Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 273

Using of primary genetics sources at Uyghur (and many other Eurasian pages)
The genetics section of Uyghurs (Uyghurs) is currently entirely sourced to primary sources. This is against WP:SCIRS, which clearly states However, two users in the discussion currently held at Talk:Uyghurs argue that SCIRS is just an essay and thus the article is under no obligation to follow it, neither is any other article on human genetics. They have various arguments, mostly related to other sourcing requirements that I think I'd best let them explain themselves. These are both veteran editors, so I think their opinion matters.

I will note that this passage in SCIRS came about after an RFC on this board.

My questions is thus: --Ermenrich (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) How binding is SCIRS?
 * 2) If it is not binding, how would one attempt to gain the "vetting" to turn SCIRS from an essay into a policy (perhaps with alterations)? Is this desirable?
 * Pinging, , , . Feel free to ping anyone else/post about this where interested editors might be found, I've hit the Wikiproject Science, Genetics, Asia, Central Asia, East Asia and the talk for WP:SCIRS.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Worth noting: simialr discussion is happening at Talk:Turkmens and conflict has errupted over a large number of Eurasian articles over this issue.
 * Adding pings for participants in previous RfC, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .--Ermenrich (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * To keep things organized so we don't have increasingly nested replies, I recommend we format like this and give a brief overview. On Uyghurs, I believe the specific dispute between myself and JJ on one side, and Hunan on the other, is actually mostly resolved -- there is agreement that it's not WP:DUE to give Li et al, the more recent study, so much text and a blockquote, and in fact all references to the study have been removed by Hunan without any protest []. He also wants to remove Xu et al which he calls "competing" (see edit summary in the last one) -- no one has explicitly voiced support or opposition to this, but as I noted on the talk page, even SCIRS cannot justify such an edit because you could simply replace references to Xu et al with any of the 100+ studies that secondarily cite it, some of which are themselves very influential [|, as I explain in this diff].
 * Now, regarding SCIRS, I have no opinion on it in physics or chemistry. In genetics, and also in linguistics, I think it is at best unnecessary, and at worse something that could blow up in our faces. As explained by myself and by JJ, WP:DUE should already cover any possible cases where a "primary" study is getting too much weight especially on a controversial issue, so its hard to see why SCIRS is necessary. Worse, it could lead to other problems besides just adding more complexity to the policy set that newbie editors must learn. We could lose plenty of valuable info that is totally uncontroversial and this effect could be much harsher in areas that are undercovered if the policy was symmetrically applied everywhere. Of course, it is unlikely to be symmetrically applied, meaning that it would likely become a mask for IDLI behavior. Hunan seems to think primary sources are the main problem in the genetics topic area. I could not disagree more. My main experience with tendentious editors has been such editors -- mainly of white nationalist or some other form of nationalist, often Chinese -- simply deleting info because it "must be wrong" or is part of some plot. Well, now they'd have a policy to back them up. Then, there's the issue of how the balance changes once we remove these. Generally a genetic study that is RS and published by a reputable journal will be fairly reliable (there are some that had errors but most stand the test of time, and sampling factors are always made transparent). The same cannot be said for the most easily accessible replacement (as not everyone has a subscription to PubMed etc etc) : news media, which often is way off the mark. You can see Talk:Uyghurs for more indepth discussion of these points, and perhaps can make them and some others more eloquently.--Calthinus (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Two notes: 1) SCIRS doesn't call for using news articles, I quote: 2) Linguistics isn't included under SCIRS, so no need to worry there.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * SCIRS does not call for media articles yet at the same time, it positively forbids using primaries to "create content" yet doesn't apply the same restriction to media. Which means the likely result is an increase in the relative reliance on news media. If you're looking for ways to improve SCIRS, applying that same restriction to news media (unless written by an expert) would be one suggestion.
 * I would also like to bring up an example I did on Talk:Uyghurs. Sometimes the available secondary studies are disproportionately coarse in viewpoint, meaning SCIRS could lead to a "big picture" bias that misses the details. A possible example of this would be a fairly widespread haplogroup that is widely agreed to peak in one population. But lets say studies of that remote population alone often remain uncited. What if one well recieved and reputably published but not particularly cited (because of lack of utility elsewhere) study on that population reveals that the population actually has a very low internal diversity for that haplogroup, and suggests it is a bottleneck. Well, I'm sure before long a new paper on our haplogroup in question, let's call it haplogroup Z, will acknowledge this. But our editors might not be aware of or have access to that paper, and even if they do, what about the time before it is published. I don't think we, if we have our study implying a bottleneck on hand, should suppress it. Instead I think we should present it as it is-- a single primary study that found a relevant result that would challenge the view that our bottleneckese population was originally some relatively undiluted hapl Z group, rather than a formerly more diverse group that experienced a bottleneck. Informed readers understand about primaries, so as long as we're transparent about what they are, I think this is a much better way to handle such a situation. Ermenrich, perhaps SCIRS could state as much -- if a primary study published in a reputable journal gives valuable information to consider, it can be included, but should explicitly be called a primary study -- until we come across a secondary study that takes it into account. What do you think of that?--Calthinus (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , making it clear that they are primary sources (in Uyghurs and elsewhere in Eurasian topics) would certainly help, however, I note again the controversial nature of the topic. If nothing else comes out of this, I hope clear marking of primary sources does. I certainly don't want to encourage newspaper articles.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I am commenting here in response to the ping. I've looked at the page section, and the sources that it cites, and I've briefly and superficially looked through the article talk page; this is probably the most that I will do. All of the sources in the page section are indeed primary research studies, and not secondary sources. They are, however, in good quality scientific journals. (Note: on looking back a few minutes later, I see that there is an edit war going on, so I cannot really characterize the sources at any given moment.) I see mention on the article talk page that the genetics of Uyghurs is controversial. I think that the decision here comes down to how controversial the cited sources are (which I don't know). You don't have to rely exclusively on SCIRS, because this is also a matter of WP:DUE, which is policy. I do think that SCIRS gives good advice about the dangers of using primary sources for content about human genetics and human ancestry, saying that these topic do tend to be controversial. So: if the cited sources, taken together, provide a balanced and noncontroversial overview of the subject, I'd say they are good enough for that. However, if as I suspect, the topic is a controversial one, then the entire section needs to be pretty much scrapped, and needs to be written only insofar as secondary sources, in this case scientific review articles, can support. