Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 252

'Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz by Jan Gross
I'm bringing this discussion here from here: Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland.

A student I'm working with posted to the talk page for the article on the history of the Jews in Poland with his plans as far as expanding the section on postwar antisemitism. The source he planned on using is Jan Gross's 2006 book Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz, which was published by Random House and Princeton University Press. This source has been disputed on the talk page with the following arguments for or against its use:


 * Against:
 * : The book is biased, has been criticized, and Gross is a sociologist as opposed to a historian.
 * / (I believe these to be the same person) : States that Icewhiz is trying to push a viewpoint and that the book is only accepted by Jewish/Israeli media, not the overall mainstream media.


 * For:
 * : The book is usable, Gross is considered to be a reliable source on the topic, and the criticism for the book has predominantly come from Polish media and nationalists. The book has been routinely cited as an academic source. Mentions the Google Scholar citation counts and refutes the IP's assertion that the acceptance comes from only Jewish and Israeli media.
 * : (Note: course instructor) The book has been accepted enough by mainstream academia to be used as a source. A compromise would be to acknowledge the criticism for the source in the expansion.
 * : A very usable work, obviously accepted as an academic RS. Actually (IMO) one of those rare works which act as an engine of historiographical progress. For that reason and for expected orthodox academic debate I would agree with Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus's points about differing RS's being deployed as appropriate, but that hardly needs to be said.
 * Gross and this book are regarded as the leading mainstream academic authority on the subject.
 * Neutral:
 * : The book is usable as a reliable source, but doesn't represent a moderate standpoint. Suggests using other sources along with the Gross source.

I think that these are the only ones who have participated in the talk page discussion thus far. My suggestion is along the lines of Chapmansh and Piotrus, which is to acknowledge criticism and use multiple sources. I've also asked for examples of moderate sources. Since the discussion has gone on for quite a bit, I think it would be good to move this here to get a wider consensus. I'm a little concerned that this is more of a symptom of something that should be a far larger topic for discussion, since there are claims that this is an attempt to introduce biased content into the article (ie, pro-Judaism/Israeli bias or right-wing nationalists trying to downplay the impact of Poland during and after WWII). --Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The article on the book (Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz) is a good place to look for more context. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Gross's findings in Fear have been confirmed by multiple scholars. First, if it was published by Princeton University Press - one of the most highly valued academic presses - that means it was peer-reviewed by leading scholars in the field. Second, following are just two examples of university professors who rely on his work in their own (peer-reviewed) publications. Joshua Zimmerman, historian at Yeshiva University, acknowledged that Gross's work has generated large debate, but argued that said controversy was not a sign of Gross's weakness as a historian. Indeed, he wrote in relation to Neighbors, Gross's earlier book, "What distinguished this public debate was the consensus in the mainstream Polish press on the basic accuracy of Gross's findings, even if some details and Gross's methodology continue to inspire scholarly dialogue" (Introduction to Contested Memories, Rutgers 2003, pages 10-11). Natalia Aleksiun, professor of history at Touro College, wrote that Gross is one of the leading authorities on postwar anti-Semitism in Poland. "For the best account of antisemitism in the immediate postwar years, see Jan T. Gross" (Aleksiun, "Jewish Responses to Anti-Semitism in Poland, 1944-1947," in Contested Memories, Rutgers 2003, p 258). Third, Fear was a finalist for the National Book Award, a decision overseen by a panel of 25 "distinguished writers, translators, critics, librarians, and booksellers." . Fourth, in November 2016 the American Historical Association - the foremost professional association of historians in the United States - issued a public statement stating, "Princeton University Professor Jan Tomasz Gross... for four decades has done exemplary work on the history of World War II and on the Shoah in Poland." . There is no doubt that Gross has ruffled some feathers by drawing attention to Polish anti-Semitism in both his books, Neighbors and Fear, and his work has arguably been the most significant factor in propelling the Polish government to issue the Holocaust Law. Some scholars question minor aspects of his work - as scholars should - but no serious scholar has discredited Gross's work - not even near that. His work remains standard reading in college courses, and is cited as a reliable base by scholars who work on related matters. I'm happy to provide further evidence of any of these points.Chapmansh (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Gross's work has generated large debate - it doesn't prove that Gross informs about facts. BTW Goldhagen has also generated large debate but his theory isn't accepted. Nolte started Historikerstreit, so what?Xx236 (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * findings? Gross' own findings are highly unreliable, like the picture from Golden Harvest. Gross summarises rather findings of Polish historians and publishes them in English with some controversial comments. The most funny is when Western people believe that Gross interviewed eyewitnesses. Xx236 (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * This doesn't even need to be here, there's no chance in hell anyone can argue Gross' book is non reliable. Of course it is. I am neutral only in so far as the book's neutrality is concerned. My point is that Gross, just like any other source, is biased, and represents one of several sides in the debate. As long as one understands that Gross is not the final authority, just one of many voices in the ongoing discussion, and that some other reliable sources have criticized some of his findings (which doesn't mean he cannot be cited and considered reliable!) it's all good. The student (and everyone else) is more than welcome to use this book - with the understanding that some things Gross writes are certainly not neutral (ditto for his critics, of course). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Include and attribute this information as a significant scholarly viewpoint on the topic. If there are other viewpoints include and attribute them. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously reliable, no attribution needed. This is probaby the most cited work in the field in the past decade. Google scholar has this cited almost 400 times. Gross is considered an authority. There is generally no need to attribute - Gross detractors, as they are, consist mainly of Polish far-right media, politicians, and a handful a WP:FRINGE scholars of an extreme ethno-nationalist school - these "detractors" (the more vocal of them) generally deny the well accepted Polish role in the Holocaust, Polish antisemitism, and justify or rationalize violence against Jews due to alleged Judeo-Communism (generally considered an antisemitic canard). While these ethno-nationalist "detractors" have been a subject of study (e.g. Michlic has published a number of academic works on Holocaust reception in Poland) - they are a WP:FRINGE viewpoint generally either dismissed outright or mentioned in the context of denial in Poland to accepted historical findings (a topic worthy perhaps of an article or section itself - there have been a few works analyzing this denialist movement).Icewhiz (talk) 05:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. The above comment is a good indicator of why Gross needs to be (occasionally) attributed. There are some in academia (and in our editor corps) who consider certain viewpoints to be truly neutral, perfect, and unchallenged, and label all critics of their preferred viewpoints as fringe extremists (an attitude that is a direct violation of NPOV). Gross is of course reliable and widely cited, but it does not mean that those who disagree with some of his claims are fringe extremists. One should wonder if such a claim shouldn't be made about those who put a certain viewpoint above and beyond any criticism, however. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would have to see the specific opinions/conclusions of Gross that are to be included and what any reputable counter arguments are for me to weigh in fully on this. Generally if it sounds like an opinion and there is only one source for that opinion I would say attribute it. Any facts that are peer reviewed by historians and not seriously questioned by other reliable sources could be stated in Wikipedia's voice. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Princeton University Press is a very good publisher, but agree with above comments; opinions should be attributed, even reliable ones. Seraphim System ( talk ) 06:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Right. As I said, this discussion is pointless (a misunderstanding). Gross is reliable and can be cited, and occasionally some of his more unique/controversial claims should be attributed. This is all normal and per policy. There's nothing extraordinary to find and conclude here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:FALSEBALANCE. Gross's writings are widely accepted. While repudiations and counter-works by far-right pundits in Poland,, media, and scholarship (per - "using the term rather broadly") have become a topic of study (of Polish views and society) - such media discourse and quasi-scholarship is rarely cited in the academic sense outside of the context of analysis of denial-ism. The existence of a WP:FRINGE counter-view, does not mean we attribute mainstream published work on facts.Icewhiz (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't have the foreign language skills to comment on the Polish language sources, but it seems there is consensus that Gross is reliable. If you want to discuss the reliability of other sources it might be easier to start separate discussions for those sources. Seraphim System ( talk ) 08:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally on high-level articles (specifically this one - History of the Jews in Poland as opposed to an individual event/locale/person which is lower down in the weeds), per policy WP:NOENG ("English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance") we should stick to English language sources - as they are of equal or superior quality and readily cover the topic. While there are some secondary sources available only in Hebrew, German, and Polish - most of the major journals are in English, as are the majority of books (for primary sources - in which Yiddish is important too - it is a different matter - however we generally don't use primary sources). The more significant non-English books also tend to be translated to English, and when not they are usually cited by others. There is a reason for this policy - use of non-English hampers WP:V and discussion by editors not fluent in the language, and I can also say from personal experience (and this is not specific to Polish language sources) - that there tends to be more verification/misrepresentation issues with non-English sources. As an aside - Gross in most of his works wrote little that was "new" to Western scholarship (e.g. English, German, Hebrew) - Jedwabne was a well known event prior to Gross (though not as extensively researched as it has become post-Gross), as are the events in Fear. Gross's work was groundbreaking in that it incorporated Polish language primary evidence (available after the fall of communism) and in its being delivered to a Polish audience (in Polish, in parallel to his English version, the Polish versions do differ from the English) - which sparked a public debate in Poland, on matters for the most part settled decades prior in Western scholarship.Icewhiz (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The foreign language source issue was discussed extensively at AE and there was no consensus for an outright ban. I don't see what it has to do with Gross. Regarding the use of sources outside mainline Western scholarship, the conclusion at AE was that it needs to be resolved through discussion at the article talk page. I don't think anything has changed about that, we can't just ban them for being non-Western. You would have to post the sources and the context they were used in. Seraphim System ( talk ) 16:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Gross isn't reliable, because he doesn't care about details. His books were adressed to Polish people, to oppose their childish nationalism/d3enialism, rather than to inform the world about facts.
 * Please prove that Fear is of equal or superior quality and readily covers the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xx236 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. The book has been discussed here, it has a separate page. Now a student comes - hello, I know the subject from the book. Please read a number of other sources.
 * The book is certainly not a reliable source regarding an alleged partisan's diary. If we decide the book is reliable, someone may quote the diary.Xx236 (talk) 08:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The book is clearly a reliable source. It is already cited by 382 other works according to a google scholar search. Plus it has been published by Princeton University Press. Being biased is not an argument against reliability- if someone thinks that an opinion based on the book is biased, we can always attribute.Cinadon36 (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree that it is RS, and I agree that his claims need attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

This book is clearly a reliable source as it is published by Princeton University Press. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I found at least three reviews on this book, all of them are generally positive: --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Reviewed Work(s): Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz by Jan T. Gross. Review by: Robert Legvold. Source: Foreign Affairs, Vol. 85, No. 6 (Nov. - Dec., 2006), p. 173
 * Reviewed Work(s): Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz, an Essay in Historical Interpretation by Jan T. Gross Review by: D. Stola Source: The English Historical Review, Vol. 122, No. 499 (Dec., 2007), pp. 1460-1463
 * Reviewed Work(s): Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz. An Essay in Historical Interpretation by Jan T. Gross Review by: Padraic Kenney Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 66, No. 1 (Spring, 2007), pp. 108
 * Suggestion I really think this "Jews and antisemitism in Poland" topic area has reached the point where discretionary sanctions are warranted. I came to RSN just now because I was tired of the drahma boards, where this issue has come up frequently for at least the last year or so.
 * As for this specific question, I would say that the source can be used, preferably in conjunction with better sources, lacking any better sources that contradict it; it shouldn't be rejected for specific claims without a better source.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Scholarly Kitchen article on Sci-Hub
Source - Scholarly Kitchen

Article - Sci-Hub

Content - Credentials used by Sci-Hub to access paywalled articles have been subsequently used by third parties to access other information on university networks and are bought and sold like other personal information in black markets. (Two references are provided following the quote, but only the Scholarly Kitchen one directly supports the content).

According to Scholarly Kitchen itself, it is a blog established by the Society for Scholarly Publishing. There is no apparent review process for what's posted there. This particular post is based on a talk the author gave to the society. In this post, a number of allegations were made against Sci-Hub - it says that Sci-Hub directly engaged in hacking and phishing, and that it traded in stolen credential on the dark web, suggesting that this might be a source of revenue for Sci-Hub. Note however that no actual evidence was provided for the charges. The article clearly stated that it cannot provide evidence so as not to reveal their sources. What evidence that is given in article cannot actually tell us that it was Sci-Hub that was engaging in hacking/phishing or trading. Sci-Hub itself denied that it is involved, and it is entirely possible that the attacks were conducted by a third party that provided the credentials to Sci-Hub and traded them, and the author may be using an association fallacy argument for his allegations. Also in the article is a number of assertions that are also not backed up with any evidence, e.g. vast majority of the credentials used by Sci-Hub were obtained by phishing and attacks.

