Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 269

Twitter of a family/close friend for a factual claim on deceased BLP?
Over at Etika, a person who recently committed suicide, we know he was last seen on June 19, and his body found on June 24, but from all existing good RSes, we have no exact date of death, so we are using "circa June 19" as the death date. However, Etika's girlfriend (a fact well known) has stated she has seen the police coroner report that places the death on the 22nd. A lot of good intentioned IPs (likely fans of Etika, but I don't think this is like meatpuppetry) are adding this date but we simply don't have a standard RS for this. Is it fair to point the gf's tweet as confirmation of the date as an RS? --M asem (t) 00:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This flies in the face of absolutely everything written at WP:SPS. This is an unverified Twitter account, making claims about a third party. There is no way I could envision this being admissible. Why is it even a question? Elizium23 (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Iffy situation. Probably should see if other sources are available instead of using a twitter account. Many times even close family don't really know. Detectives could discern and then give a press release. If he is as well known as you say he is, a news organization is bound to release more reliable data.Ramos1990 (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Its a question because this gets changes about twice a day by different people, and if this was a way to justify that date, then we'd not have to worry about these constant changes. --M asem (t) 00:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If it is confirmed by reliable sources that the said Twitter account belongs to the girlfriend, then it can be used to add to the article "His girlfriend declared on Twitter that she had seen the police coroner report that places the death on June 22". In any case, what the Twitter account says should not be treated as an indisputable fact. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Masem, I know how you feel. I think you can request page protection here Requests for page protection at the noticeboard. I would recommend either "Semi-protection" or "Extended confirmed protection" for that page for about a month or more - reasonable amount of time. That should fend off many anonymous IPs and new users that might emerge and will prevent them from editing.Ramos1990 (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No its not RS, it would fall foul of both wp:primary and/or wp:sps.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * No, social media posts are not a reliable source for anything. If a reliable source quotes a tweet, that is the only time it can be used and the citation should refer to the reliable source, not Twitter. Bacondrum (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

openstax.org
There's a little discussion going on at Talk:Tidal force, and I wonder whether https://openstax.org/details/books/university-physics-volume-1 would be a reliable source for including a formula from example 13.14 on page 664 of the downloaded pdf. Comments welcome. TIA. - DVdm (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, definitely not. The source is fine, but the content it's being used for is so far beyond anything the source actually says that it's basically original research. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

ILGA articles
Fpr revernce purposes I mean like  Under WP:SPS it would count as self punlished therefore "generally not reliable" plus it does not fall into the WP:RSR and their writing is one way opinionated opting to only express pro-LGBT opinions instead of being wp:neutral. So I vote to disallow this "source" from being quoted or referenced. Moneyspender (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources do not have to be neutral to be reliable. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Self-published too. Moneyspender (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why we would treat it any differently than the International Dialogue for Environmental Action, the Endometriosis Society of India, or the National Rifle Association. We cite partisan think-tanks, NGOs and other miscellaneous organizations all the time, just generally not for unattributed statements of fact.  G M G  talk  20:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * May I also point you to WP:REDFLAG the only sources claiming that the death penalty is "unenforced" is this article and any articles referencing this article. Seems fishy or at least very unreliable to me. Moneyspender (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The most important piece of the reliable source guideline is "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". And judging by the references to the ILGA State Sponsored Homophobia reports in the academic literature, that reputation is excellent. If the ILGA says that something is a confirmed fact, I would support simply stating it as a fact. If it states that "no cases could be found of..." or "appears to be unenforced..." or similar, then I would attribute. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC: is "Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold?" an RS?
Continuing the discussion from the previous RSN thread and Talk:History of the Jews in Poland: is the book "Golden Harvest Or Hearts of Gold?: Studies on the Fate of Wartime Poles and Jews" (2012) an RS? François Robere (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Not an RS:
 * The book was originally published by The Facto, a popular press, so no evidence of peer review.
 * The translation was published by Leopolis Press, the editor's own publishing house - the very definition of WP:SPS.
 * Apparently the translation has so many errors that, according to one reviewer, "[it] has more errors in basic English than any other scholarly book I have read. When authors, editors, and proofreaders – those eyes that view a document before scholarly publication – can't use so rudimentary a tool as spellcheck... the reader begins to assume that the entire text is suspect."
 * The book is not listed on Google Scholar, so it's impossible to tell how many citations it has. This is quite unusual; I could find this rare book (which I came upon by literally searching for "rare academic books"), but I can't find that one.
 * The first editor is Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, a controversial academic who's been frequently criticised for his ideologically-motivated writing, bias against minorities and association with far right politics. At risk of losing a $1m endowment earmarked for Chodakiewicz, the University of Virginia opted to "let him go", His positions seem to have played a part in the University of Virginia's decision not to appoint him to an endowed position (instead they suggested Jan T. Gross, a major scholar and a critic of Chodakiewicz), which effectively meant the withdrawal of the $1m endowment from the university and the termination of the position. Chodakiewicz managed to have the endowment passed to a small college in Washington, DC, where he now teaches.
 * The second editor, Wojciech Muszyński, was also criticised for his far right links.
 * The third editor, Paweł Styrna, is a research associate and former student of the first, but is otherwise unnotable.
 * The book includes such right-wing staples as Chodakiewicz, John Radzilowski (who used the book to coin the term "neo-Stalinists" in reference to his critics), Ryszard Tyndorf (who isn't an academic) and Mark Paul, a pseudonymic writer (again, highly unusual) which was previously deemed unreliable.
 * Several of the other authors are either non-academic or unpublished: Bethany Paluk (grad student), Barbara Gorczycka-Muszynska (judge) and Tomasz Sommer (politician and publicist).
 * AFAIK the book was only reviewed twice, both negatively.
 * The original proposer's response to the lack of positive criticisms was that "[the book] is nonetheless cited and engaged with by other scholars as part of an academic discourse". While true, it only establishes notability, not reliability, so it's not enough to justify using the book for statements of fact.
 * The OP's other response was that "the reviews, while pointing out that bias, are themselves also likely biased." Unfortunately he did not present any evidence to support this conjecture.
 * All in all this book barely passes WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and shouldn't be used. François Robere (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Bias and politics are not reasons for something to not be RS, neither is lack of peer review for books. The translation issue is more problematic. I would say the English translation is not an RS the Polish original maybe. But I am sure we only discussed this a couple of months ago.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not in a RfC. Being self-published in English and published in Polish by an obscure non-academic popular press (without a reputation for fact checking) is a RS issue - as is the reputation of the self-publisher / editor / authors. Icewhiz (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:SPS and WP:FRINGE books cannot be used to source such well researched academic field like Polish-Jewish relation.The source maybe reliable for Author own view when its WP:DUE -Shrike (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not reliable, in WP:FRINGE turf, and WP:UNDUE regardless. This is a well published field - with several manuscripts by established academics in academic presses. The work in question is self-published in English (the first named editor and author is also the publisher - - Leopolis is published by the Kościuszko Chair who is Chodakiewicz - and hasn't published much of anything else). and published by an obscure and small publisher in Polish that is far from academic (see bookdepository). The publisher/first-editor/first-author works in academia are highly controversial, and is furthermore  a far-right activist, profiled by the SPLC. Another editor was a m.sc student at time of publication and is presently at SPLC-designated FAIR. The book itself is not an academic work, but a collection of polemic essays. Some of the name authors are far-right figures, one is writing under a pseudo-name, and others are nearly unknown - including the author of the book chapter in question (Gorczycka-Muszyńska) - a journal article noting it's not a coincidence she shares a surname with the second editor of the volume. The scant attention this has received in academia - mainly due to many outlandish claims in the book (including a whole chapter devoted to describing American historical studies as "Neo-Stalinist") - has been entirely negative. Academic coverage also noting factual errors as well as numerous errors in basic English - further calling the publisher's reputation into question (if the publisher is unable to spellcheck and proofread the book - are we to trust them with fact checking?). Finally, the existence of several academically published and well-cited academic works in the field make use of this work even for an attributed viewpoint as WP:UNDUE. Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the number of studies in this field, a work that doesn't make it onto Google Scholar isn't the best choice for using. It may be reliable for opinions of each essay's author, but that's going to depend on WP:DUE. At best, it's barely reliable, but given the only academic journal review it received here was scathing... and then an online review by Danusha Goska isn't much less scathing. Add in the non-academic publisher, and we have better choices to use. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * (I was summoned by bot to the RFC further up this page, and I made the regrettable decision to investigate this one as well.) Not sufficiently Reliable for anything this source is likely to be cited for. To help other new arrivals with this wide-ranging mess: this Wikipedia search currently finds 18 articles or discussions mentioning this source. Note to avoid confusion, Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold is a response to Golden Harvest (book), so don't make the mistake of searching "Golden Harvest" as I initially did. This mess also involves a currently open Request to open an Arbcom case on Holocaust in Poland. One POV involved is that there are some rather unflattering events in Polish history, including slaughter of hundreds of Jews by Poles, in a city that was bypassed by the Nazi invasion. The other POV involves sources saying that any antisemitism that existed in Poland is because the Jews deserved it, and Jews are to blame because they collaborated with the Nazis via some convoluted chain of logic. The source we are discussing here was edited by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, who is indeed a Notable Historian. However he appears to have received substantial criticism from other Notable historians for a Pro-Polish-Nationalistic historical revisionism, and numerous accusations of hostile bias against Jews. He appears to have a rather dubious reputation in the field. He appears to be outside the mainstream at best, and perhaps Fringe. The book itself also appears to have a poor reputation. If we're going to cite any of Chodakiewicz's work I suggest we at least limit to something more substantial than a compilation of essays by a non-academic publisher. And if we cite a significant non-mainstream viewpoint, NPOV requires that it be appropriately contextualized with the mainstream viewpoint. Alsee (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not an RS per persuasive arguments by Icewhiz and Francois. &#x222F; WBG converse 10:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not reliable, for the reasons given. Indeed, an excellent example of what is meant by lack of reliability in this sort of subject. I find it remarkable that this would be seriously proposed as a RS for anything imaginably controversial.   DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * RS. As follows from this discussion: (a) the original version of the book was not self-published, (b) it belongs to scholarship, and (c) it can also be regarded as an opinionated source. Because of (c), it should be used with appropriate attribution. This is a book collecting writings by several professional historians including Chodakiewicz, Piotr Gontarczyk, Peter Stachura, John Radzilowski, and Waldemar Chrostowski. It was published in Polish and translated to English. Do we have concerns that the publications in this book have indeed been written by these historians? No, if I understand correctly. Hence, the book can be used per WP:RS to provide their views with direct appropriate attribution. Are their views due and should be included on specific pages? This is an entirely different question. That depends on specific page and on consensus on the page. Given that at least some of the authors are experts in their fields, I do not see why not. My very best wishes (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Borderline RS. Can be used, but should be used with attribution in case there are any disagreements. To the best of my knowledge, no 'red flags' have been identified in the text, i.e. it makes no outlandish claims. Care should be taken to distinguish bwtween chapters by reliable scholars like John Radzilowski and more problematic ones like the ones by Mark Paul. a person that I was not able to find any biographical informatuon about. I'd suggest not using any content from the more problematic chapters if there is any disagreement about them. We should not silence voices by minor historians. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Radzilowski authored a chapter devoted to labelling American social sciences, historical studies, and several historians as neo-Stalinists. Reception of which (probably the main reason this book received any notice) has been scathing. As noted in a review, he holds a position in a small campus in Alaska, while criticising fields and academics at major institutions. Is this chapter then a RS for "neo-Stalinism" of named BLPs and academic fields?Icewhiz (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The authors of the book can be wrong, reflect minority views, whatever. That does not make the source unreliable. It can only make their views "undue" on pages. Are they due on pages? I do not know. There are American historians who belong to the "revisionist school". But that's irrelevant. My very best wishes (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * , ... should not silence voices by minor historians ... - they are not professional historians rather historical negation-ists, who suit the Polish side and I don't know about how editors can identify red flag from the texts claims w/o indulging in OR.
 * The two reviews of the book are scathing and the publishing press does not provide any indication of peer review. No serious academic publisher entertains pseudonymous writers. Folks like Bethany Paluk, Barbara Gorczycka-Muszyńska, Paweł Styrna et al are not any minimally respected scholars in the field and some are not even scholars. Chodakiewicz's work around the locus of Holocaust is a proper example of a national-apologist scholarship, marred with blatant misrepresentations and selective cherry-pickings and whose works have been near-uniformly subject to scathing reviews. Radzilowski's scholarship in this area is controversial and despite the low volume of relevant work, the reviews have been unfavorable esp. w.r.t the Neo-Stalinism issues.
 * All of the above are red-flags to me. &#x222F; WBG converse 08:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * RS but should be attributed since it is BIASed (but BIAS is not RELIABILITY). At the very least the professional historians and scholars in the volume are RS. First, note that Icewhiz Francois Robere does not back up any of his assertions, past the third one, with diffs or links. In case of living people, making such claims without evidence constitutes a WP:BLPVIO (BLP applies to discussion pages). The authors for the most part are professional historians. One of them, Gorczycka-Muszynska is a judge, but then she's addressing legal questions (albeit in a historical context), hence that's still reliable. Some of Icewhiz Francois Robere's assertions about the authors are either false or absurd. I'm pretty sure that John Radzilowski didn't "coin" (sic) the term "neo-Stalinist" and as has already been pointed out to Icewhiz amd Francois Robere (edited), Radzilowski does NOT describe "American historical studies" as "neo-Stalinist". Rather he is referring to specific individuals, who do happen to be quite a bit to the left (whether the moniker is appropriate or not is kind of beside the point). Regarding Mark Paul, Icewhiz Francois Robere claims that this author "was previously deemed unreliable". This too is false. In the first RSN discussion Icewhiz Francois Robere links to there is clearly no consensus regarding the reliability. You get the usual split with Icewhiz/FrancoisRobere vs. others. The second link, to an RfC on a specific page was indeed closed with "not included" but mostly for reasons that had to do with the fact that the source was being used for WP:LISTCRUFT. One last comment - User:Alsee, I would ask that you don't base your !vote on the basis of claims Icewhiz has made at the ArbCom Request for Case. Indeed, Icewhiz's tendency to misrepresent editors and sources is precisely why we're likely to have a case. For example, Icewhiz mentions, and you repeat, this AfD, regarding the article Szczuczyn pogrom. Please click on the history of that article (here). Please note that NONE of Icewhiz's edits to that article have been reverted. Please look at the talk page of that article (Talk:Szczuczyn_pogrom). Please note that there are NO objections to any of Icewhiz's edits. Icewhiz is PRETENDING that he is fighting against some POV on this article, pushed by some bad editors. Except these bad editors don't actually exist. Even the AfD nomination was withdrawn once actual sources were added to the article (at the time of the AfD sources were crap). The Szczuczyn Pogrom article is NOT controversial. Nobody's denying it, nobody's rewriting it, nobody's edit warring over it. Pretty much everything that Icewhiz says in that ArbCom Case Request is either false or a gross misrepresentation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * More generally, RSN or not, Icewhiz really needs to refrain from making WP:BLP vios on this page. For example, the statement "At risk of losing a $1m endowment earmarked for Chodakiewicz..." is unsupported and as such a pretty blatant violation of BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Marek I only skimmed a small bit of the Arbcom case, and all I know about Szczuczyn pogrom is that I skimmed the article and that there was a (failed) AFD. I merely considered that article one datapoint, that there was history that some people might consider inconvenient. Most of what you deny/defend above is things I never heard of (and therefore never believed). While Robere's and Icewhiz's posts above looked potentially persuasive, I saw this situation was more complex and I went digging. For what it's worth I mostly reached my conclusion while independently searching info on Chodakiewicz and Hearts of Gold. I can't begin to fully investigate the big mess around this subject, and it's possible I'm wrong. However everything I found about Chodakiewicz and Hearts of Gold set off all my redflags on the source. As another for-what-it's-worth, if this RSN discussion goes against you and the arbcom case ends in your favor, I would be willing to revisit this question to consider any clarity the arbcom case may (or may not) bring to the picture here. But from what I've seen so far this source doesn't seem trustworthy. Alsee (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That was my statement, not Icewhiz's. The story is told in bits and pieces by Radziłowski in Glaukopis 19, p. 281; at the chair's website; in a paper by Thomas Anessi; and at the IWP's website. François Robere (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My bad. I made the appropriate correction. All these claims are ones both you and Icewhiz have made, echoing each other, hence the source of my confusion. My entire comment still applies however.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Francois Robere, in your sentence beginning with "At risk of losing a $1m endowment ..." you make an outright claim that the BLP subject was fired from his job because he did something bad. You can't make that claim without sources. That is an extremely serious WP:BLPVIOlation. In fact this is like textbook BLP vio. If you do have sources you should've immediately provided them. Not only when you're called out on it. But ok, let's look at these source you mentioned: This one DOES NOT mention Chodakiewicz. This source says the chair was transferred to another institute for FINANCIAL REASONS. This source only says the chair was transferred from UoV to AIPC. In fact these two sources state that Chodakiewicz was only holding the chair temporarily while arrangements were made for it to be transferred.
 * You know what BLP is. You know this is a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions. This book may or may not be RS. But you can't try to win this argument about reliability by trying to smear the BLP subject! Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There's very little to it - you just have to read the talk pages.
 * I didn't say Chodakiewicz was fired, I said he was "let go". However, to avoid ambiguity I've now changed that statement. As for the sources:
 * Radzilowski clearly states that despite Chodakiewicz's "considerable achievements and experience" (including being the chair's assistant professor) he wasn't even interviewed for the position, and a less qualified candidate - one whose main asset was that "they weren't Chodakiewicz nor had his views" - was chosen. The selection process resulted in the withdrawal of funds and the termination of the Kościuszko chair at UVA. This, per Radzilowski.
 * The chair's website describes Roszkowski and Chodakiewicz's strong ties and academic achievements, then makes the following note: "Apparently, some in academia found rather disturbing the dynamic growth of Polish studies outside of the politically correct and bigotedly Polonophobic academic mainstream. In June 2002, finding the ambiance at UVA increasingly less hospitable to his endeavors, Professor Roszkowski resigned his post and returned to Poland". Only then does it mention a problem with funds (despite "considerable increase" in income). The overall impression is that the funds weren't the main problem.
 * Anessi states that the initial donor, one Blanka Rosenstiel, withdrew her support in 2008 "after the university both attempted to appoint Jan Tomasz Gross (major scholar from UToronto, and Chodakiewicz's critic. -FR) to the position, and also failed to raise the matching funds needed to fully fund the Chair". Only then was the chair moved to the IWP, where the "conservative" Chodakiewicz accepted it, and it had remained there despite an ongoing shortage of funds several years later. Again, money doesn't seem to have been the main issue.
 * The IWP states that Chodakiewicz was "instrumental in the bid to bring the Chair [there]".
 * François Robere (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You have not provide a link to Radzilowski. Considering that you misrepresented the three other sources, you'll forgive me if I ask you to provide such a link so that your claim can be WP:Verified, which is required for BLP. Your explanations for other sources STILL fail to document that he was "let go" (which DOES mean "fired" in an academic context), much less that "His positions seem to have played a part". It says SOMEONE ELSE (Roszkowski) resigned. Anessi sources still doesn't even mention Chodakiewicz. "Instrumental in the bid to bring the Chair there" in fact strongly suggests he left of his own accord. This is just you doubling down on your original BLP vio.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course I did: Radziłowski in Glaukopis 19, p. 281 Now, seeing as you opened an AE case against me, there's no eason to continue this discussion here. François Robere (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You have not provide a link to Radzilowski. Considering that you misrepresented the three other sources, you'll forgive me if I ask you to provide such a link so that your claim can be WP:Verified, which is required for BLP. Your explanations for other sources STILL fail to document that he was "let go" (which DOES mean "fired" in an academic context), much less that "His positions seem to have played a part". It says SOMEONE ELSE (Roszkowski) resigned. Anessi sources still doesn't even mention Chodakiewicz. "Instrumental in the bid to bring the Chair there" in fact strongly suggests he left of his own accord. This is just you doubling down on your original BLP vio.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course I did: Radziłowski in Glaukopis 19, p. 281 Now, seeing as you opened an AE case against me, there's no eason to continue this discussion here. François Robere (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * This discussion is all over the place between RS, NPOV, FRINGE, SPS, USEBYOTHERS and BLP. This needs a more structured format to address these issues individually.  If it is true, what is said in the two on-line English language reviews, the source is very problematic indeed, and we need more information on what the paywalled reveiw says.  On the other hand, if there is a counter to those reviews (Piortr) mentions a counter but not what it says, and if is true that other scholarly works (not reveiws) have used this source, what do they use it for?  I suggest a mediation occur to make a structured RfC, with multiple questions (Perhaps based around each policy or guideline) and laying out all the research in accessible fashion, where the participants in the mediation agree on presentation of the questions and on laying out the research (you will, no doubt, all conduct yourself in good faith in doing so). Also, please don't stop at buzz words like "neostalinist", meaningless to most people, look to the literature and layout what meaning is given to eg., that concept. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Being a self published (in English) book by a SPLC profiled individual should be sufficient to preclude this (on RS grounds - SPS, and NPOV / UNDUE / FRINGE). The "Neo-Stalinism" chapter in the book is what tends to be most covered by reviews. As for the paywalled article (actually not a review - a full fledged article) - I have read it in full, and it is quite negative. That this book is receiving any support here is beyond shameful - and has no basis in Wikipedia policy. Needless to say - this is rarely cited by anyone other than the authors (and that includes those who analyze the book itself as a controvesy), and several other highly cited works (published by actual academic presses and journals) are available. Icewhiz (talk) 12:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For RS and I can't think of another policy where it matters, what you consider"shameful" is neither here, nor there. It's also not actually relevant that there would be some kind of 'guilt by association'. We accept both foreign language sources and paywalled sources but when there is inquiry they need to be made accessible by quotes to other editors.  As I have noted and your comment confirms again, this is not just RS it cuts across multiple policy/guidelines, beyond the competency and use of this noticeboard. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ,quote last two paras (conclusion): Of course, one could go deeper into some confessions of the authors. But why? There is something farcical about the conception of a crusade against the modern world professed by a few researchers from a marginal research centre,10 which is a recruitment pool of the CIA.11 But could this McCarthyism drenched in the East European “sauce” with the whole peculiar, local color; this “informationdepositary,” as Chodakiewicz and Muszyński state in the introduction, worthy of 1930s right-wing political leaϐlets and then slightly ϐiltered through the 2011 Poland political correctness, survive anywhere else abroad? This collection is more like the material for a seminar of linguists or even scholars of rhetoric and propaganda. The book will not be good nourishment for readers interested in the Holocaust and its third phase, i.e. the basic topics of the essays by Jan Tomasz Gross and Irena Grudzińska-Gross. So what else is left if one disregards the fact that Marek Jan Chodakiewicz and his colleagues have by the sheer keenness of their minds penetrated the laws of history and modern development, that they have read and diagnosed the fears of the contemporary world and even revealed another face of the veiled totalitarianism freely raging by the River Vistula, and if one were to spare oneself Gontarczyk’s technical fireworks? It does not change the fact that one will surely become involved with most of those authors and surely quite often. They are engaged in a persistent dialogue with a numerous group of people who see the world in a similar way and they do not care at all about anybody else.".Icewhiz (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Thus, in a structured discussion all that can be laid out, cross checked, all policies/guidelines engaged, and in respectful discussion even close the gaps between editorial positions.  I am on the outside, and I am all for it being, as definitively settled, as possible.  The usual form of a question of only RS is here is a Wiki-article statement, here is this source (and here we are dealing with multiple source articles by multiple authors), is it RS for this statement.  Now multiply across  NPOV, FRINGE, SPS, USEBYOTHERS and BLP, etc., and there is much to settle.   --Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - with regard to the reliability of editor of the book, Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, more generally, I put him in roughly the same category as the American National Review (for which Chodakiewicz writes occasionally) or the British historian Niall Ferguson. Both of these are right of center, they both have made some controversial statements but at the end of the day they're still reliable if BIASed (bias is not unreliability). And similarly to Chodakiewicz, Ferguson has been attacked and criticized by other commentators, with some of this criticism justified and some of it just being based on, well, basically smears. I'd like the people who are saying this is not an RS here, to indicate whether they would consider National Review or Niall Ferguson to be reliable, which would help us get a better handle on what "reliable" actually is suppose to mean here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not reliable: no indication of meeting RS, due to negative reviews and an unreliable publication process. The opinions expressed in the book, even if attributed, would be undue, for the same reason. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at . To the closer: please keep in mind the active arbitration case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. —  Newslinger  talk   09:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Emporis.com
Emporis.com has frequently been used in articles about buildings. I believe it is WP:UGC because anyone can sign up and start editing. This seems to be similar to the way that wikipedia works and we all know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. In an AfD discussion I stated that Emporis.com is not a reliable source and am now being challenged. Is it a reliable source?--Rusf10 (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally unreliable. Emporis's FAQ states: "You can add buildings as soon as you have registered for the Emporis Community and have logged in." There are "Add Building" and "Upload images" links displayed throughout the site. Emporis clearly publishes user-generated content, which is not usable for Wikipedia articles. —  Newslinger  talk   04:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Marginally reliable per 's examples of Emporis data being used in books and academic publications below. Based on Djflem's communications with Emporis, their data quality might be closer to Google Maps than IMDb . I would prefer to see Emporis release more details of its fact-checking process and data sources on its website or on some other public medium, since emails cannot be publicly verified. ( Could you ask Samantha from Emporis to publish the information from the emails on the company's website?) As an indiscriminate database, Emporis does not count toward a subject's notability. —  Newslinger   talk   05:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Newslinger's comments.Ramos1990 (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * User submited content without any editorial oversight = generally unreliable. Plain and simple. Pavlor (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * See below: Where did that idea come from? Who says there's no editorial oversight?Djflem (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Their FAQ is quite clear about that... Pavlor (talk) 08:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Striking original comment per discussion bellow. There seems to be some editorial oversight, but its thoroughness is unclear. I share now view posted by Newslinger above (marginally reliable). Pavlor (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm also here to say it's unreliable. As well, I find myself very unimpressed with the sources cited on the Emporis article itself to back that it " is frequently cited by various media sources as an authority on building data". The one live, independent source that says that honestly reads like a press release. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, Wikipedia is unreliable, but this discussion is not about the Wikipedia article.Djflem (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, this goes to the heart of WP:RS, "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I find no evidence that Emporis has a reputation of any kind. Nearly all of the press coverage that mentions Emporis is just fawning coverage of their awards ceremony, or context-free citations to the database. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