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a note that the supposed "controversy" is not really that much of a controversy. It's merely that some want to emphasize research that says the East Asian genetic component is higher among the Uyghurs, others prefer to give more varied research results. It's more of a matter of WP:DUE, how to present the research data on the article rather than a true scientific controversy - it is just a minor dispute over the relative contribution of different ancestral genetic components. Such disagreements are common in science and can be easily dealt with by presenting different research data rather than stressing a single one. Hzh (talk) 11:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I just looked back here and saw your reply. If some want to emphasize one aspect and others want instead to emphasize another, it's not clear to me that this is really a disagreement within science per se, or a disagreement between editors over POV. (I don't know; I'm just responding to what I read here.) The danger with presenting a series of primary sources in order to cover all perspectives is one of WP:SYNTH. For that reason, it is probably better to base the content on secondary review articles where the sources, rather than editors, have made the decision about how to present differing research findings. It's better to say "according to [secondary source], genetic studies disagree about the extent of East Asian genetic components", than to say "according to [primary source 1], East Asian genetic components are prominent, whereas according to [primary source 2], they are less prominent". --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I also got pinged, but am not in the mood to read through another such content dispute right now, so I will just say this. In my opinion, we should not be reporting conclusions based solely on primary reports using haplotypes to draw conclusions about population origins.  This is an area where even established scientists have a tendency to over-interpret their data, and to follow their own personal interpretation while ignoring other possibilities.  When a field is undergoing such a revolution, as is happening now with the contribution of ancient DNA studies to population histories, reviewers struggle to keep up and the quality of the review process is not always what it should be, even for established journals.  I think we would be better serving the readers to stick to review articles, where a second expert has had the opportunity to reevaluate the conclusions, rather than trying to present the bleeding edge by abstracting controversial conclusions from primary sources. I guess that means I think SCIRS represents best practice, even if not technically binding. Agricolae (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * we should not be reporting conclusions based solely on primary reports using haplotypes to draw conclusions about population origins - that's an interesting and usefull criterium. Compare Narasimhan et al (2019), which, as a preprint, was the most downloaded paper at BioRvix in 2018, and drew a lot of media attention. The 2019 version has over 100 co-authors, including archaeologists, and draws not only on a huge number of samples (500+), but also on mainstream archaeological and linguistic research. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure what I am to be comparing to Narasimhan. Neither BioRxiv downloads nor media attention are the best indication of scientific acceptance.  Nor is peer review - the criterion used by a reviewer is whether the conclusion is reasonable given the data, not that it is the only possible one (that is how we got an upside down Hallucigenia, the author was allowed to pick the way he thought would be 'cooler'). Likewise with this number of authors - while ideally every author will have independently confirmed all of the conclusions, it doesn't really happen for 'big science' papers with a hundred authors.  Plus it is the rare scientific group leader that is able to evaluate their own conclusions dispassionately - everyone is convinced by their own arguments, not so the other guy's.
 * In general, there is a superficiality and 'bleeding edge' nature to the conclusions of many haplotype papers that does not age particularly well. Further, all primary papers are based on the state of knowledge when they wrote it, but a year and a half later when it is finally published there will have been numerous studies published that may bear on their interpretation (this sometimes results in interpretations in papers being 'dead on arrival').  Usually genomic datasets are not released when the preprint was uploaded, only when it is formally published.  It is often when someone else takes the genomes and runs the analysis independently with different software that interesting things can happen, such as the discovery of data entry errors or bias in the way their computer ran the analysis (such as order-of-addition effects).  With this paper specifically, their core result is based on a single sample.  Any conclusion based on a single sample must be viewed with extreme caution.
 * The true test of any science (and the best basis for Wikipedia articles) is how it is received and contextualized by the field, not by the original authors, and that is what mention in reviews from independent researchers gets you.Agricolae (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Aren't you confusing the Narasimhan-paper (500+ samples) with the Shinde-paper (one sample)? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, but the other concerns still apply, and in particular, we have here an example of what I explained - two papers that each bear on the same question, neither incorporating the findings of the other. We need an expert in the field to synthesize what they mean to our knowledge and how the findings fit with each other. Agricolae (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The two papers are co-authored partly by the same authors; the Rakhigari-sample is inlcuded in the larger data-pool of the Narasimhan-paper; and they draw the same conclusions on the origins of the Indian population. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So this is all the product of one inbred collaboration, is that what you are telling us? Look, we can go on for days like this, you saying this paper is somehow special and me saying it isn't, but I tire of it and it is getting the discussion nowhere.  There are inherent drawbacks in accepting the conclusions of primary scientific papers as if they represented the scholarly consensus on which Wikipedia articles about disputed topics are supposed to be based.  Full stop.  I'm outta here.  Agricolae (talk) 06:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what I'm telling you. But that should be obvious. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * As I was pinged, I will add my own two cents. If these primary sources are indeed published in reputable scientific journals, by all means they should be used; they are wealthy sources of information if they are used correctly. However, we should try to avoid primary research studies that a) are not published in reputable scientific journals or b) drastically rail against current consensus, unless consensus has changed in favor of such a bleeding edge report. We should also make sure they are peer reviewed, since peer reviewed papers are more reliable than those that are not - they did survive being scrutinized by multiple people with expertise in the field, after all. In general, I'm a bit of a middleman - WP:SCIRS should be followed, but in some cases can be a hinderance to sourcing, and should just be ignored. However, cases where it is ignored should be few and far between (i.e. where there is no other sources availible)- it's the execption, not the rule. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 00:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Scientific papers typically are a mix of primary and secondary information. The primary information in the narrow sense is the experimental results. Their interpretation by the author in the context of other work is a combination of primary and secondary interpretation, and the validity depends upon the reputation of the author as much as of the journal's peer review.The peer-review is supposed to show that it is plausible, not that it has been actually verified, or that the reviewer necessarily agrees with the conclusions. In biological linguistics, there are many published aberrant results. Nothing published in a journal article in this field can be assumed to be generally accepted by the scholarly consensus just on the fact of it having been published.   In essence, I agree with --it is quite possible at this time to find experimental results in respectable journals to support almost any hypothesis in some areas. including the ones likely to be disputed here.  In particular, haplotype analysis  relies upon statistical methods that do not necessarily have general agreement. I have enough background to be able to see and usually understand the disagreement--I do not have the necessary current knowledge to attempt on my own account to resolve it, and even if I did, it would be OR.    (This is apart from the general fact that all science is tentative depending on future discoveries. )  DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me add to this that the Introduction section of a paper, where an author summarizes the state of knowledge prior to the experiment, is entirely secondary (though not always independent - some authors use introductions to bump up their own citation index by citing as many of their own prior papers as they can possibly shoehorn in). Agricolae (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Also called by ping. I have not much to add to the discussion about genetics sources at Uyghur. Generally however, I would echo DGG's sentiments. Peer reviewed papers should not be seen as only primary research. Especially review papers, but also the literature review sections of most papers, can be considered as secondary sources. If a particular result is referred to as "well-known", "foundational", or "seminal", it can be referred to as such in Wikipedia, referenced to papers that refer to it as such. LK (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Pinged here. The WPIndia project has for some years taken the line that genetics studies should be avoided in caste-related articles for a whole variety of reasons. Those include that they're usually primary, the science is changing fast, the survey populations tend to be small and rely on self-declaration of ethnicity, and too many of them have a bunch of caveats which the citor tends to ignore and which makes them ultimately pointless. The project also tends to deprecate secondary reports when they appear in mainstream news sources beause such reports usually hang everything on some sensationalist hook. To my knowledge, the most recent instance of this is that discussed at User talk:Deepcruze in the last few days. - Sitush (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Joshua Jonathan - I'm positively surprised by the nunaced responses here. we should not be reporting conclusions based solely on primary reports using haplotypes to draw conclusions about population origins (Agricolae) is an interesting and usefull criterium, which touches on WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. In my reading, it also implies that studies which draw conclusions solely based on haplotypes, without giving due consideration to a sound theoretical (archaeology, linguistics, et cetera) framework to interpret those results, are less usefull than stdies which draw on a maintstream scholarly framework. a balanced and noncontroversial overview of the subject (Tryptofish) ("controversial" would not include 'controversial' as perceived by fringe-theorists, I suppose; we're talking here about mainstream scholarly views) also touches on this .good quality scientific journals (Tryptofish), that is, WP:RS, is also usefull. What's also relevant is WP:AGE MATTERS:
 * Fears of WP:RECENTISM are balanced, of course, by the other policies mentioned above and below, and the criterium of scholarly consensus on the underlying theoretical framework used to interpret results (compare Indo-Aryan migration theory versus Out of India, and the origins of R1a).
 * Regarding the recurrent argument that genetic studies tend to produce ever-changing results and conflicting interpretations: Narasimhan et al. (2019) found that the the Iranian farmer-related ancestry in the IVC predates the origins of farming. While surprising, previous research also found that this Iranian-related ancestry must be quite old; see, for example, Metspalu et al. (2011), Shared and Unique Components of Human Population Structure and Genome-Wide Signals of Positive Selection in South Asia:
 * See The Antiquity of West Eurasian Ancestry in South Asia and The Origins of the Neolithic in the Indian subcontinent (both blogs) for further links on similar findings. So, contrary this often used argument of ever-changing results, there are results which are replicated.
 * A strong personal objection against WP:SCIRS would be that it could be used to ban any info on archaeogenetics as published in journal articles, because of pov-pushers. Bad editors are not a valid reason to reject reliable sources and relevant topics. We already have WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:REDFLAG, et cetera. Sources and topics should be judged on their merits, not on abuses of pov-pushers. Using WP:SCIRS to ban recent research on archaeogenetics would run counter to two fundamentals of Wikipedia: Wikipedia provides an overview of relevant scholarly information and insight; and Wikipedia trusts on the self-correcting power of collaborating volunteers to have this info presented correctly. Invoking WP:SCIRS to ban archaeogenetics would be a huge bone to pov-pushers. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Instead of engaging in rhetoric about "banning" sources, just do what SCIRS already gives guidance on. Stick to secondary sources like literature reviews, meta-analyses, etc. If a particular idea hasn't gained traction to get such mention, including it would violate WP:DUE, and if it's too new of research to get mention, then WP:AGEMATTERS policy applies instead. In uncontroversial topics, the introduction and some parts of the discussion section of a primary research article can possibly be used with care, but this doesn't sound like such a topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Either (a) SCIRS is to be treated as policy implying that such primary sources are forbidden, at least for (vaguely defined) "controversial topics" [I say "vaguely defined" because at present the relative pronoun does not disambiguate whether we are forbidden from using such sources for population genetics/refutations of "race"/etc. because those topics are controversial, or it only applies to the subset of matters within those topics which are "controversial"] or (b) it is merely an essay and not binding. One or the other. WP:DUE handles such cases if and when the primary source in question does not reflect the viewpoints of the field as a whole, rather than categorically censuring the usage of primary sources because of being primary -- a bit different. And if WP:DUE and WP:AGEMATTERS were really in total agreement with SCIRS, then why impose yet another policy for editors to learn, with no effect?--Calthinus (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So basically yes, follow SCIRS and avoid primary sources in this case. If someone starts wiki-lawyering to avoid extra guidance SCIRS gives and says it's just an essay, they can safely be ignored. You can go even further to WP:PRIMARY policy that states we can't analyze, interpet, etc. primary sources. For scientific peer-review articles, doing those things is a requirement as the intended audience is scientists who are supposed to check that the methods, analyses, etc. are valid even after publication. Either someone is a WP:EXPERT editor who can evaluate the primary source, but can't engage in original research on Wikipedia, or else they don't have sufficient expertise and are misusing journal articles. That already heavily restricts primary source usage in the sciences. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARY states:
 * Seems straightforward to me: this policy says that primary sources can be used; citing conclusions from papers doesn't ask for expert knowledge, but the possibility of verification by "educated persons." Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Define educated. People who edit here are (almost) all literate but by no means all of them are particularly well educated. Certainly not sufficiently educated to realise the limitations of such sources. - Sitush (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * University? But also experience with Wikipedia? Like recognising Basoo et al. (2006), a favorite of Out of India-pushers, for what it is. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Really? How are we to verify that? And what about people with, ahem, "Mickey Mouse" degrees - read the list of degrees here and weep. - Sitush (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Define educated. People who edit here are (almost) all literate but by no means all of them are particularly well educated. Certainly not sufficiently educated to realise the limitations of such sources. - Sitush (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * University? But also experience with Wikipedia? Like recognising Basoo et al. (2006), a favorite of Out of India-pushers, for what it is. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Really? How are we to verify that? And what about people with, ahem, "Mickey Mouse" degrees - read the list of degrees here and weep. - Sitush (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * No intention to verify that in a formal way, though my years at Wikipedia have taught me about differences between people who are critical, and people who come here with an agenda in mind. Which, for myself, is a good reason, to thoroughly read and understand those genetic studies, before writing about them; I intend to keep performing better than the pov-pushers. Congratulations for the graduates; the Bury Times editors are doing the PR-job they're paid for ;). Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Meta Working Group to Change Definition of a Reliable Source
Those interested in reliable sources should take a look at the Diversity Working Group's suggested change:

"In order to encourage such changes, we propose to either develop more flexible and context-sensitive interpretations of notability policies (in order to include missing or suppressed voices and bridge gaps in content, reach, and users (in terms of both access and contributions) or to create alternative platforms."

Nosebagbear (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Long needed. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The only way that this could directly impact en.wiki is if it was reiterated in a WMF resolution. Meta working groups can only pass advice to the various projects, they cannot force policy changes. We can certainly take their advice but we are not required to. --M asem  (t) 20:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

List of discoveries, disagreement as to whether it is possible to include a Bibliography
Hello to any viewing editor,

please go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Discoveries#Scope_of_the_article, for the relevant disagreement. The contending editor Dialectric has stated that there is a reason for not including a bibliography:

"I support the removal of the bibliography, and the restoration of the title to List of Discoveries, which was changed without prior discussion by Armoracia-1 on September 5, 2019‎. As a list article, a bibliography is redundant, as all items should have adequate sourcing included in the item. I have not seen any other list articles which include a bibliography. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and WP:RFC provide a number of tools to address issues at this page if we cannot agree.Dialectric (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)"

My contrary argument is,

"how many list articles are there and of that number (the total number) does any have a bibliography...is the necessary determinant for the reason you have provided"

I think the bibliography is necessary on the basis of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists → WP:SOURCELIST:

"Adding individual items to a list Lists, whether they are stand-alone lists (also called list articles) or embedded lists, are encyclopedic content just as paragraph-only articles or sections are. Therefore, all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies: the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references)"

Armoracia-1 (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

In-Media Hong Kong
Is In-Media Hong Kong (inmediahk) a reliable source? From what I have read, it looks like a citizen journalism platform with crowdsourced content (ala Indymedia). If that is the case, it should be treated as WP:SELFPUBLISHED. See:

Example usages in articles:

--MarioGom (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Not reliable: Crowdsourced content and open public submissions means that it falls pretty clearly into WP:SPS. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC - CoinDesk as a source
Should CoinDesk be removed as a source from all articles on Wikipedia? --Molochmeditates (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey (CoinDesk)
Previous Discussion: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_251

RSP Entry: CoinDesk RSP Entry

Please note: General_sanctions/Blockchain_and_cryptocurrencies

There is currently no consensus on whether CoinDesk should be considered a questionable source. Therefore I do not support the blanket removal of CoinDesk references especially in cases where it leaves statements unsourced and articles incomplete (including several criticisms). Instead, editors should refer to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.