As a blog post that contains many allegations without providing any clear evidence of guilt, can it be considered a reliable source? It is also clearly a primary source, can it be used as a source for an unambiguous statement? The Scholarly Kitchen piece was discussed in a few places in the Sci-Hub talk page, for example in Talk:Sci-Hub. Hzh (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Hzh the about page you cited says "David Crotty serves as the Editor in Chief of The Scholarly Kitchen and Angela Cochran is our Associate Editor."  Editors provide editorial control. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I assume you are referring to the review part? I've struck off that part, although "review" for research article usually refers to something done by one or more independent reviewers (they assess the quality of the article whether it is suitable for publishing), not the editor who serves a different function, but I can see that you interpret it in a different way. Hzh (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see your talk page further. We care about editorial control per WP:BIASED. Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what WP:BIASED is referring to. Having an editor does not mean it is considered to have good editorial control, and I'm pretty sure a lot of discussions at RSN involve publications with editors. Hzh (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That said, it is indeed a blog, albeit an edited blog. It has been a major site for discussion of the open access movement. (ref The question is whether the author is an expert, whose opinion should be given any WEIGHT in WP.  The author is Andrew Pitts, Co-Founder and CEO of Publisher Solutions International, and is based on an invited talk he gave at a panel session at the 2018 Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP) Annual Meeting, per the source. (the talk is here).  Per this he is also the founder of IPRegistry, which is a service that provides IT security for publishers and their customers, especially academic libraries.  So he way has a financial conflict of interest.  He also is very clearly an expert in IT security in this field, and in my view his findings are relevant.
 * That source is from 2018. There is an earlier source from 2016:
 * Based in Kazakhstan, Sci-Hub hackers allegedly use compromised user credentials—usernames and passwords—to access proxy servers that manage access to licensed IP-authenticated content from academic institutions.... Sci-Hub takes advantage of an active international market in stolen user credentials, where innocent users give up their passwords to phishing attacks targeting the university community. In one such email attack, the hacker poses as a library service manager by using a combination of two real library staff members’ names familiar to faculty. The email draws users to a familiar URL address but, instead of taking them to their own library server, sends them to a secondary page (see Figure 1) with similar branding, though hosted in New Zealand. Input typed into the username and password fields on this page is captured and later used to illegally access licensed content... In October 2015 the court ruled in favor of Elsevier, agreeing that the defendants fraudulently obtained student or faculty access credentials on university campuses and used those credentials to gain unauthorized access to copyrighted scholarly journals, articles, and books hosted on ScienceDirect. Another content provider taking action to protect themselves against Sci-Hub is Wiley. In July 2015, Wiley informed customers that Sci-Hub was targeting student and faculty access credentials using methods similar to those mentioned in the Elsevier complaint, and offered guidance on identifying compromised systems and securing them against further attacks. Russell/Sanchez 2016-03 (That is from a journal, and the authors are Carrie Russell,. director of the Program on Public Access to Information in the American Library Association, and Ed Sanchez, who is head of Library and Information Technology at Marquette University)
 * btw, Cyber spying on universities is a thing; there actually is market for university credentials (just like there is for other username/passwords)
 * between those two refs, the content is fine, in my view. Please note the content does not say that Sci-Hub actively phishes; it only says that one source of the credentials they use is the black market in stolen university credentials.
 * finally, Elbakyan has said
 * in response to what Sanchez wrote: "That is untrue that we obtain any passwords by phishing though the Sci-Hub website." In response to followup question about the phishing experience described by Sanchez: "In that case it is possible, because Sci-Hub acquires passwords from many different sources. So it may well be possible that this professor’s password finally ended up being used on Sci-Hub website."  In response to a follow up question: "At this moment I prefer not to disclose the thorough details of Sci-Hub operation, but I expect this to become possible in future." Sauropod followup to Ruff 2016-02 (widely cited in other refs here)
 * “It may be well possible that phished passwords ended up being used at Sci-Hub,” she said. “I did not send any phishing emails to anyone myself. The exact source of the passwords was never personally important to me.” (wapo 2016 (the first part of that quote is also in bohannon in Science, 2016-04
 * I did not tell Science how credentials were donated: either voluntarily or not. I only told that I cannot disclose the source of the credentials. I assume that some credentials coming to Sci-Hub could have been obtained by phishing. Anyway, Sci-Hub is not doing any phishing by itself. The credentials are used only to download papers. her 2017 "what WP gets wrong" post which is "Elbakyan, 2017" cited in eLife) Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I note that the 2016 piece presented no evidence for the claim of and it is not sourced to any other studies. Note also that this quote does not support the more detailed description given in the content - the allegation by Scholarly Kitchen is that Sci-Hub sold credentials it stole, which is different from the 2016 piece which is about Sci-Hub obtaining credentials through the market.  That 2016 article in any case looks to be an opinion piece with unsubstantiated allegations, and therefore should be treated as any other opinion piece, i.e. attribute the opinion. The other quotes are not useful to the discussion except to show that Elbakyan denied Sci-Hub was involved in phishing, as they do not support the claim made by Scholarly Kitchen which is about Sci-Hub being the active party in phishing and trading. Hzh (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It is right there in the quoted content from Sanchez.
 * As for SK, I already posted this at the sci-hub talk page, but the SK ref says {{tq}|More evidence collected shows that credentials that get into Sci-Hub’s hands are subsequently shared widely. How do we know? We caught them. When a particular set of credentials had been stolen and used first by Sci-Hub, the password was reset. For a short period afterward, the stolen credentials were monitored. The log file analysis revealed that there were 302 further attempts to access the site using the stolen credentials. The access points came from 12 countries including the United States, China, Thailand and Hong Kong. Only 17 of the attempts were from Sci-Hub itself, demonstrating the credentials stolen by Sci-Hub had gone viral. Scarily, those same stolen credentials were even being used by university users at 34 recognized universities! This tells us that the credentials had been passed around the web.}}
 * The number of misrepresentations in what you have posted here have made a mess of this. Jytdog (talk) 04:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Allegations and assertions are not evidence. Consider, say, a charge is made that John killed Jane, and it is then claimed that John entered the room, where the body of Jane's body was then found. Photos of someone entering the room and and Jane's body are then produced as evidence. That however is only evidence that someone had entered the room and that Jane died, and not who killed her, certainly not John. You need to produce evidence that it was John who actually entered the room and that there are other evidence to link him and her death.   The so-called evidence given in the blog post is that attacks had taken place, the stolen credentials became widely available, but no evidence at all that it was Sci-Hub that was engaging in the attack or was responsible for spreading the credentials. There is absolutely zilch evidence for that, and the author made it clear that he cannot present such evidence. If this is a research article submitted for publication to a reputable journal, an independent reviewer would have picked up on the lack of actual evidence linking Sci-Hub to the hacking/phishing and trading, and would recommend rejection of the article. Hzh (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Primarily responding to the original post here, without getting into the broader content dispute. It strikes me that, regardless of the specific claims, if the only source covering claims regarding the rights of publishers being violated is an organization for those publishers, we should not be including it. Same principle as any other advocacy/lobbying/trade representation group that publishes material about how this or that is harming its members -- if it's worth including, it'll get picked up elsewhere (e.g. RIAA, MPAA, ASCAP on p2p throughout the 00s). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 04:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I would oppose using it with attribution except insofar as a secondary source has reported on the same claims. Otherwise, as with any other trade/advocacy organization, it does not carry WP:WEIGHT for most purposes. Same would go for any organization making claims to try to defend their members -- it needs to go through another degree of sourcing first. If there's secondary source coverage of the claims, then I see no problem to include the citation along with the other. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 04:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Only for attributed quotes - and with a clear qualification on the source (e.g. "The Scholarly Kitchen a blog established by the Society for Scholarly Publishing"). This is a blog by an advocacy group for academic publishers - and academic publishers are clearly in conflict with Sci-Hub (as via Sci-Hub users are able to bypass paywalls setup by the publishers - harming publisher revenue). Icewhiz (talk) 07:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK with attribution, and attribution is only needed if it is the sole source for this, since there are many blogs making the same point and indeed Elbakyan doesn't appear to dispute it., there's no actual conflict here, scholarly publishing also encompasses open access and several of the organisational members of SSP publish open access journals. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would assume Elbakyan would dispute that Sci-Hub passes (or sells) credentials it receives onward to other third parties for purposes other than Sci-Hub. She probably doesn't dispute that Sci-Hub receives (or buys) the credentials. Many, if not most, of SSP members sell journals for profit. Icewhiz (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, many, but not all by a long chalk. Enough that SSP's opposition to Sci-Hub is plausibly due to rights issues not just profit, anyway. Guy (Help!) 15:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The content no where says that Sci-Hub sells credentials; it seems not at all unlikely that the site buys them from the black market. The "donated, voluntarily or not" line kills me. But she is so cagey that this is all hazy - all we have are the bits and scraps. All the references for credentials are gathered at Talk:Sci-Hub along with a proposed edit to summarize them. Jytdog (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Note, the issue with calls for 'attribution" are that the SK ref is a second source, behind the much stronger Sanchez one - unclear how this call for attribution would be realized in the content. The result of attribution would be to give the SK ref more prominence than what I (for one) would prefer to give it. Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the Sanchez article does not mention that the credentials used by Sci-Hub being subsequently used by third parties to access other information on university network. The Sanchez source is here,, and it says Sci-Hub hackers allegedly use compromised user credentials, then gather copyright-protected materials to be made available for its via Sci-Hub. What the content says is very different. Note also its use of the word "allegedly". Hzh (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * should have mentioned that the Ruseell/Sanchez reference, to which the Sanchez piece is a follow up, says "Sci-Hub takes advantage of an active international market in stolen user credentials, where innocent users give up their passwords to phishing attacks targeting the university community. " That ref is important here as well. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Contrary to what was said above, the Society for Scholarly Publishing is not representative of all academic publishers; open access publishers have other industry bodies, such as OASPA. SSP's "Sustaining Organizational Members" and the Scholarly Kitchen Cabinet include at least three entities which are currently involved in a lawsuit against the subject of the article, which is pretty much the definition of a conflict of interest. That said, the publication often hosts pieces by reliable sources, you just have to discriminate on a case by case basis. Nemo 17:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Can we close this? There was significant support for TBANning the OP of this thread on ANI a few weeks back, and it doesn't look like there's been any improvement, as this dispute is also currently on AN. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Paper presented at a municipal function
Looking for additional opinions on whether the following source is reliable for multiple historical statements in Cincinnati Time Store. See Talk:Cincinnati Time Store.

(not watching, please )  czar  17:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Opinions sourced to WorldNetDaily
This is both an RS and NPOV issue, but I'm bringing it here so that it can be discussed in one place. I removed opinions sourced to WND from Conservapedia and Ann Coulter. My concern is that although a non-rs may be used as a source of opinion in certain situations, these particular opinions do not seem to meet WP:WEIGHT because they do not appear in reliable sources. This is currently being discussed on both talk pages, and I'm coming here to get some clarity on A) when a non-rs can be used as an opinion source and B) whether it is appropriate to include these opinions per WP:NPOV. –dlthewave ☎ 01:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This will be redundant to above unless it is an RfC, in which case it should be templated as such. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 01:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I see this as a separate issue, since these RS questions are usually handled case-by-case and the "expert" credentials of the quoted person will vary. –dlthewave ☎ 02:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would also like this issue addressed from a general perspective, because there seems to be some inconsistency. Is an op-ed published on an otherwise non-RS site a reliable source for the author's opinion or not? WorldNetDaily is listed in Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, as a "generally unreliable" source, with the following description (bold added for emphasis):
 * "WorldNetDaily is not considered a reliable source for most purposes. The website is known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories.[54]"
 * The listing has two links to where the site has been discussed on this noticeboard in the past and here are the closing remarks for those discussions:
 * 1) "Consensus appears to be that World Net Daily is not generally acceptable as a source for factual material (as is, for example, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal etc.). While prior RS/N "Consensus" is cited evidencing WND "unreliability", individual citation(s) evidencing WND "unreliability" have not, thus far, been provided. As to whether or under what criteria/circumstance WND might be considered WP:RS, opinion is divided."
 * 2) "Resolved: Sigh, not again. It's been clearly agreed (you know, that "consensus" thing we have) before that apart from editorial opinion, if one is unable to source a supposedly factual statement without having to use WND, it probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Jake, your efforts would be far better aimed at better sourcing rather than this repeated waste of everyone's time, and it's now time to leave the equine corpse alone. There's only a certain number of times before being pointy becomes disruptive. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC) "
 * If an op-ed on the site is not permissible as a source for the op-ed author's opinion, then the description in the listing should be updated so this doesn't come up here again. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If I understand it correct, the issue is whether we are supposed to trust a person (e.g., a renown expert) or a source. When a person who is an established scholar publishes their view on some site with questionable reputation, what should we do with that?
 * This story reminds me a situation with publication policy of the Royal Society. In past, some established scientist were granted a permission to publish their paper in Royal Society journals, and they could publish whatever they wanted. That was an old analog of a modern peer-review procedure: instead of subjecting each paper to a peer-review procedure, Royal Society "peer-reviewed" scientists themselves: as soon as some scientist successfully passed a "peer-review", his manuscript were published without any restriction. However, later, this strategy was abandoned, and now each paper is subjected to a peer-review. (Arguably, the only exception is Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of U.S.A., which publishes manuscripts authored by members of the National Academy without peer-reviewing; as a result, everybody knows that a PNAS article authored by some academician may be of lower quality than the articles submitted by other authors).
 * In connection to that, the idea to trust an expert, not a source, is a step back as compared to the old publishing strategy that existed in a scientific world a 100 years ago. I don't think Wikipedia will benefit from that.
 * Frankly, I cannot understand the motives of Wikipedians who are advocating various questionable web sites. When some renown expert publishes their thoughts on such a web site, and the same information cannot be found in more trustworthy sources, that this expert is not totally confident in what they say: such statement may be inaccurate, provocative or questionable, and its publication in peer-reviewed of other good quality media may lead to some sort of reputational risks. In other words, publications of that sort should be considered as the expert's "hobby", and treated accordingly.
 * Wikipedia has a very non-uniform reputation, some say it contains a lot of bullshit. If we really want to improve it, it would be better to too rigorous than too liberal when we select sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * According to WP:RS a person is a source, as is a publisher and a work, so it is not choosing between a person and a source. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Not alone, who-by and where it's published matters to source evaluation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Only to a considered extent in an overall evaluation, the conditions for inclusion are section 1 OR section 2 OR ... not AND. Dmcq (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry? I understand, I think, the first part of your comment, "overall evaluation", as I said it is part of the evaluation of a source, (who by, who the publisher is, where, where is it published) but I don't understand the second part, are they abbreviations(?) (eg. WP:OR?  WP:AND?) and what you are trying to say there? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm saying the basic conditions for inclusion are condition 1 OR condition 2 OR condition 3 etc, not condition 1 AND condition 2 AND condition 3. AND means all conditions must be satisfied, OR means one or more must be satisfied. I capitalized them so you would have a chance of noticing them. Dmcq (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You're comment is still cryptic, "condition for inclusion" is odd, but to the extent you are arguing that you consider things in isolation your statement makes little, even common-sense. We consider things in context, given several factors that are bound together simultaneously not in some fictitious isolation. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * AmateurEditor, I really cannot understand why you are so persistent: this approach would decrease quality of Wikipedia. Imagine some serious article about, e.g. black holes, which is based on good articles from Science, Nature and PRL: will it benefit if we add there some claim from some "Flat Earth society" portal? Even if our rules do not prohibit that, a good faith user is supposed to avoid such things.
 * And, by the way, you interpret WP:EXPERTSOURCE incorrectly. Expert's opinion published in questionable sources is acceptable only when this statement is uncontroversial: our policy does not allow it as a support of extraordinary claims. Obviously, that means that everything written in WND should be treated with greater suspect. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

10:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WorldNetDaily is an appropriate source for uncontroversial facts about itself on the article WorldNetDaily and pretty much nothing else. Anything which is said only on WND and not repeated by reliable independent secondary sources, is WP:UNDUE pretty much by definition. Guy (Help!)
 * When we can't trust the publisher/editor, we can't trust what they published or how they edited it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't need everything peer reviewed on Wikipedia. That is a daft idea. In this case we're not talking about WND as a general source but its editor as a source about conservative ideas on the Bible. The appropriate criterion to judge that by is section one of WP:NEWSORG. Dmcq (talk) 11:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's WP:SPS for that, and its editor is not a notable qualified commentator on the subject. $RANDOMBLOWHARD cited to their own website is never a good idea for Wikipedia sourcing. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I don't have an opinion regarding if WND is a reliable source. However, I do have concerns when I see all material cited to WND systematically removed without asking if a lower quality source is really a concern and/or if an alternative source is available. Take a case where WND is reporting the views/statements of a person who's opinion on a subject would generally have WEIGHT. Unless we think WND is actively changing/misquoting people then I would say there is ONUS to show that WND is not reliable for such basic material. That doesn't establish WEIGHT, only an assumption of a low level of reliability. If the author is someone who's opinion on the subject would generally be notable then we shouldn't exclude it just because it was published on WND. In that case I would treat it like self published material from an expert. Unlike such an opinion published in say the NYT, I wouldn't take the fact that it was published on WND as evidence that the opinon/views/facts etc in question have WEIGHT. If WND reporters are interpreting facts/events then I would say the bar is higher and it sounds like the general answer is no, not reliable. However, this does not mean any material that is sourced to WND should be automatically removed from articles especially with no effort to find an alternative source for the same material/quotes. Instead if the sourced material is factual (quotes, otherwise non-controversial statements/attributions) then an effort should either be made to find alternative sources or start a talk page discussion asking if removal is justified. Springee (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Springee, I think you are not right. Per WP:EXPERTSOURCE, a statement published in WND may be acceptable when it is made by an established expert, and it contains no extraordinary claim. Removal of materials supported by WND happens not because someone dislikes this source, but because someone considers the claim this source makes extraordinary. If that happened, the best way to restore this material is to find a better source that supports the same claim. If that was done, the material can be restored, and, probably, the WND reference can be restored too (optionally). However, per WP:BURDEN, all of that should be done by those who want to restore this material. It would be absolutely incorrect to say that "there is ONUS to show that WND is not reliable", but the opposite is correct: a proof should be presented in each case when WND is used that this particular WND article is reliable. However, if such a proof (in a form of another publication in more reputable source) has been provided that makes WND redundant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think we actually disagree here. The question is what counts as "extraordinary"?  Consider an article statement, "Expert A said, "This is a good idea because..." ".  WND is only being used to claim that Expert A made the statement.  In that case are we claiming WND falsified the statement?  In any case, an editor removing material from a Wiki article because it is cited to WND should make a good faith effort to see if an alternative source for the claim is available.  Springee (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not a big question. "Extraordinary" means "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". That means any surprising statement not supported by better sources can be considered extraordinary unless opposed has not been proven. Regarding "good faith efforts", that is what I usually do. However, that is not mandatory. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Do not include spaces between replies per MOS:INDENTGAP Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems wikiEd adds spaces automatically. Just in case if other users are having this problem, disabling of wikiEd resolves it. Or switch to from Firefox to Chrome...--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Same as above. Bathroom graffiti written by an eminent expert is still bathroom graffiti. If the best source someone could get published in is a totally junk publication like WND, we should probably ask ourselves "Huh, why didn't better sources publish this too?", and then use those better sources, and the things they chose to publish about the subject, instead. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well better sources by our standards have said essentially the same thing there, but they are sources which one would expect to pooh ppooh some nutcase conservative idea. This is a dyed in the wool right winger and creationist that one might expect to be supportive saying the project is nutty. Dmcq (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Almost never - Basically what JzG said. Maybe an opinion about itself or one of its authors, used in the article about itself or said reporter, but basically nothing else. Too often we find something to be a terrible source, but exercise no discretion when it comes to including those sources anyway, but with attribution. If something is as poor of a source as WND, we just shouldn't be using it except in remarkable circumstances. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 01:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to be answering the previous discussion 'Is an article in World Net Daily reliable source?'. This one has a title phrased like that one but the question is different, it is about the editor and his competence for a particular type of opinion. Dmcq (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I responded in that section, too. Perhaps I answered OP's questions a little sideways, but I'm responding to the question of, ~"let's say WND is an unreliable source; when should an opinion published in WND be considered suitable for inclusion per WP:WEIGHT". My answer is "almost never," and I would say it's generalizable. I think it's too often that we come to a consensus that a source is unreliable for statements of fact, but exercise little control over use of that source for attributed opinion as though e.g. anything published in a lousy source can be included if it's attributed. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 07:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That just indicates to me you missed the point. Anyway no skin off my teeth I'm happy enough for it to go. Dmcq (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with, RS discussions often end with consensus regarding statements of fact but no clear guidance for when a source may be used for opinions. It might help to have an RfC for WND as a source of opinions, since it's been coming up a lot lately. Part of the problem is that reliable sources aren't only used to determine the veracity of a statement; they also tell us how much WP:WEIGHT the viewpoint should carry. My opinion is that even if an unreliable source faithfully reproduces the words of the author, it does not contribute to its weight. As others have pointed out, the opinion would need to be repeated by reliable secondary sources to justify inclusion, so we might as well just cite those sources. We should also reject arguments that assign weight to a particular individual due to their prominence or expertise since this is not supported by policy. –dlthewave ☎ 23:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Here's policy:

Due and undue weight
 * "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

I think that's pretty clear. We determine due weight based ONLY on what's in RS. We ignore unreliable sources. If anything, content in unreliable sources is a negative weight matter. We not only don't use it, we deprecate it and those who publish in unreliable sources.

