Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 211

What sources are needed to say "Hillary Clinton has never been charged with a crime"?
We have a lengthy discussion underway at Talk:Hillary Clinton. The central dispute is over the level of sourcing needed to support the claim in the article that the subject has, in fact, never been charged with a crime. There is, of course, no reliable source claiming that Clinton ever has been charged with a crime, but there are internet rumors floating around to this effect, and general statements of confusion on the subject. Some editors propose that Clinton may have, at some point, been charged with a crime in a state that doesn't divulge criminal charges to the media, and that such a hypothetical criminal charge has therefore remained secret.

In the discussion, I have provided three instances of published references stating this as a fact:
 * "The examples that SourceFed chose are factually incorrect. Hillary Clinton has not been charged with a crime. She has not been indicted". The context is an article debunking conspiracy theories about why Google doesn't autofill for "crimes" by Hillary Clinton. David Goldman, "The truth about the Hillary Clinton Google conspiracy theory", CNNMoney (June 15, 2016).
 * "[P]resenting himself as a lawyer to a mob calling for the imprisonment of Hillary Clinton — who hasn't been charged with any crime, after multiple politically motivated investigations — is an ethical problem nonetheless". Bridgette Dunlap, "Chris Christie Has Disqualified Himself From Being Trump's Attorney General", Rolling Stone (July 20, 2016).
 * "Say what you want about Hillary Clinton. She has problems and baggage galore. But she has never been charged with any crimes, let alone been convicted". Gary Stein, "Pam Bondi's hypocrisy is showing", Sun-Sentinel (July 21, 2016).

I grant that the latter two are opinion pieces; the first, I contend is a news article, although other editors dispute this because the author's job title is "editor" and the piece is written in a somewhat editorial tone. The question is, what level of sourcing/verification is needed to support the proposition that a person has not been charged with a crime, in the absence of any evidence of that person having ever been charged with a crime? bd2412 T 20:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * My main arguments, which I have elaborated in the other discussion, are: 1. After three days of active discussion, the above is the best sourcing anyone has come up with. It's somewhat reasonable to assume it's the best available. I don't think it's enough for such a weighty statement. 2. Wikipedia is not a rumor clearing house. 3. WP:V does not say we can include a statement that "everybody" knows is true because there are no sources to disprove it. This is not a "sky is blue" case, despite exactly that being vigorously asserted in the other discussion (not necessarily by the OP here). 4. WP:NOTTRUTH. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it a "weighty statement" to note that a highly public figure has, like most people, never been charged with a crime? bd2412  T 21:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I note that a similar statement is not included in Abraham Lincoln, Jennifer Lopez, or Mother Teresa (all highly public figures), so you must be asserting that Wikipedia is a rumor clearing house. You're simply wrong on that, full stop. Readers must assume that any charges would be in the article, and we must assume that they will. To do otherwise is to encourage readers to expect rumor-clearing-house content at Wikipedia, which would be a serious mistake. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The statement wraps up an existing sentence stating that "she faced a federal grand jury in 1996 regarding the Whitewater controversy", also not something found with Abraham Lincoln, Jennifer Lopez, or Mother Teresa. By comparison, Bush was investigated over the Valerie Plame matter, but neither the investigation nor the resolution are even in the lede of that article. bd2412  T 22:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * How soon they forget:
 * So Clinton has been charged with a (rather minor) crime and choose to pay the fine instead of fighting it in court. --Allen3 talk 22:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a source saying that this parking fine constituted a crime? A parking fine is a civil matter, not a "crime" within the usual definition of the word. bd2412  T 22:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec)A parking violation is only a crime under a most laughable definition that would make approximately 100% of all drivers criminals (and me a repeat offender - at two strikes). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "'Didn't pay that parking ticket? Here's your arrest warrant'... The city court issued more than 9,000 arrest warrants stemming from minor violations like parking and traffic tickets." Ferguson Police Report: Most Shocking Parts, CNNPolitics.com
 * In the N.Y. state penal code, overparking is called a crime. Black's Law Dictionary.
 * Obama Parking Controversy, Google Search
 * As noted by Allen3, we've now found two reliable sources (USA Today and Daily Mail) claiming that Clinton has been charged with a crime. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Neither source actually says that Clinton has been "charged with a crime". Can you find one that does? By the way, the Ferguson article does not say that parking and traffic tickets are a "crime" either; it is the failure to pay the fine that can eventually become a crime. bd2412  T 23:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The second source (Black's) does say they're a crime, bd2412.
 * Can't pay the fine, don't do the crime! ;) --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously proposing that Black's Law Dictionary specifically says that Hillary Clinton has been charged with a crime? I'd like to know what edition you're referring to, since I'm not finding that in any of mine. At best it sounds like you've got a bad case of WP:SYNTH going on here. bd2412  T 11:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's coverage of other political figures and famous people is not relevant here. What's relevant is the coverage of Clinton in secondary sources. See WP:OSE for some thinking about related matters. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously proposing that Black's Law Dictionary specifically says that Hillary Clinton has been charged with a crime? I'd like to know what edition you're referring to, since I'm not finding that in any of mine. At best it sounds like you've got a bad case of WP:SYNTH going on here. bd2412  T 11:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's coverage of other political figures and famous people is not relevant here. What's relevant is the coverage of Clinton in secondary sources. See WP:OSE for some thinking about related matters. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * We're effectively being ask to prove a negative here which is impossible, though there's also the fact that somebody at the right level (read: federal gov't official) has enough access to all US records that they could confirm this; whether this person(s) would likely do so, we can't expect that. That said, if it is necessary to make the assertion that someone has not been charged with a crime, take your best possible sources that makes that claim (eg like CNN) and make sure to write it as a claim stated by that source (so that we aren't making the claim of the impossible in WP's voice). I would note that this likely means the only time that this fact can be included is whether someone's past criminal issue (if there is one) is the subject of BLP-meeting reliable sources, and means we should only be including this when its well beyond rumor mongering. --M ASEM  (t) 22:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would not oppose (on principle) something like: David Goldman, a senior editor at CNN, said, "Hillary Clinton has not been charged with a crime." But I honestly doubt the includers are going to be satisfied with that, as it fails to clear the rumors they aim to clear. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We should not bring David Goldman into it unless David Goldman is known to have some special salience regarding Hilary Clinton. The fact that "X said Y about Z in a published source" is not, by itself, strong enough to include "X said Y about Z" in an article about Z. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, you should start with the sources and summarize what they actually say, giving information prominence in an article in rough proportion to its coverage in the sources. See WP:STICKTOSOURCES. Of course an awful lot of Wikipedia editing in practice goes the other way, starting with a claim, looking for sources to support it, and then, when challenged, arguing to lower the bar to allow a poor source because you think that claim ought to be in the article. We can't prevent that practice, and it's probably fine as long as other editors balance out the coverage. But given the vast amount of biographical material available on Hillary Clinton, if you have to reach for a passing comment in a financial article about whether Google's autocomplete algorithm is favoring Clinton, this suggests that the authors of secondary sources don't think this particular claim is worthy of coverage. If that's correct, then neither should we. That said, I'm rather surprised that you haven't found coverage of this topic in reputable secondary sources. A better place to find it would be in a book chapter or article on the history of public accusations of Clinton or on media coverage of Clinton "scandals". If you check a source about that and summarize all of its main facts, you'll be neutrally covering a source about the topic, not cherry-picking to support a claim, and the article will be better for it. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You are approaching this the wrong way around. Rather than decide what you want the article to say and look for sources, you should determine what the sources say and make sure the article reflects them.  The relevant policy is "Balancing aspects":  "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject."  A competent editor writing this article from scratch would not be looking at articles or editorials by a technology editor writing about how the Google search engine works.
 * For all we know some Jim Garrison prosecutor is holding a sealed indictment against her. We need an article by a lawyer who could tell us whether that is likely or possible.
 * TFD (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This may sound stupid, we are we trying to say she hasnt been charged with a crime? What next, we need a source to explicitly say she hasnt had a mental illness? Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The Goldman article referenced as a source above is itself a response to a conspiracy theory proposing that Hillary Clinton does have a criminal record that is somehow being kept secret with the complicity of Google and others. The point is merely to note the fact that there is an absence of any such record. bd2412  T 23:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No. It rebuts the alleged conspiracy theory that Google is suppressing negative search results, and there is no suggestion the theory includes Clinton having actually been charged with a crime. Hence "Hillary Clinton cri" does not auto-suggest "Hillary Clinton criminal charges" or similar results.  TFD (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am surprised that this preposterous thread could go on for so long. Since when do encyclopedias list all the statements that are not facts. Do we say Abe Lincoln never won a figure skating championship? It doesn't matter whether you can scratch out some source that makes the statement. It is not encyclopedic. It's undue and in the absence of any statement to the contrary it is the general supposition about all people that they've not been charged with a crime. The mention if it is at best SYNTHy and at worst a BLP smear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 23:19, July 31, 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to political silly season. This round should calm down around the middle of November. --Allen3 talk 23:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That presumes quite cynically that this is all about politics. Couldn't have anything to do with Wikipedia policy. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In my experience, articles on controversial topics tend to draw three types of editors: supporters, detractors, and individuals interested in what is best for the encyclopedia. My cynicism, if any, is based on the observation that members of the first two groups rarely acknowledge the existence of the third group. --Allen3 talk 00:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've had this to say (somewhat) about that. In my opinion, every editor in this thread, if not necessarily its predecessor, is in that third group, so your initial comment doesn't apply here. BTW, those first two groups are also interested in what is best for the encyclopedia, but they're just misguided about what that is. They don't know how to check their bias at the door, and they make no distinction between their beliefs and "truth". Or, if you prefer, you could expand it to five groups. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * How is it "a BLP smear" to point out that someone has not been charged with any crime (contrary to conspiracy theory proponents who believe that a secret crime exists in their record)? bd2412  T 23:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am reminded of the alleged Lyndon B Johnson quote about accusing an opponent of fucking a pig: "Of course it ain't true, but I want to make the son-of-a-bitch deny it." Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * bd2412, I think you are right that mentioning never having been charged with a crime is not a smear, and might well be salient. Making false accusations of a political opponent is a common dirty political tactic, as the above LBJ quote illustrates. People come to Wikipedia for neutral reporting of facts, especially facts in dispute, so it's reasonable for us to cover this, but only if secondary sources have already addressed it in context. And that provides the clue about how to research this topic. Have you looked for sources specifically about political tactics deployed against Clinton? Such sources will give you relevant positive facts, which are much easier to verify than negative claims; they might even have the negative claim you're looking for (or the exact truth of the matter, whatever it is). (Kudos to TKD for finding the most relevant policy: WP:BALASPS.) —Ben Kovitz (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It depends a lot on context, but I think it is critical here in the political context that trying to point this out, while not a BLP vio on the person here of interest, it affects the BLP-nature of anyone running against them. (Here, it implicitly implies that Trump might not have the same clean record that Clinton appears to have).) That's why the statement should be avoided unless it is within context. For example, if one running candidate says the other has a criminal record a mile long, having the sourced statement from someone like CNN to note that the accussed candidate lacks any type of criminal record and refuting the candidate's claim is reasonable. --M ASEM  (t) 00:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

