Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 242

The Hill, Fox News, and Daily Caller reliable sources?
Would publications on the following outlets be considered reliable sources?:


 * The Hill (newspaper)
 * The Daily Caller
 * Fox News

I've come across some info I'd like to include in the National Council of Resistance of Iran article and just want to make sure these are valid sources. Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The Daily Caller, probably not, except for documenting what certain right-wing figures say. I would use Fox and The Hill with inline attribution, as they are biased, but rarely deceptive, sources in their news reporting. "According to a 2017 Fox News report..." And note that opinion pieces are never sufficient to establish facts, unless they are written by a scholar in the area being addressed.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The Daily Caller was judged reliable at the most recent discussion. w umbolo   ^^^  18:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * w umbolo, reading through that thread, I don't see any consensus about Daily Caller, just one random editor trying to declare an authoritative judgement, but not many people agreeing with him.GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a blatant lie. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't checked others but FOX is reliable as major WP:NEWSORG as we don't do usually inline attribution for BBC the same goes for FOX.--Shrike (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The Daily Caller has an ongoing association with known fabricator James O'Keefe.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The Daily Caller is not reliable at all. DC regularly publishes false, misleading and poorly research stories. It does not have a reputation for fact-checking, and should not be cited for factual statements. The stories it reports are no indication of due weight. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I haven't formed a clear enough opinion of The Hill to opine. Fox News is ok for some things, sure. I don't think anybody would give a blanket "yes it's reliable" to any of the major news outlets, though; context matters. Daily Caller, however, is unreliable for statements of facts. The Daily Caller was judged reliable at the most recent discussion is inaccurate. Daily Caller comes up regularly here. A thread from 2013 is not the most recent discussion. That's also the most favorable outcome I've seen regarding the Daily Caller of all the times it has come up. Finally, even in that most favorable outcome, it doesn't say "judged reliable". The summary at the top says "At best, it's reliable but should be avoided in favor of more neutral media whenever possible". That's pretty far from "judged reliable" full stop. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, The Hill and Fox News are considered reliable. I'm not sure about the Daily Caller.  Also, as Rhododendrites points out, reliability depends on context.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The Daily Caller is certainly not reliable or usable for statements of fact. Fox and the Hill are usually usable for straight-news reporting, but note that the Hills various "contributor blogs" are opinions and are not usable except with in-text attribution (much like Forbess contributor blogs). Neutralitytalk
 * In the case of Fox News... a lot depends on which program we are talking about. Some are traditional news reports (the shows anchored by Shepard Smith, Bret Bair, or Chris Wallace, for example) very reliable (there is some bias in choosing what news they report on... not how they report it. They do neutrally report the news). Then there are the news analysis and commentary shows... Outnumbered, the Five, Sean Hanity.  These (like all analysis and commentary, in any news outlet) needs to be presented as being opinion and attributed as such.  A few shows blur the line between reporting and analysis - but if you follow a basic “when in doubt, attribute” self-policy you won’t go wrong.  The same, of course, goes for CNN, MSNBC, BBC, The Wall Street Jounal, The Times (and the NYT).  Basic reporting is reliable... but attribute anything that gets into analysis, commentary and opinion. Blueboar (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The Daily Caller in imho completely unusable as source for WP aside from the possible rare exception as a primary source to document some text being written in the daily caller. For the other two it depends on the context, i.e. what WP content is being used with what source from Fox or The Hill. With regard to Fox however I disagree a bit with some of the framing above. While it is true that Fox is mainstream news (in the US) and the same general guidelines apply as with other (mainstream) news organizations, Fox is an outlier nevertheless and differs somewhat from other mainstream news organisation like for instance the BBC. In fact I see it much closer to RT than to the BBC. Whereas better mainstream news on average tend to bring on renowned academics or otherwise distinguished experts, Fox often tends to bring on a clown parade of "pundits".--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Is it okay to use the Daily Mail as a source for a benign, non-political article?
Just sayin'. Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 15:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Why would yo not use a better source? What does it say that is not said somewhere better?Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ^^Agree. And the Mail is rarely benign - it can make a malignant mess out of any subject you care to name and often does. - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also also its the only source I can see even talking about this puzzle type, making me speculate its legitimacy. --M asem (t) 15:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Unreliable means we cannot assume that anything it publishes is accurate. TFD (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, there is a high likelihood that anything published in The Daily Mail is plagiarism.[] Never use The Daily Mail for a source on anything, ever. No exceptions. If it isn't in any other source they made it up. If it is in another source use that other source instead. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't have a never ever policy for the Daily Mail but an avoidance policy (which allows for occasional exceptions).--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

So has anyone found any other source for this?Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Living Dinosaur
Major issues with synthesis and pseudoscience over at living dinosaur that could use more eyes. Page seems to be a pile of WP:SYNTH consisting of the usual crackpottery one can expect from cryptozoology circles (in this aligned with Young Earth creationism, as happens frequently with the pseudoscience). See talk page. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Blogs discussing Ranked Choice Voting
Seeking others' input regarding two blogs being held out as RS This dispute arose at Burlington mayoral election, 2009 as follows - Attempts at other discussion Does the board believe the cited sources are WP:RS in this context? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * leastevil blog
 * bolson blog
 * Bold edit .... I don't know when these two blogs were added to the article
 * Revert 1 ..... I reverted them as self-published non-RS blogs
 * Non-discussed re-Revert (Non-AGF Edit summary "revert blanking of references")
 * I started this Thread at talk page for, citing our policy on edit warring, but more particularly for this board's purposes, I also cited our poilicy on self-published sources. I suggested the other ed undo their re-revert to seek consensus on the use of these self-published sources.
 * In reply the other user tosses a link to WP:TENDENTIOUS at me.
 * There are a bunch of strong sources there; there is no need for these blogs. weird. Jytdog (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking time to look Jytdog, that's what I thought also. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC on use of Mark Paul as source
Please see Talk:Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust/Archive 4 regarding a source recently discussed here in Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 241 - which may interest this board.Icewhiz (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Macleans
Per wp:RSOPINION, can the following source be used if I attribute the statement to Therese Shechter? Thylacoop5 (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes and no... If you attribute, then the article is essentially stating: Therese Shechter wrote “X” in an article appearing on the Macleans website). That statement is reliably verified (she did indeed write X in Macleans).
 * HOWEVER reliability is not the only policy that determines whether a statement is acceptable or appropriate. We also have to look at DUE WEIGHT (a facet of our NPOV policy).  Do we, by even mentioning what Schecter says, give her opinion undue weight?  That depends on who Schecter is (reputation), and whether her opinion is worth mentioning (relevance).
 * I don’t know the topic well enough to answer that. My point is that Passing WP:reliability is only the first of many steps in determining if something should appear in an article. Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Amartya Sen book review
Is used to aver that China was "(informally) part of the British Empire" in the 19th century. The review itself makes no such claim, nor does the review compare "communism" and "capitalism" other than to say Tariq Ali calls this a "Black Book of liberal capitalism." In addition, the lengthy quote seems aimed at presenting opinion as direct fact, and to verge on excessive length of a copyright article. Is the review a "reliable source" for the claims made, ought the review be noted as editorial in nature, should Tariq Ali be described here as a supporter of the Bolivarian Revolution etc., and is the entire topic covered in a fully neutral manner using his review. Mass killings under Communist regimes Thanks. Collect (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous on a bunch of levels. Not OK. And on the narrow question, no, this source is not reliable for the content, as it doesn't support it. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I completely understand the point (I mean was the question about Davis or Sen's interpretation), but here is a quote from a review on Davis's book (Geoff Mann (2003) Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World, by Mike Davis New York: Verso, 2001, Rethinking Marxism, 15:2, 295-297, DOI: 10.1080/0893569032000113587):


 * "''For Davis, colonial famine in the late nineteenth century was the result not of the failure of political systems,but of their effectiveness: “drought was consciously made into famine by thedecisions taken in palaces of rajas and viceroys”. The contemporary “Third World” is the miraculously standing remnant of regions that were meticulously devastated by a London-centered program of imperial economic order and colonial disempowerment that “aggressively exploited” environmental calamity. The argument is extremely convincing. Late Victorian Holocaustsis a “political ecology of famine”, an examination of the human/environment dialectic that generates mass starvation. It presents two integrated histories. The first is an analysis of a series of catastrophic environmental disturbances (drought and flood) in the non-Western world that were the context for between 31 and 60 million deaths in India, China, and Brazil alone between 1876 and 1902. The second is a detailed narrative of the history and state of scientific knowledge of the source of these environmental disturbances: the large-scale climate events known as El Niño/Southern Oscillation, or ENSO. Recent earth science research has demonstrated that the environmental instability that contributed to these famines was associated with ENSO. Davis’s argument is thus conjunctural: planned international market penetration and the deliberate disassembly of systems of local and national economic autonomy, in combination with ENSO-driven drought and flood, created what we now know as the “third world.” For example, in India, perhaps the central case in the book, he chronicles the terrible toll of severe droughts-made-famines by British policies of export orientation, free-market “price famines,” and a battery of regressive imperial taxes on peasant producers. Extended examinations of Brazil and China reveal similar stories. It is this “sinister combination” that makes this quarter century a “radical point of division in the experience of humanity”.


 * "The political environmental nexus with which he is concerned is only recently receiving the attention it merits, and an understanding of the interpenetration of nature and political economy that constitutes the “secret history” of famine is a crucial contribution to the analysis of the global spread of capitalism."


 * In addition, the book was cited almost two thousands times according to google scholar.
 * My conclusion is that if the Geoff Mann's review is a reliable source for Davis, then Davis is a reliable source for the claim that Britain was responsible for late 19 century famines, including the famine in China.
 * Hope it was helpful. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Great - China was part of the British Empire, and the UK was responsible for its famines. Find a real source for that claim - please. Collect (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for providing a long quote (I did that to avoid taking the statement out of context). However, just in case if you have difficulty with reading and understanding long texts, I reproduce a small piece specially for you (emphasis is mine):


 * "For example, in India, perhaps the central case in the book, he chronicles the terrible toll of sever e droughts-made-famines by British policies of export orientation, free-market “price famines,” and a battery of regressive imperial taxes on peasant producers. Extended examinations of Brazil and China reveal similar stories. "


 * In other words, the source says that British policy caused severe famine in India, and the same story reproduced in Brazil and China.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This is bizarre. In high school most of us learned that the opium wars led to British imperial influence and colonization of the major Chinese ports. If nothing else, you're educated enough to know the meaning of the words informal and economic. -GPRamirez5 (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Whatever this is, it does not belong to the page Mass killings under Communist regimes, and especially to the section about origin of communist terror. Hence I excluded it. This can be included back if we will reach consensus here to include. My very best wishes (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I see that the citations do support the content, except for one catch. The informal empire (or informal colonialism) is mentioned in Davis's book. The colonial empires did indeed practise "liberal capitalism", but I don't know if book covers it specifically in the context of China. Amartya Sen is certainly discussing "liberal capitalism" and "formal socialism" (which presumably means communism). Sen is not denying that liberal capitalism was a cause of famines (says, "that it certainly is"), but he is saying that economic disempowerment was perhaps the more important factor. There is a quotebox in the review that shows that the colonial state did intervene to ameliorate famine, but it was half-hearted and inefficient.
 * Now the catch: Sen is drawing a parallel from communism to liberal capitalism, i.e., not only liberal capitalism but communism also can also cause famines. But the text of the article is drawing a parallel the other way: not only communism but liberal capitalism can also cause famines. That is mild WP:SYNTHESIS and should not appear in an attributed paragraph.
 * A better solution is to first mention that Davis's book talks about famines under colonial empires practising "liberal capitalism". Having said that, you can add that Sen says the true cause was economic disempowerment.
 * The attribute "liberal" in "liberal capitalism" is important. It is in fact called classical liberalism, which prohibits welfare state or any form of state intervention in the economic activity. "Capitalism" by itself doesn't involve such ideology.
 * As an aside, I might add that India had no famines after independence. They put their mind to it and got rid of them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And Bangladesh had, so what?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * One more famine you can't blame on Communism.GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Uh... in 1974 Bangladesh had a planned economy, five year plans and all (though to be fair this particular famine was probably due to other causes).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3—WP:SYNTH is often interpreted overly broadly. Bear in mind the information on this explanatory supplement: SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition, SYNTH is not summary, and SYNTH is not explanation. - GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the point is not that both Communism ad liberal captitalism can cause famines, but that in both cases the cause is imperialism, i.e., the elites of one country controlling other countries against the interests of those countries. That provides an alternative to the thesis of the article that Communism alone was responsible for the famine in Ukraine. TFD (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I know WP:SYNTHNOT quite well. (I would, woulnd't I, if I am giving feedback on this noticeboard?) I stand by my assessment that the current paraphrase involves SYNTH. But it is easy enough to fix it, as I indicated.
 * Well I can tweak it, but I'm still not clear on where the deviation is. The order of a comparison (in this case between communism and capitalism) doesn't effect its value: 4+1=5 means the same thing as 5=4+1.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, you seem mathematically minded. So it should be easy enough to see that Sen is making a comment on liberal capitalism whereas the text here is making a comment on communism/socialism. So they are different. The substance is similar, but when you attribute it to Sen, you can't say something different from what he said. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , I don't see Amartya Sen talking about imperialism. Rather, his position is that the checks and balances of an open democracy are necessary to force the state to deal with famines effectively. In principle, an imperial regime could have promoted such checks and balances. Conversely, a home-grown dictatorship could quash them equally. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, there is some good debate here on why democracy failed in Bangladesh in 1974. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3, is this what you mean? Economist Amartya Sen argues that economic ideologies in themselves do not cause famines, including the major communist ones. To Sen, man-made famines don't arise specifically from communism or capitalism, but from any government subjecting people to an "absence of economic power combined with a lack of political leverage..." In his New York Times review of Mike Davis' Late Victorian Holocausts, Sen noted that India, China, and other countries which were formally or informally part of the British Empire suffered massive man-made famine in the 19th century even though these countries were run under free trade systems. The outcome of the policies were nonetheless remarkably similar to the great Communist famines, leading writer Tariq Ali to call Late Victorian Holocausts a "Black Book of liberal capitalism."  GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No, I am afraid this is even worse than the original in some ways, because it is mixing up Davis (who talked about "imperial famines") and Sen (who is talking about 20th century famines). Stuff like "formally or informally part of the British empire" is not Sen's language at all, but you are putting it in the attributed text. Also, phrases like "free trade systems", "policies" and "remarkably similar" are not his language. We don't know whether these famines have occurred because of "policies" or because of the failure of policies. It is also not a good idea to bring in Tariq Ali, who might not have talked about communist famines at all. (I haven't seen his review.) The best you can say in the second part is:
 * Sen noted that famines of similar magnitude to the imperial famines have occurred in 20th century communist economies.
 * That is all he said, as far as ideologies go. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. Or rather I don't. I'm perplexed that "informal empires" can't be mentioned because the language isn't in the Sen article (this to me is exempted through SYNTH is not explanation), but Tariq Ali shouldn't be mentioned even though he is explicitly mentioned in the Sen article, and "Black Book of liberal capitalism" is a clear cut comparison to The Black Book of Communism which was a hot topic in the press at the time this review was written. Actually, interweaving insights from a notable book review by a Nobel laureate with observations from the book which it is favorably reviewing seems on the whole like a case of reasonable synthesis covered by SYNTH is not just any synthesis. But I could be wrong. Kautilya3, would you consider re-writing the edit? I think that might satisfy everyone. Alternately, I could just add the page numbers from Davis that mention free trade, informal empire, etc.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, would it be correct to summarise the discussion as: Davis and Sen can be good sources to support the claim that large scale and devastating famine was a widespread phenomenon in 19th century in colonies and the countries that were dominated economically by Briatin; the scale of these events was comparable with later famines that occurred in the same countries under Communist rule. These sources may not directly support the claim that China was an informal part of British Empire, because this is a loosely defined category. Please, let me know if anybody disagrees.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , yes, that is a good summary of the discussion here. From the context of the article in question, the more important relevance of the Sen review is that he says the real cause was economic disempowerment. The fact that such disempowerment happened under colonial regimes is no surprise, but that it happened under communism is. This is perhaps the "perspective" that Sen brings to the article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is in agreement with what O'Grada says, and he argues that the Great Leap famine was not the only, and not the most devastating famine in Chinese history (in relative numbers), but it was the last famine.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Question for the rest of us who, didn't come from where ever you all have. Am I correct that this is content under debate for the Mass killings under Communist regimes article? Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. TFD (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll just say then, that this content is entirely WP:OFFTOPIC for that page. That content should never enter that article, and discussing sources for it is one step removed from where the conversation should be.... Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Beast as a source for a denial
My impression is that The Daily Beast is not generally reliable source for most BLP material. Our NXIVM article states, correctly, that "[o]ther participants [in the group's programs] were … reported to include Richard Branson" (emphasis added). Setting aside whether The Daily Beast is reliable in general, is it a reliable source for a "however" clause following that sentence, when it reports in an article on Nxivm that Branson representatives contacted the Beast to deny that he had ever taken any Nxivm programs? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What is the proposed addition? What "however clause" are you referring to? - MrX 🖋 13:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose something like "Other participants were reported to include Richard Branson, Linda Evans, Allison Mack, Kristin Kreuk, Grace Park, Nicki Clyne, and Sarah Edmondson.[6][better source needed] (Spokesmen for Branson later denied having taken the class.[TDB dropcite])" It seems to be simultaneously true (and important) that Branson was reported to have taken the class (important because Edmondson cites that report as a lever used by Nxivm recruiters) and that he has subsequently denied taking it. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... BLP is an issue here. My first inclination is to simply remove Branson’s name.  However, If the rumors of his participation are an important part of the story, we need to first establish why that is the case. Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a little sticky. I can't establish this from reliable sources, but what I think (based on a bricolage of non-RS) is that Nxivm, years ago, held a conference at a Branson property hoping to attract him, and then a combination of Nxivm propaganda and churnalism infiltrated the idea that Branson took the course into the body of boilerplate repeated by earlier reporting on the organization. And then that "fact" jumped into the Nxivm recruiting toolbox—as Edmondson puts it, "Under Keith's leadership, NXIVM has brought in millions for personal amnd professional edvelopment programs. We're a success program. Richard Branson took our course! The Dalai Lama is endorsing us!" That makes me reluctant to just excise the mention of him, because the reported (but actually false) association it helps explain their ability to recruit ("Branson's with us! Ally Mack's with us! Grace frakkin' Park's with us! Come hang with the cool kids!"), but if he's denied it, that seems significant too. My original question may be moot, though, because I notice that an RS story already cited in the post has added a note that Branson's people denied it to them, too. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