Yes, there are situations where an unreliable source can be cited, and that is the source's opinions about itself and its POV, in its OWN article. It cannot be used for other opinions and POV published on the unreliable source. Find a RS which comments on it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Titanica
Is Encyclopedia Titanica a reliable source? It's used extensively in Titanic-related articles such as Passengers of the RMS Titanic, Margaret Brown and RMS Titanic. My concern is that the site is based on user-generated content and their editorial/fact-checking policies are unclear. –dlthewave ☎ 03:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What editorial, controls are there?Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * No, in history related articles, we desperately need quality sources, checked and placed in the right historical context, by credible, well-cited historians. Cinadon36 (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * They don't list their editorial controls anywhere obvious - but it is not an open-wiki (you can send an e-mail or fill out a webform with a request) - and it seems from their description that there are editorial controls. If we had a description of their controls - they'd probably "tick our boxes". They are cited in an academic context, and it seems that their lists are even used as a main data source (cross-checked vs. others) - e.g. Frey, Bruno S., David A. Savage, and Benno Torgler. "Behavior under extreme conditions: The Titanic disaster." Journal of Economic Perspectives 25.1 (2011): 209-22.. This Liverpool University Press book refers to them as "superb" major source for biographical information. I would consider them as probably generally reliable, though a stronger source would be preferred. I don't think that inclusion in Encyclopedia Titanica should count towards notability of subjects much - as they cover just about absolutely anything Titanic related - i.e. their (Titanic-specific) notability standard is lower than Wikipedia.Icewhiz (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, RS for information not for notability. Seems fair.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I would say not reliable until demonstrated otherwise. Icewhiz's links above are a bit problematic: the LUP book, for instance, describes the website as a "superb" source for primary source material and photographs, but Wikipedia is supposed to use secondary scholarship, and the LUP book makes no reference to ET having excellent editorial standards. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems borderline to me. About page and the "Add to ET" box raise a few alarms - they emphasize that they're built by contributions from users, and the submission form says Only add something you have permission to add, wrote yourself, or is out of copyright, which is common sense but shouldn't be something they're so concerned over if they're doing due diligence on submissions themselves, ie. it gives the impression that they're taking submissions and throwing them up with little oversight.  So I'd probably say they're dangerously close to WP:USERGENERATED.  That said, it's borderline enough that if it's being cited for uncontroversial things, it's all right to leave it there while we search for a better source - but it's definitely worth replacing it with a better source when possible.  Also, some of the stuff there is WP:PRIMARY material hosted on that site, like contemporary news articles, which we can cite as long as we have no reason to believe it's been edited or falsified - that host contributes little or no reliability, but doesn't take it away, either.  Finding secondary sources is better, but, again, for uncontroversial information it doesn't have to be remove-on-sight. --Aquillion (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously a good and useful source for historic photographs and for identifying relevant primary sources. No indication that the written text is anything other than user-generated content or any more reliable than any other wiki. In the absence of clear evidence of competent editorial control, not a reliable source. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Sentinelese and spears

 * Source 1: "Attacked By Andaman Tribe, Coast Guard Officer's Terrifying Account" - NDTV
 * Source 2: Cops Studying Rituals Of Tribe That Killed US Man To Recover His Body - NDTV
 * Article: Sentinelese
 * Text:

This relates to a description of a 2006 incident where a group of Sentinelese attacked a helicopter. The incident is sourced by two articles, both from NDTV (so we are not at the moment debating whether NDTV is, in itself, a reliable source).

Source 1 is specifically about the incident, and quotes the pilot of the helicopter as saying: "As we were going down, we were attacked by the Sentinel tribals who were using bows and arrows and had spears as well. The arrows were coming up to a height of 100 feet".

Source 2 is primarily about a later incident, but includes a brief summary of the earlier incident: "In 2006, Sentinelese hurled arrows and spears at the chopper that Commandant Praveen Gaur flew to North Sentinel." This sentence links to Source 1.

Our page initially only used Source 1, and said the helicopter was "attacked with arrows"; User:DBigXray changed this to "with spears and arrows"; I reverted on the basis that this wasn't supported by the source given; DBigXray reverted back, and eventually added Source 2 as justification.

It seems to me that Source 1, an article about the topic with an eyewitness account, is the significantly better source on this incident, and specifically says that arrows were used and spears were not; Source 2, a brief summary in the same publication linking to Source 1, seems a clearly worse source.

In discussion at Talk:Sentinelese/Archive 2, DBigXray insists that we should use Source 2 to say that the helicopter was attacked with spears, and that he wants to include this because "the only weapons of tribals are arrows and spears and they have clearly used everything they got. A clear warning that meant 'trespasser be gone'. The damaging power of a spear is much larger than an arrow." This seems to me to be a decidedly POV approach to editing. He then provided a series of other putative sources to back up the content, but these all turned out to not actually relate to the incident in question.

This is an utterly minor debate in itself, but DBigXray said if I still objected to his version I should take it here, and I am sufficiently troubled by his approach to sourcing (in this and other debates on the same page) that I have done he suggests. TSP (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In my view, the first source is the best, and the second source does a poor job of summarizing the first. Contradictions between the two should be resolved in favor of the first source. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The first source says two things. First it says "who were using bows and arrows and had spears as well", then it says "were attacking my helicopter with everything they had." The second sentence supports the contention that they were attacking with spears as well as with bows and arrows. The second source says "Sentinelese hurled arrows and spears at the chopper". I don't think one can say either of these sources is any better or worse than the other. They are from the same publication and about the same topic. In my opinion there are two reliable sources that support the contention that both bows and arrows and spears were used in the attack. Morgan Leigh | Talk 21:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I interpret the phrase "with everything they had" as fighting with great determination, but not neccesarily unleashing every single one of their weapons. The choice of the word "using" with regards to bows and arrows and "had" with regards to spears is significant and must be taken into account. Also worth noting is that a soldier can carry many arrows and they are effective at up to 200 meters. A soldier can only carry two or three spears and they are much shorter range weapons, used for thrusting in close combat more often than throwing, and have a far shorter effective range than arrows when thrown. Source one says that the helicopter was 200 meters away from the islanders. Given their culture and their available weapons, it was militarily effective to fire arrows. It would have been a total waste of their heaviest weapons to throw spears from 200 meters. In the Olympics, only one athlete in history has ever succeeded in throwing a javelin over 100 meters, and military grade spears are much heavier. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Cullen, I interpret "They were just 200 metres away and were attacking my helicopter with everything they had" as meaning "every weapon they had". Being a native speaker of Indian English, I can also safely claim that Gaur also meant the literal meaning (i.e. "every weapon they had") rather than the metaphorical meaning, as this phrase is commonly used in Indian English to refer to the literal meaning.
 * During the 2004 incident the helicopter did not land it was attacked by both arrows and spears, with a clear motive.
 * Please see Commandant Gaur's interview with NDTV here talking about the 2006 incident
 * Regarding your military analysis and possible uses, You are making a flawed assumption that during the 2006 incident with Gaur, the Helicopter always remained at a height of 200m, that assumption is not supported by any evidence. Please note that during the 2006 incident the helicopter wasn't always at a distance of 200m. In fact it did land at two occasions at two different places on the island. So it is quite possible that when the helicopter was flying at a lower height or while being landed, the Tribals would have used spears as well. Gaur also states that they were attacked with spears and arrows and these 2 quotes from NDTV plus several others mentioned above should be enough to settle this thread.
 * Here are some other sources that say that both arrows and spears are used.
 * I am going to ignore the false allegations of POV above. All said, this is such a trivial dispute and I fail to understand why so much fuss about spears and why TSP wants to remove spears while there are so many sources stating they use spears on Helicopters. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The question is not "do the Sentinelese ever use spears?", it is "Do the sources suggest they used spears on this occasion?" All these other sources either refer to completely different incidents, or refer to no incident in particular; so they are not relevant sources for this.  There are not "so many sources" saying they used spears in 2006; there is one, it is not a very good one and it is contradicted by a much better one.
 * Regarding "with everything they had", the full quote is: "They were just 200 metres away and were attacking my helicopter with everything they had - arrows were flying everywhere." That seems to clarify the meaning - it does not say "arrows and spears were flying everywhere".  In several different quotes Gaur is specific about what they were attacked with; in each case he says arrows and does not say spears.
 * With regard to POV, I am only quoting your words. TSP (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Being a native speaker of Indian English" shouldn't make it hard for you to understand whatever is being told to you in English since the language and the meaning of the words is still entirely same. How it was possible to attack with spears? They must have got spears but where they used to spears or not is unclear. Excelse (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am going to ignore the false allegations of POV above. All said, this is such a trivial dispute and I fail to understand why so much fuss about spears and why TSP wants to remove spears while there are so many sources stating they use spears on Helicopters. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The question is not "do the Sentinelese ever use spears?", it is "Do the sources suggest they used spears on this occasion?" All these other sources either refer to completely different incidents, or refer to no incident in particular; so they are not relevant sources for this.  There are not "so many sources" saying they used spears in 2006; there is one, it is not a very good one and it is contradicted by a much better one.
 * Regarding "with everything they had", the full quote is: "They were just 200 metres away and were attacking my helicopter with everything they had - arrows were flying everywhere." That seems to clarify the meaning - it does not say "arrows and spears were flying everywhere".  In several different quotes Gaur is specific about what they were attacked with; in each case he says arrows and does not say spears.
 * With regard to POV, I am only quoting your words. TSP (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Being a native speaker of Indian English" shouldn't make it hard for you to understand whatever is being told to you in English since the language and the meaning of the words is still entirely same. How it was possible to attack with spears? They must have got spears but where they used to spears or not is unclear. Excelse (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with DBigXray that the literal meaning seems much more likely than the metaphorical one. I agree that the helicopter was on the ground at the time of the attack so an attack with spears would have been feasible. I don't think that Gaur saying that "arrows were flying everywhere" in any way means spears weren't being used. I think it means that there were lots of arrows. IMHO the first source alone makes it clear that spears were used in addition to arrows and the second source reiterates it. Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Notice that Gaur clearly says "he was on the ground" and not airborne at a height of 200m while talking about the attack.
 * Notice that Gaur clearly says "he was on the ground" and not airborne at a height of 200m while talking about the attack.


 * The above is the quote from the Wikipedia article being discussed here and as it stands this statement doesn't make any wild or ludicrous claim and is sourced with RS and quotes that are mentioned above. Notice that our article is not claiming that the spears were thrown 200m above the ground. The line in the article does not distinguish between on ground attack or airborne attack. The line in article only claims what has been reported thus far. There are only 2 reported incidents of Helicopters coming under attack and both events mention arrows and spears. They used spears on Helicopter in 2004 and after just 2 years, in 2006 they did not use ? There is no reasonable explanation for why they will refrain from doing it. Anyway, we follow what the reliable media reports, and we have reliable media reports that back this statement.
 * Notice the usage of plural with helicopter, the reliable media uses the statement for both occasions and Gaur's interview also confirms the spears were used to attack.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  02:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Notice the usage of plural with helicopter, the reliable media uses the statement for both occasions and Gaur's interview also confirms the spears were used to attack.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  02:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "There is no reasonable explanation for why they will refrain from doing it"? That is an extraordinary approach to writing a Wikipedia article - we should assert things happened because we can't think of a reason why they wouldn't have?  Making inferences from plurals in articles seems pretty dubious too - if they'd used arrows twice and spears once, that still seems to be perfectly well-covered by "firing arrows and spears at passing helicopters".  Trying to extract detailed commentary on a particular incident from a generic remark seems to be original research synthesis.
 * It still seems to me that we have two sources that actually describe this incident; and the one that says spears were not used is by far the superior one.
 * All the other sources are either *about a completely different incident*, or make a generic statement, so have no relevance; nor does anyone's logic about what behaviour on the part of the islanders would have been sensible. TSP (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * TSP your statement that "Spears were not used" is not based on any source but your own "personal opinion/understanding" of the quotes. Gaur states that he was attacked by arrows and spears and we have other reliable sources also stating that Spears were used on Helicopter. I have said all I had to say on this thread in great detail with quotes and there is nothing more for me to add. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Gaur doesn't say he was attacked by spears. He says the tribe members "were using bows and arrows and had spears as well".  I find it hard to read that as saying they were using both arrows and spears.
 * The other sources which relate to different incidents or are general comments remain completely irrelevant. TSP (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * TSP, why do you think one of these sources is superior to the other? Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * As I said in my original post, they are from the same publication, but Source 1 is an extensive article specifically on this topic, quoting an eyewitness; Source 2 is a brief summary, with a link to Source 1, appearing in an article on another subject. It seems unlikely to me that Source 2 is more authoritative than Source 1, which it appears to be an attempt to summarise.  TSP (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It seems as though it is hard to be sure exactly what happened. What about this phrasing: ...firing arrows at the helicopter,[cite 1] and according to one article, throwing spears as well.[cite 2] ? -Darouet (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * From what I can gather it is not clearly stated whether they threw spears or not. "Everything they had" is not precise. Why not wrote something along the lines of


 * The helicopter was attacked by tribesmen armed with spears bows and arrows. The pilot is quoted as saying "They were just 200 metres away and were attacking my helicopter with everything they had - arrows were flying everywhere."and leave it at that. This is better than trying to synth the sources and work out whether the spears they had were sufficient to get to any distance that could do any damage or whether they got closer than 200m or not. When a quote is not clear then write it as is rather than trying to interpret it. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd be fine with that, though I think "As we were going down, we were attacked by the Sentinel tribals who were using bows and arrows and had spears as well. The arrows were coming up to a height of 100 feet" is the more interesting quote; or we could include both. TSP (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks OK to me so long as the quote comes from a reliable source. I think it is not very important to the article whether it was spears or arrows that were coming at them. I find it odd that Indian English has a significantly different meaning to the phrase "with everything they had" that means that an Indian English speaker is more apt to understand than a British or American or Australian speaker for example. That aside I listened to the interview on youtube with the pilot and not once did he says that spears were thrown but not once did he say they were not so we cannot write they were or not thrown. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Another quote from NDTV directly stating that both arrows and spears were used.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Another quote from NDTV directly stating that both arrows and spears were used.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Mm. So that is arguably a second source (from the same origin as the previous one). But, once again, it's a summary of more detailed content - a video this time - where Commandant Gaur has every opportunity to say that spears were used, but every time only says arrows were used (but that they also had spears).
 * "When we had gone down to make a search by the helicopter, the tribals, who are very ferocious, they started attacking the helicopter with bows and arrows"
 * "More than 50 or 100 people are running towards you with spears, arrows, and shooting at you"
 * TSP (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * This is absolutely a third source that explicitly mentions spears, both in the text and in the video. I don't see why TSP thinks this is a summary. It is a live interview with Gaur that provides more details than in the other two reports. In the video Gaur says "more than 50, 100 people are running towards you with spears, arrows and shooting at you". All three reports are from NDTV which is a reliable source. There is no reason to not include mention of spears. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I think we may have lost sight of what the text is that is being discussed. Currently in the article: "When the helicopter tried to retrieve them, it was attacked with spears and arrows by more than 50 tribesmen who shot arrows to a height of more than 100 feet (30 m)." (my emphasis)
 * Yes, absolutely, Gaur has mentioned on multiple occasions that the tribesmen had spears. He also seems to consistently only mention that they attacked the helicopter with arrows. As per source 1, " we were attacked by the Sentinel tribals who were using bows and arrows and had spears as well."  In the new source, only the text summary on the video suggests the helicopter was attacked with spears; Gaurs own words in the video (which I transcribed some of above), again, only mention it being attacked with arrows, while the tribesmen also had spears.  TSP (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Once again I refer you to the attacking "with everything they had" quote. I support Domdeparis' suggestion that we go with the direct quote from the article instead of trying to infer what they mean i.e. "The helicopter was attacked by tribesmen armed with spears and bows and arrows. The pilot is quoted as saying "They were just 200 metres away and were attacking my helicopter with everything they had - arrows were flying everywhere." Do you support this ? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgan Leigh (talk • contribs)


