Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 197

news section of Vocativ website
Founder-slash-funding-source is redlinked Mati Kochavi; redlinked corporation Vocativ LLC is listed by Bloomberg, so they are a legit legal entity, albeit Bloomberg lists no details beyond corp-name and corp-website. Publication itself *is* bluelinked, Vocativ. Being used in mainspace for about two dozen nominally-WP:RS purposes, mostly "edgy" political-articles.


 * Sex_drive-in. Miet, Hannah (22 August 2013). "New drive-through brothel: Our 24-hour "sex boxes" are here to serve you. But there are rules.". Vocativ.com. Archived from the original on 3 November 2013. Retrieved 12 September 2013.
 * FEMEN. Tunisia's Amina quits ‘Islamophobic’ Femen, France 24 (20 August 2013).
 * Timeline_of_the_Gezi_Park_protests. "Gay rights in Turkey face uphill battle". Vocativ.com. 19 September 2013. Retrieved 2013-11-04.
 * Kingmaker. http://www.vocativ.com/world/iraq-world/middle-easts-newest-kingmakers/, the Kurds in Iraq, Syria and Turkey now have a chance to become the Middle East's most unlikely power brokers
 * Cave_dweller. http://www.vocativ.com/culture/society/cave-houses/#!bQhbmJ

Also found in some BLP-articles, which are once again, mostly "edgy" politics-related BLP-articles.


 * Imran_Khan
 * Ruslana
 * Vladimir_Putin

Almost certainly qualifies prima facie as being WP:RS, to my wiki-eyes. They have professional editorial-oversight, and they use the real legal name of the founder. "Q: How big is your staff? A: Right now we’re over 50 people strong, and growing. We come from an array of pure-play digital and traditional media sources, both text and video. We’re learning a lot about creating a next-generation news operation. And we’re having fun.  ...Q: So where’s the money coming from?  A: We are privately funded, which gives us room to be ambitious and grow without having to compromise our quality. Our founder is Mati Kochavi, a global entrepreneur.  Q: Does he call any shots when it comes to editorial content?  A: No. We maintain a firewall between our founder and the daily editorial operation.  ..."  Besides the founder, they have a corporation that can also be sued.  They don't let anybody edit (reader contributions are marked with the edgy new lingo My POV rather than Letters to the Editor but the principle is the same -- non-journalistic contributions from the peanut gallery are marked as such right on the tin). They use real names for journalist-pieces, and at least some of the staff-writers say they used to work at PrintMagazinesIveActuallyHeardOf before joining vocativ.

But is it, you know, REALLY wiki-reliable? Not found in WP:RSN archives. Honest question, never heard of these people before, not interested in removing the existing couple-dozen ref-cites that invoke Vocativ as a wiki-reliable publisher, not trying to get rid of the wiki-notability of the associated articles. (Methinks Vladimir Putin would probably not react well were his BLP-article to be sent to AfD... but since he has 442 cites besides vocativ prolly he's not too worried about the possibility either. Now, per WP:IAR, we actually *could* just delete his article... after all, Russia recently blocked wikipedia, so international geopolitical game theory says that tit for tat strategy applies, right? :-)       Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think that use of each source should be weighed separately for each item sourced to them. So, instead of asking whether Vocativ is reliable overall, we should explore whether it's reliable for some specific item. One indication of reliability is use by other sources often considered reliable, and Vocative is referred to occasionally. The BBC refers to it as a "social news site" and the Guardian has "website". As you write, the material is a bit on the edgier side, which underlines that we need to decide reliability on an item-by-item basis. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks. In the case I'm thinking of using it, the factoid is backed up elsewhere, so probably I'll just list both sources, vocativ 2nd.  They seem pretty wiki-reliable to my eyes, but it may depend on the topic-area (or maybe on the particular author of the piece) as to whether they pass the really-have-a-reputation-for-reliability-threshold.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Longwarjournal
Is Long War Journal a reliable source? http://www.longwarjournal.org/ Volunteer Marek is challenging this source and claiming it is unreliable.

I'm asking in general for all terrorist related articles. Because its not just me who is using it, type in longwarjournal into the search box and you will find many other wikipedia articles citing longwarjournal as a source.

Such as 2015 Park Palace guesthouse attack, Abdullah Said al Libi, Amirli, Yathrib, Iraq, 055 Brigade, First Battle of Tikrit, Raskamboni Movement, Adnan Gulshair el Shukrijumah, Afghan National Army, List of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant members, Ahmed Abdi Godane, Afghan National Civil Order Police, 201st Corps (Afghanistan), Nasir al-Wuhayshi, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Qari Hussain, 1st Division (Iraq), Operation Augurs of Prosperity, Sadr City, Iraqi Special Operations Forces, Mullah Mohammad Hasan, Iraqi Navy, Saudi detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Tehrik-e-Jafaria, Iraqi Light Armored Vehicle, Mukhtar Army, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Camp Speicher.

Long War Journal has also been cited by Academics in books published by Columbia University Press, Georgetown University Press, University of Pennsylvania Press, Naval Institute Press United States Naval Institute, in addition to New York Times (two of which were on the newspaper's front page),  Reuters, Associated Press, United Press International,    Sunday Times, The Hindu, Cable News Network, the Times of India, The Australian, CTC Sentinel, Time, The Nation, Washington Times, and The Atlantic. Marc Thiessen in the the Washington Post. and by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Thomas E. Ricks in The Gamble.

Some news organizations have an entire category devoted to articles where they cited Long War Journal on articles about terrorist groups such as Christian Science Monitor and The Daily Star

See the sources at Bill_Roggio.

Rajmaan (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you clarify what the links to CSM and the DailyStar actually show?  Volunteer Marek   05:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * They show a long list of articles by the news agency where they cited Long War Journal.Rajmaan (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Quoting on WP pages is not a proof of anything, but it is frequently quoted by books - as Google books search shows . So, yes, I think it can be used. However, I agree with VM here that primary sources (like twitter) should be generally avoided, especially on highly controversial subjects, suh as that one. My very best wishes (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * There are news article sources and Long war Journal articles which say TIP is using child fighters. And then there are the tweets by the journalist Joanna Paraszczuk who gave images of child fighters, and tweets by the Long War Journal author Caleb Weiss. Can it be written like : "The journalist for RFERL Joanna Paraszczuk tweeted images of child fighters from TIP" and Long War Journal participant Caleb Weiss tweeted images of TIP camps,.Rajmaan (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure. But anything published on RFE/RL where they work would be fine. My very best wishes (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Cato Institute as a reliable source for BLPs
Editor has been adding analysis from the Koch-founded Cato Institute to several US presidential candidate articles, for example Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz. I believe this is problematic inasmuch as the Cato Institute is not independent of the subjects. While the material is attributed, it is presented as authoritative and is probably WP:UNDUE. I would like to know what other editor's think about this. - MrX 18:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I added the analyses because the Cato Institute's trade and fiscal policy positions are in line with the near universal opinion among economists. The Cato Institute recently had a lengthly legal battle with the Koch brothers over the organization's independence from the Koch brothers, who wanted the organization more involved in their political activity and the scholars there refused. I would assert, that despite the Cato Institute's ideology, since most of their economic policy views are in line with the mainstream view among economists and is considered among the most influential think tanks in the world, it constitutes both a reliable source and a significant viewpoint, and therefore, does not violate our neutral POV policy. It was not presented as authoritative, merely as additional ratings of policy positions by officeholders and/or candidates for political office, just the same as NARAL, the NAACP, the NRA, the ACLU, etc. does. - Jajhill (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I would definitely like to hear from other editors. I find it difficult to accept that your edits were neutral, for example: "The Cato Institute identifies Clinton as a "interventionist" during her U.S. Senate tenure, indicating a protectionist, anti-market, and pro-subsidies voting record." and "On trade policy, the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies has identified Cruz as a "free trader" during his U.S. Senate tenure, indicating a pro-free trade, pro-market, and anti-subsidies voting record." To write that an organization "identifies" something, suggests that they have standing to make such sweeping statements. - MrX 19:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Cato Institute's opinions are just that; opinions. To claim that Cato is "in line with the near universal opinion among economists" is original research. Cato's opinions may be of interest in biographies, but must be presented as what they are: opinions of a group with a particular set of political beliefs and devoted to the promotion of those beliefs. It should not be presented as "authoritative" but as Cato's opinion only. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I generally stay out of political stuff, but I will say the following. What is good about the diffs presented, is that the analyses are attributed; Cato is a reliable source for what Cato says. I have not dug into the source to see if there is WP:SYN going on there. There are other questions about UNDUE and where such content would fit in any given article.  In my view, any partisan/ideological analysis (and Cato is highly ideological - currently influential yes, but nonetheless ideological) needs to be very carefully handled and would ideally happen in a section that makes clear the section is devoted to various organization's perspectives on the subject.  See for example Project VoteSmart's page about Clinton, where all ratings are under a single tab.  I'll note that Cato is named there, and percentages on a scale are given (not the binary description yes/no that the content has) and area also given for specific time periods in her career.  So I have some concern about use of the sources.   But this does not seem to be a matter for this board.  Cato is reliable for what Cato says. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia articles about politicians, it is common practice to provide ratings by organizations that support one ideology or another. This supplements information about the politicians' stance on particular issues.  If that kind of ideological rating is provided, libertarians should not necessarily be excluded.  On the other hand, I don't think we need ratings from George Soros-funded organizations or Koch-funded organizations if ratings are available from larger or more mainstream organizations.  Cato is certainly a reliable source for what Cato thinks, but perhaps there is a better source of libertarian ratings.  The main problem here is that Cato is being used not for providing a libertarian rating, but only for providing a "free trade" rating, and I don't think Cato is particularly well-known on that score (compared to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for example).  In any event, such a specialized rating would belong amidst a discussion of free trade, rather than amidst introductory material about a politician's general ideology.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are all reasonable arguments. Ideally, we would cite one or more secondary sources that cite Cato. By doing so, we gain independent perspectives and address the WP:DUE problem.- MrX 19:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course we can include information from Cato, as it is a notable organization well-covered by the reliable sources, and to censor it from articles is just that, censorship. However, the information must always be framed the way NorthBySouthBaranof states above: as opinion. Then perhaps it could be followed by a reliably-sourced sentence of another notable organization giving the opposite opinion. MrX is correct that it ideally should come from a secondary source. All of this provides a NPOV service to our readers. Prhartcom (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, MrX, if the problem comes down to the one word "identifies," then the one word can be changed, perhaps to "rates." I honestly did not intend any kind of authoritative meaning or breach of neutrality because (perhaps only to me and I'm not an expert in semantics) when something states that "Such-and-such organization identifies...", it usually implies that it is a judgment within the organization's bias, not a sweeping claim. As such, please do not accuse me of lying and being dishonest, "I find it difficult to accept that your edits were neutral." As for the issues of original research raised by NorthBySouthBaranof and Jytdog, I'm referring to the survey study already cited on the Wikipedia Economics page, subsection Agreements, the Wikipedia Cato Institute page, along with the citations in the edits itself, where the Wikipedia page and Cato itself, identify the institute as a free market and free trade think tank. That's why I argue that the Cato Institute ratings are not an unreasonable barometer of free trade, which is also in fact, consistent with the near universal opinion of mainstream economists, as the survey study cited on the Wikipedia Economics page notes. Since the information is already cited, I don't see how that constitutes original research, but if it does, I apologize. As for the issue of whether there is a better source than Cato for libertarian opinions raised by Anythingyouwant, the Cato Institute is the preeminent libertarian organization in the United States, along with perhaps Reason Magazine/Reason Foundation, as the Wikipedia page Libertarianism in the United States notes, so no, there is probably not a better organization for finding libertarian ratings, and as argued above it is not an unreasonable barometer of free trade. And as for an opposite opinion, as suggested by MrX and Prhartcom, since I don't know of the organizations or citations that would provide an opposite opinion, I will leave that to others to do. But to everyone, could the edits remain please? I only put the edits where they were, because, with the exception of the Political positions of Bernie Sanders page, none of the other 2016 US presidential candidates have (as far as I know) Wikitables where that information, ratings by interest groups/policy organizations, is supplemented. - Jajhill (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe "describes" in place of "Identifies"? Writegeist (talk) 04:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on the above discussion, I'm guess I'm fine with this source in general, provided that it is written as "Cato Institute 'describes', 'postulates', 'thinks', 'opines...' " or whatever. - MrX 18:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * on your uses of the source. here is your edit on the clinton article:
 * The Cato Institute identifies Clinton as a "interventionist" during her U.S. Senate tenure, indicating a protectionist, anti-market, and pro-subsidies voting record.


 * The source very specifically says it measures on 2 axes - barriers and subsidies. The " anti-market," thing is your own WP:OR. Also if your editing were truly neutral here, instead of the binary "indicating an X voting record" you would have added the detail: "they found that she opposed 31% trade barriers of the time and opposed subsidies 13% of the time" or the like or gone with Cato's much nuanced language, indicating an X overall voting record.  Your use of the source is poor and includes OR.  When editing political subjects please strive to be neutral.  Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * A simple solution would be to compromise. Leave the Cato edit as long as it explicitly states it is strictly in the "voice" of Cato and not Wikipedia's. Then, add an additional edit with a counter-view from a different RS. Issues with political articles like this are more easily solved with adding aditional viewpoints instead of a rev/del. Darknipples (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I think Cato is reliable for a libertarian perspective on things, though we should be careful to include their criteria for ratings and not our interpretations of them. If "anti-market" is not directly stated it should be deleted. I am not sure why would we need a "counter-view", unless Cato is actually the only source quoted in a section. Dimadick (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Gun show loophole (Rolling Stone & Washington Post)

 * Source: Washington Post (starting at the fourth paragraph from the bottom)
 * Article: Gun show loophole.
 * Content. "But his spokesman, McClellan, said Bush 'has consistently supported closing the gun show loophole for a number of years.' As for why he did not back Danburg's bill--which would have angered the gun lobby here--McClellan said Bush thinks it is up to Congress to deal with the loophole. 'Federal legislation created it,' McClellan said. 'Federal legislation should close it.'".
 * The dif

The original source and quote used by Rolling Stone... (tenth paragraph from the bottom) "Bush justifies those positions as narrow disagreements over jurisdiction. Background checks are a good idea, he says, but because federal law created the gun-show loophole, federal law ought to correct it. That's why he didn't back Danburg's bill, says his spokesman Scott McClellan."

I presented the sources and quotes on the talk page but received the same answer here..."It's Dan Baum's characterization of what Scott McClellan said. To attribute it all to McClellan in the manner in question isn't necessarily his words, so it's erroneous. The next paragraph in the source shows a direct quote, which is preferable, though it deviates from the topic at hand in this article unfortunately. Same sort of issue with the second source." Darknipples (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

(Additional/more specific objection by said editor) "This diff is also relevant, as it is when the quotation marks were added. Adding them to my comment above as well, as they are a large part of the issue." Darknipples (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a bit confusing. It looks like the text that was actually added included the following sentence: according to his spokesman, Scott McClellan, "He felt because federal law created the gun-show loophole, federal law ought to correct it." which was sourced to the Rolling Stone article and a NYTimes article (not the Washington Post article). The quote in that sentence can't be attributed to McClellan based on the Rolling Stone article because in that article, the "he says" refers back to Bush in the preceding sentence, which means that the quote being used is attributed to Bush.
 * The revised content listed above is all a direct quote from the Washington Post article and if used, must be fully attributed to that article.
 * Is there some reason why you couldn't say something like, "Bush's position was that the loophole could only be closed by federal legislation since the loophole was a byproduct of previous federal legislation." sourced to the Washington Post and Rolling Stone articles? Ca2james (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I think that's a perfectly fine way to do it, but the editor that is objecting thinks it should just be excluded, and doesn't give any reason other than what is stated in quotes above... "It's Dan Baum's characterization....". Well, duh...That's not a reason to exclude it. Am I wrong? Darknipples (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "but the editor that is objecting thinks it should just be excluded", that is a misleading statement lacking foundation in fact, I have not expressed that view. "and doesn't give any reason other than what is stated in quotes above... 'It's Dan Baum's characterization....'" To attribute it all to McClellan in the manner in question (i.e.: but according to his spokesman, Scott McClellan, "he felt because federal law created the gun-show loophole, federal law ought to correct it") isn't necessarily his words, so it's erroneous (stated twice  ) my initial edit summary expressed my concerns coherently. Furthermore, what Ca2james put forth isn't what you posted at Talk:Gun show loophole : "In a 2000 Rolling Stone / Washington Post Article, Bush's spokesman, Scott McClelan, said Bush's position was that the loophole could only be closed by federal legislation since the loophole was a byproduct of previous federal legislation" (again the same issue I've pointed out) is quite different from "Bush's position was that the loophole could only be closed by federal legislation since the loophole was a byproduct of previous federal legislation" (much better and perhaps acceptable, though a direct quote is preferable on a subject that could be considered contentious). — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 21:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , 's objection to the original text in the article is basically the same as mine, which is that attributing the quote to McClellan is incorrect given the sources. And you did misstate what I suggested above; moreover, your misstatement appears to have the same attribution problems as your original proposal. It's not wrong to include the information but we must be careful to properly attribute it, and improper attribution is a reason to exclude the text. It seems like you want to say that McClellan is the one being quoted but that's a minefield and my suggestion was a way to work around that. I agree that a direct quote is better but right now I can't think of a way to include it. Ca2james (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , when you delete text from a reference instead of trying to re-work it, that's called "exclusion"., it's seems as though you have changed your mind. Are the Washington Post, and Rolling Stone unacceptable sources, in your view? All I'm asking, is to include president Bush's view on GSL, as it seems notable for the article. Darknipples (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why it seems as though I've changed my mind: I do think the Washington Post and Rolling Stone are reliable sources for this information. However, the text you've proposed has an attribution problem and doesn't reflect the sources. What did was to remove a quote that was improperly attributed and that's not a bad thing. Ca2james (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify my position. What has done here, is to remove the more relative aspect of this reference (about GSL), and leave the text in regard to background checks. While background checks are relevant to GSL, they are not the same thing. The part about Bush's views on GSL are even more relevant. I'm fine with tweaking it so that all the necessary attributes are clear, and making sure no one perceives it as being stated in "Wikipedia's voice", but to exclude it seems to completely miss the point. Darknipples (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I simply removed part of a sentence from one of your recent additions that was improperly attributed. I would have removed the content regardless of what information it conveyed, if it suffered from the aforementioned issue. It is commonplace to remove recently added content which isn't correct; MOS:QUOTE describes part of the issue. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 13:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to add the version which Godsy has stated is "much better and possibly acceptable" . Feel free to tweak and correct any attribution issues as necessary. If Bush's views on GSL manages to stay in the text, perhaps this will resolve this issue. Darknipples (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Indiegogo
1. Source. https://www.indiegogo.com, specifically https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-man-behind-the-suit#/story authored by Janett Salas 2. Article. Robert DeProspero 3. Content. ''There is a feature-length documentary about Robert DeProspero in post-production called "The Man Behind the Suit: a documentary on Robert DeProspero". ''