My name is Samantha from Emporis Data Research Department. Thanks for your e-mail. Let me quickly give you an overview about our data quality and the work processes involved with ensuring our standards:
 * Reliable based on the following email correspondence 4 July, 2019 from Samantha Körber ,sckoerber@emporis.com> See also:https://www.emporis.com/corporate/contact.

Emporis collects it’s data from a variety of sources and our job can basically be seen as a big puzzle game where we are trying to piece together the most complete picture of a building we can achieve while making sure we only enter confirmed data points and no rumors, conflicting data etc.

In general we have four main sources that we gather information from:

1. Industry partners: We work together with multiple companies from the construction industry, e.g. architects, engineers and developers, who provide us with information about their projects as they would like to see them represented on the platform. This is one of our main source for new construction projects but also for existing buildings.

2. Governmental institutions & public bodies: We also collaborate with governmental institutions and public bodies, with which we exchange lots of data regarding buildings and current construction projects happening in their respective countries, counties or cities. In exchange we supply them with statistics and other data.

3. Local editors: Emporis has a large international community of local editors all over the globe. These editors are working for us “on the ground” by e.g. visiting the construction sites to take photos or to verify the construction progress. Naturally, they do not only add and edit information regarding new construction projects but also provide a lot of information about existing buildings and involved companies, as well.

4. Our internal data research team: Our data research team here in the Emporis office in Hamburg, Germany is basically the back bone of our operation. We are constantly monitoring the web, getting in touch with developers or city councils etc. in order to get more information about companies, buildings and construction projects worldwide. And while we add and complete data whenever they find (new/updated) information, our team also has to double-check, approve and potentially merge all information that has been provided or entered to the database by exterior sources (e.g. the local editors) to ensure quality. Only after the evaluation the entry is released by us and published on Emporis.

As you can see, all the work is done manually and we put great effort into collecting our data to make sure all the information is as correct and comprehensive as possible. The same goes for the monitoring process to ensure ongoing data quality once data sets have become part of the database.For this process buildings get flagged regularly for a check-up with our data researchers. How often this is the case depends on how complete the data sets are and what status the building is in (e.g. as buildings that are under construction or are being planned undergo more changes than an existing building, they get flagged in shorter intervals than existing ones etc.).

I hope this helps to get an idea of how the Emporis data is collected and how the verification process works. Samantha-Christina Körber

It is clear that despite claims made here there are a variety of sources and that the information is verified and validated by a data research team and editorial board. I advise further in-depth research or addressing specific questions to https://www.emporis.com/corporate/contact Djflem (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * An alleged e-mail message quoted here is not a WP:RS. You have no evidence that this is a bona fide communication from a representative of the company, nor that any of the assertions therein are true. Elizium23 (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest that use the address provided above and ask yourselfDjflem (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, WP:BURDEN is not on the person who challenges these things, but on the editor making the claim. Elizium23 (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Samantha Körber can be reached @ sckoerber@emporis...(I'm sure every editor would like to the right thing and trust they will do what it takes get to get to the truth, no?)

Djflem (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, this is just PR spin by the company. The fact that the website uses "local editors" means it is not reliable. Th truth is the website tries to promote itself, but it is not reliable.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Everyone is allowed to an opinion, but Wikipedia should work with facts and information, not interpretation. Please point to Wikimedia policy about "local editor", and cite ackknowledge that many organizations (CNN, New York Times, Al Jazeera among them) use "local editor". Djflem (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Crunchbase, Discogs , and IMDb are similar databases for different subjects, and all three were considered generally unreliable in their RfCs because they incorporate user-generated content as one of their data sources. These sites also had some limited form of editorial checking, but most editors determined that it was not enough. It's unlikely that a small team could properly validate information from "a large international community of local editors all over the globe". —  Newslinger   talk   01:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Reliable Look at their press page https://www.emporis.com/press and click year by year to see what reliable sources trust them as reliable for information.  D r e a m Focus  23:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Almost all of the press coverage concerns mentions of the "Emporis Skyscraper Award" and events related to Emporis itself, which don't satisfy WP:UBO. Plenty of reliable sources, including the New York Times, use IMDb as a source, but we still prefer to avoid user-generated content. —  Newslinger  talk   23:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliable As someone who's tried to contribute to Emporis, I can say that it is a reliable source. Any buildings that I've tried to add have been in review for months. Any contribution must be verified by employees of Emporis. Something can be rejected just as easily as it can be approved. You must add citations to any build you add. As contributed by another editor, furthermore, user added data makes up only 15% of data on Emporis. Accusing the other editor of falsifying these emails is not acceptable. I've also reached out to Emporis, and will contribute their correspondence as well.  Itrytohelp 32  (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

How to deal with this
It seems that emporis.com has been used extensively as a source here on wikiepdia (in possibly as many as 3000 articles). The consensus is that it is not reliable, but how do we get rid of it? Can it be blacklisted? How do we remove it from such a large number of pages?--Rusf10 (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Is Rusf10 trying shut the discussion started 2 days ago by claiming consensus has reached?Djflem (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My first question would be, who is adding the links? Because the answer to your question will be different if these links are being added by editors who think they are useful, or spammers promoting a website. WP:BLAME might be useful here. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the answer is multiple people over the past 10-15 years. Look at any "list of tallest building in...." article and you'll see this website used as a source. Also, many articles on individual building also use it as a source. For example List of tallest buildings in New York City, an article that could easily stand without using emporis.com, uses it as a source over 100 times.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Large numbers of editors have used the source because it is comprehensive and useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs) 08:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , it doesn't need to be necessarily blacklisted. Many of these links are in "external links" section, like IMDb links and blacklisting it will be more harm than good. However, based on the discussion above, it would be great if emporis was no longer used as a citation template. epicgenius (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that Emporis should probably be treated like Find a Grave, Discogs, and IMDb, where citations are generally not allowed but external links might be acceptable. Since Emporis is an external link template, not a citation template, it shouldn't be used for citations regardless of the result of this discussion. —  Newslinger  talk   05:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * BURDEN of proof. Who has backed up claims that "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable? (bold mine) No one so far.|Contributors are located worldwide: data is collected by our editorial Community, data researchers and public. Who can on Wikpedia knows the ratio of the contributions and how the information is gathered and processed from

1. Industry partners. 2. Governmental institutions & public bodies. 3. Local editors. 4. Internal data research team.

Determining that and basing decisions on facts rather than claims is how to deal with it.Djflem (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that the ratio is undisclosed does Emporis no favors. If Emporis distinguished its user-generated content from its other content, we would probably be able to cite its other content (provided that the data is of high quality) while avoiding the community contributions. However, they don't distinguish the two, and we can't trust this data when its origins are opaque and probably questionable. —  Newslinger  talk   09:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In other words nobody at Wikipedia knows exactly if the content is largely user-generated (bold mine). If there are 4 different sources and they were attributed equally that would be about 25%, which is certainly less than largely.Djflem (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In other words, you wouldn't know if it were 99% or 1%. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody at Wikipedia would, would they? So, any claims that data is largely user-generated (as policy states) are not valid and not reliable unless backed-up? Djflem (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's right, nobody knows. And if we don't know, we can't use it as a source. And until somebody knows a way to determine specifically which information is reliable, we can't use this as a source. If you want to use this source, then the WP:BURDEN is on you to prove it is reliable.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Quoting Elizium23, above: "Sorry, WP:BURDEN is not on the person who challenges these things, but on the editor making the claim.", as Rusf10 has. Djflem (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Your argument reverses the burden of proof. According to WP:BURDEN, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." The material here is the content in Emporis, which is being challenged for the articles it is being used on (e.g. List of tallest buildings in Peoria). The burden of proof is on the editor who wants to add Emporis-sourced content to show that it is reliable, and not on the editor who is challenging the content. —  Newslinger  talk   21:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Newslinger is correct. Blueboar (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Piling on to agree, the burden of proof falls on those who wish to use the source. We use sources that we know to meet our reliability standards. If we don't know, we don't use them. –dlthewave ☎ 22:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Who has demonstrated that Emporis is "largely user-generated"(as stated in Wikipedia policy), which is a claim being made?Djflem (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

From email correspndence July 8, 2019 from Samantha Körber , which further clarifies Emporis' verifibliity process: Thanks for our reply. I answer you here by mail, because I am not familiar with the Wikipedia forum. Could you please forward this information?