 * User:Morgan Leigh, noting that I didnt get your ping above, probably becuase you did not sign. I must extend my thanks to User:Morgan Leigh, for pointing out the obvious here to TSP.
 * TSP, I hope you are aware that the Journos have a pre-interview discussion as well as post-interview discussion with the interviewee. I get a sense from your arguements above that you are assuming here that if something is not quoted in the first person quote in an article then it basically never happened. This is absolutely flawed approach. The direct quotes are added by the journos in the article to generate reader's interest as it makes the reading exciting. Other relevant discussions are generally summarized in the article. Not every piece of information is necessarily presented in the news report in the form of direct quote. Other than first person account, (Gaur here, who never said spears were not used), the journos also refer to other available primary, secondary, tertiary sources before writing the article. And the crux of the journo's investigation is published in their report.
 * I have shared in this discussion thread 3 separate articles from NDTV stating that both spears and arrows were used to attack. Apart from NDTV there are other sources also confirming the same. The content on spear is reliably sourced. And our article should include the mention the use of "spears and arrows to attack". Although I will not prefer but I am ok to use the exact quote in the article, but if we are using a quote we should not be cherry picking based on personal likeness of the content. We will have to use the full quote as mentioned in the table row 1 above (that also mentions the use of spears). The use of spears is well documented and reliably sources, If TSP is not willing to acknowledge these reliable sources mentioning "spears", in spite of such a long discussion here it is his problem. The mention of attack with spears cannot be dropped from the article section.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  10:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You're still including sources that describe an entirely different incident. Surely you can at least acknowledge that those ones have no relevance?
 * A quote seems the best solution - I've never objected to mention of spears, only the assertion that they were used, which Gaur never seems to me to say - but if your reading is that he does say that, I guess we can just include the quote and both be happy.
 * I guess it can be all 81 words of Gaur's two quotes - seems like rather a lot, but sure. TSP (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yay, we have a consensus! Thank you both for your input. Someone can go ahead and put this text in ""The helicopter was attacked by tribesmen armed with spears and bows and arrows. The pilot is quoted as saying "They were just 200 metres away and were attacking my helicopter with everything they had - arrows were flying everywhere."". Morgan Leigh | Talk 21:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, as suggested I have updated the article with the quote above. Thank you everyone for sharing your kind opinions on this thread. Regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Ervand Abrahamian - Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin
Is this source (page 220) sufficient to say that there is doubt regarding the perpetrators of the Hafte Tir bombing? Or more accurately, given Abrahamian (who lists a number of different parties (along side MEK) which were accused over the years), should we say that Hafte Tir bombing was carried out by the People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK) in our voice? One of the diffs in question is this, though Abrahamian is used for other content on the MEK page as well. The publisher is I.B. Tauris, and the author Ervand Abrahamian has a wiki page (historian specializing in the Middle East and Iran - MA Oxford, PHD Columbia, professor at CUNY). Discussion on MEK's talk page is - Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Icewhiz (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Is Crunchbase a reliable source?
Recently, a user named Somedifferentstuff removed Crunchbase references from the Sam Kazemian wikipedia article, arguing that it is not a Reliable source. The reliability of Crunchbase has been discussed before, but there has not been a clear consensus as to whether or not it is reliable, so I think it would be best to decide now if it is a reliable source or not. 344917661X (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is perhaps the leading DB for the VC industry. It is vetted. I would say yes, but much of it is PRIMARYish. Some of the content is PR releases by the company/funds (e.g. funding rounds) - which is reliable for attributed use only. Having a profile on crunchbase is not an indication of notability (anyone and anything in the industry is lisred).Icewhiz (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Crunchbase profiles are also self-published as anyone can create an account and edit them. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's primary sources or UGC. It's not an RS, and it's too trusting of the contributors. I've had to remove these as content sources repeatedly on spam articles - David Gerard (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Since one of the past discussions was started by me: Looking over it again, at best it should be used with great care, shouldn't be used when there's something better, and shouldn't be used for anything in dispute. --Ronz (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Rather than just asking if an entire site is unreliable for everything Wikipedia's policy encourages us to examine each source for each statement it is being used to substantiate. Bearing this in mind, consider each of the things Crunchbase is being used to source. Did he speak at Cointalks? Yes, and the Cointalks site shows this clearly and could be used to cite this. Did he speak at BlockCon? Likewise this is shown on the BlockCon site. Look for other references for the bio stuff and then you won't need to try to decide if an entire site is reliable or not. Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally unreliable. Crunchbase uses enough user-generated content that it should not be relied upon as a direct source for Wikipedia articles. Crunchbase's three data sources include investment firms who submit updates on the companies they're investing in, "active community contributors", and hired data analysts. I believe most of these contributions come from "active community contributors", since Crunchbase's content guidelines note that "Everyday, thousands of high-quality edits are made to the Crunchbase dataset and we encourage everyone to contribute content". Of course, Crunchbase is still a good starting point for research. —  Newslinger  talk   03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

This is not a valid source right?
[] is not a valid enough reference source to cite box office revenue gains for a movie right? I am thinking it is not valid because it is Twitter, but I am having second thoughts as Twitter is being used as a reference source for upcoming movies over at List of Bollywood films of 2018 and List of Bollywood films of 2019. I am asking this because it is a edit request for a Ext-PP. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, social media posts like this are considered self-published sources, which are questionable. I would decline that edit request. —  Newslinger  talk   03:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering my question. I denied that user's edit request.  Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

bahai-library.com
There are hundreds of links to. The site's About page says: "This library is a private, independent, all-volunteer project created by Jonah Winters and a team of contributors. It and its content are wholly unofficial and are not sponsored or endorsed by any Bahá'í body or institution. It is not affiliated with the Bahá'í Reference Library". Unless anyone disagrees, I will set about removing them as the spam they appear to be. Guy (Help!) 08:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems to be just another website, yep I would say not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not even close to RS Cinadon36 (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Two things. (a) The site in question is a reference library and is hosting books and other scholarly materials, which are in turn being cited on wikipedia. (b) This noticeboard requires you to provide discreet information about each source you wish to have comment on and the exact text it is referring to. This being the case, each work should be scrutinised by looking at the author, publisher and what it is being cited for. What you are asking for here is a blanket ban on an entire site without any of this information. IMHO This is a very dangerous direction for Wikipedia to head in. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * ^ what he said. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  16:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Jonah here, chief editor of Baha'i Library Online (bahai-library.com). I had to include the note cited above, about "wholly unofficial", only because of a unique aspect of Baha'i studies known as "Literature Review" (an in-house review process for print publications, the details of which don't matter here). But the thousands of items on the website include hundreds of books and articles which have both gone through academic peer-review, have been published by reputable mainstream publishers, and have been approved for posting online by the copyright holders themselves. These materials are all indubitably RS. Each link to bahai-library.com needs to be scrutinized independently. A sample of its content can be gleaned by browsing the citations from academia.edu: google.com/search?q=site:academia.edu+bahai-library.com Jonah Winters (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to pop in to lend my support to Morgan and Jonah here and say that the individual links should be scrutinized rather than putting a blanket ban on the site. As Jonah said, many of the texts available on the site have been peer reviewed and released by reputable publishers; they're simply made available on the site in the same way that Google Books or the Internet Archive makes publications available online. However, there are other texts on the site that have not been published anywhere else; these include personal essays and emails that have been essentially given to the site for posting (, correct me if I'm wrong here). These probably shouldn't be considered reliable sources since this essentially amounts to self-publishing. dragfyre_ ʞןɐʇ c 04:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with Dragfire, Jonah and Moran Leigh. Here's a list of academic publications beyond academic.edu that actually use cites from BLO I put together:

The reliability of the sources depends on the sources themselves. BLO is a responsible library of material. Smkolins (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And here's some reliable sources that suggest one should go to BLO (all gathered today though none included dates of their own publication):

and I could not find any that warned people not to go there. Smkolins (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with Smkolins, Morgan, Jonah, Dragfyre, etc. Some of the content hosted there is really high quality and it would be a shame to try and locate some of it elsewhere. However, if there is specific questionable content on the site we should remove those sources. Rm9820 (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Blacklist Chartmasters.org
Hi all, I am coming across this website, Chartmasters.org which has been used across multiple music related articles and lists across Wikipedia. A simple perusal of the website it is clear that is a gross unreliable site with no authoritative representation for sales of records. They estimate and then publish it as facts. Its a Wordpress website run by an user who has deviced his/her own method called Popularity analysis. I strongly suggest that we WP:BLACKLIST this site. I have already started removing the usage of this url from articles. — IB</b> [ <b style="font-family: Tempus Sans ITC; color: #1C1CF0;">Poke</b> ] 14:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging, , etc for their opinion also. — I<b style="color: #FF033E;">B</b>  [ <b style="font-family: Tempus Sans ITC; color: #1C1CF0;">Poke</b> ] 14:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree with blacklisting this site. It is used so widely and I remove it wherever I find it too. It is astounding how undemanding some inexperienced and new editors are of the reliability of information—anybody can claim they're an authority on a blog, buy a .com or .org domain and editors will attempt to add it here and pass it off as fact. I don't think its listing at WP:ALBUMAVOID is doing enough—attempts to add it should be filtered.  Ss  112   14:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed also with blacklisting this site. While the folks at Chartmasters seem to be working hard gathering sales data, it's clear that this is not yet a professional site to rely on, perhaps will never be.--Harout72 (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Fully support blacklisting Chartmasters. This dubious site should be removed from all articles if it isn't already. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 15:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * support Not a lot to say that has not already been said.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Guys I removed Chartmasters.org across the encyclopedia, but how do we blacklist it? — I<b style="color: #FF033E;">B</b> [ <b style="font-family: Tempus Sans ITC; color: #1C1CF0;">Poke</b> ] 21:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well done on that. Not sure how something officially gets blacklisted, but I would also like to know. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 13:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I do not support blacklisting or blanket bans of any site. Each instance of using a source should be scrutinized, otherwise we will end up having to ban every dodgy source everywhere. We need to educate editors instead of instituting bans. Bans promote combative behaviour. Resources promote discernment. Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, some websites are just a bloody headache. We have many instances of blacklisting websites which any user add (especially in the music articles) such as UKMIX .com (i removed the period by a space so that you can see the actual website). — I<b style="color: #FF033E;">B</b> [ <b style="font-family: Tempus Sans ITC; color: #1C1CF0;">Poke</b> ] 23:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE. No shown actual problem or prior discussion, no orderly process, policy, guidance, evidence,... A literally just casual look and went IDONTLIKEIT is not a reputable way to pick bans.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh really? You see WP:IDONTLIKEIT instead of the number of reasoning given above? — I<b style="color: #FF033E;">B</b> [ <b style="font-family: Tempus Sans ITC; color: #1C1CF0;">Poke</b> ] 23:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. This self-published source doesn't meet the suitability standards of WP:CHART. Citations from this blog are introducing incorrect information into articles. Additions to the spam blacklist can be proposed at WT:SBL. —  Newslinger  talk   03:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Climatefeedback.org (a climate science fact-checking website)
An editor insists that Climatefeedback.org is a self-published source run by nobodies and that we can't use it as a source for statements such as "Myron Ebell has falsely claimed that "the rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC." Climate scientists note that past climate models have accurately predicted subsequent rates of global warming." Climatefeedback.org has been cited favorably recently by sources such as Deutsche Welle, Columbia Journalism Review, Axios, and the Guardian which referred to climatefeedback.org as "a highly respected and influential resource". It would be good if the RS noticeboard could clarify once and for all whether this source, which other RS cite and describe favorably and which rely on assessments by actual experts, can be used as a RS, so that editors who want to scrub this source and related content from the pages of prominent climate change deniers will stop doing so (or conversely, be allowed to do so). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hard to argue against Deutsche Welle, Columbia Journalism Review, Axios, and the Guardian. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Generally reliable. With published editorial and advisory teams, a clear methodology, and multiple endorsements from established reliable sources, Climate Feedback appears to have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required of a generally reliable source. —  Newslinger  talk   10:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not technically WP:SPS. In order to be "self-published", a website must be under the sole proprietorship of a single person or definable ideological group. This is not the case with this source which is simply a fact-checking website. Compare Snopes, TalkOrigins, or Quackwatch. jps (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: I looked for more RS coverage of this website, and apparently the website last week "got several news outlets to correct a false story" (incl. Fox News, which the RS noticeboard for some reason insists is a RS) according to Poynter. The website was also cited last month by CBS News for expert assessments on a recent study in Nature. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:BLPSPS says Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. so wouldn't this source at least technically be prohibited according to the wording of the policy? ImTheIP (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Depends on what a "group blog" is supposed to mean. I typically think of them as blogs that contain posts published by different individuals rather than those that are curated by a team. YMMV. jps (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Inkpot Award?
Hi all! I have a question. A student wants to create an article on a person who has won the Inkpot Award. I know that the award will at the very least give some notability, but is this a major enough award for this to make the individual notable on this basis alone? It looks to be pretty major and is given out by Comic Con, but I wanted to ask here before making any firm judgement. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this noticeboard really the right place to put this question? It doesn't seem to be about whether or not a specific source is reliable for a specific statement, though perhaps I'm missing something. --tronvillain (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I suppose it's in a way a question of whether or not it can be used as a RS to back up the claim of it being an overwhelmingly major award or not. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Acupuncture - Source Used Correctly?
Please note: This has been revived here from the recent archive as no consensus has been achieved and there is still active discussion on the talk page. Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The article Acupuncture contained this sentence, "The evidence suggests that short-term treatment with acupuncture does not produce long-term benefits." and cited this source Wang SM, Kain ZN, White PF (February 2008). "Acupuncture analgesia: II. Clinical considerations". Anesthesia and Analgesia. 106 (2): 611–21 doi:10.1213/ane.0b013e318160644d

Having read the source I felt that the text didn't represent what the study found, which was that acupuncture does effectively manage some conditions in the short term. Accordingly I edited it to say "A review of randomized, sham-controlled clinical investigations found that treatment with acupuncture is "effective in the short-term management of low back pain, neck pain, and osteoarthritis involving the knee" but that it does not produce long-term benefits." However this was reverted with the claim that my edit is a POV edit. I think this is an issue of the source not being used correctly and not an NPOV issue which is why I am posting here.

Is this source used correctly in my edit? Morgan Leigh | Talk 21:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Acupuncture doesn't work. It doesn't matter where you put the needles, or even if you actually insert them. All positive results are small, transient, and can be safely ascribed to bias and/or p-hacking. The source fully establishes this: "However, the literature also suggests that short-term treatment with acupuncture does not result in long-term benefits". The earlier version was more accurate, yours is less accurate. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Can we have a quote that supports that text?Slatersteven (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * There's an often-overlooked bit of WP:RS that applies here. Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive and should be avoided.  People treat peer-reviewed papers as top-quality sources, but this isn't really the case.  When dealing with many topics, one paper is really just one data-point - the best sources are ones that draw on and summarize many papers, or secondary studies that show that a paper has had substantial long-term impact (which implies it has been replicated and not debunked or led nowhere.)  I would avoid placing so much weight on one line from one study, and instead search for some additional sources. --Aquillion (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That is true. But it doesn't answer the question of whether this source has been used correctly. However it does speak to another issue on this page which is where this edit removed a number of references including three meta analyses, claiming they are POV. This content was removed again here, also with an allegation that they are POV.


