starting an RFC. But moving over to WP talk seems inappropriate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, any consensus here cannot change policy, but can still be a valid good-faith interpretation of the policy as it relates to this case. For example, the qualified exception already granted to "newsblogs" (and especially the explanatory comments in footnote 9) seem to indicate that publications sponsored by recognized and reputable organizations can be excepted, even if self-published. (Would anybody really argue that Encyclopædia Britannica is no longer verifiable were the company to print the next edition in-house?)
 * Regarding the second point -- good question! The WP:SELFPUBLISH policy begins with the word "anyone", and in citing examples seems to use the word "personal" repeatedly (e.g., "personal websites," "personal blogs,").  That obviously doesn't mean the policy applies only to individual self-publishers, but it seems to be groping toward an idea (like the image of a guy running a blog from his basement in his undershirt) that is easy to visualize but hard to define. I am not aware of anything that prohibits specific ideas for re-wording from being advanced on WP:V talk at any time.  Does anybody have ideas about how the policy could be re-worded to be improved?  I agree with Dr. Fleischman that this excellent discussion should run its course.  Perhaps out of this discussion will come some ideas about how to further clarify the WP:SELFPUBLISH policy.  Xanthis (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Unreliiable Press releases do not meet rs. Furthermore, it usually raises alarms when editors seek this type of source.  Presumably if it were a press release then the press would have written a story.  In doing so, they would determine what to present as fact and what to present as merely the opinion of the DOJ.  Publication would also determine how important the statement was.  If no story was written, then the press has ignored it and we need to explain why it should be mentioned here, per WP:WEIGHT.  TFD (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I agree with TFD on the weight issue, but my reasoning is because of WP:PRIMARY and not because the statement of self-published.
 * I am only objecting to labeling announcements by DOJ and other governmental (and private) institutions self-published because of considerable consequences that would follow, requiring for example removal of any nobelprize.org or pulitzer.org link from any BLP (since such "self-published" sources can never be used as third-party sources about living people). Abecedare (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I continue to believe that User:DrFleischman and User:Formerly 98 interpretation of what constitutes non-usable self-published works is not consitent with the real-world use of the term, or what wikipedia policy entails. But for now, I'll ping board-veterans who may have some useful input. I would also like DrFleischman's (and any other interested editor's) view on whether this edit of mine from two days back at a high-profile, contentious, medical article citing a "self-published" report authored and published by NHMRC was against WP:SELFPUBLISH or WP:V policies. Abecedare (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The report you used would not be excluded because WP:V 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.", which would generally apply to agencies such as the NHMRC, EPA, and FDA.
 * WP:V also contains a redirect to WP:RS which states:
 * "Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies"
 * Formerly 98 (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sufficiently versed in MEDRS or in Australian government to answer Abecedare's question. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No source is absolutely reliable or unreliable, at least not for everything. All sources, without exceptions, have limitations. The actual use of a source depends  on many factors   what the reputation of a source may be for a particular subject, on the degree of editorial control and responsibility of a source is, what the topic being discussed is, whether it represents an exceptional claim, especially about BLPs, and so on. Even  press releases: they depend on the authority of the person or body making the press release.  On political matters, government  sources typically represent what the government wants people to think about  the issue--they do not even prove what the government in question actually thinks.   For the articles in question here. The Rand press releases is proof of what he wishes to saw his views on the subject are. The DOAJ items are   not proof of the facts stated therein, merely  proof that the parties agreed to a settlement on these terms, or that a penalty was assed.  They are statements of the legal issue at hand, not the scientific consensus. A party settling a case usually does not accept wrongdoing, just the expediency of making a settlement. To a certain extent they usually do represent the scientific consensus, but this is a matter of interpretation.
 * A government public health agency making an explicit statement of the scientific consensus, as in the Australian homeopathy example, is very strong evidence of what the consensus is. They're a reliable secondary source within the meaning of MEDRS. They're not definitive,  but then nothing is. Even the most reliable sources listed in MEDRF have at times been mistaken, or subsequently proven to be wrong.
 * The policy WP:V, like all WP policies, itself requires interpretation. It is interpreted in the guideline WP:RS, WP:MEDRF, etc., specific cases are interpreted here  or one the article talk pages. Even what looks like the  most absolute policy statement is intended to be read in a reasonable way, as it cannot foresee all circumstances. My opinion is that WP:V is correct as it stands as a statement of our policy, within these limits of interpretation. It is never a good idea to modify accepted wording to deal with specific  exceptions.  DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * SPS says that an SPS, like a press release, shouldn't be used to make claims about third parties. If the DOJ press release is about a settlement, that settlement is between the DOJ and a third party, and I think the DOJ press release is a reliable source for the existence of the settlement and its terms. but like any WP:PRIMARY source, editors should be very careful not to go beyond what it actually says and not add analysis or commentary to it. Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * These aren't primary sources. These are press releases describing settlements, so they're self-published secondary sources. The primary source would be the settlement agreement itself. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * they are manifestly secondary sources, as at least the third mentioned  includes the opinions of others. But they are self-published, and therefore reflect the official view of what the agency in question wishes to say about the settlement--and is therefore subject to multiple layers of ambiguity and need for nPOV interpretation.  DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's cut through all the wikilawyering shall we?... we are allowed to use self-published sources as long as we do so appropriately, and we are allowed to use primary sources, as long as we do so appropriately... so all this angst over the classification of the source is actually a distraction from the more important question: Are we using the source appropriately? Does it actually verify the specific statement found in our article? You can not answer this in generic terms. Each and every citation is unique... because in each case the source is being cited to support a unique statement. in other words... a government press release may well be quite reliable in one context, and yet the exact same press release will not be reliable in another context. We need to know the specific context to meaningfully answer the question. Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Reliable for use intended. David Tornheim (talk) 08:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Use of encyclopedia as source for statement that humorism is pseudoscience

 * Article: Humorism
 * Content and source:

Today, humourism is described as pseudoscience.

removed this from the article:
 * first with edit note, "We need something better than a source on extraterrestrials", which is a bullshit reason, then:
 * then again; with edit note: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages"

I asked for a valid reason to reject the content and source, and JS responded with: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." (WP:TERTIARY)''"

He offered no actual discussion, except to restate that quote from RS... which is no discussion at all. So, here we are. Is the content and source OK? Maybe not, but I am looking for actual, thoughtful input. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Source is not a fringe source, it is a reliable source about fringe topics (very important distinction). Secondary sources can trump tertiary sources, but the high-value that secondary sources holds does not mean that we cannot use tertiary sources.  The bit about discussion does not mean that every tertiary source has to be discussed on the talk page before being added, it means that if he can bring in some sources that counter the contested source, we should downplay or avoid the contested source.  WP:PSTS also says "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources."  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Jytdog. First of all, I opened the discussion at Talk:Humorism#Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy, so I am pretty surprised to hear that I "offered no actual discussion". Second, calling another editor's comment "a bullshit reason" is hardly WP:CIVIL nor constructive, in my opinion. And third, as you already said yourself, WP:TERTIARY goes as follows (emphasis added):
 * "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. [...] Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages."