I have been reading through the thread at Wikipedia and it seems, that there are some points I may be able to shed a bit more light on.

Yes, we do receive data from external users as I already outlined. By now this makes up approx. 15% of our data.

However this data is not added to our database unchecked. When for example a new building is added by a user, it will not appear on the website or in the database immediately. The building is first put into what we internally call the "building workflow" where we process all the new information that is coming in and evaluate the data.

The user always has to provide sources for the data he added/edited which are then evaluated and double-checked by our professional internal data research team. They then determine what data and sources are indeed reliable and therefore make it onto the database. If we cannot 100% verify it, it will not make the cut.

We work with many large companies not only in the construction sector but also in finance, insurance, consulting, etc. (for a few references see: https://www.emporis.com/corporate/reference-customers) that base many of their business decisions on our data. Hence ensuring that our data is indeed reliable and correct is of utmost importance to us, as it is the very foundation our business case is built upon.

If people are in doubt about the process, they can sign up and try adding a building for themselves.

I hope this helps to further clarify things.

Best regards, Samantha Once again, all Wikipedians who would like to sincerely develop informed opinion to contribute to this discussion are encouraged to do so. Samantha Körber  Djflem (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I fixed the closing blockquote tag. -Mys_721tx (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * evaluated and double-checked by our professional internal data research team "professional internal data research team" means who? Corporate informations/about mentions only managing directors. Invisible editorial staff is hardly a sign of reliability. However, examples of use of their database by other reliable sources may support reliability of this source. Pavlor (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you taken up the offer made by Emporis to check the facts? The New Yorker is reknowned for fact-checkers. How visible are they they? How can that be proven?Djflem (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * For example?
 * Djflem (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Djflem (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Djflem (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Djflem (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Djflem (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Djflem (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Djflem (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Djflem (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Djflem (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Djflem (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Djflem (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Is Brinkwire a RS?
Could someone be so kind and turn this into an RFC?

I ran across https://en.brinkwire.com/ and was hoping to use for sourcing three million people attended the WorldPride parade in NYC.

But their website feels click-baity so I want to see what others think. Any ideas? Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't RfC everything.... As for your question - after digging a bit and going through the site - probably not reliable. I can't find much about it, the content seems to be geared for ad revenue, and it is running on top of what seems to be a wordpress theme (mission news) - . Icewhiz (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought it was suspect, thank you for checking. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source?
Would you consider The Month a reliable source for the statement that Louise d'Artois died of typhus? Futurist110 (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Given today it might be called a blog "edited by its members", no.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see any issue with it. The editors were noted writers in their time, and authorship was by invitation. Though as per Reference_desk/Humanities, if there is an objection to this, you do have a book by a historian that says the same thing, and does not cite The Month for it. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with Someguy1221. No issue based on the RS guideline has been brought up about it. It was not self-published like a blog, but a literary, general interest Catholic review that published 19th & 20th century writers who are quite well known and respected to this day. Conceivably it might be considered biased if the purpose it was being cited for was a matter of religion; but that is not relevant here.John Z (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "The editors were noted writers in their time, and authorship was by invitation."
 * Fine, who was the author? Who were the editors? Frances Margaret Taylor(a nurse)? Henry James Coleridge(professor of theology)?
 * Per, Reliable sources;The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
 * The piece of work itself (the article, book)
 * The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
 * The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)
 * 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.
 * So far, aside from personal opinions that The Month is a "reliable source", nothing has been presented that indicates this is a reliable source, except maybe for religious topics. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Why even use this source for facts about history? I expect entire books were written about history of Parma, the Bourbon dynasty or Italy in general. Use these, don´t waste your time with sources of dubious reliability for this subject. Pavlor (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

BoardGameGeek for lists of awards
BoardGameGeek is perhaps the most prominent board game website. In general, it is a wiki edited by fans. Submissions to its lists of awards won by a game, however, are implemented by an administrators. More to the point, most organizations are terrible at providing consistent online histories of winners and nominees, so it can be very difficult to find award information that is neither from the game's publisher or from BoardGameGeek. The listings themselves are rarely controversial. Can BGG be cited as a reliable source for awards? Kim Post (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If it's that hard to find sources for an award, it's probably not prominent enough to include in Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Notability or due weight are not really the issues here—you're right that a significant award will be documented somewhere, such as in old issues of print periodicals not available online. It is a significant burden to editors if that is the only option, though. Kim Post (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I just want to make sure, you must have some basis for thinking the rewards are significant to begin with, right? Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a forum, crowd sourced and unreliable. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 07:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, I mean presupposing that the claim appears to be true and is significant to include in the article. Notable awards for a game are part of discussing its reception in an encyclopedic way. The question is inspired by e.g. the Origins Awards, reasonably well-known in its niche—the official website records past winners but not nominees. Think also of industry awards in Europe, which may not be covered by traditional English-language sources. (The idea that something must not be significant if it's not easy to find online is frankly quite silly.) The overall significance of an award can be recognized, and yet a particular winner or nominee may not have easily accessible sources even when there is little doubt about the fact. Sources that are not contemporary are likely to be drawing from BGG or the publisher, if not Wikipedia. Would it be better to follow "verifiable, not verified" and leave an entry uncited? Kim Post (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, as uncited information should not really even be there. And it is not sill to say that if the people who give out the award do not consider it significant neither should we. At the end of the day anyone (including the publishes of a game) can upload thee claims, and if it cannot be verified to an RS then it may not in fact be true.Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Its a user generated site with moderation. I am not sure it should be an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

urbanrail.net
The wikipedia links to urbanrail.net over a thousand times. So, is it a reliable source?

Critics might say it is just an overgrown railfan site. However, sometimes amateurs do work of sufficient competence that professionals, who we would recognize as RS, treat them as peers, or even defer to their judgement.

Robert Schwandl, the site's founder, has published a series of books on rapid transit systems.

So, I think this site has graduated to RS status.

I started a stub on the site in userspace - User:Geo Swan/urbanrail.net

I'd appreciate others weighing in.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It does not meet rs because it is based on user contributions, just like Wikipedia. Presumably the editors get their information from published reliable sources. But note, "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." So don't just remove the material unless it is questionable. TFD (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that the website is very useful, but I am not sure if it is enough to be able cite on wikipedia (maybe it reliable for practical reasons, but maybe it would ok if no one challenges it...?). The issue is that though the site is run by someone who seems to be competent on the topic, it seems to be just his website. On the other hand, his books might be a better sources than the website since those probably went though some editorial oversight. They look pretty detailed for example, . I think the books are better sources and certainly can be cited on wikipedia.Ramos1990 (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * wrote: "...based on user contributions, just like Wikipedia". This site isn't like the wikipedia. The site's founder, Robert Schwandl, wrote, or co-wrote, a series of books on the same transit systems he documented on the site.  With a great deal of effort, possibly subpoenas, most wikipedia contributors could be indentified.  But, for any reasonable level of effort, we are anonymous.  For practical purposes we are anonymous.  Some wikipedia contributors claim they are lawyers, and expect the rest of us to defer to their opinions on legal matters.  An expert, like a lawyer, puts their real life reputation on the line, every time they offer their professional opinion.  But even if the wikipedia contributors who claim to be lawyers, are actually lawyers, opinions they offer semi-anonymously are worthless.  Even if they were not exploiting our semi-anonymous nature to spread dis-information, for insider-trading, they opinions they offer to a site like wikipedia could be quirky fringe opinions they have to keep to themselves at their day jobs.  They aren't putting their professional reputations on the line.  Robert Schwandl is the site's founder.  He seems to be its primary editor, or maybe even its sole contributor.  As a published author his reputation is on the line if the site's info is unreliable -- that's different than the wikipedia.  I linked to the google search to his publication.  This google scholar search shows scholarly articles cite urbanrail.net.  We mustn't let a fear of non-notable blogs cause us to disclude things that bears a resemblance to a self-published blog, or calls itself a blog.  When someone is a reliable authoritative author, things they publish that we might normally discount as a non-notable self-published blog should be treated as reliable as their books or scholarly articles.  If Henry Kissinger maintained a self-published blog we would treat their self-published work as reliable as anything else he said or wrote.  So, because scholars, who we would regard as RS, rely on urbanrail.net, why shouldn't we treat it as an RS?  Geo Swan (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My personal take on UrbanRail is that it should be treated like something like IMDb – I think it's OK as an 'External link', but I am uncomfortable using it as an inline "Reliable source" because the site's author does not indicate where he gets his information from like we're supposed to do on Wikipedia. There were also instances (in the past, when I did more rail article editing) where UrbanRail's figures didn't match the figures I got from operators and other sources... But, OTOH, in many cases, UrbanRail is the only game in town for rail system stats... So, I feel like it's OK to link to it as an 'EL', but I'm not comfortable in treating it like an WP:RS inline source. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Authors of secondary sources use sources that often don't meet reliability in Wikipedia, including Wikipedia articles. I note by the way that all of Shwandl's books are self-published, so he does not qualify aa an expert and does not claim to be one. TFD (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * None of that changes my opinion – OK as an 'EL', but not OK as an inline source. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Law & Crime regarding the Proud Boys
Previous discussion: (not directly related) Source: Article: Gavin McInnes Content: "He is the founder of the Proud Boys, a neo-fascist[13] men's group"

The Law & Crime source (included in that source bundle "13") says this in support of "neo-fascist": " Law&Crime has previously described the group as “neo-fascist,” a designation also in use by NBC News, the Associated Press and others."

As you can see, the L&C internal link is just a link to another article that merely includes exactly the same sentence, minus the internal L&C link. My contention is that this is worthless, especially in light of their misunderstanding of who is saying what (see below).

The other three links are to NBC, Chicago Tribune, and Haaretz. But all 3 are the same article by the AP (the Haaretz one has some other stuff in it about Fox, but the relevant bit is cut-and-paste from the AP article). The AP source article does not call the Proud Boys "neo-fascist" in their own voice, they merely quote a single individual who, as far as I know, is not especially expert, and who is political. This is the quote:

"New York City Public Advocate Letitia James, a Democrat who is running for state attorney general, said, "I am disturbed and disgusted by the videos I've seen of members of the neo-fascist, white supremacist Proud Boys group engaging in hate-fueled mob violence on the streets of New York City.""

That's not what L&C thinks it is: it's not NBC/AP/others using a designation, it's NBC/AP/others quoting someone. That's a schoolboy error, and makes them unreliable in this case. It might affect how reliable they're considered in general, but I'm not making that point here. It may be worth noting that, who reverted my edit, accepted my removal of the Chicago Tribune article that was also in the WP bundled cite.

Is this L&C link a reliable source for the claim that Proud Boys in neo-fascist? (Talkpage entry that led to this question is here). Bromley86 (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Not reliable. Law & Crime.com is one of those borderline outlets, so you have to look more closely at the source itself. The author has a legal background but virtually no journalism experience. I also looked through Law & Crime's masthead. While the editor-in-chief (Rachel Stockman) has ample experience, the rest of the editorial staff's experience is extremely skimpy. In addition to that, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. This one doesn't pass the bar. R2 (bleep) 19:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * How is it an exceptional claim that a white-supremacist male-chauvinist gang run by a charismatic leader and evidencing an obsession with aesthetics including uniforms and rituals involving white-supremacist symbolic actions is neo-fascist? I mean if it quacks like a duck... (A note, I am not commenting on the reliability of the source so much as whether WP:EXTRAORDINARY and WP:PROFRINGE requirements are in play here.Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thing is... it is not our job to determine whether the Proud Boys are new-fascist or not. Our job is to accurately relay what reliable sources say about them.  In this case, it is accurate to say that Letticia James has said they are... but it is NOT accurate to say that those simply quoting her have said so. Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well here's what one reliable source has to say - gee what is another name for a western-chauvinist group of violent anti-semites and general racists? Simonm223 (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would use the word “Bigots”... but that’s just me (and I am not a reliable source). The point is, we have to keep OUR opinions out of the article, and accurately relay the what the sources say.  The source we are talking about (Law & Crime), misrepresented what AP/NBC/etc said. THEY didn’t call Proud Boys “neo-fascist”, they reported that JAMES called them such.  If there are other sources that use the term directly, we can attribute the label to them as well. Blueboar (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The neo-fascist label seems common enough to me that I would treat it as factual. Mother Jones, HuffPo, Daily Beast, NY Daily News, Buzzfeed News, Boston Globe. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Boston Globe article links to the Daily Beast article, which has corrected itself and removed the term "neo-fascist" and replaced it with "western chauvinist". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socratesone (talk • contribs) 17:36, 5 July 2019}}
 * I'm still seeing "neo-fascist" on the Boston Globe article though, regardless of the link target. Simonm223 (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:RACIST. Use contentious labels with attribution only. Galestar (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's untrue, as long as sufficient high quality sources passing the Verification test. We certainly don't have to list the names of jouralists and media organizations on a confirmed white supremacist group. And I protest not being informed of this discussion on article talk. Tsu  *miki*⧸ 🌉 17:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You should read WP:RACIST again. best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. You still have to use attribution. (P.S. I wasn't informed either, saw it in my watchlist) Galestar (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * At a certain point that guideline gets steamrolled by NPOV, specifcially "Avoid stating facts as opinions." Now, I'm not saying here that the Proud Boys are nazis, but I think you would find a hard time getting consensus to confine "fascist" to an attributed quote in their article. My point is, there is somewhere in between being a victim of routine mudslinging and being the literal Nazis where we no longer need to treat "fascist" like it's an opinion. And therefore treating WP:RACIST as if it is sacrosanct is simply not a tenable position. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you'd like the policy changed, I urge you to go change it. Until that time, the policy dictates that it is an attributed statement.  There isn't a line there that says Unless you *really* believe it.  Galestar (talk) 06:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest you read WP:NPOV. I am quoting from it directly. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

CEOWORLD Magazine
I noticed this at C. P. Gurnani, "In 2018, Gurnani was named one of the "Best CEOs In The World" by the CEOWORLD magazine.[7][citation needed]".

CEOWORLD Magazine is, according to them, "the world's leading business magazine written strictly for CEOs, CFOs, CIOs, senior management executives, business leaders, and high net worth individuals worldwide.".

I noted per that generally this is not an uncommon use of this source, "In the 2015 CEOWORLD magazine ranking of the top 50 hospitality and hotel management schools in the world, SAIT School of Hospitality and Tourism, ranked 47 just behind Swiss School of Tourism and Hospitality.[10][11]", "Also in 2011, Diaz was listed among CEOWorld Magazine's Top Accomplished Women Entertainers.[92]" etc.