Salas authored this article, which includes a brief fundraising interview with DeProspero; User:Janettsalas also added the material and source to the article. While there may be a COI, I don't think that necessarily affects how we judge the reliability of the source. It is clear to me that the content is accurate and is backed-up by the source, however, the source is self-published. Looking for thoughts on this and other factors that may affect suitability for inclusion (e.g. WP:WEIGHT). - Location (talk) 14:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would not use this source for the proposed content. It's an WP:SPS source there is no actual claim that the documentary is in post-production. In fact, the funding campaign failed to reach it's goal which raises the question of how much of the production was actually completed.- MrX 18:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. I have edited my comment accordingly. - Location (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And too, she is producer of the film she is promoting here on Wikipedia. The film itself will need to establish a notability away from her efforts..  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 19:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Indiegogo isn't a reliable source, it's a self-published appeals platform with minimal editorial oversight. I have, in the past, reported fraudulent Indiegogo fundraising campaigns (people promoting technically impossible products while using identity theft) so I'm not that confident that Indiegogo do much in the way of checking to see whether the person putting up the campaign is legitimate, can deliver on their promises etc. Generally, I'm of the view that if we are to discuss crowdfunded projects from the likes of Kickstarter and Indiegogo, they need to have been covered by a third-party source. I've removed the mention of the documentary from the article. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This all sounds good to me. I initially thought there might be some useful material due to the "interview" with DeProspero, but there was only the sales pitch. - Location (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Application of WP:NEWSORG
These articles are currently in use in this article. I have not included the content they are being used to cite because there are so many sources and they are being used to cite roughly the same things. Looking at many of these sources, some of them cite each other (e.g. Fox News cites AP), and many others them have nearly the same structure and content. Under WP:NEWSORG, it states that "Republished stories are not considered separate sources, but one source, which has simply appeared in multiple venues." Even if one source is selected among each group, roughly all of the same content in the article can still be properly sourced from my understanding of the sources. There is currently an ongoing discussion about this, but since this should be decided on a case-by-case and there are many articles, a few more seasoned opinions could help.

Articles about the initial arrest in China

Articles about the extradition from China



Articles about the initial six-year sentence

Thank you for your help. Phoenix0316 (talk!) 06:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

If I may add a comment here, my understanding of the NewsOrg policy under WP:Reliable Sources is that the stories have to be 'republished' or 'reprinted'. My understanding of those terms is that the news article has to be copied from one news organization (such as from the Associated Press) to another news organization, to be republished by the latter organization. With that understanding, I have looked at the sources CollinsBK (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

News articles for birth date
Sources: Poughkeepsie Journal and Hudson Valley Magazine

Article: List of oldest living people

Content: The table entry on Vera Van Wagner seen in this revision of the page, particularly for her date of birth.

Some editors object to use of these sources for two reasons: a) the Poughkeepsie Journal says that the person's age has not been validated by the GRG so the person's entry shouldn't be included, and b) age validation is a recognised field of study and so only sources that perform age validation can be used for birth dates; entries sourced to news articles should be identified as age claims, not verified ages. Other editors (including myself) think that these two news sources are reliable sources for this person's date of birth and her age.

This question involves the World's Oldest People wikiproject. There is a separate but related RfC going on asking whether table entries in these articles should indicate which entries have been validated by an age validation agency at WT:WOP.

Thank you for any help you can provide. Ca2james (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * To clarify, my proposal for this article is that we have two separate tables: one which is a ranked list of the oldest living people whose age has been verified (i.e. proven to be true) by an independent organisation such as the Gerontology Research Group, and another which is an unranked list of people who have been reported on in other sources, such as newspaper articles, whose age has not been verified an independent organisation. The reason that organisations like the GRG attempt to verify the ages of longevity claimants is because many longevity claims are false. So, unless any particular source like a newspaper actually says that they've attempted to verify the person's age and explained how they've done it, how can it be a reliable source for their birth date?
 * A distinction needs to be made here: is this source reliable enough to say "this person is aged 111", or is it only reliable enough to say "this person claims to be 111"? I would say the latter, and would say the same with virtually every claim sourced only to a newspaper article. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is a distinction between "this person is 111 years old" and "this person claims to be 111 years old". Not sure if you need two separate lists, however.  I think the issue could be dealt with by adding an asterix and a footnote that says something like: "Reported age - not verified by an independent organisation such as the Gerontology Research Group". Blueboar (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussions about things like that are going on elsewhere. My biggest concern is that some users don't seem to want to acknowledge that age verification is a concept that exists outside Wikipedia. There's a reason why Guinness World Records demand that "world's oldest person" claimants provide documentation to prove their age, because anyone can claim to be any age, even if they're not. However, some people want to make no distinction between people whose ages have been verified by an independent organisation (and hence known to be true) and those whose ages have not (and therefore subject to doubt). I suggested having separate tables for three reasons: Firstly, so that we don't have to have an RSN discussion for EVERY newspaper report. Secondly because it allows users to see easily view a list of the "official oldest living people" and then a list of claims, and thirdly so that different viewpoints are fairly represented in accordance with WP:NPOV. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you suggested separate tables at the RfC at WT:WOP? To avoid having to repeat that discussion, your suggestion should be made there so that the community can comment on it. Ca2james (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That particular suggestion was mainly intended only for List of living supercentenarians, rather than all articles in the WOP project's scope. Different things are better for different articles. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. I'm hoping to find out whether these particular news sources are reliable for the person's birth date and age here as opposed to discussing how to present the data since that's already being discussed at the RfC. A similar suggestion (to indicate via a note that the birth date has not been validated) was put forward when I asked about the reliability of family- or self-written obituaries for birth dates in similar articles. What does the rest of the community think? Ca2james (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This type of article is an exercise in original research. Also, since the numbering of individuals by age infers that they actually hold that position, e.g., that the person listed beside 40 is the 40th oldest person in the world.  It would be better to remove the numbers and sort the individuals alphabetically.  TFD (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The person listed beside 40 is "the 40th oldest person in the world, according to Wikipedia." There is no objective ranking of people by ages; it's always "according to [source]." The news articles are reliable sources. It should not be necessary for an organization to validate the claim, especially when that organization has declared the need for validation and developed the process for it. One of the articles has photos and newspaper clippings, and one mentions that it found stories mentioning Vera as far back as the 1920s. I don't think it's necessary to demand validation for this claim. It amounts to declaring that only one source is reliable for this subject. Roches (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I'd prefer to remove the rankings entirely but there are objections to doing that. Once we've sorted out this sourcing question and we've determined whether or not ranking based on age is OR (there's a discussion here at NORN), I'll set up an RfC asking whether the table should be ranked and if so, how to do that. Ca2james (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion Ignoring the ranking problem, the issue is first whether or not we should include Wagner. We have two reliable sources that confirm her inclusion. The issue is that some editors believe that there's a subset of "really reliable" sources (namely the Gerontology Research Group in reality) so that only names according to those sources be included (but with other reliable sources being still usable as I guess backup). That's not the way we treat reliable sources. There is no evidence that indicates that the newspapers aren't reliable sources for her claim, just the fact that the GRG itself has not confirmed her claim. Otherwise, our tables are literally just the same as copying the GRG tables and throwing anything else out the window. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The list of unverified old age claims was deleted a few months ago. That list had fictional people or fictional ages for Biblical people, and people from books and news articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So you believe she would be considered an unverified claim? Thus, only claims by a certain subset of reliable sources should be considered for "verified" claims? That unverified list could be written with the fact that reliable people consider the Sumerian 32,000-year-old kings claims as mythical which is pretty obviously not the same as a claim like Wagner's. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This does not make any sense. Vera Van Wagner's age is likely accurate, which you can see by researching her yourself: (Check here for example). But Vera's age is UNVERIFIED since there her age is not validated by any reliable longevity research organizations. It doesn't matter what we ourselves believe since we are not the main researchers that decide whether or not these people should be included. Most of the people in organizations such as the IDL, GRG and GWR who specialize in this kind of data hold degrees in gerontology (or similiar subjects). There is a relatively large difference between a newspaper and the GRG as well. Newspapers DO usually NOT require any evidence that the person is the age they claim to be, organizations such as the ones listed above DO. If we consider these sources as equally reliable then it's like saying that recent word of mouth is the same as written evidence from around the time the person was born. To me that does not sound as any good plan. 930310 (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't have to be longevity researchers to determine whether or not a source is reliable. Note that because Guinness only publishes data regarding the world's oldest person and the IDL doesn't publish names, what's actually being suggested by GRG-proponents and friends is that the only reliable source for birth dates of supercentenarians is the GRG. I think there are other reliable sources, and this discussion is an attempt to discover whether these particular sources are reliable. Ca2james (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Otherwise, our tables are literally just the same as copying the GRG tables and throwing anything else out the window." And? I think this is neither here nor there, there are many tables on Wikipedia which are essentially reproductions of tables of data from a reliable and authoritative source on the subject in question - i.e. "List of tallest men" is essentially the Guinness list, "List of tallest buildings" is literally the top 100 list from the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat's. This will naturally happen when there is only one body or group which has widely recognized authority on a subject, usually a niche subject. T Kanagawa T (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thankyou, finally someone gets it! -- Ollie231213 (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Newspapers are reliable, but there are other sources that are more reliable. So... here is my attempt to cut through the debate: If a newspaper has reported that someone is 110 years old, we can take that report as being reliable - unless a more reliable source has looked into the case and actually rejected the claim.
 * While I would consider GRG to be a more reliable source, the fact that GRG omits someone from their list does not constitute a "rejection" (they specifically caution that their list is incomplete)... so... to shift the classification of a news source from "we usually consider this reliable" to "however, we do not consider it reliable in this instance" we would need the GRG to say: we looked into this and, nope... the claim is not valid. Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * What about people claiming higher ages who are covered in newspaper reports, like 115, 120, 150? Do you think there should be some cut-off age where age claims automatically become unreliable unless also backed by a more reliable source like the GRG? T Kanagawa T (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 's idea seems workable. Right now we know that the oldest known person lived to be 122. If it happens that someone claims to be older than 122 (the known oldest age) we can figure out how to deal with it. Anything less than that and if it's a reliable source for the claim, then it's plausible until or unless the claim is rejected. Ca2james (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Her claim is pending with the GrG right now, ie it has been rejected by them. The only tables should be the GrG tables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.51.140 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Since the GRG admits that they only check about 10% of supercentenarians, there's lots of room for other reliable sources to be used for birth dates and age. I expect this is the same 166.X.X.X person that's been disruptive at WT:WOP. Ca2james (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The GRG does not say it "only checks 10% of supercentenarians", it says this: "The total number of validated cases is only about ten percent of the suspected real-world total... It should be noted that a significant majority of worldwide claimants to be age 110-or-over have subsequently been proven to be false." ---> The fact that large numbers of longevity claimants are actually younger than they claim is why age validation is necessary. However, not all countries have birth certificates, so some genuine claims may not be able to be validated. What this means is that while there will be some genuine claims out there not included on the GRG lists, there will also be a lot of fraudulent claims. This is why I suggest having one "verified" table and one "unverified" table, so that it's clear to users whose age has been proven to be true and whose has not. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Coles from the GRG estimated that there are at least twice as many supercentenarians as have been validated. The GRG doesn't just not validate all cases, they don't even check all of them - whether they don't check 90% of them or 50%, there's still lots of room for other reliable sources to report on their existence. Age validation by the GRG or Guinness isn't required to write Wikipedia lists of supercentenarians, especially if the lede indicates that the list is incomplete and we're not ranking them to imply that Wikipedia knows who the oldest person actually is - because no one, not even the GRG or Guinness, can conclusively say that they know who the oldest person is. They know who the oldest person in the set of supercentenarians they know about, which is a strict (or proper) subset of the set of all supercentenarians. Ca2james (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "The GRG doesn't just not validate all cases, they don't even check all of them - whether they don't check 90% of them or 50%, there's still lots of room for other reliable sources to report on their existence." ---> And lots of room for other "reliable" sources to report FALSE claims! The very article you quoted states that "Coles and his colleagues frequently encounter phony claims". What does this posit for? The need for age validation!
 * "Age validation by the GRG or Guinness isn't required to write Wikipedia lists of supercentenarians" ---> It clearly is, for pretty obvious reasons. Or at least, validation is required to get in to an "official" list. You can still list other claimants in the article, but in a way that makes it clear that their age has not been validated.
 * "...because no one, not even the GRG or Guinness, can conclusively say that they know who the oldest person is." ---> AND THEY DON'T. But that doesn't stop Guinness announcing their official, validated "world's oldest person" because there's a distinct difference between "what is true" and "what is verifiable". The scientific viewpoint is that a list of the oldest people in the world should only include people whose ages have been validated, while the "pseudoscientific" viewpoint is the one you're putting foward: to include unvalidated claims - referenced to less trustworthy sources - mixed in with validated data, on the basis that "there are some other genuine claims out there", while ignoring the fact that there are far more false claims out there. The solution is simple: have a list of the oldest validated people, and another list of unvalidated claims, stating clearly in the article that the true number of supercentenarians listed worldwide is estimated to be higher, but that not all are known about and/or verifiable. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reports what the reliable sources say, even if those reliable sources are wrong. In the absence of information to the contrary, we assume that reliable sources are, in fact, reliable. The question in this section is not whether these particular sources are on par with the GRG but whether they are reliable for Wikipedia. I'd appreciate it if you kept the tangential table-splitting discussion to WT:WOP and kept the focus on whether these particular sources are reliable for the information in this article. Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Andy Whitfield birth date
There is an ongoing dispute over Andy Whitfield's birth date and, consequently, his age at death. Pasting in the work already done by and others:


 * This LA Times article says 39
 * ABC News says 39
 * NY Times says 39
 * MTV says 39
 * Toronto Star says 39
 * NY Daily News says 39.
 * Entertainment Weekly says 39.
 * The BBC Says 39 too.
 * And, while I realize it's not completely reliable, I think we can allow the corroborating evidence of a family member's Twitter feed and a tribute site mentioned in the Talk page.

Writing "age 37" or "born in 1974" for Andy Whitfield, of Sydney: – Still in URL: "Spartacus-star-Whitfield-dies-aged-39", Now written: "Whitfield's manager Sam Maydew said the 37-year-old actor died of non-Hodgkin Lymphoma in Sydney, Australia"
 * : Sources: not revealed; no Author name, neither Agency name; Published (in fullissue.com – no street address, no town): no date.
 * : Sources: not revealed; no Author name, neither Agency name; Published (in stuff.co.nz "Fairfax New Zealand Limited" – no street address, no town): Last updated 18:54 12/09/2011.

