Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 249

Source used for War Crimes
Found on 162nd Turkoman Division article:


 * Atlas of Nazi and Fascist Massacres in Italy. Appears to be in Italian, so I'm hoping someone can verify if this should be considered a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * This is it:Atlante delle Stragi Naziste e Fasciste in Italia. It looks like a good source. It's a combination of both new and old research (with an extensive bibliography), and was compiled by a team of well-credentialed academics. There was both a research team, and a scientific committee to oversee them. There is also a mechanism in place to report errors for correction. Short of something really weird turning up, I don't see any reason not to assume it's generally reliable for factual statements. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Someguy1221. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Tom Crean article COI edit request

 * Article: Tom Crean (explorer)
 * Source:
 * Diff: {1.}
 * Diff: {1.}

The author of this book has made a COI edit request asking that information from their book be added to the Tom Crean (explorer) article. Considering the article is a 10 year-old FA and the COI editor's source is self-published, I thought I'd bring the request here. I would have included the verbatim content here, but the request is quite large. The diff of the request is here. Thank you!  spintendo   20:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have any specific objections to the source? Describe if you do. Anatoliatheo (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless of reliability, it is way too technical and analytic for an encyclopedia article. Zerotalk 13:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Makes sense since requested edit is itself too large. Anatoliatheo (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your replies. To answer Anatoliatheo's question, the only objection I would have as a neutral reviewer would be that it is self published information. If the request were granted, it would seem to remake the article in large portions so that they re-align with the publication, which may strike other editors as troublesome. It would most likely trigger the article's FA status being placed under review (which considering it is 10+ years old, may be a good thing). I was thinking perhaps of taking the request to the Military WikiProject which governs the article. Their reputation for being one of the more stricter WikiProjects would work to the article's advantage, as this would bring more experienced eyes to review the requested changes. Thank you both for your input, it's much appreciated!  spintendo   15:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity under Communist regimes
Is  "Karlsson, Klas-Göran; Schoenhals, Michael (2008), Crimes against humanity under communist regimes – Research review (PDF), Forum for Living History, ISBN 978-91-977487-2-8"    a reliable source on the topic of Crimes against humanity under Communist regimes ? See  with comment "oh please--pretend you know what WP:RS is) ".    Hence, I figure asking at WP:RS/N is the proper cource. Collect (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * given its authorship yes.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, these are well-respected historians in the relevant field. The report probably isn't peer reviewed, but it looks like it is primarily relying on peer-reviewed work, the publishing organization isn't obviously biased on this issue, and I don't see any glaringly exceptional claims. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 15:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * How is there another one of these useless capitalist propaganda pages? I am guessing Crimes against humanity under Capitalist regimes comes up a red link when I finalize this comment. Simonm223 (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh history is written by the victors? PackMecEng (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I just detest these clear walking wounds on the fabric of WP:NPOV it's obvious and irritating. I'm very tempted to WP:BOLDly merge this into the almost-as-awful mass killings one. Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Detest then the multiple AfDs and RfCs which disagree with what you find to be "clear".  see also Anti-communist mass killings   Collect (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sadly, being a gross violation of WP:NPOV is not a valid premise for deleting an article through AfD. And I'm aware of Anti-communist mass killings also I have heard before that "we don't need Mass killings under Capitalist regimes because we have Colonialism" but I still think that it's a vulgar double-standard. Simonm223 (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And I would note that Capitalists mass-kill lots of people who aren't communists. Like the genocide of the first nations of North America. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Just for the sake of arguing, I think the topic "mass killings under capitalist regimes" would simply be far more difficult to find sources on. "Communist regime" is well-defined to a small list of states that exist or existed over a defined time period. The same cannot be said for "capitalist regime", since capitalism came into existence gradually, and it's unclear which states could be considered capitalist at which times. There also does not appear to be a major scholarly discussion about the topic of "mass killings under capitalist regimes" while there is one about "mass killings under communist regimes" or "mass killings under colonial regimes" (though most of the regimes in this latter category could be described as capitalist, I think it is the colonial aspect that's emphasized in the literature). Thus any article on the subject would have to be stitched together from different sources about mass killings under specific regimes, with few sources on the larger topic itself to guide the direction of the article. But maybe I'm wrong, and there are sources specifically about the mass killings under capitalism, not colonialism or imperialism. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This seems like a bad place to be WP:BOLD given how controversial the articles are; but you could start another merge discussion, at the very least. The content is pretty redundant between a lot of these articles anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Should 'audiophile' oriented sources be used for opinions about digital audio quality?
I came across a very poor article (K2 High Definition) which is written like an advert. The non-primary sources are audiophile-oriented reviews providing a very unscientific view of audio quality. To quote one review:

"The K2 HD Sampler and DSD CD’s offered differing perspectives in dimensionality and dynamic contrasts. Although the DSD CD’s already surpassed standard CD’s in a more full-body spatial and tonal dimensionality, its colossal, high-profile portrayal of instrument body marked a stark contrast to the K2 HD disc’s more unified and microscopic-like delineation of instrument bodies and timbre characteristics."

Audiophiles have been criticized for pseudoscientific views. Writers for mainstream audiophile magazines like What Hi-Fi? have openly spoken against scientific measurements: "You can put whatever research you want in front of me, all the measurements in the world aren’t going to stop me from having the opinion that all digital cables do not sound the same. There, I said it."

Jumping to my question, should reviews like this be even included in articles about audio technology, even when there's nothing scientific about them? RoseCherry64 (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it would be unwise to exclude it. People are not scientific instruments, and what we hear may not be exactly measurable by what I suspect are rather unsubtle instument measurements. The article you are complaining about doesn't exactly come from the3 same part of the forest as the blog you are complaining about. Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You appear to have missed an important point. Let me illustrate with an example:


 * Let's assume that you claim to be able to tell granulated salt from granulated sugar by tasting them and that I want to test that claim.


 * I don't need any special instruments that can detect salt or detect sugar. All I have to do is to conduct a double blind test.


 * You are presented with multiple samples of sugar and salt labeled "001", "002", etc. The samples were labeled by someone in another room who flipped a coin to decide which to use in each sample, and neither you or I know which is which.


 * You taste a pair of samples, and tell me "same" or "different". I record your answer.


 * We repeat the test 64 times.


 * If you get it right every time, there is less a one in sixty four thousand chance that you did it by chance, and I conclude that you can indeed tell sugar from salt by tasting them.


 * If you guessed correctly half the time, I conclude that you cannot tell salt from sugar by taste.


 * Now I repeat the test with Morton's non-iodized salt and Walmart's house brand non-iodized salt. You only guess right half the time. And to be thorough, I do a chemical analysis and find nothing but salt in either sample. I conclude that you cannot tell them apart.


 * I publish my results in a peer reviewed journal, and a couple of other scientists do the same test and replicate my results.


 * Given the above, which do you think is is true?


 * [A] You can tell sugar from salt but cannot tell name brand from house brand salt.


 * [B] You have a magical ability to taste differences between salts that disappears as soon as it is subjected to a proper scientific test.


 * Any guess as to what happens when we test the ability of those "golden ears" to tell a $50 digital cable from a $1,000 digital cable without them knowing which is which? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * As long as we present opinions AS being opinions... and NOT as scientific fact... we should be OK. This is more of a WP:NPOV issue than a WP:RS issue. Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ugh. These are the people who think you can hear the difference between a Cat6 patch and a $500 "interconnect cable". Guy (Help!) 13:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I noticed you deleted the article, which I don't disagree with—it was a complete ad full of technobabble. The question still stands though, should writing of this kind quoted above be considered a reliable opinion source on technology? RoseCherry64 (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Was this article subject to an AfD? Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletion (G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion) RoseCherry64 (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Can't see the article that this was originally about, but yes, well-known audiophile publications are fine for opinions, of course. "Full-body spatial dimensionality" sounds non-scientific in the context of a review, not pseudoscientific. There is some pseudoscience in the audiophile world, sure, and obviously if the claim is scientific it's possible the publication wouldn't be reliable (depends on the specific claim/publication, I suppose -- some are better than others). Also would want to be wary of sponsored reviews in those magazines. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * See also turboencabulator. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * When these people come to my house to listen to my music, I almost always tell them I use "studio-built" equipment, describe my speakers as "monitors" and claim all of my cables are [insert latest fad in audiophile cabling here], even though very little of that is true (for example, I'm actually streaming the audio -which is coming out of a $30 DAC- over wifi, and while my speakers are technically studio monitors, that only means that they're individually amplified and have a dinky little three-band EQ behind the cover). They ALWAYS believe me. Not one skeptic thus far. Most of them tell me how great it sounds, compared to my (former) bandmate's setup, which is virtually identical to mine but which he refuses to lie about.
 * So if I ever see a claim of fact being sourced to an audiophile website, I will immediately remove it as being based on an unreliable source. But reviews, I think, are okay, because audiophiles are a big enough community that they can influence the market. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Context isn't clear, due to article deletion. The article was about a CD (regular Redbook CD) mastering technique that claims to have 24-bit/100 kHz fidelity on a regular Redbook CD. It was deleted because it was a full-on promotion piece, and not an encyclopedic article.


 * The reception section was accounts of people listening to a promo CD and saying that it sounded really good. The reviewers did not do any kind of blind testing. It's mostly bad in context, because this was used in the article to hype a proprietary technique. This makes it different than reviews saying "this consumer product sounds very nice".


 * I specified "digital audio" because that's an area with a lot of marketing, products that make people laugh ($100 USB/Ethernet cables) and very little research. RoseCherry64 (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If the hundred dollar USB cable makes you laugh, this $630 dollar one should leave you in stitches. And there's a review out there saying that the difference between this and a hundred dollar cable was "staggering". Yes, they're that gullible. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * That second reference is quite the read: "BretM brought up the subject of hard disks, and whether they could make a difference. In my opinion I see no reason as to why there couldn't be differences between NAS devices and hard drives in the way they sound." Wow. --tronvillain (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The author forgot to mention, but the mood of the mother-in-law of the technician who printed the labeling on the HDD makes a big difference, too. Better hope you don't get one worked on by a single person, or god forbid someone who'se mother-in-law recently passed away... And don't even bother storing your music on an SDD, you'll just ruin it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem with this thread is that it is subject to oxidation. if we were using oxygen-free text rendering then we would be able to see the merits of the argument much more clearly.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Nicolae Sfetcu ebooks
Google Books

They consist of Wikipedia articles copy-pasted (maybe slightly edited) into self-published ebooks, see WP:CIRCULAR and WP:MIRROR.

I removed about a dozen references to one of his books "The Music Sound" from Wikipedia a few minutes ago. I'm not sure how to submit some kind of blacklist request, since it's not a particular domain or anything. RoseCherry64 (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Balance of refs removed. I checked: there is no plausible way this author would be reliable for the cited content even if it were not scraped. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Good job. I think there should be some kind of RS warning somewhere about his books, they pop up quite frequently on Google Books because it's basically thousands of WP articles. I'm not sure how to report spam authors, MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist seems to be mostly about spam domains. Google Books obviously isn't a spam website. RoseCherry64 (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Baidu Baike - Used extensively as a reference here, it's a Chinese language anonymous wiki
Baike is the name of a wiki run by Baidu.com intending to compete with the Chinese language Wikipedia. Baidu is a censored government news source in China. I don't even think as a wiki with anonymous submissions that it could ever qualify as a source here. Unfortunately the English Wikipedia has thousands of refence links to it.

Diving into this needs a bot.

SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 05:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Our article Baidu Baike gives the method of its preparation. If that account is accurate, it should, within its limitations, be of higher quality than WP and probably similar to any of the general encyclopedias we use as references.For topics with political implications, I, it could still be used as the express of the Chinese government position.  The practical difficulty is that the Chinese government seems to take a very broad view of what topics have political implications.   DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "probably similar to any of the general encyclopedias we use as references."
 * Probably not, since those encyclopedias have an editorial process. RoseCherry64 (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * About as reliable as Russia Today. Which is to say, not at all. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This noticeboard is not the place for chauvinistic, jingoistic comments like the above by JzG. We had the RT discussion, a no-consensus outcome, smack dab in one of the worse periods of the Donbass conflict. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 02:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Unduly harsh words -- Russia Today's reputation in the world is far from uncontroversial. In fact I'd say, if anything, it's gotten worse since 2014.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  06:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing chauvinistic or jingoistic about it. RT is a Russian government controlled propaganda outlet. We have an article and everything. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think there are some confusions here. Baidu itself is strictly a search engine, and Baidu Baike is one of the services offered by Baidu; an online encyclopedia that can be edited by any registered users (anyone can register), which by definition is a wiki and user-generated content. There is a waiting time before your edits are processed but it's not exactly editorial oversight, more of to see if there any "violations of law, blatant errors, irrational logic" (translation quoted from ). Under no circumstances they should be considered as anywhere close to being reliable sources, but unfortunately there are not as many editors working in Chinese-related topics, and I can see that misconceptions can be prevalent. Alex Shih (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds to me like a Wikipedia with pending revisions (e.g. de.WP, ru.WP). If this is true, we should remove existing citations and probably put up an edit filter to alleviate the work for Chinese article patrollers.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  06:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Pokemon Showdown Pokedex
I am looking for a reliable source for Pokemon species, move, ability, etc. in-game data and the PS Pokedex may be it. Bulbapedia is definitely unreliable, and it appears Serebii is as well. The Showdown Pokedex is not user-edited; any proposed changes to the repository must be committed by the senior developers of PS. These developers regularly research and test in-game data and mechanics for accuracy, eg here here and here. The dex contains no opinion information and is among the closest things to an authoritative source on in-game data in Pokemon, as far as I'm aware. just don't click the "i'm feeling lucky" button unless you want snark. TheTiksiBranch (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You might consider discussing this question first at WT:VG or at WT:NINTENDO (or WT:POKEMON?). RSN generally involves disputes of some sort. --Izno (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would have preferred to go through Nintendo/Pokemon, but their talk pages have been really dead (year+ for nintendo, ~6 months for pokemon), or through VG, but it didn't seem to fit in any of its categories reliable sources are in and this seemed more general. If this is supposed to be for disputes, though, I'll try discussing it in VG. Thanks for the help! TheTiksiBranch (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The games themselves are reliable primary sources for the information on pokemon species/movesets etc. (there is also nothing particularly unreliable about serebii, bulba or pokemondb when talking about clear statistical information as opposed to say tactics, but they are easy convenience reference tools.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Occupy Democrats
Politifact rates most checked claims by Occupy Democrats as false and very few as unambiguously true:. Should Occupy Democrats be deprecated as a source in the same was as WP:DAILYMAIL and other partisan sites with a poor reputation for factual accuracy? Guy (Help!) 12:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Opinions