bd2412 says that there is a conspiracy theory that Clinton has been charged with a crime and the article should refute it. But unless the conspiracy theory has received coverage in the news, it should not be put into the article. And if it does attract significant attention, then we can add it to the article, along with the statement that it is false. Because an article about the conspiracy theory would say it is false. TFD (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The conspiracy theory has received coverage in the news. It is the theory being refuted in the above-mentioned Goldman CNNMoney article. bd2412  T 00:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As I replied to you above, the BuzzFeed story that Goldman rebuts is not that Clinton has been charged with a crime but that Google auto-filling for "Hillary Clinton cri" suppresses "Hillary Clinton criminal charges" or any result about her alleged crimes. TFD (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why we're spending time, space, and brain calories on the GJ investigation - without saying how the investigation turned out. That part of the sentence has not been challenged to my knowledge, as least not in this particular debate. We are discussing "or any other controversy". (BTW, LEDECITE has no bearing on this question. It is about citing, not sourcing.) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Tagged for citation needed per WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION and Template:Citation needed. AP story says she was charged with a minor offense (overparking) in 2013. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * None, in theory per WP:LEDECITE, as this is a statement in the lede and ledes may summarize the text of the article. However, it is not entirely clear that this is a correct, and certainly not a relevant, statement. Surely, Clinton is not known to have been charged with any of the major controversies that surfaced in her public life. Whether or not she might have been charged with some other crime that was sealed, expunged, not known, etc., at some other point in her life out of the public eye, may be sourceable, and that would require a source like any other statement. However, the relative lack of significant sourcing on this suggests that it is not a statement that sources consider significant. Sometimes lack of sourcing is because a statement is of little weight, not that it is hard to verify. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realized that this is a dispute about whether to put the "never been charged" claim in the lead. Certainly this does not belong in the lead, even if there is an acceptable source for it. bd2412, please see WP:INTRO and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. What do you think? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't the editor who added it to the lede in the first place. However, the grand jury investigation is mentioned in the lede (whether it is undue to have it there or not is another discussion), and it seems like presenting a pitched half of the facts to say that the subject has been investigated without saying how the investigation turned out. bd2412  T 01:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed mentioning the grand-jury investigation without mentioning the result is one-sided and distorts the real situation. The current wording, that she was not charged in any of the controversies, seems to me to fairly summarize the body of the article and therefore does not need a source. "Never charged with a crime" is stronger claim, neither summarizing the body nor found in (good, known) sources, which is why you got so much resistance about that. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 11:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * which is why you got so much resistance about that. - Not really. That's been a relatively small part of the resistance, mostly from if I'm not mistaken.
 * Yet, was that "minor offense (carparking)" a "controversy" as the sentence stipulates...? —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 05:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've left a talk page warning on Dervorguilla's page for edit warring a BLPVIO (2RR and counting so far) into an article subject to discretionary sanctions. Could somebody revert this nonsense and caution the editor to take a step back from the article? It's an outrageous BLPVIO to falsely claim that a presidential candidate was charged with a crime. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 09:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to let myself get dragged into this, but I will say my piece and move on.
 * Wikipedia is not supposed to debunk false claims, only to document verifiable information. So the article does not need to state she has not been charged with any crimes. Even if there were RSs stating "Hillary Clinton has never once been charged with any crime anywhere in the world under any circumstances, ever!" we don't need to include that here.
 * The notion that a parking ticket justifies the claim that she has been charged with a crime (in the context of an ongoing election in which a major issue is whether she should be charged with crimes against the state) is about as libelous as libel can get. This is 100% BLPVIO in my opinion, and should not be tolerated. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's what WP:BLPVIO has to say, MjolnirPants:
 * "For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material ... suggesting that the person ... is accused of committing a crime..."
 * Clinton's a public figure. Ask SCOTUS. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you insist upon arguing, argue with someone willing to engage your bombast. I already said I wouldn't be dragged into this. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  03:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "I'm not going to let myself get dragged into this, but I will say my piece and move on... The notion ... is about as libelous as libel can get. This is 100% BLPVIO in my opinion, and should not be tolerated... Argue with someone willing to engage your bombast. I already said I wouldn't be dragged into this." (MjolnirPants.)
 * bom·bast : a pretentious inflated style of speech or writing. Synonym: rant. bombast indicates a verbose grandiosity or pretentious inflation of language and style disproportionate to thought. (W3.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that BLP excuses the inclusion of false or misleading information, so long as that information is about "a public figure". We should be striving to get it right, not to insinuate as much as we can legally get away with. This is an encyclopedia, not a campaign website. bd2412  T 13:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The disputed phrase does not say Clinton has never been charged with a crime, so that part of this discussion is a counterproductive distraction. It says she has never been charged with a crime in "any other controversy" (besides Whitewater). If someone here has documented the Hillary Clinton Parking Fine Controversy, I've missed that. A few news items do not constitute a controversy in my book. None of the words "parking", "ticket", or "fine" occur anywhere in Hillary Clinton. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining your legitimate concerns, Mandruss. Here's what the sources say about the Clinton parking-fine controversy.
 * Headline: " ... London traffic warden defied five secret service agents to give her a ticket".
 * Subheads: ⋆ "Councillor: ‘We have to be fair to everyone, regardless of their status’ ⋆ US diplomats in London get £7.5m congestion charge fines in ten years"
 * Source: Daily Mail. "The paper has ... the fourth-largest circulation of any English language daily newspaper in the world."
 * Points: The U.K. traffic warden and the U.S. agents disputed whether Clinton should be given a ticket. And the U.K. and U.S. governments seem to have expressed opposing views on whether high-status U.S. diplomats should get fines for traffic offenses in London.
 * controversy a : the act of disputing or contending. b : a difference marked especially by the expression of opposing views. (W3.)
 * Headline: "No special treatment: Hillary Clinton gets ticket"
 * Lead: "Everyone’s equal under the law — at least when it comes to London’s vigilant parking enforcers, who ticketed ... Clinton’s car for parking illegally."
 * Source: AP, "the United States' primary news service".
 * Points: Is Clinton equal under U.K. law? Under U.S. law? Or should she get special treatment? --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is another example of rather brazen WP:SYNTH on your part. Google says: No results found for "Clinton parking-fine controversy". If you can't find a source to support your claim that a "Clinton parking-fine controversy" exists, I'll have to start questioning whether you're here to build an encyclopedia at all. bd2412  T 02:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:SYNTH policy, bd2412: 'If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them ... therefore "C" cannot be used in any article.' The source uses them in the same context, it does connect them, and I'm using them in a Talk page, not an article.
 * More important: I'm saying that "or in any other controversy" cannot be used in a BLP, not that "C" can be used.
 * Also, EvergreenFir's argument below is on point. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC) 23:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * This seems quite ridiculous and seems like a fertile ground for POV pushing based on opinions on Clinton to paint her positively or negatively. If you can't find substantial mainstream sources for either statement on such a hugely high-profile person, then any statement about that would be undue. If the literally thousands of sources on Clinton don't pay much attention to her criminal history or lack thereof, neither should the article on her.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's what our 'comparison' encyclopedia has to say about Clinton
 * "Some of Hillary’s financial dealings ... led to major investigations after she became first lady. Her investment in Whitewater ... and her commodities trading in 1978–79 — through which she reportedly turned a $1,000 investment into $100,000 in a few months — came under close scrutiny."
 * Hillary Clinton: United States senator, first lady, and secretary of state, Britannica.com
 * Two controversies mentioned, not one. Nothing about whether any charges were ever brought. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Is Breitbart.com reliable?
Nergaal (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Reliable only for opinions of notable persons cited as opinion. Collect (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd say it could be used for basic, uncontroversial statements of facts. For instance, this article starts by quoting the Wall Street Journal, then says;
 * "Cotton and other lawmakers, including Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, have long accused the administration of paying a “ransom” to the regime, contravening long-standing U.S. practice since the days of Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary Wars."
 * I wouldn't be opposed to using it to support the text "Paul Ryan has been critical of the White House's dealings with Iran." That being said, there are undoubtedly better sources for that claim, so unless you're specifically trying to trim excess references, I'd still avoid using it.
 * Also remember that Wikipedians have political views: while it may be okay to cite Breitbart for claim X, if that's going to cause a shitstorm of editors complaining about how unreliable Breitbart is it'd be better to cite a less controversial source. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's unreliable and, in general, not even notable. It's very loud in a very small echo chamber, but not widely known nor noticed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It's worth a look through the archives of this noticeboard. There've been a lot of discussions on Breitbart. clpo13(talk) 16:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've personally seen it pop up at least a half dozen times. In my experience, there's never been a group of editors who came to the consensus that it was a good source for anything but the opinions of those few notable figures who've written for it. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Collect. No evidence or notice of editorial processes or fact-checking. A cursory library search produces no sources citing them as authoritative (or at all, really). -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Breitbart is probably best known for defaming and essentially ruining the life of a private citizen by posting politically motivated falsehoods about her. So I would suggest that this site should not be used for anything remotely contentious, or touching on living people. If something is notable, it should be covered by better sources and we should cite those. If something is covered only by Breitbart, then we should seriously question whether it's notable (or, for that matter, true, based on the website's track record). MastCell Talk 17:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's not at all reliable and should not be cited. It's known for publishing fringe or conspiracy theories (see here, here). It lacks all the hallmarks of reliability, i.e., strong editorial control, separation between news and opinion, a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and a willingness to issue retractions. MastCell is correct: "if something is notable, it should be covered by better sources and we should cite those. If something is covered only by Breitbart, then we should seriously question whether it's notable (or, for that matter, true)..." Neutralitytalk 19:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It can be cited in support of attributed statements of opinion... But not for unattributed facts.
 * Whether the opinion merits inclusion or not a factor of Due/Undue weight, not a matter of reliability or Verifiability. Blueboar (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * True, but given the fact that the source is widely noted for publishing scandalous falsehoods, extremist viewpoints and sensationalistic, unsupportable attacks on those it politically opposes, the opinions of its writers about living people are not likely to pass WP:FRINGE or WP:DUE. For example, I'm sure a Breitbart writer has published the "opinion" that they think Barack Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim ISIS agent in league with Iran and Venezuela, but that opinion has absolutely no place in any article about Barack Obama other than those specifically about conspiracy theories. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * For potentially controversial matters (especially in a BLP), absolutely not. It isn't reliably known for fact checking, reasonable editorial control, separation of fact and opinion, etc. It might in some instances be attributable when the Breitbart coverage in and of itself has come to be at issue, but if it's the only source saying something, that's really not good enough. And if there's a better source, why not use that one instead? Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Harry's Place
The editor Calcoform added material to Harry's Place, a blog on a controversial subject (Middle East politics). He sourced these from two other minor blogs from the other side of the debate, Socialist Unity and Islamophobia Watch, to, in his own words, "correctly describe a much-criticised hate blog that is regularly used by anonymous contributors to defame named individuals". The material he added included that this blog "spread this virulent racism and Islamophobia" and "It is often used by anonymous contributors to circulate personal smears, defamatory attacks and Islamophobia". However good or bad this Harry's Place is, it does not strike me that the user is honestly attempting to be neutral on this subject. His comment on the talk page does not fill me with confidence either. These sources are only blogs, and blogs battle each other all the time. I want admins or reliable users to watch over this page and make sure that the sources are better. Calcoform's talk page shows that he has been spoken to and warned about his editing earlier this year and his contributions seem less than neutral and rather bellicose.


 * No, blogs are not reliable even when they are commenting on blog sites. If a blog post is written by a reputable scholar, I would use it the same way as op-eds (WP:NEWSORG). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Those celebrity worth sites
Examples:
 * http://net-worths.org/al-pacino-net-worth/
 * http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celeb/actors/al-pacino-net-worth/
 * http://richestnetworth.org/al-pacino-net-worth/

They all say the same thing, always. I think they are all the same owner. They are clearly lousy sources and used all over the place at Wikipedia. Isn't this a BLP vio issue? Can we find out who owns these and if there are more? Should we remove them from this project?

See also Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 210

Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * They're all registered in WHOIS to big domain registrar companies, so that's no help. I'm not sure how else to tell if they're run by the same owner. They sound sketchy even if they have different owners. Is that part important to figure out? —PermStrump  ( talk )  01:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi PermStrump. Thanks for checking. Well, maybe it isn't important to figure out. It is pretty obvious that, as sources, they are not reliable. I guess knowing they are all the same owner would just reinforce that.


 * So, what do you think about the BLP vio issue and some sort of effort to get them out of Wikipedia?


 * Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It might be that they all draw information from one another. The dodgier sites do it all the time and there was mention in this thread about that. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that they're all owned by the same person, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Each and every one of them is, IMO, wertlos as a source. It is "Wikischaden" that they are used in any articles whatsoever. Collect (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * On a positive note, the etymology section of our article on Schadenfreude helped me figure out what you were saying. :) —PermStrump  ( talk )  20:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Jalopnik
I know Jalopnik is owned by Gawker Media. Gawker is not generally considered a reliable source, but may be used for opinions at times.

That said, I came across this article today:. It's written by Raphael Orlove, who is described as "staff editor for Jalopnik."

This article appears to be a work of investigative journalism the likes of which CNN and Al Jazera are unwilling to do. In it Kantanka cars are revealed to be not, as alleged elsewhere, "made in Ghana", but rather knock down kits from China. The author of the Jalopnik piece supports his assertions by citing photographic evidence of workers in Kantanka's plants who do not appear to know what they are doing, photographic evidence of the similarities of Kantanka's cars and the cars from the Chinese manufacturer, and a statement on the Chinese manufacturer's webpage that they provided the parts and factory and training to Kantanka; which is to say evidence that, were I to use it in Wikipedia, would be OR.

The article on Kantanka cars is currently quite short, and although not overtly promotional, it lacks balance.

Would other people consider this Jalopnik piece to be a reliable source for claiming that "doubt has been cast on the assertion that these cars are Ghana made, with evidence indicating that the cars may be knock down kits purchased from China?" ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 21:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As soon as you come up with a standard legal definition for 'made'. In most countries putting together a product from component parts created elsewhere would still qualify as 'made'. But to answer your question, has any reliable source commented on this at all? Otherwise this would likely be an undue matter. We wouldnt say 'doubt has been cast' reference it to one opinion piece from a company who specialise in gossip, clickbait and controversy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Dot
There's a debate over whether The Daily Dot is a reliable source in this DRV of MonteCristo. Any outside opinions on the matter would be welcome.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It depends on what you're using it to support. I would consider it fine for internet culture and associated topics.  I've cited it a few times in articles about YouTube celebrities. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you think their coverage on eSports is reliable judged on the content and staff ?--Prisencolin (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, it depends on the specific statement and source. This article says the following at the bottom: This article is sponsored by Ethos. Want to get involved and help shape the future of Ethos? Head to www.ethos.gg and join the discussion, and back the Ethos Indiegogo campaign.  I would be highly skeptical of sponsored articles like that.  But this article would probably help to establish notability for the player. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Vision Forum
Vision Forum is a religious organization that closed after its leader resigned in a scandal. The Vision Forum website used to host a lot of information, but it's now just a single web page with a few posts about the resignation. When it was up and functioning, one page on the site explained the basic tenets of something called Biblical patriarchy. That info is no longer on the page. But a Christian blog has posted a .pdf of the page, obtained through the Internet Archive's Way Back Machine. One editor replaced the no-longer-useful link with a link to the .pdf. Another deleted it, saying "blog sourced is the same as unsourced". So now we're back to using the old link, tagged as unverified. Here's the diff.

In my view, the .pdf source, as an archive of the original page, is reliable source for the tenets of Vision Forum. But I'm not sure enough of the matter to revert. Other opinions would be welcome. There's a thread on the Vision Forum talk page. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If it was indexed by archive.org, why don't we use that? Am I missing something here? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm embarrassed to say that I do not know how to link directly to archive.org. I was pretty impressed that my colleague found the .pdf on the 3rd party site.  If you know how to link directly to the archive.org page that backs this up, I'd be much obliged if you'd insert it.  I promise to review it and, the next time I go this route, I'll follow your model. David in DC (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I tried it, and I ran into ye old robots.txt problem (apparently, if a sites robots.txt says that the information is not to be duplicated, archive.org will assume that archiving it is illegal, and retroactively apply that to older versions of the page, as well). Sorry. I tried google's cache, too, but all I could get was a cached version of that same blog-post pdf. Honestly, if you can convince the other editors to permit it, then it would be fine (WP is ruled by consensus), because there's no real reason to believe the blog would have altered the original before making the pdf. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's always a drag when you get that. Well, I did a search on Google Books, and there was a surprising amount of coverage.  I couldn't find one that explicitly listed all the principles, but there were a few that briefly summarized them.  If the consensus is to reject the blog source, maybe one of those books could be used.  The search string I used was . NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Britannica articles
Some of the articles in Encyclopedia Britannica do not have specific authors (such as this one) and instead we see "Written by: The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica" under the title. Are those articles reliable? --Mhhossein (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In general, yes. See here. That does not mean they are perfect, and Britannica is a tertiary source, but they should be better than most contemporary popular books. If there is more modern scholarship, I'd go with that. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * With exceptions. Note the EB online edition includes edits suggested by readers, and does not use the same standards for verifiability that Wikipedia uses, and that they have accepted Wikipedia as a source for some of the suggestions (personal experience).  If there is any doubt at all, find a better/stronger source.  That said, a lot of "popular books" now get produced with no vetting of comments about deceased persons as the dead can not be libeled (legal status). IMO, the standards of WP:RS have fallen short of their clear intent. Collect (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I would use Britannica only as a source of last resort. On the other hand, it is quite valuable to determine where NPOV lies in contentious areas. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I'd avoid using the EB except for signed articles. Signed articles are the work of acknowledged experts in their fields, & can be safely assumed to be a reliable (although often out-of-date) source. Unsigned articles are created by freelancers who may have no expertise in the subject they are writing, & which after a first editorial review are routinely republished without regard for developments in the relevant field of research. (The EB makes money based on the amount of text it does not revise, so there is an incentive not to revise articles.) Before the 15th edition, many articles were reprinted with few revisions (except to abridge the article in order to make room for new articles on more popular subjects) from either the 11th edition -- or in some cases the 9th, which isn't a problem if you don't mind relying on state-of-the-art research from the 19th century. The overhaul the new format of the 15th edition required a lot of articles to be updated, which did help some, but to say the current version of any unsigned article in the EB reflects the contemporary consensus on its subject cannot withstand serious scrutiny. And sheesh, in this day & age it's not that hard to find a better source than EB on any topic, as long as one has access to a decent library & the Internet. Wikipedia would help itself a lot by systematically replacing every cite to EB with one to other reliable sources. -- llywrch (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Tertiary sources are best avoided except for the most basic information. They do not provide sources and sometimes oversimplify subjects.  If there are content disputes where secondary sources provide different accounts, we can resolve them by looking a at the sources they used, determining whether they were correctly cited and seeing whether subsequent scholarship has revised accounts.  But we cannot do that with tertiary sources, and could avoid a lot of edit disputes by not using them.  TFD (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm with llywrch. Avoid wherever possible. Likely to be out-of-date and to present only one pov, almost always easy to find a better source. Doug Weller  talk 11:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

ESPN article
Is this article from ESPN considered a reliable source or an op-ed?--Prisencolin (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "Sports columns" are an area where fact and opinion meld, and have been so since before Bat Masterson was a sportswriter. As far as I know, no one has ever been able to divorce the two pieces.  Best to take anything which remotely looks like opinion and to treat it as such even in an ostensible "news" article. Collect (talk) 12:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

24 heures and 20 minutes
Dear editors: I am working on a draft, Draft:Balelec Festival. A lot of the references that I am finding are from 24 heures and 20 minutes. Are these reliable independent sources? My French is not very good. I asked at Wikiproject Festivals, but received no reply.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * At first glance, 24hueres seems reliable but 20mn does not however, I don't speak French so additional feedback is needed. Meatsgains (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would agree with your assessment of 24 heures. It is an established newspaper with a long history and the highest (paid) circulation in the French-speaking part of Switzerland. See 24 heures (Switzerland). 20 minutes is a free newspaper 20 minutes (Switzerland) that is owned by the same company, Tamedia. Per the German wikipedia, 20 minutes publishes "sponsored content", but identifies it as such. For the article on the Balelec festival, both sources can be considered reliable IMO. Mduvekot (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Meatsgains and Mduvekot. Assured that the draft has some reliable sources, I've moved it to mainspace.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

citizenwells.net
In Suicide of Vince Foster there are two sources to support a claim that concern me: There appear to be no discussions of citizenwells.net in the noticeboard yet, but I presume I'm OK to assume it's not a reliable source? Autarch (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * wnd.com - known not to be a WP:RS
 * citizenwells.net - first time I recall this site being used as a source. Looking at the article used as a source, it quotes wnd.com, which makes me doubt its' reliability and a few clicks led to this piece questioning President Obamas' birth cert.