East Talpiot
A user at Talk:East Talpiot has said that the following sources are unacceptable for saying that this settlement was built between the Palestinian villages of Sur Baher and Sawaher and that it was built in order to separate Jerusalem from the Palestinian cities of Bethlehem and Beit Jallah. Are these reliable sources for those statements of fact? Related to this, the Jerusalem Municipal Government page on East Talpiot is repeatedly used as a source for history that is contested to put it mildly. Is a municipal government webpage a reliable source for history? Thank you,  nableezy  - 17:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note this was posted on NPOV/n as well. The first source does not make a stmt on the status of East Talpiot. The second does, but there are other sources who say different things. This location specifically is a special case as prior to 1967 it was neither in West nor East Jerusalem but was rather a buffer zone under UN control. This distinction is present in every map (and maps are acceptable sources), which covers the geopolotical status here, e.g, from OHCA and peace now - not pro-Israeli organizations - mark East Talpiot's very unique situation - as you can see on the map,  East Talpiot is located (mostly - there is some very new spillover to the east, and some spill over to the west) - on the diagonally shaded area  - marking the no man's land - with the green line "having a width" - or more accurately at this point there are two green lines (or city lines) - on Israeli, one Arab)).Icewhiz (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, this was not posted to NPOV/N, this has nothing to do with whether or not this place is an "Israeli village", please do not misrepresent the record. Your copy-pasting remarks from different discussions, complete with typos, notwithstanding, you are clearly wrong here. The first source says Gilo and East Talpiot were built on the city's southwestern and southeastern flanks, positioned between it and the Palestinian locales of Beit Jallah and Bethlehem. Curious you would say that it does not make a stmt on the status of East Talpiot. The question here is are these sources reliable for the statement on its location between the Palestinian cities of Sawaher and Sur Baher and its part of the plan to separate Jerusalem from Palestinian population centers like Beit Jallah and Bethelehem. I honestly have no idea what your statement has to do with that.  nableezy  - 18:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a no brainer. Icewhiz, don't keep bringing contention into issues like the RS reliability of obvious RS. Ira Sharkansky is self-evidently an excellent source, as is Rawan Asali Nuseibeh, with a Durham  University doctorate, a post doctoral research position at Hebrew university, and published by Routledge. No one will even look at this, it is so obviously a POV driven challenge to commonsense.Nishidani (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Re "this was not posted to NPOV/N": Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Completely different topic. That was about if it was appropriate to describe this place as an "Israeli neighborhood". This is a question on the reliability of two sources for totally separate material, that being its location and its part of an Israeli government plan to secure the newly occupied territory from future division in the 1960s. Do you have any comment on that?  nableezy  - 19:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Both sources seem highly reliable to me. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Azerbaijani presidential election, 2018

 * I would like to request clarification of the discussion on #Talk:Azerbaijani presidential election, 2018. A week ago, I added information - the opinion of the organizations on the election process to the article Azerbaijani presidential election, 2018. All of the information was provided with reference to the official websites of the organizations (Organization of Islamic Cooperation, GUAM, PABSEC and SCO) correspondingly.
 * Bangabandhu deleted my edits and started putting forward a number of unconnected arguments one after another. First he/she claimed that sources I used were “self-published” or “state-controlled” by Belarus, just because there was a Russian version of the websites. This was followed by assertions of Primary source research. And after all of these were duely responded, Bangabandhu started questioning “credibility of the organizations as election observers” and finally went on to the argument that the reports are not published by any popular media outlet.
 * Number  5  7  also made a short comment that this piece shouldn’t have been added to the article and claimed, “it looks like the editor who added this material is basically on Wikipedia to promote country”.
 * Full development of discussion can be found on the Talk page.
 * Although I tried to apply for a third opinion, this was hindered by Number   5  7, who claimed that him expressing his opinion in the discussion makes it impossible to apply to such a procedure.
 * I want to note that, the opinion of the OSCE has already been given in the article and my aim was to add alternative sources from other election observation missions as well, in order to maintain balance and provide complete information, instead of promoting one particular point of view. All of these organizations were present in Azerbaijan and observed the election process.
 * I kindly ask to evaluate the situation and inform me, based on the added content and the discussion, whether this peace can be reflected in the article or not. LeilaGva (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

forbidden-history.com
Hello, folks. Quick question. First, consider this site: http://www.forbidden-history.com/dinosaurs-in-archaeology.html (by http://restoringgenesis.com). Now, under what circumstances would you consider this gem can be used as a source on Wikipedia? Currently it's being used as a source at Living dinosaur, where an editor has now twice restored it with blanket reverts. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course, those were arguably blanket reverts away from the disambiguation page idea, and might have had nothing to do with that source. --tronvillain (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiData source
I don't know where to raise this question, whether this is a VPP issue or here (or even an RfC question (feel free to move/convert if that would be warranted)). Here goes:

IMDB is an external database with a lot of information. We have roughly decided that iMDB is NOT to be used as a reference, as it is generally unreliable information. People can use iMDB to get data, but they are to supply an independent reference according to our referencing rules. iMDB cannot be used as a reference for the material that we source from iMDB.

Similar goes for any external wiki that we use. We may be able to find material that we do not have on, say, es.wikipedia.org, and we can incorporate that information in an article on en.wikipedia, but we cannot say that es.wikipedia is the source. es.wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for the material that we source from es.wikipedia

Even if the specific bit of information that we take from iMDB or es.wikipedia is locally referenced, we should use the information from that reference, not from iMDB or es.wikipedia at face value.

We incorporate data from WikiData (by transclusion, by substituted transclusion, or by copying) in the same way as we could copy material from iMDB and es.wikipedia, which means we incorporate material from an unreliable source. Now my question is: how do we see that with respect to WikiData? --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * People can use iMDB to get data, but they are to supply an independent reference according to our referencing rules. So what is the problem with "People can use Wikidata to get data, but they are to supply an independent reference according to our referencing rules"? If we apply the same rules as we do for other Wikipedias, Commons, iMDB, etc. why should the results be any different for Wikidata? --RexxS (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Because, when transcluded, the material is sourced from WikiData, referenced (where needed) to an source which meets our sourcing standards. That reference could be local, or on WikiData.  When we take something from es.wikipedia, it is not transcluded but copied, properly reference to the reliable source.  Es.wikipedia is not visible in that scenario, and it shouldn’t because it is not a suitable source giving credibility to the correctness of the source.  —Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Nor is Wikidata visible in the scenario of information imported into an infobox, for example. The information is not transcluded, because it's filtered when imported. Checking that the reference meets our sourcing standards is precisely the same operation whether one is checking on es-wiki or on Wikidata. --RexxS (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the information is transcluded, altering it on WikiData changes the value on en.wikipedia, which is not the case when taking the data from es.wikipedia. The data is sourced from WikiData, referenced, with WikiData referenced.  If the data is imported it is the same, I am talking about transcluded data.  I hope now that other editors will start chiming in, because between the two of uswe are not getting anywhere.  Our arguments apparently do not arrive at the other side and we are running in circles.  —Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the information is not transcluded. "Transclusion is generally the inclusion of the content of a document into another document by reference." - Transclusion. There are no documents on Wikidata to transclude. The values are imported from Wikidata and filtered, not passed by reference. When a sourced fact is updated on es-wiki manually or by bot, that update will eventually be made on en-wiki manually or by bot. The difference is merely timescale. If a source is removed from Wikidata as unreliable or inaccurate, the fact it used to support no longer appears in our infobox. That process is very different from transclusion. You are asking others to answer questions based on your faulty understanding of the mechanics of importing sourced content from Wikidata to Wikipedia. We won't get any informed opinions from others while you persist in biasing the questions. --RexxS (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * we both have bias here, RexxS. Our main point of disagreement is whether WikiData is a source in this context.  —Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * we both have bias here, RexxS. Our main point of disagreement is whether WikiData is a source in this context.  —Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't be using WikiData at all IMO, because of the doubtful origin of the information presented there and the frequent inaccuracies. Reyk YO! 07:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion: WP:CHALLENGE
The above discussion seems confusing: e.g. "source from" vs. "reference to" – I suppose there is some difference between the two but it seems all but clear from the discussion above:
 * 1) Wikidata is (like iMDB) WP:USERGENERATED content. The WP:RS guideline (whereto WP:USERGENERATED redirects) has some exceptions. Afaics, however, the listed exceptions do not apply to Wikidata nor to iMDB. In sum:
 * 2) Wikidata can not be used as a source
 * 3) Wikidata can not be used as a reference
 * 4) Wikidata however also (like other Wikimedia projects) often "mirrors Wikipedia content" or "relies on material from Wikipedia as source", for which the WP:CIRCULAR part of the WP:V policy has: "... do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources", which means that
 * 5) content residing at Wikidata which was previously merged there from Wikipedia should not be used as a source
 * 6) content residing at Wikidata which was previously merged there from Wikipedia should not be used as a reference
 * 7) Copying references from an unreliable source to Wikipedia without confirming that these references are reliable and support the content is equally a breach of policy, e.g. from WP:CIRCULAR: "Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly.", which means,
 * 8) the external reliable source (not Wikidata) should be used as a source
 * 9) the external reliable source (not Wikidata) should be used as a reference
 * ... otherwise (if not complying to these policy requirements) the content can be WP:CHALLENGED...