 * Support as nominator. "Our mission is to Occupy Democrats on November 2018 AND BEYOND by voting in a LANDSLIDE of progressive Democratic candidates dedicated to rolling back President Trump’s extremist agenda." This is my aim too, but it does not mark them out as a reliable source for anything. It's a political activist movement, not even a formally constituted political party, and there is little or no accountability for what is said in Occupy's name or Most links are now removed (by me and others, over a long period), and few of these removals have been challenged. It's my view that we should not source anything to Occupy other than strictly factual and uncontroversial facts about Occupy on the articles related to Occupy and related people - if a claim is not covered in more reliable sources then it's not significant and probably WP:UNDUE, if it is, we should use them instead. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose with no prejudice to support in case if there's consensus that the source is unreliable there is very little evidence that this organization is unreliable. Most reliable sources have had more controversies and retractions. This should go through a more lengthy RSN discussion in order to better judge the reliability. w umbolo   ^^^  12:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Mixed - Reliability depends on context. As with other advocacy sites, this would be reliable for attributed statements of opinion (viewpoint), but not reliable for unattributed statements of fact. Blueboar (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I suppose we may have to have this discussion so that this can be blacklisted..clearly under WP:SELFPUB and having the opposite of a reputation for fact checking an accuracy. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Beyond notorious reputation, their about page states they are "political organization and information website that provides a counterbalance to the Republican Tea Party. It has grown into the largest and most active community of Democratic voters in the world" - with the exception of stating they are an "information website", there is no specification of an editorial board or any process what so ever of vetting their publications. The rest of the about page makes it clear they are an advocacy platform (for electing a slate of newly-energized progressives to Congress).Icewhiz (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The issue wit the Daily Myth was accuracy, not bias. Is there any actual evidence they are not accurate?Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Doesn't appears to have a substantial reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; I can't imagine that we don't have a better source for anything published here - and if one cannot be found, that's probably a good sign it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I wouldn't use it, I'd probably remove it if I saw it being used, but it's not up to DailyMail standards of bad, so a blanket ban is too much.  Volunteer Marek   22:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per the linked ref provided by the OP. This is clearly not a reliable source for anything whatsoever. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, tentatively. As I wrote below, this isn't one that I've had much cause to look at in the past, so I'm just doing some digging now.
 * The Atlantic: "The content plastered across these pages includes standard-issue clickbait ... and hyperbolic headlines ... But these feeds are also studded with straightforwardly fake news."
 * Buzzfeed News: "a fifth of its posts were false or misleading, according to our analysis."
 * problems on Politifact
 * and there are a bunch of stories about its problematic content: CNN, Snopes...
 * Based on this sort of thing, I'm inclined to agree with those arguing that this is not going to be a reliable source for anything but attributed opinion, and that it probably shouldn't carry much weight with that. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 00:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support for the same reasons as Brietbart, DM and others. When Media Bias Fact Check says that it Promotes left-wing propaganda without regard to sourcing, my hackles are up. Once again it might be OK to cite as an WP:RSOPINION source when the author is a source worth quoting, or when they are talking about themselves; so oppose a blanket ban. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  05:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. The site doesn't claim to have an editorial board or process. The organization is a biased or opinionated source, as its stated mission is "to Occupy Democrats on November 2018 AND BEYOND by voting in a LANDSLIDE of progressive Democratic candidates dedicated to rolling back President Trump’s extremist agenda". The copyright year in the footer is 2017. The site is relatively unpopular, with an Alexa rank of 733,620. I don't see any indication that this source is any more reliable than a personal blog. —  Newslinger  talk   06:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think these reasons alone are sufficient justification to deprecate the site, but the analyses posted by certainly are. A 20% defect rate is not acceptable. —  Newslinger   talk   08:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * support just more partisan noise making.Jytdog (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Rhododendrites's links, subject to the standard exceptions such as non-controversial facts about itself. Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support unlike the Daily Star discussion elsewhere, I'd say this is not a reliable source and should be depricated per Rhododendrite's link and with the same exceptions as Patar knight. Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as above. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I can't find any instance where the site broke any news, hired any journalists, or did any original reporting in a conventional sense. It looks like an ideologically motivated content mill. It's possible that they will follow the Huffington Post or Buzzfeed trajectory and start doing actual reporting in the future, at which point the issue might merit revisiting. But for now, anything "original" they report isn't reliable, and anything reliable that they report is already covered by a better source. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 01:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not as bad as the DM, but Support anyways because fuck unreliable sources. The fewer we use the better. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  04:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. If this is the best source we can find for a claim, that claim shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. (With the usual caveat that it can still be used as a primary source for statements about what Occupy Democrats says.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Only allow in certain contexts I wouldn't use it, and it's obviously for opinion (and a partisan one rather than a genuine ideological one). However, we don't completely blacklist the Daily Wire (which I'd argue gushes with POV-charged falsehoods even more than the Daily Mail) on the basis that there are circumstances where - without using it in Wikipedia's voice - it can be used to quote an opinion. As for whether or not we should allow this to be a source, absolutely not, support noting that this is not a source. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 11:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose For the same reasons I mention in the Breitbart !vote above. Per WP:RSCONTEXT.Endercase (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support They don't hide their bias; anything they talk about that is actually useful will be picked up by more reliable sites. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  06:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support No proof that they are reliable or responsible news organisation --Shrike (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support From what I understand, their goal is to make easily-sharable, pithy content rather than genuine journalism per se. It's better to just use whatever source something they write uses than cite them directly. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support They don't seem to have published their editorial policies to qualify which would require an editorial board of some kind. They should be considered a WP:QUESTIONABLE source. -Obsidi (talk) 03:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support — Per the links provided by and they don't seem to have a great editorial oversight, to say the very least. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 04:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. They're an advocacy op-ed and news sharing site without a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". If there's a need to cite them for anything beyond primary claims, we should just cite the original source instead. Woodroar (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Biased, not reliable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * (Summoned by bot) Strong support Obviously unreliable. I'm disappointed that this ever was on the list. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 04:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. As an organization dedicated to the advancement of a partisan agenda, it is ill-suited to be used as a reliable source. 28bytes (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support They pretty much bring attention to other people's stories, so anything sourceable to them should actually be sourced to the original, which would presumably have less spin. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose What's the point? Just because a source is generally unreliable doesn't mean it should be blacklisted. R2 Droid small icon.tiff (bleep) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Self admitting "[This is a] website that provides a counterbalance to the Republican Tea Party. It has grown into the largest and most active community of Democratic voters in the world" . This clearly tells who are they and why they shouldn't be used to source fact for Wikipedia. If they're the only source of a certain fact then it's pretty problematic, otherwise use other reliable sources. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Rhododendrites' analysis.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  01:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support: much better sources are readily available. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Rhododendrites. Possibly ok for RSOPINION but even then it's not really clear who they are, "progressive democrats" is a varied and vague tent, so unless the author is notable I'd hesitate to even use that. signed,Rosguill talk 04:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Occupy Democrats is an unreliable source that should rarely if ever be cited in articles. That's why it's currently cited in only two articles. We don't need to formally deprecate every unreliable source, only the ones – such as the Daily Mail and Breitbart – that are frequently cited in articles. This is a solution in search of a problem. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support because obviously it's not a reliable source except where primary sources are acceptable. Per Aquillion and Arms & Hearts, I don't think this is a real problem on Wikipedia anyway, and I oppose blacklisting because we don't pre-emptively blacklist sites until there's a problem. However, to oppose would be hypocritical of me given my position in the Breitbart discussion above and I don't see harm in clarifying the unreliability of a source. I don't know the context of this RfC but RfCs shouldn't be started in future until there's a demonstrable problem. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per . We don't need to ban unreliable sources that almost no one tries to use. If the problem can be dealt with regular editing, it should. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator. Support blanket ban: even their republished opinions are cherrypicked, taken out of context, or overtly exaggerated to make a political point. Should not be considered reliable for anything. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Can't say I have much experience with this one, but it's the same as the one we have an article about, right? In that case, why wouldn't it already be caught in WP:RSSELF as being a Facebook page? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This RfC appears to be about their domain (http://occupydemocrats.com/), not their Facebook page. —  Newslinger  talk   08:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah. I would facepalm if so many of the sources didn't specifically talk about it as a facebook page. Regardless, the material seems the same. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have a pretty strong body of knowledge of leftist media sources, and some of my views are controversial (TeleSur should be a reliable source for Latin American news, the People's Daily is about as accurate for Chinese domestic news as the BBC, the Daily Star in the UK is a perfectly legitimate newspaper) and yeah, Occupy Democrats is not good. It's just a partisan shouting page; there's no attempt toward accuracy here. Simonm223 (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Question: how many articles do we have which link to Occupy Democrats? I know there's a tool to check this but I don't know where to find it. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Searching article space turns up only two links to their website and one to their facebook page. One is a valid WP:EL on the page about them, one is a dead link but it looks like it was a Daily Show clip merely hosted there, and one a WP:PRIMARY cite accompanied by a secondary one (although the secondary source is Daily Kos, which has its own issues.)  None of them would be affected by this RFC as far as I can tell - the EL is valid, the dead link should be replaced anyway, and the last one is possibly a problem because of a weak secondary source, but obviously leans on the reliability of that source and not this one.  Searching for all mentions in any namespace turns up a bit more on talk pages, but not much (many of those are the output of some sort of automated link-checking tool, it looks like.) I feel that RFCs like these should be reserved for situations that are causing serious discussion and need to be decisively resolved, not for terrible sources that almost nobody is trying to use anyway and which is getting removed immediately when they do.  While this source obviously fails WP:RS for anything anyone would want to use it for, having frequent RFCs like these, even for minor and little-known sources, could lead to people starting to feel that any source is fine as long as an RFC hasn't rejected it already.  The vast majority of non-WP:RS sources do not require RFCs, since they're uncontroversially getting rejected when people try to use them as WP:RSes already. --Aquillion (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's because I already removed most of them, having evaluated on a one by one basis. See my talk page. Guy (Help!) 17:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Roughly how many were there to begin with? (I can't find any relevant discussions in your talk page archives – searching for "occupy democrats" or "occupydemocrats" turns up no results.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A couple of hundred I think - sources don't make my shit list unless I have had to do two or more non-trivial runs of removal. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:St Paul's Church, Auckland
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:St Paul's Church, Auckland. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

iTunes reference for a year of birth
Can an artist's iTunes profile be used to cite a year of birth? For reference, the iTunes profile in question is located at this link. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Where does iTunes get their information from? If you can't answer that, then you can't claim it is a reliable source.  -- Jayron 32 14:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Breitbart opinion list
(was archived, but I'm reverting so other editors see and comment) I've started a list of all uses of Breitbart as opinion on Wikipedia, so that editors can freely browse through the uses of Breitbart considered non-controversial and occasionally remove egregious BLP violations which may sneak into articles this way. Feel free to expand: User:Wumbolo/Breitbart as opinion. I am currently going through all links to Breitbart so I will be filling the list accordingly. I see that you've been helping; you might be interested. w umbolo  ^^^  14:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't revert. I only archived it so as to move it to the permanent location, that way I can add in the shortcut links like I just did for WP:Infowars. For the sake of clarity, here's a link to the permanent location: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 248. I'll also put a "see also" at the top of this section for people skimming this page, looking for it. Apologies if my hasty archiving upset anyone. It was for a good cause. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Letters: Primary or Secondary
It seems to me that personal correspondence would be a primary, and not a secondary source. Is it ever appropriate to use primary sources in citations? Please see Jesse H. Jones, "Jones himself along, with a majority of Congressmen and Senators, publicly denounced this decision and refused several senior diplomatic roles under the Roosevelt administration in protest.[31] Wallace's contested confirmation was one of the most controversial actions of the 79th Congress due to leaked correspondences between Jones and President Roosevelt concerning the political debt that the president owed Wallace.[32]" Number 31 is a letter from W. A. Logan to a US Senator and Number 32 is a letter from President FDR to Jesse H. Jones.

I had already replaced some of these references several months ago with secondary sources. Was I hasty? Should I revert these? Is is appropriate to replace references to these letters with references to reliable secondary sources, such as the biography of Jones published by Texas A&M? Thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 12:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You should review WP:PRIMARY. --Izno (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Izno: My takeaway is "don't use primary sources without reliable secondary sources for interpretation." It also says use primary sources with "due care." Do you have any ideas about the due care standard? Thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Due care for me is typically "none" but I don't write on topics where it would be concerning to use primary sources except when in large quantities. There is some more about primary sources on WP:RS that you can look at and consider. If there is a secondary source that describes the same content, I think it's reasonable to provide that in preference to a primary source; that way, WP:WEIGHT is more-properly satisfied. --Izno (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oldsanfelipe Remember that we need to consider WP:V as well - the sources need to be verifiable. Letters might be OK if they were published somewhere, but if they were held in a private archive they'd be difficult for editors to get at. I think secondary sources would be better if they are available. However, I took a look at the page just now, and there seems to be a problem with the way you've added the new sources - if you look at the page now, you'll see that both of them are redlinks - neither points at anything. Can you sort that out so that the new sources are properly displayed? Let me know if you need help with the citation templates. Girth Summit  (blether)  16:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Girth Summit: These were not my edits. These were someone else's edits from March(?) 2017. The article started with about six of these citations to personal correspondence. Truth be known, I never made any attempt to verify the veracity of these letters. I boldly deleted the first four(ish) of these and supported some modified text with a reliable secondary source. As yet, I have found no support for the material under the scope of the other two red-link citations. I wanted to make sure that I am on firm ground before I delete any more material. Cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem with primary sources is that, by definition, a primary source is any source that lacks context. Without context, one can cherry-pick quotes and data and information from primary sources and create your own context, given prominence to things that shouldn't be that prominent, etc.  It's a dangerous slippery slope; unless one has the context to know that something is important enough to be mentioned, you shouldn't be making that decision for yourself.  How does one know whether a personal letter contains information which is significant, and which should be put into the context you are trying to put it in, and should be interpreted how you are trying to interpret it?  The answer is: you don't; you depend on reliable secondary sources to provide that significance, context, and interpretation.  That's why we cite those instead.  I can come up with a few instances where primary sources are useful, but this is not one of them.  -- Jayron 32 14:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Vanity and predatory publishing
I'd like to invite review of Vanity and predatory publishing with the aim of moving it to guideline or at least invoking from WP:SELFPUB. The problem of predatory journals does not appear to be reducing over time, and there are a lot of additions by IPs and single-purpose accounts that suggest COI. Guy (Help!) 08:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Maybe add a bit about other media and awards too. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Luke Rudkowski and wearechange.org - conspiracy site that needs to be removed from most if not all of our articles.
wearechange.org is a right-wing conspiracy site. See and the linked but old SPLC page in that aricle,. Look at this site containing a lot of his videos. A Google search also turned up this example of a fake news site claiming the mainstream media is fake news."Fake News Kings Exposed! - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtLUxnd9Moo 10 Jul 2018 - In this video, Luke Rudkowski of WeAreChange exposes MSNBC as an unhinged fake news organization, and possibly the kings of fake news." Rudkowski is featured in New World Order (film).The site used in a numeber of our articles. Doug Weller talk 10:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ugh. There's no evidence this is a WP:RS, and was banninated for spamming it back in 2010. Guy (Help!) 15:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Per search it seems to be cited 7 times Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * site:en.wikipedia.org is probably a better way. although some of those have been fixed already. Should this be on our list of unreliable sources? Doug Weller  talk 16:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * spam blacklist I would think.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem here stems from it being linked as the actual primary source for a video clip at the heart of a recent rather notable and widely covered news story about a white nationalist punching a girl at the 2017 Berkeley protests. The video in question happened to be filmed by someone at We Are Change, and the video is the primary evidence for the story and is sourced and cited in basically all the major media coverage of the event, either by taking stills from it, or showing clips from it. To refuse to allow the primary source for this story to be linked in any way seems to be a serious problem. As I tried to note on the page where this arose (under Identity Evropa), the very news story cited as the reliable source for the claim that Damigo punched this woman itself sources this very video and shows a clip from it while citing "We Are Change" by name in their coverage. I understand that when it comes to "we are change"'s contextual presentation or explanations of things they may be unreliable, but when they happen to be the primary source of a video clip that is the primary source of a major news item that thusly being sourced by major news outlets, etc... it seems irrational to claim the primary source simply cannot be linked, but you can link to other people who use it as their source. I don't have a problem with "we are change" generally being held as an unreliable source (for news, opinion, contextual presentation, etc), but this case, where it is a video clip from a particular event in question that just happens to be from them, seems a very clear extenuating circumstance when the video clip itself (a video clip taken at a particular event showing a particular incident that is the focus of national media attention.) And this is an incident we know actually happened from other reputable sources providing photos (Reuters, etc) or the people involved affirming that it happened, etc. Further, if you're not allowing any reference to the primary source of the video in question, it seems irrational to allow links to reputable sources who use that as their source for the same incident. The rational thing would seem to be to include a link to the primary source, but give it in context, even if you state that "we are change" are a conspiracy theory outlet. It doesn't change that they are the primary source of a culturally important video clip that is being used as the primary source by numerous credible news outlets including the very one currently used as the credible source for the statement about Damigo punching Marshall. JStressman (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, Doug... https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/think-progress/ One of your own sources isn't much better than "We Are Change". I wouldn't say it's as bad as "We Are Change" from what I've seen, but close. JStressman (talk) 05:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not relevant. What is relevant is WP:PRIMARY. If this is as significant as you say, then we can cite it from reliable independent mainstream sources. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Cite what? The video itself from another source? You can't because Luke Rudkowski himself (founder of "We Are Change") took the video live from the event... in person. Anyone else is going to be a secondary source rehosting his video. Nobody else has that video to share that I've seen. The closest I've seen are some still images from Reuters from a different angle, which confirm the point, but don't show the video of the second punch that went viral and made national news. That happened due to Luke's video, which is why it is featured so heavily in the news coverage. If instead you mean cite it as linked by and expanded on by Snopes, for example... relying on their credibility to vouch for it... then we can do that, as it still clearly makes the point that the news as presented by most outlets does not tell the whole story, or actually gets it quite wrong by claiming he sucker punched her. Punching someone who is masked up, gloved on her punching hand, armed, and in an aggressive crowd in the middle of a physical brawl, and then having them come back into the fight again for more where they get hit a second time... is not sucker punching someone. An actual sucker punch would be what famously happened to Richard Spencer. If we just need to link to Snopes, then we can do so and make the point instead of leaving an incomplete claim and a link to a source that tells a clearly inaccurate take on what happened. Put simply, the current cited source is very clearly severely inaccurate as to the facts in a way that reflects very negatively on Damigo and very positively on Marshall. At the very least we should point out the fact that there were at least two punches within 8 seconds, and the one that went viral was the second that we know of, and that she was armed and masked during the first as confirmed by Reuters photos, and participating in violent clashes meant to disrupt an event (throwing explosives, tear gas, physical violence, etc.) To leave out that context and link to a source that provably gets the story very wrong in a way that heavily biases perception of what happened is not what we're supposed to do. Correct? JStressman (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I feel like I should point out a few more things as food for thought in relation to Doug's opening statements and the evidence he gives to support his position. Reading this isn't vital to the discussion above. It's just here for added context and food for thought. I'll preface all this by saying that I agree that "We Are Change" is generally not a reliable source. It's a very biased source that leans strongly into conspiracy theory territory and mixes factual with non-factual reporting. That's not what I'm taking issue with. It's more about an apparent bias in Doug's own position that seems illustrated by the choice of sources he cites to support his position. First, that it doesn't really matter what other sites happen to also link to Rudkowski's videos. It's similar to racists happening to like Charles Murray's arguments on IQ in the Bell Curve (despite the whole book being about IQ differences specifically within non-hispanic whites and the consequences those will have for social stratification in our increasingly IQ driven tech based society etc, and only something like 1 paragraph on 1 page actually mentioned the average differences extending out to racial groups, which they do, rather significantly at the moment, while one can debate how much is due to environment vs genes etc.) It doesn't really change that IQ exists and that it differs on average between groups. That idea tends to outrage many, especially on the left, but it remains a defensibly factual claim none the less. That doesn't mean that an individual in each group is necessarily more or less intelligent than another individual from another group (and thus individuals must ultimately be judged as individuals as variance within groups is greater than between groups, etc.) But the group averages differ. Condemning people for which other people happen to like their message is not a valid argument against the message itself. Second, the SPLC article you reference isn't talking about Rudkowski, but rather a different guy local to the Los Angeles chapter... one out of 102 chapters in 33 states at the time of that writing. Further, while you might not like the Sovereign Citizen movement that this other guy apparently participates in, there is no objective argument to say that they're actually wrong to reject the authority of the government over them as individuals. One can argue that they have a poor understanding of the law in many cases (trying to argue within the law rather than reject its authority outright as an example, or incorrectly citing it, or cherry picking, etc) When it comes down to it, one can argue about the social contract vs individual liberty, but you cannot state that an individual does not retain a natural right to reject the authority of any other individual or group of individuals over them. Authority that is ultimately enforced at the end of a gun (as if you fail to comply you will be imprisoned, etc... all of which is ultimately enforced under threat of lethal force.) And while the courts unsurprisingly reject their claims as frivolous attempts to avoid paying taxes, it remains clear that many take this incredibly seriously and are willing to kill and die for it, which is one of the reasons these groups are listed as being one of the highest risks for acts of violence or terror, such as the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Many of these people seriously believe that the federal government (or any government) has no right over them to take their money through taxes or subject them to various laws etc. Many of the issues these "far right" types believe are like that. There is usually a large grain of truth to most of the things they believe. Left leaning or especially far left types tend to find some of these claims outrageous, but they are really no different than left wing ideas about socialism, or even communism, property rights, etc. (For example point out that Communism has likely killed more people than Nazism, and poses a wider global threat than Nazism today and going forward for reasons just as linked to human nature and what people are willing to do to implement, and enforce what they think will create their utopian vision. Or point out that women on average are physically much weaker than men, and even when the rare woman can be found that performs at the level of men in physical activities, they face much higher injury rates due to weaker musculo-skeletal systems in general (military testing bears this out already), or that women's sports teams are significantly less capable than male ones, and pro women's teams are regularly beaten by high school or junior high school boys, or how even the arguably best female tennis players in history cannot consistently beat a male pro in the top 200, 350, or even arguably 500. Or that there is no real gender wage gap in the US on account of sexual discrimination and that almost all of the earnings gap is explained by choices that women themselves make throughout their lives, not discrimination in the workplace itself (choice of education, career, hours worked, benefits vs pay, flexibility of schedule vs pay, etc. With the government's own report stating that of the ~5% remaining unaccounted for gap, none of it could be shown to be specifically due to discrimination. Yet this is the implication you will see, with the 4 to 7% remaining gap being given as the larger number and implied to be discrimination when that's contrary to what the study actually said, etc.) Or that women are actually less likely to be raped on campuses than elsewhere in society, the opposite of the claims that "1 in 5" women on campus will be raped (based on a web based, self reporting poll where they also redefined numerous things as rape even when the respondents themselves didn't think it was, like any sex while drunk, touching without consent, etc... and a more rigorous government study with correct methodological controls etc found the actual rate to be 10 to 40 times lower, etc.) Further, as even journalist Tim Pool has pointed out, the mainstream media does actually lie and misrepresent news to fit a specific bias and agenda. That doesn't mean that most of them still aren't generally more credible than most other news sources. But it does mean that they do actually lie, intentionally, on a fairly regular basis and know it. And will refuse to retract their false claims when called on it. That is what fuels the claims of "fake news" by those on the right and why the accusation has such sticking power for those who are aware of those lies and frustrated by them. These claims are all demonstrably and defensibly true and supported by objective evidence and serious academic studies, etc. But they are outrageous to many, if not most people on the left today. But I digress. The point was that both sides have various arguments or talking points they take very seriously that are in various ways flawed and seen as ridiculous (climate change, vaccines, evolution, guns, capitalism, race and crime, etc), outrageous, or highly offensive to an opposing side of the socio-political spectrum. That doesn't mean these sovereign citizens are going to accomplish their goals, or not pay a potential serious price for standing up for those ideas (prison, or even death, etc)... but they are not that far from the founding fathers rejecting the authority of the crown and stating "Give me liberty or give me death!" etc. The founders were quite the radicals in their own time who risked death to reject the authority of the most powerful government in the world at the time, and were only a small minority of the population. I think the founding fathers were vastly smarter and better educated, generally speaking... but the concepts of economic freedom, individual liberty, the natural rights of the individual, etc... share common ground. Third, we should also note that the SPLC in recent years has become an increasingly biased progressive / social justice advocacy group that has turned to outright slander of moderate voices, with one of the most notable examples being their slander of Maajid Nawaz, a past Islamist and now moderate Mulsim reformer who they labeled as one of the most hateful and vicious anti-Muslim extremists in the world. He took them to court and they agreed to pay him and his foundation $3,375,000.00 USD after he had tried for months to get them to back down and they had only doubled down on their position until finally threatened with legal action. And he's certainly not the only victim of that type of persistent slander and refusal to back down or retract their claims even when shown to be wrong. Finally, asking if you think "sin" or "evil" actually exist objectively, or whether or not objective morality exists are similar types of questions to the ideas of government authority, the social contract, consent of the governed, and other political philosophies like the aforementioned socialism, etc. Ultimately they rest on ideas people came up with, and persuaded others to go along with until there were enough that various types of coercion could be employed to force dissenters into compliance, at one end through social pressures like condemnation, loss of employment, and at the other end ultimately when laws are created by enough people acting through the democratic process, to agree to the government having a monopoly on lethal force and using that lethal force to force individuals to behave a certain way. To give up part of their property as one example and give it to others (taxation to support welfare programs, especially in a non-homogeneous society where one group may feel that they are disproportionately paying to raise the children or support outright members of another perceived to be separate group that does appear not share their portion of the financial costs, nor the cultural values of the group paying disproportionately more, etc... this being further related to a loss of social trust both between and within social groups in these heterogeneous/multiracial/multicultural societies.), even if they fundamentally disagree, under threat of imprisonment and even death for failure to comply (as threat of lethal force is ultimately behind all state authority, as failure to comply escalates the force brought against you until you comply.) The point being, I still wouldn't defend "We Are Change" as a credible source. But I would be wary of attacking them while using Think Progress as a source, or of using some of the arguments Doug used against any possible link to anything they ever put in a video, for example the on the ground coverage of a major protest at the center of national attention where he films Damigo punching Emily Rose Marshall and that particular video is then used as the primary piece of evidence for the national coverage of that exact punch, etc. The video is valid. It shows the event. It is the primary source of evidence for the majority of the news coverage of the event, with stills and clips from it being shown in almost every major report on the punch. I've made the argument above, and on the original page. I don't know how much more clearly I can make that. JStressman (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