 * Can anyone please comment on if the removed sources are reliable for the text they support? The sources are:


 * Vickers, Cronin, Maschino, et al, (2012), Acupuncture for Chronic Pain:Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis, Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(19):1444-1453. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2012.3654


 * Hopton, MacPherson, (2010), Acupuncture for Chronic Pain: Is Acupuncture More than an Effective Placebo? A Systematic Review of Pooled Data from Meta‐analyses, Pain Practice, Volume 10, Issue 2, March/April 2010, Pages 94-102


 * Kwon, Pittler, Ernst, (2006), Acupuncture for peripheral joint osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Rheumatology, Volume 45, Issue 11, 1 November 2006, Pages 1331–1337, https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kel207


 * The text is "One systematic review found little evidence of acupuncture's effectiveness in treating pain(sourced to Ernst E, Lee MS, Choi TY (April 2011). "Acupuncture: does it alleviate pain and are there serious risks? A review of reviews" (PDF). Pain. 152 (4): 755–64), while others have found it to be effective(Sourced to the three abovementioned sources). Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I notice that the phrase "the evidence suggests" is used four times on the Acupuncture page. Such phrases are not great and should be removed. Evidence never suggests anything - researchers interpret the evidence and suggest things. Your phrasing is better because it attributes the claim "A review of randomized, sham-controlled clinical investigations ... " I don't know enough about acupuncture to say for sure, but it seems to me like your sentence accurately reflects what the source say. ImTheIP (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd say that the original sentence does represent one of the most important findings of the study, but the entire review seems somewhat problematic, as the lumping in of electrical stimulation with acupuncture is a huge red flag. The lower back pain section concludes: "In conclusion, although data from sham-controlled clinical studies indicate that acupuncture and alternative forms of electrostimulations (PENS and PNT) can serve as a short-term adjunct treatment for LBP management, no study has proven any long-term benefit of acupuncture and/or any other related interventions as a treatment for LBP." Lumping in electrostimulation with acupuncture is a red flag. The neck pain section says "Analogous to the studies in patients with chronic LBP, studies indicate that PENS and PNT are effective short-term treatments for chronic neck pain" - it doesn't even include standard acupuncture in that statement. The osteoarthritis of the knee is at least has a conclusion on acupuncture itself, concluding (based on two RCT): "the use of acupuncture stimulation is an effective short-term treatment of OA of the knee. Unfortunately, long-term benefits from acupuncture treatment have no been demonstrated." --tronvillain (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that the original sentence does represent one of the findings of the study. It includes the finding that treatment wasn't effective in the long term, but it omits the finding that short term treatment was effective. Which is the point of my edit.


 * The inclusion of electrical stimulation is not a red flag. Electroacupuncture is a form of acupuncture. The paper describes all the types of stimulation studied as "acupuncture and its variants". While the paper doesn't mention standard acupuncture in the exact sentence you mention it says, referring to all the types it is studying, "In reviewing the peer-reviewed literature, all these forms of acustimulation appear to have very similar clinical outcomes". But the most important thing here is that the three MDs writing this paper summed up their findings as;
 * "'peer-reviewed literature suggests that acupuncture and other forms of acustimulation are effective in the short term management of low back pain, neck pain, and osteoarthritis involving the knee'"


 * Note it says "acupuncture and other forms of acustimulation are effective", i.e. all kinds are effective. I note that both the quotations you mention say the treatment is effective; "can serve as a short term treatment", "are effective short-term treatments". This is exactly the information I am trying to include in this edit.


 * This review is not problematic. It was itself peer reviewed and published in the journal Anesthesia and Analgesia which is, according to Journal Citation Reports, a well respected journal. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A reminder that just because it was published in a peer-reviewed journal respected or not doesn't mean that this one study is significant. As the columnist Daniel Engber reminded us in a Slate article recently when talking about the Peter Boghossian hoaxes "We know from long experience that expert peer review offers close to no protection against outright data fraud, whether in the field of gender studies or cancer research, psychology or plant biology, crystallography or condensed matter physics. Even shoddy paste-up jobs with duplicated images and other slacker fakes have made their way to print and helped establish researchers’ careers." Dom from Paris (talk) 10:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am fully aware of that, not in the least because I hear it any time people want to divert the discussion away from addressing exact questions about whether a given source is being used accurately by casting aspersions on that source. I find it odd that a source which has been in this contended article for some time is only having its veracity questioned once citing it in a balanced way that mentions that it says there is evidence that acupuncture is effective is suggested. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Simply being published in a usually reliable journal doesn't mean a study can't be problematic. Electroacupuncture isn't a "form of acupuncture", it's acupuncture plus transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and acupuncture proponents have been using that confounding variable to try to get significant results for a long time now.--tronvillain (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is your opinion that these things are not a form of acupuncture. The paper calls all the things studied variants of acupuncture. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

News sources as "primary sources" at Sicarii (1989)
The talk page of Sicarii (1989) has had some interesting claims, with multiple users claiming that newspaper reports about terror attacks claimed by this group are "primary sources". Is the JTA a primary source for this material? The LA Times? Are the Daily Mail or the Jerusalem Post articles about these events "primary" sources? I cant imagine how any user with a basic understanding of sourcing can claim that newspapers not involved in the events are primary sources, but that seems to be in dispute so here I am. Are newspapers magically transformed into primary sources after some period of time? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARYNEWS probably applies here, but primary doesn't mean bad or unreliable - primary sources can be used, with caution. Also, The Daily Mail is often considered an unreliable source. --tronvillain (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The question here is 1989 and 1990 news reporting of events in 1989 and 1990 - which is generally primary. Note that the question raised on talk is not reliability. The reporting itself is on a crime, or series of crimes. In particular much of the reporting revolves around the arrest of a non-notable low-key individual - who was subsequently released and not even charged, let alone convicted (so - lots of headlines and reporting on the suspicions - little reporting of the end result) which is a BLPCRIME issue. In terms of reliability - the reports might be reliable for what police suspected at the time, but they definitely do not reflect their actual findings.Icewhiz (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody claimed they did. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The question, and the attempted use made of it (to disqualify sources when no other excuse can be found) illustrates just how useless the primary/secondary distinction is. Zerotalk 05:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We routinely use primary sources in other contexts. For example when describing Abraham, ample references are made to the Book of Genesis which is a primary source. It seem silly to me to forbid such uses of primary sources. ImTheIP (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is more about primary sources in the explanatory supplement WP:USINGPRIMARY The first published source for any given fact is always considered a primary source. - this is where the line gets blurred. There is also WP:ALLPRIMARY. For example, the WP:MEDRS policy is stricter about this. I would note that the main WP:RS policy has some elements of this also, in the section discussing studies under WP:SCHOLARSHIP, but with news articles we are usually looking at WP:LINKSINACHAIN which is sometimes detrimental to the balance of articles. But balance is a different question from the reliability of the source, so I don't think it can be removed on those grounds. Seraphim System ( talk ) 09:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

New York Times RfC
"Request For Comment"Should we prohibit the use of The New York Times as a source? I envisage something just short of blacklisting, whereby its introduction to an article could be accepted only upon there being a demonstrable need to use it instead of other sources. Support prohibition Oppose prohibition:
 * Looking through the archives and talkpages across WP reveals that many editors distrust articles from the New York Times. Many editors have said over the years that the NY Times is not a reliable source. There may be exceptions where a reference is useful, perhaps when a New York Times story is itself the subject – cases could be presented here for discussion. There is little chance anything of encyclopedic value would be lost from such a move, and everything to be gained, not least an end to continual NY Times-related arguments.
 * Some Examples of Unreliability or Factual Errors
 * 1. At the Columbia Journalism Review in July of 2009, an article by Craig Silverman listed six errors in a single story about Walter Cronkite by New York Times reporter, Alessandra Stanley. All were factual errors and mistakes.
 * 2. In 2011, Ari Goldman claimed several instances of blatant anti-Semitism and misleading reporting by the New York Times. When Mr. Goldman was covering the Crown Heights Riots of 1991, articles such as “Amid Distrust in Brooklyn: Boy and Scholar Fall Victim” were said to be published with fabrications. Goldman claims that the New York Times stories fabricated “a frame” that did not exist where stories like “Hasidim and blacks clashed in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn through the day and into the night yesterday" were created to fit a false narrative that editors wanted the public to believe.
 * 3. In June of 2017, a New York Times Editorial claimed that maps circulated by Sarah Palin's PAC amounted to "political incitement," which the authors said was clearly linked to the subsequent 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz. This claim was factually, completely false.
 * 4. According to the Washington Post’s own article where The Post tries to argue that the New York “Times’ reporting is actually broadly correct”, even The Post admits that in one month of coverage of President Donald Trump in February of  2017, the NY Times made five significant factual errors including:
 * ‘Trump’s Travel Ban, Aimed at Terrorists, Has Blocked Doctors’, Feb. 6. A percentage of doctors was incorrectly described as referring to foreign-born doctors.
 * ‘In Welcoming Shinzo Abe, Trump Affirms U.S. Commitment to Defending Japan’, Feb. 10. China was listed as participating in the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
 * ‘Michael Flynn Resigns as National Security Adviser’, Feb. 13. Tweets from a Michael Flynn parody account were quoted as being from Flynn. This constitutes at best the false attribution of statements to a former General and National Security Advisor and at worst a complete politically motivated fabrication.
 * ‘Contradicting Trump on Russia: Russian Officials’, Feb. 20. Trump was said to have visited Israel during the campaign, which he did not. Another error in reporting.
 * ‘Fact Check: Trump Blasts ‘Fake News’ and Repeats Inaccurate Claims at CPAC’, Feb. 24. The number of people who gained health care under the Affordable Care Act was too low. Again an error in reporting made by the NY Times.
 * The Times also made 27 “minor” factual errors and 15 typographical errors just during coverage of the POTUS in that same month - hardly the definition of reliability.
 * 5. And then there is always the 2016 Presidential election predictions based on polls that the New York Times completely blew. In this November 8th article the NY Times boldly states that Hillary Clinton has an 85% chance to win the Presidential election. This coverage came complete with state by state coverage of polls that turned out to be completely unreliable.
 * These are just five citations for where the New York Times has completely and inaccurately reported the hard news, proving factually that the paper is unreliable – especially when compared with other sources that Wikipedia also considers unreliable such as The Daily Mail or Breitbart. These citations from the New York Times amount to dozens and dozens of factual errors on hard news topics that date back only as far as 2009. Wcmcdade (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The Times also made 27 “minor” factual errors and 15 typographical errors just during coverage of the POTUS in that same month - hardly the definition of reliability.
 * 5. And then there is always the 2016 Presidential election predictions based on polls that the New York Times completely blew. In this November 8th article the NY Times boldly states that Hillary Clinton has an 85% chance to win the Presidential election. This coverage came complete with state by state coverage of polls that turned out to be completely unreliable.
 * These are just five citations for where the New York Times has completely and inaccurately reported the hard news, proving factually that the paper is unreliable – especially when compared with other sources that Wikipedia also considers unreliable such as The Daily Mail or Breitbart. These citations from the New York Times amount to dozens and dozens of factual errors on hard news topics that date back only as far as 2009. Wcmcdade (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * These are just five citations for where the New York Times has completely and inaccurately reported the hard news, proving factually that the paper is unreliable – especially when compared with other sources that Wikipedia also considers unreliable such as The Daily Mail or Breitbart. These citations from the New York Times amount to dozens and dozens of factual errors on hard news topics that date back only as far as 2009. Wcmcdade (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * These are just five citations for where the New York Times has completely and inaccurately reported the hard news, proving factually that the paper is unreliable – especially when compared with other sources that Wikipedia also considers unreliable such as The Daily Mail or Breitbart. These citations from the New York Times amount to dozens and dozens of factual errors on hard news topics that date back only as far as 2009. Wcmcdade (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please add arguments against here.
 * Past Discussions1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28Wcmcdade (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Past Discussions1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28Wcmcdade (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Procedural close. Assuming that you're being serious, this RfC is malformed. Please see Requests for comment for instructions on how to format a RfC. In the Daily Mail RfC two sections above this one, editors prefer to have a "Survey" section above a separate "Discussion" section for this kind of RfC, and long arguments should go into the "Discussion" section. —  Newslinger  talk   00:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy close – this is a POINTy nomination (see ). There is absolutely zero chance of this resulting in any change in the status of the NYT, and therefore is a waste of the community's time. Brad  v 🍁 00:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with above comments. Seraphim System ( talk ) 01:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Snow close. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Updated RfC: The New York Times
Should we prohibit the use of The New York Times as a reliable source, generally? I envisage something just short of blacklisting, whereby its introduction to an article could be accepted only upon there being a demonstrable need to use it instead of other sources. Forgive me if I get some formatting or protocol mixed up here, I’m new to RfC’s. Thank you to all who have helped me so far.

Survey (“New York Times”)

 * No. The New York Times is a broadly reliable source, and for any paper that has been around as long as it has, there are going to be mistakes and examples of bad judgement, and what matters is not that individual cases of bad stories never happen; I would expect any organization as large as this to have occasional, isolated issues.  There is a false equivalency here with the DM discussion above because the DM ban was about a long-standing pervasive culture at the DM that showed a lack of journalistic integrity and reliability, across all stories, for all time.  The discussion here represents a few isolated incidents that were cherry picked solely because they paint the NYT in a bad light (which the do, but only in relation to using the NYT for reporting on those isolated stories) historically and up to the present day, I have seen no evidence that the general integrity and reliability of the NYT is in question, even if in the past individual incidents have arisen.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Mmmm, I notices the similarities in both the structure and tone of the RFC, and yes it does look like it is just trying to make a point (though why with a US news paper fails me, surely a UK broadsheet would have made more sense). Having said that, and I have said it before.


 * Yes I am dubious about using any newspaper sources, as at the end of the day they often rush to print and it would make "not news" a tad stronger if we did not use newspapers as a source. I do not however think the NYT is as bad as the DM (for example as far as I know it is not in fact widely regarded outside the industry as a joke and a by word for shoddy journalism). So I think they are often unreliable and so their use should be restricted.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That is an interesting proposal about, perhaps, striking all newspaper sources from Wikipedia. I would think that they may serve some value when deciding if something is notable, but I certainly understand your reservation in using them as sources. I may have been accused of "cherry picking" my examples below in the elaboration section, but I'm not sure that that argument really holds up in light of other newspaper (either broadsheet or tabloid) examples. It is strange to me here, frankly, that I am receiving such vehement opposition to asking for comments. It's not as though I'm going through articles and stripping them of resources or trying to highjack someone else's conversation. It's almost as thought there is a religious fervor for the NYT that anyone who dares suggest that it is unreliable should immediately have their conversation closed, their request minimized, their other comments deleted and then threatened with being banned from this page. I wonder why people are being so disruptive to my RfC?Wcmcdade (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Because its timing and wording a virtually a copy past of the DM one (and as has been said it is an unusual way of structurering an RFC). The issue with the DM is one of general (not occasional) unreliability. In the UK it is widely regarded as a joke and a by word for red top journalism. As far as I can tell the NYT does not have a similar reputation. There are ,in fact, far more worthy candidates you could have picked and it just seemed off you picked one of most highly respected new papers in the USA.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion (“New York Times”)

 * Looking through the archives and talkpages across WP reveals that many editors distrust articles from the New York Times. Many editors have said over the years that the NY Times is not a reliable source. There are exceptions where a reference is useful, perhaps when a New York Times story is itself the subject – cases could be presented here for discussion. There is little chance anything of encyclopedic value would be lost from such a move, and everything to be gained, not least an end to continual NY Times-related arguments.

Suggested conduct for this RFC
It may be helpful if we conduct this discussion in a deliberative manner, to improve our chances of arriving at a solid, evidence-based consensus. Going straight to voting with little preliminary discussion is good practice for some issues, but it is liable to elicit non reflective, "top of the head" opinions. Voting has therefore been postponed to allow deliberation. Please refrain from comments or declarative statements without supporting evidence.
 * Any editor who wishes to add arguments or evidence is welcome to do so in the relevant 'For' or 'Against' section, to whatever length they wish.
 * If any editor wishes to add inline questions or counter points to the opposing side's section, they are encouraged to be as concise as possible.

Outline

 * A. ERRORS - The New York Times has made hundreds (if not thousands) of errors over the past 9 years, many of them of hard news facts, some of them where it is clear to many that they have fabricated news headlines or details in order to fit a narrative that the editors prefer.
 * B. COMPARISON TO OTHER WIKIPEDIA SOURCES - The dozens of errors in the New York Times, documented below, are cause enough to at a minimum deprecate the New York Times as a RS - especially within the context of similar periodical publications that editors have decided require deprecation for RS at Wikipedia. While in the elaboration I do not include an exhaustive list of examples, I begin to build the case there.
 * C. EDITORIAL PARTISANSHIP - While some New York Times stories may contain reliable facts, the number of documented errors, and the increased partisanship of the New York Times editorial board, require Wikipedia to reconsider it as a RS not just for political stories but even for local, state, national and international news and/or any topic that politics might touch upon.