Probably we should see more of that, WP:CHALLENGE-ing that type of content I mean. The abstract discussion above is unlikely to lead to an (abstract) solution, and even less likely to change policy. So, if you see mainspace content that is likely sourced from and/or referenced to Wikidata, and that is not WP:BLUE content, remove it. If a discussion ensues, that can not be resolved on the article's talk page, then bring it here in the Source/Article/Content format recommended for this noticeboard, and we'd maybe have something less abstract to discuss about here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's a first example of such a WP:CHALLENGE:
 * :
 * Source – Wikidata
 * Article – Malpelo Island
 * Content – removed content, based on the unreliable Wikidata source, does not distinguish between the name of the island ("Malpelo Island") and the name of the WHS protected area ("Malpelo Fauna and Flora Sanctuary"), notwithstanding that the external reliable source (1216) & reference (identical to external reliable source, i.e. 1216) are clear that that is the name of the WHS protected area.
 * The above has not been discussed on the article's talk page yet (and was, for clarity, operated under Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site) – just trying to illustrate what such WP:CHALLENGEs could look like.
 * Further, this example illustrates what goes wrong when not *checking* (i.e. per WP:CIRCULAR's "Confirm that these [external reliable] sources support the content, then use them directly") whether the content of the external reliable source matches the content imported from Wikidata... --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Fracis, that is true for any information, and besides the point. My question here basically is: when we transclude data from WikiData, are we getting that data from an external source.   —Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * External to what? Wikidata is a Wikimedia project owned by the WMF so, like English Wikipedia, it's internal to that group of projects; Wikidata is a project different from English Wikipedia, so it is as external to English Wikipedia as, say, French Wikipedia or Commons. Could you explain why that question is relevant? For me the main distinction is: reliable or not reliable, that is: in WP:RS/WP:V sense – and the kind of distinctions that are sorted out on this noticeboard, which is called "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard". So, for example, French Wikipedia is not a reliable source in that sense. For Commons, the answer to the reliability question falls in two parts: it is partially reliable, and partially unreliable. Probably for Wikidata that would be the case too: partially reliable, partially unreliable. I propose to proceed with case studies triggered by WP:CHALLENGEs as described above, which would make the question at least tangible. Maybe the abstract external-or-internal question is "besides the point". At least it seems to be so on this noticeboard which is about reliability of sources. So please explain why you think your question relevant, maybe we can find a better venue for it (if it is, as you seem to indicate, unrelated to the reliable-or-unreliable question). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So, we are transcluding material from an unreliable source. There is correct information on it, but in basis, since material on WD can be a) reliably sourced, b) unreliably sourced, c) unsourced), d) reliably sourced but changed without changing the reference.  So we are getting to the point.  —Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As to my question: if we are transcuding data from WikiData, are we sourcing information, and therefore is that information source subject to WP:RS? That is besides the question whether the material carries a reference here or there.  —Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Tacking on references without checking whether the reference represents a reliable source nor whether the source supports the content would be meaningless in any Wikimedia context. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Scenario: I include a chembox, where the synonym field is empty, and the box is set up to transclude if the data is referenced on WikiData. However, WikiData is empty for the synonym as well.  I check all transcluded fields, noting that there are no synonyms, and see all are NOW reliably sourced.  I save and walk away.  You come to WikiData the next day to the same item, fill in a synonym, referenced to what En.wikipedia considers an unreliable source (but since WikiData is not that strict, you have not done anything ‘wrong’).  Because it is THENa referenced item and the chembox is set up to transclude referenced items, it is transcluded.  YOU have just added unreliable material through MY edit.  But from the en.wikipedia point of view, you have tacked on a reference to data wihout checking whether after transclusion it is representing a reliable source or whether the source supports the content.  Meaningless?  —Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it your responsibility that if you edit WikiData and add data that is going to be transcluded to make sure that it follows en.wikipedia sourcing rules? And if you, on WikiData, continue to add such data, will any admin on WikiData block you (after warnings) for consistently failing en.wikipedia’s sourcing requirements?  —Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems extremely unlikely I would have added a synonym for a chemical (with or without reference) to Wikidata. Hence my proposal to switch to real examples instead of using hypothetical ones – would at least avoid to seemingly make me responsible for things I would never do.
 * In your hypothetical example, did the Lua code which imported the synonym (and its reference) check whether the source indicated by the reference is reliable for en.wikipedia's purposes? And whether that source covered the content of the imported material? I don't think so, not on either account. Thus, the software (and/or whoever set it up in that way) seems to be the culprit for evading the WP:V policy. But whatever: if something along these lines happens, simply WP:CHALLENGE the material by removing it (which is an acceptable method to counter material that does not comply to WP:V). If that doesn't lead to acceptable results, bring the example back to this noticeboard for analysis. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you really expecting a LUA code being able to detect if something is a reliable source for information or not? This noticeboard can be closd.  —Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the Lua code cannot perform what is needed for full WP:V compliance, hence the unresolved problem. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Unless WikiData is a reliable source, we have no way to distinguish whether their material is reliable.  We should therefor not source material from WikiData.  —Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's nonsense. Wikidata is not a source, reliable or otherwise. Material cannot be reliable or unreliable, only sources have that property. The way we distinguish whether the source is reliable is the always the same and we have WP:RS to explain how to do it.
 * Here's a concrete example: William P. Murphy received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Is that reliable or unreliable? Neither, it's a statement. Here's the award that Wikidata states William P. Murphy received: . Is that reliable or unreliable? Neither. Follow the pen-icon link and you'll find this reference https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1934/ - is that reliable or unreliable? I would have thought 'reliable'. Anybody disagree? If you want to challenge something, why not look at William P. Murphy? You can legitimately remove the first four paragraphs because they are unsourced. The infobox, however, has good sourcing in place for each of its facts. Using Dirk's reasoning, we should not have any content at all because it's all sourced from Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I just WP:CHALLENGEd the Wikidata source at William P. Murphy . --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And also here, we are running in the same circle. Guess we’ll see at the next RfC.  —Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe you are running in circles, I'm not. The challenging at the Murphy article worked afaics: the infobox is now Wikidata-free. Next non-hypothetical example please. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ((rto|Francis Schonken}} No, WE are running in circles- I say WikiData is a source, and an unreliable one, you(pl) say, just challenge, I say that there is nothing to challenge as it is unreliable and should not be a source, you challenge .. on the other hand I say we transclude, then people say, we import only data we filter .. i say we then transclude what we filter but no, we don’t transclude. Perfect circles.  Over and over.  Now, go import and challenge what you want, we’ll meet at either ArbCom or another RfC, because this is a recipe for continuous fights, WE are not going to solve this, we need the community to decide on these terms.  I already said I will wait for others to comment, but it is continuous the same four or five people.  I want other editors to explain to me it is NOT a source and why, and I want other editors to explain to me we are NOT transcluding.  Now, close the circle again.  —Dirk Beetstra T  C 22:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not running in circles, please speak for yourself.
 * WP:CHALLENGEs can be applied to material that is unsourced and to material that is poorly sourced (please familiarize yourself with the policy instead of basing yourself on circular reasoning). So, whether Wikidata is a "poor" (e.g., WP:USERGENERATED, WP:CIRCULAR,...) source, or "not a source at all", WP:CHALLENGE can be applied either way. I'm hoping that through discussion of concrete examples (instead of endless theoretical discussions) we may establish what is the case. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That is the point, Francis, my argument is 'it is a source'. If WikiData is the source, then there is no point in challenging - WikiData is not a reliable source and they are, by definition challenged.  You guys state 'WikiData is not a source', in which case the data can be challenged.  WikiData is the website that carries the information that we use on en.wikipedia, that is a 'body of work', 'a database', an 'information carrier' .. it is a source, it is our source.  And it is unreliable.  I have not seen yet a convincing argument why WikiData is NOT a source, and until then we are running in circles.
 * Until now it is two against two (roughly) where two say it is a source and that therefore the whole of WikiData is subject to WP:RS, and two who say that it is not a source, and that therefore the data is subject to WP:CHALLENGE. WE are running in circles, not me alone.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Poorly sourced" material (which includes "sourced to an unreliable source") can be WP:CHALLENGEd. That is policy. As I said above. Multiple times. Please snap out of your circular reasoning, and maybe start with getting acquainted with the policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. By this I challenge: ALL material sourced from WikiData is challenged, please remove all information that we transclude, import, or whatever you name it (all, literally all  material that is stored on WikiData and that is, filtered or unfultered, through LUA code and templates, and directly transcluded) from En.wikipedia, as that is all sourced from an unreliable source: WikiData.  —Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify the word ‘Berlin’ in here: ““ is sourced from WikiData. —Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * If you challenge something as it's unreferenced, you should remove it completely from the article (or add the references), it's not an excuse to substitute Wikidata-provided information (particularly when that information has references on Wikidata!). Otherwise, by the logic that seems to be used here, you're referencing it to the Wikipedia article. Mike Peel (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Re. "... (or add the references), ..." – which I did, e.g. here. If you think that can be useful, I'm prepared to discuss that example, or any other similar example, in detail. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure... Maybe try adding the references in the normal way, and stop ignoring the references to that exact same source that are on Wikidata? Or, please just stop harassing me by pinging me so often with your 'revert's, and stop the POINTy edit summaries. Mike Peel (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Re. "Sure..." – Chitwan National Park example:
 * This edit removed referenced, valid content from Wikipedia, replacing it with a highly unorthodox reference, i.e. a reference that is neither "normal", nor conforming to WP:V/WP:RS.
 * This edit restored the deleted material, while at the same time "Confirm[ing] that support[ed] the content, then us[ing that source] directly", per the recommendations at WP:CIRCULAR.
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the WHS URL is used consistently as a reference in that case - it's both on Wikidata and the number+URL is shown in the infobox consistently. It seems to be you that's going round in circles, not the reference. Mike Peel (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Except that in this other case the WHS URL was removed. Took me some time to figure out how come that in that case the WHS external reference was removed: as it happens, by an operation that was completely legit at Wikidata. Anyhow fails WP:V 1.0 "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source...". In that case no such reliable source was indicated in the box. The fickleness of Wikidata shows that it is unreliable for en.Wikipedia's verifiability purposes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Another CHALLENGE: Before the CHALLENGE the World Heritage Site (WHS) supposedly had an area of 245.13 sqkm [sic], while according to the reference that should have been 0.0031 sqkm. Again, nothing wrong at Wikidata (the original km2 is more or less correct for the topic of the article, 242 sqkm according to its infobox Italian comune), but completely unreliable for transclusion in the WHS infobox. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I WP:CHALLENGEd the ridiculous area values, supplied by Wikidata, in this infobox. Note that the challenged data completely fail WP:V's "verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source". --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Another WP:CHALLENGE – this time not related to the WHS box. This one was hit by the "Trocolandia" vandalism at Wikidata via the Pyramid infobox. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A WP:CHALLENGE related to Infobox observatory. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding that last example, is there any reason why the observatory code ... reference ...(is)... just not showing ... here atm? If so, can you fix it, or do you have at least an idea where to go to get it fixed? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Since references in the infobox were turned off I haven't been working on improving the code to display them. Edit warring with me as well as WP:POINTy removal of infoboxes is unlikely to convince me to spend more time improving this. Mike Peel (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I WP:CHALLENGEd another one: before the challenge the WHS infobox uploaded various unsuitable content:
 * An image completely unrelated to the WHS site
 * Coordinates, 5.1°N, 100.96667°W, which are not those of the WHS site (5.06791°N, 100.97233°W)
 * The WHS site "including"... the WHS site
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Related question
One issue that has not been discussed is how WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies when transcluding from Wikidata. My understanding of SAYWHERE is that, if we use Wikidata as an intermediary host site for information, then Wikidata becomes OUR source, regardless of where Wikidata got its info. Wikidata is what we should cite. Comments? Blueboar (talk) 11:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Now that is exactly as I see it: regardless of whether the data is locally and/or on WikiData referenced to a reliable source and whether either reference (still) represents what we originally transcluded (knowing that material may not be on WikiData when the transclusion was set up and that the data can be changed on WikiData after transclusion), WikiData is the source of information, that is where we got the information. And WikiData is by all definitions of our sources unreliable (if we consider ourselves, en.wikipedia, to be an unreliable source ...).  To me, ALL data that is transcluded from WikiData should carry a &lt;ref> tag stating that WikiData is the source of the information.  It stretches my AGF that all editors who transclude data from WikiData have checked whether all data is reliably sourced (knowing that e.g. an template can now be added to a page where one field is both locally and on WikiData empty, and that later data can be added to WikiData for said field with an, for en.wikipedia, unreliable source).  —Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Re. "... ALL data that is transcluded from WikiData should carry a &lt;ref> tag stating that WikiData is the source of the information" – of course not. Wikidata is a WP:USERGENERATED source (see above), and it is thus not allowed to use it as a reference. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So we are not allowed to transclude from Wikidata? Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you source data from WikiData you have to reference your source. If you are not allowed to use an unreliable source as a reference, you are not allowed to use the source.  —Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ...thus what I wrote in the subsection seems entirely relevant after all. The exception would be WP:BLUE type of content (as I indicated above). Thus, I'd proceed with WP:CHALLENGEs, as described above, so that we can figure out together where the WP:BLUE border falls for content imported from Wikidata. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, because WikiData is unreliable, there is no unchallengable info - all information that you transclude from WikiData is unreliable, and therefore it should simply not be used. And we are NOT talking about imported data, we are talking about transcluded data - i.e. data that, when changed on WikiData, changes data here.  —Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * About the semantics: "transcluding" is definitely a (specific) form of "importing". I'd say "importing-with-a-live-connection" or "importing-by-software" or some such. So, if there's guidance relating to "importing" it certainly also applies to "transcluding".
 * There's definitely also WP:BLUE type of content in a Wikidata item: at least the sitelinks (called interwiki links at English Wikipedia) are. Whether these fall under the "exception" of the second paragraph of WP:CIRCULAR, or are completely outside the WP:V/WP:RS realm is unclear: the thing is, they're unproblematic as far as this WP:RSN board is concerned. I'd be sympathetic towards the idea that authority control numbers might be to some degree WP:BLUE, or at least unproblematic, too. I'd like to find out whether there's a consensus about that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Although it can have impact, I indeed think that the interwikis are completely exempt from WP:V/WP:RS. All other, though, do not.  I do think that linking the wrong persondata on a person could be BLP-sensitive (as that does relate to being able to confirm whether we are talking about a certain subject).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't see a problem with how the authority control box currently operates. Since all authority control numbers in that box (whether or not transcluded from Wikidata) are presented as external links, and are by the design of the box not used as references/sources in the WP:V/WP:RS sense, this would equally fall outside WP:RSN board I suppose. Afaics also "unchallengable" in the WP:CHALLENGE sense. Applicable guidance would be External links, and if there are issues to be resolved w.r.t. external links in that template, rather to be taken to WP:ELN than to this WP:RSN. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * IMHO, anything in a Wikipedia article should be correct, and in this case the created external link is by itself a (primary) reference. But also for external links, one needs to be able to show that it is correct, and there are (albeit rare) cases where there are references in the external link section to verify that a certain external link is indeed the one that it is supposed to be (ever changing external links are sometimes referenced as to show that that is currently the correct one).  I would not really go as far as that external links are completely exempt from WP:V/WP:RS.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There is such a discussion currently at ELN here. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Challenging MusicBrainz info in authority control box
See WP:ELN (first example), please discuss that example there, in order to keep the discussion in one place. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

A few sources I wish to be reviewed
Hello,

I am attempting to edit Ta'wiz, but an editor claims my sources violate the policies. Here is their latest message: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ta%27wiz&diff=843678649&oldid=843563540. They have not commented on my other sources, but can we please do a rundown of what I am attempting to cite to determine if it is reliable?


 * Website of the Permanent Committee for Scholarly Research and Ifta: http://www.alifta.com/Search/ResultDetails.aspx?languagename=en&lang=en&view=result&fatwaNum=&FatwaNumID=&ID=27&searchScope=7&SearchScopeLevels1=&SearchScopeLevels2=&highLight=1&SearchType=exact&SearchMoesar=false&bookID=&LeftVal=0&RightVal=0&simple=&SearchCriteria=allwords&PagePath=&siteSection=1&searchkeyword=097109117108101116#firstKeyWordFound
 * Assim al-Hakeem, a scholar's video on his official verified YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxbzcndATsg
 * Essentials of Islamic faith by Suhaib Webb (a book)
 * Deobandi, Muhammad Shafi (1969). Ma'ariful Qur'an. 3. pp. 312–314.
 * Tafsir ibn Kathir (Abridged)

You may view how I cited the sources here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ta%27wiz&diff=prev&oldid=843414909

Much appreciated! – Batreeq ( Talk ) (Contribs) 22:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Do any of your sources actually mention Ta'wiz? Someguy1221 (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello. They mention amulets and talismans, and ta'wiz is a specific type of amulet/talisman. :) Thank you. – Batreeq ( Talk ) (Contribs) 22:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended opinion in the context of WP:GS/Crypto
A few questions:


 * 1) Do we have a canonical list of generally accepted sites that are considered WP:RS
 * 2) Are non-contentious facts based on WP:SELFSOURCE considered reliable?

For the first point, some of the major sites reporting WRT Cryptocurrencies:


 * news.bitcoin.com
 * www.newsbtc.com
 * Bitcoin Magazine
 * CoinDesk

For the second question, facts such as "On Date X, site Y started to do blah" is it acceptable to use the own sites announcements under WP:SELFSOURCE of this as they generally follow all of the listed criteria?

Q T C 18:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no canonical list of generally accepted sites that are considered WP:RS, the closet thing we have to that is MediaWiki:Captcha-addurl-whitelist. Non-contentious facts based on WP:SELFSOURCE are considered reliable, unless they contradict reliable sources. news.bitcoin.com is a subdomain of bitcoin.com which is not an "official" domain of bitcoin, and can't be used as a WP:SELFSOURCE for bitcoin. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Police reports of false rape prevalence
Are individual police departments reliable sources for statements about the prevalence or causes of false accusations of rape and sexual assault?


 * Section: False_accusation_of_rape


 * Talk page: Talk:False_accusation_of_rape

An editor added statements from police departments in Helsinki and Rostock which claim that the majority (2/3rds and 80%, respectively) of sexual assault or rape allegations in their districts were false. The figure for Helsinki comes from an unofficial review. I don't find any additional information on the origins of the statement for Rostock. The rate reported in the academic literature is between 2 - 10% [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 18:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not reliable: There appears to be virtually no information on how this information was collected or how police categorized accusations as false, and there are no secondary sources that suggest that police in Helsinki or Rostock were viewed as credible or authoritative. Experts in criminology generally don't view police as good sources for these kinds of statistics. The article |cites several sources that find that police regularly miscategorize accusations as "false" based on personal judgements or on misunderstanding the criteria. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 19:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Both police estimations are quoted in reliable sources (Yle & Ostsee-Zeitung) so yes, they are reliable, but they might be done in a different way and not comparable to other figures in the article. So the question is to discuss whether they are due to be included in the article, not to discuss the sources itself, I think. --Pudeo (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If the police estimates are covered by reliable sources, and reliable sources do not dispute the estimates, then yes, they are reliable as a general rule. If both the reports and the RS are in non-English, and the subject is contentious, then I advise editors to thoroughly vet that the reports and the RS actually say what some editor claims they say. Years ago I had to overhaul Immigration and Crime and Immigration because unscrupulous/sloppy editors had filled the articles with text that was not at all supported by the RS that were cited. Much of the text and sources seemed to stem from 4chan/Reddit copypasta that was crowdsourced in communities with clear agendas. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not directly per WP:PRIMARY, but if you mean are they reliable sources when reported by reliable secondary sources, then yes.- MrX 🖋 13:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In my view, the main issue here is probably going to be making the meaning of the statistics clear. Despite other editors' outlandish claims that feminism leads to women going mad with power and clogging the police departments with false crime reports, it seems improbable to me that Germany and Finland's statistics would be so different from all the other reputable statistics, suggesting that different definitions are being used. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding primary sourcing: My understanding is that the source is still primary, because the media outlets aren't adding any analysis or interpretation - they're just quoting the police. It appears from the description here that the police are talking about something closer to "unfounded" claims of rape or sexual assault - which is a much larger category that includes - for instance - cases where the investigation was halted because a victim decided to stop cooperating. There's not really enough info here to contextualize these claims, but it seems unlikely that the rate of false accusations in Helsinki is 10 to 12 times higher than the average reported elsewhere. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 21:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a certain danger the quarrel will continue here and flood the wrong place. but I feel I have to comment something on this. Pudeo (talk) had it right. It's not about if the sources give the police statements right or not, but more about what should be discussed under the name of the article. For that this is wrong place. Roscelese and Nblund know this all more than well.--J. Sketter (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think there's a disagreement about reliability and due weight, but I'm open to moving the discussion to a different venue if that's what you're suggesting here. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 17:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Reliable in limited context - (via RSN) I would view them as authoritative first-person sources speaking of their own location and that year, which may be a local anomaly or agree that this may be talking about all 'unfounded' cases rather than just those proven false. I seem to recall an authoritative UK study was something like 80% undetermined, 10-15% proven true, 6% proven false.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Alternative lending trades
I was referred to this board by another editor in relation to a submission I'm working on. The main topic of debate is what's considered a reliable source in the alternative lending industry. In the interests of full disclosure, I work in financial PR and so am intimately familiar with many of these publications and know for a fact that they are well-read and well-respected within the industry. Part of this has to do with how much the media landscape has shrunk in recent years, which means the best coverage on fairly niche topics is increasingly coming from these sorts of trade publications. I readily admit that I am biased, but I also hope to share some of my experiences and expertise in working with the Wikipedia community here to reach a consensus on what's considered reliable and what's not.