celebritynetworth.com
Clearly a non-reliable source (we even have a reliable source for the website's unreliability). However, it is still being used on numerous and I am posting here mainly to get help to clean-up such use, and prevent it in the future. PS: Compare with famousbirthdays.com discussed recently, another website designed to scoop up search-engine referrals for common topics of public curiosity. Are there other such examples that we should treat similarly? Abecedare (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Previous RSN discussions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,  7. Abecedare (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed about 20, while doing so encountered starpulse.com, which doesn't seem reliable and is used on, though lot of uses seem replaceable with better sources, unlike with celebritynetworth with its guestimated net worths... could you add celebritynetworth.com to User:XLinkBot/RevertList as with famousbirthdays.com? Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. Is there any (semi-)automated way to remove the links?
 * I am not really familiar with the XLinkBot and other spam-lists, but if I am reading it right, the bot does not revert addition of links if the user account is > 7 day old, or if the "link is in a reference". So I am not too sure if it will help much (on the other hand, it shouldn't hurt either). Will wait for some further input and will add the link if I get the all-clear from better-informed users. Pinging  who I believe have worked in the non-RS/spam-linking area. Abecedare (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the main thing IMO is to remove the unreliable net worth information associated with the ref, so I don't think that's really possible semi-automatically Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, Celebritynetworth.com may be one of the most heavily used "celeb-stats" site. The sites copy from each other, move domain names, and have their own mirrors.
 * Without looking for past discussions:
 * Then there are popular celeb profile and dating information websites (eg, ), some of which publish/republish/scrape news and gossip. --Ronz (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would definitely request addition to XLinkBot revert list, at WT:SBL. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It has been added, which is good, also to revertreferencelist which I didn't know about and seems quite useful. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been accumulating links I've found on wiki of sites like this, particularly the "wiki" style "worth-height-weight" garbage. Can see them here. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  15:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Then there are popular celeb profile and dating information websites (eg, ), some of which publish/republish/scrape news and gossip. --Ronz (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would definitely request addition to XLinkBot revert list, at WT:SBL. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It has been added, which is good, also to revertreferencelist which I didn't know about and seems quite useful. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been accumulating links I've found on wiki of sites like this, particularly the "wiki" style "worth-height-weight" garbage. Can see them here. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  15:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Then there are popular celeb profile and dating information websites (eg, ), some of which publish/republish/scrape news and gossip. --Ronz (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would definitely request addition to XLinkBot revert list, at WT:SBL. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It has been added, which is good, also to revertreferencelist which I didn't know about and seems quite useful. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been accumulating links I've found on wiki of sites like this, particularly the "wiki" style "worth-height-weight" garbage. Can see them here. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  15:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

businesswiki.info
Is https://businesswiki.info/ a reliable source?

I am helping a new user who is confused about why a citation to businesswiki.info was deleted as an unreliable source.

The "wiki" and the huge number of companies listed in the name makes me think this is a user-editable source and thus not a RS for that reason alone, but I could not find any obvious way to edit the pages. My second thought was that they are repackaging public information and/or press releases. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not seeing any evidence of reliability. It looks more like an advertising aggregator or some such, and the contact page has a single obviously personal gmail address. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Aside from the personal John Smith gmail address, every "article" on that site is authored by that same John Smith. I notice that you can search for companies by U.S. State.... and there are 18 states offered in the dropdown state-selector. I guess it could be possible that's because Trump did something I haven't heard about yet, however I rather suspect that's more an indication of incompetent and unreviewed website development. I then tried doing a search for this BusinessWiki / BusinessWiki.info company, in their own search results. Apparently this company is so incompetent or so non-existent that it can't find any trace of itself, chuckle. To be fair, they probably indiscriminately scrape their info from other sites that are generally reliable, but I see no reason to expect that they can or do apply any standard of care. As a final point: Even if this site did somehow earn a reputation for reliability, the site clearly contains indiscriminate catalog listings. Indiscriminate catalog/directory listings firmly have zero weight towards Notability. Alsee (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * It falls under WP:SPS, and fails its requirements ("...produced by an established expert on the subject matter...").  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  20:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

goodreads.com
Is Goodreads.com a reliable source? I see it being used extensively (e.g. the page List of urban fantasy novels uses it more than a hundred times). In that kind of volume, we are just parroting whatever goodreads said. My understanding is that it is a wiki site with user input. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised there hasn't been a discussion (that I can find) on this. Yes, a great deal of the information there is user submitted, and I assume the rest is from publishers. I treat it as reliable for basic catalog info on books and authors (e.g. that a certain book exists, by a certain author, with a certain publication categorie, etc), assuming that this information is coming directly from the publishers. I don't think it should be used for anything else, and especially not for BLPs citing their author profiles. --Ronz (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I will happily use Goodreads personally for reader opinions about books just as I use Yelp for opinions about local pizzerias when I am hungry in a town away from home. But neither source is acceptable for general usage as references on Wikipedia. For basic bibiographic information about books, far better sources are available, starting with Google Books. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * For a lot of those things we can also use WorldCat.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  20:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm surpised it is allowed by the edit filter. It's being used extensively. Form the above I see one vote for using it as basic biblio info (would the publisher site not be better?) and another against all use.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Seconded, while the publisher info on the site is likely accurate, this is information that by definition will be readily available at other sources that are more likely to be accurate, if not independent. I really can't imagine any reason for needing to cite goodreads other than WP:CITESPAMsigned,Rosguill talk 00:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I think Ronz has hit the nail on the head with how to treat it. I also think that there are more reliable sources for this information. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would never use goodreads as a source. My question is more about what to do with the many thousands of times it is already used, and whether we should be adding it to the edit filter? I imagine there is another noticeboard for that?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Utterly useless, to the extent that its presence in an article is enough of a reason to check the entire article contents very carefully. Anyone using it in an article wither does not understand the nature of sourcing for books. As suggested aboe, I agree we should add it to the edit filter.
 * Echoing the above, reviews like this can't be used for anything in a WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It is no more reliable than an Amazon product page. Which is not at all. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

MOFA of Japan
Can anyone assess the following:

Source:

Article: People's Mujahedin of Iran

Content: Japan recognized MEK as a terrorist organization.

Please note the "Thirteen Entities for the Measures against Terrorism" title in the given source below which MEK is mentioned. -- M h hossein   talk 17:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed this. This is a 2002 post 9/11 (and probably a cooy of the US FPO at the time - OR) PRIMARY stmt, that freezes assets for "terror and the like" (on MEK and several others) - so not quite a designation, but very close. The problem is that this was being used to source a current 2018 designation (for an organization that in 2002 was on many FPO lists, buut as of 2018 has been removed from most). The Japanese Wiki on MEK does not say this is so currently (yes, not a source, but you would think they would be updated for Japan when they list the Iranian, Iraqi, and (wrongly - out of date) Canadian designation. Modern news sources mention Iran and Iraq designating MEK currently - but are silent on Japan.Icewhiz (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would not talk about Japanese Wiki at all. -- M h hossein   talk 12:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment by an un-involved user is requested, please. -- M h hossein   talk 12:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with Icewhiz. This is a primary source that's 16 years out of date. Does the terminology in this document mean that Japan formally recognizes these groups as terrorist organizations? It's unclear from the document itself. Is this list still up-to-date or has Japan changed its policy? Also unclear. Absent some more recent source or a secondary source that provides some interpretation of the meaning of the specific document, I don't think this can be used to claim that Japan recognized MEK as a terrorist organization. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks. -- M h hossein   talk 12:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Alan Freer's William the Conqueror Database
The main page of this website is here. The specific issue is the use of this page as a source to locate the living descendants of the Earl of Clare and specifically the sentence "Though the title of The White Knight is presently in abeyance, heirs to the Fitzgibbon line remain extant through the living descendants of the Earls of Clare." at White Knight (Fitzgibbon family). There have been a series of arguments made by User:Justinstuartlyon for using this site at Talk:White Knight (Fitzgibbon family), ie that he is "a Member of the Society of Genealogists, London.", that he "appears to have contributed to many scholarly works concerning the historical context surrounding the subject of the article in question." apparently as demonstrated at this link although I can'f find anything there and it's about an "Allen Freer". I'm not sure if the mention of scholarly works refers to the claim that " He was a regular contributor to the North British Review until 2015." which was withdrawn after I showed that the North British Review had ceased to publish in the 19th century. Doug Weller talk 13:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Self-published and doesn't cite its sources. Without sources, it's useless. The Medieval Lands project is more reliable because it at least cites sources, and we don't consider it a reliable source. (And any site that continues to use names such as "Lackland" or "Beauclerk" for some of the English kings is showing its age...) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Furthermore on self-published websites that at least cite their sources: You still don't have to cite them at Wikipedia because you can go to the sources they cite and use those instead! -- Jayron 32 14:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * However User:Jayron32, I have no problems with a two step approach. (1) as an interim step using WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT to a website that is Wikipedia unreliable, but usually accurate, with a citation to a reliable source that the editor adding the citation does not have access. I think this is preferable to leaving a fact unsupported by an inline citation, or removing the fact (that is probably accurate) from the Wikipedia article. (2) Another editor with access to the reliable sources can in future remove the unreliable one, once they have confirmed the citation in the reliable source. -- PBS (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

kannadamoviesinfo.wordpress.com
So, I came across this website several times today, ran a COIBot report but there are far too many occurrences than there should be - over 1000 on en.wiki alone. So I am wondering if I need to start a discussion before I request an AWB run to remove it as it appears to me as some long term refspam. It is basically an aggregate of several websites, of which several have already been determined not to be RS and seems to also take from Wikipedia. I understand wordpress is a host however this doesn't seem to meet the requirements of WP:RS or WP:V and is similar to citing other wiki-mirrors. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  15:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Delete away. --Ronz (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. There's nothing reliable about anything on Wordpress. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC).
 * Any chance you'd be willing to do an AWB run to remove these? CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  15:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. Primefac (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Scaphism - Plutarch - Ctesias
The entire Scaphism article bothers me. It's been mentioned in many clickbait lists, and physical books along those lines, but it doesn't seem clear to me that it actually exists (specifically, outside general insect & exposure tortures). The problem is that the single source for the thing is a story from Plutarchs 'Life of Artaxerxes II'. Though the information has often been written by others, they're all repeating & sourcing Plutarch. Plutarch appears to attribute the story to Ctesias, who even Plutarch said was full of shit IIRC. It's unclear if Plutarch even intended to present the story as true, and he's not exactly unbiased or reliable in general, and Ctesias is widely regarded as fiction (apart from naming rivers). It appears to me to be apocryphal, and is also very much overlapping with the Mithridates (soldier) article. While 'Life of Artaxerxes II' as a piece is notable (though we don't seem to have an article on it), it's use as a reliable source at all doesn't seem right to me, and both Mithridates & Scaphism especially articles don't at all put the context of 'btw-this-story-is-probably-not-true' across.