An experienced editor is removing all CoinDesk references from cryptocurrency related articles on Wikipedia. My question is simply whether there should there be a blanket removal of all CoinDesk references from Wikipedia, even in cases where it is not used to establish notability, irrespective of context? Here is a small sample of 10 affected articles, in no particular order (there are too many to sort through):


 * Andreessen Horowitz - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andreessen_Horowitz&type=revision&diff=899210046&oldid=897849761
 * Initial coin offering - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Initial_coin_offering&type=revision&diff=899236284&oldid=878360173
 * BitLicense - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BitLicense&diff=prev&oldid=899205899
 * Virtual currency - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virtual_currency&diff=prev&oldid=899205974
 * Blockchain - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blockchain&diff=prev&oldid=899204625
 * Petro (cryptocurrency) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Petro_%28cryptocurrency%29&type=revision&diff=899240624&oldid=898403220
 * ConsenSys - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ConsenSys&diff=prev&oldid=899172771
 * CryptoKitties - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CryptoKitties&diff=prev&oldid=899172717
 * Vitalik Buterin - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vitalik_Buterin&diff=prev&oldid=899039990
 * Non-fungible token - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Non-fungible_token&type=revision&diff=899205438&oldid=898660433

So the question is, Note: This is not an RfC for individual article cleanup. I am sure we can all agree that many of the cryptocurrency related articles can be improved. --Molochmeditates (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes all references to CoinDesk should be removed from Wikipedia irrespective of context
 * No do not remove all references to CoinDesk per previous RfC, and instead use the context to determine whether to use the reference or not (e.g. do not use CoinDesk sources to establish notability).


 * Remove it - speaking as the editor in question, here's what my thinking was:
 * In general: cryptocurrency/blockchain articles are magnets for spam and advocacy. And crypto news sites are bad sources, per the previous discussion on this topic - they appear to be specialist press, but function as advocacy. You will see every possible thing being spun as good news for cryptos. We don't need crypto sites - there's plenty of mainstream coverage and peer-reviewed academic coverage to establish notability. Using crypto sites as sources in your article is a bad sign at AFD, and using mainstream RSes and peer-reviewed academic RSes is a good sign at AFD - so the observed working consensus of Wikipedia editors in practice is strongly in this direction.
 * In particular: Coindesk has a terrible habit of running articles on things that don't exist yet, barely-reskinned press releases and so on. There are plenty of refs that are entirely factual content! But you can say the same about blogs, wikis and other sources that aren't trustworthy in any practical sense. And this is even though Coindesk has an editor, I know a pile of the journalists and they're honestly trying to do a good job, etc. Quite a lot of the Coindesk refs I removed were to puffed-up nonsense articles, or in support of blatantly promotional article content. So the argument that editors will check the context doesn't work in practice - using the Coindesk articles that happen to be properly-made news coverage only encourages the use of their bad stuff, on the basis of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is the most frequent AFD argument from crypto spammers.
 * I urge those thinking about this to reread WP:GS/Crypto. Just think what sort of editing would cause that harsh a community sanction to be put into place. Those conditions haven't changed. Letting just a waffer-thin crypto site in the door will invite the spammers back.
 * I must note I'm arguably speaking against my own interest here - I make some money as a crypto journalist, often publishing in these very sites. I know my stuff is good and my editors are good! But I also know there's excellent reason it's not good for Wikipedia - when we have mainstream sources. If some subject or fact isn't notable enough to make it into mainstream or peer-reviewed sources, perhaps it's not notable enough for Wikipedia.
 * For a recent example that did make the crypto press, check this out. (I spoke to them with my Wikipedia editor hat on for once, not my crypto journalist hat.) That's about spammy interests trying to weasel their stuff into just one page. Repeat for a large swathe of the crypto articles on Wikipedia, 'cos that sort of thing is entirely usual. Mainstream-only is good in practice. (cc and, who are also mentioned in that piece.)
 * And, really - you think crypto sites should be used for BLPs? We have super-stringent BLP rules also for excellent reasons. I can't see how a crypto site would ever be acceptable as a source for a BLP, except maybe as an accepted subject-published link or similar - David Gerard (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - David Gerard (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm skeptical of your claim "I must note I'm arguably speaking against my own interest here", considering that you published Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain, a book that is highly critical of cryptocurrencies. How would your !vote to remove all references to CoinDesk go against your own interests? Since you "make some money as a crypto journalist", wouldn't removing all references to CoinDesk effectively eliminate your biggest competitor and/or adversary from being mentioned on Wikipedia? —  Newslinger  talk   12:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean that my own work in the ones I write for (which include Coindesk) wouldn't be citable. If you think you have a substantiable claim of COI on my part, you know where WP:COIN is, else I'll file that with all the other unsubstantiated claims that not being an advocate means I should stop editing in the area - David Gerard (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Your statement makes more sense alongside the fact that you have contributed to CoinDesk. Ironically, the fact that CoinDesk published your opinion piece "2017: The ‘Butt’ of Bitcoin’s Joke" makes them less biased than I had previously assumed. —  Newslinger  talk   18:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Unreliable source - beyond the issues that David Gerrard lays out above, crypto news sites also have had issues with content being gneerated for pay but not noted as such. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * to be fair, Coindesk has never been credibly accused of pay-for-play, and there's no good reason to think they'd do that. However, their editorial line has long been basically boosterism for cryptos (IMO) - David Gerard (talk) 06:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That is fair. However, beyond that for all the reasons you've mentioned, which I didn't bother to repeat since you'd laid them out in depth, I continue to believe it is an unreliable source. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep (do not remove all references to CoinDesk - here's my thinking and take on the matter:


 * The previous RfC did a good job of getting consensus on how to treat CoinDesk articles. It clearly stated that CoinDesk shouldn't be used to establish notability but otherwise isn't barred from being used as a source. Why the sudden change in this policy by one editor deciding unilaterally that they no longer wish to adhere to this consensus?
 * Yes, we all know the usual criticisms of crypto press. That's already debated and known to editors. If there are individual instances to consider incorrect usage of CoinDesk, e.g. to establish notability, by all means they should be deleted. But as long as it isn't the policy, I don't support a blanket removal of all the material from literally hundreds of articles affected.
 * A lot of the material that's been removed is actually criticism of the projects. The bias is easy to understand - a lot of the overly promotional puffery has been removed by diligent editors already. This means removing all the CoinDesk references has made the problem of crypto-puffery much worse.
 * Several instances of purely encyclopedic content was removed for using CoinDesk as a purely descriptive secondary source (e.g. discussion on popular standards). This hurts the quality of the articles from an encyclopedic perspective.
 * This blanket removal of CoinDesk references already goes against the general consensus previously reached. There are literally hundreds (probably thousands?) of edits to go through, and I don't think it's feasible to go through them all to determine if the removal was justified. In many cases I've reviewed, I think the removal was unjustified, and in several other cases, it was totally justified. It's very hard to review now after these edits.
 * In conclusion, yes, there is a problem with crypto puff material entering the articles, but the solution isn't to ban crypto press. Crypto press both has the puffiest pieces and the most critical pieces on crypto projects. As editors, we want to see a balanced article, but that balance gets lost of we cannot cite the criticisms. One editor shouldn't decide to remove criticism and encyclopedic content especially going against previous consensus

I am of course happy to comply with a consensus view that CoinDesk should never be used as a reference on Wikipedia, if that's what comes out of this RfC. In that case, we should edit the RSP entry to reflect this consensus. Also, a lot of articles now have material that are unreferenced. There is a good amount of work to be done to go through these and remove the unsourced material or find other sources. --Molochmeditates (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as a source per Molochmeditates. CoinDesk's role in promoting the use of cryptocurrencies is no different from PinkNews's role in promoting acceptance of LGBT communities worldwide. Recognise their bias, and use discretion when citing the source; but do not systemically reject an entire topic area from Wikipedia just because it is in some way problematic or difficult to write about. feminist (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Most of them should be removed. But it should be done more carefully. A lot of them can be replaced by mainstream sources. Examples:
 * Andreessen Horowitz - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andreessen_Horowitz&type=revision&diff=899210046&oldid=897849761
 * Wall Street Journal "blog" about the same thing.
 * Initial coin offering - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Initial_coin_offering&type=revision&diff=899236284&oldid=878360173
 * "The SEC ruled that celebrity ICO endorsements must disclose the amount of any compensation paid for the endorsement." Covered by Reuters.
 * BitLicense - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BitLicense&diff=prev&oldid=899205899
 * "In July 2016, San Francisco-based Ripple was awarded the second BitLicense." Covered by Reuters.
 * There should be zero coin news references used in an article if possible. Like do you really need to use CoinDesk to write a good article about blockchain?
 * So if it's an important detail, look for a mainstream source. If it's only on a coin news site you should explain why it's needed on the talk page or edit summary. Blumpf (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete all references from Coindesk and other cryptopropaganda I'd thought that this was already a settled matter. There are reliable references to cryptomatters, e.g. Bloomberg, Reuters, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, the Financial Times, BBC, CBC and sometimes in Fortune and some of the cable news networks.  There's no reason not to just use these sources.  The cryptopropaganda network is all shills all the time as far as I'm concerned. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 22:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Do not delete all references. There is not enough evidence to indict CoinDesk as a source that publishes false or fabricated information. While CoinDesk is a biased and non-independent source due to the cryptocurrency holdings of its parent company (Digital Currency Group), I don't consider the content in CoinDesk to be sponsored content, and I don't think a removal of "all references" to CoinDesk is justified. In my opinion, a source only crosses the line when it publishes calls to action that support its interests. CoinDesk's articles do not contain that type of promotional language. CoinDesk is much closer to TorrentFreak, which is another specialist publication that assumes the role of an advocacy organization, than The Points Guy's sponsored content , which contains actual sales pitches. However, CoinDesk should not be used to establish notability (per existing consensus), and editors should consider whether content from CoinDesk constitutes undue weight before including it into an article. —  Newslinger  talk   12:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * To "delete all references" to a source "irrespective of context" is a very serious action that is only taken when a source is listed on the spam blacklist. The "Yes" position in this RfC goes further than deprecation, because deprecation respects WP:CONTEXTMATTERS while the "Yes" position here does not. If CoinDesk is not eligible for the spam blacklist, then there is no valid reason to "delete all references" to it "irrespective of context". —  Newslinger  talk   01:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove all, but try to replace with mainstream sources when at all possible, per Blumpf and others. The FRS/Legobot sent me. EllenCT (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove all. Mainstream sources are fine.  Coindesk is biased, and most editors don't have context to identify the cases where they might be able to be a neutral source.  – SJ +  03:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * SJ, WP:RS says that sources can be WP:BIASED and still reliable. Do you mean "Remove all, because I don't trust editors to use this source in a neutral way"?  That's a rather different statement from the question above about whether the source's reliability is WP:QUESTIONABLE.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes - Remove all, unreliable is unreliable, context doesn't magically make dishonest reporting honest. They have form. Bacondrum (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes - Remove all, for the reason stated by SJ. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes - Remove all - Coindesk and publications like it are effectively WP:PROFRINGE sources advocating a worldview about cryptocurrencies that is not reality-based. We should be blacklisting it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:PROFRINGE is precisely what the problem with crypto sites is, thank you! - David Gerard (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as source per feminist. Mainstream sources are preferable, and coindesk should not be relied as a central source, but it's reasonably WP:THIRDPARTY, and often contains details that can't be found elsewhere. Forbes72 (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove all. It's kind of like using the Discotute as a source for the validity of creationism. Coindesk writers have drunk deep of the kool-aid and assiduously maintain the kayfabe of crypto. Promotional or uncritical commentary on cryptobollocks is pretty much the last thing we need here. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (CoinDesk)
I think we need to be cautious here. Crypto/blockchain is a rather large field, but awash with people fighting over virtual dollars so sources are going to be iffy. But in other fields - for example, video games, we also know there is a lot of specialized media and a LOT of "blogs" trying to be big news sites that we at the VG project reject. That said, reviewing lists of crypto news site lists, a lot are owned by companies directly involved in the crypto game so yes, COI/self-promotion has to be a factor here. Coinbank seems to fall into that but its also the first major site after you get past CNBC and Forbes (which includes their contributors) in this list (which of course may also be suspect). I think we need some strong guidance to white/black-list sites and make it clear that sites that are knownly run by crypto backers should be considered generally a non-RS and certainly not independent for notability concerns. --M asem (t) 23:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "sites that are knownly run by crypto backers should be considered generally a non-RS and certainly not independent for notability concern" - but that's literally all the crypto news sites, though. Every single one. Is there an exception you had in mind? - David Gerard (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I have not had any good chance to review them in any depth, their connections, and how others see those sources. For example, if we have non-crypto-based RSes routinely quoting facts from a crypto source, even if that source is not truly independent, that still suggests that that source would be seen as authorative. All the concerns related to WP:NORG obviously should be applied to any crypto-related article, but it still doesn't mean throwing the entire work out if others see part of it as reliable. But I have spent literally only like 10 minutes looking into this, nothing I would consider suitable to say such exist.
 * I do worry that this rush of mass removals without a clear consensus is into WP:FAIT territory, even though I suspect 95% of them removals would be proper, at the end of the day. --M asem (t) 14:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think your point about RS quoting something like CoinDesk is a fair point and I would hope that has stopped removing CoinDesk as a reference while this RfC is being conducted. However, because Crypto/blockchain is a substantial field we have non-industry sources covering notable organizations/developments regularly. We can rely on them without having to figure "Is CoinDesk acting as a booster of the industry here or is it reporting news of significance?" Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