 * Did you discuss at the article Talk Page before re-inserting the source? No. Instead, I said that "we should strongly favor reliable secondary sources instead of some tertiary sources, such as encyclopedias". This seems to be in line with WP:TERTIARY. I hope this helped to clarify. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Favoring secondary sources is not a reason to remove a tertiary source. It would be a reason to replace it with a secondary source for a specific point, but tertiary sources are better for "providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources."  Please follow the spirit of the policy instead of just hanging on a single out-of-context portion.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply, Ian.thomson. Indeed, I launched the discussion at the article Talk Page, and not until now I got a reasonable answer. I am hoping, though, that user Jytdog will control his emotions better in the future, and restrain himself from calling other users' comments as "bullshit" or such. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * i tried to discuss with you JS and all you did was offer nonsense ("source about extraterrestrials") and repeat a quote from RS three times, which is not actual discussion. Which is still all you are doing (now for the 4th and 5th times). I am looking forward to hearing from others, which is why I posted here. If you have something thoughtful to say, I look forward to hearing it.  Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The source is perfectly acceptable for the claim. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm the one who inserted it and I thought it was a perfectly acceptable WP:RS too. Kindzmarauli (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course there is no problem with the source. It's not the 'ideal' source, but the fact that modern use of the theory of humours is pseudoscience should be uncontroversial, though I think the statement itself could be rephrased to emphasise that it is the continued use of humour theory that is pseudoscience. The theory was science (i.e. "knowledge") when it was dominant within medicine. Jayaguru-Shishya, User:Jytdog is correct that the mere fact that you quote a passage from WP:RS does not constitute a 'discussion', since the passage does not say encyclopedias cannot be used. If it were a "source about extraterrestrials" you might have a point, but it isn't and you don't. Paul B (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There has been some criticism of the source regarding whether the specific content of specific articles is reliable. But, as with most encyclopedias, the reliability of any individual article does not relate to the matter of article selection. It is not necessarily an ideal source, as Paul says, and I can honestly see that, but I haven't seen anything which indicates that there has been any significant question regarding the subjects chosen for inclusion in that source. The exact phrasing of the content might be open to question, but I can't see any good reason to remove any such mention based on that source entirely. John Carter (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * question - this is, right now, a snow close. We have 4 new voices, plus the editor who posted it, plus me, who all think the source  is fine for the content (with a small tweak to the content, perhaps).  You yourself have not even provided a reason for "no" - just cited a guideline that says a secondary source would be better.  In the absence of any actual "no"  here, do you see a need to take up more of the community's time with this? Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy (ISBN 0-8160-3351-X) is an unreliable source that fails WP:MEDRS. It is neither a widely recognised medical textbook nor a scientific review article and its reliability has been seriously questioned by the skeptic community. The Skeptical Inquirer review of the book says that, ".. errors, major and minor, can be found throughout.", "It reads more like a collection of opinions", "[needs to] contain material that is both correct and objective. Unfortunately, this tome fails on both counts." Please refrain from using this source in all medical articles. - A1candidate  00:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the above editor should read User talk:SandyGeorgia. The apparent opinion of what may well be more knowledgeable editors about that source is that the above claim is a bit of a logical fallacy. As indicated there, what is being discussed here is whether the subject is a "pseudoscience". That, however, seems to have no bearing on whether it is or is not medically accurate. And as someone familiar with that review, as I said in my last comment above, there is nothing indicating that the subjects selected for inclusion in the encyclopedia are not legitimately included. I rather strongly urge the above editor to perhaps realize that there is in no way a clear and obvious equivalence of the terms "medicine" and "pseudoscience," despite his or her seemingly absolute conviction regarding that point. John Carter (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Webster's New World Medical Dictionary describes humorism as "definitively demolished" since the 1800s. Dismissing the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience as flawed is one thing, but asking for a MEDRS to cite for the statement "humorism is now regarded as pseudoscience" seriously makes as much sense as demanding MEDRSs for similar statements about astrology, alchemy, or the Nine Herbs Charm. Humorism was totally disproven before the 20th century and its absence is a rather distinguishing feature of modern medicine. WP:COMMONSENSE would dictate that we do not need a MEDRS to dismiss humorism, but that a MEDRS would be needed to say that humorism is not a pseudoscience. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to mention WP:PARITY supports use of this source in this context. Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Unreliable The source in question starts by explaining the various difficulties of using the term pseudoscience and, amusingly, invalidates itself, "The word 'pseudoscience' is not itself a scientific term. Insofar as it connotes a rigor it does not in reality possess, one might even call it a pseudoscientific term."  Looking at the entries for A, these include atomism, Agassiz, Age of the Earth, antimatter, aphrodisiac and Avebury.  As these all seem to be reasonably respectable topics, the source should not be used indiscriminately to tag any such subject as pseudoscience.  Andrew D. (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The term is difficult and POV-pushers for fringe theories love to endlessly discuss the demarcation problem. Sure there are boundary problems, but red is not blue and the argument becomes idiocy after a while.  And there are pseudoscientific aspects to all those topics you just cited. The proposed content clearly limits application of the term to modern proponents of humorism.  Jytdog (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wholehearted agreement with Jytdog here. The articles linked to by Andrew Davidson bear the same titles as those in the encyclopedia, but it is also true that each of those links is to a topic which is rather broader than humorism. For instance, we all know Avebury exists, and that cannot be said to make it pseudoscientific. the article however deals with the pseudoscientific nature of some of the claims made about it. Humorism however is a much narrower topic, and the EoP article seems to be dealing with, basically, the same topic as our own article, so, on that basis, the claim, reasonable in some other cases, that the similarity of article names does not necessarily indicate the similarity of article subjects does not seem valid here. John Carter (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Humorism seems quite a wide topic in that such ideas dominated medicine for thousands of years. Even now, the idea that trouble may be caused by such imbalances is still prevalent; we just have a more detailed understanding of the components of which we might have an excess or deficiency - cholesterol, iron, serotonin, vitamins, &c.  And our current understanding still seems quite limited in some ways.  For example, a recent blood test indicates that my lipid level is higher than the doctor might like.  But can she tell me whether I actually have incipient atherosclerosis or not?  There doesn't seem to be a good test for this and so uncertain risk factors are used instead.  These risk factors seem quite like the broad stereotypes of the humoural sort but instead of being choleric say, you might have a high BMI and type-A personality.  Plus ça change...  Andrew D. (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OR claim that's akin to saying alchemy isn't necessarily a pseudoscience because gold, silver, and lead are on the periodic table. Your doctor would hopefully be using the risk factors based on previous documented connection, not because of magical stereotypes.  Humorism is specifically the belief in blood, phlegm, and black and yellow biles, not other bodily fluids.
 * Geocentrism and Astrology dominated astronomy for thousands of years as well, but we still describe them as pseudoscience (if not outright superstition). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