Discussion on the talk page of Scaphism has in the past argued this discussion in terms of original research. For example, the torture method is described in 'One Bloody Thing After Another: The World's Gruesome History' by Jacob_F._Field, and stating that he's merely repeating Plutarch/Ctesias is cast as OR...therefore that book is a RS on the practice being real, what with Field being a professional historian an all...

tl;dr - Is the source Plutarch or Ctesias, and are either of them RS for this practice...and how does/should that inherited sourcing thing (where there are many mentions, some by historians, but all tracing back to the same assertion from a 1st century source) work?

92.3.155.60 (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: There is currently a deletion discussion on the Scaphism article. Most discussion probably better belongs over there.
 * An important thing to understand about Wikipedia is that we don't deal with "truth". Something can be historically noteworthy, even if it is fictional. We summarize what Reliable Sources say. A topic warrants an article when there has been significant coverage of the topic by multiple Reliable Sources. The article appears to cite six sources, including historians who appear to be appropriately reliable. I have not closely examined the six sources, but it is not relevant if they refer back to Plutarch. The important thing is that multiple sources considered the topic significant enough to write about it, and they considered the ancient accounts to be worthy of discussion. Many religions contain unlikely or contradictory ancient accounts, but they are noteworthy because people continue to repeat or discuss them. The article reasonably explains the primary source, that it is a "notoriously suspect source", and that it is an "alleged" form of execution. The article isn't saying it happened, the article is saying the account and the concept are a topic worth summarizing.
 * The article and sourcing looks rather thin, but everyone at the deletion discussion are piling up against the nomination. There may be some reactance against the argument that the story may be "mythical" or unimportant. Those kinds of arguments are considered invalid. Alsee (talk) 04:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have a general question about whether Plutarch should be considered secondary sources; rather, should they be considered primary sources for the purposes of Wikipedia? When we are writing about ancient places, persons, and events we should be using scholars of the ancient world as our sources. The presumption should be that interpreting Plutarch or other ancients is original research. We should use experts about the ancients to interpret Plutarch. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would categorize Plutarch as a primary source. However the article also includes modern (or comparatively modern) secondary sources. Just skimming the dates, 1903, 1920, 1984, and 2012. Alsee (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Chick-fil-A
Can the article Chick-fil-A’s Creepy Infiltration of New York City be used to support the contested claim that "Chick Fil-A reportedly continues to quietly donate to anti-L.G.B.T. groups"? Slideshow Bob (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * With attribution yes, it's an RS and the claim is in there.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That article reads like an editorial, rather than a factual news report - it's written in the first person. With a topic that has attracted as much national news attention as Chick-fil-A and its CEO's religious beliefs, it should not be hard to find a much better reference if the statement is true.  Peacock (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's narrative journalism but that's different from editorial. It's an RS and statements of fact sourced from it can be reported as statements of fact sourced from it. Simonm223 (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The Newyorker piece is fine as an RS here. In addition, I just fact-checked the claim myself. According to the most recent available tax forms (2016), one of the biggest recipients of this money is the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Not only does that organization prohibit gay/lesbian adult leaders and evangelize anti-LGBT, they restrict participation by gay/lesbian children. Alsee (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

United States Senate election in Montana, 2018


This article contains lists of endorsements per candidate, virtually all of which are primary-sourced, often to ideological groups. It seems to me that in order for us to record an endorsement of a candidate, we'd need a reliable independent secondary source to establish the significance of that endorsement - often the press releases that accompany these things are self-serving, and in many case the objective significance of the endorsing group is open to serious question. Guy (Help!) 13:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Gibb Songs - Joseph Brennan
Gibb Songs appears to be a self-published Bee Gees fan website by Joseph Brennan, an IT worker by day, who it seems to me, by Wikipedia standards, would most likely not be considered "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". It's cited dozens if not hundreds of times in a multitude of Bee Gees Wikipedia articles. Although the website is impressively extensive, appears to be well-researched, and its removal would have a large impact on the articles, it looks to me like a textbook case of WP:SPS. WP:BLPSPS also applies in the case of Barry Gibb. Brennan is credited with "assistance", but not as an author, in The Bee Gees: Tales of the Brothers Gibb (Omnibus Press ISBN 978-1780387406). The website is cited in The Bee Gees: The Biography, which acknowledges him with:
 * "Thanks to Joe Brennan for his indispensable online archive, Gibb Songs: www.columbia.edu/~brennan/beegees. Everyone who listens to the Bee Gees owes Joe for his accuracy, completeness, ceaseless effort and generosity."

I wasn't able to find any other citations of the website by reliable sources. Brennan doesn't appear to have any work published by an established publisher.

Brennan gives this statement about Gibb Songs:
 * "This is not an ‘official’ page authorized by them or their record company, and I have no special access to them. The information presented here is the best I could come up with from my research, and the opinions are mine. Some of the statements made are my best guess based on uncertain evidence."

He gives a list of sources, books as well as many personal contacts and unpublished correspondence. The pages themselves don't contain any sort of inline citations or footnotes. It also mentions the "Words email list", a "forum for fans to discuss the Gibb brothers and their music in endless detail. To a considerable degree my opinions and choice of emphasis here were influenced by the many discussions Chris has made possible through the list."

Typical statements sourced to the site include, from the Barry Gibb article:
 * "The band later changed its name to Bee Gees. In 1959, the brothers began singing between races at the Redcliffe Speedway to earn money. Their vocal talent brought them to the attention of Bill Gates, a radio deejay. Gates was also interested in Gibb's original material including "Let Me Love You" and "(Underneath the) Starlight of Love". After hearing those songs, Gates asked Gibb for more original material. Gibb quit school in September 1961 and the Gibbs moved to Surfers Paradise. The brothers spent the summers of 1961 and 1962 performing at hotels and clubs in the Gold Coast area. By September 1962, Gibb managed to audition songs to Col Joye. The Gibb family moved in Sydney at the start of 1963.
 * Around the same time, the Bee Gees were signed to Festival but they were assigned to Leedon. Their first single, "The Battle of the Blue and the Grey" was written by Gibb. All of the Bee Gees' singles from 1963 to 1966 were written by Gibb. Between 1963 and 1966, Gibb's songs were recorded by numerous Australian recording artists including Trevor Gordon, Noeleen Batley, Anne Shelton, April Byron, Ronnie Burns and Lori Balmer."
 * --all sourced to Gibb Songs : 1946-1962 and Gibb Songs :1966

Further very large sections of the article, including information about song production, chart performance, as well as extensive biographical information, are sourced to (and sometimes closely paraphrased from) the website. Numerous other Bee Gees articles do the same.

Thoughts? --IamNotU (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The site is hosted by Columbia University, which may imply that it has some level of "academic legitimacy", or not, depending on what the university allows and disallows on its web server. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As I understand, he works as a technologist in the IT department at Columbia, and they allow him to put his hobby pages in his personal directory. His main page says "I work on email systems. But this is where I get away from all that." Some of his pages also have this disclaimer:

Joe Brennan            Columbia University in the City of New York brennan@columbia.edu   ("affiliation shown for identification only") http://www.cc.columbia.edu/~brennan/
 * --IamNotU (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It sounds like it fails Reliable Source standards and ideally they should all be replaced with better sources. Those refs could be removed without adding a new source.... if anyone wants to challenge it. The info itself would then be unsourced, and would also be eligible for removal.... if anyone has a good faith challenge to it. However given your description as "impressively extensive, appears to be well-researched, and its removal would have a large impact on the articles", sometimes the best option is benign neglect. No one is required any specific edit, and you could always decide that it would be more productive to spend your time doing different edits. Alsee (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for your reply, that's pretty much what I'm thinking. I'm not really interested in spending time on it personally or removing citatons en masse. I had just noticed it being a self-published source and used very extensively, so I thought I should point it out. Well, this section will be here if someone wants to challenge existing use of it or know if it's ok to use it in the future. I'd say it should definitely be avoided, and other published biographies be cited instead. --IamNotU (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Marvel Rising: Secret Wariors - Credits suitable source for themselves?
I'm currently in a dispute with another editor regarding the Marvel Rising: Secret Warriors film. I'm attempting to add credited roles from the film, using the credits themselves as a source including the timestamp at which they appear. The other editor contends that this is an insufficient source per WP:FILMCAST. However, I see nothing in the guidelines that says a primary source is insufficient in this particular instance. Could we get a ruling on this? -- 68.32.218.140 (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is inefficient since FILMCAST expressly tell us to limit the list to the main cast, just saying that any actor/character in the film's credit is eligible is false. Thus I have general found that it should be limited to outside RS. Spshu (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Per FILMCAST: "it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources, blue links (in some cases), etc." All of the roles you removed were listed in order of billing in the credits, were speaking roles, were named characters, and nearly all had blue links to their own articles. The only arguable point is whether the credits are sufficient sourcing for themselves, and based on past discussions on this very noticeboard, they do based on the fact that they are a primary source and one which requires no further interpretation beyond what is presented, as per WP:PRIMARY. -- 68.32.218.140 (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as ReliableSourceNoticeboard goes, yes credits are a Reliable Source that actor X played role Y. However it is sill possible for Reliably Sourced content to be excluded due to other policies and guidelines such as Indiscriminate and Due weight. Taking a glance at the editing dispute, one of the removals was the listing for Captain America. I would guess(?) that was probably a major role, and it seems dubious why anyone would dispute that listing. I didn't look at the other disputed entries and I have no opinions. So my answer is (1) Don't frivolously challenge major roles, and (2) where good faith objections exist it might be necessary to find some source establishing that the specific entry warrants inclusion here. Alsee (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Is Bioethics in a Cultural Context a RS
The question has arisen as to whether "Bioethics in a Cultural Context" can be viewed as a RS because it has been demonstrated that it is in error. A editor has used Barry to try to prove that John Paul II used the term "culture of life" for the first time in a speech in Denver in 1994. However, rather than 1994 as Barry claims, the speech was actually given in 1993. This suggests a failure within the Barry source for basic fact-checking, and suggests the book as a whole cannot be relied upon.


 * Publisher: Cengage Learning
 * Author: Vincent Barry
 * Title: Bioethics in a Cultural Context
 * Date of publication:2011

Can Barry be used in the article Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contaldo80 (talk • contribs) 18:13, October 2, 2018 (UTC)
 * The existence of a single error doesn't seem to establish a source as unreliable in general. --tronvillain (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Very helpful - thanks for the clarification. Is it reasonable, however, in light of this error to ask for editors to provide further material from the source to check that no other serious editors have been made? Thanks in anticipation. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's reasonable to request a quotation from a source if someone apparently has access to it. --tronvillain (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tronvillain. BrianCUA has access to that source as they are the editor that referenced it. I have asked for that fuller quotation but have yet to receive it. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in the article is the source being used to source the year of the speech, which was off by a single digit. It was only used in that context on talk to rebut the questioner's WP:OR.  In the article, the source is being used to back up another fact.  --BrianCUA (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So you rebutted my perceived error with an error of your own? Contaldo80 (talk) 23:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So, what's the other fact that this backs up? --tronvillain (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The history is that the article said the term originated with John Paul II in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae. I (wrongly I admit) tidied up the section and said that the "term was first used by JPII in EV". BrianCua subsequently found that JPII had used the term in Denver and in an attempt to correct my initial mistake cited the Barry source that said JPII had used the term earlier than EV in Denver in 2994. Of course it was 1993. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If any article is actually citing the 1993/1994 date in any article and there are conflicting sources, editors should obviously chose to use an agreed-correct source over a clearly-mistaken source. The fact that an otherwise-reliable source is shown to contain a mistake is not sufficient to discredit it entirely. Our standard is "generally and reasonably reliable", not "absolute perfection". If you want to dispute specific article content sourced to this book, then please follow the RSN posting instructions. You're supposed to identify the article, the source being used, and the content at issue. Then we can evaluate whether that-source is reliable for that-content in that-context. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary support, routine/uncontroversial claims only need lightweight support. A source may be highly reliable for some kinds of claims while unreliable for other claims. The book is surely reliable for it's own publication date, but almost certainly not reliable if it make extraordinary claims about the laws of physics. Alsee (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This sounds sensible. I was hoping that BrianCua could reassure that the Barry source is otherwise reliable but providing a fuller quote where he deals with the issue of "culture of life". I agree absolute perfection is not achievable, but some certainty that getting a year wrong is not the only thing Barry has done would be nice. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Hews
There is some discussion about the reliability of some sources at Articles for deletion/Francis Hews, which may hav an impact on the result of the AfD (and if kept on the article itself).

The book "Spoils Won in the Day of Battle" by Francis Hews dates to 1798 or thereabouts, and has been reprinted in 1972. That 1972 reprint contains more information about the writer, other reprints, and so on. It was printed by "E. J. Woodcraft" from Biggleswade. That this version exists is verifiable (see here or some secondhand bookshops online), but can this version be considered a reliable source for any other information (e.g. that this book has been "Reprinted in part as Zion's Casket, 1852, as Zion's Witness in 1967-69"), in the absence of reliable sources supporting this information?

And while we are at it, is Experimental Religion a reliable source?

Any input (including but not limited to !votes) is welcome at the AfD! Fram (talk) 06:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't the book be reliable? It's a 1972 reprinting of a 1798 book with the addition of some notes on the author. Here's the page of notes that I photographed specially for you Fram. I can put up more photos as required. None of the versions appear to be available online as far as I can see or we could substitute those versions to some extent. Now I look at that page again, I think it is likely that Zion's Casket and Zion's Witness are journals rather than alternative titles (British Library have The Spiritual Magazine and Zion's Casket) but that only makes the subject more notable as it means it was published in multiple media and in the case of Zion's Witness in serial form. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We are not here to discuss notability, that's what the AfD is for (although it isn't really clear why an unverifiable magazine reprint would be more or less evidence of notability than an unverifiable book reprint). About reliability; why wouldn't the reprinted book be reliable? Because we have no indication whatsoever that the author of these additional notes, the additional information, is an authority on anything (history, publications, whatever). Unless you can provide any information showing that the publisher is well-respected, known as a source of reliable information, or that the person who wrote these notes is known as such, all we have is a probably self-published book by someone getting his information from who-knows-where, and where that information isn't verified. A source can be perfectly accurate but still not be a reliable source according to enwiki rules, and in that case should not be used in articles (or AfDs). That's a basic rule of RS, and I'm rather surprised that this needs to be explained. Fram (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not all sources are absolutely clear cut. Where they are not it falls on us to use our judgement to work out whether the source is probably reliable. What we have here is a properly published book, produced in Bedfordshire about a Bedfordshire preacher, inevitably a niche publication I agree, that consists 99% of a reprinting of a 1798 text. To that has been added one page of basic facts, the accuracy of much of which is confirmed by other sources (dates, publications, places preached etc), a map (not used in the article) and photographs (not used in the article). Which part of this source do you dispute the accuracy of? Philafrenzy (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * But this one is absolutely clear cut. We have nothing that points to it being a reliable source. It's a self-published source (a publisher with only one book to its name?), with information written by someone (E. J. Woodcraft presumably, unless you have another name) with nothing else on his CV. That he is from the same region as the original author may explain his interest, but adds again nothing to his reliability. Please try to understand that lack of reliability does not necessarily mean lack of accuracy. But what we may judge is this: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."(emphasis mine) That reputation is not made by you or me checking some things and finding them to be correct: that reputation must come from other sources. A book which is with some regularity used as a source by other researchers (and not to dismiss it completely) is a book which has such a reputation. Here we have a book which is not referenced once, by a publisher / author who isn't referenced once. Hence, it is the most basic example of an unreliable source as defined by enwiki. Your strawman arguments of "Which part of this source do you dispute the accuracy of" are irrelevant and tiring. Fram (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, additional material tacked onto an old manuscript by a self-published source doesn't somehow become reliable. If someone wants to cite the original manuscript they can do that, or there seems to be a Gage ECCO reprint. If the accuracy of the "basic facts" added is confirmed by other sources... use those sources instead. --tronvillain (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Who published the reprint (or indeed the original)?Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The original looks to be self-published by the author (via a professional printer of course), but it's hard to be certain of this for that period. The reprint is 99% certain a self-published effort with extremely little impact. The magazine reprints inbetween are so far only mentioned in the self published reprint, and have not been directly verified, nor have they been mentioned by any reliable source. Fram (talk) 06:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The phrase "self-published" has little meaning in 1798 as the distinction between printer and publisher had hardly emerged then. By way of background, it's listed in British Autobiographies: An Annotated Bibliography and there is a mention of the publisher/printer (Smith?) in Factotum magazine (the original) in 1982 in the context of Bedfordshire printers. There was a 1981 reprint of the 1972 reprint which is held by the British Library meaning they have three different printings of the book. It's also listed in Vol. 2 of A Baptist Bibliography (Kingsgate Press, 1922). Philafrenzy (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

www.israeldefense.co.il
Is http://www.israeldefense.co.il is a RS?