 * They are both terrible, plainly unreliable sources that should be removed on sight. Neutralitytalk 01:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for confirming my suspicion - I've removed the whole section as it mostly relied on them - the only WP:RS was used to confirm that the person quoted had held a position - all quotes attributed to him were based on unreliable sources. Autarch (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Oscholars.com
Count de Mauny uses this site as a source for a number of claims. The actual source, however, appears to be "Count De Mauny: Friend of Royalty by Seweryn Chomet . Published by "Newman-Hemisphere".

That publisher appears to have published a total of two books  both by the same author. Is such a book (which I rather think is self-published, as most actual publishers do not issue a total of two books, each of them by the same author), a "reliable source" for the biography where it is used?

The prose in that biography appears a tad florid, but use of an SPS seems, to me, to be a problem here. Collect (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There's almost nothing on Worldcat.org for Newman-Hemisphere, but Google Books has some hits. Seweryn Chomet has a Wikipedia article, but it's mostly unsourced.  According to our biography, Chomet mostly translated Russian scientific journals to English, which might explain why it's difficult to dig up information on the publisher. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Song review
I would appreciate input on a discussion at Talk:Blink of an Eye (Tori Kelly song).

One editor says PopCrush is not reliable. The other says it's the, not the website, to whom reliability applies.

Thanks in advance. — ATS &#128406;  Talk  18:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

genealogy.euweb.cz and geneall.net

 * This topic was brushed upon in the arrived section Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_175

This recent edit by user:Aldebaran69 (at 22:04, 7 August 2016) introduced a retrospective inline citation to http://genealogy.euweb.cz/stuart/stuart8.html to replace, in James FitzJames, 1st Duke of Berwick.

I do not think http://genealogy.euweb.cz/ is a reliable source. Does anyone think that it is and if so how does it meet the requirements of WP:V?

The edit also introduced a second retrospective citation to http://geneall.net/en/name/4480/james-fitzjames-1st-duke-of-berwick/ I don not think that http://geneall.net/en/ is reliable website. Does anyone think it is, and if so how does it meet the requirements of WP:V?

-- PBS (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The Page "David Packouz"
Concerning the page David Packouz (tied with the War Dogs movie). There have been some recent edits to Mr Packouz's page that are extremely disturbing, and the page is becoming very self-promotional. The page for this individual is also poorly written, as general. The sources also do not claim what they say they do - for instance, see source [1], which does not mention "entrepreneur" nor "inventor". Source [9] does not mention music technology. The entire article reads like an advertisement. Please read through the page which is not very long and discuss as to the best course of action. Specifically the first parageaph and the Beat Buddy section. I have also posted in Neutral noticeboard, as the page is not neutral at all. Thank you kindly. --Asenathson (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The Hollywood Gossip
I was wondering if this site would be considered a reliable source that could help establish notability. The source in question is an interview, which I know some consider to be a primary source. However my main question is whether or not the site itself would be considered reliable. It gives off strong blog overtones and I don't see anything about an editorial process offhand. Their parent company, Mediavine doesn't outright say that it'll sell articles as part of a marketing package, but at times it gives off the impression that they might. This was previously brought up here, but there was never anything concretely said about the page.

My gut reaction is that it's like Perez Hilton, meaning that it's a tabloid type of blog site that we can't use as a RS. It's one of several questionable sources used in an AfC submission that I'm in the process of declining, so I thought that it'd be good to at least ask about this here in case it can be used. I do see where it's used elsewhere on Wikipedia, but then that's not automatically a guarantee that it's a reliable source. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Your gut reaction is quite right; this is a Perez Hilton-like gossip rag and in no way reliable. We shouldn't use it in any articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the site, but as far as an interview, do you think it would be reliable for the interviewees statements about him/herself kind of like WP:BLPSELFPUB? Like, do they have a reputation for being so unreliable that they're fabricating interviews? Even if it could sometimes be used for a BLP's claims about him/herself, I guess it doesn't count towards notability because I can't imagine a scenario where that site could contribute to writing a neutral article based primarily on reliable, third-party sources, even if it could be used as a supplemental source in very limited cases once notability was already established. —PermStrump  ( talk )  17:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

WalterKoenigSite.com
Walter Koenig includes an odd/ambiguous/confusing/probably-ungrammatical statement that "Koenig's parents were Russian Jewish immigrants from the Soviet Union; his family lived in Lithuania when they emigrated" ("emigrated" to the United States? Koenig himself was apparently born in the US in 1936, before Lithuania was incorporated into the Soviet Union; were they originally from Russia and then moved to Lithuania and then moved to the US?).

I checked the source to see if it was clearer, and it led to an "Under construction. Coming soon." page. It seems just about every page of that "official" website is currently empty. It also looks ... well, not very official. It looks like a fan site, and the URL made me want to find out what was on WalterKoenig.com, which looks equally dodgy. Does the subject even have an official website?

More to the point, is there a way of verifying or falsifying my suspicion that these are both just fan-sites/domain-squatters posing as officially-endorsed sites?

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * ... and then I saw that the home page looks like this. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Walter Koenig has an official twitter account, maybe an editor with a twitter account (not me, nope nope nope) could ask him if that's his official site, as it claims to be. If so, then that would make it a primary source (one would assume that he's not maintaining it himself, but that he still maintains editorial control over its contents). MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Can't help with twitter, anyone else? This is totally anecdotal, but in my personal experience, people in the US with relatives from countries that were part of the former USSR or Austro-Hungary Empire, etc. might get the historical names of places wrong when talking about their own family (myself included), so I don't think that (or the misuse of immigrate/emigrate) necessarily mean anything about who's running the site. I think it should be verified in any case if it's going to be used as a source, but even if it's his site, it might be a good idea to look for that information elsewhere since regardless of who wrote it, that person probably isn't a reliable source for that particular information. FWIW according to the Lithuania article, it was part of the Russian Empire until WWI, after which it was briefly independent until WWII when it was occupied by the USSR (and Nazi Germany then USSR again). The borders and country names in that region changed so many times in a short time period, so it's understandable that people have a hard time describing their own ancestry. —PermStrump  ( talk )  17:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

TVTropes
I've noticed that there are [several pages] here that use TV Tropes for citations and as external links on a couple of pages (such as Chewbacca defense and space pirate).

I find that a bit worrying, seeing that it's a site that's mainly edited by non-experts. I've been editing there for years, and I've never heard of any notable writers or media experts editing there, meaning that there's likely a lot of misinformation on the site, especially with the light moderation (I spot errors on pretty much every page I visit on the site). There's also the problem that the content changes regularly, right down to pages being deleted outright. I was also under the impression that wikis shouldn't be used as sources anyway, unless the info is official in some way or related to the wiki itself. I know that user-edited sites like Metal Archives are never used, so it would be strange to allow a site with even lower moderation standards.

I'm wondering if such links should be removed, even if there are no other linked sources supporting a statement (the life partner page, for example, only has a TV Tropes link about it's portrayal in media). I'd be happy to remove those references myself if I get the go-ahead. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC) But, what about as a citation source for statements. For example, on the Somebody_to_Love_(Queen_song) page, it's used as a source for this: "Serious consideration was even given to having George Michael take over as full-time lead singer of Queen." My first instinct is to replace links where it's used as a source with "" (or find better links for topics I care about). SonOfPlisskin (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It can be fine as an external link if the articles cover the same thing, but WP:USERG disqualifies it as a source from the beginning. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've seen similar sources removed as external links, and the External links page says that "sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" can be considered (emphasis mine). I'm not sure I'd say TV Tropes is full of knowledgeable contributors, though I guess it's a bit subjective, so if people say the external links can stay, I won't argue.
 * Yeah, it technically doesn't meet WP:EL, but trying to keep it off the site doesn't seem to be a battle worth fighting (to me at least). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I love tvtropes.com. I have been known to waste hours browsing through, reading examples of different tropes. That being said, it should NEVER be used as a source. The vast majority of the tropes listed there were named and defined by the site, the moderation is hit-or-miss at best, and many of the examples either barely qualify as examples of the given trope, or descend into one of that site's ubiquitous arguments over whether a trope was played straight, subverted, deconstructed or had a lampshade hung on it. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: I'm with on policing the site as an EL: It's not worth the effort to keep it off wiki.  MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I had to cut myself off cold turkey because if I click on TV tropes in my google search results, I was wasting more time there reading related tropes than I do clicking internal links in WP articles. We should try to protect WP readers from additional rabbitholes. But seriously, it's not RS and it's not ok for external links. In reference to 's "doesn't seem to be a battle worth fighting" with a link to IAR, I don't think anyone necessarily needs to specifically look for all of the ELs to TVTropes and delete them all at once (unless they want to), but I don't think the attitude should be "it's fine, IAR" either. If I come across it as a source I'm going to tag it as user-generated inline or delete it and tag it with citation needed, depending on how contentious/dubious the statement is I guess, or if it's an in External links sections, I'm going to delete them with the edit summary "WP:ELNO: Not a reliable source", as I think other editors should when they come across it. —PermStrump  ( talk )  17:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'd immediately revert any attempt I saw to add TVTropes as a source, wouldn't even bother with the user generated tag, regardless of what it's being sourced for. Article content matters more than external links, that is worth fighting over.  "TVTropes is written by a thousand monkeys on typewriters and therefore isn't reliable" is also easier to explain to people who don't know anything about the site than explaining why it fails our external link policies.  If someone else does want to go through that hassle, fine, but letting it slide as an EL won't especially hurt the site (citing it would) and not letting it slide can result in unnecessary stress and work. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I spend a lot of time editing TVTropes, which is why I notice a lot of problems that more casual users may not notice at a glance. I think the majority of my time there is spent fixing bad or badly written examples, and they never seem to end. I'm probably not going to go and delete every TVTropes link on the site unless I'm really bored, but there are a couple I specifically want to get rid of for now, like the one on the aforementioned Queen song. I'll probably do the same as and get rid of any links I stumble upon though (including external links, unless it's the only one on a particular page and I really struggle to find a better one). I mainly wasn't sure if TVTropes links were considered okay in certain situations or not. I'm sure links to sites like Rational Wiki would never be allowed in articles not specifically talking about the websites themselves, so I figured it shouldn't be different here. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd probably only tag it as a citation if I knew whatever it said was true and didn't have time/didn't feel like finding a better source, but yeah, generally I'd just delete it. I hate junk in the EL section though, so I'd delete those too. On the other hand, I almost never edit articles about TV shows. :) —PermStrump  ( talk )  23:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Age of Consent template: primary vs. secondary sources
The Template:Age of consent pages discussion header states (after clicking on "show"):
 * In the interest of accuracy and quality it was decided by consensus to hold these pages to a high standard of verification and to avoid ambiguity through the use of prose (not dot points) discussing the relevant statutes, case law or other authorities.

My concern is specifically with case law, which is in the form of the actual judicial opinions (ordinarily rendered by an appellate court), serving to clarify how specific statutes are to be interpreted.

My question is whether the judicial opinion may be cited in preference to an article in a mass media publication, presuming that the judicial opinion (at least if read carefully) can be interpreted without any specialized training? Or is the judicial opinion itself to be avoided because it's a primary source? Fabrickator (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * In my experience, judgments require a degree of expertise to read, and we should instead use secondary sources, which explain what the judgments meant. In particular, readers need to distinguish between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta.  In a case of breach of contract for example, a judge could say that a minor could not be sued because the age of consent was 18 and then say that applies to any form of consent.  But the case would only be a precedent for contract law.  Also, a court could decide that there was more than one decisive issue.  A minor could for example plead that a oontract was void because it was not properly witnessed and he was too young to enter into a contract.  If the court believed both, it would not set a precedent because if it had not been properly witnessed, the plaintiff could not win on appeal, regardless of whether the court was right on the age of majority.  TFD (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Make sure also to distinguish between age of majority and age of consent as they generally are not the same thing or number.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like Template:Age of consent pages discussion header only applies to articles about the Age of consent for sexual activity, so I'm not sure these responses are getting at OP's question. The purpose of the template is to remind editors to only use the highest quality sources since these articles involve laws related to child sexual abuse and this is how it defines high quality sources: "Where writing about legislation or other law, the appropriate statutes and similar must be cited." (my emphasis). But as said, citing the actual legal code can be misleading, either because the wording might be ambiguous or because it differs in important ways from the case law, the actual authority for how the law is interpreted in the US (and plenty of other places, but I can't speak to them). I can think of a lot of potential issues with regularly citing the judicial opinion too though, like it might be hard for editors to determine the most recent, relevant case, especially when there's been more than one ruling about different aspects of the same legislation. Also, some precedents are still on the books that were set in the 1800s, which comes with its own host of problems.
 * Are there usually academic sources covering the judicial opinion in precedential cases? Because if it's reasonable to expect the majority of these laws will have been covered by academic sources, IMO, those would be the highest quality sources, not the actual statutes or court records. —PermStrump  ( talk )  21:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * TFD ... you say that secondary sources should be used because reading judicial opinions may require expertise, though the same may be said about the statutes themselves, yet the "age of consent" pages (e.g. for United States) liberally cite and quote from statutes. The difficulty of interpreting statutes is at least one reason that appellate courts wind up overturning decisions of lower courts.  Requiring secondary sources instead of the statutes themselves is seemingly problematic ... because even if one finds a "reliable" mass media publication that covers this (and attempting to use sources other than mass media has its own problems), the articles in mass media publications simply are unlikely to meet the necessary quality requirements. Now the advantage of judicial opinions (at least in some cases) is that the judge has the opportunity to elaborate, and elaborate they do, because they are not limited to a certain number of column-inches.  Fabrickator (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The best sources are legal text books, which meet the test of reliable secondary sources. While it may seem paradoxical, generally statutes do not need expertise, or very much expertise, to be read, since legislators generally do not deliberately write ambiguity into them.  But legal precedents become necessary when there is ambiguity in statutes or conflicts between them.  If for example the age of consent is one age for males and another for females but it conflicts with a sex equality law, and there is a precedent, then we would want to consult a legal textbook to explain the degree to which the precedent effects interpretationn of the law.  Sometimes a series of precedents are required before full clarity is obtained.  In a similar situation, the case of D.C. v Heller invalidated a D.C. law on gun ownership.  But the degree to which it restricts gun control laws is unknown.  On the other hand, we would be fairly safe in most cases in using D.C. statutes as a source for the laws of D.C.  If legislation says for example that people cannot keep pet lions without a permit, we can assume that is the law.  TFD (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the template (specifically the age of consent template, not all legal templates) should be reworded then to say that academic sources should be sought for interpretation of legislation in addition to citing the actual legal code? —PermStrump  ( talk )  19:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * While citing the statutes may work fine for the easy cases, these tend not to be subject to interesting legal appeals. Proposing the use of legal textbooks or academic journals is problematic, IMO, because of the limited access to such sources, assuming that such sources may be presumed to comprehensively cover such things (not having such access, I can't really say whether this is the case).  OTOH, states frequently have multiple statutes (or at least multiple sections of the same statute) which interact in ways that may not be apparent to a casual reader.  I suppose that what I'm really saying is that quoting statutes within the body of the article is actually counter-productive, because someone attempting to educate themselves on how the law applies is essentially left to use their own wits to figure it out.  Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, which implies the use of sources to provide usable articles, but it by no means implies that the "ideal" article would be comprised largely of a bunch of quotes from cited sources.  Fabrickator (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Would anybody care to argue (or support) the point that a judicial opinion which has been "approved for publication" (meaning the court has authorized its use for citation in other cases) is not only a reliable source, but unless understanding the pertinent parts of the opinion is beyond the ken of an educated person, a secondary source presuming to interpret the opinion should generally be treated as inferior?
 * To raise a different question, at least one editor has made statements to the effect that any verifiable source must actually refer to any age-based restrictions on sexual activity using the phrase "age of consent", in order for that to be a suitable source for this page. So a source describing the circumstances under which one may be subject to prosecution for consensual sex under the laws of a state may not be cited in the absence of the phrase "age of consent".  I find this to be beyond the pale, that for the purpose of the "age of consent" pages, this phrase has a specialized meaning, and that is the meaning we are seeking on this page, regardless of the precise words used in statutes or other sources.  So I'd appreciate any comments that may lead to a consensus on this point. Fabrickator (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What article? Where is that discussion happening? I wanted to read the context before responding. —PermStrump  ( talk )  09:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * On Talk:Ages of consent in the United States, it is asserted that "the 'age of consent' is however the press and the media define it". This same page mentions an article by "Carter" that's in a mass market publication.  This is the article I had in mind as being problematic.  Specifically, the Carter article gives the impression that a prosecution under Texas statute 43.25 requires that a sexual performance be involved.  But the pertinent judicial opinions make it clear that a person can be prosecuted for "inducment of sexual conduct" (of an underage person), thus serving as an example of the need for the "high standard of verification" called for in the template. Fabrickator (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link to the judicial opinions? With that info, I can look for a secondary, academic source that clearly articulates the legislation, which IMO, would be the best option. —PermStrump  ( talk )  02:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Here are the opinions on two particularly pertinent cases: Summers v. State: http://www.leagle.com/decision/19921285845SW2d440_11248/SUMMERS%20v.%20STATE, Dornbusch v. State: http://law.justia.com/cases/texas/thirteenth-court-of-appeals/2005/14000.html Fabrickator (talk) 06:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have any more feedback on this?