To me this does not look like a normal RSN question? It is easy to find sources saying all kinds of things, but then we need to discuss due weight, which is more of an editing discussion. What are the editing concerns that lead to the discussion? I have noticed in the past around Wikipedia that the term "pseudoscience", whether it is a clear term or not, is more common on Wikipedia than in outside publications, and this seems to be linked to interest in Wikipedia's own policies, whereby articles involving "pseudoscience" come under the martial law of "discretionary sanctions" (which seems to derive from historical debates about climate change articles, but has had some mission creep by my reading). Is that playing a role here? I note remark above that there might be a difference between science which has been historically found wrong, and "pseudoscience" and that seems correct. Pseudoscience is not normally a term used to apply to Aristotle for example and I don't think we should have articles about classical science, philosophy and medicine coming under discretionary sanctions just because there are still proponents today.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Andrew L, this is indeed not a normal RSN question. I agree with others; the source given is reliable for the specific use proposed. Additionally humorism is pretty valueless as an aid to understanding the human body. Discussion of our, perhaps over-inclusive, use of the term "pseudoscience" and our possible over-eagerness to use it repeatedly to disparage out-of-date attempts to understand the world, is best had elsewhere. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * and on the face of it, this is a straight up and very obvious RSN case.  The content and sourcing were objected to, based on the source.  Consensus is clear that they are fine.   We can guess that JS's actual objection was use of the term "pseudoscience" but our guesses about other editors' motivations have no place in WP. Jytdog (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The historical practice of now-outdated science is by no means pseudoscience, just early science -- but the continued advocacy of those ideas once they've been disproven to the point of sorcery is pseudoscience. Ptolemy is not classified as a pseudoscientist, but a modern advocate of Ptolomaic cosmology would be an astrologer (and so the only way for them to not be a pseudoscientist would be openly admitting they're practicing magic, not science). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @Ian.thomson, as an editor with a long history on working on history of science and philosophy I am increasingly seeing these types of definitions of pseudoscience on Wikipedia, but not elsewhere in outside reliable sources. In fact the term is not even common outside Wikipedia, and to the extent that some blogs and journalists are starting to use it more, Wikipedia may even be the reason. It seems to be a Wikipedian definition? It seems to be a sort of mission creep thing coming from the history some years back of debate on climate change articles wherein pseudoscience became a critical term for giving admins special power, right? Anyway, for example can you find any source which says that Thomism is pseudoscience for example? Thomists, or at least some of them, follow the arguments of Aristotle, who argued against the style of philosophy which rebooted in modern times and which we now call science. So they fit your definition.
 * @Jytdog, yes I do recognize that in theory we can point to a sources question, but it is a rather difficult question to get worked up about. Encyclopedias can be used on Wikipedia, although in some contexts they are considered weak sources. It becomes a question of due weight, and due weight is generally a topic for article talk pages, although for sure there is nothing wrong with coming here for some extra opinions. OTOH your reply seems to confirm that it is really all about this term which is important for Wikipedians: pseudoscience? There is also seems to be a questioning of motives on both sides. I have not looked closely at the case, but it seems that the accusation is that the word is being forced into the article, using a weak source. Is that a fair summary? I do not see that the replies here have given any arguments for or against that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning anybody's motives; I will not delve beyond the surface of the objection that was actually raised. Which has now been well addressed in the appropriate forum. If you want to explore the use of the term "pseudoscience" generally, WT:FRINGE is thataway, and if you want to discuss whether the term is appropriate to use in the humorism article, Talk:humorism is thataway.  Thanks Jytdog (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thomism doesn't exactly make empirically testable claims, but humorism and astrology do. Our article doesn't refer to Thomism as pseudoscience, and neither did I.  Young Earth Creationism would be a better example, and we do refer to attempts to make empirical claims supporting YEC as pseudoscience.  Ian.thomson (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes Ian.thomson but this definition of pseudo-science is again rather Wikipedian as far as I know and the language you are referring to in those example Wikipedia articles will have been placed there by Wikipedians, just like in the case under discussion. I am aware that there is quite a lot of discussion going on around Wikipedia about making sure that certain articles are seen as connecting to "pseudo-science", or not connecting to it, because that term then connects to the "martial law" of discretionary sanctions etc. In some cases I have personally seen very controversial efforts being made to twist the wording of articles quite far from what the sources say, in order to make sure that a big black line is drawn between a "history of science subject" (in the example I came into contact with this was teleological argument) and a "pseudo-science subject" (in my example "intelligent design", which NB is supposedly not the article for the intelligent design movement). Problem there is that not one source draws such a big black line. One practical result of long term debate on this apparent wiki-OR, is that the word pseudoscience has been added to the first line and definition of the topic of that article, although there are very few sources that use the word, and no sources at all which say this is a defining characteristic of intelligent design. The arguments given for justifying this include wikipedian definitions of pseudoscience much like the one you give. Is there any chance that the case in hand was similar? In any case, it is important, if you want feedback to be useable, to explain the context of the disagreement. Just coming here asking "can we ever use this source?" is actually not the correct way to use this forum. See the instructions at the top.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In my original post i named the article, and provided the content and source, and asked if the source was an RS for the content. look at it.  nobody asked any general questions.  I think this thread is done. Jytdog (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean that you have not wanted to mention what was controversial about using the source. As gets said over and over on this forum, almost every source is good for something. What is clear from the feedback you have received is that it is apparently a weak source. The implication of this is that if there are debates about the weight it is being given, it might be problematic. There has also been a question raised about whether we are using the source beyond its own intentions, because I see the remark above given that the source itself questions the exactness of the term, whereas apparently some of the controversy here is about using the source to make a very black/white type of comment?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll say this one more time. The editor who reverted and gave one bullshit reason and one non-reason (quoting policy that tertiary sources should be discussed but never saying anything) never said anything about pseudoscience. You are making that assumption. You are free to do that, but do not fault me for not dealing with your assumption about the original objections to the content and its source.  It may be that you are raising that issue yourself but you have not framed it that way. Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed I have not wanted to take a position at all, because I am unsure of the context. It is in any case true that just because a source is tertiary does not mean we can not use it. I am just saying that there might be other more valid concerns, including due weight concerns, and also concerning the quality of this specific tertiary source, which is apparently questionable. I stand by saying that on this noticeboard there is a long term recognized problem coming from editors who post without explaining context. Of course sometimes people ask questions here in a very focused way such as "can we use tertiary sources?" (ignoring other concerns) in order to get what they want in a content dispute.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * i provided the exact and complete objections that were raised, with diffs. Done here. Jytdog (talk)