Someone wants to use it for a statement on the West Bank article, see this.

I also see it used on several articles about the Israeli war in Lebanon, see here, but I cannot see it discussed at WP:RS/N earlier, so we should have a thorough discussion of the site, Huldra (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of http://www.israeldefense.co.il as a reference in this instance was only to demonstrate an example of the synonymous usage of two terms in Hebrew in the Hebrew-speaking world/media, not for any other sort of factual claim. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This site should be discussed beyond that issue, as it is used as a source on the war in Lebanon. (And also, if it is not a RS, should it be used as an example of anything?) Huldra (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There are numerous examples of pages like TRT News, Al Masdar News and so on that are used to present claims of events if that is clarified, I would argue that the usage of terms should also be considered to be valid information drawn from these sites, especially if complemented from other sites with differing political viewpoints, which was the case in my example. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * This is a defense magazine, with editorial controls. Icewhiz (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I will further note that the author of the piece in question,, has a doctorate, lectures in political science at a university, and publishes in the relevant field. Icewhiz (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that such a source has such a clear POV that any statement from it should definitely not be in Wikipedia's voice, and, where possible, it should be avoided as an RS. In limited circumstances, and for uncontroversial statements, it might be OK. Being an academic doesn't mean that you're automatically a WP:RS, as we've been explaining in Parapsychology today.Simonm223 (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Since I'm unable to read Hebrew, I can't speak to this specific reference fully, but it seems to A) be supporting an extant reference that was accepted, and B) seems to be expressing only what an Israeli opinion on naming of a piece of contested land is. Which means, meh, unless there's a context I'm missing here, I'd say this specific instance doesn't look too problematic, but I would hesitate to give anything resembling a blanket RS statement to the source, especially absent supporting sources. Simonm223 (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In this case the source is describing the Hebrew etymology of post 1967 territory and how terminlogy shifted from one term to another - the entire piece is on usage in Hebrew and by Israeli sources. The proposed use on Wiki is limited to terminology in Hebrew.Icewhiz (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Is the source being used to support any specific claim of ownership over the contested territory or only as a reference for what Israel calls the place? Simonm223 (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's being used in the lead where it lists the names of the West Bank in Arabic and Hebrew, with two different names provided in Hebrew. signed,Rosguill talk 19:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I guess my last question would be, is it a potentially contested or controversial naming likely to run afoul of WP:NPOV notwithstanding the source? If no, I'm inclined to say leave it. If yes, is the other source supporting it? If yes, then again, I'd say leave it because it's not really doing any harm and there's no point in another edit war in the IP article set. If, however it's the sole source for a controversial statement I'm inclined to suggest removal unless a supporting, more neutral, source exists. Simonm223 (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is far from the sole source - it is one of many. This particular source has the advantage of being written by a qualified academic and discussing etymology at length (the entire piece is on the etymological evolution). Sources on common Israeli Hebrew usage tend to be in Israeli Hebrew. Icewhiz (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Its reliable for etymology and usage in Israel --Shrike (talk) 06:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Then I would not object to its use in this specific and limited context as per my previous statements regarding non-controversial usage. Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Threesome
There's an ongoing effort to stick "devil's triangle" in the Threesome article related to the Kavanaugh hearings. One source is a cheesy listicle in Cosmopolitan (unreliable.) The other is the New York Times (good) but the article only states it was used by one group of friends at one HS (Kavanaugh's.) That's fine for the kavanaugh article but here it implies general usage which the Times does not state. I won't be reverting again but someone should keep an eye on it. 199.127.56.123 (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would say Cosmo is borderline reliable in this instance. Here's a VICE article from 2012. The term used is "devil's three-way" or "devil's threesome" (MMF) as opposed to "angel's" (FFM)... though I suppose if you are a woman who likes three-ways, maybe it's the opposite? Yetishawl (talk) 05:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Context matters: While Cosmo would be only borderline RS for a topic outside of its pop-culture wheelhouse, it can be considered RS for pop culture. A pop-culture article (especially in an established mainstream culture publication such as Cosmo) can be regarded as a reliable source for pop-culture references (as user Galobtter also pointed out). As low-brow as the cited Cosmo piece may be, it actually does serve as evidence of vernacular usage of the term in question, so the user Raquel Baranow was not wrong to post it, and that user's edit did not merit undoing on RS grounds. Moreover, the combination of the cited NYT piece (especially because that piece was itself a fact-checking article) and the cited Cosmo piece indicate that the usage of the term indicated in those articles (which were five years apart) is not isolated. That should be enough to let Raquel Baranow's edits and citations stand even in a more "serious" WP article, so surely those citations more than satisfy RS criteria for such a topic as the meaning of sexual slang terminology (for which weightier academic references might prove difficult to find, though you're welcome to try; and I think here the burden would be on you to do so). Jadev18 (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The Threesome article uses another Cosmopolitan reference. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks to for pointing at this discussion. With Cosmo being of dubious reliability, and the NYT piece speaking only to the specific context of Kavanaugh's high school, I would hope that we can find a more reliable source for including this in the article. The fact that Cosmo is cited elsewhere in the article isn't particularly useful, IMHO. This term is particularly hot-button right now and should require extraordinary sourcing before we put it in Wikipedia's voice. I feel that we should be extremely cautious before having Wikipedia appear to take a stance in a political dispute. Waggie (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The term is only significant because of the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination. If at some point it finds its way into that article then we could consider including "a term used in the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination." TFD (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Jadev18 is correct about the Cosmo article. For this purpose, it's a RS. So we now have two RS, 2013 and 2015, documenting the meaning as a MMF sexual threesome.



This should be good enough to use.

As for the Kavanaugh hoax/alternative fact/cover story....it does not qualify in any sense to document the alleged "drinking game".

Kavanaugh's definition appears to be a creative alternative fact and the first known mention (as a drinking game) in history, as far as we know, immediately followed by mention here from a Congressional IP. It's all more than a bit suspicious. We base content here on RS, and we don't dignify insignificant hoaxes like this (or whatever other term you'd call this occurrence) by mentioning them here. If this doesn't die down, and enough RS point out the hoax as an "alternative fact" (falsehood), subsequently followed by an attempt to misuse Wikipedia to provide a cover story for it, then we might end up with Devil's Triangle (hoax) or Devil's Triangle (cover story), where Kavanaugh and the IP source can be immortalized. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is really an RSN issue. The appropriate policy is WP:Undue weight. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. We don't include random slang terms in an encyclopedia article just because it gets very informal passing mention in RS. Alsee (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I can’t speak to the “threesome” definition... but I can (anecdotally) speak to the drinking game definition. I was in college back in the 80’s... and we did indeed play a variation of “quarters” with three glasses. At my university we called it “Bermuda Triangle” (or just “Bermuda”).  Note that “Devil’s Triangle” is an alternative name for the Bermuda Triangle.  Just saying. Blueboar (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Several people have researched this and found zero references to this as a drinking game. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well... all I can say is that I definitely played it (or something like it) back in my college years. It isn’t a hoax. Now, obviously we would need a source before we could mention it in an article such as Drinking game... my only point was to say that Kavanaugh didn’t make it up. Blueboar (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I can attest that it's terribly hard to find sources for party games in general.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  01:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree this really isn't a RSN question - we're simply not a repository for slang use by college fraternity in the 80s - it's quite possible "all of the above" (and then some) is correct. And it is also more than probable that there were multiple other regional slang terms for both - Wikipedia is not a dictionary - we aren't a repository for slang terms. If this jargon debate somehow becomes significant to Kavanaugh's confirmation - it should stay there and not percolate into Threesome, Drinking Game, or anywhere else. Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Reliable, yes - but not DUE on account of WP:ONEWAY (no pun intended) Rhoark (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

famousbirthdays.com
I know this has come up before, but I think this is also coupled with recent BLP questions regarding birth dates, so I will ping that page to this.

Famous Birthdays purportedly documents the birth dates and years of celebrities. They do not provide sources for these dates. Per #3 of their terms "We don't warranty the accuracy or suitability of the information found on our platform for any particular purpose. We acknowledge that such information and materials could contain inaccuracies and we thus absolve ourselves of any liability for any such inaccuracies to the extent permitted by law."

To me, this clearly makes it not reliable, but it still keeps on coming up. The current situation I've seen it is for Shin Lim. I wrote much of this bio, and the sources I found (quality sources, that is) do not give his birth day, only his age. I do not know what the editor in this diff has in relation to Lim, but the "does not want his birth date publicized" falls square in line with BLP, since I can't find a source that is reliable, I've never included it (only birth year-ish knowing his age). But with him in the news, we've got newer editors trying to source to Famous Birthdays, which is not helping.

So should Famous Birthdays be at all considered a RS? Since it offers no other content, I would also almost argue this should be a blacklisted site, assuming that we do not trust the birthdays given. (But you can certain say, if Celebrity X is claimed to be on this birthdate, can I find a better collaborating source for it...?) --M asem (t) 23:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Clearly non-RS. Unknown publisher. No information about, or reputation for, fact-checking. High-likelihood of being a circular source in at least some instances. Abecedare (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Might be reasonable to blacklist it. --Izno (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Prior RSN discussions about the source: 1,2, 3, 4; all with same consensus opinion. So I would be fine with adding it to the list of perennial sources. I was pleasantly surprised though that famousbirthdays.com is currently not linked from article-space although quite a few draft-articles seem to cite it. So I'll leave the judgment as to whether it is worth adding it to the spamlist to editors more familiar with the standards applied in that area. Abecedare (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Just want to throw a +1 here. When searching for a BLP DOB it is an unreliable site that pops up frequently. Blacklisting might be a good options to avoid future issues. PackMecEng (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I've been removing its use as a source and external link since early 2017. I'm not keeping count, but my impression is that it's added about once a day, mostly from inexperienced editors. I stopped removing it from drafts once it became common knowledge among draft reviewers that it is unreliable. I'd requested it be given to XLinkBot back in Feb 2017, and have been keeping notes there on what I've found. Using an insource search: makes it easy to find actual usage within articles. --Ronz (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's been added to XLinkBot. Documenting it at WP:RSP as well seems a good idea. --Ronz (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Turns out, they actively solicit information on their own site: https://www.famousbirthdays.com/pending/ava-max.html --Ronz (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * But that seems to beg anyone that can provide it, and as they do not seem to give credit to whomever finds it or the source, that still leaves it extremely unverifiable even if true. -M asem (t) 15:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I just dealt with this website here. It was a red flag to me, and glad to find out it was justified to remove it. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I tend to remove this source whenever I see it, because it's frequently in conflict with other reliable sources and this leads to silly edit wars. Other times it's used as a sole source for a birthdate that's obviously incorrect, like a current teen actor born in 1974. In short, they have the opposite of a reputation for fact-checking, and as others have said they don't cite their own sources and allow user-submitted data. Considering its frequent misuse in BLPs I would support blacklisting. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would also support blacklisting. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Clearly unreliable, almost certainly uses WP as a source, wittingly or otherwise. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC).

National Park Service
Falcon Rest is largely based on this document from NPS. Obviously it's better to use other sources as well, but is there any reason not to see this document as a generally reliable source on the history of this house? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not from the NPS, it's the form certified by "Herbert Hayes" (I think), the Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, with the Tennessee Historical Commission when that body applied for National Register of Historic Places status for Falcon Rest. It's not clear who exactly filled the form out - I'm guessing it's staff from the TN Historical Commission but ... that's unclear. The NPS is only hosting the primary document. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In plain English, it is published by the National Park Service. The scanned and publushed version happens to omit required Section 11 which gives author(s) names and affiliations, but a full copy of the form can be obtained by request to the NPS (see wp:NRHPHELP about where to email). I would regard it as a wp:RS generally. It was in fact reviewed by state and national staff and was accepted as valid by state staff and by NPS. The state and national staffs do question submissions and do insist upon revisions sometimes, and I believe they also do reject inadequate work. It is wp:primary with respect to observations on current condition of house and other direct observations by its author(s). It is secondary or tertiary with respect to stuff from sources it cites. —Doncram (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. I arrived here from note posted about this at wt:NRHP. --Doncram (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would agree that it is "published" by the NPS - and there is no reason, whatsoever, to think the NPS put it out the there (published) because it thought the paper was wrong. I also agree that it is not generally "primary", see below. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Very much a primary source, and no I doubt this can be seen as an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Primary sources need to be used with care. It appears to be solid for showing it has been certified as a historic place. As for the history listed filled in on the form, that is merely the work of the random individual who filled out the form. That history only has a very weak indication of reliability in that the form as a whole was accepted. There's no assurance that all of the claims were checked, or that any errors in the history would have been corrected. It definitely can't be used for extraordinary or controversial claims. However it looks like there's no controversy at the article, and no objections? If absolutely no one objects and everything looks proper and consistent with all other available information, it's not prohibited to use a weak source for uncontested basic information. Preferably you could phrase it something like "According to the Historic Places registration application.....". Then your text would be factual even if the history on the form is wrong. Alsee (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Reasonable advice. --Doncram (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * RS for most claims about the property (if there is controversy that matters, then spell out the controversy). Prepared by someone with knowledge using primary and secondary information, and peer-reviewed at least twice by state and national.  It's not "primary", generally, primary would be 'I was at the place in 1920, and this is what happened . . .' It is secondary, generally, 'I have read documentation/interviewed others (primary), and this is what that research tells us and the conclusions I have drawn (secondary)' (See, WP:PRIMARY)--Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explication of that, User:Alanscottwalker, I have not known to present it that way, I guess it can be summarized that NRHP docs are "primarily secondary" then. :) --Doncram (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am going to generally agree with you both here. I do not know the rigor with which the national and state check the application, but my feeling is that because these docs are prepared by experts and reviewed by experts, they are more secondary than primary.  I wish that the reviewers would write their own summary when they are done, so we know what they feel confident is fact.
 * Statements such as "It is interesting to note that the foundation under the front bay wall, though carved to look like individual stones, is actually one huge boulder." or that the house is "gracious" is a primary observation. But other text such as "The house became a hospital in the 1940s." is secondary.  --David Tornheim (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not think I would analyse those statements that way, although it's a minor quibble, because there is nothing wrong with primary information, per se, and the dividing line is only seldom critical. If something like the first statement were by the builder of the wall, it would be more in the nature of primary, but an observer reviewing the wall later is different, the wall is an artifact (the artifact and/or the documents of its building in that case is/are the primary source), conclusions/opinions (eg. 'gracious') drawn from examining the artifact are more in the nature of secondary (see, eg. archaeology, or architectural history). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, especially since those judgments come from an expert in the field. I believe I agree, which may be why those who approve the registration feel no obligation to rewrite the data on the application, because the analysis is already done by the person who submitted the application.  The reviewers find the text as submitted (or revised) as reliable, like a book, journal article, or other periodical, and that approval is like having it published?
 * So if a movie is reviewed on Rogert Ebert's site by a film expert, then that review counts as secondary source? But on IMDB, where the data is user generated and may not have been reviewed by film experts, we reject it. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 'Published', would be the act of putting it on its website, in effect, saying 'look world'. One could reasonably contend that the approvals documented are primary evidence of approval, but that seems a minor quibble, we would, based on that still say it was listed, and done so, because of this information. Perhaps, as you note, that would be in some ways similar to professional editors who pass-on a movie review or book to be published. Here, of course, the review and approval is required by laws and regulations, not so for the news/book editor. (But in general, I would say treating it like a book or a newspaper article on the subject, makes good sense). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your helpful explanations. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Minor quibble yes, but I agree with this thinking. If I read "Falcon Rest is a gracious house with an interesting foundation under the front bay wall" in a WP-article I would have an urge to change it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And that's fine: tone, weight, our presentation (eg. in line attribution) are issues that it is useful to often separate from reliable source inquiry, and from primary/secondary/tertiary. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, this helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * More RS There are also these pages hosted by NPS which combine some photos, the approve application mentioned above, and the typed  "meta data", which I found from National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Warren_County,_Tennessee.  (I see that link is also in the article.) I believe this "meta data" may be more secondary than the application.  There is also a picture of this historical marker.  The marker is is good RS, but I don't know if hmdb's data is (I'm guessing not).  --David Tornheim (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Naming Problem Also, based on the sources I checked, I believe the proper name of the article based on the historic structure should be the "Clay Faulkner House" the notable building rather than "Falcon Rest" (the business in the building). Discussion here:  Falcon_Rest --David Tornheim (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I had some of these same concerns when I worked on Eliphalet Ferris House and Joseph Ferris House, also edited by  and .  It would be nice to have an essay or guidelines for use of documents likes these regarding  registered landmarks, structures, sites, etc.  I would expect the kind of question above is recurring.  I know it is for someone like me who likes to work on articles on historic sites. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * RS are very hard to pin down. The prohibition on primary sources is really orthoganal to this, though the question raised above "primary for what?" is echoed as "reliable for what?"  Essentially this is as much a question of experience and knowledge, understanding as best we can the skills, motivations and shortcomings of the authors and editors.  There are plenty of examples of normally rock solid RS being unreliable, and we can imagine these issues applying in this case.  But primae facie, I would consider this source pretty reliable for the reasons given above.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC).