Elaboration and evidence

 * A1. At the Columbia Journalism Review in July of 2009, an article by Craig Silverman listed six errors in a single story about Walter Cronkite by New York Times reporter, Alessandra Stanley. All were factual errors and mistakes.
 * A2. In 2011, Ari Goldman claimed several instances of blatant anti-Semitism and misleading reporting by the New York Times. When Mr. Goldman was covering the Crown Heights Riots of 1991, articles such as “Amid Distrust in Brooklyn: Boy and Scholar Fall Victim” were said to be published with fabrications. Goldman claims that the New York Times stories fabricated “a frame” that did not exist where stories like “Hasidim and blacks clashed in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn through the day and into the night yesterday" were created to fit a false narrative that editors wanted the public to believe.
 * A3. In June of 2017, a New York Times Editorial claimed that maps circulated by Sarah Palin's PAC amounted to "political incitement," which the authors said was clearly linked to the subsequent 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz. This claim was factually, completely false.
 * A4. According to the Washington Post’s own article where The Post tries to argue that the New York “Times’ reporting is actually broadly correct”, even The Post admits that in one month of coverage of President Donald Trump in February of  2017, the NY Times made five significant factual errors including:
 * ‘Trump’s Travel Ban, Aimed at Terrorists, Has Blocked Doctors’, Feb. 6. A percentage of doctors was incorrectly described as referring to foreign-born doctors.
 * ‘In Welcoming Shinzo Abe, Trump Affirms U.S. Commitment to Defending Japan’, Feb. 10. China was listed as participating in the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
 * ‘Michael Flynn Resigns as National Security Adviser’, Feb. 13. Tweets from a Michael Flynn parody account were quoted as being from Flynn. This constitutes at best the false attribution of statements to a former General and National Security Advisor and at worst a complete politically motivated fabrication.
 * ‘Contradicting Trump on Russia: Russian Officials’, Feb. 20. Trump was said to have visited Israel during the campaign, which he did not. Another error in reporting.
 * ‘Fact Check: Trump Blasts ‘Fake News’ and Repeats Inaccurate Claims at CPAC’, Feb. 24. The number of people who gained health care under the Affordable Care Act was too low. Again an error in reporting made by the NY Times.
 * The Times also made 27 “minor” factual errors and 15 typographical errors just during coverage of the POTUS in that same month - hardly the definition of reliability.
 * A5. And then there is the 2016 Presidential election predictions based on polls that the New York Times completely blew. In this November 8th article the NY Times boldly states that Hillary Clinton has an 85% chance to win the Presidential election. This coverage came complete with state by state coverage of polls that turned out to be unreliable.
 * B1. Arguments made in favor of deprecating and/or prohibiting the New York Times much like other periodicals include:
 * B1a DAILY MAIL
 * “The problem isn't that it is wrong or even that they might have a rogue journalist from time to time (even the NY Times have been caught out this way), the problem is that their editorial decisions seemingly contribute to the deception. They had the Amanda Knox story ready to go with fake quotes and reactions, and there was also the time that George Clooney took them to task over fake quotes. It simply can't be trusted. Betty Logan”
 * ”If you have an actually reliable source confirming something in the Mail, why aren't you using that? If it's just the Mail, you're doing it wrong or it's probably too ridiculously trivial to include anyways. Maybe there are exceptions, but there had better be VERY strong arguments for ANY use of the Mail. Wikipedia isn't losing much, if anything at all, by a blanket jettisoning of this crappy source. –Calton”
 * ”Prohibition with the exception mentioned in the proposal (and possibly with a restricted date range; I am sure it is a useful source for some things in the past). The Daily Mail of today contains too many (probably deliberate) factual errors to be used as a source.”
 * Ref For DM
 * B1b INDEPENDENT JOURNAL REVIEW
 * ” …while partisan, (like most news sources these days), a quick look at its website does seem to indicate that they have editorial oversight. I wouldn't consider it any worse than Fox news as a publisher from what I've seen here. The author's bio indicates that he has also written for Forbes (though possibly just as a 'contributor'-the Forbes blog section), Discovery News, and a few other low impact places. He seems reasonably reputable, though is clearly labeled as a conservative in the bio (not that it is an issue in and of itself). Nothing strikes me as a huge red flag, but again, we need to know where and how you intend to use this source.”
 * Ref For IJR
 * C1. James Bennet admitted that when it comes to the reporters that he is hiring now at the New York Times, “I’ve lost the capacity to gauge the opprobrium—what’s irrational versus what’s a reasonable amount of Internet outrage these days,” said James Bennet, editorial-page editor of The New York Times, and someone talked about as a future contender for the Times’s top newsroom job. “Look,” he went on, “we’re recruiting different types of writers than we have traditionally, and I’ll make some mistakes. It’s just gonna happen.”
 * C2. As an example of the lack of appropriate vetting of NY Times reporters today during the hiring process, “The previous week, Bennet had announced the hiring of a new Opinion writer and member of the editorial board, Quinn Norton, a tech journalist with a distinctly un-Timesian background. Norton was a provocative recruit, the kind that Bennet had been brought on board to make. But as frequently happens in the current combustible era, the provocation produced epic blowback. Norton’s Internet history was quickly exposed, with Twitter sleuths publicizing her well-documented friendship with a neo-Nazi, and surfacing old tweets in which she tossed around racial and sexual epithets.”
 * C3“There was an episode last March when two prominent national security reporters at the Times took the unusual step of publicly disparaging a Times op-ed, written by the former British M.P.-turned-contentious Twitter phenom Louise Mensch.”
 * C4.“The P.R. crisis escalated when HuffPost got its hands on an internal-chatroom transcript about Weiss, one of the Bennet hires that has most vexed passionate liberals and woke millennials who make up large swaths of the Times’s core constituency. Weiss’s Nagasu tweet characterized the California-born Olympic figure skater as an “immigrant,” whereas Nagasu’s parents are in fact first-generation Japanese immigrants. Weiss deleted the tweet and acknowledged the mis-statement, but she didn’t apologize or cop to being insensitive. The unnamed Times employees in the chat transcript were “pissed,” as HuffPost put it. “Here at the times,” wrote one, “some people are allowed to make mistakes and offend.”
 * Ref for C1-4
 * C5. And then there is the hiring of the racially insensitive, Sarah Jeong. “Jeong tweeted that she gets joy out of being “cruel to old white men,” used a “CancelWhitePeople” hashtag and sent numerous other offensive tweets. The tweets – mostly from 2014 – were unearthed earlier this week after the Times announced Jeong was joining the paper. The paper defended Jeong in a statement on Thursday, chalking her offensive comments up to a “young Asian woman” “imitating the rhetoric” of her own online harassers.” Further in the article, ““The New York Times, and much of the media chose to believe that she was kidding, or to posit that even if she wasn’t kidding, her misguided beliefs are not reason enough to fire her. In other words, they extended her a brand of courtesy never offered to people who are right of center,” Greenbaum said. “That’s the issue here.””
 * C2. As an example of the lack of appropriate vetting of NY Times reporters today during the hiring process, “The previous week, Bennet had announced the hiring of a new Opinion writer and member of the editorial board, Quinn Norton, a tech journalist with a distinctly un-Timesian background. Norton was a provocative recruit, the kind that Bennet had been brought on board to make. But as frequently happens in the current combustible era, the provocation produced epic blowback. Norton’s Internet history was quickly exposed, with Twitter sleuths publicizing her well-documented friendship with a neo-Nazi, and surfacing old tweets in which she tossed around racial and sexual epithets.”
 * C3“There was an episode last March when two prominent national security reporters at the Times took the unusual step of publicly disparaging a Times op-ed, written by the former British M.P.-turned-contentious Twitter phenom Louise Mensch.”
 * C4.“The P.R. crisis escalated when HuffPost got its hands on an internal-chatroom transcript about Weiss, one of the Bennet hires that has most vexed passionate liberals and woke millennials who make up large swaths of the Times’s core constituency. Weiss’s Nagasu tweet characterized the California-born Olympic figure skater as an “immigrant,” whereas Nagasu’s parents are in fact first-generation Japanese immigrants. Weiss deleted the tweet and acknowledged the mis-statement, but she didn’t apologize or cop to being insensitive. The unnamed Times employees in the chat transcript were “pissed,” as HuffPost put it. “Here at the times,” wrote one, “some people are allowed to make mistakes and offend.”
 * Ref for C1-4
 * C5. And then there is the hiring of the racially insensitive, Sarah Jeong. “Jeong tweeted that she gets joy out of being “cruel to old white men,” used a “CancelWhitePeople” hashtag and sent numerous other offensive tweets. The tweets – mostly from 2014 – were unearthed earlier this week after the Times announced Jeong was joining the paper. The paper defended Jeong in a statement on Thursday, chalking her offensive comments up to a “young Asian woman” “imitating the rhetoric” of her own online harassers.” Further in the article, ““The New York Times, and much of the media chose to believe that she was kidding, or to posit that even if she wasn’t kidding, her misguided beliefs are not reason enough to fire her. In other words, they extended her a brand of courtesy never offered to people who are right of center,” Greenbaum said. “That’s the issue here.””
 * Ref for C1-4
 * C5. And then there is the hiring of the racially insensitive, Sarah Jeong. “Jeong tweeted that she gets joy out of being “cruel to old white men,” used a “CancelWhitePeople” hashtag and sent numerous other offensive tweets. The tweets – mostly from 2014 – were unearthed earlier this week after the Times announced Jeong was joining the paper. The paper defended Jeong in a statement on Thursday, chalking her offensive comments up to a “young Asian woman” “imitating the rhetoric” of her own online harassers.” Further in the article, ““The New York Times, and much of the media chose to believe that she was kidding, or to posit that even if she wasn’t kidding, her misguided beliefs are not reason enough to fire her. In other words, they extended her a brand of courtesy never offered to people who are right of center,” Greenbaum said. “That’s the issue here.””
 * C5. And then there is the hiring of the racially insensitive, Sarah Jeong. “Jeong tweeted that she gets joy out of being “cruel to old white men,” used a “CancelWhitePeople” hashtag and sent numerous other offensive tweets. The tweets – mostly from 2014 – were unearthed earlier this week after the Times announced Jeong was joining the paper. The paper defended Jeong in a statement on Thursday, chalking her offensive comments up to a “young Asian woman” “imitating the rhetoric” of her own online harassers.” Further in the article, ““The New York Times, and much of the media chose to believe that she was kidding, or to posit that even if she wasn’t kidding, her misguided beliefs are not reason enough to fire her. In other words, they extended her a brand of courtesy never offered to people who are right of center,” Greenbaum said. “That’s the issue here.””

Outline

 * 1. Please outline reasons for leaving the NYT as a RS here such as it’s numerous Pulitzer Prizes.

Elaboration and evidence
Past Discussions1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28
 * Please elaborate for leaving the NYT as a RS here.


 * Do not close The RfC proposer is outlining the common pro and con arguments that can/will be made but has included spaces beneath each one for people to include their pro/con arguments if he has omitted them before the opening of the RfC. I support keeping this open and running the RFC as proposed because this should be an enlightening conversation and it seems only fair that everyone can view all arguments in summary form.

<b>I REQUEST THAT NO EDITOR CLOSE THIS DISCUSSION FOR AT LEAST 7 DAYS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE AMPLE TIME TO DETERMINE IF THIS EDITOR’S RfC IS INDEED CONSIDERED TO BE EXTREME AND/OR FRINGE WITH REGARD TO THE NEW YORK TIMES AS A RELIABLE SOURCE.</B> Regarding those who may believe that this RfC violates WP:POINT or is POINTy Please refer to the Important Notes from the WP Point page below and from the Civility/disruption/reasonableness section of the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles Page. The request for comments is sincere and with the rather significant number of errors, omissions and factually incorrect information that I’ve demonstrated from the NY Times, I am seriously questioning whether it should continue to maintain status as a RS on Wikipedia. In applying our judgement fairly across publications, especially broadsheet and tabloid newspapers as well as magazines, it would seem to me that at a minimum the New York Times should be deprecated if not generally prohibited as a source. Important Note from WP:POINT
 * …”just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point. As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point".

From the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles Page
 * Civility/disruption/reasonableness
 * Statement(s) of principleWikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably in their dealings with other users and to observe the principles of assuming good faith, civility, and the writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.
 * Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. This is considered editing in bad faith. State your point, but don't attempt to illustrate it experimentally.
 * Editing in a manner so as to intentionally provoke other editors is a form of trolling and goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors.

This is not an attempt to pointlessly provoke or make reference to other RfC’s. If your feelings are stronger than your cognitive opinion on this matter, then please refrain from commenting on this RfC regardless of your Support or Opposition.Wcmcdade (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Sources possibly tainted by citogenesis
What is a proper source for a name? The dispute is over the 2015–2016 wave of violence in Israeli-Palestinian conflict article which you can read about here: Talk:2015–2016 wave of violence in Israeli-Palestinian conflict

The article claimed that the event was known as the Wave of Terror but since none of the sources confirmed that, I removed it. A new name, 2015-2016 terror wave was inserted by user Icewhiz, but that source cited the article itself (citogenesis) and could therefore not be used. The user then inserted another name, Terror Wave, using a new source.

My claim is that, for this purpose, the source should not be deemed reputable. My arguments are:


 * It is a psychology article and the authors claim no authority over the naming of historical events.
 * It contains a block of sentences which appears to have been copy-pasted from Wikipedia: "a recent increase in the violence occurred in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict starting early September 2015 and became known locally as the “Wave of Terror.” Some have attributed the increased violence to a social-media campaign inciting terrorism that may have influenced the Palestinian attackers or ongoing frustration over the failure of peace talks to end the decades-long occupation and the suppression of human rights. The attacks have generally been carried out by young lone attackers."
 * The article's cite goes to a web page not backing up the claim. Though I can't tell how the page looked in 2016.
 * The only occurrence of "Terror Wave" (capital letters) in the text of the psychology article is in "A summary of the key statistics during the Terror Wave reports that between September 2015 and February 2016, 30 Israelis were killed and 301 wounded with 27 sustaining serious injury." In my opinion, in this text "Terror Wave" is likely written with capital letters because the article authors are unfamiliar with the English language.

So far, this is the only source supposedly showing that the period was known "locally" as "the Terror Wave".
 * Source https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5152121/
 * Article 2015–2016 wave of violence in Israeli-Palestinian conflict
 * Content known as the "Terror Wave"
 * Quote "A summary of the key statistics during the Terror Wave reports that between September 2015 and February 2016, 30 Israelis were killed and 301 wounded with 27 sustaining serious injury"