Maya
There is a discussion, or rather close to an edit war, on Talk:Maya_(illusion) whether etymology of the Sanskrit word maya can be sourced to a sociology/philosophy book by some Pintchman. One editor, Ms Sarah Welch, keeps inserting the reference, arguing that since Pintchman is currently a professor and the book is published, it can be used on Wikipedia, and by removing the reference I "attack professors". While I argue that Pintchman's book is on sociology - precisely, on certain religious concepts in Hinduism - and not on linguistics; Pintchman is a professor of religious studies who in her own admission learned the Sanskrit language barely for 2.5 years; she only mentions the etymology en passant, when proposing a theory of a Hindu Goddess, in this WP:PRIMARY publication; and a reference to another book proposing this etymology (by Jan Gonda) is sufficient on Wikipedia. However, my argument seems to fall on deaf ears.

The discussion also takes place in a wider context, perhaps less relevant to this noticeboard, of existing teories on the etymology of the word maya (well, that's not a terribly wide context). Ms Sarah Welch keeps highlighting (not to say, promoting) original theories of religion by Jan Gonda (not a linguist, either - but in Hindu traditions, language and religion are strongly interconnected); whilst I try to present existing theories equally and list them in chronological order in the article. Unfortunately, because anonther editor apparently totally unfanmiliar with the subject of Indian studies (RexxS) has joined in doing reverts and attacking me, I decided to ask for a third opinion on sourcing. Thanks for any remarks you may have. — kashmiri  TALK  06:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * In the above submission on RSN, @Kashmiri has questioned the competence/behavior of @ and me, but not provided the link to the source whose reliability apparently in question. Here it is: Pintchman's book (pages 3-4). It was published by State University of New York Press. This specific book has been reviewed by scholars in peer reviewed journals, such as:
 * [1] David Gordon White (1996), The Journal of the American Oriental Society, 116(2), pp. 356-358;
 * [2] Lou Ratté (1997), International Journal of Hindu Studies, 1(1), pp. 211-213.
 * David Gordon White in his review writes, "Tracy Pintchman (...) fills a long-standing gap in Western writing and research on the Goddess, (...) in special relation to the three cosmic principles of prakrti, maya, and sakti. This work will no doubt become the reference work on the subject, as well as a useful tool for teaching on undergraduate and graduate levels." Lou Ratté review is similarly positive, and mentions Pintchman's discussion of "prakrti, maya, and sakti". Pintchman is a professor in the subject, and she is respected in the field of Hinduism/Indian religions as these reviews suggest. Based on a combination of all this, I respectfully submit that the source is reliable, a secondary source on maya-related etymology/terminology context, as it is being used in the article (Maya (illusion)). I further submit that a read of the book amply show that @Kashmiri is falsely alleging the nature of the book, like much else.


 * This is not a new issue. In January 2016, @Kashmiri questioned, then attacked the "competence and speculations" of Jan Gonda with "can't even believe a scholar of Sanskrit would have published such a thing". @Kashmiri then argued Gonda is a sole/primary source, and we need more sources to establish this is mainstream view, is now flipflop lecturing above that "another book proposing this etymology (by Jan Gonda) is sufficient on Wikipedia". As in months gone by, now @Kashmiri is lecturing @RexxS about WP:Primary again. This is not a reliable sources issue, it feels more like a behavioral issue on @Kashmiri's part, persistent disruption through deletion of content and scholarly sources, and WP:TE since January 2016 despite comments and cautions by editors and an admin, other than @RexxS and me on this (see edit history here and here). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A couple of things - yes, generally you do need more than one source to establish a 'mainstream' view, otherwise it is just one (reliable or not no comment) person's opinion. If there are dissenting/different views, then again more sources are required to establish what the mainstream is. If there are no dissenting or no other sources, then it should be presented as the opinion of the expert rather than 'this is the definitive answer'. Secondly - I would not use a non-linguistics expert as a source to verify a words etymology - where other sources are available from linguistic experts. If there are no dissenting or better sources available, then you work with what you have. I would say from looking at the diffs back and forth, this does seem to be an area where there is disagreement. It is not great to have in an encyclopedia article 'Maya is probably...' when there are multiple theories RE the origin. (Saying the above, from looking at Jan Gonda's article, I cannot see why they would not be considered qualified enough to have an opinion and be referenced on the subject, but I can see the argument behind Pintchman) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * @Only in death does duty end: Jan Gonda is known for his linguistics work. Tracy Pintchman reviews and states the past scholarship on Maya-related etymology-terminology among other things, on pages 3-4 (her publication is an example that Gonda's study is accepted by other scholars). That section of the article has multiple sources. I agree, we should retain the multiple sources, not delete them. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your balanced view. Let me point out that Ms Sarah Welch has shamelessly manipulated my words - where I asserted that "I can't even believe a scholar of Sanskrit would have published such a thing", I was absolutely correct - this was about a (linguistically absurd) idea that maya is a combination of two verbal roots ma + ya, which Ms Welch attributed to Gonda and defended fiercely but which, as it turned out, wasn't actually even mentioned in Gonda's book. Reluctantly and after lots of fighting, Ms Welch allowed the statement to be removed from the article, as you can see now. To be fair to her, as a former Sanskrit scholar, I am more than familiar with a belief among many newbies to ancient Indian literature that whatever is printed is holy, is sacred and should be revered much like the Vedas.
 * For a similar reason, I removed Zimmer's primary study that Ms Welch tried to add as a source to whatever, seemingly forgetting about WP:BRD that she earlier kept repeating ad nauseam. I do not see any value that this work from the philosophy of language could add to the Etymology section (which should, or must, adopt linguistical approach and not a philosophical one); while of course it may be cited in other parts of the article. Hope this clarifies, although I admit I grew tired of Ms Welch's attacks. — kashmiri  TALK  20:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a notice at the top of this page: Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability. If you have nothing to say about the reliability of the source, then please stfu. Take your attacks on other editors elsewhere; they don't belong here. --RexxS (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The article Maya (illusion) currently has a section Etymology and terminology. The present article contains references to half-a-dozen different opinions on the etymology of the word. The sources include two books published by State University of New York Press and two published by Motilal Banarsidass, all of which Kashmiri is trying to remove from the article. The purpose of this notice board is to garner other opinions on whether a particular source is a reliable source in a given context. The source in question that opinions are sought on is: for the statement "Māyā (Sanskrit: माया) is a word with unclear etymology, probably comes from the root mā". So is it a WP:Reliable source? according to WP:NOR ("In general, the most reliable sources are: Peer-reviewed journals; Books published by university presses; University-level textbooks; Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and Mainstream newspapers."), it is.
 * Tracy Pintchman (1994), The Rise of the Goddess in the Hindu Tradition, State University of New York Press, ISBN 978-0791421123, pages 3-4;

If others also wish to offer their opinions of whether the source should be included or not, per WP:DUE, then please consider WP:NPOV "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." There are another three sources that also support Pintchman's view: I believe that anyone reading the current section Maya (illusion) is "representing fairly, proportionately, and ... without editorial bias ... the significant views that have been published by reliable sources" as required by our policy. --RexxS (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Jan Gonda, Four studies in the language of the Veda, Disputationes Rheno-Traiectinae (1959), pages 119-188
 * Donald Braue (2006), Maya in Radhakrishnan's Thought: Six Meanings other than Illusion, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120822979, page 101, Quote: "Etymologically, the term māyā is derived from the Sanskrit verbal root mā (...) Whitney says the primary meaning of √mā is 'to measure'. L Thomas O'Neil agrees in his helpful exposition of the ways and contexts in which māyā is used in the Rigvedic tradition."

The way this issue has been brought here leaves much to be desired. you needed to read and follow the directions at the top. This is not a dispute resolution venue, but rather a venue to get opinions of uninvolved editors on sources. In particular, conduct issues do not concern us.

The only question that seems to concern this board is whether the Pintchman source should be included. I think there is no harm in including it, because it says that maya derives from ma (to measure) and so provides support for this derivation. This doesn't immediately clinch the issue, but it shows that this derivation has found favour among scholars. Whether Pintchman is a linguist or not doesn't matter much, because she is a secondary source here, and it is all the better if she is not a specialist.

More broadly, looking at this edit, the difference between the old and the new versions seems rather slight. So, I think that, if you discuss with cooler heads, you should be able to find agreement quite easily. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, I also think that finding agreement ought not be difficult. As I see it, this noticeboard should be able to tell us whether the Pintchman source is reliable or not, and (if required) the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard can judge whether the source should be included in the article. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, I also think that finding agreement ought not be difficult. As I see it, this noticeboard should be able to tell us whether the Pintchman source is reliable or not, and (if required) the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard can judge whether the source should be included in the article. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. (1) I can't agree with terming Pintchman's work as a secondary source. Pintchman's book is absolutely and undoubtedly a PRIMARY source as it consists nearly uniquely of her own research. The book is not just a summary of other people's work, it is not a compendium-type publication nor a Review type academic paper. Same to Zimmer's qouted work. (2) Because it is not a secondary source and Pintchman is NOT a linguist nor an authority on Sanskrit or the Protoindoeuropean language, she should not be referred to in the Etymology section. She lists her specialities in her CV linked above, please feel free to verify that "Sanskrit scholar" or "linguist" are not among them. So, Pintchman's book just happen to mention such an ethymology (without quoting a source btw) because it fits her philosophical idea and not because she studied extensively the origins of Sanskrit or PIE words. — kashmiri  TALK  22:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * please note that WP:SECONDARY tells you: A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one, and sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement. For the matter under discussion, the derivation of maya, it is a secondary source because Pintchman is not stating her own view, but rather the received view. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's also important to realise that a book published by a major publisher carries the weight of editorial oversight and the peer-review process. Its reliability does not merely rest on the author. In this case, the publisher is SUNY Press, which is one of the larger university presses, and publishes its Manuscript Review Process, including its peer-review process.--RexxS (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid the reliability of sources is not such a black-and-white issue. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and what we know about the expertise of the scholar, the context in which the statements appear, and the scholarly support provided for the statements etc. are also considerations. In this particular situation, the Pintchman source is scholarly and peer-reviewed. However, the author appears not to be a specialist in Sanskrit linguistics and no citations have been given for for the claim that maya derives from ma - "to measure". These considerations imply that the source cannot stand on its own, but can only be used in addition to the other sources, to tilt the balance a little bit in favour of this derivation against the others. But, on the whole, I don't think the balance in favour of this derivation is so great that it should be singled out as in the old version. I think 's version is more balanced in this regard. (I also participate on the NPOV Noticeboard. So, I am switching hats slightly here.) Sanskrit, and perhaps other classical languages too, relish multiple meanings and sliding from one to the other. You may be looking for clarity where none is expected to be present. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Ciências Sociais Unisinos
Is this Brazilian social-science journal ([ https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=pt-BR&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://revistas.unisinos.br/index.php/ciencias_sociais/about&usg=ALkJrhgncx5hg7VoxNdJmSnXJabkDD2mug en]) generally reliable? It looks good, but I'd appreciate the opinion of an experienced RS evaluator or a Lusophone academic. It is [ https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=pt-BR&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Frevistas.unisinos.br%2Findex.php%2Fciencias_sociais%2Fabout indexed] in EBSCO and ProQuest, among others, but has no JCR-assigned IF.

I'd like to use this systematic review in rewriting Psychology of eating meat, for which the review is excellently targeted. It was published only a few months ago and has no citations (in GScholar) yet, so to be sure of meeting WP:SCHOLARSHIP I'd like an opinion on the quality of the journal in general. Thanks! FourViolas (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

TeleSur English

 * Source: TeleSur English (Elliott Gabriel, |title=5 Ways Jill Stein's VP Pick Will Shake US Politics Beyond 2016, August 2, 2016)


 * Article: Ajamu Baraka


 * Content: TeleSur writer Elliot Gabriel said: "[H]e is an accomplished Black scholar, professor, and human rights advocate who has tirelessly fought for the rights of working people in the United States and throughout the world."

TeleSur is a Venezuelan state-run news agency usually identified as Bolivarian propaganda by scholars and media. (See, e.g., here (piece by Council on Foreign Relations international affairs fellow focused on Venezuela describing it as such). Even those sympathetic to the Venezuelan government identify it as such (see, e.g., p. 29 of this book in which Nikolas Kozloff quotes Gregory Wilpert as saying that Telesur has a "widely-acknowledged reputation for being a vehicle for Chávez-funded propaganda").