No, do not remove all references to CoinDesk. As always, reliability is determined in context. Per Obsidi, "They have an editorial staff and an editorial policy. They do issue corrections". Benjamin (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I see one very rarely indeed. A recent worked example of Coindesk being a sloppy and misleading source: It's particularly egregious because literally nothing they claim is new - including the precise technical claim, which was detailed in InfoQ (which is a specialist RS) two years ago and its application to blockchains the same year (though that's a primary source, not an RS, it's the counterexample that Coindesk has repeated a marketing lie unexamined). Will Coindesk correct it? Still waiting ... Coindesk has a long history of repeating any press release nonsense that sounds like good news for blockchain. This means that a Coindesk reference cannot be safely used unless the editor has separately verified that this time they're not just repeating boosterism - at which point you're doing original research and should either find a RS or just not do that - David Gerard (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at . —  Newslinger  talk   19:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Walewyn ( Walewijn ) van der Veen
Hi, I wonder if a book is a reliable source in connection with the person I am writing an article about. The book is a translation from Dutch to English. They are records in the New Amsterdam ( New York ) court of law regarding testaments, deeds, land transactions in the 1600s. The documents are of historical significance and are used for early history studies in the United States.

The author is Berthold Fernow and the title is:

The Minutes of the Orphanmasters of New Amsterdam, 1655 to 1663: Minutes of the Executive Boards of the Burgomasters of New Amsterdam and the Records of Walewyn Van Der Veen, Notary Public, 1662-1664

Link:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Minutes-Orphanmasters-Amsterdam-1655-1663/dp/1377761452/ref=sr_1_15?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1530767257&sr=1-15&refinements=p_27%3Avan+der+Veen