 * Reliable. Source is fine for the statement: "Today, humourism is described as pseudoscience." 2.27.78.13 (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe, although some of the information being posted here sounds a bit concerning. OTOH I continue to wonder if that is the real point of the disagreement, and therefore whether this is the right forum. Apparently the disagreement could be one of notability. In other words, is there really significant published discussion about "humourism today", or is humourism mainly a "history of science" subject? Is that not the issue of discussion? (I still have not looked closely.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Reliable as a source for what is and is not considered pseudoscience. Obviously. Equally obviously, quacks who practise quackery based on humourism (i.e. a large swathe of the alternative "whole medical systems" insist otherwise and do research to try to bolster their beliefs, thus neatly proving the point. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Unreliable - According to our article on the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, the contributors of this book are mostly affiliated with dubious academic positions such as "Department of Religious Studies" and "Center for UFO Studies". Those fighting pseudoscience must realize that using non-scientific sources to fight pseudoscience will only serve to weaken their own arguments and undermine the credibility of the skeptic's movement. - A1candidate  00:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And those advocating pseudoscience need to understand the venues in which the demarcation issue is discussed, and not hold out for the impossible. Humourism is a refuted notion, the modern purported study of humoural interventions is pseudoscience. It is hard to think of any department more appropriate than religious studies, for investigation of humourism, which is, essentially, a religious philosophy and not a scientific or medical construct.
 * The irony here is that if the ufologists were not included in the advisory panel, cranks would be complaining that there were no "experts". We see this all the time with homeopathy in particular, where any negative review finding is always waved away using a variety of excuses, and the response of the Aussie homeoquacks have used precisely this argument against the recent government review. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're the one advocating pseudoscience - because you promote pseudoscientific publications such as Science-based Medicine and other self-published blogs that superficially employ the scientific method but are in fact based on subjective opinion. The demarcation issue is often discussed in scientific literature, except you're completely blinded to it and fail to realize the mere existence of numerous quack-busting review articles such as and.


 * The irony here is that if mainstream scientists and medical doctors were the only contributors to this text, those fighting pseudoscience would complain that the "demarcation issue" is not discussed in the context of humorism and they would not have cited this source in the first place. And we would obviously not have the need for this pointless discussion. - A1candidate  12:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue here is really a categorical fallacy: pre-scientific "medicine" and medicine are two very different entities. Yes, humoural doctrines had a place in pre-scientific "medicine", as did many other now discarded ideas. The crucial thing is that these ideas were jettisoned as medicine began to be a scientifically-founded field.
 * Alchemy became chemistry, astrology became astronomy, humourism became... well, nothing, really, because it is worthless as a theory of physiology or disease so science had to start over from scratch.
 * We would document them as pre-scientific beliefs were it not for the fact that a significant number of people continue to believe in humoural theory, and to treat actual patients with actual ailments as if humoural theory were valid, despite the fact that it is not. Worse, they conduct sciencey-looking "studies" to try to prove their beliefs to be true. That is why humourism is pseudoscience, not pre-science. It is precisely analogous to creationism. It is a historical construct that is perpetuated for reasons of faith and doctrine by a minority, long after science has shown it to be invalid, and which nurtures a cottage industry producing "studies" that, by ignoring all conflicting evidence, "prove" their faith to be true.
 * That is pretty much the dictionary definition of pseudoscience, of course. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the Galenic school of medicine was not completely pre-scientific because the development of the scientific method is actually inseparable from the history of science or the history of mankind, for that matter. According to, "In addition to these very perceptive insights on physiology, the Galenical school made important advances in anatomy".