Primary genetics studies
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * Note -- this was archived in this diff, and in the same edit as this note, I have de-archived it. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * this was archived before it could closed. de-archived Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Are primary genetics studies covered by WP:MEDRS? Stuff that is published in journals like the European Journal of Human Genetics or a primary study like this (available through PubMed) ? Seraphim System ( talk ) 03:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert on WP:Biomedical information, but I would use that particular study with extreme caution, given that it's authored by current 23andMe employees and is promoting that company's questionable methodologies more or less uncritically. In general, my opinion is that science-and-race research is so complicated and so often bitterly controversial that WP:SCIRS and its instructions for finding scientific consensus in authoritative secondary sources should be followed strictly. FourViolas (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Primary studies generally fail MEDRS, and shouldn't be used to support any assertion about biomedical information. What's the context? Girth Summit (talk) 12:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please follow the guidelines of this board and tell what the source is used for --Shrike (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Generally, primary sources are only reliable for verifying quotations or descriptive statements about the source itself... ie if we quote a primary source or closely paraphrase what it says (with attribution in our text), we can cite the source itself for verification (ie to show that the source does indeed say what we say it does). HOWEVER... that does not answer the question of whether we should quote or mention the source in the first place.  To answer that, we must apply other policies such as WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.  Context matters. Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * "Are primary genetics studies covered by WP:MEDRS?" Yes. The guideline states "For biomedical content, primary sources should generally not be used. This is because primary biomedical literature is exploratory and often not reliable, and any given primary source may be contradicted by another." <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 20:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with User:Axl, should not be used generally. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * agree w/ both editors(Axl, Doc James) above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There has been lots of discussion about genetic studies especially with regard to ancestry
 * arbcom case from 2008 Requests_for_arbitration/Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy and another from 2010 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence
 * other discussions...
 * 2009 No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_9
 * 2010 Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_21
 * 2012 Geopolitical,_ethnic,_and_religious_conflicts_noticeboard/Archive_3
 * 2013 Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_143
 * 2013 Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_155
 * 2013 Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Genetic_studies_on_Jews
 * 2015 No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_32
 * 2015 Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_182
 * 2015 Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources/Archive_50
 * 2016 major RfC with too-broad a question; no consensus. But the issue of sourcing was discussed.
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups/Archive_15


 * In my view, especially on these contentious topics of genetics and ancestry or ethnicity or race or whatever, we should more or less forbid use of primary sources and require secondary sources. None of those are biomedical information in my view and are really WP:SCIRS topics.  Genetics and disease is the most pure WP:Biomedical information topic, I would argue that we should treat genetics and intelligence or any other phenotype as biomedical information as well -- those are the ones where WP:MEDRS clearly comes  in.
 * The community would probably benefit from an RfC on this. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC) (add earlier arbcom case Jytdog (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC))
 * I've been thinking about this exact issue recently. A major problem is that for a lot of these "genetic ancestry of group X" topics, there simply aren't any good secondary sources. Entire articles are built out of primary sources, and even some of the more well studied areas that do have secondary sources, large portions of those articles are still built from primary sources. Getting stricter on this would wipe out many articles completely, and drastically shrink others. That is not necessarily a bad thing. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * exactly :) Use of primary sources + controversial topic --> neverending strife for the community + content of dubious quality for readers (since it is hard to use primary sources appropriately) Jytdog (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

"Should the following be added to Identifying_reliable_sources_(natural_sciences)? However, primary sources describing genetic or genomic research into human ancestry, ancient populations, ethnicity, race should not be used to generate content about those subjects, which are controversial. High quality secondary sources as described above should be used instead. Genetic studies of human anatomy or phenotypes like intelligence should be sourced per WP:MEDRS."
 * I would like to run an RfC on this, stating something like:

Thoughts or tweaks? Is SCIRS the best place to put this? Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Not sure, but I wanted to note that a lot of our articles are sourced to the International Society of Genetic Genealogy's Journal of Genetic Genealogy. See this link for some insight into it. Doug Weller  talk 15:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Gadzooks, we should not be using that. That will go. Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Last call! I've pinged a couple of projects to get their input. Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is about genetic research, right? Well then, I would say (as a member of both WikiProject:Paleontology and WikiProject:Cats) that while using genetic research- it generally comes up as relating to subspecies/species/genera/etc. classifications- is very controversial. A high quality, respectable secondary source and/or a consensus in the scientific community should also be obtained. And when it comes to paleontology, genetic research is considered highly unreliable (thus, high-quality secondary sources AND scientific consensus should be obtained). Just my two cents, though.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Personally I'd say that this is already well covered by the policy on using reliable secondary scientific sources (review articles in decent journals), and whenever biomedical aspects are involved, also by MEDRS. That's two very powerful and central policies already. We don't need more, just to enforce the existing rules will be sufficient. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Chiswick Chap I have been following up on the OP because this is a problem. People argue, and fiercely, to use these under SCIRS and plain old PRIMARY, each of which gives license to use primary sources. Primary sources are used extensively for the ethnic/population history things, see for example DNA history of Egypt, Archaeogenetics of the Near East, Jews and of course Genetic studies on Jews, and see the many pages you get with a search on Genetic studies of... Do you see what I mean? Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC:Genetics references
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the following be added to Identifying_reliable_sources_(natural_sciences)?

"However, primary sources describing genetic or genomic research into human ancestry, ancient populations, ethnicity, race, and the like, should not be used to generate content about those subjects, which are controversial. High quality secondary sources as described above should be used instead. Genetic studies of human anatomy or phenotypes like intelligence should be sourced per WP:MEDRS."

-- Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

!votes on genetics refs

 * Support, it's unfortunate that we need to call this out specifically as it has been Wikipedia policy pretty much from day 1. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, well worth having something specific and unambiguous we can point to. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support It would be good to spell this out explicitly, even though it is redundant with long-established policy. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the reasoning in support of the three "support" "votes" above, in my view, confirm that our existing policies and rules are explicitly recognized as being designed well enough to deal with this concern. Therefore, this addition is not really needed and is more of an overabundance of emphasis, which is not consistent with the project's streamlined and efficient profile, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:RS: reliable independent secondary sources. WP:MEDRS is firmer still. This merely clarifies policy with an explicit statement. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

A primary source, such as a report of a pivotal experiment cited as evidence for a hypothesis, may be a valuable component of an article. A good article may appropriately cite primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Use of primary sources should always conform to the No original research policy.
 * Support MEDRS is a good policy and would be usefull to apply to this topic. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Qualified support I support the addition of something akin to this wording, but I am struggling with the sentence ending ", which are controversial." I just feel this is clumsily worded, should be better phrased, and does rather contradict the section that has just preceded it. Could I offer the following alternative wording for consideration?

However, primary sources describing genetic or genomic research into human ancestry, ancient populations, ethnicity, race, and the like, should not normally be used to generate content, as these are often seen as controversial subjects. Instead, high quality secondary sources, as described above, should be used. Genetic studies of human anatomy or phenotypes like intelligence should be sourced per WP:MEDRS.
 * Note: The first paragraph is included, completely unchanged, from WP:SCIRS, though 'good article' ought really to be changed to 'well-constructed' article, as I'm sure it isn't intended to imply WP:GA. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope... the "not normally" is the door that the people who fiercely want to use these, will push right through. The RfC question is "should not". And these subjects are controversial here in WP; this is guidance for editors here in WP. There are at least two arbcom cases with pending DS that are relevant -- Requests for arbitration/Ancient Egyptian race controversy and Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence. We can cite those as footnotes if you like.  With regard to "contradicting", the general statement in the first bit remains true - the "however" clearly signals that in this subset of primary sources, a different standard applies.  Jytdog (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. The literature on this subject is clogged with far too much politically motivated crap. A higher standard is appropriate, and although calling this a medical topic is a bit of a stretch, I think applying the same standards here would be helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per XOR'easter. Double sharp (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, per standard policies and practices in this area. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support. In my opinion this is already policy (WP:PSTS), but overuse of primary literature in articles about (or tangentially related to) human genetics and archaeogenetics has been rife for years, so repeating it explicitly here is a good idea. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * support per discussion above the RfC which lays out the problems caused by using primary sources about genetics for ancestry etc.. Jytdog (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  06:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - clarifying is likely a good idea, especially in a topic that requires sound sourcing. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support but delete the words "which are controversial." We should be using quality secondary sources regardless of whether the material is controversial or not, and besides, it can be hard to predict what will be controversial. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree with the support arguments above, and I'll also point out that we have Discretionary Sanctions in topics about race and intelligence, and I think this proposal is helpful in handling issues there. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant You can put me in 'support' but there isn't much point adding this to an essay, as it will be disregarded because of that. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  04:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Fundamental Oppose The situation is not analogous to MEDRS. First, there is an established scientific consensus in most areas of medicine. There is much less of an established consensus in many areas of human genetics, especially human population genetics. This reflects several  aspects of the field: First, the evidence in the field is actively developing. All publications before the late 20th century are essentially guesses, and all subsequent work is subject to  subsequent  and ongoing revision, as more genes and populations are examined, as earlier chronological material becomes available, and  as methods of analysis develop. Second, The literature is structured differently: there are many fewer researchers and journals, there is no systematic pattern of reviews, and no groups that really have an unquestioned standard of authority. Third, questions of group identity are involved, and involves both the selection of primary sources to use, and the interpretation of the secondary sources, which can often widely differ.  Even members of the same hypothetical group will sometimes interpret the same information very differently, and will tend to be very fixed in their own interpretations.
 * Therefore (a) we must often use primary research sources--I point out in this connection that all scientific peer-reviewed papers are both primary and secondary sources--they report their own research findings, but the also review and interpret the prior literature. and (b) there are very few current reliable secondary sources--the best that there are can not honestly do more than give their view of the present interpretation, and I would serious question the reliability of any that attempt to make a more definite statement.  I think any honest researcher understands the limitations, but that may not be true of all people contributing to these articles.
 * Even in its field, MEDRS has proven to be somewhat of a straight-jacket--it certainly does remove nonsense, but not all non-orthodoxy is nonsense, and it has been used at WP to try to deprecate the findings and views of particular groups that some WPedians think are out of favor, or where there are sharply divided views each claiming to be the one orthodox position. As we try to use it into the areas closer to the social sciences, this becomes even more dangerous. NPOV does not mean that there is a neutral point of view; it means we show neutrality by explaining al responsible points of view. NPOV does not   mean we can necessarily find a single consensus statement.   Otherwise we fall into the trap of the 11th Brittanica, and enshrine a temporary cultural attitude. We can do better than that--because we represent a range of perspectives--we are crowd-sourced, not interest-group sourced.  What this means in practice is that those who are quire sure of the proper analysis need to reconsider--even if they agree with my own opinion about the matter. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC).


 * Support - The results of these studies are often only as good as the latest dataset, and the interpretation changes dramatically with a single additional ancient DNA sample, and some primary reports have already been superseded before they ever go to press. We are better off waiting to present a developed consensus rather than ping-ponging around with each new primary report.  If that means that some obscure finding that only appears in a single primary report doesn't get included in an article, then the finding couldn't have been that noteworthy anyhow. Agricolae (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. In some fields, there isn't much published work, and we're forced to use primary sources. But in the fields listed in this RfC, there's plenty of research, and plenty of published discussion of it. The standards of MEDRS should apply. Maproom (talk) 07:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support not this wording specifically but it should be obvious and has been Wikipedia policy for a long time. If people are still tripping up about this, then it's better to explicitly state it. Bright☀ 15:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support But would prefer a less verbose paragraph. Please edit it to be more succinct. LK (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I have had dealings with this on caste-related articles and it is difficult for people to understand that such sources are not acceptable. I try to explain but it would be great to simply point them to a central page. - Sitush (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as a separate guideline from MEDRS Primary sources should not be used for contentious political topics. However, MEDRS exists mainly to prevent dangerous mis-use of Wikipedia for personal medical decisions. It does not need this kind of scope creep, especially in a way that will make it an eternal political battleground. Rhoark (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on genetics refs
User:Nocturnalnow People argue, and fiercely, to use these under SCIRS and plain old PRIMARY, each of which gives license to use primary sources. Primary sources are used extensively for the ethnic/population history things, see for example DNA history of Egypt, Archaeogenetics of the Near East, Jews and of course Genetic studies on Jews, and see the many pages you get with a search on Genetic studies of... Your claim is not true. Please also see the arbcom case and many, many discussions linked above. Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Is this intended to prevent all use of primary sources in this field? &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would interpret it as absolutely normal Wikipedia practice: primary studies are OK for uncontroversial facts, but anything that is controversial or challenged requires a reliable independent secondary source. The issue is that people using these sources to argue specific genetic interpretations think that reliable is enough, but policy is pretty clear. If a genetic study is important then there will be secondary sources, especially review studies. Guy (Help!) 08:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Peter (Southwood)'s question confirms that confusion is already showing up. "primary sources...….should not be used to generate content about those subjects, which are controversial." does not literally mean only content which is controversial or challenged are subject to the ban on primary sources for content. The "qualified support" editor has also already pointed out the confusing wording. This needs a lot more thoughtful discussion before a binding Rfc, I'd say, even if there has already been lots of discussion. It may be that this issue is so challenging that a solution may not even be possible. There are problems like that, which have no acceptable solution. I am not qualified to say this is one such problem, but I can say that just the few comments thus far, even the ones that vote Support, do, in fact, scream out WP:CREEP, and that this additional wording might cause more problems than it solves. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I also notice that this proposal specifies articles related to humans, and not to any other forms of life. Is this just an anthopocentric omission, or are other organisms intentionally excluded? I just reread the whole thing and it is clear that this is only intended to refer to human genetics &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Serious question: The first three comments included: and yet I have seen many, many proposals about similar situations shot down by citing WP:CREEP ("This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community"). Why the difference? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC) {{re|Jytdog}}Does the proposed change is to essay? If yes it will not change anything as it will be brushed off as not policy or guideline. --Shrike (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "it's unfortunate that we need to call this out specifically as it has been Wikipedia policy pretty much from day 1."
 * "well worth having something specific and unambiguous we can point to."
 * "It would be good to spell this out explicitly, even though it is redundant with long-established policy."
 * Because it is a serious and pervasive problem that needs addressing. Jytdog (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2018 {{(UTC)
 * user:Shrike we should point to this RfC. Jytdog (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * {{re|Jytdog}} If you want to stick it.It should be a part of guideline at least.This RFC doesn't set policy it only aim to amend some essay. --Shrike (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * hm. maybe.  I think the RfC will be enough and we can always circle back and do something like a note at WP:RS if that becomes necessary. Small steps are generally better. Maybe others will give their thoughts about whether we should jump all the way to RS now, or include this as a note at RS now. Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Either you should start a new RFC that amend WP:RS or change the current and that users that already voted to certify their vote. --Shrike (talk) 05:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It'd make more sense to get WP:SCIRS promoted to a guideline. It's nearly there anyway. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * User:DGG, please pardon but I moved your !vote up into that section. But.. your main argument seems to be "no reviews"... and I am kind of surprised by your lack of reference to the 2 relevant arbcom cases.... But about reviews:
 * one search (("Population Groups/genetics"[Mesh]) AND "Human Migration"[Mesh]
 * another, "Haplotypes"[Mesh] OR "Genotype"[Mesh] AND "Human Migration"[Mesh] AND Review[ptyp]
 * another - Search term ("Jews/genetics"[Mesh]) AND "Population Groups/genetics"[Mesh]
 * There seem to be plenty, and those were pretty quick. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * this is still a good deal fewer than in clinical medicine. Furthermore, if your read them, you will find a surprising lack of agreement.  I consider most of them as susceptible to bias as any other source. (the bias is not necessarily national bias--this is among the topics where workers in the field tend to have mutually incompatible schools of thought) ,. I'll go further and say that, I've seen a good deal of skepticism over the actual reliability of even the best secondary sourcing in medicine, if for for reasons including that  the studies on which they are based are much less statistically reliable and reproducible than they have been thought to be. I think our ready adoption of MEDRS has proven a over-credulous reliance upon authority. As for the arb com cases, had I been I on arb com at the time, I would have voted otherwise.  I instead think  that WP should make a special effort to cover fully all unconventional views, because we are by far the most accessible reasonably reliable source of information on them.  The key thing we need to do is indicate the status. The difficulty is that this cannot really be done without original research or at least extensive subject knowledge. I am aware that my view is very different from yours, which to my mind  basically says we should minimize treatment of any other other than the current fashionable orthodoxy.    DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ouch! Where there is a scholarly consensus, it can change, and we should reflect that, including changes in it. Our best hope is to follow places where experts summarize the state of the field. If we have to attribute those summaries, then so be it, but we should not have editors assembling reviews here, using the primary sources. Which is what I hear you advocating for... (!)  Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