Please help sort this out. It seems obvious to me which is correct, but there's so much noise on Talk:Andy Whitfield, it's impossible to get a consensus, and certain people are staunchly refusing to allow a birth date to be added to the article at all. Krychek (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The news sources saying 39 should be fine. The only information that might put this in doubt would be publications written about him before he became famous, before there would be any benefit to misrepresent his age as happens in acting. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As I've said all along, many of the one's saying 39 are top tier sources. Yes, big ones can get it wrong and yes, small ones can be right. But in this case, the evidence is overwhelming to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Use the most frequent number from the most reliable news sources and handle the dissenting age in a footnote: "Some sources use the age 37." There is a whole category for these people Category:Age controversies. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Nokia Lumia 920T GPU
Another editor is disputing inclusion of the Lumia 920T having an Adreno 320 GPU at Nokia Lumia 920. I contend it should be included, per the following sources: Can those sources be considered reliable enough to support the inclusion of that information? Indrek (talk) 12:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_lumia_920t_has_adreno_320_gpu_instead_of_adreno_225-news-5062.php
 * http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/09/lumia-920t-snapdragon-s4-pro
 * http://www.neowin.net/news/chinas-nokia-lumia-920t-gets-supercharged-with-a-faster-adreno-320-gpu
 * http://www.slashgear.com/nokia-lumia-920t-leaks-comes-with-faster-snapdragon-s4-and-adreno-320-gpu-09256354
 * http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/china-s-rumored-lumia-920t-has-faster-processor-than-us-version-1111492


 * I couldn't find much on GSMarena, but the other 4 outlets are frequently cited by high-quality reliable sources (e.g. Forbes, Yahoo News, etc. etc.) and should therefore be considered reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Lifenews.com
is being insisted upon as a source for a claim:


 * Cooper persuaded Neal to have an abortion when she became pregnant with his child

With a talk page comment:


 * It needs to be mentioned that Cooper forced Patricia Neal to have an abortion in October 1950, as this was the most infamous episode of his life and career in Hollywood. It also turned her into a pro-life activist.

This has been previously discussed and found not to be proper for the Cooper biography, and I fear the source may not meet WP:RS in the first place. I am absolutely barred by ArbCom from touching this again as it is now asserted (apparently) by its proponent to be a "political issue" and not a "biographical issue." Other opinions welcomed. Collect (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed it for now, life news is obviously not a rs on this. Looking for a better source to see if this should be reinstated, but not turning up anything other than tabloid so far. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, clearly not a WP:RS for this. Or probably anything else. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

TorrentFreak, again
I just wanted to post that there's unsurprisingly a new debate over TorrentFreak at Talk:The Pirate Bay. I'm mostly saying this here to attract more people to the discussion and because it's growing heated very quickly. Previous RSN posts have included this and this, and they have been referenced in this new discussion with some concern over their outcomes. —烏Γ (kaw), 12:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting the discussion here. As always, RSN discussions need to indicate what content is in dispute. Please do so.
 * I previously identified past discussions about TorrentFreak . In addition to those mentioned above, I'd found the following:
 * Talk:The_Pirate_Bay/Archive_5
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_28
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_34
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_118 (brief mention)
 * It appears to have (weak?) consensus as reliable for technology information. --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It would seem that using TorrentFreak as a source for The Pirate Bay would be a good start as the The_Pirate_Bay article uses TF as a direct source 43 times and many of the other refs just ref TF. Given that the TorrentFreak articles reffed use anonymous sources and TF is an activist blog, itself anonymous, that supports The Pirate Bay; this would seem problematic from an RS perspective. It also appears that all info about The Pirate Bay comes to us via TF. If so, is TF a de facto spokesperson for TPB, and therefore not an independent source? Objective3000 (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not considered a blog. CFCF  💌 📧 14:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Financial Times refers to TF in as "a popular news site in the file-sharing community".
 * "tech site, TorrentFreak".
 * The links require an account for access. How do the linked articles demonstrate reliability? --Ronz (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:USEBYOTHERS, among other things. CFCF   💌 📧 20:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And how is it used? --Ronz (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)--Ronz (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You can go to Google and view the cached page. "In a December interview with TorrentFreak, a popular news site in the file-sharing community, Mr Dotcom said he was married with three children, including twin girls." and "[a quote] he told TorrentFreak."--Ondertitel (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So they treat it as we treat a self-published source basically? That's nothing at all. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you mean by saying it's not a blog?. Of course it's a blog. Even Wikipedia says "TorrentFreak (abbreviated TF) is a blog". Objective3000 (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources refer to it as a news site or tech site. CFCF   💌 📧 20:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It uses blog software, so technically it's a blog and sometimes cited as techblog too, but it is regarded as a news site by various reliable sources. (Which Wikipedia isn't) TorrentFreak describes itself as a publication. The site is used when searching for news in Google. Search in news on 'torrentfreak -torrentfreak.com' to see how others reference them. Just the results from past week show 3 pages already.--Ondertitel (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

For the good of the net: The Pirate Bay as strategic sovereign; Andersson, Jonas; Culture Machine, 2009, Vol.10, pp.64-108 [Peer Reviewed Journal] shows how a TorrentFreak article is referenced in a scientific journal. --Ondertitel (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you find someone that is not known to be pro-piracy? We are looking for unbiased, reliable sources -- not self-published activists whose main outlet appears to be TPB itself. Objective3000 (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll just quote others from previous discussions:
 * "There's absolutely nothing wrong with using a non-neutral source, and as I mentioned on the talk page, there are very few sources in any subject area that could possibly be described as neutral. The fact that torrentfreak uses a non-neutral headline does not at all invalidate them as a source. Opinions in torrentfreak articles should only be included on Wikipedia with the regular opinion disclaimers, but the fact that their articles are frequently opinionated do not make them an invalid source for matters of simple fact. I have no idea why you think the fact that they have run editorials by Peter Sunde speaks against their reliability - many news sources run editorials by people who have opinions and/or people who are involved in controversial stuff."

- Kevin (kgorman-ucb)


 * "A source does not become unreliable just by publishing opinions favorable to a political party which one Wikipedian does not like. Squidfryerchef has said it well: The numerous citations of Torrentfreak in publications which are uncontroversially regarded as reliable sources (see also Google Scholar) show that the site has a reputation of being citeable with regard to its (limited) area of expertise. Given this reputation outside Wikipedia, it is irrelevant whether a Wikipedian is "struggling" to understand why all these scholarly articles, reputable newspapers etc. chose to cite TorrentFreak. Speculating about their editorial process also doesn't override this evidence."

- HaeB


 * If you want specific things more neutral, bring on different reliable sources. See also WP:NOTTRUTH. --Ondertitel (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Their "reputation" is as a political, activist blog pushing an extremist view using anonymous sources. You claim that "scholarly articles" quote them. But, either they qualify their remarks as "TF claims" or they are themselves pushing a POV. And please, do not use Google searches as evidence of anything. Google searches, including searches of "scholarly articles", could provide evidence of the evidence that the world is flat. You need reliable sources -- not Google search results. Objective3000 (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The culturemachine.net article references as (enigmax, 2007), using it as a source for "The site’s spokespeople have actually lamented the lack of competition from other trackers or torrent link indexes" (referring to The Pirate Bay). --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Given the examples so far, we may have to rethink prior consensus, and limit it to claims about themselves and the like. A TorrentFreak doesn't appear to lend much, if any, weight beyond. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Like the saying goes, "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence". I'm new here, but what suddenly happened to "As always, RSN discussions need to indicate what content is in dispute. Please do so."? Or is the shotgun approach valid?
 * You said before: "So they treat it as we treat a self-published source basically? That's nothing at all." I think this is where your Wikipedia bias shows. In the same article they treat BBC exactly the same as TorrentFreak. So by that reasoning we should revisit the reliability of BBC too? Of course not. We use that wording to establish neutrality, but that does not mean a news outlet uses it for the same purpose. I think there it's more important to not pass off a story as your own and give due credit. As I understand the discussions, there were little or no objections to using TorrentFreak just like that.
 * WP:USEBYOTHERS was mentioned before, but I'd like to reference WP:BIASED. I think this is the problem people have with TF, and not the alleged reliability. (they are not the same!) Speaking of which, I still don't see a concrete issue pointed out. Or a reliable source that says TF reporting isn't reliable for that matter.
 * To conclude, "The concern with Torrent Freak is certainly misplaced as it is widely used as a source of original reporting on digital issues. Indeed, Barry Sookman regularly references their articles in his Twitter postings"  Don't be hang up again on it being a news blog. It's the domain experts that said/used it 5 years ago that counts. --Ondertitel (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with TF in the TPB article is that nearly all of the 43 cites refer to TF posts that rely on anonymous sources. As a result, much of the TPB article relies on anonymous sources. Objective3000 (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ondertitel, please WP:FOC.
 * We need evidence that it is reliable. So far, it appears as a reliable source for information directly from The Pirate Bay. That's it. So treat it as a primary source, and give it little or no weight without independent sources. --Ronz (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And, it should be noted in any info sourced from TF, as it is by actual RS, that these are merely claims by TF of what TPB says (anonymous source of an anonymous source). All the serious reliable sources always qualify info that comes from TF. Also, 43 cites in one article from an anonymous source using an anonymous source are simply way too many for an encyclopedia. Objective3000 (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Amend: "Serious reliable sources always qualify info that comes from TF"   to "serious reliable sources always qualify info that comes from [any source]"    and you have a valid statement. If you find any of the specific statements citing TF to be questionable we can discuss that.  CFCF   💌 📧 12:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, that is backwards. As I said above, "We need evidence that it is reliable." --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Reliable. TF has a staff of 4, and its pseudonymous editor-in-chief is a college professor and media consultant. TF has been relied on by a variety of high-quality reliable sources such as Ars Technica, Engadget, BBC, CNET, ZDNet, and PC World. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears you're using an unreliable source (Money and the Music) to vouch for the reliability of another source (TF). Money and the Music is a blog that lasted five months five years ago and had zero followers. Objective3000 (talk) 12:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, DrFleischman! Looks like that list confirms reliability for tech info related to pirating. --Ronz (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Article Gun show loophole Lead section 3 cites
Diff

References (text) already used & already cited...
 * Generally, gun control advocates want to extend background check requirements to private sellers.
 * Gun rights advocates say there is no loophole, and believe any federal law requiring background checks for sales of secondary market firearms between private citizens, whether at gun shows or not, would exceed the government's authority, be a prelude to gun registration, and endanger gun owners' Second Amendment rights.

Sources (citations) added (in addition to original cites in article body)...
 * 1. The Washington Times "The gun show loophole myth" Retrieved September 13, 2015. Op-Ed piece.
 * 2. "What's the Deal with Gun Show Loopholes?" Gun Talk TV. "What's the Deal with Gun Show Loopholes?" Retrieved September 13, 2015.
 * 3. "'We Already Do That!': MRCTV's Dan Joseph Demolishes the Left's 'Gun Show Loophole' Myth", TheBlaze. Retrieved September 13, 2015. A.K.A. Media Research Center -- Darknipples (talk) 07:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Relevant article talk page section. Darknipples (talk) 08:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that you seem to have replaced them with superior sources that serve to cite the exact same fact, I don't see what the concern is -- is anyone objecting? The Washington Times op-ed seems like it might be usable to show an opinion, while the other two seem less reliable, but really, it's better to rely on a news source describing opinions (like the Washington Times source you put in there) rather than relying on opinion pieces directly, since there's less risk of giving one person's opinions WP:UNDUE weight.  (ie. citing the Washington Times describing what the NRA head said like that is better than citing an opinion piece by the head of the NRA, since the coverage establishes that it's noteworthy -- and citing the head of the NRA directly would still be better than citing opinion pieces by random people, which are what the above cites seem to be.)  But it isn't necessary to bring something here if nobody is objecting to it, and I don't see why anyone would object when you're just using a better source to support the same statement. --Aquillion (talk) 08:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I may be being a bit premature or overly cautious, but I wanted to cover my bases as a courtesy. We have a lot on our plate at Gun show loophole. Feel free to chime in, anytime. Darknipples (talk) 09:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this source reliable for laws and ordinances of cities and towns?
The page List of vaping bans in the United States. Currently no discussion on this source is on the talk page. The source "States and Municipalities with Laws Regulating Use of Electronic Cigarettes"

This source is produced by the "Americans for nonsmokers rights foundation" an advocacy group. I see nor can find any indication that they are known for fact checking or that they have any editorial control. I am sure the information can and should be cited to reliable sources like news sites. AlbinoFerret 15:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The pdf in question says, "Please note, this document shows the number of places, not the number of laws. Some places have multiple laws. Please visit our lists page to see information by law in chart format." Poking around their website I found this page, which seems to be what they are referring to. It has links to that and other information on local smokefree laws. Looking at this pdf, there is an actual list of the ordinances involved, whereas the original pdf was just a list of locations. I would say the ordinances in that second list serve as citations for the sources of the information in the first list. I would say it's a reliable source.
 * Generally speaking (though not in every instance) I take information produced by advocacy groups as reliable to the extent that they provide sources for the information and keeping in mind that they are never NPOV, and one must watch for POV distortions and make sure that doesn't get into a WP article. But for a simple thing like listing locations that have a certain type of law, they are reliable.  Now, if they say that e-cigs are dangerous, that's POV information.  If they cite studies showing the danger, cite the study in the article, not the advocacy group, and make sure you look to see what other organizations have said regarding that and similar studies. You can say in an article that the advocacy group says blah, but don't state blah as fact. But for this purpose, yes I would say that pdf is reliable. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 23:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer, but my main concern was not finding any indication that they are known for fact checking or that they have any editorial control. Could you please speak to that point? AlbinoFerret  01:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 *  Not reliable. Abstain. ANRF's stated goal is not to provide factually accurate information but to reduce the harmful effects of smoking. Moreover ANRF is the educational "arm" of ANR, a political advocacy organization -- same e-mail address. There is no evidence this source was subjected to any sort of fact-checking or oversight. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC) On the other hand, as Cloudjpk points out, this very source has been relied on by at least a couple of very reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for addressing that concern. AlbinoFerret  00:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Reliable The list is maintained by an organization that has tracked, collected, and analyzed tobacco control laws around the country since the early 1980s "At least 194 peer-reviewed journal articles and/or reports have cited the Database since 2000 including five NCI monographs and three Surgeon's General Reports which have used the ANR Foundation data as a primary data source."  Here is one of those Surgeon's General reports which cites ANR Foundation data on laws 6 times . Here is one of those peer-reviewed journal articles that cites ANR Foundation data on state laws governing e-cigarettes  It would be hard to find a more reliable source for this subject. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to note that you have edited the pages and are involved in the topic. Secondly, most of the links you provide are about tobacco cigarettes (witch is a separate list) and predate any laws on electronic cigarettes. One journal article referencing the list does not make it reliable nor do any of them suggest it has any editorial oversight. AlbinoFerret  23:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But there wasn't 1, there were at least 194. Neither does it seem right to comment on others involvement when less than a week ago your 6 month topic ban ended. CFCF   💌 📧 16:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * How many of those are about electronic cigarettes? So far we are provided with one example. AlbinoFerret  17:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a well established source for information on tobacco control laws around the country, now including those pertaining to e-cigarette use. I cited one example; it is hardly limited to that. Here's another: another Here's a: third Here's a: fourth
 * From that fourth peer-reviewed journal: "we use the regulation database from the nonprofit American Nonsmokers׳ Rights Foundation, which maintains the most comprehensive collection of nationwide tobacco policies at all jurisdictional levels, including for e-cigarettes" Cloudjpk (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Seems reliable for identifying primary sources and material in them. Not sure if we should take it any further. They certainly want to appear reliable, but that's not evidence we can use. Can someone look to see how it is used as a reference by others? --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "We use the database constantly. The ANR Foundation's electronic updates are easy to use and highly accurate.  We use the statistics in our reports and to answer questions in the field." Katherine Donald,  American Cancer Society  Cloudjpk (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Notability for The Rhythm and Blues Brothers
Hi,

I'd like to list my band "The Rhythm and Blues Brothers" http://www.therhythmandbluesbrothers.co.uk/ on wikipedia, however I understand that you have a Notability policy in place for such topics.

I just wanted to know, whether we qualify as we have been featured on the James Whale Radio show - for BBC Essex in the UK recently, please let me know if this can be accommodated for.

Regards.