 * Humorism was not "jettisoned" by medical science. It was what led to medical science in the first place. For if there was no humorism, there would have been no modern medicine. On the other hand, if there was no creationism, we would not have any creation science. Alchemy became chemistry, astrology became astronomy, and humorism (as taught by Galen) became physiology (See ). - A1candidate  08:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As someone who has worked a lot on history of science articles, but none on humorism specifically, I have to say that A1candidate is right. There is no big black line that reliable sources on this subject can draw between "scientific" and "pre scientific". That is the kind of position one finds on blogs, but it does not reflect how medicine really developed. The Greeks already made a distinction between traditional knowledge (nomos) and knowledge built up in a methodical neutral way (episteme). In the case of a "practical" science such as medicine, one of the big distinctions between modern and classical science, teleology and similar metaphysical ideas, was never a factor, because it was accepted that in practical science you have to build knowledge based on what works, even if you are not sure why. (The debate between teleological classical science and modern science can be described as one of whether all science should be like medicine.) Humorism, you might say, was based on theoretical speculation combined with practical experience, and that is where it went wrong. But this speculation still plays a role today, and many ideas which seem true today will be proven wrong in the future.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Unreliable for reasons already stated. David Tornheim (talk) 08:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding removal of tertiary sources from an article
I would be very interested in any comments regarding the removal of tertiary sources as sources from the List of new religious movements article, the bulk of which is indicated by the revision history here. The primary concerns are whether the removal is actually necessarily supported by policy and guidelines, and the second, probably bigger, concern is whether it is reasonable to, in at least one instance included in the changes indicated above, leave at least one of the items listed unsourced by the removal of the tertiary source. Also, considering the sometimes controversial nature of the term NRM itself, I would be interested in whether or not having as many such sources, primary, secondary, or tertiary, would be perhaps in the best interests of the article, to eliminate the question as to whether the inclusion of a subject is based on perhaps one single perhaps questionable claim in one source or not. John Carter (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In the long run, any entries not sourced to reliable secondary sources should probably end up removed from the (as you point out) controversial list. The editnotice for the list has been in place since 2009 and clearly specifies that "All material in the article must be sourced with citations to secondary sources" as a part of the inclusion criteria.  Tertiary sources may help us with high-level context, but (especially in a controversial area), secondary sources are needed.  Having said all of that, there may not be any harm in leaving the tertiary sources in place - we just need to ensure that secondary sources are added (or the entries are removed). --Tgeairn (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The above comment is, unfortunately I believe, very much in error, and I very much welcome the input of any uninvolved editors regarding that matter. It has been well and repeatedly stated here and on the other noticeboards that tertiary sources are at least acceptable to demonstrate that given topics can be included in lists. The rather, at least to my eyes, seriously questionable statement in this edit summary regarding what that individual declares, apparently by fiat, is the "primary interest" is not in fact the most important thing. I myself believe that the statements of the above editor are themselves an indicator of perhaps less than adequate understanding of policies and guidelines, particularly when removing a tertiary source leaves an entry in a list unsourced, and believe it not unreasonable to request that someone whose grasp of procedures is perhaps questionable not declare themselves as being the judge and jury regarding what sourcing is and is not adequate for inclusion in a list. John Carter (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Tertiary sources are suitable for general information about a subject. I believe the edit notice is contrary to policy and should be modified. In addition, not everyone makes a distinction between secondary and tertiary sources; some lump secondary and tertiary sources together as secondary sources. So if the edit notice doesn't have a link to the definition of secondary source intended by the edit notice, who's to say tertiary sources don't satisfy the edit notice? Jc3s5h (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Not really an RSN issue, more of a WP:NORN issue, but oh well. Neither of you are quite right on this. WP:OR is quite clear that tertiary sources can be used and are even preferable in some situations. Secondary sources are not required. However, stylistically it's inappropriate to cite "as many such sources, primary, secondary, or tertiary," as possible, as this is a recipe for citation overkill. In most cases a good approach is to cite the single most reliable source available. An exception to this is the rule that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Most of the content at List of new religious movements seems pretty unexceptional to me. And I think a few sources (say, three) should be sufficient even for the most exceptional content in the encyclopedia. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You are right of course on the overkill aspect being potentially abused. We shouldn't overburden an entry with, for instance, more than a few citations unless the material being cited is particularly questionable. Unfortunately, I regret to say, I don't myself know of any group which really likes being called an NRM, and that makes effectively every entry in the list potentially questionable by that group's supporters. And, again unfortunately, considering the sometimes questionable arguments about some of these entires, and the fact that some of the sources used might not specifically use NRM per se in the title, like Lewis's Encyclopedia of cults, sects, and new religions, which is probably one of the best sources in general on the topic but arguably doesn't use the exact phrase NRM per se, sometimes multiple citations are appropriate. So, maybe, that source and others like it which might not use the exact term prominently, and one of the others which does specifically prominently use the phrase NRM, might be useful, and, if one of them might be challenged by some, a third for confirmation of that one. John Carter (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that a group doesn't like being labeled a certain way doesn't strike me as a proper reason to invoke WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Invocation of that policy should be reserved for, well, extraordinary cases, and if we used the criterion you suggest it would be invoked an awful lot. As for sources not specifically using the NRM term, that's really a verification issue. Either the source verifies the content or it doesn't, and this must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If the source doesn't verify the content it shouldn't be cited, and adding more non-verifying sources would only make the article that much more misleading. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, historically, the arguments get made an awful lot. And one of the other really regrettable situations with this particular topic is the fact that the term NRM is so newly agreed upon, well after the anticult movement started, that the arguments based on cult≠NRM or sect≠NRM are rather frequently made. If there were more really good sources since the establishment of the term, that wouldn't be as much of a problem, but there are only one or two journals dealing with the topics and the number of books and other sources since the development of the term which really use the term at all prominently isn't that good. So, yea, it could even be argued, perhaps somewhat effectively, that even an article about the topic in Nova Religio or the older journal "Syzygy" does not necessarily mean that the subject qualifies as an NRM. John Carter (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case our article might be a good candidate for deletion under WP:DEL-REASON #6. I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to have an opinion on the matter. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems that 's point about the lack of reliable secondary sources, particularly the lack of sources that agree with one another, is a good argument for having a WP:Secondary requirement for inclusion. As the list stands now, we have several hundred references to three of the sources.  For the list to have value beyond being a reprint, we can and should do better than that.  If we can't, then the entry doesn't belong on the list (or the whole list should go as  mentions above).  The tertiary sources can certainly stay referenced in the article/list, but secondaries should be required for inclusion. --Tgeairn (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your POV is noted. However, your argument that a list can only have value if it is "beyond being a reprint" to my eyes seems to show a misunderstanding of one of our core policies as per WP:VERIFIABILITY, and I find it nothing less than amazing that someone who describes himself as an experienced editor seems to be arguing that his personal opinion about what are sufficient basis for inclusion should take priority over extant policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with John on this point. As I explained, removal because of citation solely to tertiary sources is directly contravened by our policy on original research. My point about deletion was something completely different. I'm saying the inclusion criteria might be either unusably narrow (labeled by RS's as an NRM) or unusably ambiguous (labeled by RS's as something that may or may not be synonymous with NRM). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In this particular case, the term NRM is occasionally avoided in favor of more "politically correct" language, but the different terms like "emerging religions" are all pretty much describing the same set of groups. The field itself, perhaps strangely, in this case seems to be, based on the available academic sources, more clearly defined than the specific name most frequently given to the field. I aee on WorldCat the dominant categorization terms seem to be "cult," "sect," and "new religious movement," or plurals or translations thereupon, so the field is fairly well defined, even if the terminology still isn't. John Carter (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Tertiary sources are acceptable, but articles must be based mainly on secondary sources. I never use them and if it were up to me I would ban them.  However, I see no reason to remore them as sources unless better sources are provided or the text they supported is removed.  TFD (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * this depends on the specific sources. Tertiary sources such as reliable subject encyclopedias are usually even more appropriate for Wikipedia articles, at least as a foundation, than more specific secondary sources. On the other hand, a mere list of organizations under a heading is not usually a reliable source unless it is a list that shows them meeting an important and specific criterion, and is compiled by a reliable publisher.  DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC).

endgame.org
Was used at Citizens for a Sound Economy for the claim
 *  Between 1986 and 1990, CSE was granted almost $5 million from various Koch foundations. "David Koch and several Koch Industries employees served as directors of CSE and the CSE Foundation." 