These are, in my view, a few of the most important publications in the alternative lending space that I believe should qualify as reliable sources. I am not implying that these publications should count as reliable sources in 100% of situations, but I don't think it's fair to automatically disqualify them either. Please comment if you agree, disagree or have other questions.


 * American Banker - Founded in 1835, American Banker specifically covers the banking industry, which includes traditional lenders (i.e., banks) and alternative lenders. The editorial staff numbers more than 30 strong and they have about 8,000 paid subscribers according to the latest figures, 75% of whom are at the VP level or higher.
 * Forbes.com - Although Forbes.com relies on a massive contributor network for much of its content (not unlike The Huffington Post), all contributors are screened for their expertise and all articles are edited to remove promotional or self-serving language. Contributors tend to be experts or leaders in their field and in many cases have been quoted extensively by top-tier media. The fact that these contributors didn't go to journalism school shouldn't detract from the quality of their articles.
 * Bank Innovation - Bank Innovation was launched in 2005 to cover innovations in the banking industry. Although they have a small editorial staff, everyone on the team has extensive journalism experience with publications like Politico and American Banker. They get about 600,000 unique monthly visitors so there is clearly a demand for their content.
 * ABF Journal - ABF Journal is another trade publication for commercial finance professionals with close to 20,000 monthly subscribers, many of them C-suite. Again, they have a small but well respected editorial team.
 * PYMNTS - PYMNTS is an established publication for the payments industry with more than 100,000 unique monthly visitors. The publication has more than 50,000 Twitter followers and regularly interviews leaders in the space.
 * deBanked - deBanked has been around since 2010 and is a go-to trade for non-bank finance. The founding editor, Sean Murray, has had his pieces referenced in The New Yorker and The Financial Times, and is a regular at industry conferences.

DI-prosek (talk)


 * The American Banker is OK. However, Forbes contributor blogs are almost never usable for statements of fact (opinions may be OK, with attribution in-text). There's no evidence that the magazine's professional editorial staff actually edits/reviews these posts, and I haven't seen any indication that all or even most contributions are particularly "expert." I'm not familiar enough with the other sources to weigh in on those. Neutralitytalk 02:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm curious, what evidence are you looking for? I've worked with several Forbes contributors to help them submit articles, and I know for a fact there is a diligent fact-checking process. And as of February 2018, Forbes announced that it will be paying its contributors and culling the bottom 10% each year to improve the quality of the content. Certainly, I would hope you agree that these contributors generally knows more about the topic they're writing about than journalists who may have been covering the topic for only a few months. (Otherwise they never would have been approved as contributors!) And just like Wikipedia, Forbes (and other publications that accept contributed content) have strict guidelines prohibiting the use of any promotional language and requiring all contributors to disclose any conflict of interest. So where do we draw the line between what's considered legitimate or reliable and what's not? Can a Wall Street Journal op-ed by a Harvard Business School professor ever be used as a source for statements of fact? If the answer is yes, then I think that same standard should also be applied to other publications (within reason). If the answer is no, then that creates a fundamental problem as 'citizen journalism' and contributor networks continue to replace traditional journalism. From the perspective of most readers, IMHO, there is practically no difference between what's published by a journalist on staff versus a freelance writer or contributor. It's all just content. This seems to suggest, to me, the need for a new standard on what's considered a reliable source, either separate from or in addition to the existing Wikipedia standard. I'm open to any and all suggestions about how to progress this dialogue. Thank you! DI-prosek (talk)
 * Those are good steps on Forbes part but that is not the situation now. Apart from staff contributors, there is almost zero editorial oversight. Forbes/sites is essentially a collection of self published opinion pieces. Now many many of the Forbes contributors opinions are valid as opinions depending on their experience and qualifications. Some (the minority to be fair) are useless. It's highly dependant on who it is. It's not something that can be hand-waved with a general rule. Reliability is based on the source and the specific content. So we would use an op-Ed by an expert for statements of fact, and we would probably include their opinion. But we wouldn't treat opinion as fact just because it's their opinion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * DI-prosek it is unclear if you are asking about RS with respect to sourcing specific content, or RS with respect to establishing notability. If it is the latter, we recently overhauled the section on sources in the notability guideline for organizations and there is language there specifically about Forbes contributors and about trade rags.  There was extensive discussion of the language about trade rags, which you can find in this archive (control+f for "trade")
 * If it is the former, you need to bring the specific statement, along with the source, or we cannot answer. Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I was referring to general guidelines for RS. If I am interpreting this correctly, it sounds like trade publications can be used as RS when it's an in-depth, feature piece, but not when it's essentially a regurgitated press release. So, for example, this piece would be OK as a source since it clearly involved extensive research and was the cover story for the print edition of the magazine. However, this piece would NOT be OK since it's based off a company announcement (although the writer did interview the company executive for additional details, so the piece is more comprehensive than the press release). DI-prosek (talk)
 * User:DI-prosek - The context matters. If you are looking for an analysis of whether a source is reliable for a given statement in a given article, you need to give the specific source, the specific statement and the specific WP article where it would go, per the instructions at the top of this page. If you are asking whether  a source "counts" toward notability, then please say that; we also will need to see the specific article in the source and the specific subject that you want it to "count" towards. Please do one or the other, otherwise this discussion will not be productive. People often try to ask very general questions here and such discussions go nowhere.
 * In general, we do not rely heavily on bloggy or self-published sources and we treat trade rag sources carefully. I edit about biotech a lot; there are some trade rags that are great for that industry, but even within those they publish straight-up churnalism pieces sometimes; the good trade rags have specific pieces that are very useful for providing critical thinking  - analysis and meaning-making that we can summarize here. Sometimes they also are good for providing simple facts that are needed to make the article coherent. But a page built entirely from trade rags would be dicey. Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's both. The page in question is for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:CAN_Capital. So I'd like to understand if the first deBanked piece can be used 1) as a reliable source to show notability (since it's a feature piece from one of the most recognizable trade publications in the alternative lending industry...they even have a monthly print publication!), and 2) as a reliable source to discuss the history of CAN Capital, such as how the company was founded and important milestones along the way, including the corporate rebranding to CAN Capital. I understand that this source by itself does not establish notability, and I have a number of other RS already, but trying to better understand if it supports my submission or detracts from my submission. Thank you! DI-prosek (talk)
 * Thanks for replying. I had a feeling you were a PR person; thanks for disclosing that here. (I work with  a lot of paid editors and PR people here; there is a common approach that just somehow sings.... that is not bad or good, it just is).
 * Anyway... the problems there are passing mentions and too much padding. I will say more at the draft talk page. Jytdog (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Political Graveyard is a reliable source, yes or no?
Someone is removing Political Graveyard as a source, saying it is unreliable. Is there a ruling here that I have missed? I also have people tag teaming me when I restore them. --RAN (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * There have been four past discussions regarding this. You participated in at least one of them, in which your view appeared to be in the minority. The last discussion was very brief but deemed it unreliable, and the other two raised significant concerns along the usual WP:SPS lines. As for tag-teaming, I think you need to retract that accusation now: being in the minority does not mean you are being tag-teamed by those who disagree with you. - Sitush (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Links to rulings please! --RAN (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * They are not "rulings". Try using the search box - you've been here long enough. - Sitush (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Discussions are just talk, rulings are actionable and binding, that is why I prefer a formal RFC. --RAN (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I really don't give a crap what you prefer. You are being ridiculous, lawyering like mad and wasting everyone's time. - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I started an RFC in a place where it will be easy to find in the future at Talk:The_Political_Graveyard. --RAN (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No. This is the place. Please stop jumping about. - Sitush (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Not reliable- I would say this site is user generated content with no clear editorial oversight procedures. That makes it generally unreliable except possibly for the most uncontroversial claims. We certainly should not be building articles on this sandy foundation. I'm also unimpressed with RAN's feigning ignorance of previous discussions about this source and wikilawyering about the outcome of those discussions. Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 14:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If it truly is "user generated content" will you please add yourself to the database and send us the link. --RAN (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you please move your comment to the RFC so it is easier to find in the future? --RAN (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have collapsed that RfC. You are being ridiculous: RSN is the place and always has been. The search results you requested are here. - Sitush (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, these antics are getting disruptive. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 14:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * And I have restored it, I am asking the question, I believe I have the right to choose the forum I think is proper. As you pointed out this has been discussed here four times with no formal ruling. RFCs have formal closures and formal binding rulings. --RAN (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, they reverted my collapse and I've reverted them again. I'm not doing it any more but if someone else does then I guess that they, too, will be falsely accused of tag-teaming. - Sitush (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * This is a noticeboard, I am posting the notice that is a formal RFC on the topic. --RAN (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The RfC belongs here (or at the village pump), not on the talk page of the article. Talk pages of articles are there to discuss improvements to the article, not whether the subject of the article is a reliable source for other articles. Fram (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not reliable - It is based on user submissions and research done by the site manager, with submissions curated by the site manager. The curation is not always accurate and is not meant to be equivalent in rigor to academic or journalistic publications. The site discusses its accuracy here - the philosophy reminds me of WP:EVENTUAL. Smmurphy(Talk) 14:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you give some examples of inaccuracies and errors? --RAN (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. The very first person in the index, H. H. Aaker. The entry doesn't know when and where he died and where he was buried (see here for this info), that in ND he ran for Congress, Governor (multiple times in fact), Secretary of State of ND, and other positions, while in MN he also ran for Lieutenant Governor, Congress, was mayor of Moorhead, and had a first name of Hans. Political graveyard is a fine place for starting on an article, but I wouldn't cite it at all. The next entry, Lars K. Aaker, is equally incomplete even when compared to his WP page. As for outright errors, I'd have to look harder, but a number of dates are inexact which could easily be corrected. Others are based on gravestones (a primary source) and could be corrected if a secondary source were used. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You are confusing omissions with errors. That is like arguing that an autobiography is not reliable because it does not contain information on that person's death. --RAN (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * An interesting source - but SPS Neat in some respects, but apparently dependent in the end on a single person. To the extent it gives locations of graves, who cares?  To any other purpose - not a "reliable source" but possibly a means to find a reliable source. This is true of any "source of grave location" for the entire universe etc. if any question arises.  Collect (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not reliable per Reyk above and the consensus of past discussions. SPS/no clear editorial oversight etc. - Sitush (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not reliable. Because of how it is set up, and per the examples I already gave at RANs talk page where this source (which he had used) disagreed with the actual dates he found in other sites (newspapers). Fram (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not reliable User-generated/self-published content website, so not reliable for what it is being used for. Although, why does it even have its own article on itself? Based on a couple of paragraphs in a local news item? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not reliable. User-generated sites like this, Find-a-grave and umpteen others are never reliable sources. IMO it's about time the Wikipedia community cuts all connections with Richard Arthur Norton through a site ban. He's been told for years that he can't use user generated content as sources, but still continues doing it, and apparently also circumvents the system by adding unsourced material on Wikidata and then using it as sources here, showing that he has no intention of ever abiding by the rules here. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 16:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. The behaviour you describe regarding Wikidata amounts to sabotaging the verifiability policy and I think it's time to consider an indef site ban. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 17:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not reliable- its user-generated. RAN already knows that at least 9 out of 10 people here disagree with him, but rather than just accept that, he wants to wikilawyer and drag it out. Whether or not he is violating his editing restrictions again, really should be looked into.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Newstex
Is Newstex a reliable source? It appears to be a blog aggregator, and it comes up on ProQuest. Please ping me when you reply. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed material used to source pseudoscience on a list
Over at the notorious list of cryptids (specifically Talk:List_of_cryptids), we've got an editor edit-warring to insert peer reviewed items for entries on the list and to introduce fringe sources, such as material by Loren Coleman. Like most scientific publications, these sources ignore pseudoscience altogether (and therefore make no mention of either cryptozoology and don't use the term cryptid). As this list is a hotbed of off-site cryptozoology forum shopping and a hub for promoting all sorts of quackery (it's the intersection of Young Earth creationism and cryptozoology, after all), it could generally use more eyes. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Question reg. a Possibly Reliable Source
Recently a source link from an article about a place Gondoh was removed by a user called Sitush citing it unreliable which actually contains data about the census survey done by Govt. of India. The actual link about the source is: http://www.census2011.co.in/data/subdistrict/64-gandoh-doda-jammu-and-kashmir.html. Can anyone please clarify why Census2011 cannot be considered a reliable source? ~ The Ultimate Talk 04:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Per my closure of this thread, over here. ~ Winged Blades Godric  07:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Source the data to the official site or to the district census handbooks.Best, ~ Winged Blades Godric  07:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Winged Blades for the satisfying answer. I got it, it helped. Will keep in mind next time :) . ~ The Ultimate Talk 07:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Should The Evening Standard be considered an unreliable source?
Hi all

London's Evening Standard has agreed to a £3 million deal with six commercial companies for “money-can’t-buy” positive news and “favourable” comment coverage. Is it reasonable to now consider Evening Standard an unreliable source? This appears to be confirmation they are willing to be paid to be an unreliable source on certain topics, the issue for Wikipedia appears to be that we may not be known which companies are paying.

What would the process be on deciding this? Should it be an RFC like the Daily Mail?