Should this source be used like this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * At this time I am dubious, its "about us" page reads far to much like a promotional handout for investors. They have a lot of directors and PR types, but no editorial staff listed. Moreover [] does not inspire much confidence.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * CEOWorld is a reliable source for their own rankings, yes. As long as the wiki text gives the number of CEOs included or the rank-number in that year's ranking, it's fine. Softlavender (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Sure, but is it WP:DUE to include considering Articles for deletion/CEOWORLD magazine (thanks Slatersteven, didn't think of looking there)? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think (as the AFD seems to imply) this could be a case of link spam.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:DUE has no bearing on whether a person was ranked in the magazine's annual rankings. Every single mention of presence in the ranking (over 100 mentions on Wikipedia) has been added by different editors, none with COI, so it's not linkspam. We list plenty of awards and honors and rankings from publications that do not currently have Wikipedia articles, and that is not a criterion for inclusion in a list of Awards/Honors. Softlavender (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What..? No, WP:DUE has bearing on if a WP-article should bother to mention that CEOWORLD magazine bothered to mention the topic. Is it a significant viewpoint that has been published by reliable source? Awards and honors and rankings do not need separate WP-articles, but the giving of them should have a decent source in an independent RS (or like in this case, at least be a decent RS). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, and, I give you . Possibly related. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I'm not seeing a problem with this magazine as long as it used for its ratings. It has a rather fleshed out staff including a couple named editorial review points. Non-notability has nothing on reliability so the AFD doesn't matter here. I'm not seeing a COI or spamming problem as suggested - just because one editor often turns to it doesn't make it a COI, and the pattern of how that editor adds is not consistent with what I'd expect to see if, on publication of a new top 100 list in CEOWORLD, that one would normally plug that at each and every article for those 100.  I'd be dubious of any other use of this world for WP, but I don't see a problem with how its currently being used. --M asem  (t) 13:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Masem... the only potential issue is WP:UNDUE - is the opinion of this magazine worth mentioning? I would say that is somewhat borderline, but probably on the “sure, why not” side. Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I guess. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * If you read the "write for us" page, they seem to run unsolicited work from random authors with little editorial control. In fact they request blog-style listicles, and specifically reject responsibility for published opinions of the authors. And headline stories running on their site now don't inspire confidence: "4 Reasons Your Business Needs Custom Lapel Pins" for instance. So, in a nutshell, no this should not be a source for quality articles. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Getty Images
I originally posted this message here but was told this place is where it belongs. 14:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I was looking for some help in solving an edit dispute over at LGBT symbols. Regarding the "lesbian pride flag" subsection, three of the four flags are cited by typical reliable sources (BBC, Refinery29, and the such). However, another editor has cited the existence of the remaining lesbian flag with photo files from Getty Images (links here and here). I note that neither of these images directly explain anything about the flag's use/adoption in their captions. Compare those sources to this article I used to cite some other flags and their histories on the article. I'm wondering, do the images cited by the other editor suffice as a reliable source? After calling for a better source, the editor reverted my edit and wrote:

Any way to solve this issue? I know the simple solution would be to find an alternative source, by the other editor involved in the dispute doesn't appreciate having "" by their images and insists that the sources they already added is enough. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 02:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So, I think this probably belongs on WP:RSN or another noticeboard, and I would suggest that you move it (and my comment) to that board. I would also say that A) yeah, this doesn't pass RS; B) it doesn't really matter because we have a serious due weight and original research issue. That is, the fact that someone took a photograph and uploaded it to the internet does not make it relevant for any Wikipedia article. And using the fact that someone uploaded a photograph to the internet to support the statement that the flag is frequently seen at pride events... no, just no. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I'm going to post it at the noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nice4What (talk • contribs)
 * No it is OR to use this to claim it is a lesbian pride flag, the sources do not say that. It may be, or it may be a Trans flag, or perhaps...but this is speculation. The fact is neither source identifies the flag as specifically lesbian.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That. Existing is not enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I see you added "failed verification" templates to the article, but it was my proposal to not include the flag at all until reliable sources are found. Also, you changed the subsection to read (emphasis added) but I believe you should revert this change per WP:WHATPLACE and until the edit dispute is resolved. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 16:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but this was my solution.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the point is that all involved editors all have their own different solutions... please, wait until the issue is resolved before deciding to include the flag or not. The sources do not even say the flag is "sometimes" used or even represents lesbianism. Please act in good faith and self-revert. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 16:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly, there are at least two sources that show its use, that is enough to say "it is sometimes used". Secondly, there is the idea of compromise (as I imply ion the talk page, where this is not (as far as I can see) even been discussed), we lose nothing by keeping these sources for now (and we can remove when no effort is made to improve them). Moreover your tone looks a lot like "dammit this is what I want and I WANT IT NOW!". I am trying to find a way to achieve a compromise, not give either side the victory they think they so richly deserve.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I don't "want it now" (I insist you reread where I wrote )... There is no compromising of sorts for WP:RS, that's why I brought this to this noticeboard. That's also why I'm asking that you self-revert because I'm not going to engage in an edit war over this with you. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 16:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have stated my reasoning, and this is my last word on the matter.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

If I'm allowed to, can I insist that somebody look into reverting the edits done by User:Slatersteven over at LGBT symbols until this dispute is resolved? I'm basing this call on WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:WHATPLACE. Specifically calling attention to the wording Thanks. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 16:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC) 00:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * In terms of RSness of Getty Images - I would view these as WP:PRIMARY, with reliability varying according to the photo journalist - e.g. this one is by Omer Messinger/NurPhoto and this one is a stock photo. In both cases I'd probably view the photographs as being reliably taken at the place and time indicated in the caption. As for interpretation of the image - photographers and Getty can make mistakes (obviously they get the visual description right, but finer details can go awry in the captions - the captions are there for journalists to search through - who then (often) make their own decision on captioning). Neither image has details on the flag in question (beyond it being used) - though I'd suspect sources are available.Icewhiz (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In terms of some sources - this is combination of the Gender symbol (Double female symbol) with the rainbow flag. Now I will admit I did not manage to find a reliable source connecting the two (double-female on top of the rainbow flag) - though many sources mention them one next to each other on a list. You can however - find it on Amazon. Icewhiz (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt that such a flag has been used before. But from what I understand, a reliable source (not Amazon) is required if we are to mention it. We also can't connect the dots on our own. In revamping the article, so many of the flags were backed-up and readded through reliable sources, so if this flag was widely used, wouldn't it be easy to find it on other lists of LGBTQ+ symbols? That's where I see the inclusion of this flag as being worthy of discussion. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 16:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear - I did not suggest Amazon as an actual source (it is an indication this exsits and there might be sources, but it is not a source for our purposes). It's possible there is a source (other than the PRIMARY Getty images - which are reliable in the sense that they document two localized uses of this flag - but nothing wider) for rainbow flag + double-female. Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

My edit [] is in reference to two other sources [], [] and has nothing to do with the two Getty images being discussed here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I know this subsection is titled "Getty Images", but caption-less images included in two other articles also don't merit the use of the word in my opinion. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 16:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue I have is that, though variations on that flag can be seen in those articles, the articles aren't about the flags. The articles don't mention the flags. They're just... there. In the images. I don't think we need to mention something in a Wikipedia article that the sources don't bother to mention either. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * For the lesbian pride double-Venus flag, the text states: "A lesbian pride flag design sometimes seen at pride festivals and dyke marches is the rainbow flag with two interlocked astronomical Venus symbols". The keyword being seen . The text does not include the who/what created the flag and when. So unless the definition of "seen" (i.e. past participle of "see"; definition of (verb) "see": Perceive with the eyes; discern visually; Be or become aware of something from observation or from a written or other visual source) is different in Wikipedia, the sources verify what is "seen". Pyxis Solitary   yak  11:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out (issues of Undue aside) none of the source say it is a lesbian pride flag, that is wp:or. Also there are (at least) two distinct designs in use in those pictures, thus it may also fall foul of wp:synthesis.Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I also note you are posting images of this flag all over gay subjects.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all, are you hounding me all over Wikipedia? Sniffing after me? Second, I switched the similar file with black Venus symbols with the white Venus symbols file. No need to blow a cork over it.  Pyxis Solitary   yak  13:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I just look at your edit history and found it odd that you keep on positing images of this flag, one that no RS seems to have notices in and of itself.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You should review my edit history for the past 11 years. I'm sure at least one of them will inspire you to write 1000 words about me. Btw, re the Lesbian rainbow flag, there's this one and this one. Pyxis Solitary   yak  13:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So? Wikipedia is not an RS. No one disputes this exists, the issue is do RS support its inclusion in the way written, they do not.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So what does "seen at pride festivals and dyke marches" translate as? Because that is in the way written. Pyxis Solitary   yak  14:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Its claiming that is is a lesbian pride flag that is the issue for me, the rest is an Undue, but not RS issue).Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The flag is composed of the double-Venus symbol that represents the lesbian community, and the rainbow flag concept that represents Gay pride. Double-Venus symbol + Pride rainbow flag = Lesbian pride rainbow flag.  I have not been able to find who was the first to put the two together and when it first appeared at a Pride parade, festival, and Dyke March with a Google and Duck Duck search. It's probably buried somewhere in a general book about the community then-known as L & G or an out-of-print publication.  Pyxis Solitary   yak  23:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Btw, remember the edit you made here? Take another look.  Pyxis Solitary   yak  23:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, so any sort of combination of LGBT symbol on a pride flag could be made ... that isn't back by reliable sources and doesn't help with anything. Again, this may also be an issue of WP:UNDUE, but the point is though there is no doubt that such a flag does exist, that doesn't tell us what it stands for, how it's use, it's adoption, etc. American canton, Star of David, black chevron from India... it goes on and on.
 * We know nothing from what's currently provided. Also, in regards to your linking of my edit, it's worth noting that you've reverted my warning left on your talk page, indicating you're aware of the message and have read it. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 00:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I gave you a soft warning on edit warring on 01:55, 10 July 2019. You've been playing tit-for-tat since then. Pyxis Solitary   yak  00:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please reply to the more pressing issue here... that Getty Images doesn't quite say anything. Bring the more personal issues to my talk page if you feel the need to. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 01:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My responding to your comment "it's worth noting that you've reverted my warning left on your talk page" is replied with "Bring the more personal issues to my talk page"? LOL!   Pyxis Solitary   yak  01:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Pyxis, you linked to my edit and then I indicated that I warned against edit warring ... To me, it appears that you're dodging topics actually worth discussing and only reply to trivial matters. Why have you ignored my links to other Getty Image files? Why have you failed to make an adequate case for why you believe we should use this flag? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 01:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That just seems like a very silly basis for having content in an article. I could put literally anything on a flag, wave it at a pride event, and if I manage to be in frame when a photographer snaps a pic for a newspaper, that means my flag being at the event makes it into Wikipedia? Someguy1221 (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be an issue of undue, not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * When you make weird accusations like against other users, it's hard to take you seriously. You made similar comments against me on your talk page. Your edit history isn't a secret to anyone (unless you can point to a particular WP policy) and that's why the special contributions page for every user exists. Nice4What (talk ·contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 22:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There you go again. Injecting yourself into a convo between two editors, just as you did in my talk page ... which you wouldn't have been aware of unless you had lurked it. Pyxis Solitary   yak  23:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Pyxis, all on-wiki discussions are public and especially so on a noticeboard. This is not a debate between you and one other party. This is an effort to find consensus. --SVTCobra 23:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My comment addressed the "You made similar comments against me on your talk page." The one-on-one convo between me and User:Slatersteven that was referenced by that statement did not regard "consensus". It's important before stepping into this to discern one subject from the other. Pyxis Solitary   yak  23:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That makes zero difference – the point is all on-wiki discussions are public. You already know my explanation for why I used your talkpage (as seen by the fact that you reverted the message) and I believe you can't blame another user for looking at your edit history when you've been actively including this image file into articles despite being engaged in this talk page conversation, showing that you are aware this flag is currently in dispute. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 00:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's an inch of rope for you: your injecting yourself (on 6 July 2019) into a conversation on my talk page between me and another editor was before I switched (on 10 July 2019) the flag file in the Lesbian article. With each new comment (including the one you struck-out above) and article edits involving the flag, your purpose regarding this matter has acquired the stance of a personal agenda. Pyxis Solitary   yak  00:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have asked before but never got an answer, but what "agenda" am I pushing? I think you've made this accusation about three times. It can be perceived as hurtful, you know? But you've never explained it. Maybe here's not the right place, but there's my talk page if you like (I promise I won't revert 😊). Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 01:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Photographs, absent any text to specifically describe what is going on, cannot be used as a reliable source to make claims like this. If that photo appears in the NYTimes in an article about LBGT Pride celebrations, with some type of caption to affirm what, when, and where it was being seen, that might be a start, but this seems to be an outstanding claim that because we have one photo that shows one varierty of a pride flag, it means it has significant weight in that community. It's just way too much OR from a questionable source. --M asem (t) 00:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. There are many variations but unless there's a reliable source that says it's been adopted by a particular organization, I don't see how it should be included. There is nothing to distinguish it from any other home-made flag or insignia that follows the general theme of a Pride march. --SVTCobra 00:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

businesstelegraph.co.uk
Hello. At Daejan Holdings, you can see the businesstelegraph.co.uk (I will not link to this website!) source (incorrectly labelled "Belfast Telegraph") appears to be identical to the Financial Times source, except the FT uses a paywall. At Coldwar Steve, the businesstelegraph.co.uk source appears to be an article from the Guardian. Do you think these articles are republished under some kind of permission? Or should these references be removed per WP:COPYVIOEL? Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 06:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Blacklist. The businesstelegraph.co.uk website clearly scrapes articles from other publications. This site is a collection of copyright violations, and should not be linked to per WP:ELNEVER. I've removed or replaced all links to businesstelegraph.co.uk, and requested blacklisting of the domain at . —  Newslinger  talk   01:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Quadrant Magazine
I've seen Quadrant Magazine listed as a source a few times recently and I'm dubious on its use. Which of the following best describes the reliability of The Quadrant Magazine?


 * 1) Generally reliable for factual reporting
 * 2) Unclear or additional considerations apply
 * 3) Generally unreliable for factual reporting
 * 4) Publishes false or fabricated information

Bacondrum (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It is not a news source, I don't think the classifications are how it should be viewed. The publication has produced content that might be used with attribution to its author, sort of option 2, but after a certain period was shown to be unreliable in editorial selection and elementary checks (a Sokal-like article that was published, literally fabricated information). cygnis insignis 03:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Fabricated information is a serious concern. Do you have links to examples of these articles? —  Newslinger  talk   23:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The editor is named in an outline of the hoax this news item [in a Murdoch organ, if that matters, I can provide better] cygnis insignis 06:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've changed my position, although I note that the article still describes Quadrant as a "respected right-wing journal" despite the incident. For other interested editors, a more detailed description of the incident is at, but the incident is not yet mentioned in the Quadrant (magazine) article. If there are any other incidents that would establish a pattern of poor editorial controls, please share them. —  Newslinger  talk   08:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Objection to RfC. This RfC violates our verifiability policy. It amounts to little more than a popularity contest and is inconsistent with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. The TDM RfC was premised on the fact that TDM had already been a perennial source here based on many specific test cases. It is inappropriate for us to go through obscure sources that have only been glancingly addressed here and to decide whether they satisfy the reliability bar absolutely or generally. RSN is the place for individual test cases, and once enough of them have arisen then a case can be made to add a media outlet to WP:RSP. R2 (bleep) 20:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Endorse RfC. See Special:Diff/901760684. —  Newslinger  talk   22:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 2 . Quadrant publishes mostly opinions, which makes it a biased or opinionated source, and all of its statements should be properly attributed. The source consists of both online and magazine editions; in the past two decades, the magazine has released 10 issues per year. Quadrant has 10 listed authors on its editorial team, but most of its online content is submitted by non-staff contributors. On average, the online edition publishes 13 articles per day; the low volume allows the site to publish higher-quality content than Forbes.com contributors and HuffPost contributors . Quadrant isn't a good source for facts; outlets that focus on factual reporting are better. —  Newslinger   talk   23:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 2 for articles written by staff, option 3 for articles written by non-staff contributors. The incident described in casts doubt on the quality of Quadrant 's fact-checking process for contributed articles and reveals that the magazine does not properly verify the identity and credentials of its non-staff contributors. The editor-in-chief promised to be more careful in the future, but did not offer details on how the publication would do so. Contributed articles should be treated as self-published sources, with exceptions for established subject-matter experts. —  Newslinger   talk   08:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 3. It is an opinion magazine, and might be quoted for notable opinions properly attributed to a notable contributor. It's articles are not a useful source for factual claims, and it's not prominent enough to make the opinions automatically notable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 2. Worth noting that even the "hoax" contained mostly true information, and that Windschuttle seems unhappy about the fact that he was tricked into accepting it. Looking at their website, I see opinionated statements, which leads me to be cautious with them for facts, but also no examples of anything clearly false. In general, their content ought to be treated like opinion pieces, without prejudice against deciding, on a case by case basis and using WP:CONTEXTMATTERS as a guide, that some pieces may be factual.Adoring nanny (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 3, maybe Option 4. If this source were placed into Reliable sources/Perennial sources, I'm inclined to think it should be red. It has an entire section (w/ link in top header), Doomed Planet, dedicated to climate denialism. Therefore, the organization as a whole seems to lack interest in scientific credibility, which I suspect pervades their entire publication. II  | (t - c) 17:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 5 Rigorous application of WP:NOTNEWS and avoid use of media sources wherever possible. That said, media sources that are clearly opinion, are even more suspect and should be avoided except when a columnist in them has an independently notable opinion. Then, and only then, it could be used for citing that opinion, as an opinion, with the normal WP:DUE concerns that surround individual opinion. Simonm223 (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 3 Quadrant publishes opinion, typically from little-known writers these days, and is not a RS for anything except the authors' views. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 3. Opinion-focused source with no indication of fact-checking and no reputation to speak of.  Regarding R2's objection, they are not entirely wrong, and it's true that the recent flood of broad WP:RFCs for sources is undesirable; however, these RFCs are still useful to get a very rough barometer for how a source is seen by the community and how specific questions about it are likely to be evaluated.  Unless an RFC is worded as an outright ban (which is very rare), I don't think any outcome should be taken to mean "always reliable, can never be questioned" or "always unreliable, remove on sight"; rather, they provide editors with a quick reference point so they know where they're starting from and the mood of the room if they want to argue for or against using a particular source in a particular context. --Aquillion (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 3: Every article in their current edition seems to be almost entirely ideologically-propelled opinion. I read one in its entirety, plus provided sources, by Mark Durie, regarding the New Zealand killer of 51 people at two mosques. The verifiable few facts I found were cherry picked from context. It's better than the Daily Mail, but what isn't? Activist (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 3: Pretty clearly partisan and not concerned with reportorial objectivity. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  04:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 3: Clearly much more focused on making political arguments that providing an accurate description of events. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 3 or 4 - Clearly not primarily interested in the truth. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Daily Graphic and graphic.com.gh
Which of the following best describes the Daily Graphic (Ghana) and its website, graphic.com.gh? signed,Rosguill talk 05:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
 * Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
 * Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting, may include gossip or other trivial tabloid content presented as factual reporting
 * Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, primarily publishes gossip, or does not guarantee the accuracy of information that it publishes as factual reporting