Given all this, I do not think it is a properly reliable source for this (laudatory) statement about an individual. I welcome input. Neutralitytalk 15:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * disagree, given that the article has been claimed to be OK for citation concerning "negative" elements. User talk:Neutrality is reacting to the fact that a user requested the deletion of an article he added from Politico (owned by the son of Texas billionaire Joe Allbritton), which contained one and only one sentence about Ajamu Baraka portraying him dismissively.   Cf.  The TeleSUR page to understand the origin of the network as an attempt to counter the oligarchic concentration of Latin American media...   also note that User talk:Neutrality has not objected to the original selective quotation from the Telesur article (3 words from a long sentence) to make Baraka look bad.  My personal decision was to delete both articles, as neither contributes in a particularly useful manner to the article in question, but the complainant decided to revert his citation without reverting the counterbalancing one.  SashiRolls (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Politico is financially and editorially independent of the government. "Telesur" is not. There is no meaningful comparison between the two.  You may dislike Politico, but it is not comparable to propaganda in thesense that TeleSur is.
 * As for the other use of Telsur (which is apparently no longer in the article, I haven't looked at it). It appears that the other use is a direct quote from the subject of the article, whereas this statement is an absolutely laudatory quote that serves no purpose other than to heap praise on the article's subject. I think you're clouding the issue somewhat here. Neutralitytalk 15:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There was indeed an error in attribution, the Politico article was being cited for content coming from Telesur. Probably a cut and paste error due to the repeated deletions and reverts.  It is corrected. I am merely exposing a contrary point of view to your own, I am not trying to cloud any issue, but would be fairly surprised should we suddenly decide that an innocuous statement such as the one above should be censored because someone doesn't agree with the politics of the source publication. If it is, as I've already pointed out, there are any number of similar citations which could be added (since Baraka is a highly respected individual, having received numerous honors for his human-rights work).  However, it seems to me that there is a certain amount of bullying going on here to force acceptance of a free-lance writer's personal attack (from Politico) into the biography of a living person, despite the fact that 3 people have argued that it is not a particularly useful reference (two on the talk page, one by originally deleting it).  Your objections to this user's deletion of your content are the source of this contention, as you know.  SashiRolls (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Exactly as User:Neutrality states, this is government propaganda arm, not an editorially independent news source. NYTimes: .E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that the reference was removed. Moreover E.M. Gregory has twice removed the NPOV template placed on the page in question by WikiLeon without achieving any consensus for doing so.   This despite the fact that ad hominem attacks against the candidate remain on the page.  The latest ad hominem attack comes from Tablet (magazine), which unlike TeleSUR is not financed by 6 governments, but by a single Jewish foundation whose funds come primarily from one donor.  Cf.  Nextbook  SashiRolls (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Inside Futures
I think I already know the answer here but wanted to get confirmation - is Inside Futures a reliable source? Specifically, this article, which I added as a reference on Larry Hite's page. Meatsgains (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The "named chairs" link is broken. The working url is http://www.scholarrescuefund.org/donate/named-chairs. As for supporting the statement about Hite's involvement with Scholar Rescue Fund, they disclaim responsibility for it, maybe they read it on Wikipedia!  The "Scholar Rescue Fund" citation can serve as an authoritative source for any actual facts about the organization itself, as well as for its stated purpose.  Statements based on the Hite Foundation link ought to be particularly "qualified", e.g. they "claim" to be doing this and that (similar to the comment about "stated purpose" for the "Scholar Rescue Fund", only conisderably more so).  I am new at posting my opinons on "reliable sources", so I will defer to others who disagree and who claim to have greater experience. Fabrickator (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into this. Where exactly did you see that that they "disclaim responsibility"? It very well could be that they pulled the information from Wikipedia. Meatsgains (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * When I say they "disclaim responsibility", I'm referring to their statement that begins "One source says ...", without revealing what the source is. Fabrickator (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I see, I think additional feedback from other users would be helpful. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Prabook as user-generated content
I have cleaned up three or four articles using Prabook already but there are ca. 200 of them. Can I please have explicit confirmation that this is user-generated content and not reliable? If I get that then I may try to work out where to ask about a filter/blacklist for future attempted uses.

BTW, someone did raise this previously in relation to a specific article and, as on that occasion, I suspect Wikipedia scraping may have gone on in the examples that I have looked at so far. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW, most of the content on Prabook seems to come from the scraping of various, sometimes decades-old Who's Who-type books. Usually a suitable Google Books search will find the original source of the data. Where such can't be found, the data should not be used. And Prabook should never be referenced. But it's just a drop in the bucket, as Wikipedians aren't going to stop citing (or using without even citing) random websites of no authority whatsoever. Mewulwe (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, yes to some degree but if we adopt that fatalist attitude then we might as well abandon pretty much every policy and guideline, not to mention the project. We either make a stand or we succumb to anarchy. - Sitush (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have used this cite in some of the articles I created, but a closer look (after Sitush pinged me) tells me that it may not be reliable, though the content therein may be factually correct. However, it could be used to gather information for further research but that's where it should stop. I do not believe it will hold as a reliable reference, as the subject himself can add data and there seems to be no mechanism to check the veracity of the content.--jojo@nthony (talk) 06:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Jill Stein (reliable source question)
An administrator User:VictoriaGrayson has said that a video of Jill Stein speaking is not a reliable source for what Jill Stein actually said. Do you agree? She also seems to be arguing that a video of Jill Stein already referenced on the site via the blog "The World According to Matthew" is a reliable source embedded on that site but is not a reliable source when accessed directly. What do you think? Thank you for your time looking into this question in an effort to guarantee the impartiality of Wikipedia. The relevant discussion is in this Request for CommentSashiRolls (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not an administrator.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 01:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You need to provide the specific example. It is possible to inaccurately represent what people said on Youtube videos: "You didn't build that," "I short circuited," etc.  Also, it is better to use secondary sources and if whatever Stein said was not picked up in those sources, it is probably too insignificant to include.  TFD (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, a video of someone speaking is going to be WP:PRIMARY (unless it's a video of a new channel covering it or something.) Primary sources are usually bad to rely on because they don't provide interpretation or coverage, which makes it very hard for us to say anything (even just "she said this", in the wrong context, could result in implications that violate WP:SYNTH - whereas a news source covering her statement in that context can support the implication that it's relevant.)  A video in a blog wouldn't usually be any more reliable, though, since blogs themselves don't tend to pass WP:RS...  there are a few limited exceptions under WP:SPS, but they're unlikely to apply when using them for a source on a living third person who falls under WP:BLP.  I would suggest looking for third-party coverage of her statement from a news source (or something else that passes WP:RS), and using that for the cite instead.  If no such sourcing exists, then it probably violates WP:DUE to include it anyway.  --Aquillion (talk) 02:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A video of Jill Stein is a reliable source for what Stein said. However we do not inclde stuff that Jill Stein said unless another source commented on it and thereby showed that Stein's comment was significant.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your responses snunɐɯ·, Aquillion, & TFD! In response to your call for more information, here is the sentence that was reverted:


 * Stein has made unequivocally clear that she does not believe that vaccines cause autism, comparing the media frenzy around the issue to the birther issue used against Obama.

I identified this as an independent source which is both a primary source regarding what Jill Stein said, and a secondary source given the comments of the interviewer (and Cenk Uygur at the end of the video), who both say that her statement is unequivocally clear. My use of her comment about the "birther" scandal seemed to fit the definition of appropriate use of a primary source given at Wikipedia... "Primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source." It was added to the page because as it stands the page only includes articles stating that she has been ambiguous on this issue. What do you think? SashiRolls (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I read over the section, which is Jill Stein. Stein provided an interview with David Weigel, a reporter at the Washington Post.  In the article he implies that Stein is anti-science without actually saying so.  "Stein's warning about corporate influence in the vaccine approval process is often voiced by "anti-vaxxers."  An article by Alan Yuhas in The Guardian does the same:  "Stein seemed to echo such fears in her interview on Friday, though again as part of a broader argument about regulators."  That is followed by text sourced to similar articles and blogs.
 * Our challenge in using reliable biased sources is to separate facts from opinions, which the article does not do well. Juxtaposing the fact that anti-vaxxers are suspicious of vaccine approval processes is an expression of opinion.  For example, "Like Adolph Hitler, Clinton supports gun control" is a factual statement that presents an opinion.  None of the articles say that Stein opposes vaccines, in fact they say she supports them.  Nor is there any indication that she thinks vaccines cause autism (although ironically Clinton and Obama said they were not sure themselves.)
 * In this case, I think it is better to review the article text and ensure that it presents the facts without editorial comment. If we want to add opinons, then they need intext attribution.  In reply to your original question, it is valid to provide a denial from someone against whom an accusation is made, provided it can be sourced.  See the example in WP:BLP:  "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported."
 * Moving forward, it is probably better to post to the NPOVN, since it is really an issue of weight of opinions about Stein. That also applies to other sections of the article.
 * TFD (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * TFD, thank you very much for your time! I agree with you completely concerning that science section, but as you've perhaps seen on the talk page, I can make no progress against the page owner and his allies.   I've tried to do significant cleanup (particularly on that science section:  3 of my 4 censored edits were in that section, but they've been globally reverted.  Even trying to oppose the addition of yet another tweet gets overruled... they've got an effective team that's been reverting quite a few editors for over a month now.  Any ideas what to do in such a situation?  I got angry about it this afternoon and gave up, but I'll try to add the WP:BLP example you've given me, though it would have much more force if someone else did.  SashiRolls (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Snopes has a good article about this, which could serve as model for how we present the issue in a neutral manner. Ond way forward is to present Stein's actual position, the objections presented by Weigel et al. and the opinion expressed by the Snopes writer.  Or perhaps it is better to leave it out altogether since there is nothing unusual about her position on vaccinations, just a few non-significant opinions expressed about it.  I will post a thread and see how other editors react.  TFD (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I read that article some time ago (before coming to the Jill Stein page) and thought the question had been settled, but I guess it hasn't. I'll check back later to see if you (or anyone else) had had a chance to add this to the article.  For the moment, I'm doing my best to alert people to the issue on the talk page, because otherwise it will be just be reverted if I add it to the article.  I've added the long list of evidence for WP:OWN problems with the page here.   Thank you again for your help.  SashiRolls (talk) 10:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Spaceship Moon Theory
Short: Is The Forbidden Knowledge a reliable source?

Long: There's an article on the Spaceship Moon Theory. It references an article in the July 1970 issue of Sputnik, effectively the Soviet Reader's Digest. I'm not questioning whether or not Sputnik is reliable, but believe that the reference used in the article is not reliable.

It's apparently a copy of the Sputnik article, hosted on an archive site that's take it from The Forbidden Knowledge. Things that interest TFK:

"This domain is dedicated to the teaching of knowledge that was hidden from the human race all through history."

"Freemasonry's connection to the creation of Mankind and his purpose"

"Luciferic power structure and Government center Washington D.C."

"Master numbers encoded within your DNA"

That's just from the home page; it gets worse when you open the site. I.e. it's about as fringe as it's possible to get. Therefore it's not a reliable source, and we simply can't rely on them to have accurately reproduced articles published elsewhere. Or that's what I think. You? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * No, The Forbidden Knowledge is not remotely a reliable source. The Spaceship Moon Theory article basically just summarises the Sputnik article and adds some third-party criticism, so with respect to the Sputnik article, reliability is less a problem than notability. If the copy at http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/luna/esp_luna_6.htm is a true copy is not improbable, but not sure. It would be much better to dig up a copy of the original source. Maybe a Russian-speaking editor can help out. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * If it was genuinely published by the Soviet Academy of Sciences it shouldn't be hard to find; it (and its successors) is one of the world's leading academic institutions. Given that the original paper was published in Soviet times, there will be a copy in the Russian State Library (although probably at their Khimki site rather than Moscow), as it was a copyright library throughout the USSR era. &#8209; Iridescent 22:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the article was not published by the Academy, but the authors were members of the Academy. Our article Sputnik is very basic - de: Sputnik (Zeitschrift) is much better. The magazine was, apparently mostly addressing foreigners. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * This [] appears to be a good overview of the political and scientific background to this. Irondome (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Cheers guys. There's a partial archive linked to on the Sputnik page, but it unfortunately doesn't contain July 1970.  I'll potter off to WP:RX to see if they can help track down the original.
 * I assume that (for the purposes of including in WP) Jason Colavito's blog is reliable for his opinions, but not for establishing the notability (or weight, I always mix that up) of his opinion? Either way, thanks Irondome for the background information. Bromley86 (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . (The Bromley? I worked there on a Govt. secondment back in the day, 2001, I liked it. Decent pubs!). It could be used i.m.o, and would add political and cultural insights to the article. It could form the basis of an additional section exploring that aspect. What appears to be a good translation of the original article appears in Colavito's piece. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, that's the same Forbidden Knowledge archive. The upside is it's not a translation (that is, the original was published in English, as well as German, Russian and a bunch of other languages).  Despite my insistence that the source is unreliable, for WP's purposes, it probably is an accurate transcript of the original.  Certainly, it doesn't include mention of minerals that some of the conspiracy sites add (like brass, IIRC).  Bromley86 (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

So there I am, websurfing theforbiddenknowledge.com site and enjoying the articles about free energy, and suddenly I run into this... --Guy Macon (talk) 02:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Another WP:FRINGE opinion. As all of us Sinclair ZX Spectrum programmers know, the only thing the TI99/4A was good for was keeping your coffee cup warm. The architecture was crappy and the BASIC was, basically, useless (and slow). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That is absolutely untrue. Not only did it make a great doorstop, but I managed to scavenge some parts from it to repair my Commodore 64. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  12:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

World Statesmen.org
Is World Statesmen.org reliable? I'd initially assumed not, but I have mixed feelings as I've used The Peerage before, and I can see similarities. Bromley86 (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No. There's zero authority there. Site just copies, without any hesitation or discernment, information from Wikipedia and anywhere else, etc., just to "impress" with quantity, while quality is abysmal. Mewulwe (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Sources and reliability?
I need some help with some sources at an AfD, Articles for deletion/MacGyver the Lizard. I'm not asking for anyone to vote - that's not why I'm posting here. What I'm concerned about is that the sourcing is ultimately too weak to establish notability for this animal on social media. The non-primary sources in the article are either from a very narrow window of time (a 2-3 month period) or they're in places that are kind of dubious as far as Wikipedia is concerned. For example, the article relies on coverage from the Daily Mail and Vice to give notability, two sources that are shaky at best on Wikipedia. I know that I don't use them, as they've been known to make mistakes with articles, as their goal is more sensationalism and clicks than reporting the news. (Doesn't mean that I don't read both of them, but they're not really the best reliable sources.

Here's a rundown of the sourcing in the article at present, which I'm clipping from the AfD. On the AfD there's an argument that the sourcing should be enough and that one of the sources, Petcha, should be seen as reliable since an e-mail resulted in the person being told that they have an editorial staff - despite there being no mention of this on the website and the site apparently accepting user content.


 * 1) Petcha.com. Per the website's about page, it looks like this is a site where just about anyone can create content. There's nothing on the author's page or on the website as a whole to show that there's any sort of editorial oversight. In other words, this looks to be a self-published source and cannot be used to show notability. Whether or not it should even be used as a source is debatable, as Wikipedia is fairly strict about being able to verify sourcing. Like many of the other sources, this was published in April 2016.
 * 2) TheDodo.com. This one is written by a staff member and has an editorial staff, however it was also published in April 2016, during the same point in time as much of the other coverage. The staff oversight does make this more likely that this will be considered a RS, however depth of coverage still needs to be proven and there still needs to be evidence to show that the site is considered a RS per Wikipedia's guidelines - which are almost insanely strict.
 * 3) Vice. Vice is kind of questionable as a source. I've seen more than a few people say that it's not usable, with only a relative few saying that it can be used on pop culture material. It was brought up at RS/N at one point where someone pointed out that the site has gotten facts and material wrong, which shows that they don't appear to do a lot of fact checking on a regular basis. This is why a large portion of editors tend to not use it as a source, since it's so easily questioned. This was published around the same time as the other sources, albeit a few months later in June 2016. Even if we count it as a RS - and Vice would make for a fairly weak source in my opinion - this still doesn't show a depth of coverage.
 * 4) Daily Mail. The DM is a tabloid and despite it still being technically usable on Wikipedia, it's not considered to be the strongest or best place to use as a source, as this paper doesn't really do a whole lot of verification - this is because they predominantly look to sensationalize material. They might not be looking to sensationalize a lizard, however their behavior with other topics makes this a less than ideal source to use at all. Like many of the other sources, this was released in April 2016.
 * 5) Daily Telegraph. This is far better and the DT is considered a RS, however the problem with this source is that it was released in June 2016, around the same time as the other sourcing. Another problem would be that the article is almost entirely images and the article itself is only a few lines long - making this potentially a WP:TRIVIAL source more than anything else.
 * 6) Buzzfeed. Buzzfeed is another one that could be usable, however again, this was written around the same point in time, in June 2016. There's also a predominant focus on images rather than article content, although it's longer than the DT article.
 * 7) Rare. This is better, but like the others this was released around the same time as the other news articles, in June 2016.
 * 8) FuzzFix. At best this is questionable as a source. Not much information is given about the site's editorial oversight. It also doesn't really help that the company that owns the site gives off impressions that they focus on marketing and internet optimization. This is honestly pretty questionable as far as its usability goes and even if we ignore that, the article is still written in June 2016, so still written around the same time period.
 * 9) Official website. This is the OW, so it's primary.
 * 10) YouTube. Official YT channel, primary.
 * 11) China Times. The CT can be usable, however even without translation the article is shown to be relatively brief. It's also published in April 2016, so again the issue of recentism is brought up.
 * 12) Okezone. The Indonesia Wikipedia page for this site is fairly extensive - however that doesn't mean that it would be reliable per Wikipedia's guidelines. The link comes up as dead for me, so I can't really investigate who wrote this (staff or site member) or if it received any editing. However I do note per the citation on the Wikipedia article that this was published in June 2016.