Taylan Oliver. (Band Manager) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylanoliver24 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC+9)
 * The notability criteria are at WP:BAND. These offer 12 possibilities to assess notability. Would you think you could pass any of these? If so, which one(s)? As for radio bandwith, the criterion #11 says "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network", so once at an Essex radio show would usually not do. Criterion #10 has "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., performance in a television show ..." Just saw it, so would be OK, sorry missed it first. Correct again: not enough, radio show isn't television show. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Woman's Era magazine (Indian publication)
Hey all, I've noticed a flare-up of activity with users (for instance this one and this one) submitting WomansEra.com as a reference. I know that has been encountering this a ton and reverting. Is anyone aware of this publication? Based on this poorly sourced draft article it's claimed that the mag has been around since 1973. A quick Google image search seems to support that they've produced a number of printed covers. The website doesn't strike me as very professional-looking, and this review is poorly written with consistently incorrect capitalization, misspelling of "title", etc. This seems like it would run afoul of the WP:RS requirement that our sources should have a clear editorial policy, but maybe it's just a crappy translation? I want to be sure we're being fair and not just automatically dismissive. Your thoughts are solicited. If this magazine isn't considered reliable and if the content keeps getting submitted, we might consider requesting that it be added to the spam blacklist to prevent future disruption. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Two points:
 * Historically (ie going back a few decades), Women's Era (along with Eve's Weekly and Femina (India)), was a prominent and widely circulated women's magazine in India. V. S. Naipaul has a whole chapter in India: A Million Mutinies Now titled Women's Era analyzing the magazine, it and it's competitors target audience(s), and what that says about Indian society. Note too that the magazine publisher, Delhi Press, is well-established at least as far as traditional magazine publishing in India goes. The publication is definitely notable enough to have a wikipedia article.
 * That said, today the magazine no longer has as prominent a place in the marketplace or literary circles. So, even though it is nominally a reliable source for generic entertainment information, quoting its film reviews etc is likely undue in most cases. Right now I don't see that as a a big problem in mainspace, possibly because Arjayay and you have have cleaned up the additions, but if there seems to be an organized effort to spam links to the website, it would be best to try to deal it by spam warnings and blocks to individual editors, before trying any drastic measures.
 * Abecedare (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This led to a brand new account User:Neha jetley being created and immediately adding the same information, and other Woman's Era reviews to 2 other films - I re-deleted and warned this account "you can't just hide behind a minor change in your user-name". A third account User:Ravi dheeraj was then created and added the same review. Two reviews were then re-added and a draft article started in User:Ravi dheeraj/sandbox A fourth account User:Sima Joshi was then created and used the content of User:Ravi dheeraj/sandbox to form the article Woman's Era. Other users noted that this was not suitable for article space so I moved it to Draft:Woman's Era where User:Dodger67 deemed it an advertisement. It was resubmitted for review without any attempt to address this problem and User:Yann declined it for not meeting notability requirements. Meanwhile Megha Jetley, Ravi dheeraj and Sima Joshi have all tried to add Woman's Era reviews to articles. - Arjayay (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My particular problem has been COI promotion. User:Megha Jetley opened an account with User:Megha Jetley/sandbox stating that she worked for Women's Era. then, in this edit she added a Women's Era review on an already contentious page. I reverted this as a COI edit, it was re-added so I issued a COI warning.


 * Even if the it meets the notability criteria, as mentioned by Abecedare above, the current draft is basically unsourced. My 2 Rs. Yann (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional background information, . I agree that the draft is unsuitable for wikipedia as written, and that the accounts appear to be sock/meat-puppets intent on promoting the magazine. If they continue, blocks may be warranted; hopefully we can handle the recent spamming without a blanket ban on all links to the magazine website, which may have legitimate use in particular and rare instances. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

vault.com
From my talk page:


 * Hello Staszek Lem, thank you for your edits at the RBSC article. I wasn't aware of that problem, but your edits made me look into it more closely: it seems like vault.com is used c. 200 times on en-Wikipedia - most often as vanity "award" for the "best place to work in" in older references or, more recently, for relatively trivial branche-internal opinion polls. Especially articles about consultant companies with significant SPA edits seem to include that kind of reference to boost their reputation. Do you think, a discussion at WP:RSN could help to address this issue (or at least raise some awareness about it)? GermanJoe (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I look at vault.com once again, to figure out whether it is a reliable source for their ranking, and the following their statement raises a red flag for me: "Vault’s influential company rankings, ratings and reviews are sourced and verified through ongoing directed surveys of active employees and enrolled students. Vault also welcomes current and previous employees and students who were unable to participate in the surveys, to submit reviews on their experiences, salaries, interviews and more." There is no transparency it their rankings, just one more "gradeMyTeacher" or "yelp" crowdsourced opinion collection, and I would suggest to remove its rankings from wikipedia as vanity puffery  (by a number of anons, such as recent Staszek Lem (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

P.S. GermanJoe wrote there were 200 hits, but today I see already 325.

So I would guess that vault.com is being spammed into wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing that up here for discussion. Some of the search results are in userspace or other non-article pages (unfortunately external links search does not exclude them), hence my different guess. But aside from that minor detail I agree with your assessment of course (see above): the source information is of questionable reliability and relevance, and it is misused for company puffery. GermanJoe (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Down to 300 (total number of hits), but it looks like every single one of the entries would need a major overhaul to remove promotional COI editing and puffery. Maybe consultancy is especially vulnerable to that kind of self-adulation - that area of articles is a mess. GermanJoe (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I was an employee at a major consulting firm (Booz Allen Hamilton) and Vault was one of the rankings we participated in, alongside a few others. I think we did at my prior, non-consulting employer, too. Based on my experience, the survey methodology was legitimate - in other words, it's not one of those sketchy, Glassdoor-type sites or a random magazine that no one's heard of and exists only to help small companies get Wikipedia pages.  That's not to say that cruddy consulting articles aren't using this to bolster how badly and PROMO they're written, but I wouldn't reject an otherwise sound article solely for citing Vault as a measure of notability. Alaynestone (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is your personal experience and opinion. The fact is that nothing is known about their ranking: the expertise of rankers, the criteria, the coverage, etc. I.e, how it is different from "a random magazine that no one's heard of". Staszek Lem (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And my suggestion is not to reject articles, only to reject quotes 'from the vault'.


 * That's not quite true - we do know some things. Each survey lists its methodology (I've quoted the section from the Top 50 Consulting firms  as a reference).  My concern is that this still wouldn't be enough detail for this group to come to a fair consensus on.  It's not the level of detail at, say, a journalistic article going through its detailed experiment parameters.  That leaves it in the realm of a judgment call for editors.  There, I can only give you my insight that I don't think this is one of the bad ones. That could be worth literally nothing to you.  If you're in the "unless I can 100% validate it, it shouldn't be used" camp, that's where you'll end up.  If you're in the "there are bigger fish to fry and this passes the sniff test" camp, then it may be fine.  Or not.  Either way, I think we're ultimately in the same place, which is that the survey reflects on pages but isn't the only parameter, which was my major concern.

''In order to properly reflect a company's status as an employer within the consulting industry, the Vault Consulting 50 for 2016 is based on the following weighted formula:

30 percent prestige 15 percent satisfaction 15 percent compensation 10 percent firm culture 10 percent work-life balance 10 percent overall business outlook 5 percent promotion policies 5 percent ability to challenge

As ever, our survey is only open to consultants who are currently employed at reputable firms in the industry. When rating quality of life issues, consultants are only permitted to rate their own firm. For prestige and practice area rankings, however, consultants are only allowed to rate competitors, and NOT their own firms.'' Alaynestone (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The site allegedly performs branche-internal surveys by "verified" employees in the branche itself. By its very nature such a survey could only give a vague first impression of a company's branche-internal reputation from the employees' PoV. It cannot make any reliable statement about 1) the general world-wide reputation of a company, or 2) its business success against other similar companies. Still it is regularly misused by COI-editors for these purposes - such promotional misuses need to be removed. Branche-internal opinion polls are given too much weight in these articles; they are hardly relevant in an encyclopedic article primarily about facts, not opinions. The site also publishes lengthy company profiles with enthusiastic descriptions of all their activities: these profiles are clearly based on the reviewed companies' own information. GermanJoe (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Vault.com states "This year, over 17,000 law associates rated law firms on a scale of 1 to 10 based on prestige. (Associates were not allowed to rate their own firms, and were asked only to rate firms with which they were familiar.)"  This appears to be a reliable source representing the aggregate opinions of 17,000 law associates.  These rankings have value.  JeanLucMargot (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * An article like Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, where you reverted my improvements, violates Wikipedia's policies of WP:PROMO, WP:NPOV and WP:COI. The current lead version (and some of the later content) is actually a great example, why such blatant puffery and self-promotional COI-editing from a company's PoV is harming the neutral encyclopedic coverage of companies. I invite other editors to check the article for themselves. GermanJoe (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So, in your opinion, the aggregate of 17,000 opinions in not a neutral point of view? Which other metric would qualify as neutral according to you? JeanLucMargot (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not the source violates WP:NPOV, but how it is (mis)used out of context for non-neutral statements. Just analyze the information more closely: The survey asked "attorneys to score each of the law firms on a scale of 1 to 10 based on how prestigious it is to work for the firm ." This source does not support the statement "The firm is one of the most prestigious and selective in the United States and ranks among the most successful firms globally." The only statement it could possibly verify is: "In a branche-internal survey by vault.com in 2015, the firm was ranked 11th in the top 100 most prestigious companies to work for." Any other usage is misrepresenting the source and WP:OR; a source must verify the complete referenced statement without any additional interpretation or analysis. GermanJoe (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Providing additional context for the source is certainly fine, but that is a different action than attempting to censor the source altogether. Note that there is nothing "internal" about the survey because associates were not allowed to rate their own firms.  A more accurate statement would be: "In a survey of 17,000 law associates conducted by vault.com in 2015, the firm was ranked 11th on the basis of prestige." Does that sound reasonable? JeanLucMargot (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion is an improvement, but the "for work" part is crucial. The survey is not about the company's general prestige, only about one partial aspect. And this needs to be clarified in the article. But a detailed phrasing discussion for a single article would probably be better held on that article's talkpage - we got a bit carried away here. If the source is reliable (that's still open for debate), its results need to be presented as neutral and unambiguous as possible. Also WP:WEIGHT should be checked. Currently the survey result is mentioned in the 2nd lead sentence - is it really the 2nd-most notable information about this company? But as I said, it's probably better to continue article-related fine-tuning on the article talkpage. GermanJoe (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Attempting to censor (or misrepresent) polls conducted by vault.com on the basis of an inability to "prove" that vault.com actually surveyed 17,000 law associates is rooted in denialism. Applying this denialism to other parts of wikipedia would force us to remove any sort of polling result (can you "prove" that Gallup surveyed X people?) or academic ranking (can you "prove" that US News and World Report aggregated the opinions of Y academics?).  ﻿The vault.com surveys provide interesting data that have value.  While some editors may be unhappy with what that evidence shows, it is still evidence.  JeanLucMargot (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Accusing me of censoring or misrepresenting vault.com is bold, and easily shown as false. The statement, I fixed in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher is "In a branche-internal survey by vault.com in 2015, the company was ranked 11th in the top 100 most prestigious law firms to work for." This is a clear and neutral description of the poll's methodology and result, based entirely on available facts. Not "interesting data", not "evidence of prestige" - but facts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business magazine to propagate the latest branche-internal news. Gallup and Vault.com are not comparable in terms of reliability. Not even close, the companies play in completely different leagues. And, as a last point, removing misused or possibly unreliable sources and content is within our policies (see WP:RS and WP:V). The burden of proof is on the editor, who is adding such disputed content: a source must be reliable and must "directly support the contribution". GermanJoe (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Clarification: When I wrote " nothing is known about their ranking: the expertise of rankers, the criteria, the coverage, etc. " I meant nothing is is known about vault.com from independent sources. They can write whatever they want about themselves. They can claim 17,000 experts busily reviewing companies when for all we know they are hiring an Indian sweatshop to browse the web. You have to present a solid proof that the company is reputable. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To put it in WP:V/WP:RS wording this seems to be my appreciation: Vault.com self-publishes their research. Unless a third party RS repeats the results of that research for a particular company, Vault.com cannot be used in the article of that company, per WP:SELFPUB.
 * Or, in WP:UNDUE wording: if the only place where the data can be found is Vault.com (and other non-RS-ses) it is undue weight to mention such things in the article on the company.
 * When the company mentions it on their own website (with no other sources than that website, Vault.com and non-RS-ses), the company website may be considered as a source that self-published about themselves, but would still not pass WP:SELFPUB, per criterion #1 "unduly self-serving". --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Summary Let me see if I can take the concerns and rebuttals specific to Vault (not the side tangent about the law firm) and summarize. Did I miss anything?
 * Vault includes multiple types of content, including rankings and company-submitted profiles. For the purpose of this, I'll focus in on the rankings. I think this group would consider a self-published company profile pretty clearly not NPOV. (Correct me if I'm wrong)
 * Vault doesn't publish its ranking methodology. They include methodology summaries in the individual reports (ex: ). This is not at the level of detail of an academic report, but addresses concerns such as whether it accepts anonymous reviews from the internet and the weighting.
 * We don't know anything about Vault from independent resources. Vault is cited by other reliable sources. I don't believe any of these talk in detail about the methodology, but I also don't believe that's the standard we hold here.  Other reliable sources are vouching for the quality of Vault's surveys by reporting on it, including on a quick search: Bloomberg, CNBC, Forbes (staff writer, not a blog).
 * Vault publishes its own survey results, failing WP:SELFPUB. I don't think that's quite the right interpretation of WP:SELFPUB, but I'm open to other opinions.  That gets at - for instance, if Vault did a survey and rated itself the top rating agency in the US and put that on its page, THAT'S self-publishing.  If a law firm linked to its press release citing the Vault survey results, that's self-publishing.  Citing an otherwise reliable source (see previous bullet point) that you didn't write yourself is fine.  To put it another way, if I worked on a page about gun crime in the U.S. and the Washington Post wrote a major investigative report on the topic, would I have to cite NYT's coverage of the WaPo story or would I just link to WaPo and be done with it?
 * Without other sources citing the data, it fails WP:UNDUE. Again, I'm not sure this is the right interpretation of WP:UNDUE.  As I read it, that has to do with how much a particular source is used within the context of an article, not as a criteria for judging whether the source itself is reliable. This would be specific to each page and not relevant to this general discussion.
 * Vault is not sufficient to show notability for a company page. The source appears to be notable enough via its 3rd party citations to support notability. I don't know if it alone could do so, but based on a very cursory review of the participants, it seems like most of those groups have other traits that also contribute to overall notability to pair with the Vault ratings.  Again, in either case, this is going to be specific to each page and not a blanket judgement.
 * Because Vault surveys employees, the rankings are inherently biased and not NPOV. This has two components which should be addressed separately. 1) The Vault rankings on prestige are not voted on by a company's own employees. You rank other firms, not yours. This is a clear pass. 2) If the Vault ranking is on employee satisfaction, the only way you can measure employee satisfaction is by interviewing employees. It becomes NPOV through comparison with other firms - you don't assign yourself #1 or a particular percentile. Alaynestone (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You could summarize the concerns (at least from my PoV, others may have other priorities) more easily in 3 points:
 * Vault's company profiles and other articles are full of promotional, non-neutral fluff and lack critical, independent information about the companies (and clear authorship in many cases). Those profiles are most likely based on self-published company info. Similar to other unreflected publications from other branche-internal magazines and websites, this information is generally not usable. This point should be uncontroversial.
 * Their rankings of "branche-internal prestige to work for" are misused by COI editors to represent "general worldwide prestige". These are not a few sporadic accidental errors, but a systematic misrepresentation in dozens of consultancy-related articles on Wikipedia. Note, that Bloomberg, CNBC and Forbes take a different approach - they clearly explain the background and limitations of those surveys in their articles, and do not try to exaggerate their importance out of context.
 * Even being positive (ignoring the questions about Vault's reliability) and assuming such workplace prestige-rankings have some limited value, they are still the result of trivial opinion polls. Encyclopedic articles should focus on encyclopedic facts, not on the results of some subjective "prestige" votes from 1 to 10. Adding such trivial factoids in an article, let alone in an article's lead section, is undue WP:WEIGHT to begin with, unless the article is focussed on workplace quality, employee surveys or similar aspects. Lead and "Awards" section should focus on significant major accomplishments, being ranked in an opinion poll simply does not qualify. GermanJoe (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * #3 appears to be the sticking point, and I'm not sure how to get around that except through inviting others to comment. I agree absolutely that pages need to present these findings correctly (case in point: the law firm article in the side-tangent clearly did not).  I disagree that this is a trivial opinion poll that does not demonstrate company notability, again pointing to the citations in other international, notable sources who wouldn't cover the poll otherwise. Alaynestone (talk) 03:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Dash (cryptocurrency)
On the Dash_(cryptocurrency) page, anonymous users from forums and blogs like bitcointalk.org, devtome.com, and dashdot.io are used as sources for information in the last part of the History section. This appears to violate the rules against using self-published sources (WP:RS). The language of the edits also use poor grammar, spelling, and weasel words. I've tried adding templates indicating such and attempted to direct the discussion to the Talk page but the editor (IP address 75.93.11.94) removes my edits and/or replaces them with another questionable source.