John Cummings (talk) 08:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. "Favorable coverage" does not necessarily equate to "untruthful coverage". It would certainly call into question the significance and notability of anything covered by The Standard that has any connection to one of its "special" clients. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, knowing with any degree of confidence who the 'special clients' are doesn't appear to be possible beyond trusting that the newspaper will be transparent about it. To be clear it doesn't appear that the newspaper announced the project publicly, it was discovered by journalists from other newspapers. John Cummings (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be perverse to block undisclosed paid editing on the wiki and then tolerate UPE as a source. Definitely an RfC. Cabayi (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * can you explain UPE? Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Undisclosed paid editing. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * ES has been on shaky ground for a while. I think it's headed the way of the Mail. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * It may also be worth mentioning here that UBER was one of the companies involved in this scheme, the Editor of the Evening Standard is paid £650,000 a year for a one day a week role as an advisor to BlackRock, which have a £500,000,000 stake in UBER. The Evening Standard ran an editorial supporting UBER when their license of operation was revoked in London John Cummings (talk)
 * The heading of this thread looks non-neutral, it's repeating a recent allegation by opendemocracy.net, which The Evening Standard denies. Of course it's possible that papers are nice to people who fund them, or for sponsored articles have the word "sponsored" in tiny print, so we should have a policy that RSs must be evaluated in context ... but, oh wait, we already do. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , I created the title before the ES denied the story, do you have a suggestion of a more neutral title? Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe it's too late now to change to a mere question "Should The Evening Standard be considered an unreliable source?", but I believe that talk guidelines apply here (wp:talk says "All guidelines here also apply to Wikipedia discussion pages ..." though I'm not guaranteeing they mean wp:rsn), and specifically about headings they say "Keep headings neutral". Maybe next time, eh? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I think not, paid advocacy should not be RS. Of course the4y deny it, but the above story about UBER does tend to imply that are no longer that reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait, is this confirmed anywhere other than openDemocracy? It seems to depend mostly on that one photo of a screen, with "Monthly print sections: Eight pages of in-depth material, exclusive research analysed, ideas and solutions around each big issue. Themed to individual projects." and the "Money-can't-buy" described as "We expect every campaign to generate numerous news stories, comment pieces and..." It doesn't obviously say unreliable to me, even if it's corroborated. --tronvillain (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with tronvillain. openDemocracyUK says that the Evening Standard denies the story. The new format is supposed to be rolled out on June 5th. Let's wait and see. At the point one would expect that mainstream media will weigh in. TFD (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Why I can think of plenty of times they have largely ignored the wrongs doings of the "news" papers (hell the Daily Myth has won press awards). Frankly (as I have said before) I am now of the opinion that most of them are not very reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

A few more pieces about the story:
 * https://www.prweek.com/article/1466327/evening-standard-selling-positive-coverage-pound
 * https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/james-cusick/green-party-leader-says-claim-by-george-osborne-s-evening-standard-that-it-never-blu
 * https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/31/george-osborne-edit-evening-standard

John Cummings (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course, the PR Week piece is just talking about the openDemocracy piece.--tronvillain (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * ..and the Guardian "Opinion" piece contains this: It has been claimed this week that Osborne’s latest wheeze is to offer special clients “money-can’t-buy” positive news and “favourable” comment coverage in return for paid advertising. If true, it would be a partnership fraught with potential mistrust and conflict of interest because readers would not know what was real reporting and what had been paid for; so much so that OpenDemocracy claimed Starbucks had flatly rejected the offer. Also I wonder how many "Opinion" pieces in the Guardian are included in WikiPedia as though they are journalistic pieces. The times when I think it really matters is when the Standard backs electoral candidates e.g. its support for Boris Johnson in the London mayoral election, 2012. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

News Most modern newspapers not only sell ads, they also sell entire sections of the newspaper to corporations. Usually they have a disclaimer in 4 point type, or the like, but even The New York Times does it. In addition, many magazines are even more blatant - especially fashion magazines often run "features" on designers who "just happened to buy six pages of ads" in the mag. Many such journalists are as pure as Mae West. http://adage.com/article/media/york-times-sponsored-stories/241756/ "The New York Times Co., looking to imitate the business models used by startups such as BuzzFeed, is considering letting advertisers sponsor more stories on its website, two people with knowledge of the situation said." and "Part of the strategy is avoiding controversial sponsors. The Atlantic magazine drew criticism earlier this year for a sponsored online post from the Church of Scientology, which carried the headline, "David Miscavige Leads Scientology to Milestone Year."". http://adage.com/article/media/york-times-shrinks-labeling-natives-ads/294473/ and the Grey Lady is making the nature of such ads harder to spot than ever. Sadly, this is an old newspaper tradition, but one more reason why they are not really "reliable" for much more than packing material. Collect (talk) 11:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but normally they are identified as such with prominent headings saying "advertorial" in clearly readable text not less than 0.1mm high. The more insidious part is churnalism - if the name of a company or product appears in the third paragraph they probably provided the copy. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Prominently identified" in 0.1mm!? Meanwhile, a study, which I have now referred to a few times, shows that on medical and scientific journalism, almost all media rely on press releases and not on actual independent reporting at all. And yes - if a specific company or organization is mentioned in any favorable light, they darn well paid for it directly or indirectly. Remember that most papers have fewer than 20% of the reporters they had even 20 years ago.  And "fact checkers" as an occupation are too expensive even for the NYT. Collect (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * They don't necessarily have to have paid for it directly or indirectly. Given staffing levels, news sources potentially use entire sections of press releases if they're written in a compatible style... though I suppose having a PR firm do the work of writing a useable "article" could count as paying for it indirectly. --tronvillain (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not sure the direction headed but I am certainly glad the whole RS (or identifying) is taking place. I think it should happen on that talk page (either RS or IRS) for "the record". I see so many discussions about "reliable sources" when they are clearly subject provided press releases presented by an otherwise reliable source. They are not always identifiable and sometimes found in "features" sections of a newspaper. It seems now that passing mention and any coverage in some media qualifies for even a local restaurant or group in a large city, sourced from a "Food section", to now have an article, as well as a city street because a locally sourced (food reviews) restaurant is on that street. Anyway, I think what qualifies as a reliable source for notability could be more descriptive than what is now provided and just a count of the references not as important especially if there are concerns of COI. Anyone here can visit AFD and see the confusion. Then again, this is likely an unsolvable problem. Otr500 (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Angelopedia
I have searched the archives and not found any discussion of this website. It is used in en-wp around 700 times. The ownership is hidden by proxy but it was first registered in 2013. There is no information about who owns or runs the website, or even what country it is in. If you look at the signed news pieces they are bylined to "Irina Silva", "Camilla Suarez", or "Angelique Reyes". There is no information about those (supposed?) people on their website.

Some of the content appears to be WP:USERGENERATED. At at their Contact page they invite people to submit information, but there is nothing about their editorial process.

Their Terms of Use say "All information, data, text, software, music, sound, photographs, graphics, video, messages or other materials ("Content"), whether publicly or privately transmitted / posted, is the sole responsibility of the person from where such content is originated (the Originator).... The Company accepts no responsibility for the said Content / Images. However, you understand that all Content / Images posted by you becomes the property of the Company and you agree to grant/assign to the Company and its affiliates, a non-exclusive, royalty free, perpetual, irrevocable and sub-licensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content / Images (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed throughout the world." (bolding added - they take no responsibility, but they own it).

The site covers beauty pageants, and is used, for example, in Miss Universe 2018, to support content in a table of contestants, excerpted here:

It is also used in pages about contestants for example at Sofía del Prado like this:
 * In 2017, del Prado again entered Miss Spain for a second attempt at being crowned. She succeeded and then represented Spain at Miss Universe 2017 in Las Vegas.

My attention was called to this RS question by a thread at ANI where it was raised. I asked a question about it at the talk page, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miss_Universe_2018&oldid=843686238#Angelopedia_a_reliable_source? here], and the answer led me to bring this here.

Is Angelopedia an RS as it is used above? Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Since it's a user generated site, NO. I have seen that site on countless articles about beauty pageants and pageant contestants, and have tried to remove it, nominate articles for deletion for lack of reliable sources confirming notability, etc, etc. But there's a whole army of editors here who add the material back again and !vote keep at AfD, and another army of throw-away accounts who create new articles using Angelopedia and sites that are even less reliable than that as "sources". Over and over again if needed (such as the umpteen incarnations of Miss Grand International, under multiple names). So the only way to get rid of them is by creating an edit filter that automatically removes all links to the site. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 20:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's about as "reliable" a source in the Wiki sense as my own pageant site i.e. not at all. I try to remove references on sight but they are so prevalent that it's hard to catch up and I shudder at the Universe articles which are a mess all on their own level.  ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in    Oz   00:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This user generated site is totally NOT a RS but the army of pageant fans and paid promoters sure love it. It's hard to get rid of a pageant winner page because they think sources MUST exist even though no one pays much attention to these girls that fail WP:NMODEL by a mile and a pageant win hardly meets WP:ANYBIO #1 Legacypac (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * If this is not RS but it keeps getting spammed in, then we can blacklist it. Nobody here has said this is RS yet. I will wait a good while longer and see if things change, and if they don't, I will nominate it over there. That will take care of it. Jytdog (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Reliable source for basic information. According to its profile at Owler.com, Angelopedia is a corporation employing more than a dozen people and having annual revenues of more than $500,000.  Whether or not that revenue estimate is precisely accurate, the Owler report does put to rest the notion that this might be someone's personal blog.  The website also is the host of live streaming of various national-level pageants, something which (I presume) can not be done by your average personal blogger. But the reason we are here at this noticeboard is concern that the site's content is user-generated, the evidence for which is nothing more than a section of the site's Terms of Service that addresses such content.  But the site allows people to sign up as "Members", whereupon they can create their own member profiles, add comments to articles and engage in discussions with other members.  The quoted section of the Terms of Service certainly apply to this "Member" content.  But no one here has presented any evidence that the user-generated content extends to anything other than that.  In particular, there is no evidence whatsoever that "user-generated content" extends to the by-lined articles that are being used as sources here on Wikipedia. But is the mere fact that the site hosts some user-generated content enough to cause the entire site to be unreliable?  Perhaps so.  But I think that would surprise a whole lot of Wikipedians.  If the argument presented here is truly persuasive, then we'll need to stop using the New York Times website as a reliable source, as well.  The Times website also has a Terms of Service document, section 3 of which addresses user-generated content.  And the Times also declares ownership rights over that content (section 3.4) and disavows any responsibility for the accuracy of that content (section 3.5).  And how about the Washington Post?  Its submission guidelines have similar provisions.  Are both of these news organizations to be deemed unreliable simply because they have user-generated content that is subject to the same Terms of Service as used by Angelopedia?  Are they both to be labeled "spam" and placed on a blacklist? Of course not.  The user-content provisions of their Terms of Service do not impinge on the organisations' reliability and it is faulty logic to suggest otherwise in the instant case.  Angelopedia is a reliable specialist news source that provides an English-language clearinghouse for information that gets reported in non-English and non-Roman-script media.  As such, it is useful to Wikipedians who create content in this area.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What has the number of employees got to do with being usergenerated or not? Wikipedia and IMDB, just to name two, each have many more employees than Angelopedia, but are still usergenerated, and not WP:RS... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 22:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Jeez, I guess we gotta bless the Daily Mail, and they have even more employees and revenue.... And I can think of even worse examples (at times, what sells, is far from reliable - no shortage of conspiracy sites with employees and revenue).Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your comments. And you are quite right, Thomas -- the number of employees has nothing to do with the question of whether the site's articles are user-generated.  I mentioned those facts in response to the original poster's suggestion that the site's by-lined authors might not be real people.  Instead, I think it reasonable to assume that a corporation in the business of creating web content has staff writers who do indeed exist.  If the original poster has evidence that contradicts this assumption, they certainly haven't presented it here. But the bulk of my response (starting with the paragraph "But the reason we are here at this noticeboard ...") addresses the silliness of the original poster's main argument.  Having Terms of Service that address user-generated content doesn't prove that all of the site's content is user-generated.  No one thinks that about the New York Times or the Washington Post, even though their websites also have Terms of Service with similar provisions.  Again, if the original poster has evidence that all of Angelopedia's news reports are user-generated, they certainly haven't presented it here. The reference to the Daily Mail is puzzling.  The RfC on that paper concluded that the Mail was fabricating stories and quotes and, hence, was not reliable for Wikipedia sourcing.  But no one here has even alleged that Angelopedia is fabricating news reports, let alone provide any evidence of it. I continue to assert that Angelopedia is a reliable specialist news source that provides an English-language clearinghouse for information that gets reported in non-English and non-Roman-script media.  If anyone has evidence that contradicts this, please let us see it.   NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * No, and blacklist of links keep being added. There si no credible evidence that this meets RS, and often all it's being used for is to add referenciness to articles with no real sources. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I support blacklisting it. Comparing this fansite with no known editorial oversight to The New York Times is strange. Legacypac (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I just replaced a 100 with cn tags. If six people do the same, they are all gone! Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But can I stand to have that many pageant pages on my watchlist? I'd be tempted to load up AfD with the pages. Legacypac (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Non RS & not suitable for establishing notability. Appears to be user-generated / self-published. Articles containing it should probably be evaluated for notability or for being sock created. Socks seem to be especially prevalent in the pageantry articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not RS. Blacklist the site has no indication of editorial control or oversight. Their disclaimer about content pretty much says it all. The continual removal/re-insertion mentioned above supports adding it to the blacklist and running a bot to remove it from existing articles. The issue of beauty pageant winner notability is an issue which needs to be hashed out via RfC at some point. Identifying and removing broadly used inappropriate sources like this via consensus of uninvolved editors will help remove the noise of repeated arguments about source validity at each article.  Jbh  Talk  00:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

picking one of the bylines and searching "Angelique Reyes journalist" gives zero hits (just a bunch of Filipina female social media profiles. Same with "Camilla Suarez journaist" which only leads to Angelpedia and the same kind of social media profiles. These are either journalists no one has heard of that don't even have thier own webpages or pennames. This gives me no confidence this is a journalistic organization. Legacypac (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * And still not a single shred of evidence that the site's user-generated content extends to anything other than the material clearly labeled as user-generated content. In the hopes of steering this discussion along the lines of evidence-based arguments, I'll note that Angelopedia has often been used as a source by the Times News Network, the news agency of the Times of India (the country's oldest and largest-circulating English-language newspaper).  A listing of the many times it has done so is here.  And as pointed out at WP:RS, "use by others" is an indicia of reliability.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Addressing the "user-generated" concern specifically: I signed up for a user account and was unable to find a way to generate, submit or edit content beyond the clearly-delineated user comment section. –dlthewave ☎ 03:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a reliable source After looking over this website, it seems to me that it indiscriminately publishes anything submitted about any beauty pageant or contestant that comes its way. Reliable sources have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". This site publishes mangled sentences such as "But, her dreams of representing Kyrgyzstan at an ainternational pageant came crashing down when the CGhinese officials refused her a visa for the Miss World 2017 competitions in Sanya, China." That article wraps up its coverage with this creepy sentence: "With proper grooming and training, Begimay might succeed in bringing good placement for the country at the Miss Universe pageant." Policy tells us that "common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." My common sense and my editorial judgment leads me to the conclusion that this is a glorified fan site that should be removed from articles and blacklisted. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  03:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Angelopedia – even the very name says "creepy and stupid". <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 06:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Note after close: I have nominated this for the spam blacklist and it has been accepted. In this diff i have redacted the links to the site so the archiving doesn't choke. Jytdog (talk) 05:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

BA CityFlyer - Edinburgh Base
1) Sources:

Main One: http://mediacentre.britishairways.com/pressrelease/details/86/News-1/8340 Which says: "the two main crew bases are at London City and Edinburgh airports."

These also back it up: http://www.airlineportal.org/ba-city.htm https://www.aviationjobsearch.com/job/first-officers-e-jet-series-1/2838978 https://www.jobapplications.co.uk/ba-cityflyer-application/

2) Article in Question BA CityFlyer

3) I tried editing this page to include Edinburgh Airport as a base. However an editor reverted my edits saying my references weren't good enough. Can I have some advice on this please?

Flyingmaneasy (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Backlink promotion hidden as reference link
Hello,

I've found a possible SEO backlink promotion issue on the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_show_display

Almost every reference at the bottom is actually an edit done by a business so they can get a backlink to their e-com sites to sell product. I was under the impression this wasn't permitted on Wikipedia. IE: linking to your business page with certain key words on Wiki to get SEO promotion. I don't think any of these "references" are actual authority sites. Rather, they are all trying to sell product.

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:1600:c740:6d55:4c61:74fa:92de (talk • contribs) 18:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC) Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that is run of the mill spam accretion. I will clean it up. Thanks for calling attention to it. Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

TVmaze.com
Is Tvmaze.com a reliable source for episode titles? I could not find any archives on here about Tvmaze.com. I thought Tvmaze.com is a questionable source to be used for episode titles because the website is contributed by users. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  01:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Sentence in Jordan Peterson and its sourcing
In this diff the following was removed with edit note ext not supported by "The Globe". The NY Times cite is opinion from their "Style" section and cannot be used for statements of fact per WP:NEWSORG)

"The videos also made Peterson a hero within the men's rights movement and among the alt-right."