411Mania.com
Should 411Mania.com be regarded as a reliable source? I searched the archive, and this site has only come up once, but there was no response on its reliability. Their "about us" page explicitly says they have no paid staff and that all "contributors" are independent bloggers. This seems to imply that they have no editorial staff or policy, making their claims questionable. I'd like to hear some other opinions on this. ---<b style="font-family: Georgia;"> The Old Jacobite </b><i style="font-family: Courier New;">The '45</i> 13:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Assuming the above is true (I fond nothing to say it is not) no it is not an RS, it is "just another Blogger".Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , I agree. S Philbrick  (Talk)  20:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you both! ---<b style="font-family: Georgia;"> The Old Jacobite </b><i style="font-family: Courier New;">The '45</i> 13:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Lifezette.com
See this story. It seems pretty clear that Lifezette is not a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Extremely partisan, "pro-life" (until you're born), partially religious, unreliable source. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Never heard of it before, but half of our article is devoted to fake news incidents/accusations. Bin it.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  01:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No result here. Lifezette is looking rather questionable, however the question here failed to follow RSN posting instructions. RSN questions should indicate what article and content are at issue, so we can determine whether the source is reliable for that information in that context. If you are seeking some kind of blanket-ban against the source, that requires a well publicized RFC and much deeper consideration and consensus. Alsee (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, a result. Two comments that back my hunch, indicating that removals are unlikely to be challenged. I know how to get a source deprecated, see WP:BREITBART. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Garbage source. Has all the hallmarks of a fringe right-wing site: Seth Rich conspiracy theories, climate change denial, massive numbers of undocumented immigrants voting in US elections... Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a reliable source. It is owned by Laura Ingram who has been one of Fox News' worst mouthpieces. I have no doubt that she is pushing through a lot of the controversy on this site. Swordman97  talk to me  22:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a reliable source for statements of fact. No reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 22:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Identifying reliable sources Source reliability falls on a spectrum: highly reliable sources, clearly unreliable sources, and many in the middle. Are they highly reliable, no. But I see no reason why they are a clearly unrelaible source either (to prove that to me, you would need evidence of them having published a story they knew to include false factual information or failed to correct such information after its inaccuracy was made known to them). Also per WP:SOURCES The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: * The piece of work itself (the article, book) *The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) *The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. For most factual unexceptional claims, I expect that they would be reliable. I would not expect them to be reliable for exceptional factual claims. They have an editorial board lead by Maureen Mackey (previously managing editor of The Fiscal Times). They posted a story concerning a conspiracy theory about Clinton, but issued a correction saying it was in jest. They posed a story about a connection between voting machines and Soros, but that story was also published by Fox News (are they the next target?). -Obsidi (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ...but that story was also published by Fox News 
 * You write that as if you thought that was an endorsement. It wouldn't be, even if that story was also published by CNN or Mother Jones. --Calton | Talk 12:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The facts they wrote about, were accurate, I suggest you read the story . Smartmatic did post a flowchart claiming to be providing voting machines to 16 states. Smartmatic Chairman does sit on the board of Soros’ Open Society Foundations. The story does say that Smartmatic is not on a list of firms that provide federally-certified election systems to states. You want to make a claim that they are not factually accurate, what about the story is not factually accurate? -Obsidi (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not about accuracy, it's about reliability. Alex Jones could publish a factual article, that would not make him a reliable source for those facts. If a reliable source said the same thing we still would not cite Jones, we'd cite the reliable source. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Reliability is demonstrated by producing articles that are factually accurate and correcting any inaccuracies that occur over a long period of time. Alex Jones produces factually inaccurate articles all the time, that is why even if he were to produce a factual accurate article it still wouldn't be reliable given the history of his previous inaccuracies. -Obsidi (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Can fansites be used as sources?
I used to be fully against using fansites as sources back in 2009 when I had a to the letter approach concerning policies. But what prompted my question is that someone used Power Rangers NOW as the source for the episode number of Power Rangers Beast Morphers. Personally I see nothing wrong with this particular source, but as a general question, since I often edit television-related articles, are fansites generally a good idea for adding new information about a TV series when there's no other sources out there?— Mythdon ( talk / contribs ) 02:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, fansites cannot be used for sourcing. At best, they may be used for external links if we know the fan site has very strong editorial control (for example Star Trek episodes can link to Memory Alpha). --M asem (t) 02:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I just took another look at the source and it quotes information from Issuu. It might be a better idea to remove the Power Rangers NOW source and replace it with the Issuu source.— Mythdon ( talk / contribs ) 03:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've just taken another look at the Power Rangers NOW source. It says the information came from Issuu/Mipcom, yet that source only says the show will be 22 minutes and nothing about 22 episodes (page 64-65). So I removed it, thanks for your input!— Mythdon ( talk / contribs ) 03:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Fansites are usually a WP:QUESTIONABLE source, and so can be used for opinion, viewpoint, commentary if it is a significant viewpoint (and it must be attributed), they shouldn't be used for claims as to third parties. Substantial long term editorial control without errors could make them a RS, but this would be very unusual. Although we do try to avoid them, primary sources (such as the actual show or book) can be used if there is no reliable secondary source for the information. -Obsidi (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:FANSITE, we normally don't even link to them. They are rarely considered WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks JzG. I will read up on that.— Mythdon ( talk / contribs ) 16:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Modern Diplomacy and Ahtribune
Can this source and this source be used to add materials with regard to comparison of ISIL and MEK to People's Mujahedin of Iran article?

James Bovard, Catherine Shakdam, Eric Walberg are among the Ahtribune's contributors and the board of Modern Diplomacy is seen here. -- M h hossein   talk 18:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC) -- M h hossein   talk 18:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You gotta be joking. AHT has connections to salem-news and Veterans Today. It doea not have much of a reputation, though the editor in chief has been criticized for Holocaust denial and 9/11 conspiracy theories - CBC primary source.Icewhiz (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As for MD, per their about: "Disclaimer: The views expressed within Modern Diplomacy are solely those of the authors in their private capacity and do not in any way represent or reflect the views of the Modern Diplomacy, its Advisory and Editorial Boards, Sponsors, Partners, or Affiliates." - so this is an oped you can attribute to the author. The author of this exceedingly poorly translated oped is Sajad Abedi who is with the Iranian "National Security and Defense Think Tank" - and is merely representing the Iranian regime view in a somewhat garbled translation (down to using hypocrites (26 times) for MEK without providing context or an introduction for a non-Iranian audience).Icewhiz (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither is Reliable. I've been running into American Herald Tribune (ahtribune.com) lately. It's part of an alt-media network that runs conspiracy theories and other fringe content. It's definitely NOT a reliable source. I'm not previously familiar with Modern Diplomacy. The disclaimer noted above is a major red flag that we can't rely on the contents of a site. Even worse, the article you linked has badly broken English throughout. The article clearly has not gone through any editorial review at all, much less responsible and reliable editorial review. Alsee (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you Alsee for your civil and fair comment. -- M h hossein   talk 17:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources on talk pages
The Conspiracy theory article states: "Robert Blaskiewicz notes examples as early as the nineteenth century and finds that the term [conspiracy theory] has always been derogatory." The cite indicates the author used Google Books as the source for those examples.

My concern is with the word 'always'. A Google Books search shows 19th c. sources that did not use 'conspiracy theory' in a derogatory manner — e.g., The Conspiracy against Quay, 1890 and a review of Rhodes's History of the United States, 1895.

Can these sources that challenge the 'always' claim be cited in talk page discussions? If not, for my reference, on what specific policy grounds?

Also, I am not clear on the category of Blaskiewicz's article as an RS. What section(s) of WP:RS provide guidance on this kind of article -- e.g., is it a blog piece? It does not seem that — at least on the specific issue of the term 'always' being derogatory — it has achieved any sense of scholarly consensus.

Note that I am not disputing whether Blaskiewicz is an expert on 'conspiracy theory'; only his credibility on the history of phrase usage, especially given that the GB sources were easily available to him at the time of his writing. Humanengr (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * If you find RS that do not use it in a derogatory manner, you can add those to the article to provide a NPOV. This isn't really a RS question. -Obsidi (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The WP:FORUMSHOP is closed. You raised the question and comprehensively failed to persuade, then you proposed a WordPress blog as "rebuttal". I'm not convinced you understand our sourcing policies at all. "Always" here is a direct quote, per WP:ATT. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

How do we report academic criticism of the Mainstream Media (MSM) if MSM refuses to cover it?
An academic report called “Labour, Antisemitism and the News – A disinformation paradigm“ has been published by the Media Reform Coalition in conjunction with Birkbeck College University of London. I fear the MSM will refuse to publish criticism of itself, thereby eliminating all 'qualifying' secondary sources of information on the report. Could we reference this as a primary source, being an academic study with the University of London's logo on the report, or make an exception for alternative media as a secondary source who have already covered this report  Andromedean (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * There's no indication that it's published in a journal. Any professor can write a screed on his or her pet topic (and many do). So it's WP:SPS. The question is then one of due weight: why are this professor's views on the media important enough to be included? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally agree, it looks like an SPS, it may or may not pass undue. But that is a different issue. At this time no RS have picked up on it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You miss the point though. The paper has just 'proven' the Wikipedia list of main Reliable Sources are not reliable, in this subject area at least! (Andromedean (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC))
 * No, it hasn't. Don't be ridiculous. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I do get the point, it has not "proven" anything, it makes a claim (on by the way I think is very very valid). But it still has to pass the policy test. I can hardly start to say "but this means we cannot uses these this "expert" says THEY ARE WRONG", whilst denying (and I have) to others. Either we accept RS policy or we do not. We cannot modify it as and when the whim takes us.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * not when the whim takes us. However, if we believe there's evidence of systematic bias in a subject area by the MSM why can't we question them being reliable sources in this restricted area under there are no rules rule? I really think there has been a serious breach in reporting standards here, perhaps the greatest since the Iraq war. (Andromedean (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC))
 * This is a separate issue to whether or not the paper is an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * if we believe there's evidence of systematic bias in a subject area by the MSM... Then we lack the competence to evaluate reliable sources. The notion that all or even most "mainstream" media is united in an attempt to publish propaganda of a specific socio-political viewpoint is a conspiracy theory and utterly ignorant and illogical. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You are saying my accusation of systematic bias is a trope at an organised conspiracy? I claim nothing more than this statement in the report. "We use the concept of disinformation to denote systematic reporting failures that broadly privileged a particular agenda and narrative" However, I agree with Slatersteven that we are drifting off the issue of the suitability of this report for inclusion in the main article. (Andromedean (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC))
 * You are saying my accusation of systematic bias is a trope at an organised conspiracy? No, for two reason: first, that doesn't make grammatical sense, and I generally don't say things that don't make grammatical sense. Second, because what I was saying is that unqualified statements about the "MSM" being unreliable are ignorant and illogical conspiracy theories. If you would like me to point out how that belief is ignorant and illogical, I will do so, but I'm not planning on going into it without being asked to because I try to avoid posting unnecessary walls of text. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * That paper is quite literally about one particular issue and there are lots of non-"mainstream media" methods of publication for scholarly writing, which would qualify this paper as an unambiguous RS. I would also note that this paper does, in fact, meet the requirements of being written by "...an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". So it's usable as a source right now. But only on this particular issue and most likely only attributed, but that would need to have a discussion first, IMHO. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As somebody who's pretty strongly aware of the context surrounding this question I agree with Simonm223 (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The main author has a major (self-declared) conflict of interest: "He is an active member of the Labour Party and the associated group Jewish Voice for Labour" (his piece is about anti-Semitism in the Labour Party). In combination with it being self-published, this weakens any case for treating it as an RS. EddieHugh (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * We need to determine the reception the article has in reliable secondary sources. These would typically be academic articles and textbooks. I do not think there is any absence of academic writing about media bias. Manufacturing Consent for example. Note that most media bias is typically shown by their choice of stories and emphasis rather than fabrication of facts, so that they are reliable sources. TFD (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Although it could possibly be cited for the opinions of the author (who seems to be a recognized expert in the field), it might be better to do some more digging for papers published in peer-reviewed journals on the same topic with regards to media coverage of that scandal. For example, a quick search turned up this - Overland and Seymour obviously have a clear perspective, but it's still a peer-reviewed journal, so it's a good source to use for that perspective, probably with in-line citations.  Also try this one.  More generally, though, our purpose here is not to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.  I think that this topic has has more coverage than you suspect, but when there is genuinely no coverage, we can't just say "oh, the mainstream media is suppressing it" and accept stuff that otherwise fails WP:RS.  Ultimately, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's purpose is to reflect what people would get by summarizing mainstream reliable sources and to give them a broad overview based on that - not to correct the record. --Aquillion (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I thought Wikipedia's purpose was to reflect what people would get by summarizing reliable sources, not mainstream reliable sources. For example a peer reviewed publication isn't mainstream but it's certainly reliable. That brings us back to what is reliable. There seems to be no objective systematic attempt on Wikipedia to take account of the reliability of sources. Certain types of source are simply assumed to be reliable or unreliable by tradition or on faith, despite independent assessments being available from fact checkers.
 * The failures in objective reporting of anti-semitism by the BBC or the Guardian doesn't make them inherently unreliable on other subjects, but it does question their ability to report reliably on this issue. We have to seriously consider if they have an editorial line of assuming guilt of anyone accused of anti-semitism, and siding with the accuser, in a misreading of the 'MacPherson principle'.
 * It has now been disclosed that independent sites were also assessed by the Media Reform Coalition. The author states the MSMs failed output on the antisemitism issue was:
 * "almost indistinguishable from the far right media such as Breitbart or Order-Order....By contrast, “leftist” independent media are “often unfairly and lazily lumped together with” alt-right outlets by media keen to portray them as equivalents.... that while leftist sites such as SKWAWKBOX, Canary and Evolve Politics may also have an imbalance of sources, it’s in a way that is entirely in line with their explicit editorial position of providing a corrective to the distortions of mainstream coverage. But in terms of inaccuracies and the kinds of reporting failures that we broadly categorised as misleading, we found next to none of that in the left-wing independent publications. --Andromedean (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * We don't report it.We only include what is reported by WP:RS and not your version of WP:TRUTH --Shrike (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see this falls under Self published source and is not a Reliable Source. Independent of the RS question, and as someone with little interest or knowledge in UK politics, the arguments analysis and evidence presented in the paper are asinine. Let's say someone preforms a similar analysis of US coverage of white supremacist marches. They find that the news coverage contains 6.3 times as many statements or commentators critical of the white supremacists than in support of them, and that many pieces contain zero commentators defending the white supremacists. The paper-author then reason that because there wasn't exactly 50% coverage in support of each side, that is evidence of improper bias in coverage. They then self-publish that analysis, because no reputable journal would accept or peer review it. And after self publishing it, it receives exactly zero coverage in "MainStreamMedia". Someone then comes on Wikipedia saying our policies are broken, the paper proves the MSM is biased. The question was How do we report academic criticism of the Mainstream Media (MSM) if MSM refuses to cover it? The answer is.... we don't. We do not debate truth on Wikipedia. Trying to debate truth here doesn't work. We summarize what Reliable Sources say. If Reliable Sources are biased against White Supremacists or anyone else, then we will accurately summarize that bias. If Reliable Sources all say the moon is made of green cheese, then Wikipedia will accurately summarize the sources saying that. If the paper is peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal, or if it gets significant coverage in "MSM", then it might be usable. Alsee (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That issue amongst others may have been addressed in this response published today.
 * "we don’t categorise or count quoted sources from opinion pieces other than the authors themselves. But we do examine them for accuracy in keeping with conventional editorial codes of conduct."--Andromedean (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The long and short of it is that you can't. It's a common criticism of Wikipedia, but that's just the way things are right now. This was debated in depth during the Gamergate controversy a few years back. You can check out the 60 pages of talk page archives if you want. Databased (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is objectively not a self-published source. The publisher is the "Media Reform Coalition" which as an entity is independent of the text's authors and able to exercise authority on whether or not to publish those authors under its institutional name. The questions you should be asking are whether it's neutral or due to use this, which is likely not the case. Rhoark (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Rhoark you apparently didn't read the first sentence of the introduction which says "The Media Reform Coalition has conducted in-depth research on the controversy surrounding antisemitism in the Labour Party, focusing on media coverage of the crisis during the summer of 2018." Hm. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That does not seem to have any bearing on the question. Organizations often publish the research of their members. Consider cases like RAND Corp, SPLC, Council on Foreign Relations, etc. That is not self-publishing because someone besides the author of the content has authority over whether to lend the organization's name and platform. Rhoark (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You can embrace "alternative facts" all you like. This is the same as Greenpeace or the Heritage Foundation publishing something. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't make it a SPS, just a WP:QUESTIONABLE source without the reliability needed to be a RS. The result is the same, but it isn't a SPS. -Obsidi (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I think we should wait until other scholars review or cite the report. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:QUESTIONABLE source can make claims about themselves but not third parties (like the mainstream media). As such normally there are WP:V problems with including this information (I have not examined the credentials of the author, if they are an expert in the field then they can be included even if the source itself is questionable). But assume for a moment that this was in a RS (go find a fox news or other such source and you will find plenty of people holding views of such bias). Then the question becomes one of WP:NPOV. The question shouldn't be why include the views of this specific person, but are these views a significant viewpoint. If so, we should include them (from someone). If it is only held by an "extremely small minority" then it becomes WP:FRINGE (think there was no moon landing people), then it should normally be excluded except in articles talking about such fringe views as the topic. I doubt this would be such a small view as to be considered WP:FRINGE. It isn't the majority view (otherwise they wouldn't be called the "mainstream media"), but I could name a variety of prominent adherents to the view, and as such it should be considered a minority view but not fringe. -Obsidi (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

"Greviance Studies" scandal - use of peer-reviewed journals as RS
Should we be wary of using certain peer-reviewed studies as RS?