Any advice on how to move forward from here without edit warring? Thanks. Raze182 (talk) 05:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The first two sites bitcointalk.org (forum) and devtome.com (wiki) are not reliable. They fall under WP:USERGENERATED sites. The last one says "Hello World and the site probably crashed making it a dead link. As how not to edit war, look for a replacement, if a reliable one can be found replace it. if not start with a simple talk page section outlining the problems linking back to this section and the problem with the source. if a claim needs to be removed link back to the talk page section in the edit comments. If an editor wants to replace unreliable sources after that, use dispute resolution or a noticeboard like AN/I as a last resort. None of that is fast, but better than multiple reverts. AlbinoFerret  15:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah those sources are definitely not reliable, as they violate WP: RS self-published sources, like you said. I think that AlbinoFerret's advice was good.  Try to find other sources that would count as reliable and propose using those, and perhaps the editor won't delete them.  Good luck and hope this helps.   Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 23:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice AlbinoFerret and Comatmebro. Sounds like a plan. Thanks again. Raze182 (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

americanmusical.com

 * THE HEAVY METAL PERIODIC TABLE: A Brief History of Metal

The article that the source is supporting is all bands, genre. A combination of Hardcore Punk and Thrash Metal, Metalcore is among the most popular of the subgenres. Double-bass driven, tuned-down riffs punctuated by half-time breakdowns provide the foundation for the shouted vocals. Century Media and Medal Blade records saw huge success for the genre with several albums cracking the top ten of the Billboard Top 200. Quite an accomplishment. Examples: Hatebreed, Bury Your Dead, Killswitch Engage, While She Sleeps, Asking Alexandria, Bleeding Through, Integrity, Unearth, Hogan's Heroes, As I Lay Dying, God Forbid, Shadows Fall. "Metalcore. Examples: Hatebreed, Bury Your Dead, Killswitch Engage, While She Sleeps, Asking Alexandria, Bleeding Through, Integrity, Unearth, Hogan's Heroes, As I Lay Dying, God Forbid, Shadows Fall." Metalcore — Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatMarshmallow (talk • contribs) 11:18, 25 September 2015(UTC+9)
 * Unreliable. This is a "Heavy Metal Buyer's Guide" SEO piece written by a non-professional on a music gear website. Woodroar (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Metal Music Archives.
The article the source is supporting that Hogan's Heroes just like most bands who have Hardcore punk mixed with Heavy Metal, have been labeled these genres Metallic Hardcore, Hardcore Punk, Metalcore, Crossover Thrash and Skate Punk. That the band is seminal in the development of Metallic Hardcore, Metalcore, Skate punk, and Crossover thrash. "Hogan's Heroes formed in 1984. The band was seminal in the development of metallic hardcore, skatepunk, metalcore and crossover thrash"

http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/artist/hogans-heroes — Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatMarshmallow (talk • contribs) 11:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC+9)
 * Right off the bat, your link says that the website says its "from the creators of ProgArchives". ProgArchives is deemed unreliable at WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES, I believe due to WP:USERG issues. So, I'm inclined to believe this would be the same, and it's unreliable.  Sergecross73   msg me  02:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Unreliable. WP:USERGENERATED. Woodroar (talk) 03:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this a real comment. I can't eat apples because pears are deemed unreliable. wow. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Its not Prog Archives. Prog Archives being unreliable doesn't make Metal Music Archives unreliable. I feel sergecross should let others handle it as he threatened to block me recently "without a warning". I mean where is sergecross on the whole current page. People use the site on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=metal+music+archives&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go it has an about us and written by an administrator. Only that quote is the rest of it is a mirror of wikipedia article.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The site is user generated. (Their about us page even details how to join and contribute.) This specific piece was written by "Bosh66", not a named music journalist. As far as other articles using this source, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We should probably remove the references from those articles. Woodroar (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "How does the artists and albums metal subgenres classification works ?
 * Initial importation of all the artists and albums associated a subgenre to all the albums the album based on our best evaluation of the artists discography main subgenre. We understand that albums from an artist may differ in genre from one to another -- so we allow metal subgenre(unique) selection at the album level.''Not Done by "reviewers".
 * How do I contribute or become a special collaborator ? Every member can contribute his own way, just login and look for special action link in the left menu of each page, called MEMBER ZONE. Here's the list of all the possiblities that the site offers (as March 27, 2010): Posting reviews or rating only of albums Commenting reviews publicly or privately with the reviewer Posting shouts on artists page and video pages Search and add video related to artists. Members can vote : like or dislike videos or post shouts/comments about this video Complete discography for missing audio releases or movie releases, by using the add album action link Add artists to your "favorite lists" Participating in forum discussions and creating new topics. Not anything to do with the Original Opening statement which was written by an Administrator there with a web handle. Another editor said it was a "mirror" it has never been on wikipedia or anywhere else. Ever. You said "Bosh" doesn't have a name did you bother to click his handle as it says "BOSH66 Chris Dawson Forum Admin Group · Admin - H&C, Sludge, Metalcore, AG Registered 952 days ago · Last visit 12 seconds ago Send Private Message | Add to Buddy List" He wrote the original opening and is Administrator there.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:302:d3a0:40a1:3456:56f4:29f9 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC+9)

Who is he? Where else has he written? This is the type of information you need to bring here to demonstrate that the source is reliable. Woodroar (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Metal Music Archives is a reliable source. Who is he, someone you said had no name. He is an administrator there. "Who is he? Where else has he written? This is the type of information you need to bring here to demonstrate that the source is reliable" Look how long and friendly the tonality is above on 99% of every reply. Also, helpful. and I have to have binksternet and sergecross follow my edits and page around. Do you know how big this webspace is. I like people who show helpfulness and are positive people. I don't want this to be a negative experience here at wikipedia. I have a brain and I am going to share it. Wow. I feel like throwing the computer through the wall. Out of all places I thought I could at least deal with some nice unbiased people here. Then I have to of course see a "familiar" name and not in a good helpful familiar. Someone who seems to assume Im some sort of "bad guy". I know my stuff and am very well versed if that aggravates some people, its not my fault debating or working together on something means the best ideas must rise to the surface. It doesn't mean I should be followed around the web. It says at wikipedia people aren't supposed to make good editors not want to contribute anymore due to basically harassment. "You'll get a block with no warning". This should be a no "politics" kind of environment but thats exactly what it is sometimes, "you aggravated my friend because you're smart and now Im going to aggravate you back". Thats not a Professional environment. Just seeing that name is aggravating. Good Administrators and Editors are Helpful and TEACH. They don't THREATEN and Assume. Its just not good. Sorry. Thats what I know. I haven't seen any good experiences with sergecross. Nothing personal, also Im not a "kid" I grew out of that stuff decades ago. In in real life am an old soul, mature, light, helpful, knowledgeable. Wow. Same thing with binksternet, hands out more warnings to me in one week then Ive had in about 7 or 8 years. Doesn't work together. If he gets out debated about a topic tries to "get you back". Really. Lets not forget, Professional Before Feelings. Some have it, some don't. I have that ability. I don't hold "grudges" I'm not a kid. I ran a 5million dollar DVP account and had accounts at 7 of the Biggest Brokerage firms in the world. I know what professional is and the environment of. This emailing and getting people to basically harass when it happens doesn't reflect on me it reflects on the Administrators and Editors who engage, in it. When an editor comes across an Administrator who is nice, helpful and doesn't seem to let web-friendship with other editors or administrators affect the way a person is treated that administrator is treated like gold because they are one of the Good ONES. Anyhow its no mirror. Ill just add it like every one else who used the source, they weren't victim to "politics" if it gets removed It can go to content dispute. have a nice night. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Responded on user's Talk page as this is getting off topic. Woodroar (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * For the record, the "threat" this user speaks of, was in regards to him starting to edit war with another editor, where I told him he wouldn't get any more warnings because he's already been blocked for that at least once in the past. Its standard practice to not get further warnings when ones already been blocked for it in the past, not to mention, its not like that could possibly cloud someone's judgement on such an obvious WP:USERG problem this source presents. (Also, this in reference to an IP this editor uses, which is why its not reflected in his block log.) Sergecross73   msg me  15:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Retraction Watch
Is retractionwatch.com a "reliable source" for claims about living persons? Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard has editors discussing the issues raised about that blog, and clearly the issue is implicit as to whether it is a reliable source for the purposes to which it is proposed being used or accepted. Collect (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It strikes me as similar to Beall's List. Only here the issues are more straightforward (i.e., whether an article is in question or indeed has been retracted).  There's no reason to doubt what the source is saying in this situation.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Aside from the fact that the claim is contentious if one believes RW's assertion that a lawsuit was threatened? And last I looked, blogs in general are not allowed as a rule as a "reliable source" unless under the aegis of a reliable source.  Did you note that? Collect (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no blanket prohibition on blogs, but on self-published sources. Retraction Watch is published and overseen by The Center For Scientific Integrity, whose board is populated by experts in various fields.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 13:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, there's no reason to doubt that what Retraction Watch reports is true -- particularly given what we see in the primary sources that RW is itself using. Gamaliel's point is also entirely cogent.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There are really two questions here, aren't there? Whether the paper was retracted or not strikes me as uncontentious (it's a straightforward fact that is easily verified.)  Assuming Retraction Watch does have some form of professional oversight, it would be a decent source for that.  But the second and more important issue is whether the retraction matters -- whether it's worth covering or whether this is giving it WP:UNDUE weight.  My feeling is that Retraction Watch is not useful as a source for establishing that, because as I understand it publishes retractions indiscriminately. --Aquillion (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * absolutely reliable for content about retractions and surrounding drama. This is not like Beaall's list where there is judgement about whether a journal or article is "predatory" - Retraction Watch reports about retractions, which are actions that others take.  See descriptions of RW and its editor in:
 * NY Times and again in NY Times
 * Nature and Nature Medicine (editorial) ](many more)
 * Science
 * I could go on and on, but really this is ~the~ authority on retractions of scientific papers. This is exactly the kind of thing  that WP:SPS has explicit exceptions for. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes for specific retractions, generally for the reasons behind retractions, case-by-case for commentary on the general landscape of science and retractions. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, RetractionWatch is, in general, useable for material about living people. WP:BLP states that blogs may be acceptable if written by professionals and subject to good editorial control. In this case, the editors of RetractionWatch are both reputable professionals with extensive experience in scientific publishing, and the site is subject to their full editorial control. Moreover, RetractionWatch has a pretty decent track record in terms of accuracy and is, if anything, quite conservative in avoiding unfounded claims. (In the interest of full disclosure, I once met Ivan Oransky, one of the editors of the site, very briefly when he came to my institution to give a lecture. That's another point; the site is well-regarded enough that its editors are often invited to major academic institutions to lecture on the subject of retractions). MastCell Talk 00:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not reliable. This appears to be a self-published blog. There is no evidence that these sources received any editorial review. Now, I agree that these authors, Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus, are established scientific journalists. Does that make them subject matter experts exempt from WP:SPS? No, no more than other journalists blogging about subjects they have reported on during their day jobs. They are simply journalists doing a little unreviewed, independent research in their spare time. These people might be experts on scientific journalism or retractions generally (especially Oransky). But they are not experts on the subject matter at issue, which is whether 4 specific journals have "questioned" a specific scientist's papers. That kind of factual conclusion can only be considered verifiable if it is (a) the result of journalism that has been subjected to editorial review by reputable news outlets, or (b) carefully supported by primary sources. In this case the latter is easy to do, as Retraction Watch helpfully points us to all of the relevant primary sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In your opinion. But lots of independent sources consider it reliable, so we do as well, at least for the statements of sourced fact (e.g. retraction of a specific paper). For commentary, we take it on a case by case basis. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , examples with links please? I found sources using Oransky for general commentary on retractions, but not Retraction Watch as a fact source for what happened in specific instances. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute. RetractionWatch is not a self-published blog. It is published by the Center for Scientific Integrity, a reputable organization with a board of directors full of reputable scientists and funded by a MacArthur grant. Editorial oversight is exercised by Oransky and Marcus, who are both experienced professional scientific editors. In fact, they are arguably the leading experts in the US when it comes to scientific retractions, and are often quoted as such by major media when a retraction hits the news. MastCell Talk 21:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * First, the Center for Scientific Integrity appears to be nothing more than the organization that runs RW. It has no independent website and appears to be no more or less reputable than RW. There is no evidence that the RW posts at issue here were reviewed by anyone other than their authors prior to publication. Second, as I already wrote Oransky may well be an expert on scientific retractions, in fact I believe his is, but that doesn't make him an expert on the purely factual question at issue here, which is how 4 specific journals handled 4 specific articles. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait... you agree that Oransky is an expert on scientific retractions, but then argue that he's not an expert on a set of 4 papers which are being questioned and considered for retraction? MastCell Talk 16:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I'm saying. I believe the content in dispute is: "Four of Fernandez's scientific papers have been questioned by journals that accepted them: BMC Genomics, Nature Publishing Group, Annual Reviews, and PLOS Genetics." So the question is whether these journals "questioned" Fernandez's papers. That's a purely factual inquiry that requires fact-checking, not subject matter expertise. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And I just fact-checked it: here's the Expression of Concern from the editors of Nature. Here is the notice from Annual Reviews stating that they're holding off on publishing Fernandez's paper due to an unresolved concern about the underlying data. Here is the Expression of Concern from BMC Genomics. And so on. Incidentally, all of these are linked directly from RetractionWatch, so that anyone can confirm the accuracy of what they're reporting. It seems pretty silly to reject the source for a lack of "fact-checking" when they're not only completely correct about the facts, but also linked the relevant items directly so that anyone could confirm them. MastCell Talk 16:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Aquillion is right on: This is a reliable source but by itself likely insufficient to establish notability or meet the burden of due weight. ElKevbo (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * For anyone still involved in this discussion, there's a nice article just published in The Chronicle of Higher Education that focuses on Retraction Watch: Meet Retraction Watch, the Blog That Points Out the Human Stains on the Scientific Record. The article discusses not only the blog authors' credentials (e.g., "veteran science writers") but also the blog's influence and reputation (e.g., "Armed now with a bona fide reputation and $700,000 in foundation funding, Retraction Watch finds itself in a position of unexpected influence at a time when scientific researchers are struggling to maintain their credibility in the public eye."). ElKevbo (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

answering-islam.org
The site http://answering-islam.org/ is used on 226 Wikipedia pages, 35 of them articles.

It appears to be a Christian site that gives a "answer" to Islam, with anonymous authors. I don't see any way it could be considered a reliable source.

Given how many christian apologists use this site as an authority, I predict a storm of criticism, edit warring, etc. if I make any attempt to remove those citations. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously falls under WP:SPS, and nothing about it indicates that it would fall into any of the exceptions that make a SPS usable, so yeah, I'd say it should probably be pulled out of all of them. Reliability is contextual and all, but I seriously doubt that any of the places where it's being cited are ones where it would be appropriate.
 * UPDATE: After looking over it, actually, a lot of cites are to older things that are reproduced there (old documents which might be usable as primary or secondary sources -- old enough to be outside of copyright.)  So it's worth being cautious and not just nuking from orbit.  In some cases we can change the cite to the actual document.  (I'm unclear if we can use a personal site like that as a convenience link for such a thing -- it would probably be best to replace it with someplace else when possible, and the widespread use of this site here makes me worry that someone is trying to promote it.)  But something like this, which seems to be cited a few times, seems like a reasonable book to cite at first glance, with the caveat that we have to be cautious about citing it for anything controversial due to its age.  The articles originally posted on that site, on the other hand, are clearly not usable as sources (except maybe in cases where the author is extremely noteworthy in the field, and then only to cite their opinion.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be very reluctant on citing 19th century book on Islam as a secondary source. It might be a primary source in a historiographic article, but it's definitely out of date (note that the first edition was published in 1891). And we have plenty of good modern sources on this topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the site promotes Christianity over Islam, I worry about the possibility that even the old documents might be subtly edited, as recently happened with one of Darwin's books distributed by some creationists. Whenever possible I would keep the ref and change the URL to point to a reliable site, preferably academic. If I can't find the work anywhere else, should it be retained on the assumption that the anonymous authors of answering-islam.org didn't mess with it? We have rejected a lot of youtube videos because they we don't really know whether they might be edited. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That has to be decided on a case-by-case basis, I think. If the claim seems uncontentious, it's probably not worth worrying about (although you could also try and find another source for it -- most of these seem to be old enough to be in the public domain, which introduces its own problems in terms of how dated the scholarship would be.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. This looks like one of those slow, careful jobs where you need to look at the context. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

xzona.su
The article the source is supporting that Earth Crisis, Integrity, Hogan's Heroes are the first three Metalcore bands. bottom of page, below reviews is original article about Metalcore.