 * This is a difficult one. It is definitely a news site, and people rely on it for up to date and accurate news. According to Course Hero and Boamah, Mavis, Impact of online newsportals on the patronage of newspapers in Ghana, GRIN Verlag (2018), p. 7, ISBN 9783668719965:
 * As the political agenda of Gold Coast journalism radicalized, newspapers began reaching out beyond the circle of elites, appealing to rural leaders and the urban poor with a more accessible language and fiery oppositional outcry. In 1948, political activist Kwame Nkrumah started The Accra Evening News, a publication stating the views of the Convention People's Party (CPP). Largely written by party officials, this inflammatory newspaper incessantly repeated the popular demand for "Self-government Now!" while launching angry attacks against the colonial government. In contrast, the London Daily Mirror Group, headed by British newspaper magnate Cecil King, established The Daily Graphic in 1950. The Graphic sought to maintain a policy of political neutrality, emphasizing objective reporting by local African reporters. With its Western origin, The Graphic sought to position itself as the most professional newspaper in the Gold Coast at the time.

However, this master thesis by Dzineku, Theorose Elikplim (PRINT MEDIA REPORTAGE OF THE ALAVANYO NKONYA CONFLICT:A CASE STUDY OF DAILY GRAPHIC AND GHANAIAN TIMES NEWSPAPERS.[in] Academia) provides a thorough criticism from page 32. I'm nudging towards Option 1 but would be interested to read what the community thinks.Tamsier (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Objection to RfC. This RfC violates our verifiability policy. It amounts to little more than a popularity contest and is inconsistent with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. The TDM RfC was premised on the fact that TDM had already been a perennial source here based on many specific test cases. It is inappropriate for us to go through obscure sources that have only been glancingly addressed here and to decide whether they satisfy the reliability bar absolutely or generally. RSN is the place for individual test cases, and once enough of them have arisen then a case can be made to add a media outlet to WP:RSP. R2 (bleep) 17:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , the purpose of my raising this RfC is to get a baseline assessment of reliability so that editors engaged in page reviewing (or other topic-hopping maintenance tasks) who are unfamiliar with a given region or topic (in this case Ghana) can more reliably make decisions that comply with community consensus. I agree that the result of this discussion should not be posted to RSP; I intend to summarize the results of this discussion at WP:NPPSG, which is supposed to centralize information from RSN that potentially reflects a weaker consensus than RSP. In hindsight, this makes option 4 an arguably inappropriate inclusion in the survey, although given the responses so far this is a non-issue. Moreover, looking at the comments in the discussion so far, this is hardly a popularity contest: so far we have two well-thought-out comments drawing on high quality sources. I'm open to criticisms that this should be handled through a different process (a differently worded RfC prompt is likely in order), but these sorts of discussions are a net positive to the project and will particularly help us cover subjects that are systemic-bias blind spots. signed,Rosguill talk 20:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that context really does matter per WP:RS, and you can't assess context without discussing specific article content. Moreover, the community has to look at a lot of article content, not just one or two examples, or even worse none, before drawing any conclusions about an outlet's general reliability. That's the very premise behind RSP. Those are outlets that have come up again and again. Not never. R2 (bleep) 20:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't for RSP. My goal here is to establish a guide that allows editors to distinguish reputable sources from tabloids and self-published outlets at a glance, as well as to identify particularly relevant conflicts of interest for a given publication. The purpose of this is not to head off discussion about sources, it's to provide a starting point. Of course context matters, but there are also aspects of a publication that remain true in every (or almost every context) and that are worth discussing and recording. signed,Rosguill talk 20:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , are you planning to insert this into more sections on this noticeboard? It doesn't seem directly related. cygnis insignis 09:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I plan to keep objecting to these sorts of surveys, unless/until there's consensus that they're consistent with WP:RS. R2 (bleep) 15:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I move this query from the previous section: TDM is what, The Daily Mail? cygnis insignis 18:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Endorse RfC. See Special:Diff/901760684. —  Newslinger  talk   22:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If you "plan to keep objecting to these sorts of surveys" on principle, I suggest you open an RfC elsewhere on the merits of these kinds of discussions. Considering your objections are not very much related to the actual sources being discussed, to be posting the same message over and over here would come across as obstructionist. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There's nothing obstructionist about it. I have nothing against discussing the reliability of specific Daily Graphic sources in context. My objection is made in good faith and is as applicable to this noticeboard request as to other similar requests. R2 (bleep) 22:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment An excerpt from The Press and Political Culture in Ghana by Jennifer Hasty, published by Indiana University Press in 2005 (page 47): "Under President J. J. Rawlings, the premier state newspaper, the Daily Graphic, articulated and reinforced a specific logic of state hegemony: political legitimacy based on state accumulation, populist morality, and benevolent patronage. Participation in the hegemonic project of the state distinguishes the Daily Graphic as a strategic node in the larger "ideological state apparatus" (Althusser 1971) designed to construct and reinforce an official national imaginary...The style of journalism practiced at Graphic throughout the 1990s...was designed to explain government policies and illustrate the positive impact of development projects on grateful communities, generally ignoring political controversies and popular criticisms." I'd lean for option 1, but option 2 might be in order with the consideration of the fact that its reporting of government business might be non-neutral. It is a state-run newspaper, after all. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 1 with two caveats, after having spent far too much time reviewing the sources.


 * First caveat, it is a partisan source with respect to the government (note that partisan sources can still be categorized as “generally reliable” at WP:RSP). Exactly how partisan is unclear to me, and evaluating that probably requires editors who are much more familiar with Ghana. The paper nominally has editorial independence and there appears to be little direct interference, but the board members are government-appointed and there are a number of additional issues, e.g. journalists tend to act favorably to the government from their own initiative.


 * Nunoo 2016, on independence and journalistic standards:
 * “Though a state-owned newspaper, the Daily Graphic still operates as an independent newspaper. Appointment of the Board Chairman and the Board Members is however provided for in the Constitution of Ghana and it is done by the National Media Commission in conjunction with the Civil Services Secretariat.”
 * “Both news gatherers and editors highly value the ability of the lead news to influence social change by holding the government accountable to its citizens”


 * Lewil 2017:
 * “Ideologically, the editorial stance of the Daily Graphic...[is] much more accommodating and supportive of government policies.”


 * Shardow 2016, on the situation in practice:
 * “journalists working in public media are prevented from exercising their watchdog role on top functionaries of the government.”
 * [referring to a group of newspapers including the Daily Graphic] “content analysis confirmed that the ownership structures of the media affected the media.”
 * “[These newspapers] fell short of meeting the objectivity criterion set up by this work, namely: the absence of decided views, expression or strong feelings; absence of personal or organizational interest and presenting all sides of an argument fairly.” (emphasis in original)
 * “In the words of a journalist from Ghanaian Times [another state-owned newspaper]: 'depending on which government is in power, journalists who appear not to side with the government will not be active in editorial meetings or will not partake in (editorial) meetings at all...we report mostly in favor of the ruling government, either NDC or NPP...Because the presidency sponsors you, you are forced to speak for them without criticism.' The above assertion lends credence to Hasty’s observation...[that Daily Graphic journalists] were often 'under pressure to give favorable publicity to the state; but that pressure is exercised through a set of cultural understandings in such a way that journalists do not recognize themselves as mere puppets of propaganda'.”


 * Also a quote on the state of the media in general:
 * "[Ghana's current constitution] broke the “culture of silence” to some appreciable extent within the public sphere. Some shortfalls were identified and these were: the media lacks right to information, some archaic laws still exist in the statute books and huge court fines cripple media outlets."


 * I also observe that from their political news page they at least meet the minimum standard of reporting some criticism of the current ruling party (NPP) and some of the views of the opposition party (NDC), e.g. . I also checked the archives from 2014 (when the NDC was in power) and the situation was the same. From my own evaluation there are some signs that could indicate bias, but I can't say for sure, and most of it is relatively subtle. Certainly it doesn't look like it would be any worse than certain US news sources that we consider RS.


 * The second caveat is that historically, the paper’s degree of independence depended heavily on who was in power and the structure of the government at the time. During some periods, it appears to have been essentially propaganda. I would tentatively suggest 2006 as the year when it achieved its current level of reliability. First, I would note that Ghana's score on the Press Freedom Index is quite high, better than the United States (!), and that the score has been roughly constant since that year. Additionally, while the current protections for journalism have been in place since 1993, the pre-2006 press freedom score was much worse and the academic analysis of the Daily Graphic seems to reflect that. Before 1993, the situation changed regularly but it seems like usually the problems were much more severe.


 * Hasty 2005:
 * "Graphic journalists are reluctant to recognize their participation in the hegemonic project of the state. Rather, state journalists earnestly profess their commitments to the public as well as the state, identifying themselves as both 'watchdogs in the public interest' and responsible spokespersons of the benevolent state. [They focus] on their own professional intentions and their freedom from outright state censorship..."
 * "In reality, of course, the state media occupies a structurally partisan position..."
 * "throughout the 1990s the content of both Graphic and Times was dominated by the development rhetoric of government officials while editorials encouraged unity, loyalty, and popular initiative in the national quest for development."


 * Hasty 2006:
 * “Journalists in Ghana recognize a distinctive style in the discursive practices that position state journalists and compel them to produce a certain redundant narrative of national news.”
 * “the Daily Graphic has [become] the premiere instrument of state news”
 * “No matter the story, Graphic journalists routinely skipped over the other basic elements of the story in order to open with what they term the ‘who-lead’, a rhetorical quote by the most senior official at the event.”


 * And for the situation pre-1993:
 * "Each time a new faction assumes power the editorial staff of the state newspapers is shuffled or replaced, and the editorial positions of the papers are transformed, sometimes overnight, to reflect the personal and ideological commitments of the new government" (additional examples )
 * "for years [the Daily Graphic] thought more of how to blindly support state power rather than how to encourage democratic participation..."


 * The sources and quotes from other editors above should also fit into this analysis, as determined by when those sources were published. Sunrise (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 1 or 2 per 's detailed research. Newspapers of record are assumed to be generally reliable unless there is some reason to doubt their reputation for accuracy or fact-checking, such as low press freedom. Since the newspaper was founded in 1950, a substantial portion of its history (19502005) is affected by low press freedom, and warrants more caution. The post-2006 quotes still raise concerns regarding editorial independence, and the Daily Graphic should be considered a biased or opinionated source, with attribution recommended for political and controversial topics. —  Newslinger  talk   12:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Refinery29
According to this 2019 article from Refinery29, the age of actress Natalia Dyer is listed as age 24: "But, there are just four selfies of the 24-year-old to be found (yes, she is 24, no matter what lies Wikipedia says)." Is Refinery29 a reliable source? Please note that I've mentioned this information at Talk:Natalia Dyer. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Marginally reliable. It's another online publication targeting young women, in the same category as Bustle and PopSugar, which compete with more established print magazines like Cosmo and Allure. Probably more focused on commentary and publishing relatable content than ensuring that the facts are right, but OK as a source in a pinch. Be careful with the sponsored content they publish, such as this (linked from their front page). feminist (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Iran-HRM
Is it OK to use the iran-hrm for the following the material in Women's rights in Iran article? Thanks, Saff V. (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC) In mid-November 2018 United Nations General Assembly’s Human Rights Committee approved a resolution against Iranian government's continuous discrimination against women and limitation of freedom of thought.


 * Yes, you and various other users have already been told so several times by admins and whatnot. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Can I see some of "several times" that admins say the Iran-HRM is RS?Saff V. (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, not gonna fall for that. You very well know it yourself. Stop pov-pushing IRI edits. It's no secret that women in Iran are oppressed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stop PA, while I just ask a question about the reliability of a source!Saff V. (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stop pov-pushing by trying to censor the lack of women rights in Iran, as you have been strongly warned about stuff like this before . Now you're taking it here --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

There are probably many reliable sources documenting women rights in Iran. As Iran-HRM is an ctivist group, I would not use their reporting without attribution. However, this doesn´t mean we should change article balance to the POV of the Iranian regime (which is - I fear judging form the talkpage posts - intention of the OP). Simply find better sources (peer reviewed papers, mainstream media reporting) and replace lower quality sources. Pavlor (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Situational. Looks like an advocacy group to me, so they would probably be at the same tier as Hope not Hate or maybe Southern Poverty Law Center. This particular article appears to be straightforward reporting and so should be OK as a source. feminist (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Value Investor Insight as a Reliable source
Hello - I am trying to update the Lucerne Capital Management page, specifically the information pertaining to Assets Under Management. Currently the page is citing $478 million (March 2015) - however the firm has grown since then, and the Firm's AUM now sits at around $750 million. On June 26, 2019 Lucerne was featured under the "Investor Insight" section of the Online publication Value Investor Insight (https://valueinvestorinsight.com/). However, there was some issues with editors regarding the independence and reliability of Value Investor Insight as a source.

I liked to the article on the Value Investor Insight domain (https://valueinvestorinsight.com/Content_Premium/investor-insight-continental-divide-june-2019.aspx), but unfortunately this content was only available for subscribers of the online publication. I understand this makes the verification of this source difficult. We've therefore purchased the rights to distribute the content and have posted in on our own website (http://www.lucernecap.com/ValueInvestorInsight-June2019.pdf) in order to remove the content from the paywall.

Within the article:

"Given the secular backdrop in Europe since he founded Lucerne Capital Management in 2002 to invest there, you might expect Pieter Taselaar to regret that going-in choice. But that’s not at all the case. “We’re not investing in Europe to be in Europe, we’re investing in Europe because we know it well and we think it’s inefficient,” he says. “That’s how we generate returns.” And generate returns he has.  His long/ short Lucerne Capital Fund, now with $750 million in assets and co-managed with Thijs Hovers , has returned a net annualized 11.2% since inception, vs. 1.2% for the STOXX Europe 600 Index. At a time when investor enthusiasm for European stocks is particularly low, they’re finding upside in such areas as wireless towers, mining equipment, banks and diversified industrials."

Just a bit of background Value Investor Insight:


 * Value Investor Insight's President and as the Editor-in-Chief is John Heins - who is a well experienced investment professional, writer, as well as an academic, taking an role as the C.T. Fitzpatrick Professor of Value Investing at the University of Alabama. Furthermore, Mr. Heins graduated magna cum laude with a bachelor’s degree in Economics from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and received an M.B.A. from Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business.