First please note that this doesn't say that Peterson is on the alt-right or part of MR movement. It says that he has become a hero to people from those groups. Which is a very different thing.

So the Globe Source says: The NYT ref says:
 * "his fans include a strange fringe movement associated with the far-right and a semi-satirical belief in an ancient Egyptian god of chaos called Kek. "Kekistanis" conduct their conversations on the message board 4chan, and particularly its /"pol"/ space, where the movement was born...." That is a description of alt right.   It is correct that this ref doesn't support MRA
 * "Mr. Peterson is a celebrity in the men’s rights community, a loose collection of activists who feel men have been subjugated or betrayed by social progress."
 * "Jordan’s exposed something that’s been festering for a long time,” says Justin Trottier, 35, the co-founder of the men’s rights organizations Canadian Association for Equality and Canadian Centre for Men and Families. “Jordan’s forced people to pay attention.”"

Other refs already used here support this as well:
 * Time
 * "I have irrefutable evidence that I’ve pulled thousands of young men away from the attractions of the “alt-right.” "
 * a guardian piece:
 * "He has gained a large following on the American “alt-right”, leading some, he says, to label him wrongly as sympathetic to its views."
 * another guardian piece:
 * "His YouTube gospel resonates with young white men who feel alienated by the jargon of social-justice discourse and crave an empowering theory of the world in which they are not the designated oppressors." (that = MRA)
 * "He is also adored by figures on the so-called alt-light (basically the “alt-right” without the sieg heils and the white ethnostate),"
 * The telegraph
 * He says: "A lot of the people who write to me say they were desperate, angry, attracted by the alt-right, they’ve been watching my lectures and have moved back into the middle. Because I’m talking about personal responsibility as an antidote to the temptations of ideological possession."
 * "He describes himself as a classic liberal, but he's the darling of conservatives, hyper-conservatives and the alt-right. He's opposed to social justice warriors, but warns inequality in Western societies can endanger their stability, and supports aspects of social welfare."
 * "He describes himself as a classic liberal, but he's the darling of conservatives, hyper-conservatives and the alt-right. He's opposed to social justice warriors, but warns inequality in Western societies can endanger their stability, and supports aspects of social welfare."

I am not married to the exact language. Is the sentence supported by the sources, and are the sources reliable for this? If you think it needs tweaking, very open to hearing that. Jytdog (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC) (added a source already in the article. See headline and quote from body of the article Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC))


 * First off, the NY Times piece is opinion and in their "Style" section. Jytdog's using it as a source for statements of fact (as they were trying to do) is in violation of WP:NEWSORG: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."
 * The "Time" source quotes Peterson as saying he "pulled thousands of young men away" from the alt-rihgt. That would support him being classified as alt-right repellant, not support him as being a "hero".
 * The second Guardian citations is likewise an opinion pieces. Opinion pieces cannot be used for statement of fact per WP:NEWSORG because they, by definition, put forth a point of view. In both those cases, they focus on aspects of his career which is biased towards the point that they are making. Their assertion that people on the alt-right like to watch Peterson videos is cherry-picking descriptions of Peterson's audience. That any number of other demographics watch Peterson receives no mention because  those pieces are not news articles and it would not further the point of view they are trying to get across.
 * Furthermore, Jytdog's second Guardian cite does not even say alt-right types like him... it says alt-light types like him. And how to they describe 'alt-light'?  "...basically the 'alt-right' without the sieg heils and the white ethnostate".  This is an appropriate source for Wikipedia to use as statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice?  Cut me a break.  Marteau (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The Observer, likewise, is opinion. It is from the 'Lifestyle' section and presents a view of Peterson and his audience not for the purpose of objective truth, but to support the author's opinion.
 * Going beyond just this one sentence, though... Jytdog actually went further than just this one sentence, though, they added an entirely new subsection devoted to linking Peterson with the alt-right based on opinion pieces. This is all highly inflammatory of course, because Peterson is not "alt-right" and adding a subsection heading associating Peterson with the alt-right based solely on opinion pieces is astonishingly inappropriate.
 * Jytdog's rationale for linking Peterson with the "mens rights movement" is equally as flimsy... he performs original research above when he quotes a sentence saying nothing about the men's rights movement and then goes:  "that = MRA".   Jytdog's OR and assertion that "that = MRA"  is insufficient for using such a thing as a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice.  Marteau (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would partly oppose the Marteau's rationale only on NEWSORG according to the recent extensive discussions at the Talk:Cathy Newman which resulted with, for now, quoting of an opinion source with an attribution, based also on other editing principles.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. Opinion can be used in our articles, with proper attribution. Jytdog offered absolutely no attribution and is insisting we use opinion pieces as statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice.  I would have no objection to having a respected opinion writer's words in the article... with proper in-line attribution. Due weight would then warrant inclusion of quotes from opinion pieces claiming such linkages are smear tactics and are part of a trend by foes of Peterson to assassinate his character by unfairly associating him with the alt-right. Marteau (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your replies. As I noted, this says nothing about him, but rather about his audience. Two different things. Your reactions are not surprising based on what you have said at the article talk page.  I look forward to comments from uninvolved people, which is what this board is for. Jytdog (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And yet Marteau doesn't want the statement that he is a "public intellectual" attributed. Doug Weller  talk 17:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need attribution because it is sourced to a scholarly organization with a reputation for intellectual integrity. It is a non-controversial categorization to everyone except those who think he's despicable. Marteau (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It should still have attribution. I don't understand why that's being argued. What I do get from your comment is that you are failing to offer good faith to editors, presumably including me, who disagree with you over this. Doug Weller  talk 08:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Calling him a "hero" to the alt-right may be a little bit loaded, but multiple sources mention that he has a following on the alt-right. It seems like the best way to deal with this is to dedicate a subsection to discussing it, hitting the key points in the debate: He has followers on the far right, but he's been critical of the alt-right and doesn't apply to label to himself. While many of his critics acknowledge that he isn't a white supremacist, they've argued that he traffics in alt-right themes such as "Cultural Marxism". [[User:Nblund |<span style="background-color:
 * 1) CC79A7; color:white;">Nblund ]]talk 18:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If such a section, where is mentioned he has a following among from conservatives to ring wingers and alt-right, would be made then it is related to the already proposed broad section perhaps titled like "public image and popularity" where could be described his phenomenon of a sudden popularity. I don't think the information on alt-right following is enough notable for a stand-alone section. Such a section, with all its criticism and so on, should be discussed at the talk page to see if there's a consensus, for example see previous Talk:Jordan Peterson. However, in the "Personal life" there's already a short note saying "Politically, Peterson has described himself as a classic British liberal,[106][18] and has stated that he is commonly mistaken to be right wing.[44]".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Miki Filigranski It seems like he should really have a whole section dedicated to discussing his views in general, and a paragraph or subsection could be dedicated to discussing his relationship with the far right. Regardless of the placement: multiple reliable sources mention that he has a following on the alt-right, and simply not mentioning that fact seems like a non-starter and creating a paragraph/subsection dedicated to the topic will ensure that his defense is included alongside the criticism. [[User:Nblund |<span style="background-color:

The original version should definitely not be included. It makes it look like both sources are supporting the claims for both the MRA and alt-right. Sourcing by The Globe and Mail is fine. Better wording that a hero should be or at least some explanation. Mens rights movement is clearly synonymous with MRA. There is no reason to completely censor the article and fail to mention the support of Peterson by certain groups, but we should not violate WP:NPOV and hide other comments that reliable sources have said about him in regards to those groups. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) CC79A7; color:white;">Nblund ]]talk 15:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Emir of Wikipedia would you please comment on the claim that the NYT piece is not reliable for content about support for Peterson within the MRM? As I said very open to tweaking the wording. Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The NYT piece is fine for the the claim about the MRM with attribution to Nellie Bowles. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't agree that this needs attribution. It is reporting from the NYT which is entirely reliable.  Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Added another source re alt-right above. Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Include both sources with no attribution. There seems to be consensus amongst the sources. A better word than hero might be darling which sources seem to use. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Independent Journal Review
Is the Independent Journal Review considered a reliable source? I wouldn't think so as it has always appeared biased to me. I looked in the archives but was unsuccessful in finding anything regarding the website. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 01:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Nobody can answer unless you tell us reliable for what. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, since it's a very one-sided online publication, I'd think it's unreliable for just about anything. Daily Caller isn't considered a reliable source and is constantly being removed from article, and I would think this source would be even more unreliable (on the unreliable scale).  I see no real journalistic oversight, kind of like Media Matters.  At any rate, it's currently being used as a source at the National Rifle Association in various places, if that helps. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 02:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I also think it is a questionable source, having reported a conspiracy theory that was also reported by Breitbart and InfoWars.  w umbolo   ^^^  09:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It meets standards of reliability. Basically that means that what it publishes is true. (The fact that staff were fired for publishing questionable information shows that they endeavor to maintain accuracy.)  However, it's criteria for choosing stories is whether it embarrasses the other side or supports right-wing Republicans. That's where weight comes in. Most of what it publishes lacks weight for inclusion in articles. Also, we should use the best possible sources, which this obviously is not.  TFD (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As a general rule, I would say it is, as it meets WP:IRS. Also it is biased, sure, but so is CNN, but that doesn't stop it (CNN) from being a reliable source (unfortunate really, cause CNN use to be rather neutral and more fact based reporting than opinion driven). Thus see WP:BIASEDSOURCES.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:QS - looks to be questionable, as a news aggregator & a blogging platform, along with being a "news & opinion website". For news that appears there, better sources are surely available, while opinions are a dime a dozen. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Being a WP:BIASEDSOURCE doesn't mean something is not a reliable source. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:VG Sources
Hi there is currently an AfD going on Articles for deletion/Tinker Island (video game)

The dispute is based off the sources given not being reliable - specifically because they aren't given on either WP:VG and WikiProject Video games/Search engine lists.

However they aren't given as negatives either - they simply aren't listed on way or another.

Certain sources seem agreed either way in the AfD, leaving much of the dispute focusing on the following two:

Infogame (Needs Google Translate)

Player.One

Thoughts from those not involved in the AfD would be appreciated Nosebagbear (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * On purpose or not, this looks like an attempt to WP:CANVASS. The closing Admin can determine whether or not their stances appropriately address the sourcing or lack there of. For what it's worth, three or so obscure sources for a video game is a pretty weak argument. It's enough for some, but commonly not all that convincing to there too. Sergecross73   msg me  17:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the threat of falling into accidental canvassing in this fashion, but the system otherwise leaves anyone with a source dispute trapped - you can't progress on the source discussion until the discussion is closed. If you can suggest an alternate means to resolve identical or similar cases without brushing Canvass then I'd be delighted. Other than stating at the top of any request "if you read this, please don't leave any comments in the AfD [or whatever]" I don't know what I could do differently. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * State your case for notability.
 * State your case for source reliability.
 * Ask/answer any questions as needed, and let the discuss run its course.
 * There's no resolution necessary. State your case and hope people align with your stance over their stance. Sergecross73   msg me  18:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Cision
Currently an image from Cision is being used on Cryptid whale to support the statement "A two-finned Burrunan dolphin named "Snooky" has been seen in Port Phillip." Especially odd is the page attached to the images, New images of UK dolphin astound Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, where Mark Simmonds is quoted as describing it as an example of Lamarckian inheritance. I can't find anything related on the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society site, or anywhere in fact, except for a reprint of the Cision piece on Business Wire. Should this be considered a reliable source for that assertion in this context, and is new.cision ever a reliable source given that it appears to essentially be a public relations company? --tronvillain (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It may constitute original research, but I contacted the WDC and the image was released for April Fools Day. You can see that the date it was released was March 31.*chuckle* --tronvillain (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC); edited 19:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis
Bernard Lewis contains the following sentence "Lewis has been described as the 'dean of Middle East scholars'", sourced to the following -

Falk, Avner. Islamic Terror: Conscious and Unconscious Motives. ABC-CLIO. p. 77.

Which reads "Bernard Lewis, 'the dean of Middle East scholars', studied the 'roots of Muslim rage...'"

ABC-CLIO is an academic publisher - "a publishing company for academic reference works and periodicals primarily on topics such as history and social sciences", and Avner Falk is an academic, a clinical psychologist who "has written psychoanalytic studies of Jewish and Israeli leaders, Jewish history, the Arab–Israeli conflict, antisemitism and Islamic terrorism."

I'd like to hear opinions on the reliability of the source for the statement (form involved editors, of course). Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The question was weight, does the view of this clinical psychologist on a Middle Eastern historian merit quoting in the lead of an encyclopedia article. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Outright lie. The grounds for twice removing this material by the above editor was "unreliable source" see:
 * "unreliable source for such a sweeping claim"
 * "still an unreliable source for the claim"   - Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I was relying on your edit summary here where you claimed to be undoing my edit. I noticed after that your edit summary was dishonest, that it was not an undo, but that you changed the source. My objection to that source remains. The first edit of mine is not from the same source. The first edit was sourced to a YouTube video with the dsecription calling Lewis that. Is it your position that this is a reliable source? Please do not be so dishonest about the edits, thank you. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, this obviously cannot be used. It would be like if I said XX was the "dean of rocket science"....since I am not a rocket scientist, it has virtually zero value. That some outside the group Middle East scholars thinks/thought Lewis was  "the dean of Middle East scholars" doesnt make him so. Huldra (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A clinical psychologist is not reliable for such a judgement. I suspect Falk is just quoting (without citation) an article of conservative editor, music critic and one-time speech writer for GW Bush Jay Nordlinger. It isn't unclear that the content it passes WEIGHT anyway. These biggest, fastest, best this or best that types of labels are useless for understanding. Zerotalk 23:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments: The above quote "Lewis has been described as the "dean of Middle East scholars", by one source and apparently puff words, would beg the question; "described by ". Falk is not the originator (would this be primary?) and is presenting something from someone else so it would seem those sources would need to be used. Otr500 (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * From my BEFORE on this, it seems this "nickname" has been floating around a while. National Review seems to mention this in multiple articles. And it appears elsewhere. I'm not sure where it originates from - but it does seem that in some of the more, umm, popular discourse that this had been used for a while. I'll further note that I think the original was "the dean of Western scholars of Islam" - e.g. . And this dates back to 2005 at least - . In terms of sourcing - this is a question of WP:RSOPINION really - it is quite obvious we can say that some have held this opinion. Inlcusion in the article is not a question of RS - as this does pass WP:V, but rather whether this is DUE, which is not a RSN issue.Icewhiz (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Widely used descriptor of Lewis. I searched: Bernard lewis  "dean of Middle east";  ~36,000 hists.  Note that "dean of Middle east historians" appears to  be more widely used than "dean of Middle East scholars", and that the phrase is used by such authoritative voices as Elliott Abrams ; Here's a gBooks search .  Certainly  it is a phrase that can and should be included on the page; sourced to 2 or 3 WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Gosh, and I searched "Bill Gates" is Satan and got ~ 705,000 hits.... we must include that in the Bill Gates article, then? Huldra (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, "Bill Gates is Satan" gets less than 2000 hits. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, I searched for it the same way Gregory search for Bernard lewis "dean of Middle east", that is, not enclosed in "". Huldra (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No my dear, you did the opposite of what Gregory did - putting "Bill Gates in quotes, not the descriptor.Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 03:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh dearest FFF, of course I can put the descriptor in quotes; Bill Gates is "Satan" gets about 4,920,000 results... Now, happy? Huldra (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But it shouldn't be presented as an universally held or uncontested view as it very obviously is not. The Economist's obituary does a good job of covering this issue, calling him the "doyen of Orientalists" with all the positives and negatives that entails. It concludes with "Mr Lewis’s historical research will be revered for generations. His policy assessments will probably not. " Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. It is an RS, and such quote can be used. Should this particular quote or another quote be used is a different question, and not for this noticeboard. My very best wishes (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Exclude, it's entirely unnecessary and rather weakly supported. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Lee Hsien Loong
My edit, quoted below, is being reverted by an Admin for being non-RS:

{{rquote | right |

Singapore-India CECA
1) On 1 June 2018, Lee concluded the second review of the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) with India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

2)The CECA includes a mutual recognition agreement on nursing where Singapore agreed to expand coverage of Indian nursing institutions by recognising seven of them.