It appears to be a personal blog of George Draffan, with big sections about the Bilderburg conspirators etc.  Collect (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a convenience link for a book published by "Apex Press and the Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy". Apex Press is an imprint of Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, so it's presumably reliable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Book" might be overstating the case. According to the WorldCat entry at it is "114 unnumbered pages : illustrations ; 28 cm", and held by just five libraries in the world. Draffan's other works are much more widely held, including one published by Apex, . LeadSongDog  come howl!  16:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You are right. But "The Elite Consensus" apparently is an updated version of the linked original, and it makes Draffan into a published expert. It might be better to dig out the new edition, but since the claim is fare from exceptional, I'd accept the original, too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep in a sense -- but that means his conspiracy theories then also become a usable source? He seems a prominent "Bilderburg conspiracy" sort, alas.   I would suggest it is a deficient source for any contentious claims about living persons as a result. Collect (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

"While the ERT [the European Roundtable of Industrialists] subtly masterminds its grand vision of Europe in collaboration with the European Commission, another Brussels-based European lobby group is busy implementing the less glamorous but equally critical details. Whereas ERT is quietly proactive, UNICE is a reactive, detail-obsessed, supremely efficient lobby machine. Its working groups dissect every proposal, regulation, directive and article emerging from Brussels before spitting influential position papers back into the policy-making apparatus. Its efforts often result in the adoption of business-friendly initiatives, and the blockage of more socially or environmental progressive legislation" from endgame.org. I note the Koch $5 million quote is found in many (33) pages now -  with no "original source" given. Unfortunately, I find no source specifically cited by Draffen for the claim. Collect (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

NCCIH
(1) Is this a reliable source? (2) Is attribution required?
 * Source:
 * Article: Reiki
 * Source language: "Several groups of experts have evaluated the evidence on Reiki, and all of them have concluded that it’s uncertain whether Reiki is helpful."

(Note: To avoid confusion, NCCIH is a U.S. federal agency tasked with determining the usefulness and safety of alternative medical interventions.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that the source's reliability has been impeached here: . It is reliable for the opinions of a national center whose mandate is to provide a clearinghouse of information for alternative medicine -- not necessarily to evaluate it properly. Attribution would be appropriate lest the reader be lead to conclude that there is some uncertainty in the scientific community where none exists (it is intentionally not in NCCIH's remit to evaluate scientific certainty on any topic). jps (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The sources at the bottom suggest it's a tertiary source. A bit iffy. I'm not a fan of government-published materials, but it does not appear this particular agency is involved in politics, legislation, or regulation in such a way that would make them involved. It might be better to just find similar statements in the articles they have cited. CorporateM (Talk) 18:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Naturopathy
I was told this is not a reliable source:

http://health.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/320188/naturopathy-final1106.pdf

I'm at a loss as to why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gudzwabofer (talk • contribs) 08:23, 21 March 2015‎


 * Please see the notice at the top of this page - we need to know the article it is being cited in, and what text precisely it is being cited for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I was told it isn't fit to be used for the Naturopathy page at all because it contradicts someone else's sources, and was published 10 years ago (making it younger than a lot of pre-existing sources on the page). They also failed to recognise that the reason the systematic review this source refers to isn't accompanied by in text referencing is because the systematic review is a component of this source. They advised me to post it here.


 * Here is a copy of what I posted, which was deleted.


 * In 2003, the Victorian government commissioned La Trobe University to undertake a review of Naturopathy in Australia.[3] This built on the 2003 Federal Expert Committee on Complementary Medicines in the Health System.[4]. Among its findings was that "A review of 77 systematic reviews published between 2001 and 2003 suggested that there is now evidence of the benefits of naturopathy and WHM [western herbal medicine] for almost every body system and all major illnesses. It can be concluded that the ‘tools of the trade’ of naturopathy and WHM can be effective, and that the practice of naturopathy and WHM is therefore potentially effective," and that "The list of what are considered by conventional medicine practitioners to be complementary therapies changes continually, as those therapies that are proven to be safe and effective become adopted into conventional health care and as new approaches to health care emerge ." The report identified the potential risks of naturopathy as " inappropriate prescribing, failure to be aware of contraindications, inappropriate dosage, and inappropriate duration of therapy." It described the main contributor to this as being lack of education on the part of the practitioner. The report recognised that there had been significant progress in naturopathic education, with many universities now offering Bachelor degrees, but that there was still progress to be made on consistent quality across all institutions. The report recommended government regulation and protection of title for naturopathy, among other professions.[5]


 * 3. http://health.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/320188/naturopathy-final1106.pdf School of Public Health, La Trobe University. Retrieved 21 March 2015.


 * 4. http://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/committees-eccmhs-report-031031.pdf Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved 21 March 2015.


 * 5. http://health.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/320188/naturopathy-final1106.pdf School of Public Health, La Trobe University. Retrieved 21 March 2015.


 * Gudzwabofer (talk) 08:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks Reliable to me. David Tornheim (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It appears to be a report on "The Practice and Regulatory Requirements of Naturopathy and Western Herbal Medicine", rather than a systematic review of the efficacy of naturopathy - only 26 pages of 319 actually constitute "A Review of Reviews of the Benefits of Naturopathy and Western Herbal Medicine", and the section was written by practitioners of complementary medicine - perhaps not the best source for an impartial overview. Accordingly, I have to suggest that it might not be an ideal source for such claims. Apart from anything else, there appears to be no evidence that this section of the report was subject to peer review, as would occur with more normal systematic reviews published in scientific journals. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Professor Stephen Myers has qualifications in western medicine and pharmacology as well as naturopathy and works for a mainstream university, The workforce section for nat/whm was done by an industry rep, the rest seem to be employees of la trobe, uws, and rmit. The report has been published in Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, which is a peer reviewed journal.Gudzwabofer (talk) 09:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the report meets WP:MEDRS for medical claims. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 09:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The source is unreliable for the use you want to put it to. It is clear from the Naturopathy talk page, and here, that your understanding of what constitutes a reliable source is lacking. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Fine, based on the assumption that an expert in a field isn't qualified to write about it, something which you won't find applied to other disciplines, I'll limit my use of the offending section of this report, but I'll be trucking a lot of the existing naturopathy sources onto this page, especially the ones I'm yet to get answers about on the naturopathy talk page.Gudzwabofer (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is this good enough for medical claims?