 * Also, In Aug 2018 - Value Investor Insight was listed as #12 of the "Top 17 Value Investing Blogs You Should Be Reading" according to Forbes

I hope this supports that this is a in fact a very reputable 3rd party investment publication. It comes out monthly and is subscription based.Jonathan Larken (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the reliability of Value Investor Insight, a statement from a publication as to the assets held by a single fund is not a good source for its manager's assets under management. I would consider going to a primary source, Lucerne Capital Management's reported assets under management in its Form ADV filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  There you can see, in response to Part 1A Item 5.F, that it reported assets under management of $1,107,764,000 (probably as of 12/31/2018, although it's possible that the 3/29/2019 filing used a more recent date).  The Form ADV may also have some other useful information, although of course it should be used with the care appropriate for a primary source.  John M Baker (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * To avoid any question here, I would handle this by saying something like "The company in March 2019 reported assets under management of $1,107,764,000," citing to the Form ADV as the source. While assets reported on Form ADV are, in real life, more reliable than third-party sources, this clarifies the origin of the number and may assuage concerns over the use of a primary source.  John M Baker (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * As for Value Investor Insight itself as a reliable source, the characterization of it by Forbes as a blog appears to be accurate (although it's a blog that can charge for access), so I would be hesitant to rely on it in general, see WP:BLOG. John M Baker (talk) 01:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks John M Baker - that was a great idea to use the a primary source - I will just qualify that number on the ADV as "regulatory assets under management." Jonathan Larken (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Are articles from Mammoth Gamers considered a reliable source?
[mammothgamers.com]? The reason why I feel that it is a bit off is because, on the about page,, the one that is in main concern, has the writter as a student who is taking a minor in Journalism. However that is not the major issue. The major issue is that the sources for what is being discussed about the subject(a YouTube channel), is actually from the subject being talked about or social media posts.

From what I know about reference reliability on Wikipedia, any social media post is considered "User Generated" and thus unreliable. Although people can argue about whether or not YouTube videos are considered "User Generated", there is a rule of thumb on Wikipedia, if I am not mistakened, that a YouTube video or link can not be used as a reference when the Wikipedia article is talking about the the person or YouTube channel that created that YouTube link or video. Thus, I can presume that any article on the web that solely relies on a YouTube video and Social Media posts, can not be used as a reference on a Wikipedia article that is, on or talking about it the subject that created the YouTube video that the article is using to backup it's facts, as it would in the end be a "User Generated" in terms of Wikipedia.

I am presuming that the source is unreliable, but I just want to confirm if I am correct or not about my guess as it being unreliable on a Wikipedia page talking about the YouTube subject. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Unreliable - New website where none of the writers appear to have any sort of credentials. Sergecross73   msg me  11:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Unreliable per Serge. Another one of those sites that is simply "comprised of gamers who specialize in all the surrounding aspects of geek culture!" and nothing more. ~ Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 20:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Unreliable - I don't see much editorial oversight on this.Ramos1990 (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Federalist Papers
Hi there, I thought I'd ask about this publication, The Federalist Papers, which I couldn't find in the archives, though given that it bears the same name as the 18th Century essays, I might have missed something. I've looked at the page and can't find much info about editorial policy, staff, etc., so I am dubious as to RS status. I ask because it's being used on the Jeffrey Epstein page, which is obviously controversial, and in my thinking, should be looking for high-quality sources. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Umm.... I'd say no (based on first blush impression). Seems like a website (less known than the The Federalist (website) and obviously not related to the namesake - The Federalist Papers) with an unclear editorial policy. Running down the main page it seems unlikely this could be used for anything other than rather biased opinion. Doesn't look like they get all that much traffic - . You'd think better sources would be available for Epstein.Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Doesn't really matter in this instance, because TFP is citing the Washington Post. TFP may be where the user first read the information, but it's not the source, and isn't what we should be citing if we cite anything.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  14:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed re: The Washington Post, but there is definitely a subtle difference in emphasis -- note "according to court documents" in TFP, while "according to court documents filed by Edwards" in The Washington Post. A small but meaningful distinction--to me, anyway!  Thank you both. Dumuzid (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd treat the same as any blog until proven otherwise. It has the look and feel of a news website but reading a handful of the "articles" they contain almost exclusively opinion pieces.  Heavy on value-laden opinions and light on actual facts. Galestar (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Generally unreliable. No editorial team listed on their about page. Their testimonials page does not inspire confidence. —  Newslinger  talk   22:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Unreliable-I don't see much about editorial oversight on the website. I uses social media to spread the messages too.Ramos1990 (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Statista
Is Statista considered a reliable source for data or analysis? Jc86035 (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally reliable as their data and analysis have been cited by sources we consider reliable. My experience with Statista graphs/figures have generally been good as well. feminist (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Unreliable. The site says "Within just a few years, Statista managed to establish itself as a leading provider of market and consumer data. Over 600 visionaries, experts and doers continuously reinvent Statista, thereby constantly developing successful new products and business models." . It is a marketing firm, not an established polling or survey firm like say Pew Research Center, Census, or General Social Survey. Sometimes they compile their own statistics or do not cite their sources. May be good for a business, but not Wikipedia.Ramos1990 (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Senior thesis
Is this a reliable source under WP:SCHOLARSHIP for all of the content that it's currently used for in David_Cooper_(abolitionist)? (There's a fair amount of content cited to it so I'm not replicating all of it here - it's the DeBusk 2004 footnotes). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Since Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable when they have scholarly significance, undergraduate theses should be treated as the same. -Mys_721tx (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Less that a Masters thesis - so generally not. However the citations in the thesis may be useful, and the information in the senior's thesis could help in building the article - but it shouldn't be cited directly by us. The information in the footnotes - if it is quotations of other sources - could also be useful (though both to cite the quoted source directly, possibly (iffy) via "quotation in senior's thesis"). Icewhiz (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * — It would appear DeBusk's Thesis falls under the category of the second item under Wikipedia:Reliable sources-Scholarship : i.e. "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." If it makes any difference, DeBusk's Bibliography, beginning at p. 37, is quite impressive. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It does not appear that this particular senior thesis has been published in a reputable peer-reviewed source or by an academic press. Am I missing something? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * While there is no actual mention of a specific press, the Thesis was submitted to the University of Texas, reviewed, approved and signed by two university professors of history, one of them a Dean, and professionally printed. University presses are normally used in this capacity. Is there anyway we can AGF on that detail? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Nearly every thesis (at least in US/Canadian universities) is submitted to a university for publication after having been reviewed and approved by multiple professors of the relevant subject. If we AGF on that detail in this case, we would need to do so in pretty much every case; what then would be the point of having that guideline at all? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some degree of oversight and peer review from faculty at a university for these kinds of publications. Better than you would get from a newspaper so i would think it is a pretty decent source to cite. But if you find better sources, then those should be used instead. This could be a supporting source. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a publication (no publisher other than the university/author themselves - this isn't an academic press) - it's a thesis that is available online. Yes - it was read and signed off by two professors (though their examination may have been cursory - a senior's thesis would generally be reviewed less than a phd or master's thesis). It seems well written, cited, and is probably better than a random blog on the internet. However, it is not a published reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. Nor are term papers (that are also vetted by the course instructor - who may be a professor - such vetting or grading does not constitute being "vetted by the scholarly community"). The B.A. thesis was cited once by others (per google scholar) - in this book. That's not a wide impact. You could use this thesis to help build the article (e.g. by reading it, using the sources cited in it) - but it is not a RS for Wikipedia purposes. Icewhiz (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, fair enough. Yes, I will try to refer to the cites that are used within DeBusk's work. DeBusk is sometimes used as a cite in conjunction with other cites/sources, so hopefully I will not have my nose stuck in a bunch of other books and online sources for too long trying to find substitutes.


 * I noticed my nomination is no longer in the DYK Queue, or anywhere, so I'm wondering if I still can resubmit the nomination once this sourcing issue is resolved in a day or two. In any case, thanks to everyone for their time and effort spent on the nomination/article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Once the sourcing and the other issue mentioned on the nom page have been resolved, the article can be re-reviewed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This is actually a situation where referring to the cites within probably won't provide access to everything in the thesis. A considerable portion is cited to primary sources. I looked into this further to see if the author ever published this content somewhere else, perhaps under a different title, but came up with bupkis. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It clearly does not meet scholarship. That does not mean everything sourced to it should be deleted, but that it should be treated as unsourced material. TFD (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The issue's been resolved so I'm just adding my 2¢ as an academic to support what Icewhiz said above: theses, by default, are much lower quality sources than actual academic publications; profs understand that they are written to pass a course, not for the scholarly community, and are generally not going to impose anywhere near the same standards as they would if they were peer-reviewing them. So the fact that a thesis might go past the same pairs of eyes as an academic article does not mean much by itself. Citing PhD dissertations is pretty common, masters work is unusual but I've seen it, a BA thesis pretty much never since it's not generally expected that people make original contributions to a field until graduate level (so it's impressive this one got any at all). Although this thesis might be the first work to make use of certain primary sources, by default I would not consider its synthesis to be reliable. Cheers —Nizolan (talk · c.) 01:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Incidentally having looked at the GBooks link Icewhiz provided it appears to just be listed in the bibliography and isn't actually cited. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 01:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

~ free map tools ~
Is free map tools good enough as a RS to use for distance calculations ~ thanks in advance for your answer ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It's a set of tools, I find it hard to imagine citing it for a fact. It's like citing a tape measure - "it's a very reliable tape measure, from Black & Decker, used by all the experts…". --GRuban (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Maxit for WeChat
Is Maxit (maxit.my) page titled "WeChat Forges Partnership with Chatime" a reliable source for the claim "In 2013, WeChat, announces their partnership with Chatime." in the WeChat article? —  Newslinger  talk   22:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Reliable source or not, it’s a pointless sentence written in PR speak that tells us nothing. What is the “partnership”? What does it seek to achieve? Six years later, what is its status? Just delete it, I reckon. —Mkativerata (talk) 01:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And I should add that the source cited is clearly a regurgitated press release and shouldn’t be relied upon. The “for more information please visit” the companies’ website bit at the bottom is the giveaway. —Mkativerata (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This does not look like a reliable source. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Sounds WP:UNDUE to me. Partnerships between social networks and retail outlets are routine and common. I don't see anything special about this partnership between WeChat and Chatime. feminist (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, everyone, for your input. The discussion has been continued at . —  Newslinger  talk   22:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Spam blacklist proposal for Google Drive
You are invited to comment on a proposal to add Google Drive to the spam blacklist. The discussion is at this section on the talk page. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 22:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Review School of Economic Science article
Amid my response to WP:TOOLONG tags at this article I'm hereby requesting a general review for non-RS or self-published sources, and opinion on what should be done about them if there are any. For starters I'm unsure about these:

Seperately, there was a discussion at the article Talk some time ago about the use of Shepheard-Walyn (publishers) LTD, with user opinions that it is a self-publishing firm personally close to the School of Economic Science. It would be good to have the final word on that here; as far as I'm aware self-publishing and proximity to the subject would not disqualify its publications as sources for the article, but it might have a bearing on how they are used and the prominence they are given. Comments please. Cheers, --Roberthall7 (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * For fear this will be ignored if you only give links, here's a quick copy-and-paste compilation from them.
 * 1 Insight is better than ice cream, Frank Crocitto, Candlepower Communications, ©2000.
 * 2 Moving against the stream : the birth of a new Buddhist movement, Sangharakshita, Bhikshu, Windhorse, ©2003.
 * 3 Confusion no more : for the spiritual seeker, Ramesh S Balsekar, Watkins, 2007.
 * 4 Nothing left over : a plain and simple life, Toinette Lippe, J.P. Tarcher/Putnam, ©2002.
 * 5 People almanac. 2003, Cader Books, ©2002.
 * 6 There's no more dying then : words of comfort and illumination. Stephanie Wilson, Shepheard-Walwyn (Publishers) Ltd, 2007.
 * 7 The book of one : the ancient wisdom of Advaita, Dennis Waite, O Books, 2010.
 * 8 Back to the truth : 5000 years of Advaita, Dennis Waite, O Books, 2007.
 * A quick look around yields
 * 1 It seems Candlepower Communications have only published two books, both by Frank Crocitto.
 * 2 Windhorse is a specialist publisher, a registered charity whose annual accounts show sales exceeding other income.
 * 5 An annual publication from People, so might fail WP:BLPRS.
 * 7 & 8 O Books was the original name and is now an imprint of John Hunt Publishing, described as "has been reinventing itself as a trade and co-operative publisher". "Regardless of whether a book is submitted and accepted with an author subsidy or not, according to John Hunt Publishing, ‘every title gets treated the same. No bookshop or reviewer is going to know if one title or another has had a subsidy.’" suggesting a significant number of authors pay for publication. No indication of editorial oversight. 92.19.31.86 (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Nice work. Do we concur (3) is Watkins Books, the publisher of esoterica? Do we concur it's in the spirituality genre? Do we concur (4) is the same publisher as TarcherPerigee, the Penguin subsidiary? Do we concur it's in the spirituality genre? Or autobiography? Are we able to rule these two in as RS for the purpose of WP:V referencing the opinion / POV of each author? -Roberthall7 (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * (3) and (4) may well be those publishers; I haven't checked. Any mention of the genre by the publisher should be treated only as an aid to bookshops when buying and shelving stock. It does not indicate whether a source is reliable. You last question opens a can of worms and it's not possible to write you a blank cheque. It varies how we treat authors' statements about themselves. It does seem you don't have access to those sources, so it would be dangerous to take a brief quotation or a Google snippet and assume it couldn't possibly provide a misleading and unbalanced view of the author's own statements about themselves, let alone to infer their POV from it and editorialise on that basis. 79.73.240.227 (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

So to be clear, which sources and associated content do you think should be removed from the article due to RS issues? -Roberthall7 (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed "RfC" from the section title because this discussion is not a request for comment, and because there is currently a debate about RfCs on this noticeboard. —  Newslinger  talk   02:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Citing one's own primary research
This is not merely an AFD matter, and needs checking out. I have also drawn attention on the original research noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur with Icewhiz´s opinion in linked AfD: selfpublished source written by someone who is not renowned expert in the field is not a reliable source (taking origin of the content in that book aside). Original research by editors themselves is an issue in a Wikipedia article, but we expect some OR from sources we use. Eg. if book I wrote about post 1945 regional history was published by reliable publisher, I could use it as a source for some Wikipedia article (note due weight and possible concerns about self-promotion apply here). However, if I "published" my archival research via Wikipedia, that would be an original research. Pavlor (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

La Griffe du Lion
Is La Griffe du Lion (lagriffedulion.f2s.com) a reliable source, and should it be linked from Wikipedia articles? I encountered this source as one of the links in John Derbyshire's notorious Taki's Magazine article, "The Talk: Nonblack Version", and was surprised to see this site linked in three Wikipedia articles: —  Newslinger  talk   01:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) History of the Jews in Canada: "Some Thoughts about Jews, IQ and Nobel Laureates" is cited for the statement "La Griffe du Lion cites the 23% of the top 100 wealthiest Canadians are Jewish."
 * 2) Black elite: "Educating a Black Elite" is listed as a further reading suggestion.
 * 3) Robin Hood effect: "Affirmative Action: The Robin Hood Effect" is listed as an external link in the article's "" section.