Recent investigative work has suggested that some peer-reviewed journals in the humanities, including Gender studies and Sociology, are publishing work which has no academic merit. The so-called 'Grievance Studies" scandal is covered here in the Wall Street Journal https://www.wsj.com/articles/fake-news-comes-to-academia-1538520950 and by academics in Quillette see https://quillette.com/2018/10/01/the-grievance-studies-scandal-five-academics-respond/

The journals affected include Affilia, which a published a 3000 word excerpt of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, rewritten in the language of Intersectionality theory and Hypatia. Keith Johnston (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Quillette is neither a reliable source nor a peer reviewed journal. w umbolo   ^^^  19:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is funny, a bunch of friends of mine and I have been laughing at that ridiculous "grievance studies" scandal on Facebook completely separate from Wikipedia all day. It's just silly Conservative posturing about the evils of Postmodernism. Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Which one of James M. Lindsay, secular liberal humanist Helen Pluckrose, and New Atheism philosopher Peter Boghossian, is a "silly Conservative posturing about the evils of Postmodernism"? w umbolo   ^^^  20:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, because no atheist conservatives call themselves "secular liberals." It's a tempest in a tea-pot and poor scholarship. It's barely worthy of notice except as a momentary diversion to laugh at three people trying to drum up attention for an imaginary problem. I mean, if we were being fully fair about the sciences here, pretty much every psychology article would be part of WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE but let's be honest. Academics angsting about imperfections in academia is a central feature of the discipline.Simonm223 (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Lindsay and Boghossian have form. Remember, these are the guys who used a social sciences bullshit generator to write an article which they then hawked to a number of journals, where it was rejected, they then paid to have it published in a pay-for-play journal and claimed this as "evidence" that the social sciences literature is publishing bullshit. Alan Sokal they are not. This time, they have proved... that most of their bullshit got rejected. Again. Guy (Help!) 20:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) What Sokal himself makes of it is irrelevant. w umbolo   ^^^  20:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If four hoaxes out of twenty submitted are published, that's a pretty serious problem. That's far worse than what we have on Wikipedia (see List of hoaxes on Wikipedia), and I thought that Wikipedia was the absolute worst at identifying hoaxes. w umbolo   ^^^  20:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just that a journal claims to be peer-reviewed does not guarantee that its contents are true. Fake articles, hoax articles and nonsense are published in academic journals all the time. There is absolutely no reason to single out the humanities here, given that physics had the Bogdanov affair and the Schön scandal. The peer-reviewed mathematics journal Nonlinear Analysis published a purported solution for Hilbert's sixteenth problem in 2003 that no serious peer reviewer could have possibly accepted while awake. There is also stuff like Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. Academic publishing is full of problematic practices right now, and the existence of hoax articles in journals says absolutely nothing about the validity of certain fields of study. —Kusma (t·c) 19:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I want objective analysis of the journals involved. Last time they used publication in pay-for-play journals as "proof" that an entire field is fraudulent. They have done other things that show them to be social injustice warriors. We have many reasons to distrust their work here. Guy (Help!) 20:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of them were not pay-for-play. w umbolo   ^^^  20:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything here that can't be solved by applying good judgement and existing policies. Peer-reviewed research findings are WP:PRIMARY - so, yes, we should be wary of citing them haphazardly regardless of whether the topic is gender studies or physics. Review articles are usually better than new research to get a sense of what is important, and generalist journals are generally higher quality and more notable than specialty journals. When in doubt, check the journal impact factor and the number of citations, and avoid relying too heavily in a single source. [[User:Nblund |<span style="background-color:


 * 1) CC79A7; color:white;">Nblund ]]talk 20:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Journal quality should always be taken into account. The problem of predatory journals is well known by now. This latest affair is distinct from past hoaxes in that it very specifically targeted journals that are not predatory (at least not in the usual sense of having a profit motive.) I don't think it reveals anything that's a basis to exclude any journals from Wikipedia. It is however a further indication that these kinds of journals, which exist primarily to advance a local political consensus, should not be used to exclude other POVs that conflict with that "scholarly consensus". That has for many years been a very fruitful tactic for editors whose views align with those of these "grievance studies" type of journals. Rhoark (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No and no. "These kinds of journals" were the only kind that they examined, there's no reason to suspect that concerted academic fraud is only possible in the humanities. There's also nothing here suggests that "scholarly consensus" (which is usually determined by multiple citations and review articles) is inherently suspect. [[User:Nblund |<span style="background-color:


 * 1) CC79A7; color:white;">Nblund ]]talk 18:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources were all primary sources in the relevant literature, which we should not be using much anyway, and only with great caution when we do. Happily none of them were reviews. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And these authors have form. Remember the conceptual penis hoax, where they made identical claims based on the fact that they paid to get a hoax article published in a predatory journal? Guy (Help!) 14:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Discussions about who organized this hoax and why may be interesting, but they are a distraction from the OP's question. I would say yes. If a journal publishes a clear hoax, as four of these did, further citations to that journal should be taken with a grain of salt. Connor Behan (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really, no. It depends on what they do about it. If they retract, then that is a point in their favour. This was, after all, a deliberately malicious act by people with an ideological hatred of the field, with one failed attempt already under their belts, not a prank against pomposity like the egregious nonsense in the Sokal hoax. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope they retract, but even assuming they do, it undermines their credibility as a reliable source if they are willing to publish such nonsense before they knew it was a hoax. How much better is it than a WP:USERG if they effectively don't review it? -Obsidi (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Even the New York Times wrote an article about it!  w umbolo   ^^^  20:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * From that Quillette link: Today, postmodernism isn’t a fashion — it’s our culture. I would say that right there is solid proof that the author doesn't know shit about postmodernism, and is only using the term in the same sense that conservatives usually do: meaning "anything I disagree with". Don't get me wrong; postmodernism is the debris put off by the collision of large egos and small intellects, blended with a liberal dose of bullshit and mixed into slurry deep in the navels of people who should damn well know better, but it's certainly not our culture. Not even academic culture. Hell, this who affair is blind to just how postmodernist this exercise is to begin with. Rewriting a section of Mein Kampf in "the language of intersectionality" and then trying to get that published in a peer-reviewed journal in order to make a meta-statement about academia in general is 100% pure, Grade A postmodernism, right thur.
 * For those of you not following because you've never taken the time to delve into what postmodernism is (read: for those of you smarter/less massochistic than I), allow me to break it down: This whole affair is bullshit, predicated upon bullshit, using bullshit to prove bullshit ideas, and it says absolutely nothing about the state of science or any serious scholarly discipline. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems to say a lot about the so called "grievance studies" (gender, sexuality, race, fat, and critical theory). Now, none of those may be "serious" scholarly disciple (although I smell a little of the No true Scotsmans fallacy), or considered a "science." But it does say a lot about those fields. -Obsidi (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The whole "Grievance Studies" thing is a specie of pseudo-academic fertilizer. If this were in the medical field it would rightly be labeled as quackery. I would not accept any journal dedicated to this field as a reliable source for the current weather. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This sort of thing should be taken into account when considering the reliability of papers in the specific journals that accepted and published the hoaxes. When journals accept fake papers submitted under the names of fake people, it just points to them having weaknesses in their review process. I don't think this says anything about the state of any discipline as a whole. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, you should be wary of citing any peer-reviewed studies as RS. See:
 * Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
 * Publish and be wrong
 * Peer review: a flawed process...
 * Even systematic reviews are suspect. See The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses
 * Andrew D. (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Using the term "chess prodigy"
Are The New York Times, Financial Times and similar sources reliable for describing an individual as a chess prodigy, or are chess-specific sources required?

The background is that the description of Peter Thiel as a chess prodigy, which was sourced to the NYT and FT, was removed with the reasoning it was "used only by nonchessplaying journalists", and later described as "sloppy journalism". Here are the NYT and FT references. The description is also made by The Times, CNBC, NBC News, New York Magazine, Sydney Morning Herald, Business Insider, though this does not change the question. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * My general sense is that any chess title less than Grandmaster (chess) is generally not meaningful. He can say he was a "chess prodigy" if he wants.  I wouldn't include it in Wikipedia's voice; the CNBC profile in particular is clearly only parroting Thiel's own claims. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the wrong venue. The question is not whether the above are considered reliable sources, it's whether we should parrot some description just because it's in the NYT, even when it is demonstrably incorrect. After all, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Chess players rarely describe other players as "prodigies", since only a tiny number (Capablanca, Fischer and Reshevsky come to mind) have had any outstanding achievements as children. Thiel is not one of them. And omitting incorrect information is not WP:OR. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * How is it demonstrably incorrect? I'm not aware of any strict definition of prodigy. Maybe the issue is just that it's imprecise and unencyclopedic to use such a term, I don't know. Our article says "Chess prodigies are children who can beat experienced adult players and even Masters at chess." i.e. pretty low bar. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 01:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "prodigy" needs to be included in the list of WP:PEACOCK words. It is an imprecise term which tends to get thrown around far too readily for any kid who knows how to play the violin or push chess pieces. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Titles below GM are meaningful, we have lots of articles on individuals notable solely as chess players who are not GMs. But "chess prodigy" is not a formal title (I also do not think Thiel has described himself as such, where have you read that it is a self-description?), it is just a description. The question is what type of sources are required to describe someone as a chess prodigy? Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The word "prodigy" is generally unencyclopaedic at anything less than a century's distance. Mozart was a prodigy, the kid your local paper calls a prodigy because he can play Mozart, not so much. Guy (Help!) 15:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree that we shouldn't describe someone as a prodigy in Wikipedia's voice - it's too subjective and peacocky. There are other ways that you could describe someone that would be meaningful, e.g. 'professional chess player', or 'winner of the blah Chess Tournament', but 'prodigy' doesn't add anything. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  16:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * To me, "prodigy" suggests a child who is doing something that usually only adults can do. Excelling in the field of junior players is not such a trait. Newspapers are not reliable sources for technical terms; the sources given are using the term as puffery rather than an objective description. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Like I recently stated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch, "child prodigy" is a legitimate term and it seems more objective to me than "genius." Are we never to note that a child is considered a prodigy, or that a child or adult is considered a genius? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I see no issue with stating "chess prodigy" if WP:Reliable sources do. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Reliable sources" by people who know nothing about chess. Thiel is not exceptional, just a pretty good player. Anyone who knows chess can confirm this. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * FIDE rating of 2199 is better than "pretty good", as anyone who knows chess can confirm. :/ 🝨⚬ʍP (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Flyer22 Reborn I think you may have leaped hastily here. No is saying the term is illegitimate. No one is saying we can't use it. Our biographies on Paul Morphy, José Raúl Capablanca, Samuel Reshevsky all describe them as "chess prodigies", and I would definitely oppose removing the term from those articles. The concern is that "prodigy" is being used in a comparatively frivolous manner here. A child who competes against other children is normally not considered a "prodigy". Alsee (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that I leaped hastily. More here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia reflects what is in reliable sources. If they describe them as such, then its appropriate. If they don't, it's not. If there is no question of the reliability of the sources used, then it's an editorial inclusion issue for the article talk page. If editors are complaining RS shouldn't be used because they are 'using the word wrong' or 'don't know about chess' without providing any references to back up their arguments, those are opinions lacking evidence and hold very little weight. Personally I'm with Jzg on the use of the word prodigy, but this doesn't appear to be an RS issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In terms of whether this is an "RS issue" or not, I'd suggest that sources with field-expertise are "more" reliable for some things. The apparent absence of chess-related sources considering this to qualify as chess prodigy seems significant, when such sources do recognize many individuals as chess prodigies. Alsee (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The appropriate thing to do here, IMO, is not parrot the claim that he was a prodigy, but look up his rating on FIDE. He is listed at 2199, but has not played a rated game since at least 2001, which is as far back as the online records go. 2200 is the threshold for Candidate Master &mdash; impressive, but still well below GM level (~2500). In other words, he would have been among the strongest amateur players in the USA at some point, good enough to play in semi-pro leagues such as the 4NCL, and could have competed in international tournaments. I recommend citing the FIDE listing and saying something like, "Theil was once among the strongest amateur chess players in the USA, achieving a FIDE rating of 2199." Although this probably understates his ability somewhat as he likely had a higher rating than 2199 at some point.🝨⚬ʍP (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The majority of USCF tournaments are not FIDE rated because they don't comply with FIDE regulations, at least for classical games, with respect to time controls, number of games played per day etc. This was even more so in the 80s and 90s when Thiel was active. Thiel's FIDE rating first appeared in the July 2003 list, based on a total of 10 games, and hasn't moved since. It's a fairly meaningless figure really. More useful are the USCF online records, which go back to 1992 when Thiel was 24. They provide no evidence of any exceptional ability, just one ordinary USCF master among many. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * he likely had a higher rating than 2199 at some point. His peak USCF rating is either 2342 or 2337, though he possibly could have reached a higher rating before 1992 that is not listed. USCF and FIDE ratings are not the same, but he would likely have been higher rated than 2199 if he set a FIDE rating at the time he recorded his peak USCF rating. A 1996 conversion table states 2340 USCF would be equivalent to 2295 FIDE. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, the fact that he was rated is already something given his age. I think that we should not take prodigy as some form of certification but a description, indicating ability and not accumulated ratings. Whether he won or joined less tournaments is irrelevant because it has no bearing or did not diminish his talent. Perhaps Feldman and Morelock could be of help here when they defined prodigy as a child, who, at a very young age, performs at a level of an adult professional in some cognitively demanding field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darwin Naz (talk • contribs) 23:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Consensus - just because it's in the New York Times doesn't mean we have to parrot it if specialist sources disagree. Is that a reasonable interpretation? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would say the consensus is that calling someone a prodigy is generally unencyclopaedic, vague (similar to WP:PEACOCK/WP:WEASEL words), and should generally be avoided in favor of more accurate descriptions of ability (including FIDE/USCF ratings or other titles). -Obsidi (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless an article has a chess focus, saying someone has "a rating of 2337" is excessively geeky, and meaningless to the general reader. Even the Ken Rogoff article doesn't quote Elo ratings. Just saying he was a top 10 US junior players and holds the US Master title is enough. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, on most non-chess articles, a title would normally be enough (but a bio might have their rating). -Obsidi (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC
RfC on the intersection of WP:BLPSPS and WP:PSCI Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * RfC on the intersection of WP:BLPSPS and WP:PSCI restated Jytdog (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Codpieces and medicine
Special:Contributions/175.36.225.204 has added some material about the supposed medical use of codpieces in Renaissance Europe. I'm pretty sure none of the sources provided are WP:RS, but I'd like to get some further input on the issue. The sources in question are
 * The codpiece: social fashion or medical need? Speculative article by Con Reed. Reed was a medical doctor, but not a medical or costume historian.
 * Codpieces And Syphilis In The Middle Ages Non-academic article, no sources for claims.
 * The Galaunt Tradition Mentions Reed's claims.
 * Codpieces: Style on the Rise Another non-academic article with no sources.

Pepper Beast   (talk)  07:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't be that fast discarding all four sources. I agree that Sothebys and worldhistory.us are not RS, so I will not discuss any further. The article by Con Reed could be of some use. It has been published in the Journal of Internal Medicine, a journal with impact factor 6,06 which is quite decent. Further, it has been cited 6 times already, which is not much, but given the triviality of the matter, I suppose it is hard to find articles with many more citations. The problem with Con Reed not being a historian is surely a drawback but doesn't eliminate his article as a potential RS. So my advice is to use this source with attribution, if and only if the material added is not controversial. Now, concerning the book, I am hesitant using a book that I can just read half a paragraph in googlebooks, I could be taking material out of context without even knowing it. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, the article doesn't present anything but a pet theory with no supporting evidence.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  19:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are correct pepperbeast, I share your opinion, but if a source can pass the tests of notability and RS, we shouldn't be judging the material as such. That's why I am mostly neutral on the subject, while on other sources I 'd vote "not RS". Τζερόνυμο (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The Con Reed article is indeed speculative- far too speculative to be used to support anything not directly attributed to him. (his lack of historical qualifications shows..its highly dubious in several areas of historical fact, which have now found their way into the Wikipedia article). Perhaps RS for the symptoms of syphilis,but not much else. The Galaunt Tradition chapter looks pretty good, but you would need to see the whole thing; the author seems to be mid argument when the viewable area starts and it appears the material about codpices is only peripheral to her central thesis. She doesn't appear to be fully supporting the medical idea either, although its hard to say without seeing the whole chapter. Some of the sources still present in that section WP article are rubbish as well. Even having a whole section in the article gives far to much weight to what is a pretty fringey idea by historical standards. The Sothebys article may not be RS, but they deal with it in three sentences, one of which is "Most historians agree, though, that codpieces were less about function than spectacle." Thats all that needs to be said about it really... Curdle (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)