http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/mindbodyandspirit/naturopathic-medicine

Gudzwabofer (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Because it is an accurate summary of mainstream scientific consensus - the standard by which we assess content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It has no in text referencing, this disclaimer:
 * Note: This information may not cover all possible claims, uses, actions, precautions, side effects or interactions. It is not intended as medical advice, and should not be relied upon as a substitute for consultation with your doctor, who is familiar with your medical situation.
 * And when I tried to extend a quote from it in the naturopathy page, I was told it was a "misleading summary", cmon guys, you can't have it both ways.Gudzwabofer (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Pretty clearly does not meet WP:MEDRS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Does it not? I'm confused. Please enlighten me, why not? Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * @Dbrodbeck, could you clarify which source you are referring to, since Gudzwabofer has confusingly (and inappropriately) brought another source into the discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh heck sorry, I assumed there was only one source being discussed, the one at the top of the post. That is what I was referring to.  I apologize for my misunderstanding.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I apologise for the confusion. We are discussing http://health.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/320188/naturopathy-final1106.pdf then. What is wrong with it as a reliable source? Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Victoria study would be reliable for health content, but fails MEDRS, specifically WP:MEDDATE Study is 10 years old, and there are more recent reviews. Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ACS source is reliable for health content, per WP:MEDRS - is recent (2013) and is a statement by a major medical organization. Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment As a report produced on behalf of the Victorian Department of Human Services, the report is clearly a reliable source and nominally even a WP:MEDRS-compliant source (under WP:MEDORG). However the question of binary reliability-unreliability is IMO somewhat of a red-herring. The relevant question is how much weight this report should be given in the Naturopathy article. For starters, a report by the health department of an Australian state surely does not command as much weight as more reputable bodies such as WHO, NAS/IoM, NIH (and its divisions), British Health Service, or even Australia's NHMRC (not to mention reputable systemic reviews, such as Cochrane's). So the text proposed by Gudzwabofer is certainly excessively long and detailed. However there may reason enough to cite the report briefly in the naturopathy article. One way to judge this, given that the report is ~10 years old, would be to see whether later review articles and surveys of naturopathy cite the report (either positively or neutrally); if they do then summarize the report in about a sentence. If they ignore it, or cite it critically, leave it out altogether. Abecedare (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Not reliable: I only read this far: "In 2003, the Victorian government commissioned La Trobe University" (emphasis added). Then the source says it is published by La Trobe University. Looks like a primary source and should therefore not be used. CorporateM (Talk) 20:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – I think that is putting a rather fine point on it. Presumably the commission was awarded in the expectation that the results and recommendations would be published. We don't say that a paper is a primary source because the authors of the paper list their names as authors. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Lewrockwell.com
is

Is

A reliable source to assert *"Authors such as George (2005) and Kirby (2007) posit that PNAC enjoyed this influence largely due to the fact that key players in the Bush Administration - such as Lewis Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Zalmay Khalilzad, John Bolton, Carl Rove, Richard Pearl and Dick Cheney - were closely linked to the organization (either members or signatories to documents)." in List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush which is subject to WP:BLP as well as WP:RS? Note that article title is PNAC Captured Part of the U.S. Government and Caused America to Attack Iraq in 2003 which I regard as typical of articles on the lewrockwell.com site. It appears to not have passed prior RS/N discussions other than for opinions of notable persons cited as such, but the implication of conspiracy appears to require stronger sourcing, IMO, than simply opinion. Collect (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that LewRockwell.com is not a reliable source for these sorts of claims about third parties. If these putative connections are really significant, someone else must have discussed them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no way that's a reliable source for that or much of any claim. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that use of this source should be limited only to describing opinions of its authors, as opposed to citing factual assertions. They specialize in "diatribes" and conspiracy theories. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  18:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree strongly with any use: Advocacy sources like this one that alleges to "help carry on the anti-war, anti-state, pro-market work of Murray N. Rothbard." are extremely unlike to provide accurate information. I think the "it's reliable for the opinion of the authors" is the equivalent of saying it is not actually reliable. Every source is reliable for the opinion of the author. CorporateM (Talk) 03:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Unreliable. Lourockwell.com has an express ideological agenda and doesn't even purport to offer accurate news coverage. The author is not a journalist. Moreover the source doesn't verify the content, since there's no reference to George or Kirby. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha ha ha ha ha! No. For the reasons stated above. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it is not a reliable source. Spumuq (talq) 13:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * UnreliableThis makes ordinary unreliable sources look like peer-reviewed math papers. No. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not reliable. Could've sworn we did this before around election time. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

"Fact Monster"
The article Sneakers (footwear) has recently been augmented by two kilobytes loosely attributed to "Fact Monster" (though some of the addition is not in this source). Neither "Fact Monster" nor "factmonster.com" appears in the WP:RSN archive. The page looks feeble to me: it's unsigned, it says nothing about its own sources, it's written for kids (and thus particularly susceptible to simplification and the lure of an attractive story). But the short article Fact Monster (revised only trivially in the last eight years) seems to take the website seriously (it calls it not an "infotainment website" or similar but instead a "fact center"). Am I perhaps just snobbish? -- Hoary (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Does not look Reliable to me. It also appears to be close to a copyright violation.  I think the user adding it should provide some evidence as to why they think this is RS.  In the meantime, I think the material should be removed from the article.David Tornheim (talk) 09:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * NB this is the editor's first and (the last time I looked) only edit, so we have to put it rather gently. -- Hoary (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ^If indeed it is the user's only edit, I agree no WP:BITE. Let's guide user to use better sources, as I suggest below.  The user might even be a child, so let's use "kid's gloves." David Tornheim (talk) 09:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a secondary source, check the Columbia_Encyclopedia page, it seems they license its use to a range of groups. Gudzwabofer (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If the material comes from Columbia Encyclopedia, which certainly sounds more reliable, then I suggest using that as the RS rather than "Fact Monster", which as far as I saw had no citations for its "facts". I see nothing wrong with kids learning material without extensive footnoting, but I think we want something a bit more reliable where readers  can more easily trace the evidence claims of secondary sources back to their primary sources and scholarly research, rather than going through an extra layer. David Tornheim (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Factmonster is a publication of Pearson Education, a reputable publisher; on the other hand it is a website intended for kids (elementary and middle-schoolers). So while it may be fine, though not ideal, as a source for non-contentious information, don't use it for anything remotely disputable, not because it is likely to be outright false but because (as you suspect) it is probably greatly simplified for the intended audience. Abecedare (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at the particular edit of concern: the content was paraphrased too closely, bordering on copyvio (the paraphrasing was so close that I didn't even notice the word substitutions initially), and had to be removed, of course. But if the user had indeed properly paraphrased the content from Factmonster (and added it to a History, rather than an Etymology section), that would have been fine IMO since it would be a sourced improvement to the current Sneakers (footwear) article, which could always be upgraded with better sources and more details in future edits. Abecedare (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