Looks to me it might fail SPS, possible Fringe. As an anonymous "just another web site" no I fail to see how this would pass RS.Slatersteven (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

As it seems to be completely pseudonymous, with no detail regarding who is responsible for editing, writing or publishing it, I would say not reliable for anything at all, ever, not even as an external link", and that is without reading any of the rather dubious content. Metapedia claims that Griffe du lion is "the pseudonym of an American academic". Steve Sailer likes them though here and here; not much of an endorsement. Curdle (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your input. I've removed all of the links. —  Newslinger  talk   08:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Using J. Randy Taraborrelli as a source in Michael Jackson articles
As seen at Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 35, Talk:Michael Jackson, and Talk:Michael Jackson, Taraborrelli has been questioned as a reliable source with regard to Michael Jackson articles. Partytemple is currently the main editor advocating against using Taraborrelli as a source. I'd rather get the opinion of neutral editors. Like I stated I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Personal_relationships_of_Michael_Jackson&oldid=906458271#Taraborrelli_is_unreliable. stated] at Talk:Personal relationships of Michael Jackson, our guideline on reliable sources is at WP:Reliable sources. And we also have a WP:BIASEDSOURCES section. Questions about the reliability of a source should be asked here at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard if one doesn't get a solid answer about the matter from one or more other editors. We have the WP:Reliable sources guideline to guide us, and the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard to ask about a source's reliability when we question it. A lot of what Taraborrelli has stated can be supported by reliable sources, which is why it has been relatively easy to replace him as a source with other sources at the Michael Jackson article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Taraborrelli is inconsistent and a known gossip columnist. He does not provide footnotes or corroborating sources of his claims, particularly the more intimate and personal details of a celebrity (someone who is typically in control of their public image). He has been sued for defamation by Berry Gordy, resulting in his removal of materials about Gordy in his book. He does not provide anything better than the typical reliable news sources or official documents from authorities. It's evidently unwise to use him as a source when there are better sources, that value fact-checking, available. It is well-known that the entertainment business is surrounded by tabloids and gossip. Anyone who doesn't approach these stories with some skepticism is, quite frankly, not using their heads. —Partytemple (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: J. Randy Taraborrelli is a notable biographer and is used on Wikipedia for more than just the Michael Jackson articles. If he should not be used for the Jackson articles, he should not be used for any other biography articles. Of course, Wikipedia also has a WP:CONTEXTMATTERS section with regard to sources. Reviews of Taraborrelli's biographies trend toward the positive side in reliable sources. Any editor who has an opinion that differs from Partytemple's on this matter, please state so and why. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just because he is used frequently doesn't mean he's reliable. That's why I was fixing the Michael Jackson articles in the first place. —Partytemple (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Did I state that? No. I wasn't implying it either. Your "fixing" is based on your personal belief that he's unreliable. Unless you can point to a policy or guideline as to why he's unreliable, or why WP:CONTEXTMATTERS shouldn't apply to him and we just rid all articles of him as a source, I don't want to hear it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You've responded multiples times to this but still haven't proposed why you think Taraborrelli is reliable. You haven't refuted any of my reasons. And I will keep repeating this until you do, because none of what you said advances this conversation. You showing more and more that you are WP:NOTHERE to discuss improving articles with reasoned argument. —Partytemple (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Haven't refuted any of your reasons? LOL. And I'm WP:NOTHERE? LOL! I can imagine the many Wikipedians rolling their eyes at that one. I'm WP:NOTHERE says the WP:Single-purpose account pushing their Jackson agenda all over Wikipedia, including at the Leaving Neverland article, where their POV editing has been complained about. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Here and here. There are better sources out there than to rely on this. The best approach is to corroborate with a different reliable source. One should at least be skeptical. —Partytemple (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * In the aforementioned "Taraborrelli a good source?" discussion, we can see that Taraborrelli is questioned as reliable because this The Independent source states that Taraborrelli and Jackson were friends. The source says "his long-term friend and biographer, J Randy Taraborrelli." And then we have the other view that Taraborrelli is unreliable because he's biased against Jackson. This is what I mean about personal opinion regarding the reliability of Taraborrelli. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Here and here. Jackson cut Taraborrelli from his circle a long time ago, and before Taraborrelli began writing those biographies. There is also a leaked audio recording of Jackson saying how upset he was that Taraborrelli wrote an unauthorized biography. Berry Gordy is still alive and Taraborrelli is potentially libelous, according to WP:BLP policy. —Partytemple (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I asked you before, at Talk:Personal relationships of Michael Jackson, "What makes a book published by Select Books reliable?" Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

For others, an RfC has commenced on the matter Talk:Michael Jackson. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

H-net.org discussion (forum) source for Hebrew Bible
I am wondering whether this discussion on H-net is a reliable source for this edit by, the statement being "The acronym 'Tanakh' is first recorded in the medieval era." Are we certain that the people posting are who they claim to be (does H-net conduct identity verification?), or that the books they reference say what is claimed? Is any editorial oversight necessary or are forum posts by published experts considered reliable sources?

H-net.org is not listed on Perennial sources. Prior discussions mentioning H-net but not offering a conclusive answer:
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 14
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 227
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 216

Thanks, —DIYeditor (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably would be seen as a WP:SPS by an expert (depending on the poster to h-net - the people posting on that particular thread are credentialed in the field). Though response there can be quite off hand (so you get whatever someone remembered from the top of their head). So - yes - it is a borderline usable source, though for an article such as Hebrew Bible - you should be able to find much-much better sources (the h-net discussion can be a great pointer on what to look for in sources). On an editorial note - I personally wouldn't place this in the lead (Tanakh is only really an acronym - the date it was adopted on - is a bit meh for the lead (though interesting in the body)). Icewhiz (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, and that is precisely what I said in the talk page discussion. The H-Net discussion contains a wealth of sources that need to be looked into more carefully. Unfortunately, I do not have the time right now to do that, but the reliable secondary sources are all there. Thank you, warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) 16:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Question regarding terrorism related lists
Hi all,

We've been having a discussion about criteria for inclusion on lists related to terrorism at List of terrorist incidents in July 2019 and we believe (as per 's comment) that a broader consensus should be used than just what we decide upon in the July 2019 iteration of this ongoing list series. Would this board be open to hosting an RfC on issues of inclusion criteria for this category of lists? Simonm223 (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

National Post: Accusations of Plagriarism made in an opinion column
Two guest writers for the National Post make severe accusations of plagiarism against Thomas Rosica in an opinion column cited in this . Here is a direct link to the opinion column: link. The writers do not provide any information to substantiate the claim that there were eight retractions of articles written by Rosica, and I cannot find any other source that makes this claim. While both writers have reputable positions as professors at academic institutions, it is clear that both writers harbor significant personal animosity toward Father Rosica. The first writer seems to be on a crusade against Rosica, personally writing to various publications to request that articles written by Rosica be retracted (see here: https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Request_for_Retraction_Worship_Liturgical_Press.pdf). The first writer's integrity for reporting plagiarism accusations has been called into question by the University of Lugano here: https://www.tio.ch/ticino/attualita/1236159/il-docente-dell-usi-ha-copiato-anche-il-papa. The second writer has been writing in multiple publications to rant against Father Rosica (see here: https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/02/fr-rosica-fraud, wherein the writer launches into a rant about Dante's Inferno and tries to connect plagiarism to the Catholic Church sexual abuse crisis: "The church crisis is about pedophiles, harassers, and abusers, but it is also about panderers and seducers, false counselors and flatterers, hypocrites and impostors.")  Sources can be biased, but in a  biography of a living person, articles need to be written conservatively, and the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Moreover, it appears that these writers are basing their accusations on their own personal investigation into Rosica's articles. No reliable secondary source has reviewed their accusations and deemed them credible.

Note that this is an opinion column and the ideological bias of the National Post has been acknowledged in prior discussions:  here,  here and  here. --PluniaZ (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, he's admitted to the plagiarism and the CCCB themselves have said they're retracting several of his works, so this seems kind of moot. 199.247.43.74 (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The dispute is over the specific claim that there have been eight retractions. --PluniaZ (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd say that the national post alone is dubious for specific claims like this in an opinion column. That's not to say we shouldn't mention plagiarism and retractions in general, or even that we can't use this source in conjunction with another independent source that makes the same claim. Just that for a very specific claim of fact, I'd want more than just the say-so of this one article to meet WP:RS criteria for WP:BLP. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --PluniaZ (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

William Lane Craig sourcing - The Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Philosophers in America
Hi all, I'd appreciate if a few could chime in here. I need a bit of a sanity check.

I'm mediating a dispute on William Lane Craig (located at Talk:William Lane Craig/Mediation) and some questions have come up across the use of a certain source, "The Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Philosophers in America" - which has information below.


 * Link to about info of book on Google Books
 * Link to start of section on subject in Google Books - bibliography cannot be seen in the preview. The introduction section of the book may give some further context to the book overall here

I've recommended that this source not be used, and be replaced with other sources, for a few reasons. While this book is titled as an encyclopaedia (normally a tertiary reference) editors involved who have a hard copy of the book have asserted that the bibliography section for the entry on Craig has cited sources, these do not actually support the content in the entry, so we cannot determine where the two authors of that entry obtained their information from. I would think this would possibly bring the "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" requirement of books as reliable sources possibly into question for this entry. Some of the editors have asserted that because the book was published by Bloomsbury Academics, this makes the source automatically reliable, I have considered other factors in my assessment that the source may not be.

Secondly, statements in the article referenced to this encyclopaedia entry are sometimes superfluous to other secondary sources in the article. The two people who wrote the entry do hold PhD's in philosophy, however their works or research from what I've been able to see haven't been published in mainstream books or research publications (there has been some publication in some books, and I may be incorrect here in my assessment, hence me bringing this here). I would appreciate another editors views here (more information on my rationales I've posted in the above mediation page, so that should probably be reviewed for background if possible). Thanks in advance, Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes! 17:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Consider WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which says "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses". This says that if the material comes from a book that is published by a "well-regarded academic press" then the book is RS. As with any policy or rule, it could be overcome in special circumstances. But in this case we have three PhDs signing off on the work, and we are wishing to use the source for biographical facts about the subject. Seems clearly RS, especially for these sorts of facts. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * For a little context "The Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Philosophers in America: From 1600 to the Present" seems to be part of a larger project that includes other printed reference works and an online database. Information about the project's editors is here.  This page describes their content as: "[m]ore than 8,000 peer-reviewed entries on figures from [various places]."  Their about page says they "feature thousands of critical biographical entries on individuals who have contributed to the history of thought and philosophy" and they seek to include people "neglected from traditional narratives" and help readers "explore a more diverse and richer history of philosophical thought." - GretLomborg (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is from a peer reviewed academic publisher so it is considered a reliable source so it can be cited on wikipedia. If there is any issue with the content of the source then attribution to the source would resolve the issue as it puts weight on the source instead of wikipedia's voice. But in terms of reliable sources, this clearly is a reliable source since it is a peer reviewed publication.Ramos1990 (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Question about Quora
Can Quora be considered a reliable source? Is Quora considered WP:UGS? Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally unreliable. Quora is a Q&A site, which is a type of Internet forum. It's a self-published source that includes user-generated content, and that makes it generally unreliable. However, all self-published sources have an exception for experts: if an established subject-matter expert publishes a question or answer on Quora, that can be cited as a statement from the expert, although it should be properly attributed. WP:SPS explains it like this: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Also, Quora can be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions of any person or organization, subject to due weight. —  Newslinger   talk   22:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And I agree with below, who made a point I missed. Since anyone can claim to be someone else, content written under a person's name on Quora should only be considered to be from that person if it's published from a verified account, or if the Quora account is confirmed to be owned by the person in some other way (e.g. linked from the person's official website). —  Newslinger   talk   22:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Can it be used accordingly with WP:DUE if the an article in question has all of the stated multiple issues of, " This article relies too much on references to primary sources", "This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. "?  On a side note I am not sure if any of these aurthors to answering the question can be considered experts in that field, .  The first answerer looks more like an expert in the engineering field.  Although the YouTube channel does talk about engineering.  The second one is an 18 year old YouTube fan.  Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this Quora answer does not qualify for any of the exceptions to WP:SPS. The author (Abhishek Xavier) isn't considered an expert because he doesn't have any works published in independent reliable sources, as far as I can find. (To qualify for the exception, subject-matter experts must have a Wikipedia article or be notable enough for one. "Expert" is a much stricter category than "notable".) And since Xavier is just a viewer of Vsauce, not a representative, his statements can't be used under WP:ABOUTSELF, either. In this case, Xavier's Quora answer is undue. —  Newslinger  talk   00:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Some public figures, including academics, use Quora and have blue ticks like on Facebook and Twitter. Their content might be usable as sources in certain situations, as per WP:SPS, otherwise it's just a social media site. It's also largely moderated by artificial intelligence and full of fake profiles, for this reason I would insist on the blue tick being present when using Quora as a source. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Having answered some questions, no its not reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Dependent on author If the author is a recognised expert in a particular field, then yes. But that will apply regardless of platform. feminist (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a reliable source per se because it is answered by random people on line. It is an online forum. However, I know that some people there cite good sources so maybe you can use those if they meet reliable source criteria here on wikipedia.Ramos1990 (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Seeking some general input on a unique inquiry from a new user with access to a lot of primary, unpublished sources in an official archive
I'm writing on behalf of, who came to WT:DANCE with an inquiry on how to get started working on expanding an article (David Bintley), ideally using a trove of primary materials she has on the topic. As I understand it, Leea works in some capacity for the Birmingham Royal Ballet, and in a capacity that gives her access to it's archives. It was on the occasion of Mr. Bintley's retirement from that company that she put together a collection of primary materials covering his career, and now would like to share some of the information she put together to augment the article. She's quickly become aware of the fact that these materials do not conform to typical WP:PUBLISHED requirement and may not be usable as consequence. She is considering writing a piece covering Mr. Bintley's life for the Birmingham Royal Ballet's website, since this would probably suffice to meet WP:RS standards, and then other editors would assist her in adding content to the article (since she has an indirect COI on the matter) using the website piece as a secondary source. However, before that approach is considered, I wanted to bring the matter here for further perspectives on whether there is precedent for working with the kinds of primary materials implicit here: perhaps I am unaware of some narrow policy provision for these circumstances. I went at it from every angle I could think of without being able to find a way to justify them as WP:PUBLISHED, but being unable to be certain that consensus hadn't formulated a work-around previously. Thanks in advance for any insights. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 21:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If said primary material were to appear on some website, the ballet's website, it would be published. The ballet, if acting as a publisher, would not be a SPS (though it we not be an independent source) - and could be used in a Wikipedia article.Icewhiz (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's my take as well. The BRB publishing a biographical entry on one of its staff/more prominent figures would be a properly published source: it would be a self-interested source, so could not be considered "independent" for the purposes of establishing WP:weight with regard to certain contentious facts, but as a general matter, it would qualify as WP:RS. Indeed, we use biographical articles from the webpages of arts organizations all the time on BLPs. It wouldn't be a four star source, but probably sufficient to source whatever Leea would care to add to that article. However, I continue to wonder if there aren't primaries in the archives that don't satisfy as acceptably "published" in their own right, under some principle of sourcing I am unfamiliar with. But Leaa will have to give an accounting of the materials were talking about before we can even begin to tackle that possibility, I suppose. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 21:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Archive material that is accessible to the public is generally considered to be "published". The way we use the term "published" is actually shorthand for "complies with our WP:VERIFIABILITY policy". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I wonder, though, if the BRB's archives are publicly accessible. What exactly is the definition under our policies for the threshold test.  Presumably, in keeping with out general RS standard, it need not be easily accessible to the public at large, but should generally be accessible to anyone with enough work and patience (and maybe some cost)--or else should be accessible at a minimum to those with credentials in the field. I've wondered about this in the past, but have never been put in the position of needing to resolve that question as to the particularities of the access requires by the public. Is there a policy on point that I have missed? Hopefully its a purely academic point: with any luck, BRB's archives are reasonably open to review at request, which would make this matter a little simpler than I was expecting: I should have thought to ask that question as a preliminary matter: thank you for bringing the standard up, Roger. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 22:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * One would think public access is at the least, a program for granting access to basically anyone of the public with a research interest like most public research archives. But if she does write the article and hyperlinks the primary documents in footnotes than those primary documents are public. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much to everyone for their input, particularly Snow Rise! I wouldn't have understood enough to make the enquiry in the way that you did. I thought it might be useful for me to sumarise the sources used in the creation of the book so that people can make comments on their usefulness as sources. As there is also my potential confilct of interest to take into account, I think I would only want to add facts and figures (lists, basically) to David's page, as the "story" of his life, although very interesting, came mostly from his and his wife's diaries, and his wife's and former colleague's memories, which are the only sources that are in no way publically available (and certainly not impartial). The BRB archive is not advertised as being available to the public, but when people make enquiries we either investigate and answer for them or, although it has not yet happened, a request to come and view the materials made by a serious researcher would definitely not be turned down.


 * I have been thinking a lot about how to approach this over the last week or so and I would like to try to cover two aspects of his work. The first of these is the roles he performed as a dancer (1976-1987). The details would include, what he danced and in which ballets, whether they were roles he was selected to create by the choreographer, and whether he won any awards for those roles. Which roles he danced in which ballets are recorded in two places. A full cast is recorded on the nightly cast slip. All of these are available in our archive and/or in the archive of the Royal Opera House in London (formerly publically accessible, but not currently so due to staff shortages. I also would like to point out that the ROH Collections website - their online archive - is very incomplete and currently in effect abandoned due to those same staff shortages). These slips were given away free to audience members, but were considered "throw-aways" so were generally only kept by a very few hard-core fans. Secondly, the Stage Manager responsible for each performance wrote a show report once the curtain had come down. These are in our archive and detail who danced (major roles only) and make note of any debuts, alongside details like substitutions, injuries, incidents etc. The cast slips were printed in advance so the show reports are the most accurate source of information. It is possible to ascertain whether someone "created" a role from the cast slips, as the first cast would always, without exception, be on on first night. However, again, a better source is the show reports, which on the premiere performance of each ballet list the full cast as debuts (as it was a prmiere!). These "created" roles are also often mentioned in dancers' biographies in programmes of the time, but that can't be relied on so they should be considered a less useful source.