"Первые металкор группы, такие как Earth Crisis, Integrity, Hogan's Heroes, музыкально ближе к хардкор-панку, а более поздние, например Trivium, Atreyu, Bleeding Through и Unearth, больше склоняются в сторону метала." — Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatMarshmallow (talk • contribs) 11:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC+9)
 * Unreliable. It's a file-sharing website. Woodroar (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It has reviews and administrators. Does it not?CombatMarshmallow (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The reviews are user generated, not written by known music journalists. Likewise, the admins are not an editorial board renowned for their oversight. The site itself doesn't have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". We're looking for music publications, not file-sharing websites. Woodroar (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The site does Reviews. The administrators do reviews. the file sharing is a completely different function.73.193.195.69 (talk) 04:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * They're not professional music journalists and professional editors. The site isn't a professional music journal or magazine. Sources must have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", not simply exist. Woodroar (talk) 04:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Unreliable - file-sharing websites are not a professional authority on music. WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES has a good list of usable and unusable sources. I recommend studying up on that list some to see the type of sources that are typically deemed reliable. Judging by your last few proposals, it does not seem that you quite understand WP:RS or WP:USERG. Sergecross73   msg me  10:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Unreliable - due to file-sharing and user-generated material.  Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 23:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Sputnik
Hello, The article that the source is supporting is the band genre Hogan's Heroes at Metalcore. Thank You for your time.| CombatMarshmallow (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC) "Hogan's Heroes - Metalcore" — Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatMarshmallow (talk • contribs) 10:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC+9)
 * Unreliable. Site is WP:USERGENERATED. Woodroar (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Unreliable - There is obviously a tag on the side of your link that suggests that anyone with an account can edit that source. As such, it is not a reliable source, it fails WP:USERG. Sergecross73   msg me  03:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sputnikmusic is only reliable when citing a staff review. The rest of the site is user-generated.  You can see more at WikiProject Albums/Sources.  There don't seem to be any staff reviews for albums by this band, so it's unreliable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

inweekly.net
inweekly.net—Pensacola Independent News. Appears to be a Pensacola weekly newspaper with claimed "print and online" circulation of 20,000. Sources used at Memorial Day Pensacola Beach Pride: "Queer and Here: The Long History of Gay Tourists on Pensacola Beach" and "Gay Money: The Uncertain Economics of Memorial Day Weekend on the Beach". Is it a RS? — Brianhe (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to explain what edits these sources are supposed to support. Bear in mind that signed articles in rs typically include both factual information and opinions and we should never present opinions expressed as facts.  But considering the topic, this appears to be a good source in general.  TFD (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

A 15-sources backed statement being opposed with what seems just wikilawyering
I would really appreciate help to see if I am right at the discussion Talk:Serbs_of_Croatia. The issue is about a constitutional change that happened in 1990 in Croatia which is controversial and uncomfortable for Croatians nowadays. The situation at the discussion is the following: me alone having provided 15 sources to back up a statement versus a group of Croatian editors challenging it however lacking sources (well, one editor claims there is one, in Croatian, but we cannot verify it). A RfC was made but no neutral participants jumped in. After about 3 weeks of discussion with some editors who challenged the statement admitted they could do nothing, I was bold and I added the 15-sources backed statement, with no sources contradicting it, to the article (my edit). In the edit I choosed some among the 15 sources I presented at the talk-page. Neverless, I was reverted (diff). At that point the main objection at the discussion was that I failed to provide sources that would explain what the "constituent nation" exactly means, and without the exact explanation, the 15-sources backed statement couldn't go to the article... OK, I said, some of my 15 sources deal with the issue more in detail, it is not a problem for me to add it, and I did it. For time being I was not reverted yet, however, as it can be seen at the discussion (at recent comments by Direktor), one editor is challenging an author of one of my sources, Snežana Trifunovska. Her book I am using is: Yugoslavia Through Documents: From Its Creation to Its Dissolution. Is the challenging of her book as source correct? FkpCascais (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe I added too much story and introduction for this noticeboard. Basically all I am asking is just an input regarding Snežana Trifunovska book Yugoslavia Through Documents: From Its Creation to Its Dissolution, valid source for the subject she is writing about, or not. Clearly valid in my view, but an editor is opposing her use, so I would really be glad if someone could provide a neutral opinion. FkpCascais (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no overt reason to doubt that source, but reliability is in a context. I couldn't say for sure without knowing more about what makes this passage of the constitution contentious. Rhoark (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Rhoark for your attention, the case for now seems to be settled, the editors did not further oppose the use of the source. FkpCascais (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

TheScoreeSports.com
Hi, I'm wondering if theScoreesports.com is a reliable source to be used on League of Legends Pro League.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Starchild project as a reliable source for the starchild article
This is a long paragraph, please forgive me.

Hello, I was trying to edit the starchild skull article, and am wondering if these sources are acceptable:

Cradleboarding: http://www.starchildproject.com/cradleboarding.htm#

Hydrocephalus: http://www.starchildproject.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27&Itemid=294&catid=13

The reasoning behind this is that the current version of the aforementioned article is very one-sided (the NPOV is rather absent). I did write what I thought was a neutral article, listing both sides and their sources, but I was accused of using an "unreliable" source. Both of the sources above were based on a report written by Dr. Ted Robinson. If these sources were written by a medical expert, I can see no reason as to why they are invalid. The current source being used was written by Dr. Novella, so why can't a source based on Dr. Robinson's report be used? I feel that the Starchild project IS reliable, and can still be cited without breaking WP:NPOV.

The only reason I don't see Dr Robinson's report cited is because it was published on what some of the editors of the starchild skull article were labeling a "fringe" source. The starchild project has a list of credible sources and medical experts who examined the skull. The Novella source is purely conjecture, as he never examined the skull in detail, and already had a bias against the starchild skull. The starchild project can be any bit as reliable as Steven novella, even more-so, as they, unlike novella, are the foremost experts on the starchild skull, that can be found, because they have a list of medical experts, and doctors, who can back up their statements and information. This is a case of one, biased medical expert, whose writing is nothing but opinion and conjecture, versus 11 experts who took time to examine the skull, without a prior bias toward, or against, the starchild skull. This, and also, the ambiguity of the article, not only suggest bias, but maybe even a sort of "censorship". I appreciate any input from you. EBenderednebE (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Jordi Folch Pi
I was wondering if this kind of biographical memoir is considered to be a primary source for Jordi Folch Pi. It was apparently written by two of Folch's students who are now, but the disclaimer on the first page of the source states "Any opinions expressed in this memoir are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy of Sciences." I tagged it as a primary source, but will gladly correct that if it's not since it's being extensively cited throughout the article. FWIW, the authors do cite quite a few sources themselves which may be considered independent enough to support what written in the memoir. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Just trying to decide whether something is or isn't primary is just abstract. Is there a question of whether it is 'too primary' to be reliable for a particular claim? Rhoark (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response Rhoark and sorry for not being more specific. I am wondering if the source can be used to support statements about Folch's early life and early career. Most of the sources cited in the memoir appear to be related to academic papers, etc. for Folch's accomplishments after he was well established as a researcher. I'm just not sure where the writers of the memoir got their information about Folsh's personal history, etc., such as the stuff in "The Early Years", and whether they should be considered a reliable source for such things. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The source looks fine to me, especially for non-controversial statements of fact about the man's life and career. The disclaimer about "any opinions expressed..." is standard boilerplate--it implies nothing about the quality or rigor of the document itself. The Blue Canoe  22:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

United States
Can the following source be used in United States to say that taxes in the U.S. are more progressive than in developed nations.
 * Eduardo Porter, "Combating Inequality May Require Broader Tax", New York Times, Nov. 27, 2012: "Many Americans may find this hard to believe, but the United States already has one of the most progressive tax systems in the developed world, according to several studies, raising proportionately more revenue from the wealthy than other advanced countries do."

The column was republished in an "In the News" box in a reputable textbook, Principles of Economics, p. 428 (Cengage, 2014).

To me, this is not a reliable source, because it comes under "News organizations": "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The author although a respected economics journalist, is not an economist, and the column's appearance as an "In the News" item in a textbook does not necessarily mean that the authors of the book endorse its views. I note too that Porter does not unequivocally state that taxes are more progressive, just that several studies have concluded that.

I do not know whether U.S. taxes are more progressive. But I think better sources are needed in order to say they are.

TFD (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Not reliable the "several studies" referred either ignore regressive sales and payroll taxes while considering income tax alone, or are based on an OECD analysis which is very frequently misrepresented. EllenCT (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * On a significant and widely studied issue such as this, surely we have more and better sources than to draw from than a newspaper, even a first-rate newspaper like the NYT?  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 05:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The graph at the top of page 2 in this CTJ report shows the sum total incidence of all US taxes, weighted on a per capita basis from the ITEP analysis of all 50 states. As it says on page 1, "the nation’s tax system is barely progressive." Should an article about a country compare its tax incidence to that of other countries, or its historical incidence? EllenCT (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Beware of moving the goalposts. The question here is whether the New York Times is reliable for comparing the progressiveness of different countries' taxes. The question of whether Wikipedia should report such comparisons is a separate question for the article talk page or NPOV noticeboard. Rhoark (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In the context of the United States article, should a study of federal income tax only, but not including e.g. the very regressive federal payroll and state and local sales taxes be used to support the statement that, "the United States already has one of the most progressive tax systems in the developed world"? EllenCT (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In the context of RSN, should one ask leading rhetorical questions? Rhoark (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a reliable source, as it's a NY Times economics writer covering economics, and in context its "several studies" comment can be taken as a summary of the field's conclusion. However, in this case I agree that more than one source should be used to support such a claim. Fortunately in this case there are many sources being used. The most pertinent one may be this 2012 OECD secondary source summarizing the field's conclusion (p 27): "Various studies have compared the progressivity of tax systems of European countries with that of the United States (see for instance Prasad and Deng, 2009; Piketty and Saez, 2007; Joumard, 2001). Though they use different definitions, methods and databases, they reach the same conclusion: the US tax system is more progressive than those of the continental European countries."
 * That should settle this matter in the minds of any honest observers, especially since no disputing sources have been produced. PS - I assume the op meant to say other developed nations, unless he also intends to challenge the categorization of the US as a developed nation. VictorD7 (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The OECD characterization is not accurate and other sources based on it are not reliable, for the reasons explained at . EllenCT (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that EllenCT has presented partisan, think-tank sources, neither of which have applied their models to other countries for comparison purposes. It's apple and oranges - they are focusing on the US only and not a global comparison.


 * Before accepting her analysis, perhaps the RSN should evaluate whether or not these qualify as reliable sources themselves? By comparison, the NY Times is pretty mainstream and subject to editorial oversight.  Per WP:RS, it qualifies.  The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy and Citizens for Tax Justice?  Not so much.


 * However, if we were to accept those as sources in this regard, so must we accept the Tax Foundation which also agrees US taxes are the most progressive at it indeed looks at comparative nations. But I suspect EllenCT would object to that source, well, because she disagrees with it personally since her mentioned sources make no comment on the actual topic.Mattnad (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The 2012 OECD report I linked to is accurate and the leftist think tank EllenCT linked to in response isn't even talking about the same report, but 2008 one that was also accurate but focused on income taxes. The 2012 report cites research examining overall taxation. VictorD7 (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And that doesn't even include the 2013 tax changes mentioned in this NY Times article: Tax Code May Be the Most Progressive Since 1979. Evidence piles on (it's easy since it's right out there).Mattnad (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Not reliable: The article already says "U.S. taxation is generally ... among the most progressive in the developed world," citing multiple sources. I don't see the merit in citing an opinion piece for saying this is "more progressive than in developed nations". Note in particular that the OECD policy note cited by the opinion piece says "household taxes are more progressive in the United States than in most EU countries" (point 7 on page 7) in the context of a paragraph that begins with the statement "The progressivity of household taxes varies little across countries despite large cross-country differences in the size of taxes." Cherry-picking a comparison from a study that says it makes little difference is not indicative of a reliable source, it is a hallmark of spin doctoring. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * whether or not individually reliable, making such a claim based on a single source would surely be inappropriate WP:UNDUE, particularly if there are not better sources that support the claim/analysis. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I echo the concern above: why use a newspaper, when we have scholarly articles? Especially when the scholarly articles point out that the claim echoed by the newspaper is simplistic to the point of being essentially wrong? Guy (Help!) 16:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not RS for this content per several thoughtful comments above. Moreover the subject of the article is the US, not Federal taxation, and there are many authoritative sources which might address the issue in a manner consistent with the subject of the article.  I would expect any such text in this article to describe the incidence of the total tax burden on the population. I don't know how this compares with the corresponding burden in other countries, but almost every other tax, including things like gasoline taxes excise taxes and fees, commuter tolls, sewer taxes, etc etc and others one might forget to consider, are regressive. We need to use a source that is consistent with the subject of the article and that clearly supports the specific well-defined assertion we make in WP's voice.  This ain't it.  SPECIFICO  talk  17:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The op is misleading as it implies only one source is being used to source a segment. The truth is this source isn't even being used in the article, and is only one of many cited on the talk page to confirm widespread agreement of the underlying fact. That said, a New York Times economics writer covering taxation is a valid secondary source on field consensus, especially when his analysis also appears in a reputable economics textbook. And the source in question cites research examining total taxation, not just federal taxes. The only "cherry-picking" being done here is by the op. Again, no source has been produced disputing the fact, which may be "simplistic" (because it's clear cut) but is certainly right. That source and others also point out that gaps in progressivity can be a big deal (in multiple areas), which is why they cover them, especially when comparing nations like the US with European countries where there's a bigger than average gap due to very different tax structures. As for other topics raised by some, like spending, total government redistribution, or income inequality, those are all well covered in the article too. This is angst looking for a problem. VictorD7 (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Akshardham Environmental violations references reliability
Hello,

I wanted to know if the following sources are valid or are the authors just making information up regarding Akshardham Environmental violations. There is a heavy dispute at the talk page for the Akshardham page and I seem to not be understand why the contents cannot be posted without so much dispute. I provided the citations below and I am getting frustrated because I thought these sources are reliable but I am not clear if they are because certain editors are not convinced so I just wanted to get a better understanding.

Sources


 * Supreme Court case
 * Complaints by NGO etc
 * Environment minister Jairam Ramesh's statement
 * National Green Tribunal fines (related to expansion)
 * Environment minister Jairam Ramesh's statement
 * National Green Tribunal fines (related to expansion)
 * Environment minister Jairam Ramesh's statement
 * National Green Tribunal fines (related to expansion)
 * Environment minister Jairam Ramesh's statement
 * National Green Tribunal fines (related to expansion)
 * National Green Tribunal fines (related to expansion)
 * National Green Tribunal fines (related to expansion)
 * National Green Tribunal fines (related to expansion)
 * National Green Tribunal fines (related to expansion)
 * National Green Tribunal fines (related to expansion)

The article BAPS The article talk page:

The Contents being discussed:

Last line in the introduction:

The temple has be subject to heavy criticism regarding its location from environmentalist who accuse that the temple is built illegally on banks of Yamuna River. They have denounced the temple as lacking environmental clearance and first culprit in Yamuna bed violation

Criticism section:

The monument has attracted significant environmental criticism and has contributed to slum displacement concerning its construction on the banks of the Yamuna River. Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh stated, "Akshardham didn't get the clearance. Akshardham didn't apply for the environmental clearance." When pressed further, he stated "It has already happened. What is yet to happen, we can stop that...We can't demolish the Akshardham Complex. We have to protect the remaining river bed." Large protests from environmentalists who were against such a large structure on the riverbed have occurred. Recently, National Green Tribunal fined the temples management for “carrying out expansion without prior environmental clearance and asked a committee on revitalization of Yamuna to examine whether the expanded portion fell on the river's floodplains.” Non-Governmental Organization Yamuna Jiye Abhiyan and other environmental organizations have said the temple and several other structures are encroachments on the floodplains that can increase the risk of dangerous flooding. The construction of the temple resulted in Yamuna Pushta slum being demolished dislocating thousands of people. In 2004, the construction of the temple was challenged in the Supreme Court by the U.P. Employees Federation but the case was ultimately lost

Regards Swamiblue (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Input on the reliability and impartiality of sources needed for current DRN discussion
Hello, I would like to request some input on whether the three sources listed below would count as:
 * A) Reliable
 * B) Impartial/Due
 * C) Fringe or not

I would also ask for those willing to do this to take a few minutes to acquaint themselves with the dispute and the concerns listed on the DRN discussion section and on the talk page for the article in question. The disputed sources are:

Please put your thoughts on the DRN noticeboard section reserved for this discussion.

Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Nancy Austin on the condition of a corpse and confessions of a serial killer
Nancy Austin, writing in the now-defunct "contributor network" Yahoo! Voices, is cited as a source for three statements in Orange Socks which is about an unidentified murder victim. After I challenged the use of this source, it was reverted back in as being a reliable source.

I would like to know if Austin is considered a reliable source for the following in that article:
 * the dental condition of the corpse at the time of discovery
 * the discovery of a hotel matchbook "support[ing] the theory she was a hitchhiker or drifter"
 * that a convicted serial killer (now deceased) "had confessed to murdering many others that lead others to doubt he was truthful; his confessions totaled up to over six hundred murders"

I believe this particular Nancy Austin is not the management consultant author Nancy Austin, who does not write about this sort of thing as can be seen at this extensive list of her publications via one particular source. I can't find any evidence of Nancy Austin being a published author elsewhere.