I just want to know some feedback on this - I know that this isn't a place for notability, but I do have to question whether or not this is ultimately enough and whether or not some of the sources are in-depth enough to be considered a non-trivial source. I also have some questions about FuzzFix, as the site doesn't have a lot about their editorial process and their company's about page (30M) seems to focus a lot on internet optimization. I get some pretty strong marketing vibes from them overall.

So what's your guy's take on some of the sources? Some of them are fine and reasonably in-depth, while others are pretty brief and others are kind of questionable as a source as a whole. The notability here is borderline, as the biggest argument against is that the coverage is WP:RECENTISM, but I don't know that all of the sourcing here is strong enough. There's an argument to be made that there needs to be a standard for social media personalities separate from ENTERTAINER or NWEB, but I don't know that these are enough to set precedent for a lower threshhold. Again, I know that this is not a place to argue notability, just trying to show where my mindset is coming from with this and I'd like some sort of opinion on the sourcing and whether or not some of them are long enough or some reliable enough to be used. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Chet Murphy
According to the official USTA Colorado Facebook page, tennis player and coach Chet Murphy died a few months back at the age of 98. See: https://www.facebook.com/USTAColorado/photos/a.373100369408042.103755.165295046855243/1226993777352026/?type=3&theater Normally Facebook wouldn't be a reliable source, but given there are no other notices of his death on the web and the page is linked to the official organization, is there a consensus that we could have an exception in this case? Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally for a facebook source you would need their verified personal page, rather than a third party. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I agree that would normally be the case. However, the same Facebook page is linked from the organization's website here: http://www.colorado.usta.com/cta/about_us/about_us_landing_page/?intloc=headernav Thoughts? --Jkaharper (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just off the top of my head, I'd say that the official website linking to it as the apparently official Facebook page is enough. I'm not going to argue the case if anyone disagrees, but that seems pretty clear cut to me. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I had a look at the Colorado page earlier and didnt spot that (I think I was bypassing the main page) so concur with Mjolnir - that works for me. It will probably also show up on the main colorado USTA news section soon enough anyway, which would be a better link to replace the facebook one with then. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Reliable for the time being. We can replace the Facebook reference once it is published in a RS. Meatsgains (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Review of William Benemann, Men in Eden: William Drummond Stewart and Same-Sex Desire in the Rocky Mountain Fur Trade.
Is being presented as a reliable source that historical figures were overtly homosexual.
 * An interesting life, yes; and colorful; but worthy of a 300-page biography, so admirably and painstakingly researched in all its available details, given that Stewart was historically only a minor figure and his few efforts as a “spectacularly ungifted” (36) author of (semi-autobiographical) fiction are risible in terms of their literary value? Not really: the reader soon realizes that the true value of Stewart, beyond an example of historical queerness rescued from the misrepresentations of earlier prudish biographers and a thematic impetus for many of Alfred Jacob Miller’s paintings, is serving as a thematic kingpin for Benemann’s lush, vivid overture of that part of 19th-century America that was still deliciously free and wild—and gay. Following the line of inquiry set in his award-winning 2006 book, Male-Male Intimacy in Early America: Beyond Romantic Friendships, the author-researcher provides a fascinating and detailed set of vistas where homosexual desire was enabled, from New York’s Battery Park (where young Stewart’s boat first landed) to the influx of eager young “counter-jumpers” and such dandies manning the urban commercial boom of America’s East Coast, to the gender-bender performativity necessitated by the male-only trapper camp life, including the role of Native American gender models like the berdashes that introduced to whites the idea of a socially-acceptable queerness. Readers, therefore, should not go into this book expecting a “straight” biography, lest they become frustrated by Benemann’s Melvillean lengthy detours into other lifestyles, historical vistas, or lives of other gay couples in America; as the author himself concludes, the center of the story is not Stewart, but the Rockies: “Stewart’s role in the story of the Rocky Mountains in the early nineteenth century is insignificant when compared to that of William Ashley, William Sublette, Jim Bridger, or Jedediah Smith [celebrities peppering the narrative along with Kit Carson and Jean-Baptiste Charbonneau], yet his story is important because so very little is known about what life was like in America for homosexuals during this period” (303-04).

Does not appear to me to be a reliable source for stating that any "minor figure" was such a notable homosexual.

is an edit by the self-described writer of that book, using his own book as the source for the interesting material.

The query is whether the book by Mr. Benemann is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards? It was published by a university press, but I find no reviews in mainstream media (no mentions at all in NYT, for example) other than the one cited, which appears to be quite dubious of the details about people it states are "minor figures". I posit that a book review of a book is not a reliable source for any claims of fact in any article.

Benemann is a major source for William Drummond Stewart,    and the same historian is used for William North for the claim: "The historian William Benemann believes that North was romantically involved with Steuben and another male companion, Captain Benjamin Walker.[1] However, based on the limited historical record, Benemann wrote that "it is impossible to prove the nature of the relationships."[2]", Benjamin Walker (New York) "Historian William Benemann wrote "Steuben was also attracted to his 'angel' Benjamin Walker, but while Walker held the Baron in high esteem, he does not appear to have been sexually interested." Benemann also wrote, "Walker had no scruples about exploiting the Baron's sexual interest although he had no intention of reciprocating."[2]",  Alfred d'Orsay "William Benemann in his book "Men of Paradise" is of the conclusion that there is evidence of a sexual relation between Alfred and both The Earl and the Countess", Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben "It is here he met his reputed future lover, Captain Benjamin Walker. Upon meeting Walker for the first time he exclaimed "If I had seen an angel from Heaven I should not have more rejoiced." Within weeks, Walker was Steuben's aide-de-camp.[14]",   and so on.   All uses are attributed to that single author, and all involved claims of homosexuality not found in any other sources.

The reviews all note Benemann's assertion of homosexuality for many figures for whom he is the only source of such a claim. Where such a source is not backed by any other sources, is reliance on this person of undue weight in so many biographies?

Mr. Benemann is listed as an "archivist" by profession, and I find no other academic credentials for that person. "Law-library archivist by vocation, independent historical scholar by avocation."

I suggest that while Benemann's work has won a Stonewall Book Award nonfiction selection, that is insufficient under WP:RS to rely so extensively on a single author for claims of fact. What is needed is additional authors making independent claims, as otherwise this seems to give great weight to one author's surmise out of many hundreds of biographies not making such surmise. Collect (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow. Still relentlessly stalking my edits. Sad. Well, everyone needs a hobby, but this is looking like a vendetta.
 * "I find no reviews in mainstream media"
 * You're not very good at search are you. However, the ones in peer-reviewed academic journals, including I note - Journal of American History/Western Historical Quarterly/Journal of Scottish Historical Studies/Pacific Historical Review, etc are far more important. None of them appeared to have issue with the author's conclusions after his assessment of the evidence. Nor with his credentials. Engleham (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I came here because an author cited his own work in an article. The author has no academic credentials, and his opinions are at odds with the majority of other biographers of the person. Collect (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, then you came to the wrong place. WP:COIN is elsewhere. Assuming that you are talking about User:William Benemann, he has not inserted the source in any article, he merely corrected statements already sourced to his book in one single article. In my opinion, it's very good if the foremost expert on that source fixes our usage of it, and we should thank him for it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec)You (Collect) are a bit unclear - is the review used as a source, or the reviewed book? Assuming the later: the University of Nebraska Press is a university press with a strong program in Western American history. The NYT rarely if ever reviews specialised academic texts - I'd be surprised if they ever reviewed the Handbook of Automated Reasoning, a cornerstone of my field. Such a requirement would invalidate most of what are usually considered our best sources. The reviews you link to are both positive. The books has, so far, two references in Google Scholar - the one I can see is an academic journal paper that treats it as factual. I see no particular reason not to accept the book. As for other biographies: Do you know of any that disagree with Benemann, or are they just silent on the topic? It's not really surprising that the question was not raised by many biographers until the very recent past - Don't ask, don't tell was instituted as a major step forward in 1994, and only repealed 6 years ago. And this paper seems to agree that Steward was homosexual, so at least that claim seems to have some support. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The book was added as a source by the author of the book who has no academic credentials. His opinions do not correspond with the great majority of other biographers.  The review states the author holds the opinions, but is not a source for the opinions otherwise.  I suggest that a second independent source would be a wise idea here, as the single source by a person with no training in the field may be problematic.  With regard to the terms used about Frederick the Great, for example, the author's opinions are at variance with many other authors.  Collect (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:COI is independent of WP:RS. And somehow "I cannot find academic credentials" seems to have morphed into "has no academic credentials". What qualification do you think an Archivist at a major law school needs? Moreover, the book is vetted by the publisher, especially in the case of a university press. I took a look at the book, and it does have an impressive collection of sources and footnotes - it looks impeccably researched. I have not read the full book, so I don't know what Benemann writes about Frederik the Great. However, that Frederik was predominantly gay is largely uncontroversial - de:Friedrich_II._(Preußen) has three sources, and Frederick_the_Great cites 5 (none of them Benemann). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The law school states only that he is an "archivist", and assigns no degrees to him at all. To me, that suggests his work was done as a hbby and not as a professional endeavor as such. Collect (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that the paper cited above is based on Benemann. That's essentially a circular form of support. Anmccaff (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not "based on Benemann", it cites Benemann and many others. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No - it says essentially "this is what Benemann says" and makes clear that Benemann's style is
 * ... given that Stewart was historically only a minor figure and his few efforts as a “spectacularly ungifted” (36) author of (semi-autobiographical) fiction are risible in terms of their literary value? Not really: the reader soon realizes that the true value of Stewart, beyond an example of historical queerness rescued from the misrepresentations of earlier prudish biographers and a thematic impetus for many of Alfred Jacob Miller’s paintings, is serving as a thematic kingpin for Benemann’s lush, vivid overture of that part of 19th-century America that was still deliciously free and wild—and gay. 
 * Which suggests that the reviewer finds Benemann's style to be more aimed at the last part than the first. Collect (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think we are talking about the same source at the moment. And I don't see how your personal speculation is relevant. Anyways, I've given my opinion. I've seen nothing so far that changes or even challenges it. It's a well-received book by an academic publisher. It is extensively and carefully footnoted, with a massive list of sources. As far as I have checked the book, it does not conflict with other well-received sources.  --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Collect appears to labour under the delusion there is a recognised formal process for qualification as an historian. There isn't. There's an informal process, whereby a person gains an academic grounding in research and methodologies. However, there are many acclaimed historians who lack any such academic qualifications. Work accepted and published by academic presses, which is peer-reviewed prior to publication, indicates the writer is recognised academically as an historian. While republished in a popular edition, Benemann's study was originally published by the University of Nebraska Press. So you may want to take up the issue with them. And your continuing objections to gay history with all the other academic presses as well! Lotsa luck. Engleham (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delusion that a person who is an historian should actually have academic credentials in History? That a person who writes books on medicine should actually have had courses in medicine?   Sorry - the issue is whether such a person should use his own book as a single source about anyone in a biography.    Benemann is a "law school archivist".  His book is usable for his opinions - but is insufficient to be a single source for claims not made by academic historians who at least have a B.A.  Collect (talk) 13:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The review of the book is a RS for the book. The book is a RS on the subject of the book.  The book itself may (or may not) be notable, depending on the notice it has earned, and perhaps that is not much.  The author of the book is completely ineligible to edit the Wiki article on the book <S>or the subject, given that the article cites the book and may help to sell copies -- or discourage sales.  <span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 1px #88ff88, -1px -1px 1px #8888ff;text-weight:light">Grammar's Li'l Helper  Talk 01:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that its a bad idea for an author to edit an article on one of his own books. However, the author of an academic book is typically a highly qualified expert on the topic of that book, and he is very much invited to edit in his or her area of expertise. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. <span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 1px #88ff88, -1px -1px 1px #8888ff;text-weight:light">Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 01:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Scholar.google.com  shows almost no scholarly cites for Benemann's works. is Benemann citing Benemann for his own opinions, it seems.
 * "When Richard Godbeer reads aloud the effusive love letters that men sent to other men in eighteenth-century America, his students wonder if the men were "queer." In this deeply researched and elegantly written book, Godbeer answers with an unemphatic No."
 * "Yet there is little documentation that unrelated men who felt no emotional intimacy ever shared beds on anything but a temporary basis, and most of what we know about the sleeping arrangements in American inns comes from the writings of European travelers who again and again expressed disgust and outrage at the very idea that they were expected to share a bed with a strange man."