celebritytonic.com
Is celebritytonic.com a reliable source? Their disclaimer page is seriously not promising. For example, "We source our information from third party websites and the information may not always be accurate" and "we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website content". --Geniac (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a dead giveaway that it's unreliable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a pretty obvious case - not reliable. CorporateM (Talk) 18:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously not a reliable source. The website's content is solely based off of gossip.   Comatmebro  ~Come at me~ 21:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Al Masdar News
Is Al Masdar News a reliable source? , article claims Israeli Givati Brigade member meeting with Syrian rebel group. Was used in Iran–Israel proxy conflict. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Citing youtube
An editor raised the question in this AFD whether or not they could add this youtube video as a reference in the article Desperate Preacher's Site. In this video an audience member makes a brief mention of the Desperate Preacher's Site while David Letterman is chatting with him.

Including such a reference seems wrong on many levels:
 * A talk show audience member is not a WP:RS, or even a valid primary source in this case, they do not claim any authority or connection to the website
 * It's not significant coverage
 * It falls into the category of trivia
 * May be a copyright violation? (XLinkBot removed the link from the article)

Another editor seems to think it would be ok to use in some scenario. It would be good to have some others weigh in on this question at the AFD as up until now the participation has been limited. Cheers Vrac (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The video is unfortunately a failure of WP:ELNO due to copyright (Desperate Preacher's Site is not the copyright owner of Letterman's show), but the episode of the show can be references, just not including the URL. So if the reason to include the namedrop of the episode in the article, that could be done. But it is only just a name drop, and thus doesn't make for a secondary source (which involves transformation of information), so not sufficient as a source in terms of discussing notability. --M ASEM (t) 22:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Vrac (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Usadojo.com
I'd like to get a disinterested opinion on usadojo.com and worldwidedojo.com  as reliable sources. It doesn't look like there is much editorial oversight and I'm bothered by the appearance than anyone can submit an article and, especially the statement that new articles will be released as quickly as possible. These sites are being used in a BLP, sometimes to support some questionable claims. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * These don't look like reliable sources to me. The structure and organization of the websites are also a bit mysterious, as well as the abundance of advertisements.  I wouldn't trust them being used in a BLP, so maybe suggest to the author that they need to find some additional sources to verify the information.  Maybe send them to WP:RS for some guidance. Cheers,  Comatmebro  ~Come at me~ 23:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've linked the author to all the relevant policies and guidelines because of his propensity to use SPS's as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone else? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Usadodjo's About Us page says:
 * "Listing on USADOJO.COM through The Martial Directory is an automated process and any martial arts entity can list. Just because you find a School, Business, Organization Event, Seminar or Tournament listed in our Free or Featured Listings does not mean that USADOJO.COM has personal knowledge of these entities or that we are recommending these entities."


 * "USADOJO.COM receives hundreds of emails daily, many of these emails requesting that we add the attached information to USADOJO.COM. We attempt to make sure that we have permission to use any information and that the information is correct and credit is give to the proper source. Sometimes, however, we make mistakes. ... We in no way wish to do harm to anyone, we simply want to promote martial arts and martial artists in the best atmosphere possible."


 * To be fair, such "mistakes may be made" disclaimers are often dictated by lawyers to ward off liability suits, and even reputable publishers carry them. But in addition to the open/crowd sourcing concerns... I didn't find mainstream news sources citing either sites as a source; and while quite a few books on Google Books cite usadojo.com, they are cookie-cutter titles from niche publishers (eg, Emereo, Mason Crest) of, at best, unknown reputation. So that does not help establish a "reputation for fact-checking either". Worldwidedojo, run by the same company, has a similar disclaimer etc. My recommendation:
 * usadojo's listings should never be used as a source
 * treat articles published on usadodjo.com/worldwidedojo.com as essentially self-published, and cite them only where WP:SPS would allow such sources.
 * Btw, Linksearch finds only 3 articles linking to usadojo, and none linking to worldwidedojo.com. Has there been a recent cleanup? Abecedare (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, some were removed. The article I'm looking at still uses each one 3-4 times each. Thanks for the input. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Review at Blogcritics republished by Seattle newspaper
I found reviews of the manga series Fluffy, Fluffy Cinnamoroll.
 * Aeschliman, Lesley. "Manga Review: Fluffy, Fluffy Cinnamoroll Volume One by Yumi Tsukirino" (Archive). Blogcritics at Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Wednesday, February 6, 2013. Original article at Blogcritics (Archive).
 * Aeschliman, Lesley. "Manga Review: Fluffy, Fluffy Cinnamoroll Volume Four by Yumi Tsukirino" (Archive). Blogcritics at Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Thursday February 28, 2013. Original article at Blogcritics (Archive).

It was originally published at Blogcritics but the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has republished it. I notice the SPI has a Blogcritics section. I haven't found a notice saying that the newspaper is "not responsible" for the contents of the section.

Is this manga review "reliable" since it was republished by a newspaper, or is not "not reliable" due to its origins as a blog entry even if a newspaper has chosen to republish it? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a tough one:
 * Seattle PI fired most of its employees and went "online only" in 2009; so the current publication shares the name but not the editorial bones that earned the newspaper its "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".
 * Such content-hosting/sharing arrangements in general are driven by commercial considerations and efforts to monetize the brand, and often lack sufficient editorial oversight and result in dilution of quality (eg, see this article about Forbes)
 * For these reasons, I would not consider the blogcritics reviews any more reliable than before just because they are now hosted by seattlepi.com. But I can imagine others arriving at a different conclusion. Abecedare (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * SPI appears to be redistributing BC content en-mass (see http://www.seattlepi.com/lifestyle/blogcritics/) so I don't think it adds to the reliability. It might have if they were only republishing a selected set of authors or otherwise showing editorial oversight. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

www.researchdc.com
It appears that this website is a vehicle for the promotion of Abdisalam Omer. While some of the articles come from reputable sources, I think that the website is self-published and should not be used. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur. Treat as self-published. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)