Thank you. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial
There is a "special repoert" from Mother Jones[http://www.motherjones.com/special-reports/2009/12/dirty-dozen-climate-change-denial ] titled "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial" that is being used as a source on multiple pages. It looks to me like an editorial opinion with no particular reason to give it any more weight than the hundreds of similar editorials on both sides of this politically charged issue. Is this a reliable source? --CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * For what? It's certainly a reliable source for the opinion of its author, but most likely not for statements of fact. It's been cited/quoted by mainstream RS like this article in The Atlantic, which suggests that it carries some weight. I don't see a problem using it as long as it's attributed and makes sense to use in the context of the specific article. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note there's already been quite a lot of discussion about this, here, for example, and probably on the talk pages of some of the articles this source has been used in as well. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is reliable without question, and no reason to question it as an editorial op piece and should only be used to stress the opinion of the author or quoted individuals. Koncorde (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The list is clearly a matter of opinion rather than one of objective fact, and should only be used where properly ascribed as opinion. It should also be noted that linking multiple persons together in any way because of inclusion on a list which is opinion might promote "guilt by association" which we must be careful not to do. (e.g. "George Gnarph and Adolf Hitler are both on Nils Garf's list of 'most hated persons'." would be an example of clear "guilt by association" synthesis, even if both of them are on Garf's list.  Collect (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It's opinion, obviously. But it's noteworthy opinion, having been cited in high-end reliable sources such as The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Thus it can be useful if properly attributed. Whether it's appropriate for any particular article is an editorial question beyond the scope of this board. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * In the articles where it is used, it is referenced in text and its opinions are reported as opinions. Certainly it meets rs for that, and whether or not to use it is an issue for NPOVN, not here.  Also, it is a news article, rather than opinion piece, so the facts are reliable.  So for example if we mention the facts that the author uses to support his opinons, we can accept they are accurate.  So we would say for example, the author said "Exxon, which is an oil company" rather than "Exxon, which the author says is an oil company."  TFD (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The above comments answered my question - it is a RS or some purposes (where properly ascribed as opinion) - and so this can be closed. Thank you for clearing this up for me. There is still an open question about whether it is NPOV that is being discussed at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard --CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Reliable source. The issue of climate change denial is complicated by those who wish to obscure their denial stance, so we rely on WP:SECONDARY sources such as Mother Jones to determine who is a climate denialist. The author analyzed various factors that he or she judged important, and came up with the list. This is perfectly useful for Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Opinion article Another editor and I discussed the article here []. I would view the article as an opinion article based on some facts. It's opinion to call any organization part of "the dirty dozen". It's factual to say they supported research denying climate change, stating "the dirty dozen" is a WP:LABEL issue as well as an opinion. However, even then in most cases this article was just backing what others had said. If CNN says the same thing without the hyperbole, use it instead. To quote a bit of what I said in the above link:
 * That is a good question. Part of what myself and several other editors felt was problematic was citing the MJ opinion/statement as something that should be noted within the consideration of WP:UNDUE.  Here we have an article that is about an organization that is likely involved in many things, one being information about climate change.  Criticism of their climate change positions would be reasonable.  The more I read the MJ article the less I like it.  The language is that of someone who is trying to demonize rather than inform.  I don't think that makes for a good encyclopedic source.  A Google search for the article name turns up one reference in a university press book (that's good) but I can't find how it is actually discussed in the text (that's bad).  Other than pages on the MJ site the rest seems to be blogs and forums.  Given that this list was published in 2009 I would say that basically no one else has picked it up as significant.  The opening sentence of the page on the Heartland Inst starts with, "The Heartland Institute has a long history of shilling for corporate lepers."  They did mention some information but it was very vague.  "Heartland, which has received $670,000 from ExxonMobil and its foundations since 1998, views itself as a bulwark against a leftist domino effect. "  I'm not sure how we could go about checking that fact or many of the others in that section.  Given the difficulty in verifying the claims MJ is making and the obviously disdainful view of the reporter towards his subject I think we should look for other sources.  I think it would be best to avoid a rating system.  Even stating that they are "one of the worst" is still subjective.  Interestingly the MJ article doesn't give any actual examples of thing THI has advocated that MJ things are factually incorrect.  Given that the MJ article says they are spreading disinformation I would hope they could provide an example.  
 * However, articles such as this one by CNN [] came up when I searched for "the heartland institute climate change". I think the tone of the CNN article is more to the point.  It seems quite reasonable to report that THI has advocated for ExxonMobile and the Koch brothers on the topic of climate change.  I'm sure we can find other similar articles.  These avoid reporting an opinion in Wikipedia's voice but do offer the source information that MJ used to create their own opinions on the subject.  Would such an entry work for you?  Can we focus on examples where they were proven wrong?  

If the MJ article makes claims but offers nothing that can be fact checked is it reliable? Again this makes it more of an opinion article. Furthermore, as I recall when searching for other articles that cited the MJ source, it was something like 3 after what 7 or 8 years. That suggests that other sources didn't find the MJ article to be worthy of weight on this subject. In the end I would say the article is an opinion article and should be treated as such. Furthermore I would suggest it's weight is very low and thus should be removed if other more reliable sources are saying the same thing (or better sources can be found). Specific note to the comment  made, yes it was cited in The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. However, it was cited as an example of an article which made a claim. That is, the Oxford text simply says the MJ article exists and covers a subject. It does not say the content of the MJ article is correct, accurate etc. The Oxford authors were not relying on the MJ article as a factual reference. Springee (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, because the claims it makes are of a "sky is blue" nature. They don't need to provide 3,000 references to Monckton's climate denialism, when all you have to do is see one of the hundreds of YouTube clips. Wikipedia cannot do this, but MJ can, because MJ has an editorial board and lawyers. Guy (Help!) 16:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Monckton is not the only subject of the article and the style of the article is heavy with rhetoric rather than substance. Again, for what ever proof someone wants to add to an article there are better sources, ie citing this article is a WEIGHT issue (among other issues).  Springee (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If there are better sources that can verify identical or expanded content, then use them. Meanwhile, this is reliable according to The Atlantic for identifying corporate climate-change deniers. --Ronz (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Atlantic said "helpful"; the parts quoted here do not imply "accurate". — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think "helpful" is good enough for it being a reliable source for the identification of the entries as being involved in climate change denial. --Ronz (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ronz here. I think the article is reliable enough to be used as evidence that the organizations have been involved in disagreeing with human caused global warming.  However the article really doesn't provide, in most cases, enough information to say in what capacity the named organizations acted.  As such I think the best we can do with the article is state that MJ has identified the organization as a climate change denier (or similar language).  We shouldn't include the claim of a "top 12 list" or statements that indicate the scope of the denial ("extensive", "one of the most active" etc) because those become subjective assessments of the article author.  The subjective part should be left out given the opinion like nature of the list, the guilt by association concerns and the generally high level of rhetoric and limited hard facts in the article.  In almost all cases it would be better to simply not cite this article and instead cite other sources indicating the organization in question has promoted research/messages/etc that are anti-global warming.  Springee (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think part of the issue is how the source is being added, i.e. on Institute for Energy Research it was added in clear violation of a topic ban . The topic-banned editor self-reverted, but then the information was re-added . This seems like a rather roundabout way for a topic-banned editor to achieve their desired edits. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems not only irrelevant, but an ad hominem to distract from the proper use of this noticeboard. --Ronz (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

An administrator of our project, who is opposed to the use of Mother Jones (magazine) in our project, is systematically adding the red-link author name Josh Harkinson in-text wherever this source is used, with the edit summary, "proper application of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV." Is this a proper application of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV? Does WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV require the author name in text? The source is a feature article, not a guest editorial. The source was subject to the editorial oversight of Mother Jones (magazine). The author name is available to curious readers in the ref. The author name in-text is unnecessary and distracting to our readers WP:RF. In-text attribution to Mother Jones (magazine) is necessary and sufficient. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Given there's a parallel NPOVN discussion, and it is a NPOV issue, the questions belong there. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Al-Masdar
I'm seeing this website pop up increasingly as a source for articles dealing with the very touchy subjects of the conflicts in Yemen and Syria. To my eye, the website has a very obvious bias against the U.S. and Gulf states and toward the Syrian and Iranian governments (and their allies in Russia and Yemen). To wit, in this recently cited story, the use of terms like "Saudi-US aggression units" (obviously not WP:NPOV), "Yemeni national military" (the country is in a civil war between two factions claiming to be the Yemeni government, with different military units backing each), "fugitive President Abed Rabbu Mansour Hadi" (implies he is a fugitive from justice), and "Saudi-led aggression" (again, not NPOV; the Saudis claim they are responding to Hadi's request for assistance). There's also this recent story that refers to "Islamist rebel factions from the Free Syrian Army", a secular group led by defected military officers, and this story that uses phrases like "the Zionist entity" and "Zionist forces" in apparent reference to Israel. There are plenty more examples. This website does not seem like it meets Wikipedia's standards as a reliable source; for what it's worth, it also doesn't have a Wikipedia article about it, and it provides exceedingly little information on its website about who is backing it and where it is based (beyond "the Arab world"). I'm inclined to consider it propaganda in nature. Thoughts? -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at it seems no worse than other biased sources we use here and The Israel Project has this to say about it "In contrast to the vast majority of news sites in the Arab world, Al Masdar delivers a balanced and honest picture of the Jewish world, Israel, and the international scene." . Many Arab news sources use euphemisms when discussing Israel so that is not a red flag in my opinion. Just because a source has a non-Western POV does not make it unreliable. I see no reason to blanket exclude this as a source - sure it contains propaganda most news sources do, we just do not notice it if it comports with our expectations and world view. Examine individual pieces for individual claims just like we do with any other source here. J bh  Talk  18:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi - Looking on LexisNexis Academic, I see that Al-Masdar is referenced by middle eastern media as a Sanaa-based Yemeni news outlet. Sources that quote it include the Central Asian News Service, the Washington Post, The Guardian, The New York Times, Arutz 7 Radio in Israel, the Yemen Times, Gulf News from the UAE… I stopped searching through results at that point. LexisNexis doesn't actually collate Al-Masdar's articles so far as I can see.


 * I checked out the links you posted, including the reference to "aggression units" and the "zionist entity." It seems like other sources should be found to corroborate any controversial claims, but that the source could be used as a source of opinion or with attribution in certain cases, especially regarding events in the Middle East. -Darouet (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Venezuelananalysis
In the article Human rights in Venezuela I gave as reference for the text of an open letter by experts to the Board of Directors of Human Rights Watch. Another editor maintains the source is not reliable and, therefore, I can't use it. I have no information on any political slant of the source, but I think this is immaterial since the text is genuine. I would like to have more opinions. Againstdisinformation (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It is reliable, there is little doubt that the letter was sent, its contents are reported accurately and the signatories signed it. What might be an issue is weight - you need to show that the letter has been widely reported.  TFD (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * TFD, thank you for your help. Againstdisinformation (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Another commentator on talk disagrees. First, what is "venezuelaanalysis.com"? Second, this does seem undue.  Volunteer Marek   02:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And you're suppose to alert others involved in the discussion, like myself and User:Oscar.  Volunteer Marek   03:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The letter was originally published by the North American Congress on Latin America and most of the signatories would qualify as experts in the field. The reliability of venezuelaanalysis.com is only pertinent if there's serious doubt they have correctly transcribed the letter. Here is the HRW's response to the letter. The original "Decade Under Chavez" report, the open letter, and the response form a chain of successive qualifying viewpoints. Per WP:CHERRYPICKING if one of these sources is cited there is a duty to cite the successive responses. Rhoark (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As follows from descripton, this is an "advocacy source". Such sources should not be generally used for criticizing their political opponents (as in this example). In essence, you are trying to use a less reliable source to discredit a more reliable source. This is not a good idea. My very best wishes (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is the wrong argument. In this instance, the source cannot be "more reliable" or "less reliable". Either the text it reproduces is genuine or it is not, and it is very clear that it is. Therefore, the fact that venezuelanalysis is or is not an "advocacy source" is irrelevant. Againstdisinformation (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The publisher is important as noted in WP:RS. That kind of letter would probably never be published in a scientific peer reviewed journal. My very best wishes (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course it wouldn't, it is not a research article. Scientific journals are not in the business of publishing open letters. This argument is irrelevant too, I am afraid. Againstdisinformation (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, precisely. This is not a research publication, but a letter on leftist web-site published to discredit a report by the HRW that can be reasonably viewed as research. This is like someone is trying to disprove science on political grounds. Can we trust that such letter actually exist? Yes, sure. Can we trust the claims in the letter? No. Should we use it for sourcing in this particular context? No. My very best wishes (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, you have it all wrong. You say that the open letter would not be published in a scientific journal, which is a truism, but that the HRW report "can be reasonably viewed as research". Well, I can't think of a referee I know who would accept it for publication in a scientific journal either. As for the epithet "leftist", you use it as a brand of infamy, which only serves to make your political leanings transparent. I have never seen you complain that the Wall Street Journal is right-wing and therefore not RS. Finally, most of the signatories of the letter are renowned specialists of Latin America and work with the most prestigious American Universities. For me, this is enough to give more weight to the open letter than to your personal POV. Againstdisinformation (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment on content, not on the contributor, please. My very best wishes (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a question of WP:RS but WP:WEIGHT. There is little doubt that the letter was sent. Here is the direct link to the NACLA website. And HRW has even responded to the letter, here (here is the link to HRW website which is reliable for claims about itself). The question to consider is whether it is worth including. That cannot be determined here, but should be on the talk page. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 20:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Vanity press or MEDRS-compliant source?
This topic is about http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm as either WP:MEDRS-compliant source or vanity press, when entered as a source at Effects of pornography and Pornography addiction. The source is PubMed but not MedLine indexed.

Evidence for being predatory:

"with low publishing fees paid by authors or their institutions."

- http://www.mdpi.com/journal/behavsci

Jeffrey Beall (18 February 2014), Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers, Scholarly Open Access: Critical analysis of scholarly open-access publishing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

"Fees paid by authors" is the very definition of vanity press. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If Beall questions it that is a huge red flag - the source should not be used (if at all) for anything other than mundane non-controversial information. Alexbrn (talk) 09:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Our article MDPI does have a breakdown of issues with that source but also some positive statements. This publisher came up during a DYK review of mine because the fact of the hook I had supplied was sourced to a journal published by this group. The reviewers judged it reliable enough for that particular hook, but it was a somewhat weaker claim than what we need for medical claims (And in my case, other reliable sources were backing up the journal's statements).Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

"Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals"

- WP:SCHOLARSHIP


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu is gaming the system on porn related Wiki pages
Tgeorgescu is gaming the system by blocking a PubMed indexed, peer-reviewed review of the literature related to the neuroscience of porn addiction. Tgeorgescu has blocked inclusion of this review based on 18 month old blog post has since been refuted by Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association. Furthermore, MDPI responded to Jeffrey Beall's allegations prior to the OASPA ruling. Since Beall had no response to MDPI, nor OASPA it must be assumed that there exists no official support for the blog post. Finally and most telling, Tgeorgescu has cited nothing specific to the Journal Behavioral Sciences, nor has Tgeorgescu refuted a single word of the review.

A simple fact - '''Open access journals, which accept pay, are in fact accepted as sources on Wikipedia, including MDPI. Until you can demonstrate that MDPI studies have been blocked from Wikipedia, you are gaming the system (gate-keeping).'''

Further evidence that Tgeorgescu is gate-keeping both Effects of pornography and Pornography addiction is that he permits Ley, et al, which is not PubMed indexed, and published by a  suspect Journal, Current Sexual Health Reports. The Journal Behan publishing in 2004, went on hiatus in 2008, only to be resurrected in 2014, just in time to feature Ley et al. It's well established that the Ley et al. editor, Charles Moser, has been a long-time vocal critic of porn and sex addiction, while David Ley is the author of the Myth of Sex Addiction. Ley et al has been exposed as nothing more than a biased an unsupported piece of propaganda

It must be stated that blogger Jeffrey Beall's opinion contains no more weight than any other Internet blogger. He has no official status in any organization that governs academic publishing. Beall has been roundly criticized for being judge. jury, and executioner, while being accountable to no one. A few of the Many scholar have critiqued Beall:

1) Parting Company with Jeffrey Beall

QUOTED "Since I first became aware of Beall’s List, however, I have been following some of Beall’s work with growing unease. Here and there some (to me) distasteful political ideology peeked through (with my pragmatic mindset, any kind of ideology makes me queasy), but you don’t have to agree with somebody all the time to agree with them some of the time.  But now, in a recent screed, he has crossed the line."

2) Should We Retire the Term “Predatory Publishing”?

QUOTED "Beall’s List has been controversial since its establishment for a variety of reasons, some of them obvious (no publisher, whether legitimate or not, appreciates being publicly branded a “predator”), and some of them less so. One of the more subtle reasons for the controversy around Beall’s List lies in the fact that it focuses entirely on OA publishing. Predictably, this has aroused the ire of many in the OA community, who have accused Beall of targeting these publishers out of an animus towards OA itself—a charge to which Beall provided a fair amount of ammunition when he wrote an impassioned attack on the OA movement in the journal tripleC."

3) Beyond Beall’s List

QUOTED: ''Beall’s list has become a go-to tool and has even been featured in The New York Times,5 but it is not the final word on predatory publishing, partially because Beall himself has a complicated, and not entirely supportive, attitude toward OA in general. Another concerning aspect of Beall’s work is his evaluation of OA publishers from less economically developed countries. Crawford, Karen Coyle, and Jill Emery have all noted Beall’s bias against these publishers.10,11,12''

4) Ethics and Access 1: The Sad Case of Jeffrey Beall.

QUOTED: ''I didn’t read all of Beall’s blog posts. I honestly don’t know whether the misleading items noted above are typical or special cases. As with most library folk, I was appalled when a publisher attempted to sue Beall for libel—but being sued for unfortunate reasons doesn’t automatically make the defendant a saint. As with a number of other people who’ve been involved with and writing about OA for years, I was growing increasingly nervous about Beall’s growing stridency about “predatory” OA publishers— and amazement that there never seem to be sketchy or predatory subscription publishers, even among those charging high page charges and other article fees.''

5) A Response to Jeffrey Beall’s Critique of Open Access

QUOTED: Beall’s critiques of open access are not always as factual as they could be, so as an open access advocate I am concerned when his polemics are presented to an academic audience that may not know all the facts.