ImTheIP (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Hoffmann's article says "Exposure to non‐ISIS terror events refers to the recent escalation of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict (known by Israelis as the “Terror‐Wave”), starting from September 2015 to April 2016", which means the only problem is that, instead of describing it as a "local name", this edit pretends it is a universally accepted name. Regarding "authority over the naming of historical events", this is a relatively recent event, and I am not sure who can and who cannot claim authority over its naming (this event has not become historical yet). In general, I think there is a common problem with all recent events: the amount of good and balanced sources is too small to write anything reasonable about them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hoffman's article isn't used as a source in the Wikipedia article. As a source for the cite from Hoffman's article, Hoffman cites the Wikipedia article Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015–present). Therefore it would clearly be absurd to use it as a source. Shoshani and Slone's article similarly copy-pastes from Wikipedia, and suffer from other faults enumerated above, so it is in my mind questionable if it should be used as a source here. As you say, the event is recent, so I think Wikipedia should be extra conservative here, to avoid coining names that never existed. ImTheIP (talk) 13:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I think that Wave of Terror is obviously an emotive, value-laden title that would raise WP:NPOV issues if we lack a strong source showing it falls under WP:COMMONNAME or something similar. These sources are nowhere near close enough to justify it.  The citogenesis issue is also a concern, but honestly I wouldn't accept these sources for a heading like that even if they were independent - using a potentially POV or value-laden heading requires strong sourcing showing that it's the most common term, not a handful of weak sources showing scattered usage.  --Aquillion (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The WP:COMMONNAME in Hebrew is quite obviously "גל הטרור" ("terror wave", or "wave of terror") - multiple news items in English and Hebrew use this. In addition - there are a number of academic articles that use this. Sourcing for this particular name - is stronger than any of the other alternatives presently in the article. Icewhiz (talk) 11:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not reflected in any source. The name used on the Hebrew wikipedia is "(גל הטרור הפלסטיני (2015–2016" meaning "wave of Palestinian terrorism (2015-2016)" or "the Wave of Palestinian terrorism (2015-2016)" The intro paragraph does not contain the "Wave of Terror" name that you insist on inserting in the article. Not that the English Wikipedia has to follow the Hebrew's lead, far from it, but it indicates that the name isn't as prevalent as you perhaps thought. ImTheIP (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out on the other page, the naming policy for enwiki explicitly states that only English-language common names matter. Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject and as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources What it's referred to in Hebrew contributes absolutely zero weight - none whatsoever - to our article and section titles.  We can, of course, mention a Hebrew-language title when there is evidence of widespread use, but a title that is only used eg. by Israeli sources would have to be unambiguously characterized as such, and would only qualify for WP:COMMONNAME if you could demonstrate that it was the most common name in English.  Without a clear English-language common name, we'd have to go by other naming conventions, ie. one that is neutral, doesn't imply bias, isn't disproportionately used by one side in a dispute or conflict, etc.  All of those make your suggestion unworkable. --Aquillion (talk) 06:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Is an article in World Net Daily reliable source?
Is this link a reliable source? There is a discussion of this source at the Mass killings under communist regimes article, and it would be desirable to have a fresh opinion on that account.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Never for factual statements, only in its own article to document its own positions. It's birther central. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WND is no-no. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Terrible article, and certainly not to be used as a source for history. Which is hardly a surprise considering this is WND. O3000 (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It is being used in "Mass killings under communist regimes" as a source for quotes from Rudolph Rummel. I think it may meet rs because WND is probably a reliable source for the opinions of authors it publishes. Surely no one doubts that Rummel actually wrote the article. Also per "Exceptions", Rummel could be seen as an expert and therefore the article would be a reliable source for facts. I would omit it however because when an expert writes for conspiracy theory websites, it's often because they want to express views are so far outside the mainstream that they cannot be published in reliable sources. If that is not the case then it would be better to use better sources where he says the same thing. TFD (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd be leery citing facts to that article directly. If Rummel is an expert on the subject of the article, he's written all of those facts down before in more reliable sources.  Find his original works, and use those instead.  It would be very strange for such facts to have been published first, and only, in an article on such a website.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A source which comments on a secondary source or is presented as the basis of a secondary source should not be regarded as an accurate or fair descriptive of it as such. Recommended to not use it, or not regarde it is a fair source, given Rudolph Rummel has existence, good sources you can refer to. 45.62.243.176 (talk) 06:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Articles should not contain quotes from primary or unreliable sources unless the quote is cited to a secondary source which includes it. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are not unreliable. Those are not synonyms.  I'm not saying he is an expert, but insofar as someone would be an expert, citing their work is fine.  His works on history would not be primary sources.  If he's a historian, his books ARE secondary sources.  The primary sources would be the documents he used in compiling his research. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean primary or unreliable as a general comment on deciding if a quote should be included. As a hypothetical example;
 * If Mr Jones writes something in say Breitbart then that should not be quoted in the Wikipedia article. If the New York Times reports that Mr Jones wrote something in Brietbart then it can be included in the Wikipedia article.
 * Equally if a company says in a press releases that includes the CEO saying they have made a flying car, then the CEO of the company should not be quoted in the Wikipedia article as saying the company has a flying car. If the BBC run a feature about flying cars and quote the CEO as saying his company has made a flying car then that quote can then be included in the Wikipedia article. This is basic common sense when dealing with quotes.
 * I say basic common sense because I can't remember if a policy says this or which policy that would be. Feel free to come up with something else, this is just how I would personally treat whether to quote or not in my understanding of how to make articles neutral and reliable. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As I expressed below, "opinions of authors it publishes" is not a blank check for WP:RS concerns. Opinion pieces used as sources here must also be published by someone with a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy - that is to say, a source that passes WP:RS - or they cannot be used.  WP:ABOUTSELF establishes some very narrow exceptions for opinions that lack the backing of a WP:RS with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but that clearly does not apply here.  The idea that being published in WND grants someone's opinions more weight than if they were published on (for instance) Reddit or their personal website is so bizarre that I find it honestly shocking coming from an experienced editor.  Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random opinions and burblings - even the most carefully-worded quote or paraphrase of an opinion, with the most cautious inline citations, still must be cited to a source that passes WP:RS if it violates any of the limitations in WP:ABOUTSELF.  This is absolute and non-negotiable, and the idea that someone's opinions on third parties (or history, or exceptional claims in general, or anything that isn't strictly personal details about themselves) could become acceptable for a Wikipedia article via publication in an unreliable source like WND is absurd.  WP:RSOPINION still requires that the opinion piece be published in an otherwise-reliable source, not in someplace like WND. --Aquillion (talk) 03:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I responded to this point of yours in your second posting of it below. AmateurEditor (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Its reliable for author words whatever its WP:DUE or not its question for other for board--Shrike (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It absolutely is not WP:RS, not even in that context. Not ever.  We rely on whoever published something to perform basic due-diligence and fact-checking even for opinion pieces; WND does not do that.  Citing it for "the author's opinion" is no better than citing the author's unfiltered musings on a personal website, forum post, Reddit AMA, email chain or the like.  There are very narrow circumstances where we can do that under WP:ABOUTSELF, but this doesn't pass those criteria (it involves claims about third parties, claims not directly related to the source, and - debatably - exceptional claims.)  WP:RS is absolutely required even for opinion-pieces - that's why WP:ABOUTSELF, which covers people expressing opinions in venues that lack the fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires, is so restrictive.  Implying that we can just put an opinion from WND about third parties into a Wikipedia article is absurd.  This is clear-cut enough that I would express serious WP:COMPETENCE concerns for someone who insists on trying to do it. --Aquillion (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Aquillion, WorldNetDaily is included in Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, as a "generally unreliable" source, which I would agree with. However, it does not support your statement that Rummel's 2004 op-ed is not a reliable source in this context (for citing Rummel's opinion, not for citing support for factual material). Here is what the list says about WND, with bold added: "WorldNetDaily is not considered a reliable source for most purposes. The website is known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories.[54]" The listing has two links to where the site has been discussed on this noticeboard in the past and here are the closing remarks for those discussions:
 * 1) "Consensus appears to be that World Net Daily is not generally acceptable as a source for factual material (as is, for example, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal etc.). While prior RS/N "Consensus" is cited evidencing WND "unreliability", individual citation(s) evidencing WND "unreliability" have not, thus far, been provided. As to whether or under what criteria/circumstance WND might be considered WP:RS, opinion is divided."
 * 2) "Resolved: Sigh, not again. It's been clearly agreed (you know, that "consensus" thing we have) before that apart from editorial opinion, if one is unable to source a supposedly factual statement without having to use WND, it probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Jake, your efforts would be far better aimed at better sourcing rather than this repeated waste of everyone's time, and it's now time to leave the equine corpse alone. There's only a certain number of times before being pointy becomes disruptive. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC) "
 * The past consensus for this site supports using it in this context, for the op-ed author's opinion. AmateurEditor (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This begs the question of why we would include the author's opinion, instead of a factual statement published in a secondary source, in the Proposed causes section. –dlthewave ☎ 15:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason is because the content supported by this source is in the "Proposed Causes" section of the article, where sources' opinions are summarized, rather than facts. In this case, this op-ed was the most directly relevant publication by Rummel for his opinion related to ideology, because he explicitly discusses "Marxism", rather than "communism" generically, which might refer to regimes, rather than ideology. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * No, not under any circumstances. It's an absolute garbage source. Daveosaurus (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not reliable. Find a better source. If you can't find a better source, consider that the information in question may not belong in a serious reference work. MastCell Talk 22:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The original poster, Paul Siebert, was supposed to include three things in his post here, according to the page notice at the topic of the edit screen for this noticeboard. He did not post number 3: Content. The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting. Please supply a WP:DIFF or put the content inside block quotes. For example: "text" . Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y".
 * Here is the missing content for the context of this citation:

"Rummel positions Marxism as 'by far the bloodiest – bloodier than the Catholic Inquisition, the various Catholic crusades, and the Thirty Years War between Catholics and Protestants. In practice, Marxism has meant bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal prison camps and murderous forced labor, fatal deportations, man-made famines, extrajudicial executions and fraudulent show trials, outright mass murder and genocide.'[53] He writes that in practice the Marxists saw the construction of their utopia as 'a war on poverty, exploitation, imperialism and inequality – and, as in a real war, noncombatants would unfortunately get caught in the battle. There would be necessary enemy casualties: the clergy, bourgeoisie, capitalists, 'wreckers', intellectuals, counterrevolutionaries, rightists, tyrants, the rich and landlords. As in a war, millions might die, but these deaths would be justified by the end, as in the defeat of Hitler in World War II. To the ruling Marxists, the goal of a communist utopia was enough to justify all the deaths.'[53]"
 * As you can see, the content is direct quotes of Rummel's own views and has nothing to do with the reliability of WND as a site in 2018. Besides the fact that the op-ed was published there in 2004 (well before any birtherism), the reliability is based upon the author; the publisher is not the source of the reliability. Per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source:


 * "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)
 * Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." You can read his Wikipedia article here: Rudolph Rummel. And here is an article about him: R.J. Rummel—A Multi-faceted Scholar. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's worth including here, then it WILL be found in a RS, and that source should be cited, never WND. If it isn't, then we don't include it. Period. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * With respect, BullRangifer, how is an op-ed by Rummel not a reliable source of Rummel's views? AmateurEditor (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally that's true for everything, but we base all of our content on what's in RS, including our documentation of fringe views. If something is only found in unreliable sources, we don't document it. If a fringe source is notable enough for an article here, we will use RS to document it's existence, and we will often use it to document it's own positions, and only its own, but that's about it. An unreliable source is not accepted as a platform for other's views. This can get a bit tricky, so I won't get into that here, but the basic idea is to base all content on RS. If Rummel wants his ideas documented at Wikipedia, he'd better publish them in RS.
 * I'm not calling Rummel a charlatan, but Jimmy Wales said something interesting that's of some relevance here:
 * "No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful. Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately. What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn't." — Jimbo Wales, March 23, 2014
 * So stop looking in unreliable source....for anything. It smacks of desperation. Look only in RS. Some things are not worth documenting.-- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. For example, if you are not calling Rummel a lunatic or a charlatan (and you are right not to), then posting that Jimbo quote here seems like a smear in this context. The reliability of a particular source for a particular statement depends on the statement in question, which was not included in the original post here, despite the instructions. That context, of it being an op-ed and that it is being cited for the author's opinion (who is widely regarded as a RS for the topic) makes clear that WND's reliability for facts as a news site has nothing to do with it, especially in 2004, prior to almost all the controversy there. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt that these are the words that Rummel wrote, but we use reliable sources for more than just faithful reproduction of words. Reliable sources tell us that these words are accurate and represent a prominent scholarly viewpoint. Rummel's estimates, along with his theory that killings by communists should be lumped together as a single category, represent the WP:FRINGE view and should not be included unless they have been published in academic sources. The final sentence confirms that this is a non-mainstream opinion piece and not a scholarly work: The next time you come across or are lectured by one of our indigenous Marxists, or almost the equivalent, leftist zealots, ask them how they can justify the murder of over a hundred million their absolutist faith has brought about, and the misery it has created for many hundreds of millions more. –dlthewave ☎ 12:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * dlthewave, if you don't doubt that the words are what Rummel wrote and accurately reflect his opinion, then you are agreeing the op-ed is a reliable source for Rummel's view, even if fringe. About whether views are "accurate and represent a prominent scholarly viewpoint", there is a separate fringe theories noticeboard for that, Fringe theories/Noticeboard. The reliable sources noticeboard is just for determining if a source is a reliable for a particular statement in a Wikipedia article. In this case, it clearly is because there can be no more reliable source for Rummel's opinion than Rummel himself. AmateurEditor (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * An unreliable source is not a reliable source for the author's opinion about anything other than themselves, period. –dlthewave ☎ 15:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The author here is Rummel himself. The sentences this is being used as a source for are Rummel's opinions, as published in his 2004 op-ed at WND. The source directly supports that and, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, is reliable for that unless you think Rummel did not actually write it. WND is not being cited as a reliable source of factual material, such as the news. Using WND in this context is consistent with the results of past discussions here about this site (that it is a reliable source of editorial opinion). AmateurEditor (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If Rummel wants his ideas documented at Wikipedia, he'd better publish them in RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with BullRangifer It is a normal situation when some author publishes some good research in a good journal, and then published more questionable speculations in some less reputable journal or even blog.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_80#World_Net_Daily_-_RS_citation? your linked RS/N discussion was closed with this]:
 * Motion to close with injunction