Which show apparently a complete lack of familiarity of Henry Mayhew's works on life in Victorian London. (many references) inns having men, women and children sharing a single bed. In London. Which did not mean the men were gay. Collect (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Your OR straw man has more holes than than a Swiss cheese. First, 18th century is about a century from "Victorian London". Second, lower-class families sharing a private bed (which, by the way still happened a lot later than Victorian times in Europe, and certainly still does in poorer parts of the world today) is very different from upper class European travellers (and European travellers in America in the 18th century would be predominantly upper class) sharing beds with total strangers in public houses. If you want to set your own OR against a book published by a university press, I'd suggest you first get it published by a reliable publisher yourself. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Mayhew is not "original research" on my part. The Oxford Encyclopedia of American Social History makes the same point.   ditto.   Beds were a luxury on the American frontier.     Sharing beds became uncommon in the twentieth century.  Routledge Travelers were accustomed to sharing beds.   How many more do you need to accept that men sharing a bed while travelling was not associated with homosexuality?,  on nd on and on.   So much for any cavlier dismissal of Mayhew as being my "original research." Collect (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not dismissing Mayhew, nor the claim that people shared beds, not the claim that people share beds without being sexually involved one way or the other. What I'm dismissing is your claim that all that somehow adds up to Benemann not being reliable, when none of that conflicts with his text, nor, to a large degree, is even relevant to this discussion. Have you even consciously read the quote you yourself picked from Benemann? Anyways, I think this has gone on far enough. I've made my point. If you think Benemann is wrong, write an academic paper and get it published. If you think he is unreliable, find someone reliable who says so - not someone who says things that in your personal original interpretation seem to you personally to conflict with Benemann. I think we all understand that you don't like the source, but that does not make it unreliable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not for me or you to "know" that Benemann is right or wrong. I suggest that he is, on his own, an insufficient source where he makes claims not made by others skilled in the field.  I particularly note his emphasis on sharing beds to indicate that 40%+ of men on the frontier were homosexual  (in fact, he appears to assign homosexuality to almost every male on the frontier, as well as to male American Indians in general), and that a Scot who had kilts (fancy dress) was homosexual  may be quite overstating any reasonable positions as stated by most historians.  I note that "sharing beds" was not considered evidence of homosexuality in that period, and that, as a result, we should ask for additional sources before giving such exposure on Wikipedia to a clearly minority view as though it were undisputed fact.   presents a figure of 40,000 known homosexuals in Paris in the 1780s - which would verge on 15% of all grown men there being known homosexuals (population of Paris then totally 600,000 to 650,000, or 325,000 total males of all ages, or 200,000 to 240,000 being over 16). Collect (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is my opinion - in short I agree with everybody. Collect, the book itself is an RS as we define it. Published academically etc etc. There is no reason to exclude the material sourced to the book on reliability grounds alone. On the other hand - this is clearly fringe/unverifiable theory that does not have any sort of wide academic consensus behind it. So it should be treated as such - directly attribute to Benemann and made clear there is not wide acceptance. If there is consensus to include it in the article, the lead is entirely inappropriate and it should be restricted to a brief summary in the prose. Thats 'if'. There is a good argument (which is consistant with how wikipedia deals with new stuff like this) that mentioning it at all absent at least some wider recognition (and thats recognition by peers, not book reviews) would be undue (there is also the problem that when include fringe stuff like this, you spend more time pointing out its not accepted than it deserves). While BLP doesnt apply (as the subject is very much dead) we dont give prominance in biographies at all to single-source claims on controversial material. Alive or dead. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup help please
Special:Linksearch/*.beforeitsnews.com shows many articles using Before It's News as a source. Obviously this is an abject failure of WP:RS and it's not a surprise that some of the claims sourced there are paranoid conspiracist bullshit. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there a way to show in live articles only? A lot of those links appear to be discussions, archives etc. Or is that part of the problem? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Used to was, but they removed that. It would be good to get it back. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You can do a regular site search for "beforeitsnews.com". It's not likely to appear in article content except as a source. Rhoark (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * User MER-C recently pointed me to their nice external tool with additional features. [ https://wikipediatools.appspot.com/linksearch.jsp?radio=on&wiki=en.wikipedia.org&link=beforeitsnews.com&https=1&ns=0 This search] is limited to mainspace and looks for both HTTP and HTTPS. GermanJoe (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ha, its being used to source some info on the 9/11 conspiracy pages about David Icke touting his theories. Is a user-generated conspiracy site reliable for basic statements about someone who thinks the world is being run by Reptilians - on an article about conspiracy theories? Its unreliable, but is it reliably unreliable in this case? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The first use I found in an article is in Tim Clemente, where it claims The Guardian is their source, which in turn is sourced to a CNN transcript. So I think Only in death makes a good point here. But yeah, this looks like a job of work, and I agree it should be done. Any site claiming that [ http://beforeitsnews.com/health/2016/08/zombie-radiation-fukushimas-poisonous-fallout-eating-entire-chunks-of-peoples-brains-away-reaching-california-coast-2657760.html we're in the early stages of a zombie apocalypse] is pretty much unreliable by definition. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I found it masquerding as NBC in a couple of places. Looks like deliberately obfuscation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's safe to say the site is reliably unreliable. That being said, for certain claims, it's not necessarily reliably wrong. After all, conspiracy theories need to start with a nugget of truth, even if that truth is "Some wacko said something wacko." MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. just posted a new section to the FTN, and guess what the first source in that article is...  MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See thats what I mean. Its being used in completely fringe loon stuff to report on what fringe loons are doing. Which is what I would expect that sort of website to cover... Like the way I expect the Daily Mail to cover what celebrities are wearing... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I found it following this thread. Rhoark (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Its also being used as a primary source on a few writer's BLPs who are affliated with the site. From what I can tell they are non-notable and should be AFD'd, if not done by when I have more time later I will get to it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

New blacklist functionality
In case you didn't know (which I didn't, even as a former blacklist regular), Mediawiki talk:Spam-blacklist now includes the ability to add sites to a reference revert list, so attempts to use a questionable source in a citation will be auto-reverted. Guy (Help!) 16:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think beforeitsnews.com should definitely be on that list. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh dear Christ this is a good thing! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Reliability of psychohistorians
How mainstream is the theories of Psychohistory? How reliable are writings of psychohistorians on the matters of history? Эйхер (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

After a few minutes on Google I don't see any sign of anything that I'd regard as academically rigorous. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Do such claims, in turn, represent mainstream perception of Psychohistory? Эйхер (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems oversimplified and concentrates on the more amusingly batty ideas, but I'd guess that it does indeed represent mainstream perception of Psychohistory. In short, I'd regard psychohistorians are reliable on their own ideas but not on external reality. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I. e. it's WP:FRINGE, isn't it? Эйхер (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Lifton and Gay are certainly respectable; this isn't a fringe disciple so much as one with broad, ill-defined overlap with fringe ideas. Anmccaff (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd also add that the wiki articles seem centered on Lloyd de Mause, and de Mause is, IMO, quite fringy. Anmccaff (talk) 07:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * But why then a special report, prepared by a governmental scientific body ostensibly for the purposes of developing governmental policies, cite de Mause as an authority on a children-related history topic? The report is used here. Эйхер (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is one more seemingly serious work citing de Mause in the very beginning. Эйхер (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Psychohistory and DeMause are decidedly fringe, both in history, anthropology and psychology. Given that he believes that child abuse is the most important factor in human development and history - he may have some clout specifically in the field of child abuse studies - I would not recommend citing him outside of that specific context. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And inside that Specific context? Эйхер (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * More specifically, are those parts of this report that cite de Mause for the reference (and, in my opinion, distort even his questionable view) are a reliable source for the statements in the end of this paragraph, given the context, in which these statements are put? Эйхер (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the report is a sufficiently reliable source for those specific statements, which do not strike me as particularly controversial. Since those are more about generl cultural history and not dependent on deMause's specific views I think they are ok.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Individual statements, perhaps, are not particularly controversial. But I suspect, that they are misleading in relation to the context. Эйхер (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * But then it is not really about reliability (of the report, or of deMause) but about its usefulness in the specific context. To me this sounds like something that is better solved through discussoin at the talkpage, I dont think the sentences can be rejected on grounds of demause's (un)reliability - since it is not citing deMause but the report, and since it is not sounidng the more problematic aspects of demause's work.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is about reliability of the report. In the report these statements are used in the same (or at least similar) context as in the article. The problem is that it appears to me that the authors of the report tend to construe these facts along the lines of de Mause's "childhood-hystory-is-a-nightmare" concept but in a more awkward way. Эйхер (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Just a note: Governments have passed legislation and taken action on the advice of phrenologists, eugenicists, anti-vaxxers, creationists, conspiracy theorists and flat-earthers. A government body taking something seriously, whether that government be of a superpower, a developed nation or a third-world nation, does not, in any way lend credence to it. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example of a recent nation-wide legislation made on advice of, say, creationists? Эйхер (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act, passed by the Louisiana legislature in the early 1980's. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not nation-wide, and, given the title, is more likely to be made rather in consideration of rights of than on advice. But it's, of course, off topic. I understand Your point. But the questioned report is made not only for governmental purpose but by a government-funded scientific body . I believe, even the said state of Louisiana does not support a creationist institution with taxpayer's money. That somewhat perplexes me. Эйхер (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * tl;dr: This particular argument of yours is extremely flawed, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you're wrong, just that you may want to pursue a different tact.
 * Long version: You offered up the report as evidence of the veracity of this subject, reasoning that if a government funded scientific body took it serious, that lends credence. The example I provided illustrated my counter argument (that your argument was, essentially a No true Scotsman fallacy). I understand that it didn't meet the specific criteria you asked for, but it didn't need to in order to illustrate my point. I'm not opining on whether this is a valid theory or not, I'm just pointing out that your position is not well-served by that particular line of reasoning, as it's likely to be quickly refuted by others.
 * And yes, there are pseudoscientific organizations who are primarily funded by the government. The Discovery institute (a creationist think tank) has a number of local government contracts to analyze traffic patterns and act as an intermediary between municipalities in streamlining the transportation infrastructure. Does that have anything to do with creationism? Not on the surface, though their position on intelligent design is one that relies heavily on the study and analysis of systems, which is extremely closely related in scope (systems sciences) to their traffic work. It's worth noting that their study of systems science is necessarily flawed in order to support their views on intelligent design, and those flaws would almost certainly influence their traffic work unless the two divisions are kept strictly apart. In truth, there are several different ways you could use your argument, and I could respond to each of them with an example of pseudoscience being used in a role similar enough to refute the argument. It's not anything wrong with you or even your overall position, just flaws in that particular argument.
 * In all honestly, I'm not trying to argue with you so much as I am trying to 'referee' this discussion. (I'm not an admin, just a disinterested third party.) In short, my arguing against you thus far is more a form of "that's not gonna work, I'd suggest you try a different tact," advice than a ideological opposition to your position. Indeed, I can see a lot of utility to a psychologically-based study of history (and I appreciate the Asimov connection, though I'm aware it's really not the same thing). Whether this field is pseudoscientific or not really depends on the approach practitioners have taken, and I know little or nothing about that approach. Therefore, I have no dog in this fight.
 * Sorry for the long post. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  01:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is that the governmental support does not signify scientific reliability. Эйхер (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It's better to establish reliability by pointing to its use by independent scholars. For example, if you can find some reputable historians who cite psychohistory papers, that would be a better line of debate. If you find enough, then by definition (as far as Wikipedia is concerned), your job is done. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I rather suspect unreliability. Эйхер (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Anyone other than Hari Seldon, I'm not buying it. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Joking aside, a look at Identity's architect : a biography of Erik H. Erikson would give a useful picture of the issues, and the split btween more doctrinaire (which, in this case, IMO, is often a code word for "loopy") ideas and the GUPH. Anmccaff (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In short, I would like to know your opinion on whether the "Childhood-was-a-sheer-nightmare-before-XIX-century" viewpoint is mainstream. And more specifically, whether it is a mainstream scientific viewpoint that "bloody christian never do bother about children's well-being because their bloody religion hates children in general" Эйхер (talk) 07:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

globalresearch.ca


This appears to be an activist website with a tendency to conspiracist ideation. It is used as a source in a large number of articles, including BLPs, with the cited sources often being polemical. I don't at first glance see any sign of proper editorial oversight or fact-checking. I suspect this is another "Before It;s News". What does t'committee think? Guy (Help!) 21:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Non-peer-reviewed academic papers
Is an academic dissertation (published independently, not in a peer-reviewed journal or anything) considered a reliable source? The source that provoked this question is this “dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy” from the University of Helsinki. It wasn’t self-published, but to me it feels a step removed from using some student’s test answers as a source for the tested subject. Or is that just me? Could just be me. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * What proposition is it cited for? An institutionally-published Ph.D thesis can probably be cited for some things but not for others. Neutralitytalk 02:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It’s actually published by a law firm (Published by Turre Publishing, a division of Turre Legal Ltd.), not the university. But it was printed in the university, if that matters. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is tenable only if the dissertation has been sufficiently cited by other academics in the field as having an impact, much as we evaluate journal papers by their citations and impact. Also it doesn't really matter who ran the printing press; rather that the dissertation (presumably) was vetted through the university's academic regulations. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! How would one go about checking whether it’s been sufficiently cited? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar does an OK-ish job with things like this. See here. GS says 72 cites, which even given the limitations of GS implies that it's made a reasonable though not groundbreaking impact. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The relevant guideline is WP:SCHOLARSHIP. PhD theses are generally regarded as reliable sources. StAnselm (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I missed that section! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You probably missed it because it doesn't exactly say what StAnselm claimed. WP:SCHOLARSHIP makes clear that Ph.D. theses are dubious sources&mdash;not "generally reliable" ones&mdash;and warns that "care should be exercised" in their use. Boris is entirely correct: the guideline emphasizes that if we cite theses, we should favor theses that "have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties". Do any of these apply to the thesis in question? MastCell Talk 03:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As shock said, it has 72 cites in Google scholar. I would accept it as a reliable source but like all reliable sources that depends on what it is used for.  TFD (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Doctoral theses which have been accepted by a known institution have been "vetted" by "third parties." If they are cited by others, that makes them usable on Wikipedia, as it is easier to get an "article" cited by many others than to have a thesis cited by many others. At the 72 cite level, the thesis appears to be "noted". Cavils here appear ill-placed. Collect (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * is correct. A Doctoral thesis generally has to be defended against criticism by a panel of experts. This is why they're useful to us. The reason we are cautious about using them is that they are generally required to be novel and to make a contribution to the field; two things that mean the contents, by definition, do not represent scholarly consensus. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In such a case, the source is at least as trustworthy as a source vetted by a journalistic editor. Peer review is a higher standard of sourcing that is available in academic contexts, but that doesn't mean academic sources are only acceptable if peer-reviewed. We can certainly still use academic sources that are only as verifiable as a typical news article or general press non-fiction. Coursework at a lower level than a final dissertation is not sufficiently vetted. Rhoark (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd have agreed, but then Judith Wilyman was awarded a PhD for a fantastical rant about the global conspiracy to push vaccines because Big Pharma wake up sheeple. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This begs further research. Let me just—oh, that was quick. Hm. Yeah, I think we need higher standards than “accepted by a university.” —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Most journal articles present novel arguments and are intended to make a novel contribution. That is why they are written and published.  But that does not diminish their reliability.  Good articles accurately present all the relevant facts and fairly describe the scholarly consensus that they might argue against.  TFD (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyway, as far as this initial question goes, the University of Helsinki certainly qualifies as a "known institution". StAnselm (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:SCHOLARSHIP is pretty clear that dissertations generally aren't reliable. We might give slightly more credence to a PHD dissertation over a Master's thesis, but in both cases, they do not undergo true peer-review. Both are usually reviewed by a student's committee, but in many cases the advisor has the final say. Even with the committee, there can be a vested interest to get the student out with their degree as long as the work is good enough. It's actually a relatively common occurrence to have dissertation chapters submitted to journals rejected due to quality issues (had a few of these review requests cross my desk in the last months). This is all why we generally consider peer-review at a journal the minimum standard in cases like this. If a dissertation's work has not been published in a journal yet, that's a red flag. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it, in many disciplines (e.g. History and Law) it is not common to publish chapters of Theses in journals. In many countries that do not follow the anglo-saxon publish or perish culture, publishing anything from a thesis is often uncommon.
 * Yes, I prefer peer-reviewed sources over PhD theses; and as an academic reliable source I would frown upon a PhD thesis. On the other hand, as argued above, we do accept newspaper reports as reliable, and those are also not subjected to independent peer review. So in that light I do not think we should write off PhD theses altogether. Arnoutf (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The reliability of a Ph.D. thesis also possibly depends on the country of origin. Here in the UK (and Australia) the thesis will have been examined by the advisor, and usually an external advisor (several in France), who will be experts in their field.  It is, in effect, peer reviewed.  I believe that in some Scandanavian countries a Ph.D. can be obtained by collecting together a series of research publications in which the  candidate has worked, but I am not sure about any peer review process of the thesis itself. DrChrissy (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

A Wikipedia RfA
Is an RfA page a reliable source to support the existence of an RfA?

Please comment at Talk:Justin Knapp.

Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd say WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:CIRCULAR both allow this usage. Rhoark (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Rhoark. I've cited those at the article talk. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

#AskGaryVee
Hey, I was wondering if #AskGaryVee, the You Tube show by Gary Vaynerchuk is usable as a notability giving source. I'm evaluating the sources for Draft:Book in a Box and some of them are problematic because they're primary or sort of squidgy, since they're not really in-depth or in places that don't make for the strongest sourcing.

My inclination is that it's not usable, as a brief look at his article shows that some of his major coverage has been for his wine blogging - which this is decidedly not. A cursory look for coverage about the series doesn't bring up a huge amount either. What's your take? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, does anyone know anything about The School of Greatness? That's another source used in the article and is a podcast. It seems popular, but that's about it - a lot of the sourcing is reliant upon the notability of the person creating it, but I know that notability doesn't make something automatically reliable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The Bookseller and Mixergy
I'd previously thought that The Bookseller would be usable, but this gives off the strong impression that their spotlights can include articles written about them. What's your take on this? It's a little coy on what it does or doesn't offer. I'd like to assume that this site is still usable, but the marketing package page really bothers me. I'll ping on this since he's pretty savvy with book related sourcing and if the place is considered unusable, he'd know.