In summary, Tgeorgescu is basing his entire argument on a single blogger who has clear bias and who has been roundly criticized. The accusations by Beall against MDPI have been refuted or addressed by both MDPI and the OASPA. Most importantly, there exists no official Wikimedia statement banning MDPI studies. User Tgeorgescu proves his bias by accepting a review (Ley et al.) from a minor journal, which took a 6- yaer hiatus, has only publsihed for a few yaers is not PubMed indexed - yet he blocks this PubMed indexed review. The evidence is clear that Tgeorgescu is acting as the gate-keeper for porn-related Wiki pages.Gaborlewis (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so not in MEDLINE either, another redflag per WP:MEDRS. I think only a POV-pusher would think this source okay for anything other than mundane information. Alexbrn (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that anything published by MDPI should be viewed with suspicion. --73.22.151.32 (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * First off, I'll note the question in the section heading ("MEDRS or vanity press"?) is a false dichotomy. MDPI journals appear to be neither. There's been a lot of publicity of their mis-steps, but there are is testimony from respected researchers and industry organization about their peer review process, revisions, and retractions. You can read the blow-by-blow here. Charging a fee is fairly standard for open access and not probative at all. It does not look like they are one of the deliberate bad actors, but should still be regarded particularly critically. I've read the article in question, and there's no "there" there. It's a literature review, summarizing a lot of different papers, but the conclusions, as vague as they are, are formed out of thin air. There is no quantitative or systematic qualitative method by which they synthesize the different results they review. I would not recommend using this paper except as a secondary adjunct to validate the importance of the more substantive research they cite. Rhoark (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Jayce & the Wheeled Warriors tv guide scans - posted on blog
I've been having a discussion in the Jayce & the Wheeled Warriors article regarding the reliability of a source that posted scans of a comic strip that appeared in a French tv guide during 1987. For example .The exact statement is "An uncredited, unfinished comic based on the series was published in the French comic magazine Pif Gadget #922. The 13-page adventure ended on a cliffhanger as the next issue did not include the follow-up story and the conclusion to that story was never published in Pif Gadget. It included characters created specifically for the comic, such as a white-haired young sorceress called Algora who was an ally of Saw Boss. The story, entitled 'Le Sortilège d'Algora' ('Algora's Spell') was later re-printed and completed in Poche Junior, a free supplement for younger readers to the French television listing magazine Télé Poche, in several installments: Poche Junior #1 (May 1987),[14] Poche Junior #2 (May 1987),[15] Poche Junior #17 (August 1987),[16] Poche Junior n° 23 (October 1987),[17] and Poche Junior n° 25 (October 1987).[18]"

The links provided are of a blog that has the scans available online. The discussion is regarding the fact that this is a blog and as such unreliable. However, the scans posted are of official publications, can probably be found and bought from collectors if so desired, and as such should be considered reliable regardless of being posted on a blog. A point was made that the scans could have been altered and I would agree if it concerned just an image of the guide. However, the entire thing was scanned and posted along with publication dates. So I figure this should be considered a reliable source. Maybe not based on location, but certainly on content provided. If it isn't, how would content such as this ever be verified?JalGorda (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Cite the material as though citing the publication directly (cite news or cite journal would work); the link to the scans can be used by you to verify what information is needed for attribution, but don't link directly to it in the article as it may involve a copyright breach. G RAPPLE   X  15:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Mark Lane
1. Source. Mark Lane (author), specifically this magazine article: (Note that some images in pdf are NSFW.) 2. Article. George de Mohrenschildt 3. Content. The source is used multiple times in the article. The following are two examples:
 * a. At the time of the Kennedy assassination, he was attending a party when a radio broadcast the news. According to those present with him at the party, De Mohrenschildt paled and blurted out, "Could it have been Oswald? Was he involved?" As he became the center of attention, he continued, "The FBI in Dallas and the FBI in Fort Worth told me he was harmless." De Mohrenschildt had begun to talk about Oswald's possible connection to the assassination more than one hour before the rest of the world was to hear his name broadcast.
 * b. De Mohrenschildt told Willem Oltmans "I am very much afraid of this investigation by Jim Garrison because I believe that he is on the right track."

Mark Lane has plenty of supporters, but he has also frequently been described as a conspiracy theorist, and his critics state that the assertions in his writings are based on hearsay, innuendo, and rumor; cherry-picking of facts; or just plain fabrication (e.g. ). His "investigative report" in Gallery does appear to rely heavily on hearsay from another conspiracy theorist, Willem Oltmans, to state that George de Mohrenschildt was going to spill the bean on the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Thoughts? - Location (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Mark Lane's work has been proven to be full of inaccuracies and/or deliberate deceptions, including the fabrication of quotes of individuals.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * - Not a RS - Mark Lane is a purveyor of fringe theories. He has been referred to by the New York Times as the "dean of conspiracy buffs." And this academic review of Bugliosi's Reclaiming History praises Bugliosi for exposing Lane's - and other conspiracy theorists' - "shameless lies and distortions." Those are just two examples pulled off of a quick database search - among historians it's basically common knowledge that Lane is a conspiracy theorist and that his claims aren't to be trusted. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, this author is famous for promoting KGB-funded conspiracy theories after meeting with Genrikh Borovik. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Mark Lane is a theorist whose assumptions are based on rumors, etc.  Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 23:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Not RS Mark Lane is a patently Fringe source whose writings have been repeatedly debunked. I would treat any comment from him on almost any subject with suspicion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thought Catalog
Are articles on Thought Catalog considered reliable/notable for wikipedia? While many notable people publish on Thought Catalog, I am referring to content written by people who are otherwise un-notable. The website's policy for publishing articles is found here. In particular, I am wondering if the website would be considered acceptable for the relevant sentence currently in the lead at this article: Mirror Mirror (M2M song). Thanks in advance. Freikorp (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Steven Levy / Backchannel

 * 1) Source. Steven Levy, How Steve Jobs Fleeced Carly Fiorina: The former HP CEO boasted of her friendship with Apple’s leader — but he took her to the cleaners with the iPod, Backchannel (October 1, 2015).
 * 2) Article. Carly Fiorina.
 * 3) Content. The relevant diff is here. The content relates to a certain iPod cobranding project at Hewlett Packard during Fiorina's tenure as CEO.


 * Background information/comment. Steven Levy is a business and technology journalist. His bio is here. He is the author of six books; the most relevant one here is The Perfect Thing: How the iPod Shuffles Commerce, Culture, and Coolness (Simon & Schuster, 2006). He was senior editor and chief technology correspondent at Newsweek for many years, then was a senior staff writer at Wired. More recently, Levy became the founder and editor-in-chief of The Backchannel, which is described here (in this DLD conference bio) as "a tech-based publication owned and operated by Medium." The Backchannel "about" page indicates that in addition to an editor-in-chief, the publication has an executive editor, an art director, staff writers, and contributing writers.


 * Two editors&mdash;myself and MrX&mdash;believe that the source is reliable and proper to use for the content here (which deals with the history of the iPad) since it has the hallmarks of editorial control. MrX notes on the article talk page that "Levy's work on Backchannel has been cited by Christian Science Monitor, Wired, Forbes, Venture Beat and Al Jazeera America, which strongly suggests it's a reliable source per WP:USEBYOTHERS." The particular Levy article cited here has been quoted from in this Fortune Magazine piece.


 * One editor (CFredkin) disagreed, and suggested that we flag the issue here for further comments, to which I agreed. We welcome comments. Neutralitytalk 05:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * My concern is that "Medium" is a blogging platform and "BackChannel" is a tech oriented blogging channel on Medium. I think we can and should provide better sourcing for BLP's.CFredkin (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:UGC is instructive in this case: ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." Backchannel is under full editorial control.- MrX 17:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Levy is a professional journalist whose work would be generally unquestionably RS.  Backchannel is a subsection of Medium with professional editorial oversight., which satisfies any concerns we might have about this being somehow different from his other professional work.    Gamaliel  ( talk ) 16:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, there's an Executive Editor and Levy himself is Editor in Chief. I'm not sure that qualifies as editorial oversight.  Also, the About page for the site includes this solicitation:

"Mining the tech world for lively and meaningful tales and analysis. Pitch guidelines here: https://medium.com/@lotto/would-you-like-to-pitch-medium-s-in-house-publications-matter-and-backchannel-27cb772e6705"
 * That doesn't exactly sound like the Blog page for the WP or WSJ....CFredkin (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Lots of publications, including the WP and the WSJ, publish writings by their EiCs. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 02:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * In addition to what Gamaliel wrote above, the fact that Backstream invites pitches for possible stories is perfectly standard practice. Many publications do the same thing (see, e.g., Washington Post's "Talent Network" of freelancers (specifically noting story pitching)). Neutralitytalk 04:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Norman Borlaug and source from Science
Over at Norman Borlaug, the idea that there was a food shortage in India in the mid-1960s has been challenged by SageRad here claiming the source is "hagiographic". There's a little tweaking that can be done on the text, but the idea that's mainly being challenged is that there was a food shortage at all. The source is from the journal Science from its science news section. It's an article on Borlaug receiving the Nobel peace prize and a bit of his general biography. The text is:

"One need only recall the close brush with famine on the Indian-Pakistan subcontinent in 1966 and 1967, a famine that was averted only by shipping one-fifth of the U.S. wheat crop to India, and the projection of massive famine in Asia in the 1970's, to realize that the new seeds are a godsend."

The seeds are in reference to the varieties that resulted in Borlaug's Nobel prize and is part of the second paragraph here. There isn't a whole lot of editor traffic on the article in the time it's been on my watchlist, so could some folks here comment on the reliability of this source in terms of saying there was a food shortage, crop failure, etc.? Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just on my personal note, academic publications have news and commentary sections, especially for bibliographic content and news in the specific field. There shouldn't be anything considered unreliable in this source simply for saying there was a food shortage at the time in the context of Borlaug's biographic information. Those sections are considered just as reliable as a newspaper documentation of an event if not more so sometimes. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's be accurate. I challenged the content: 'During the mid-1960s, the Indian subcontinent was at war and experiencing widespread famine[citation needed] and starvation...''

Of course i know there were food shortages in Bihar. I know people died. I know there was a famine that Indian state. It is described on Wikipedia here. The section does begin with "The Bihar famine of 1966–7 was a minor famine with relatively very few deaths from starvation as compared to the famines of the British era."

I was also not challenging the journal Science as a source, in general. I was challenging the interpretation of the source article into the content that was in the Wikipedia article.

You have misrepresented the whole issue on many levels. I hope that was not deliberate, but i'd like to work with you, and we need to be accurate in order to do so. SageRad (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You called the source hagiographic, and challenged that this famine/shortage occurred calling it an "assumed famine" and said "It also does not establish the claim that there was widespread famine on the Indian subcontinent in the mid 1960s, so the claim is not sufficiently sourced and actually should be removed immediately." . That's all at the talk page for anyone here to read, and is right in line with the question of reliability. That's why we're here now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The simple factual question is, was there a widespread famine in the Indian Subcontinent in the mid 1960s, as established by the source? SageRad (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Undent, science is generally an RS, though not neccessarily every opinion piece published in it: but this does nothing for your dispute. Sometimes RSs will be mistaken, and it isn't at all clear that the cite actually supports the statement. Judging from the wiki page on indian famines, the statement "During the mid-1960s, the Indian subcontinent was at war and experiencing widespread famine[citation needed] and starvation" appears to be factually incorrect. The definition of widespread is debatable, but...oh hell I'mma rephrase it myself. This really seems like a content dispute rather than a RS issue though. 78.144.221.190 (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

NextBigWhat
According to an independent investigation, this is a fake news site that pumps itself with fake twitter and Google+ followers: http://inc42.com/longform/nextbigwhat-fake-social-media-ethical/. Less reliable sources (e.g. quora.com) say that it's a paid advertorial site a la YourStory. It appears that a lot of Indian startups use it for Wikipedia articles (see [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=0&target=http%3A%2F%2F%2A.nextbigwhat.com external links search]), many of whom are created with severe conflicts of interest or undisclosed paid editing; details are at WP:COIN ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=684639082&oldid=684627507 permalink]). - Brianhe (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note, this used to be branded pluggd.in; there are more articles using this as a source ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=http%3A%2F%2F*.pluggd.in&title=Special%3ALinkSearch search]). Brianhe (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Are any of these reliable sources?
See the sources added in this edit reliable? The editor has been edit-warring to keep them in the article, and has not joined the discussion at the talk page. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Time, probably, unless anyone disputes the accuracy of the info. http://www.adnd3egame.com...maybe, I can't immediately see any peer review info, but it looks pretty official. Essentially a primary source, that pdf, right? So check the guidelines for that, but is okay for uncontentious stuff. Is anyone actually disputing accuracy, or merely worrying about strict letter of law?
 * ddo forum or wiki? Hell no, not in a million years. Checking the talk page, I'd suggest any further reinclusions of ddo stuff should be taken to an admin. 78.144.221.190 (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * IPs &, I have access to physical copies of the original works, and can verify that the AD&D DMG & AD&D at www.adnd3egame.com are not copies of those works. They appear to be collections of "House Rules" based on those versions of the game, and formatted in a style akin to the original works. This is easily verified by the copyright notices on the title pages, which claim copyright by TSR Games, but for years (2011 & 2013) in which D&D was owned by Wizards of the Coast. Additionally, the page counts in these documents do not match those listed at Google Books for the ISBN numbers on the title pages. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 09:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I also have access to the originals and agree with what Ryk72 has said above. BusterD (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Theatre/opera/concert programme booklets
I imagine this has been considered long since, but I can't find it anywhere: how do we stand on the verifiability of material sourced from programme booklets? Very often – e.g. at the Royal Opera House, National Theatre or Barbican Centre – they contain essays and articles by leading experts in the relevant field, and they obviously meet Wikipedia's definition of "made available to the public in some form". But on the whole they are sold or given out on the day of the performance and are not obtainable afterwards. The archivists of the major companies will keep copies – and in my experience have been very helpful in providing details from them – and some museums and academic institutions maintain theatre collections, but is this enough to satisfy the verifiability criterion? Grateful for guidance on this. –  Tim riley  talk    07:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would imagine that this would be contingent on WP:V. If there is reasonable (define 'reasonable') distribution of programmes kept in public archives (or copies available thereof), I'd say they are. What is the likelihood of these programmes being available to editors for cite checking outside of the UK in this instance? It isn't required that publications still be in print, or that they be easily accessible, it strikes me as being a matter of just how inaccessible they are. It would also be dependent on who wrote the programmes. My experience is that, dependent on what is being staged/performed, there can be a lot of op-ed hype in these programmes. More specifically, I've encountered errors in historical content. What manner of content are you wanting to 'mine'? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that advice. There may be a few international collections that keep such material, but it will mostly, I think, be available for hands-on inspection only in the UK, at, e.g., the V&A though I suppose WP:SOURCEACCESS covers that. The material I have in mind is, e.g. Michael Kennedy on Elgar, Arthur Jacobs on Sullivan or Andrew Porter on Verdi. Such authorities have regularly contributed to programmes for British companies. Also, Covent Garden programmes include performance histories of the relevant opera or ballet, which are very informative and full of the sort of detail we want for WP articles, if the source is admissible. They can be inspected in situ at the Covent Garden archive but not (yet) online.  Tim riley  talk    10:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay in responding. Given the credibility of the authors, I don't see any reasonable justification for these sources being precluded. As articles are written on a case by case, this should probably tested by consensus on the relevant articles. If you choose to be WP:BOLD in adding content using the programmes you've selected, just remember to be prepared to go through the WP:BRD process. If you prefer to test the waters, it's probably a good idea to create a new section on the talk page of each of the articles before you add content explaining the availability issue. You should be able to determine whether other editors are receptive to the sources or not. I'm sure I don't need to lead you through the process as you have ample experience as an editor. Should anyone be aghast at the proposal, and if you're feeling so inclined, you could always play the 'shock and awe' card by donning a flashing, whooping and spinning mechanised bow tie and distracting them while you strategically place your additional content in the articles. Good luck, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I shall make a note of your sage advice for my future guidance.  Tim riley  talk    06:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

YourStory.com
Yourstory.com is clearly not a RS: they exist as a promo platform as described by themselves at "yourstory.com/testimonials/" and "yourstory.com/frequently-asked-questions/". Unfortunately this has been used as a source in many India-related articles. Brianhe (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This source has been questioned by each of you [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashish_Kashyap&diff=656595252&oldid=656594010 here], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ReGlobe&diff=663953774&oldid=663940549 here], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ReGlobe&diff=663936456&oldid=663933069 here], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NawlinWiki/Archive_97&diff=656305452&oldid=656305262 here] and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=682122473&oldid=682119010 here]. Maybe you would like to comment further at this noticeboard? Brianhe (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the ping. . I have nothing to add, I am afraid. I doubted th RSness of the source, but I have not studied it in depth to determine more. My comment was more about the lack of mention of a topic in it as a reference than the medium itself ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashish_Kashyap&diff=656595252&oldid=656594010 here]). MY opinion is that it is the wrong side of the line. By how much I cannot say without more careful study. Fiddle   Faddle  19:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see I mentioned it twice. My first comment is an even greater doubt than I recall. I would say, on that basis, not RS in any way whatsoever. Fiddle   Faddle  19:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)