That's a pretty good close from Black Kite. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, the reliability of a source depends entirely on how it is used and in this case it is being used appropriately. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer, Note the "apart from editorial opinion" part. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If Alex Jones writes an editorial opinion at InfoWars, it's fair game for the opinion of InfoWars, even though it's a horrible source. (It happens to be notable enough for an article here, but is deprecated as a source.) If anyone else writes an article at InfoWars, we ignore it. They must publish their article at a RS for us to even consider it. The very fact that they chose to write something at InfoWars seriously damages their credibility and makes them less reliable, no matter where else they write. I'd be less inclined to use them at all, even if they wrote in a RS. Such poor judgment should have consequences. We should not suffer fools lightly. Let's ping Black Kite to get their opinion. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would say it is fair game for the opinion of Alex Jones, or whoever else wrote it, especially if that person is considered by Wikipedia standards to be a reliable source in their own right for the topic they discuss. There are three definitions of a reliable source, and the creator of the work (who is an expert on the topic in question as well as, of course, about his own opinions) is the one that applies here. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, we don't use unreliable sources to publish other's opinions. We try to avoid using unreliable sources at all. In the example, only Jones, or another editor of InfoWars, such as Paul Joseph Watson, who uses it to publish their dubious opinions, would be considered here, and such "consideration" is no guarantee we'll do anything, because we should only document the ideas they write there which are also mentioned (preferably criticized) in RS. The RS gives it notability enough to maybe be worth mentioning, and the RS is enough of a source, without linking to InfoWars. We do not allow InfoWars to be used as a platform to get their fringe theories documented here. Only if RS mention it. We really need to treat InfoWars like the plague. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as a reliable or unreliable source outside of how it is being cited. What you mean is that WND (or InfoWars, or whatever) is not a reliable source for statements of facts, such as the news. That's not the situation here because we are citing the op-ed for the author's opinion and citing it as such in the wikipedia article. The op-ed is a reliable source for Rummel's opinion and Rummel is a notable expert for the topic he is discussing in the op-ed. If the website bothers you so much, please keep in mind that a website's reputation can change over time. This was back in 2004, before the controversies that would crop up later. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to belabor this point and will wait for more outside input. You should seek a third opinion. I'll leave you with this experience. It illustrates how we treated a notable person who lost their way. A number of years ago, we had a new editor who was a Nobel laureate, I believe in physics. They were obviously very notable and a subject expert, and they appeared here to push their own fringe theories, which were rejected by the scientific community. They didn't understand our rules here and demanded we just accept their word for it and use them and their website as a source. Well, we couldn't do that, and they became so disruptive we finally had to block them. I don't recall the name, but that's what happened. If they had published their fringe theories on some unreliable source, we still wouldn't have used that source to document their opinions. Now if it had also been mentioned in RS, we might have mentioned it. I don't recall other details now. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. And it sounds like your previous experience would have fallen under RS guidelines at WP:Self published sources and WP:Academic consensus and the editor might have been referred to Fringe theories/Noticeboard if they hadn't been disruptive. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * AmateurEditor, I think we should do our best to improve a reputation of Wikipedia as a serious encyclopedia. Consider a situation when the reference to some "Science for kids" blog is added as a source to the article about Quantum entanglement. Even if this source is authored by a very reputable physicist, by adding this source, we undermine credibility of Wikipedia. Yes, formally, "Science for kids" may be a RS according to our loose standards, and the author is very reputable. However, if this author writes about really serious things, it is quite possible to find the same information is a more serious article published in more reputable sources. By mixing best quality sources with questionable ones (although acceptable by our loose standards) we undermine an overall credibility of Wikipedia. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's credibility is undermined by mis-statements of facts (including the fact that someone has some opinion) and by not being consistent in the application of its policies. If certain policies need tightening in your view, then get that change made. If not, then find a replacement source that you prefer for the facts as stated in the article and swap it out. I am sure that would cause no objection from anyone. But trying to delete highly relevant information from what has historically been a very contentious article on a premise that contradicts Wikipedia policies should not get you anywhere, if Wikipedia is working properly. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Not shown to be due. And is not presented as even minimally reliable - such a thing as important to the twentieth century would be the subject of WP:SCHOLARSHIP not op-ed from a suspect source, is it scholarship of the author of the op-ed (and that is what would be cited not op-ed) and what's the prevalence of scholarship in this vein and complementary or qualifying or contradictory scholarship. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Due weight is not relevant to this noticeboard (its a consideration for the NPOV noticeboard). This is only about whether the citation serves as a reliable source for the statement it is used as a reference for. This reference is also not the basis for the article in question, which does have multiple reliable academic secondary sources, including the author in question. See the references and the excerpt section here and the further reading section here. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * AmateurEditor you wrote Wikipedia's credibility is undermined by mis-statements of facts- What facts? Please tell us. As far as Rummel is concerned it is a fact that was an academic who published statistical data on the lives lost due to the policies of non democratic regimes. I am not aware of a comprehensive critique of Rummel by a reliable academic source. We can cite his statistics on Wikipedia and contrast them with other reliable sources. We cannot as editors state in an article that Rummel is correct or not.  The demographic facts of Stalin’s USSR and Mao’s China are disputed, we have a range to cover. We can however contrast him with other reliable academic sources, the topic is covered in Demographic Trends and Patterns in the Soviet Union Before 1991. Rummel is not even cited in their bibliography. Rummel is a 800 gorilla that appears on Fox News to prove that America is the greatest country in the world, he is now sitting down in Wikipedia Rummel’s  claim of 43 million dead in the USSR makes no sense when you put it on a spreadsheet, unfortunately I can’t post that here.  --Woogie 10w (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I was not referring to any specific mis-statement of facts in that comment, Woogie, I was responding to Paul Siebert's characterization of how Wikipedia loses credibility. You can review Rummel's body of work for yourself, but I do not know what you are talking about regarding Fox News. Rudolph Rummel died in 2014 so he certainly hasn't appeared there lately. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point,AmateurEditor. I was referring to Rummel metaphorically, since his 1997 estimate of 100 million deaths due to communism appears on Fox News, and the WSJ. Rummel was the grand daddy of this statistic that appears in his "Democide" from 1994 and the Black Book of Communism from 1999. Fox News and the WSJ are widely read sources that we cannot ignore. Reliable or not Fox News and the WSJ parrot a statistic that many readers believe as an accepted fact. We should point out that there was no body count, the 100 million is a demographic estimate. Without posting OR we need to inform readers that Rummel's figures are estimates not established facts. N.B. Rummel subsequently updated the 100 million figure by adding 38 million famine deaths in China --Woogie 10w (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd say no. For all I know he chose to publish that in WND because he knew he couldn't publish it elsewhere. And I have no problem with editors pointing out other issues here such as WP:UNDUE, in fact I'd rather deal with all the issues about a source in one spot. Doug Weller  talk 19:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Doug, a summary of Rummel's material appeared on the website World Net Daily. Rummel's works were published by Transaction Publishers. I own hard copies of Rummel's four works on "Democide".--Woogie 10w (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller, It's probably because this 2004 op-ed was after his retirement from the University of Hawaii in 1995, so we wouldn't expect to see it in an academic source. If you mean why was it in WND rather than some other website or newspaper, that was probably because this was in 2004 when the site had an uncontroversial reputation. Rummel also wrote an op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter the following year, which begins with the following statement: "Many scholars and commentators have referenced my total of 174,000,000 for the democide (genocide and mass murder) of the last century. I'm now trying to get word out that I've had to make a major revision in my total due to two books. One is Wild Swans: Two Daughters of China by Jung Chang, and the other is Mao: the Unknown Story that she wrote with her husband, Jon Halliday. I'm now convinced that Stalin exceeded Hitler in monstrous evil, and Mao beat out Stalin.". The timing may be related to a renewed interest on his part related to that or may not, I can't say for sure. He apparently often preferred to use his own personal website, posthumously maintained now by the University of Hawaii.
 * If the question is what weight Rummel should have in the article, it should be significant. His work is foundational for many others and is widely cited. A Google Scholar search for "R J Rummel" returns 25,500 hits, the first of which has been "cited by 3423". You can read a list of his publications in his wikipedia article. Here is the list of other academics citing or responding to his work in Mass killings under communist regimes:
 * Harff, Barbara (1996), "Death by Government by R. J. Rummel", The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, The MIT Press, 27 (1)
 * Harff, Barbara (2017), "12. The Comparative Analysis of Mass Atrocities and Genocide", in Gleditsch, N.P., R.J. Rummel: An Assessment of His Many Contributions, 37, SpringerBriefs on Pioneers in Science and Practice, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-54463-2_12, ISBN 978-3-319-54463-2
 * Dulić, Tomislav (2004), "Tito's Slaughterhouse: A Critical Analysis of Rummel's Work on Democide", Journal of Peace Research, Sage Publications, Ltd., 41 (1)
 * Valentino, Benjamin A. (2005), Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century, Cornell University Press, ISBN 978-0-801-47273-2
 * Wayman, FW; Tago, A (2009), "Explaining the onset of mass killing, 1949–87", Journal of Peace Research Online
 * He is included among a 2016 compilation of academic sources assembled by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation for an updated range of estimates of those killed by communist regimes, seen here.
 * These are just the ones easiest to find with CTRL+F on the article page at the moment. Other sources currently in the article cite him but it doesn't cite them citing him. This should be sufficient to show that he clearly remains notable in this area. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There is actual WP:SCHOLARSHIP you argue, than use that not op-ed per WP:BESTSOURCES. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The scholarship I listed relates to Rummel's due weight in the article. The best source for Rummel's opinion is Rummel himself, and this source is the best one for his opinion on how ideology related to the killing. Where he wrote it doesn't change who he is. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No. It's not BESTSOURCES, at all. And where someone writes does matter per the policies I already cited. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the entirety of what WP:BESTSOURCES says:
 * "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look online for the most reliable resources. If you need help finding high-quality sources, ask other editors on the talk page of the article you are working on, or ask at the reference desk."
 * It links to WP:RS, which begins with this overview, after the lead: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process."
 * Rummel is a reliable source. He wrote the op-ed. It includes his views about about Marxism and mass killing, which are relevant to the article and cited there as his opinion, along with the views of others. It is the best source available for that particular opinion of Rummel's, and WND's later issues have no bearing on any of this because it was written in 2004. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your argument is a bad-joke. The op-ed is not scholarship.  Its mode of publication says it's not scholarship. You've been directed to how to identify scholarship. Looking above, it appears multiple editors in multiple ways have told you this: use scholarly sources.  Don't use lazy sources in lazy ways and pass it off as worthwhile.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the op-ed was scholarship, I said Rummel is a notable scholar and this is a reliable source for the article statements it is being used to support. That is the issue to be discusses at the reliable sources noticeboard and WP:RS is clearly not restricted to scholarship. It is the best source yet identified for his views on Marxism's relationship to the killing, but its reliability as a source depends on the author, not on WND. AmateurEditor (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It remains, you want to use a crap source, instead of scholarship for what should be by weight alone covered in scholarship, and WP:RS does choose scholarship every-time over an op-ed published by an unreliable publisher and so does WP:V. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, I explained you several times: Rummel is notable for introduction of factor analysis into the area of conflict and genocide research. He also is notable foro his "Democratic peace" concept. However, he is not considered as a good source for figures, and his conclusions he made based on his estimates are not recognised by experts. Therefore, he published his research related to factor analysis in reputable media, and his more extravagant conclusions - in a personal blog.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Alanscottwalker, it is not a choice between a "crap source" and a scholarly one, it is a choice between a reliable source for his views and nothing else (at the moment). Of course we should cite a scholarly source over a non-scholarly equivalent, but we should not delete a source that meets RS criteria (for the author in a question of the author's opinion) before finding a better replacement. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a reliable source for his views on this, a reliable source for his views on this intensely covered aspect of 20th century scholarship would be found in his scholarship, not in an unreliable publication. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Paul Siebert, you explaining to me what your opinion is doesn't change what reliable sources we have identified for the article and so shouldn't change how we write the article. We already have identified reliable academic sources that cite his figures, such as Valentino, so his 110 million figure is recognized (and his update to it based on more recent RS publications should be as well). When you say "experts", you are referring to single-country specialists who do not mention the broader topic one way or another, so we cannot come to any conclusion about him from them. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Alanscottwalker you cited sources that discuss Rummel. He is a reality that has to be dealt with, an 800 lb gorilla. Using Accounting 101 methodology, I Would take his figures line by line and provide contrasting sources that differ from him line by line. I am currently reading about the Chinese famine which was not a natural disaster, reliable sources are cited that indicate least 40 million deaths, not including the Laogai deaths. The Soviet issues are well covered in the Soviet Studies articles. The Wheatcroft supporters will say that the famine deaths were not deliberate purposeful deaths but in reality caused by poor planning. The Rosefielde,Rummel Fox News crowd will claim a Red Holocaust. Make it simple line by line, with brief explanations. You guys are blogging about an issue that should be put to sleep AASP--Woogie 10w (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just one more thing, I am reading Demographic Trends and Patterns in the Soviet Union Before 1991 from page 434. 18.5% of all deaths from 1946-58 were not registered, they were estimated. We are not dealing with established facts, but with a rough estimates. An educated guess made in Russia that is treated as gospel in the west.--Woogie 10w (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I cited sources? I think you meant someone else did. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * We should always consider where something was published when considering due weight and whether an opinion is significant enough to include in an article. If an eminent expert on something writes on the wall of a bathroom, the result is still bathroom graffiti. If the best place you can get published is a cracko conspiracy theory rag, that indicates better and more reliable sources do not regard your opinions highly enough to publish them. So in articles about general subjects, we should stick to the opinions of people who are subject matter experts and had them published in high-quality, reliable sources. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Pile-on no - It's all been said already (and on this board in the past). Not a good source for statements of fact (or just about anything else). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 01:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Claims about copyright status of WWII photograph
Is this book—Photographing the Holocaust: Interpretations of the Evidence by Janina Struk, published by I. B. Tauris—reliable for the claim that Warsaw Ghetto boy photograph is in the public domain because its author is anonymous? Catrìona (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Does it actually say it is not in copyright?Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * as the authors of the vast majority of photographs are anonymous, the images are in the public domain. The most elementary of copyright laws states that the creator must be identified before copyright can be held. But many archives and photographic agencies are charging fees for reproduction rights of these photographs and some are making a great deal of money out of doing so. The photograph of the boy in the Warsaw Ghetto with his hands raised, taken from the Stroop Report, is a case in point. In context, (especially considering the following page) it seems clear that what she means by case in point is an anonymous PD image that is being sold as if it is copyrighted. Catrìona (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So I take it then the source does not actualyy say it is not copyrighted. As such you cannot use it as a source for such a claim.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva
Hello everyone. Would a Arutz Sheva be considered reliable or appropriate for "All About That Bass" article? The following article (Watch: The music video the PA doesn't want you to see) would be used in the article to source a parody of the song and music video. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Artuz7 actually does have fairly strong editorial controls, and the piece you are citing is definitely reliable for the fact that Latma released a video titled "All About the Facts". The issue for inclusion is two fold - first is whether a spoof of "All About That Bass" is DUE for inclusion in that article (which is a NPOV/n question). The second, is that the Arutz7 source does not say that this is a spoof of "All About That Bass" - so this is WP:OR. Icewhiz (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, not a reliable source, can be used for views of the settler movement but outside of that anything useful will be reported in better sources. Has been repeatedly reviewed here, eg Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_75 <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There are almost always better sources available. In this case, following up on Icewhiz's comment it sounds like there are issues beyond the reliability of the source. Seraphim System ( talk ) 23:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Understandable. Thank you for the responses! This is the only source that I could find referencing this version in what looked like a reliable source. I was only asking as there is a discussion on the article's talk page about whether or not the version should be included in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

See about using "peer-reviewed" in connection with stackoverflow.com
Please see an RfC about whether it is appropriate to describe, in an article, stackoverflow.com as "peer-reviewed". Jc3s5h (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for shining a light!, Jc3s5h --Chris vLS (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

TechPowerUp
Is TechPowerUp a reliable source for topics relating to computer hardware?

Context: I am responding to an edit request on Western Digital. The COI editor suggested using Myce to complement or replace a reference to TechPowerUp currently in the article. I'd say TechPowerUp is generally reliable for its reviews and news of computer hardware. Their writers are paid staff and they do issue corrections. Whereas Myce looks more questionable, though I am less familiar with Myce. Alexa shows that TechPowerUp is much more visited than Myce. Thoughts? feminist (talk) 07:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of that site; there's often no clear cut-off between fan reviews and sponsored reviews and journalistic reviews in this space. I'd be skeptical of using either as a source on Western Digital.  For a statement such as Western Digital was the last manufacturer of parallel ATA hard disk drives for laptops (2.5-inch form factor) and desktop PCs (3.5-inch form factor), producing them until December 2013 I'd rather cite it to a primary source press release, or a more mainstream news outlet such as CNET. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 22:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This also risks getting drowned out by the various WP:RSP discussions flying around; perhaps we need a separate forum for those? power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 22:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Usable, but not generally reliable. TechPowerUp is a usable source, but I wouldn't go as far as considering it "generally reliable". Its long-form articles (with the "review" and "article" tags) appear to be written to a higher standard than the other articles, which are nearly all short two-paragraph blog posts. It's good to see press releases clearly marked with the "press release" tag, but it's also a bit questionable to present them alongside other articles when they're formatted identically. I haven't found any significant coverage of TechPowerUp in reliable sources (though there are some passing mentions of its GPU database), and I don't think the site has much of a reputation (positive or negative) at this point. There are also multiple spelling errors on TechPowerUp's home page, which makes me doubt the quality of its editorial process.
 * Regarding the edit request for the Western Digital article, I agree that TechPowerUp is a better source than Myce. The article in question ("Western Digital to Stop Shipping PATA Hard Drives") is a short one-paragraph blog post which indicates that the content is based on an article from Expreview ("西数年底终止并行接口硬盘，PATA淡出舞台"), which is a Chinese site that appears to be of similar quality. I think the article is usable in this case. As it's basically a rough translation, we should prefer the TechPowerUp article per WP:NONENG. —  Newslinger  talk   02:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I would say not reliable. They review products of their advertisers which means they are not independent. There is not evidence of editorial control or fact checking. (Yes they have an editor name W1zzard). There may be exceptional cases where a review could be cited with attribution, but higher quality sources should be sought for factual content.- MrX 🖋 13:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * They review products of their advertisers which means they are not independent. This can happen with any specialist source. Let's say Ford places an advertisement of its F-150 in Car and Driver magazine. Does that make Car and Driver an unreliable source for the Ford F-Series article? I'm not claiming TechPowerUp to be an especially high-quality source (I'd prefer for example AnandTech (RSN discussion) or Bit-Tech (listed as reliable on WP:VGRS) for computer hardware) but I contend it's generally usable for its reviews, and simple, non-contentious statements of fact. feminist (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. If Car and Driver has a lot of (true) editorial content unrelated to it's advertisers, then I would consider it independent. If on the other hand, they primary wrote favorably about their advertiser's products, then I wouldn't. I probably should have expanded my comment a bit more to make that clear.- MrX 🖋 14:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My experience with TechPowerUp is that they tend to be positive in the majority of their reviews. They throw out "Editor's Choice", "Highly Recommended" and "Great Value" labels too often. This is not limited to products promoted by ads they carry. I won't say they are "related" to their advertisers, though. It's just that computer hardware for homebuilt computers is a specialist field, thus it is much more likely for there to be overlap in the brands that advertise on a website, and the products that website reviews. That happens with most websites in this field. feminist (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Benjamin Augustus Middleton (Vereen)
Ben was born in Laurinburg, NC and raised Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York
 * Which source do you want us to evaluate?Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I see there's some question where he was born. Laurinburg is sourced to www.onlineseats.com, a ticket seller. Miami is sourced to www.ibdb.com, the Internet Broadway Database, and is reflected in the article. The OP is a combination of the two.-- Auric   talk  19:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Medical Hypotheses
If anyone is bored, we have several hundred uses of Medical Hypotheses as a source (search), many of them from the period when it had no peer review and was a happy home for AIDS denialists and other loons. I already found some pro-paedophilia advocacy based on it. Lovely. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it good for anything if the cite is post-2010, when Elsevier imposed an actual editor upon it? (Surely primary sources on single studies fail WP:MEDRS good and hard anyway.) - David Gerard (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The publisher actually says that the aim of the journal has not changed ("The Aims and Scope of Medical Hypotheses are no different now from what was proposed by the founder of the journal, the late Dr David Horrobin.") It includes publishing "some hypotheses where experimental support is yet fragmentary" and the guide to authors  says the "journal will consider radical, speculative and non-mainstream scientific ideas provided they are coherently expressed." Indeed, if the paper includes data, then they reject it and tell you to submit it to a real journal: "Inclusion of extensive new data is not usually acceptable in Medical Hypotheses. However, at the Editor's discretion, pilot data may be included when it is required for support of the proposed hypothesis, and when it is unlikely to be published in its own right."  (emphasis mine). It is the opposite of WP:V. Still. Intentionally. Chris vLS (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Guy. This is satisfying work. Chris vLS (talk) 05:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So it serves a purpose - but that purpose is literally not ours, so it should probably be removed almost everywhere, except where it's the actual topic of discussion then? I removed a pile of these, but stopped at 2010 - but the rest should probably go too - it's mostly used to support sheer speculation - David Gerard (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not liking what I see.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is an excellent journal for publishing novel medical hypotheses for further exploration or study but it is a terrible source for an encyclopedia because it is more based on speculation, rather than fact.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  23:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)