Then I have Mixergy. It's an interview with the site founder, which is a little better than a random person, but the site doesn't have a whole lot about the editorial process and I'm also aware that a lot of people see interviews as primary. I'm also aware that Max is kind of known for embellishing his stories, so I know that this could impact the reliability of his interviews as well. All of that aside, what's your take on Mixergy? My gut instinct is that it's not usable.

These are both related to Draft:Book in a Box. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian, UK
Is The Guardian considered a reliable source? SW3 5DL (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Usually, yes. What's the context? Guy (Help!) 09:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Guy, I want to use it for a BLP and just wanted to make sure since BLP rules are more strict. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It's a very high quality source, almost always reliable if you're talking about news accounts. Op-eds, editorials, etc. follow the ordinary rules for due-weight, etc. Neutralitytalk 02:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

John Kassir possibly verifying his own birthdate
Our article for Kassir, who is best known as the voice of the Crypt Keeper from the old Tales from the Crypt TV show, has seen a surprisingly contentious dispute over whether or not to include his birthdate. The conversation as it stands is essentially over with one editor feeling like his efforts are being treated too dismissively and consequently throwing a fit, one fit-throwing editor calming down, apologizing, and agreeing that the sources we have for Kassir's date of birth are weak, and one editor, an admin, requesting I come here.

If you're not interested in going down a hell of a rabbit-hole, no hard feelings. Feel free to stop reading.

WP:DOB says we shouldn't include people's birthdates if they haven't been widely published because of identity theft concerns, but it contains what appears to be an exception. DOB says: " Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." See how the second part of that sentence uses the word "sources" without the word "reliable" and its use is independent of the appearance of "reliable sources" in the first part of the sentence? Hold that thought.

This tweet has been retweeted twice, once by a Twitter account belonging to @JohnKassir. That account isn't verified by Twitter but it still contains enough footprints that I believe it's terribly obvious that it's actually him. I'm copying my own collection of evidence from Talk:John Kassir:


 * 1. Twitter has an ironclad policy barring the use of the word "official" in the bios of non-official accounts. This account has the word "official" in its bio.
 * 2. The follower count. If this account were fake, there's no way it would have 4,100 followers. That's the perfect number for someone like Kassir, a well-known performer who you probably wouldn't recognize unless he started doing that voice.
 * 3. The media section contains amateur, low-quality photos, including selfies, of Kassir. These photos don't appear anywhere else online except for his Facebook page.
 * 4. That's not to mention another obvious question. Fake Will Ferrell Twitter accounts, I get. Even a fake Crypt Keeper account, sure. Who the hell's gonna set up a fake John Kassir account, curate it for five-and-a-half years, and include real references to conventions, midnight movie guest appearances, and other such things going on in Kassir's public life? (For what it's worth, I think this is the most obvious tell that this is really Kassir.)

The tweet that @JohnKassir retweeted gave Kassir's date of birth as October 24, 1957, which exactly matches a ton of claims online made by database-ish sources that don't meet WP:RS or DOB standards. I believe the account's retweet establishes both this date's validity and that Kassir doesn't mind this information being disseminated. Of course, a non-verified Twitter account's retweet of another non-verified account doesn't meet RS, but I believe the language at DOB means this information can be included because the standard is lower. When I posted a big ol' wall of text at Kassir's talk, Ponyo still believed the claim should be left out. She says, and I agree, that it's "based on suppositions and WP:SYNTH" but she recommended I come here to firmly establish whether or not the standards for inclusion can be lowered per DOB and, if so, if this stuff is in compliance with these lowered standards. RunnyAmiga (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate RunnyAmiga bringing this here for additional input. As I noted on the article talk page, I'm concerned that using an unverified Twitter account doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BLPSOURCES, though if there is consensus that it can be used in this case then I'm happy to abide by that as well.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And I should add that I know that this is as tenuous and jerry-rigged as anything could be without just falling apart, so if this gets laughed right off this board, I'll happily accept that fate. It's just that, I couldn't go almost a year back into Kassir's Twitter feed (and his Facebook timeline too!) without having anything to show for it, could I? RunnyAmiga (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * IMO it is not in the spirit of WP:BLP to include it. My interpretation of WP:DOB is "where there's doubt, leave it out". Even if it's accurate, what does including his full DOB add to the article/world of knowledge? I don't see any real benefit to including it. —PermStrump  ( talk )  00:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm with Ponyo and Permstrump. If this was a verified twitter account, I'd say go for it, but unverified, with no other sources being all that good? It's not worth it. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  01:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Ballotpedia
It would be nice to finally get some consensus as to the RSibility of Ballotpedia since it's used in so many elections-related articles and I always have a high degree of trepidation citing it; there have been several discussions here that have resulted in no consensus. Is Ballotpedia RS for articles on United States elections?

Survey

 * Generally Reliable for Articles on U.S. Politics and Elections For the following reasons: (a) According to source, it has actual writers and editors, indicating a process of editorial control; don't have strong reason to believe this is fabricated. (b) It is owned by the Lucy Burns Institute which has a physical location and listed registered agent so it can accept legal liability for what it publishes.  (c) A cursory search of Google News indicates has been referenced by unambiguously RS sources within the last few months, including Vice, Denver Post, Business Insider, and Los Angeles Times . LavaBaron (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

UK tabloids again - James Bulger and reliability of a direct quote.
Re this section blanking.

The Daily Mirror is a British tabloid newspaper. It is at the better end of the scale for UK tabloids: the words are short and it's sensationalist and trivial, but it's not an outright fabricator as some are. They chose to scrape a little further down the popular outrage barrel and interviewed a defence lawyer. I don't know if chequebooks were involved, but I doubt if this content would be available from any other source, other than indirectly through this same interview.

Is a UK tabloid, bound by UK laws on libel and reporting (which are onerous), an adequate source for comments from this interview?

I would claim that they are. The comment is relevant and of interest (in a somewhat prurient sense); it warrants inclusion. I do not find it credible that the content, a direct quote, even one used as the headline, would be inaccurately reported in a way that is a problem for our needs (I'm ignoring possible editorial paraphrasing as semantically unimportant). We do not like tabloids, but this is worth having, and it won't be coming from anywhere else. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No surprises that it was who did this, because it contains his favourite edit summary "no tabloids on BLPs please". We've had this debate before and I don't think that the Mirror is as diabolically bad as the Sun or the Daily Mail, which should not be used. Looking at the diff involved, I don't think that it is adding a great deal to the article anyway, but I am not going to support John in his ongoing quest to prove that anything that he considers to be a tabloid must be removed on sight. Does he have any proof that this is wrong or libellous?-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 05:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * So, you agree it is a tabloid, you agree that it adds nothing to the article, you agree that it is "prurient", you are presumably conversant with WP:BLPSOURCES, yet you feel it is worth coming here to moan and complain anyway. Sorry you didn't like the edit summary. I may try for a more arresting one next time if it gets across to the very stupidest just how inappropriate adding this kind of material to a BLP is. Would "remove worthless shit from Wikipedia" do it, do you think? Seriously, if you don't like our BLP policy, why not start an RFC to get rid of it, or go do something else with your time? You could make a fork of Wikipedia which allows red-top sources, and see how that goes. As long as we have this policy, which I strongly agree with, I intend to support it by removing material like this. --John (talk) 06:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * English libel law is draconian but basically protects the very wealthy. The defendant has to prove on balance of probability and for each sentence -that facts (not opinions) are as stated. As convicted criminals, Thomson & Venables would not have been believed anyway but at the solicitor chose his words carefully. He is the world authority on who he has met & no one can prove he had met anyone colder! The solicitor is not a psychiatrist, he has a conflict of interest & his views tell us nothing.  Regards JRPG (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * John, in a question of accuracy in reporting, at least please try to discuss other editors accurately and fairly. I do not "agree that it adds nothing to the article", quite the opposite - "relevant and of interest" is hardly a synonym. I consider the whole article, and the world of "True Crime" schlock horror to be rather prurient, but if we're to cover that as a field, then opinion quotes from those directly involved have their place.
 * Nor have I made any comment on your edit summary. Given some of your recent ones, "jog off, private, the latrines are that way" in response to a required warning that you're at WP:AN/EW, it's not even the worst. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I probably would have removed it under BLPGOSSIP. The source is reliable for what it is saying, it is reporting an interview it had with a subject intimately involved in the case, who had (likely) close contact with one (if not both) defendants. It is the opinion of the interview subject and clearly attributed as such. There is nothing libellous, however it is gossip and adds nothing to the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I have replaced the Mirror soundbite with a similar piece in The Observer and rewritten the prose slightly to match what it says. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Good work Ritchie. Nice to see someone with a clue and the good interests of the encyclopedia at heart. It seems we are in a minority on this thread. --John (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course, John could have looked for a better source himself, but his preferred option is to parrot "no tabloids on BLPs please" while letting other people do the work.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Racism in South Korea and the use of webblogs and opinion pieces
Hello, I hope this is the right place to especially since it could also be placed at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.

1. Sources: 2. Article: Racism in South Korea
 * Biracial Children Accepted, Shunned by Classmates. Asian Correspondent (2009-01-26). Retrieved on 2011-09-30.
 * Biracial Children Accepted, Shunned by Classmates. Asian Correspondent (2009-01-26). Retrieved on 2011-09-30.
 * Biracial Children Accepted, Shunned by Classmates. Asian Correspondent (2009-01-26). Retrieved on 2011-09-30.

3. Content: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism_in_South_Korea&type=revision&diff=735208159&oldid=734967280

The issue is that article mostly lists single incidents that are not really notable to the topic since more general things should be stated.

There is a dispute about the use of webblogs and the notability of an event. More is stated on the Talk:Racism in South Korea and you can see also some minor notes in the "history". It would be nice to get some more opinions since the article is mainly protected by one user. Maybe you can state your opinions on the use of webblogs like AsianCorrespondent and KoreaObserver on an article like this. Also, The article of the Atlanta Black Star is just an opinion piece by a "journalist" without any empirical method. Moreover, there is the issue that there was a bar owner in Seoul who set up a note at his bar that due to Ebola, he would not let in black people. He apologized four days later, said, it was due to his bad English skills and gave out some beer. I find this event highly insignificant for an article like this. It is as notable as a local murder. Maybe a bad comparison, but still, it should not be in this article.

Actually, I have more issues with the article which completely lacks any scientific approach. The article is basically build up on news reports. However, I think news reports are only legitimate for articles on current events, video games, films and persons. However, articles on racism and discrimination should follow sociological research. Moreover, in contrast to the United States, which has been a melting pot from the beginning, South Korea is a homogene state. So, research is apparently also just at a beginning stage, making knowledge based on news papers even more invalid, I think. Furthermore, I think when the article is named "racism in South Korea" it should follow the definition of Racism. Even, if an wikipedia author does evaluate events by herself/himself, it is original research. Nonetheless, the article also has a section Discrimination against North Korean defectors. In my opinion, racism and discrimination are not the same. Therefore, some could argue that this section does not belong in the article.

Conducting an article like "racism in South Korea" is much effort. Basically because it is not a textbook topic like let's say Product Innovation Charter, where you can find a basic theoretical introduction in books and get very specific literature from databases. So, my approach to start an article like this would be to search for international ranking/indexes that follow a scientific approach to get a country comparison. Than someone could look for literature reviews to get a hold of the state of art of and find some more articles on databases like Google Scholar or ScienceDirect. I cannot see how source articles can give any information on such a new, in regards of South Korea, and specific research field. --Christian140 (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Blogs are not reliable sources in general, except for the opinions of their authors, who are sometimes notable enough to have their opinions cited. However, the opinions of even notable commentators cannot trump WP:BLP, and anything approaching "[Named person X] engaged in racism" or "[Named person Y] was subjected to racism" is inappropriate unless it can be attributed to a reliable, fact-checked source, and linking to potentially BLP-violating blogs is also a problem IMO. But I am honestly more concerned with the title of the article: we have redirects from Racism in China and Racism in Japan, which link to Ethnic issues in China and Ethnic issues in Japan, respectively. Racism in Taiwan redirects to a section of Racism in Asia, but that hub article can be focused exclusively on unambiguous racism in the various parts of Asia; having "Racism in [Country]" articles seems like a bad idea -- sorry if I'm missing something. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello and thanks for your comment. The blogs have been removed now, however, there are further issues. I agree with you. The issue about the article title also has been disputed once (Talk:Racism_in_South_Korea). However, the user was blocked because of sockpuppetry, so, no one looked further into it. I actually also realised that there is Ethnic issues in China and Ethnic issues in Japan, but when you have a look on the discussions and the page, you will see the whole article is garbage. The whole discussion became quiet long, so it is difficult to catch up. I raised the issue also on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sociology and User:Permstrump just posted it also there Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard since WikiProject Sociology is not so active. However, I also gave some comment there. The actual discussion is going on on the talk page of the article Talk:Racism_in_South_Korea. Probably also the best talk page to raise an issue on the article title. Like you, other users already supported my concerns on the article. Unfortunately, I have these weeks no time for wikipedia and due to the constant bullying by Spacecowboy420, I have no more energy to argue with someone so unreasonable. --Christian140 (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The user in question was not blocked because of sockpuppetry. They were blocked for 72 hours for edit-warring, and someone added a sockpuppet tag to their userpage that insinuated they were a sockpuppet of an IP, which is an oxymoron (even if they are the same person, it is not sockpuppetry to edit under an IP and then create an account). Additionally, no SPI was opened (or at least no such SPIs like to AmericanExpat's user page), and the user who added the tag was not an admin with the authority to block sockpuppets. Additionally, I think you should refrain from saying on RSN that someone is engaged in "constant bullying". If you think they are bullying you, you should take it to ANI. Do you have anything to add to this? I think no one is without blame in that discussion. Implying that a "troll" has been "banned" when in fact they were blocked (not banned) for abusing multiple accounts (not trolling) in edit summaries is not good. In addition, the discussion was far too short for anyone to be able to say "I have been putting up with this for far too long, and I'm fed up" -- I was involved in two discussions that ran on and on for months and tens of thousands of bytes (and in one case like ten archive pages) on another article, and still was not forgiven for slipping up and swearing a coupla times. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You are right. This is very interesting to know that the user had not been banned. Unfortunately, I have no more time to visit wikipedia more than once or twice a day. I definitely have this issue on my watchlist for later but currently I am too busy. Unfortunately, this issue also let's me heat up, so I guess it is better to get more distance. Let's see if I can do something tomorrow. --Christian140 (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump's false campaign statements
You are invited to participate in Talk:Donald Trump. Prior discussion involved the reliability of the proposed sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Streaming
Dear editors: I came across this article, Dane Elkins which has a lot of sources, but it seems to me that many of them are not independent, published information. Two of the sources are Livestream videos. I know that generally YouTube videos are not considered reliable sources, particularly to demonstrate notability, because anyone can post there; is Livestream a similar situation? Or is it used by professional broadcasters? Should those references be removed from the article? I don't know anything about racquetball, and there is no WikiProject about it; I'll leave it to someone else to decide if winning a lot of junior tournaments makes this person a notable player.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Its a similar situation to youtube - useable as a primary source for the subject where its the subjects livestream, but some secondary organisations also have livestream channels. So it would depend on what is being broadcast and who is doing it. A livestream video from a USA racquetball organisation would probably be useable to show someone competed at a certain event, where they placed etc, but you couldnt use it to demonstrate notability. If the livestream was hosted by a third-party news organisation.... it depends on who published it and exactly what it is supporting. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)