 * As for awards... David won, for example, an Olivier for his performance as Petrushka in 1984 and my source, at his wife's prompting was, if I remember correctly, a list of Olivier award winners from Wikipedia! The second aspect of his work I'd like to cover is the ballets he has created. As well as adding a list to his page, I would like to create stubs or articles for those that don't already exist (i.e. most of them). The details to be covered would be the premiere date, the company the ballet was made for, the synopsis (if it has one), the composer, designer and original lighting designer, any awards the ballet won and the original cast (if available). I'd also like to include mention of when each of those ballets was taken into the repertory of other companies around the world and whether it survived in anyone's repertory or not. Luckily, there is one published source available that covers all his ballets danced by Birmingham Royal Ballet between 1990 and 2010, published by Oberon Books in 2010. This, of course, doesn't include performances by other companies. However, for those works created between 1976 and 1989, there are two reliable sources. The source I used was, again, the show reports, as every single show the company danced between (as it happens) 1957 and 2019 is recorded in those. However, the only truly public and published source for this information would be the programmes created for the performances. It is very rare to find information available about these online - usually only an occasional, and temporary, listing on eBay or similar. Although published and sold to the public in a limited run, these are really only now available in private collections, in the Royal Opera House archive and in our archive. From 2010 to 2019, I imagine it will not be too difficult to find evidence online (fingers crossed!), though of course, programmes for those also exist.


 * That covers everything else danced here in the UK by major companies... however, for those ballets danced abroad and by schools, I was able to find very little evidence online (as most are from about 1981 to 2010). I was in touch with Hong Kong Ballet, San Francisco Ballet, Bayerische Staatsballet, Les Grands Ballets Canadiens de Montreal, the National Ballet of Japan, Stuttgart Ballet, Houston Ballet, English National Ballet School, Elmhurst Ballet School and the Royal Ballet School, and all I have from them is (as I would generally provide for an enquiry to our archive) an e-mail reponse giving the information I requested. One company sent me a programme scan, and David's wife was able to bring in another couple of programmes, so sometimes I have detailed information. Other than the words of the representative of the appropriate comapany in an e-mail, I have very little evidence for the rest, though, and it is not detailed. For San Francisco, for example, they were easily able to look up in a database the year performances happened, but unfortuantely weren't able to take the time to give me exact dates as that would have meant trawling through a great many pieces of paper. For this reason, the information I included David's book was years only for all performances, rather than an incomplete and questionably accurate list of days, months and years. Composers, designers etc should be fairly easy as these things are detailed on music publishers' websites or on the designers own pages (most of whom are still living), as well as being in the programmes. Awards for the ballets I mostly found online, so can probably find again. One further source is The Royal Ballet's 50th anniversary book (1981). It is a little sparse on detail, and only covers 1976-spring 1981, but proved useful. So, all in all, this leaves a big gap from 1981-1990, where the only sources of information are programmes "published", but not really publically available anymore, and the show reports I mentioned, which have never been published. These are also, incidentally, definately the most reliable sources of information which is why I chose to use them for the book. What I didn't do, however, was to note down which programme, cast slip, book, website or show report each piece of information came from. All the recent stuff I can easily find again, but for everything from 1976 to 1990, trawling back through all those programmes and cast sheets would probably take me 2 to 3 weeks full time.


 * I understand the need to reference correctly, but the chances of me being able to do that for a second time (I created the book on work time) are very small and would be the work of many months outside work. Sorry for the long ramble - any advice would be appreciated! Thanks a lot Leea25 (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * P.S. I am a guy! :) Sorry I didn't correct you before Snow Rise. If you want to check my "story", you'll find me as the Company's designer listed on the BRB website - Lee Armstrong


 * My mistake! I usually use gender-neutral "they" for exactly that reason, until I have express indication as to another pronoun being preferred--but you'll have to forgive me: I've a Leah in my life, so I guess I was just conditioned to see an atypical spelling of that name. :) <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 01:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you very much for providing this helpful clarification. I'll just start over rather than build off what other people have said, if that's alright. For Wikipedia's purpose, "publish" should be taken to mean "copies were made available for public consumption". That does not mean that the copies were online, digital, free, unlimited, or still being made today. It doesn't have to be possible for everyone to get a copy, but it should be possible for almost anyone to get a copy. If you have to travel somewhere to get it, fine. If you have to pay to get it, fine. If you have to be a member of a club, but anyone can just pay to be a member, fine. If the only copy is in a private archive, and the curator is picky about who gets to look, that is not publicly available. If copies were made available for the public in the past, but all surviving copies are now in that hypothetical archive, then it was at least published. If the copies exist and someone can see them, it scrapes by the verifiability policy, though something more accessible would be preferred.


 * I'm also going to partially contradict those above me and say that I don't think "not self published, but also not independently published" is a particularly meaningful distinction. We are discussing documents that were created for some private, internal purpose, by the people they are about. Whether they made those documents available to the public themselves, or someone else came along and did it later, should not matter if it was not accompanied by some kind of editing or commentary. Anyway, I would add that there is a difficulty with building articles entirely or almost entirely from primary sources, in that it is technically impossible to know what the neutral point of view is, including the due weight accorded to different aspects of a subject. If nothing controversial is being written, it's unlikely to cause a huge problem, it's just less-than-ideal. Finally, I'd ask you, Leea25, did anyone maintain a catalog of press mentions? Certainly a lot of David's work would have been reviewed or otherwise mentioned in newspapers and trade magazines while it was ongoing. Did he or the Ballet Company itself have a habit of cutting these out and keeping them? I ask because I know people who do exactly this, and have a folder in a filing cabinet somewhere with every article anyone ever wrote about them. Those would almost certainly be considered published, and independent to boot. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * No worries, Snow Rise - it's not the first time! Thanks a lot Someguy1221. Dare I say... it sounds like I'll be fairly safe with most of the information I'd like to include, except performances overseas, using programmes as references and, if necessary, other documents from the archives. For foreign performances, I could cite a reference as, for example "San Francisco Ballet play bill, War Memorial Opera House, June 1988" as I know that document will have existed, even though I haven't seen it... that seems like a step too far, though. Am I right? Another very slightly tenuous option for any information that a better source can't be cited for, is "the" book itself. From reading what you said above, if I explain how it came to exist, you might be able to tell me whether I could use it as a reference if absolutely necessary, perhaps pending my discovry of a better or confirmatory source. Four books were printed. David has one, I have one - they are no use. However, one copy was auctioned in a 3-week silent auction open to everyone so, technically (yes, I'm grasping at straws!), was available for anyone to buy... the last copy is in the BRB archive, which is available to view with an appointment. I would, of course, endeavour to use other sources instead, if at all possible, but do you think that might pass, even if only temporarily?


 * I have a few questions about citations too. I did keep a spread sheet of exact premiere dates for all his ballets, lifted from the show reports and programmes, so I am able to cite the programmes(I think!). Would such a citation be ok as "Birmingham Royal Ballet programme, June 2012", for example? Or, would it need to be more like, "Birmingham Royal Ballet programme for triple bill: ballet name A / ballet name B / ballet name C, Theatre Royal Plymouth, 27 June 2012, page 6". The latter is do-able, but hugely time consuming...


 * I also have a question about any stubs I might write. I haven't read any of the articles in these old programmes, so I only have a vague idea what a lot of his earlier ballets are about - basically all those I haven't seen. Would it be acceptable, for the moment, to write something along the lines of, "Ballet Name is a ballet choreographed for Sadler's Wells Royal Ballet by David Bintley in 1987 to music by xxxx and with designs by xxxx. It had it's premier at Sadler's Wells Theatre on 13 May 1987 and the original cast were xxxx, xxxx and xxxx. The ballet was performed by Sadler's Wells Royal Ballet in 1987, 1988, 1990 and 1994, by The Royal Ballet in 1997 and by Elmhurst Ballet School in 2000". I'm making that up but, pending me finding the time to read up on his earlier works, would that suffice? I don't think I have written anything contentious or possibly biased there...


 * Press archives - yes, we do indeed, crates and crates and crates of ring binders of the things! They do only cover from 1990 to the presetn day, however. These are all in the Library of Birmingham archive and can be viewed with 3 days notice. However, the reasons I haven't mentioned them as useful sources include, the biased nature of the writing (local papers and blogs are almost universally glowing with praise, whilst national papers and well-respected dance blogs are more reserved. The well-established writers for the big papers like the Guardian and The Times, in my opinion carry a lot of "ballet baggage"... not to say that I take offense at a negative review - even I don't much care for a few of David's works - but those particular critics, in my opinion, tend to review quite a lot of new choreography, by just about anyone, badly. Take, for example, David's 2003 ballet of Beauty and the Beast. After its premiere, it was, by and large, panned by the national critics - at best given luke-warn reviews... 16 years and several revivals later, the reviews are usually very good, yet it is the same ballet. Another reason not to reference them for facts is that they often don't include them all. It's not that unusual for a review to neglect to mention the designer, or the premiere date, of the names of the dancers the reviewer saw or, indeed, to get some of the facts wrong. It's fairly rare, but I have seen reviews crediting the wrong dancers because they have seen two shows and refeenced the wrong cast slip. Perhaps such things are for a later date!


 * I have one last query. One the Wikipedia page, List of Compositions by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, none of the compositions or the accompanying notes have citations attached, just a list of references and a bibliography at the bottom. Would this be a suitable way of listing David's ballets? If not, can I ask why the difference in approach? Also, can I ask the difference between a list of references, a list of sources (as used on the same composer's main page) and a bibliography? Do these have very specific uses and rules on Wikipedia? There is probably a page for this - please point me in that direction!!


 * Pending any further advice or comments, can I ask if I can make a few small changes in line with those I'd like to make, then come back to this forum for feedback? We could proceed like that if you guys are willing to give me that time. I'm aware that is quite a big ask for one page amongst thousands, or millions, so do let me know if you can think of a better plan. Of course, since "the" book was, very briefly "on sale" to the public, and is now available to view by appointment in the archive, you could always allow me to use that for all my references! :) I'm joking, of course... sort of. Thanks again for all your help and time Leea25 (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Teen Vogue for political or crime news?
I'm really not familiar with the current status of Teen Vogue but it struck me as an unusual source for the serious article 2019 Tacoma attack. I could not find any determination about its reliability despite several mentions in the archives here, and a couple cases of editors dismissing it. Is this article reliable for the statement Van Spronsen was also a member of the Puget Sound John Brown Gun Club and active in the Occupy Wall Street protests.? —DIYeditor (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's probably reliable, yes. However, much better sources exist for the topic - if others sources aren't reporting this - it may be an error or UNDUE. If it is correct other sources should be reporting this - e.g. WaPo is reporting on the gun club and saying he was a self-proclaimed anti-fascist. Teen Vogue could be a good source for popular culture, but should be seen as marginal in the context of geopolitics.Icewhiz (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Their news coverage is solid - surprising for a fashion magazine, but it's like the surprise when Buzzfeed News turned out to be a good solid RS too - David Gerard (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It may be solid (at the moment... How the news desk might evolve....) - however I hazard a guess we won't be seeing the Guardian/BBC/WaPo/NYT running a news piece in which they write "In a expose by Teen Vogue, X was revealed to be Y") - at least in anything not related to teen fashion/culture. I'd guess that TV mostly runs off of wires/other reporting. So - I don't think they would score high on the WP:USEBYOTHERS metric for this content. Icewhiz (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * PER WP:SOURCE its publisher Conde Nast would generally go in the RS column, is there any information on the news desk reporter? But I would agree at any rate, it probably is an editorially good move to switch to others sources.Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd be hard pressed to look back and find the particular places I've used it, but to my memory, I have been pleasantly surprised more than once by the quality of Teen Vogue. I know I know, you would expect it to be a source primarily for emojis and what kind of eye liner Justin Beiber is wearing, but somebody there seems to actually get up in the morning and do work.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  13:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually not that hard pressed at all. Looking through my talk page, it seems that this was one of the last run-ins I've had with TV. This particular article was by Ruth Hopkins (who should probably have an article of her own), who is a lawyer, former judge, and Clarion Award winner, who also writes for HuffPo and The Guardian among others. So long as TV is pulling people of that caliber to write actual educational content, then they may be quite a bit more reliable than a lot of other mainstream sources, whose name we don't intuitively cringe at.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  13:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I was going to go ahead and make an article for Ruth Hopkins but all I found before hits for other people were bios on a few sites. I don't think she would pass GNG from what I have seen. If there are secondary sources I missed I will go ahead and make a stub for her. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Teen Vogue made a pivot to including a lot more political coverage a few years ago, and it appears to have been a successful gambit for increasing their readership. I think that the comparisons to Buzzfeed News are apt. I would consider their coverage since the appointment of Phillip Picardi and Elaine Welteroth to be reliable (so, ~2015-2016, although both have since left the publication, they seem to be holding their course). signed,Rosguill talk 15:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As reliable as most other popular media sources It comes as no surprise I'm always a bit dubious on media sources considering my general concern over the over-use of WP:RAPID to circumvent WP:NOTNEWS - as I mentioned at length in the AfD on this topic. However if we must consider popular media sources to be reliable, there's nothing about Teen Vogue in specific to treat it as less reliable than any other source. Particularly with regard to North American political issues, it should be treated as reliable until the happy day we don't have a host of articles that exist only because the Washington Post had column inches to fill. Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * a host of articles that exist only because the Washington Post had column inches to fill Would you care to give any examples of this? For all its flaws I don't think that the Washington Post has resulted in any articles being created due to them filling columns. Emir of Wikipedia (talk)


 * Teen Vogue has had a lot more political coverage recently, and that coverage has been noted, cited, or referenced by clearly-reliable outlets (eg. ). So I'd say they're generally usable in that context. As many of these sources make clear, they have a clear political perspective, but that doesn't disqualify them as a source as long as their reporting is accurate (and most sources seem to treat it that way.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Doctoral thesis being used as a main source in the article
There is currently a discussion over at Template:Did you know nominations/String Quartet in A major (Bliss) regarding the fact that much of the article is cited to a doctoral thesis. The reviewer notes that part of the main hook fact (that the quartet in question) was composed in 1913, which is cited to the thesis, and they note that in one of their previous DYK nominations, there were concerns about using such kinds of sources as main references. The thesis in question, submitted by a certain Sam Ellis, was submitted at Bangor University. Under the circumstances, would the thesis be considered a reliable source? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:SCHOLARSHIP may have something helpful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As Nizolan said in the discussion about a senior thesis (ie honours undergraduate) here, "Citing PhD dissertations is pretty common, masters work is unusual but I've seen it, a BA thesis pretty much never since it's not generally expected that people make original contributions to a field until graduate level". The thesis in question in this DYK nomination is a PhD thesis, which would have been reviewed by the student's supervisors, then by external examiners, and then any changes by those external examiners made before the thesis was finally accepted and made available online. So I would consider the PhD thesis reliable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In a PhD thesis, if it is good, it will be published elsewhere as well. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That depends very much on the time of publication, and on the subject of study. Different fields have different publication cultures. What's more: a conference or journal publication will usually mostly cover the new results, while much of what we use sources for might be the "boring" introduction and background sections. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A PhD thesis is usable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. If the topic is fairly obscure - as String Quartet in A major (Bliss) seems to be at first blush - the publication cycle is slower and availability of sources can be quite sparse. A PhD thesis in String theory or Requiem (Mozart) could be challenged as UNDUE (on the basis of much better sourcing being available) - but for an obscure topic better in-depth sources covering some details may not be available. Icewhiz (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * “Usable” is short of can be the main source. Something sourced only from a PhD thesis is very weak. I think it depends what is being sourced, is it contentious?  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In this case the part that uses it as a source is the actual fact that's planned to be used for DYK, and DYK rules require hooks to be cited to reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think a PhD thesis can be a weak source, useful for elaboration, but it is not a reliable source. A PhD thesis alone could never be sufficient for sourcing contentious information.  I would say the thesis is not good enough for DYK.  I would never pick up a thesis, read a page from it, and assume that I "know" what it says is reliable.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The strongest source:, is listed in "sources" but never actually cited. If the creator had that, one would think that much of text could (also) be cited to that. Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. This should be the rule:  If you find something in a thesis, look further to find the real source.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all sure what you mean by "the real source". Theses often involve original research, so finding the same sources would be repeating the same original research in primary sources. Anyway, as I have commented at the DYK nomination, the second part of the hook - the fact that the work was not played again for about 80 years - is sourced in the article to a review of a concert that quotes the concert program notes. That, it seems to me, is less reliable than the PhD thesis! RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)