3) Concerns were raised regarding bogus nurses with fake nursing degrees from India ending up working in Singapore's hospitals and polyclinics that might put the quality of Singapore's healthcare at stake.

4) The CECA deal also facilitates intra-corporate transfer of Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMETs) from India to Singapore, by-passing the Fair Consideration Framework to allow Indian PMETs to compete directly with local PMETs. }}

1) and 2) are factual statements verifiable from multiple sources. 3) and 4) are sourced from opinion pieces. Concerns in 3) is not new and has been raised years ago in here . 4) is factual and can be verified directly from MOM website and CECA annex

Concerns that have been raised regarding the controversial CECA deal could be found in links below. Of course, such unfavourable news would not be reported on the tightly controlled mainstream media. https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/3jrosq/127_ceca_listed_jobs_for_foreigners_to_work_in/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=comment_list https://www.facebook.com/TAVSingapore/posts/1848075635253760 https://thehearttruths.com/2013/11/11/this-is-why-singaporeans-will-not-be-protected-in-our-jobs-by-the-government/ http://theindependent.sg/was-pm-lee-completely-outsmarted-by-the-indians/ https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/govt-decries-ceca-violation-by-singapore-113021700123_1.html

Please help review if the sources within the quote are RS with respect to the proposed content. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jane Dawson (talk • contribs)


 * You may wish to comment here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is not a lot to say here, Emir. The Online Citizen and REDWIRE do not pass the muster to be considered as reliable sources. The emphasis on the CECA deal on LHL's biographical article is WP:UNDUE. Based on a cursory examination of this user's talk page and their contributions, it appears that they have a rather curiously familiar penchant for using non-RS sources and original synthesis on Singapore related articles. — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  14:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) I have read the policy on reliability and explained in detail why I believe it is RS based on verifiability.
 * 2) Whether it is due or undue is a matter to be discussed separately on the BLP talk page itself after clearing RS.
 * 3) I try to use multiple sources as far as possible, if you are familiar with issues pertaining to Singapore, you would be able to understand why good sources are hard to find. Nevertheless, I only use bits where they can be verified. Jane Dawson (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Cointelegraph source
The source cointelegraph.com is overused in the article Dash (cryptocurrency). This source offers a press release distribution for a fee 1BTC, in USD about $8000. An upgraded distribution can be bought here for 2BTC, or about $16,000USD. That is a large amount of money. Is this really a press release distribution or is this paid submission? Thus I propose that this source be purged from cryptocurrency articles. Note for some reason in this edit  seems to remove two RS to replace those with cointelegraph.com sources. All looks dubious to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As it is (in effect) a vanity publisher no it should not be RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems that not all articles are paid press releases. Any articles that are paid press releases are tagged with '#Press release' at the bottom of the article. Technoir2 (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Care to proved the link to the page that says this?Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't stated explicitly, however all press releases are listed on the https://cointelegraph.com/press-releases page, and each of those articles shows '#Press release' at the bottom. I've been careful not to use any of those paid press releases in the Dash (cryptocurrency) article. Cointelegraph seems to be a mixture of paid press releases and edited articles, their 'about' page lists an editorial team https://cointelegraph.com/about Technoir2 (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I cannot help bit note that not only is this not called an editorial team, but there is no mention of any editorial policy. Hell they even refer to themselves as an information market. I see nothing on that page that contradicts the idea they will just publish any old tosh as long as (in some way) it makes them money.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Is a public editorial policy required for RS? I can't find editorial policies even for several mainstream newspapers that would definitely qualify as RS. Many media outlets publish paid content alongside their regular content, or make money from advertising, it shouldn't invalidate the unpaid content imo. I accept that Cointelegraph is not a top tier source, however I feel it is sufficiently reliable for the types of edit I am requesting, which are mostly uncontroversial technical statements Technoir2 (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , no they are not always called editorial polices but most (so far all) reputable media have polices on quality and standards.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but some news organisations do not publish their editorial policies. Cointelegraph has three editors working for it and as far as I can tell has a good reputation - it is referenced twice in a peer reviewed journal article from Yale (http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1417&context=yjreg). Whether a specific article is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis - I assert that cointelegraph is sufficiently reliable for the statements I am attributing to it. Technoir2 (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Non RS - seems to be borderline a vanity publication / blog; not suitable for establishing notability nor for claims that "up and coming" companies would want to get into Wikipedia to justify an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Unreliable. Basically a fanzine. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not reliable Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Vietnamese Government document on Vietnam War casualties
This Vietnamese language document purportedly published by the Vietnamese Government here:  is proposed for inclusion on several pages, notably Vietnam War, Vietnam War casualties and Body count as WP:RS that the total North Vietnamese Army and Vietcong killed in the Vietnam War (1954-75) were 849,018 dead. I have a number of concerns with this document as follows: (1) it is WP:PRIMARY; (2) it has no official watermark, heading, date, etc., anything that marks it as an official document; (3) this document apparently contradicts an earlier statement by the official Vietnam News Agency that 1.1m died during the Vietnam War as reported in this AP story from 4 April 1995: ; and (4) the document does not appear to address the 300,000+ North Vietnamese Army and Vietcong soldiers still missing in the war: and.

If this document is accepted as WP:RS, how should it be presented? The Vietnam War casualties page contains a wide range of North Vietnamese Army and Vietcong killed, with estimates ranging from 444,000 to 1,489,000. The 1995 AP story noted that "During the war, North Vietnam played down its losses to boost morale at home and discourage South Vietnam and the United States". Vietnam has among the lowest press freedom in the world with all media controlled by the state and I have previously identified a number of pages previously where Vietnamese Government sources have been unreliable/completely false, see: Accordingly I believe that on the topic of the Vietnam War, Vietnamese Government sources and state media are at best WP:BIASED and so this document and the 849,018 figure should only be presented as the official Vietnamese Government figure within the range of casualties from other WP:RS, so the Vietnam War infobox should state a range 849,018 (ref:Vietnamese Government figure)-1,489,000. kind regards Mztourist (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Battle of Hoa Da – Song Mao based on this story:
 * Articles for deletion/Battle of Pat To based on this story
 * Articles for deletion/Battle of Chà Là based on this story:
 * Articles for deletion/Battle of Đồng Dương based on these stories: and
 * Articles for deletion/Battle of Hà Vy from this site:.


 * A number of links are broken. The suggested document is not reliable for historical claims.  The chief reason being that it is not a secondary source produced and published through a scholarly or equivalently rigorous peer review system capable of generating "historical knowledge".  Branches of the Vietnamese government have previously published such material (or at least material with such pretentions), and made it available for scholarly review—such works are a far better location to seek official publications than web portal content, or "in house" newsletters.  The quality of the Vietnamese contemporary press is not a concern: newspapers shouldn't be used for history articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The alternative cited article that Mztourist gives is an AP Article, and descriptions by Mark Woodruff, a non-scholar with arguably shady, POV points of view. The document that is linked is in reference to a nationally conducted survey, and has been standardly used prior to revisions by MZTOURIST, which instead cites a 1995 article about an alleged "news release" by Hanoi. This would be a much worse source to use than a document from the military department of the government of Vietnam, which describes an internal law. A bicyclette (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * AP is equally an unreliable source, for exactly the same reason: newspapers are not the way scholarly, or equally critical, attention is applied to accounting for death tolls. Woodruff's non-scholarly qualities, much like the Vietnamese press' freedom, is irrelevant.  Newspapers aren't up to the task. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. These numbers can be cited, but they can not be trusted, just like similar numbers and "documents" produced by the Soviet KGB. One should also check (in publications) if the Vietnamese authorities have been engaged in intentional destruction of documents in their archives, so that no one could prove their fabrications. This is something KGB and their successor organizations did on a regular basis, even today as we speak . My very best wishes (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The figures that are cited and established were meant for internal usage, not meant for "public relations" or whatever as MZTOURIST continues to believe. The figures from the document, found here, specifically here , were meant for an internal law searching for war dead from the periods 1945 to 1990. The breakdown is based on which component and sector, and the numbers are generally reliable given that these are compiled from internal sources and official record-keeping from the government of Vietnam. These are far more reliable than third-hand knowledge citing or speculating about what a vietnamese newspaper said as per the AP article. A bicyclette (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The Hill, Fox News - Part II question
Would any of these sources be considered unreliable here? Would this be a proper way of summarizing?:

The National Council of Resistance of Iran, along with its political wing the People's Mujahedin of Iran, have been described as one of the main political oppositions to the current Government of Islamic Republic of Iran.

Thanks again for all the feedback :-) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It's always context dependent. That said: (1) I would not cite Fox for anything politically contentious, due to the massive evidence of bias. (2) FT is paywalled, I have no idea what this says, but FT is normally RS, its reporting is dry as dust but solid. (3) Opinion pieces in The Hill have gone steadily downhill, descending into little more than propaganda rants, and I would not normally include them in any article now. (4) Coughlin is a reasonable source for journalistic opinion but in a distinctly right of centre context and this book is clearly advancing an agenda so handle with caution. (5) Searching for the author of the book, Albert V. Benliot, does not show any evidence that he is considered a respected authority, this appears to be the only book of his that has been discussed at all, and the publisher, Nova, has a questionable history and was arguably at its worst around the time this book was published. I would exclude this source. So, of the sources you are looking to include, only Coughlin is actually a reliable source for the claim you are trying to make, and given the nature of the claim I would hold out for much more compelling sourcing. If the claim is true then there will be substantially more robust sources. You appear to be quote mining to support what you "know" to be true. That is an exercise in confirmation bias. Guy (Help!) 08:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with posting above more or less. Don't use Fox for anything regarding Iran in particular in the current climate that's highly contentious topic subject to a lot of misrepresentation in particular by outlets like Fox. On most Iranian topics it should be possibly to find scholarly sources or at least sources with a good reputation for (investigative) journalism. As a rule of thumb always check the author (is he an reputable academic in a field related to the topic, did he publish in academic peer reviwed journals, did he write positively reviewed books, did he publish with reputable academic publishers, etc.) and the publisher. JzG did appply that already in more details to the 5 sources above and the conclusion imho is that in doubt don't use any of them but look for better ones.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And why not use Fox regarding Iran?Its like saying don't use BBC or NYPOST regarding Israel.Every newsorg has its own biases.Its no reason not to use it.--Shrike (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No it's not. The BBC has a statutory obligation to balance and an independent complaints procedure for content. NY Post draws a distinction between editorial and hard news content. Fox was set up because in Ailes' mind the real villain of Watergate was the Washington Post and the "liberal media", and its editorial bias is pervasive throughout the vast majority of its content. Its bias is greater, its fact-checking is worse, and its record for separating fact from opinion is terrible. Guy (Help!) 13:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * °Comment. Shrike, at this discussion, you are challenging as not RS, a MPhil. thesis done under the supervision of a world authority on the Middle East in Oxford, which has been cited in the relevant academic literature (5 books), whose survey of newspaper reportage is not contentious, and which has had significant influence in its field, and yet here you are advocating we use Fox News articles on a contentious issue, known for their tendentiousness, and none written by anyone with Bagon's severe academic background, which requires meticulous source control and fact checking? Nishidani (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Again... when in doubt, attribute. There is a huge difference in reliability between: “The Iranians did such and such” and “according to a report by Fox News correspondent so and so, the Iranians did such and such.” Fox might (or might not) be reliable for the first statement (it depends on who reported it)... but it is absolutely reliable for the second statement.
 * this all said... I suspect that our WP:NPOV policy is the real issue here, not the reliability of the sources. If you have not read that policy, please do. Blueboar (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, Fox News is not a reliable source; if it ever was (arguably it was before 2016), it isn't any more. Maybe it's not WP:DAILYMAIL but it could be the index case for WP:PRAVDA when that gets written. I am alarmed that there are editors who deny it's an obvious fit for WP:QS; that seems like a WP:CIR problem. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The question is moot because Fox News is not needed, nor are three others. The two book sources by people who either specialize in that field, or who have tertiary credentials in history, are sufficient for the statement (perhaps tweaked with 'most active' per Katzman), and these are (reformatted)
 * (a)Con Coughlin Khomeini's Ghost: The Iranian Revolution and the Rise of Militant Islam, Ecco Books 2010  p.377 n.21


 * (b) Kenneth Katzman, ‘Iran: The People’S Mohjahedin Organization of Iran in Albert V. Benliot (ed)., Iran: Outlaw, Outcast Or Normal Country?, Nova Publishers, 2001 pp.97-110 p.97


 * In short, sources of good quality don't need to be buttressed by newspaper junk.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I addressed Benliot above. That source should also be excluded. So now we have one source by a conservative journalist. I think that rather weakens the case for inclusion of this claim. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't like either of those sources, but like has nothing to do with it. I'd have a reservation about Coughlin only if he didn't finish his degree under Simon Schama. But Benliot has nothing to do with this, except as editor of the paper by Kenneth Katzman who is a Congressional Researcher, and, whatever his spin, surely qualifies.Nishidani (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I neither like them nor dislike them. I do know, because it's a particular interest of mine, that Benliot's publisher has a very poor history of publishing badly reviewed and biased content, and Benliot himself has no reputation I can see, so that is a clear exclude. So we are left with a single right-wing journalist, for a rather bold claim. That seems problematic to me, especially since all the other suggestions to date have been differently reliable. I start to wonder if it is a thing that some people wish were true, but actually isn't. The dominant view appears to be that they are a terrorist organisation, a front for MeK. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This is what I've drafted based on Blueboar and Nishidani ’s suggestions:

According to analysts including British journalist Con Coughlin, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (along with its political wing the People's Mujahedin of Iran) constitute one of the most active oppositions to the current Government of Islamic Republic of Iran.

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, 'Iranian opposition' would be necessary. The most powerful and active opposition to Iran comes from the Trumpian US-Netanyahoo-Israel geostrategic coalition. The NCRI is small beer in all of this. There's a problem with defining thePeople's Mujahedin of Iran as the NCRI's political wing: perhaps some source says this, but there are far more sources stating that they are one and the same thing essentially, with the PMOI using  the NCRI as its Potemkin village political face, i.e. the other way around. I' m sorry if this is not too helpful, and appreciate your efforts to use this wider forum to iron out a problem. Good luck.Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

If you are in a minority of one on all this, you have no right to remove material thart is the result of a compromise, that has been amplified by further good sourcing, and which contains material not discussed on this board.Nishidani (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , can you stop adding this until you have consensus please? You have tried a handful of crappy sources for the same claim, you just included the unreliable Benliot book, and in the end you come across as scratching around for sources for what you "know" to be true, when if it actually is true, it would be trivially easy to reference from much more robust sources. You're trying to say this is one of, if not the, leading opposition group. That is the kind of claim which, if true, would be reflected all over the place, but instead you find only marginal stuff, opinions by a few people. This is a bold claim you seek to make, it's hard to believe it would only appear in books published through crappy publishers, right-wing propaganda sites and journalists' opinions. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Guy this excision is based on a deceptive, obviously false edit summary. Rereading the above, there is only a discussion about Fox and about attribution. You alone contest Couglin and Katzman, and now that I haves offered a compromise with new materials from Katzman, you still remove it because you can't pin down who the editor of the book he published his piece in is. The you removed two fresh RS as well, just to throttle the additions, feigning that they too had been or were under discussion here.
 * Your edit removed
 * Manshour Varasteh (Troubador Publishing)
 * Con Coughlin published by Pan Macmillan an Imprint of HarperCollins
 * Kenneth Katzman of the Congressional Research Service
 * Isak Svensson published by the University of Queensland Press
 * One of the two pieces by Katzman was published by Nova Science Publishers, and you suggest because the criticism page of the wiki article cites some problems and Bentiot is an unknown, it is invalid. If the author is authoritative, we cite him wherever he choses to add his pieces. Bentiot's book in anycase passes the reliable source bar because the work in question is frequently cited in the academic literature (google school) and scholarly monographs or research papers (google it.
 * WTF? I am asking for a perfectly routine thing: for the editor seeking to include disputed content (and it is disputed: it's been removed several times by different people and he's tried a series of sources of differing but mainly marginal reliability) to gain consensus before including it. This is a bold claim and it needs robust sourcing and it also needs consensus to add it. We are saying that a terrorist group is the main opposition in Iran. Can you see how that is a problematic statement? Guy (Help!) 22:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Overlooking the fact that (a) the original disputed sentence has been remodulated to take in concerns (b) three new quality sources have been added to buttres the new formulation (c) we don't state 'a terrorist group is the main opposition in Iran': we state
 * "Many commentators consider the National Council of Resistance of Iran and MEK, its paramilitary arm, variously as the most important or most active Iranian opposition group to the current Government of Islamic Republic of Iran."
 * And then immediately afterwards document that it generally considered to be a terrorist group. The whole passage has been thoroughly revised, and you are reverting as if there had been no progress or responsiveness to fair criticism of the original edit. Move on.Nishidani (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. The sentence mentioned above is not right. First of all, MEK is not the political wing of the NCRI, but vice versa. MEK is a political–militant organization, NCRI and NLAI are the political and the armed wings respectively. The organization tends to showcase itself as the "Iranian Resistance" or the "main opposition", however this is not a only rejected by other elements of Iranian opposition, but also from scholars. You can find a source or two that call them as such (mostly politically-motivated like Fox News), but that is not a even a strong minority view (RAND's policy conundrum on the group is quite a good secondary source pointing to this). MEK (=NCRI) is pretty unpopular in its home country. Pahlevun (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Take a look at this edit, which says: Many commentators consider the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (and the National Council of Resistance of Iran, its political wing) as the most important or most active Iranian opposition group to the current Government of Islamic Republic of Iran.

Citation overkill is used to synthesize and support the given sentence: Consequently, I think these are not proper to support such a questionable claim in the lead. I suggest Stefka Bulgaria, who is the only user in favor of inclusion, to develop People's Mujahedin of Iran. I think then we can come to a consensus over putting a proper sentence in the lead. Pahlevun (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Varasteh (2013) is quoting a 2005 annual report from the German Office for the Protection of Constitution that describes it as "the most important opposition group".
 * 2) Svensson (2012) is quoting from Abrahamian (1989), 'largest, most disciplined and heavily armed opposition group to the regime', talking about the early years after the revolution. It is not supporting this certain sentence in anyway.
 * 3) Katzman (2001) says it is 'Iran's most active opposition group'.
 * 4) Footnote from Con Coughlin (2009): "Marian Rajavi, the wife of Masud Rajavi, the leader of National Council of Resistance of Iran, the main opposition to the mullahs, is based in Paris while her husband's Mujaheedin organization is based in Iraq." I find this footnote to be wrong, firstly it wrongly writes Maryam Rajavi as "Marian Rajavi". Secondly, MEK was not "her husband's", the husband and wife were both "co-equal leaders" of the MEK since 1985 and Masoud Rajavi was dissapeared in 2003 during Iraq War, so leadership of the group has practically passed to Maryam. After all, Masoud is considered dead. Note that the book is published in 2009. Con Coughlin is a journalist rather than a scholar and I think his views should only be attributed to himself.


 * Taking a look at this fringe viewpoint added to the lead by Stefka Bulgaria, I just took a look at Manshour Varasteh's book, Understanding Iran's National Security Doctrine, is published by Troubador Publishing Ltd, which is "an independent UK publisher offering a range of publishing options to authors, from assisting independent authors with specific requirements (Indie-Go), through full service self-publishing (Matador), to partnership and mainstream publishing (The Book Guild Ltd). We also organize a range of events for authors, including the annual Self-Publishing Conference. We enjoy helping authors publish, and using our 25 years’ experience we strive to create quality books and to market and distribute them as widely as possible."

So, it is a self-publishing company and the book is not subject to scholarly peer review. Secondly, Varasteh is not a renowned scholar. I found that Varasteh is himself a member of the MEK, who pays tribute to the "martyrs of the resistance and PMOI (MEK)" and one of his books has been published by "Bonyad Rezaiha Association", which is an organ of the MEK (see p. 2). I find the source questionable. Last but not the least, this is a WP:FRINGE view that no reliable source supports. I have compiled a handful of the whole sack of sources that say exactly the opposite. Pahlevun (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if you take a look at the comment I made above? Pahlevun (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am convinced that this is a case of quote mining to support what an editor "knows" to be true, rather than a proper review of the sources holistically. We've seen an endless succession of crappy sources paraded. thinks Katzman is reliable, I have no reason to disagree but if this is genuinely Katzman's view I would expect to see sources other than Benliot. We should not use the Benliot book, he has no evident reputation and Nova Publishing has a long history of publishing bollocks, and that was at its worst about when this book came out. The more you lok at the sources the more they come down to opinion by individuals. Coughlin, for example: an experienced journalist but a conservative. A claim this bold should be supported by sources like the NYT, WaPo and such, but it's not. It's quote-mined from sundry right wing journalists. Guy (Help!) 08:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "It was the first Iranian organization to develop systematically a modern revolutionary interpretation of Islam. The Mojahedin played an important role in fighting the Pahlavi regime. The Mojahedin grew rapidly after the Islamic Revolution to become a major force in Iranian politics. Many foreign diplomats considered it to be by far the largest, the best disciplined, and the most heavily armed of all the opposition organizations." (a source thoroughly used throughout the article). I only keep providing these because you've objected the initial sources, not because I'm "quote mining". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I only quickly browsed the discussion after my post. My personal take is, that the sources together or rather the better ones among them (without the self published and fox) are sufficient to call them an "important" or "prominent" opposition group. That info should be in the article in doubt with a specific intext attribution ("according to .."). I'm kinda neutral whether is needs to be in the lead as well or just in the article's body.
 * So drop self published sources and fox, keep the rest probably with a more conservative/cautious formulation (import or prominent instead of most important) and an explicit intext attribution in doubt.
 * And of course consider better (scholarly) sources if available and use their description of the group instead or in addition.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Also pinging Blueboar, Shrike, and Simon Dodd, who have contributed to this discussion and may want to add something else. Thank you :-) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no substance to Guy's objections, save the query, confirmed with Pahlevun's note on about Manshour Varasteh's book being self-published. That by compromise can be removed. For the rest Isak Svensson, Kenneth Katzman (once in a book, the other in a book by Bentiot which Guy insistently says in invalid because the editor is invalid, - which is a stupid argument, not worth rebutting), Con Coughlin - again a source I dislike, but it qualifies whatever one's likes or dislikes being reputably published, and the journalist does cover that area. Pahlevun. It is quite immaterial to reliability that the page quoted for a view, has also other material on it. We quote it for a very straightforward statement supported by other sources, and this statement is not diminished by saying the context says other things as  well. This started out questioning, rightly The Hill and Fox news. So we got rid of them. It said some other sources introduced, such as Manshour Varasteh, were self-published, so it is agreed to eliminate that too. I.e. one group of editors is negotiating a compromise, while another is insisting, by challenging a Congressional Research services scholar on the area, Katzman, and Svensson, that they get it all their way. This is not how we operate. We get consensus by compromise not by repetitive bludgeoning till one's POV is completely acknowledged as the only acceptable edit.Nishidani (talk) 09:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Virtually all academic specialists in the area will tell you that the MeK is a dishonest cult reviled in its home country for siding with Saddam Hussein during the Iran–Iraq War. As Pahlevun and JzG note, with this disputed edit Stefka Bulgaria is scraping the bottom of the barrel using self-published sources affiliated with the MeK and opinion pieces by tabloid journalists to force controversial content through via citekill. Of special interest is Coughlin's history of promoting false claims and conspiracy theories about the Middle East, most notably about Saddam's involvement in 9/11; relying on Coughlin for contentious "facts" stated in wikivoice is a nonstarter. Absent consensus, Stefka Bulgaria and Nishidani should really cool it with the edit warring. The only RS cited by Stefka Bulgaria is Abrahamian 1989 (although I note that he does not cite Abrahamian directly), but using a 1989 source to discuss the contemporary political situation in Iran three decades later is quite deceptive. Simply put, there should be no doubt about Wikipedia's preference for academic sources over tabloid and self-published sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That (a) the NCRI is a family concern, and has a dubious record, is well-known. This is not incompatible with (b) the observation by analysts that it has engaged in intense media and lobbying efforts to get its name down as the fundamental Iranian diaspora opposition group. We only go by sources, and if multiple RS state (b) that does not cancel out (a) which is now mentioned in the lead and developed in the body of the text. As usual, editors are picking a POV fight to get their version in, when the obligation of NPOV is to get both versions in. Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Stefka Bulgaria continues to edit war at National Council of Resistance of Iran despite a clear lack of consensus for his proposed change.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no substance to TheTimesAreAChanging's arguement, which seems WP:NOTTHERE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Stefka rightly reverted you, TheTimesAreAChanging, because you ignored the negotiations here, and just stepped in to revert not what Stefka wrote, but what was written as discussions here developed, taking into consideration new materials and proposals. Don't walk into articles to revert war when you are absent from the page, and show no knowledge of the record.Nishidani (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * All one need do, is not squabble endlessly over a few words, but rather, read closely at least the Rand corporation paper. It only takes an hour, and has masses of detail which could be used for either POV. I see a huge concentration on POV hunting over a line or two, and near zero work on actually using sources to fleshen out an article whose volume could be doubled in a day's work, if any number of RS were read, digested and deployed here. As usual, people enjoy bickering, rather than rolling their sleeves up to do some fucking reading on the topic.Nishidani (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You are arm-waving. I have provided detailed critiques of the sources, to which you apparently have no answer. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. Without looking too much into context, the sources seem to qualify as WP:RS per policy. The disputed edit by SB seem to be OK in terms of content and sufficiently sourced. MeK is not a "cult", but a communist/Marxist organization, but this is not relevant. My very best wishes (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * There is a problem with the content, namely "current". Nothing is "current" in WP per WP:RELTIME. This is also vague. What does "important" mean?  High quality sources that are aiming to describe history and not give news or opinion, would permit content that was anchored in time.  Starting when did they become important?  In what way are they "important"? (they get the most foreign funding, or some specific government (Russia or the US perhaps) is supporting them?  They have the most followers inside Iran as far as anybody can tell?  The content is problematic. Will comment on sources in a bit... Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not personally objecting reliability of Katzman, but I do insist that he only described MEK as the "most active". Svensson (2012), himself, does not state that the MEK is "the most important" nor "the most active" opposition. Svensson is quoting from Abrahamian (1989) that "[Many foreign diplomats considered it to be] by far the largest, the best disciplined, and the most heavily armed of all the opposition organizations". I still don't see the words "important" or "active". This is not right to pick cherries out of this sentence. Plus, the source is talking about the 1980s, I think this is fine to add the sentence to article in a section about the 1980s, but it does not belong to the lead per Manual of Style/Lead section. I did not really challenge that Coughlin is a journalist who covers that area, but I insist that what he wrote is a fringe view and you don't put such a substantial claim in the lead, using the term Many commentators. So, these are not enough for the lead. Pahlevun (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Svension one can tweak the adjective to fit Abrahamian's 1989 description. But essentially when you state: 'foreign diplomats considered it to be] by far the largest, the best disciplined, and the most heavily armed of all the opposition organizations' you are endorsing the idea it is the largest most organized, armed, disciplined, and effective opposition, outstripping the rest by far, which in simple paraphrase means 'most important' in the sense of 'having a far heavier presence as an oppositional group than any other. It is true that these sources are valid for the period of reference, but it is not a fringe view to state that for decades the NCRI was the most media-canny anti-Iranian exile group. To state that, per sources, is not a substantial claim, surely, and, most importantly, I rewrote the lead to contextualize this remark, by adding it was a family business, manipulative etc. In assessing any sentence, which is grounded in good sources, one should see how it fits into the overall lead picture. If you do this, that statement of its importance can be read highly ironically.Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Oxfam
At Battle of Gaza (2007), a number of users have claimed that Oxfam is not a reliable source for material related to the Israeli withholding of taxes and the effect that has had on poverty in the Gaza Strip. The source is this brief. They have argued that Oxfam is a reliable source only for the opinions of Oxfam. So here the question I have is if Oxfam is a reliable source for such material or not? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The above misrepresents what this was being used to source, which is this diff - which is not about poverty but rather calling this illegal, and saying this violated international agreements. While Oxfam might have expertise regarding poverty (but still would not be a RS), its expertise does not cover international relations.Icewhiz (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Um Icewhiz, you are incorrect. The talk page makes that clear. Please dont purposely misrepresent the issue, I am not challenging the removal of the statement to the UN that was used for "illegal". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that calling this "illegal" in Wikipedia's voice is problematic. I'm not sure whether the legality of the withholding really matters for that particular spot in the entry anyway. It would be accurate (and maybe more relevant) to say that the PA was reportedly on the brink of financial collapse because of the revenue and aid being withheld. This might give some insight in to why the PA was so desperate to strike a deal. [[User:Nblund |<span style="background-color:


 * 1) CC79A7; color:white;">Nblund ]]talk 23:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The talk page makes nothing clear. In fact - "poverty" does not appear on the talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean besides the part where I say Im fine with the wording right now and Oxfam wasnt used for illegal? Please do not purposely misrepresent my position, it is incredibly dishonest. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You indeed said something along those lines on the talk-page,diff without using "poverty". Prior to that, you reverted the illegal language. A different user on the talk-page, after your post, posted a long post in support of use of this for "illegal". Icewhiz (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Not reliable source in this case: I think we can use Oxfam as a source for Oxfam's positions on an issue, but not for making a general claim unrelated to Oxfam. In general, press releases are not good reliable sources for this sort of thing – news items would be better. However, Oxfam itself is a political actor when it comes to Oxfam, as demonstrated by the Scarlett Johansson controversy. Oxfam's claim should be treated like similar opinion pieces in newspapers – not entirely banned as reliable sources, but usable only for the opinions of an organization. OtterAM (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

In this case it a primary source and its reliable only for opinions of those organisations.If it views were notable that would be reported by WP:RS--Shrike (talk) 05:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In what world is Oxfam an involved party to Israel withholding tax receipts from the Palestinians and the health effects that has caused? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What is have to do with "involved"?Their views are just not notable on this matter--Shrike (talk) 05:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You called them a "primary" source. Do you know what a primary source is? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * It should be considered reliable, but attributed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oxfam are an extremely well-respected charity who specialise in poverty. If they say act X has caused consequence Y based on their own long years of experience and feet on the ground in the affected area, it is almost certainly going to be true. However it does technically fall foul of our requirements for secondary sourcing, so it should be attributed, their reputation is such that even their *opinion* is noteworthy on the causes of poverty in a given area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not reliable source of the legality of a government’s actions. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC).
 * That isnt what it is being sourced for. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Reliable. Oxfam is a highly-respected and highly-professional organization.  It is hard to think of any better third-party source that has direct knowledge of the facts. Zerotalk 09:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Reliable. per Zero, and per the universally known fact that Israel has throughout its occupation, constantly used taxation policies to threaten or punish the population, or intimidate the local authorities. Oxfam has intimate on the ground knowledge of these realities.Nishidani (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nableezy looking at the discussion on the talk page, I'm unclear on what you're arguing for here. The edit in question appears to remove the claim about the illegality of the withholding - it doesn't say anything about the effects on poverty in the Gaza strip. If you wanted to add material about the effects of the revenue problems in Gaza, it seems like you could cite Oxfam alongside a few dozen other reliable sources that would be totally uncontroversial - so what's the point of this post? [[User:Nblund |<span style="background-color:


 * 1) CC79A7; color:white;">Nblund ]]talk 15:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)