Gabby 17:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It is a collection of primary sources first published more than 100 years ago (author/editor - Berthold Fernow - died in 1908). If there are comments/footnotes (targeting scholars/academia, not a mere edition for general public), it may be useable as a source for uncontroversial facts. However, true secondary source would be preferable in any case. Note I´m willing to accept even such old sources, if they suit our basic definition of a reliable source (eg. reputable publisher and author), but this may be a minority opinion here. Pavlor (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's available in two volumes v. 1 The minutes of the Orphanmasters, published in 1902 and v. 2 Minutes of the executive boards of the Burgomasters of New Amsterdam and the records of Walewyn van der Veen, notary public, 1662-1664, published in 1907, both by Francis P. Harper in New York (related to Harper & Brothers?). "Translated and Edited under the Auspices of the Committee on History and Tradition of the Colonial Dames of the State of New York". The author describes himself as "Late Archivist of the State of New York, Honorary resp. Corresponding Member of the Historical Societies of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, etc., etc., etc.". Here is an interesting description, also referring to related archive publications. Worldcat has it as valid materials for "New York (N.Y.) -- History -- Colonial period, ca. 1600-1775 -- Sources; New York (N.Y.) -- Genealogy -- Sources; Probate law and practice -- New York (State) -- New York." Since Walewyn van der Veen is described as a notary public, it seems the short answer is yes, the book is reliable source for the person's work. Wakari07 (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for links. This confirms my assesment. There are some notes and comments, but only limited in number and content. From my own experience with somewhat older documents of similar kind, it may be really hard to interpret some phrases without good knowledge of then language and customs (and this is only a translation, so some meaning may be lost anyway). As I wrote above, this source may be useable to support few uncontroversial facts in the article (to fill few gaps in the story), but one can´t write the entire article without major help of secondary sources. Note such primary sources are a collection of mostly trivial informations, one must be really careful to give due weight to selected facts and not pursue original research. An article in scholarly journal (even 100 years old) based on these sources would be certainly of better use for a Wikipedia article. Pavlor (talk) 05:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Documents hosted on Google Drive used as references
At Mount Vernon, New York, I noticed that multiple references include links to what appear to be primary sources hosted on Google Drive. While I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of these particular documents, this way of referencing is certainly open to abuse - they could easily be manipulated. The content in the article that is supported by these documents is potentially controversial, so I think verifiability would be important in situations like this. I'm not familiar enough with guidelines in this area to know what to do, so I thought I would make a note of it here and let others deal with it as they see fit. Peacock (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well to start, local governments in New York State don't release their works into the public domain, so re-hosting the content publicly on Google Drive is likely copyright violating to begin with.  G M G  talk  14:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, these are primary sources. Finding the " local press accounts of the situation" would be a lot better than using the original memos, per WP:OR. —Kusma (t·c) 15:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology
A substantial proportion of the content of this article on a marginally notable award from a marginally notable body is drawn directly from the awarder's own website. Last year there was an RfC but it did not properly address the question of undue weight and self-published/promotionakl content. Virtually all awardees are redlinked or unlinked. Guy (help!) 00:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Question about author provided preprint and WP:MEDRS
Hi -- I'm fielding a question about WP:MEDRS and an author-provided (re-pre)print of the article. Assuming the article in question does otherwise meet MEDRS, e.g. is a current, meta-level lit review of secondary studies published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal (which is paywalled), does a pre-print of the article available provided by the author on a site like ResearchGate or Academia.edu or their personal website work as a verifiable source? THX. *Edited to add: I poked around but couldn't find if this has been answered elsewhere, assuming it has would be happy to be pointed to where I can find responses to this q. Shameran81 (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If the author says it is the same as the published version then you can use it per Say where you read it, citing the published version. If it was a draft copy, then you may be able to use it if the author is a an expert per Self-published sources. TFD (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thx for your insight User:The Four Deuces. Shameran81 (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Sources cited by a contributor in Onewheel
A new contributor keeps re-adding content in the article Onewheel (diffs 1, 2). Potential WP:EW aside, I question the reliability of the following sources:
 * 1) https://oneradwheel.com/5-onewheel-safety-tips-to-prevent-injury-and-save-lives/
 * 2) https://onewheel.com/pages/push-back
 * 3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aqExgtYOIg
 * 4) https://e-surfer.com/en/onewheel-nosedive-onewheel-crash/

My evaluations are that #'s 1, 3, and 4 are self-published and that #2 is primary. I don't think that the specific topic being written about has enough coverage in WP:RS to merit a mention. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it wasn't clear from my original post, but I am seeking another opinion on the validity of these sources... thanks! --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC: The American Conservative
There is very little comment on this publication. It is self-evidently somewhat to the right, but that is not an impediment to being accepted as a reliable source (given that all non-scientific publications will always carry some degree of bias). It has variously been described herein as a "major site", "reliable source", and "reputable yet biased". It includes much comment from academics and current and former (mostly the latter) intergovernmental agency and government staff members. Seeking comment as it is a significant site. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 11:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * oops. ta-da! https://www.theamericanconservative.com


 * Most if not all of the magazine is opinion articles, which are generally not considered reliable sources. Note for example the first article in your link, by Robert W. Merry, which says, "The Democratic contenders want open borders and free healthcare and to pay for it by hiking taxes." In fact none of them call for open borders and most of them oppose free health care. TFD (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Most if not all" is based on your reading the strap line of one article then, by this veteran former WSJ reporter. I noted that it takes a right-view above. So option 2 additional considerations is reasonable. But it includes much serious reporting e.g. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/trump-quietly-promises-billions-in-new-nuke-contracts/ Cambial Yellowing(❧) 12:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I really wish people would stop knee-jerk repeating "opinion pieces are bad" as if they were repeating policy. See also WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.  G M G  talk  14:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The American Conservative is the largest outlet in the heterodox paleoconservative movement, a small right-wing movement in the US, and a very valuable source for paleoconservative ideas. However it is still mainly an opinion outlet and has faced criticism on issues of race. I would say it is useful for opinion but should be used with caution on general reporting due to its inherent paleoconservative bias. Toa Nidhiki05 12:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Unclear or additional considerations apply (a.k.a. ). The American Conservative is a magazine published by the American Ideas Institute, an advocacy organization that describes the publication in this way:


 * I would argue it is quite similar to Cato, even more so because it is the only major paleoconservative outlet. It’s basically the flagship publication of that movement and was even founded by Pat Buchanan himself. It’s not really a “straight news” or even news-opinion publication imo. Toa Nidhiki05 20:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I would treat both similarly. —  Newslinger  talk   00:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Cambial Yellowing, what you call serious reporting is actually an opinion piece. The author is commenting on a story that appeared in the New York Times about Trump's plans to increase the nuclear stockpile. There is absolutely no reason why we would use this as a source instead of the New York Times article that reported the story. GMG, it's not that opinion pieces are bad, but that policy says they are rarely reliable sources. Mostly they repeat facts already reported in reliable sources. When they report original information, they are not subject to the same editorial control as news reporting. So one writer may say Trump is a Russian agent while another says he did not collude with Russia. One may say climate change will destroy the world in 10 years while another will say there is no climate change. TFD (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What policy says is Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. But I have also seen this argument used to delete at AfD, and used to argue against using attributed statement of opinion from independently notable authors, writing opinion pieces in iron clad reliable publications.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  01:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's from Biased or opinionated sources. I was referring to News organizations: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The two points are consistent: opinion pieces and biased sources are reliable for what their authors say. Some biased sources may also be reliable for facts as well, if the publishers made sufficient steps to ensure accuracy. Academic papers and books for example are almost always biased, which is why they are written. TFD (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, usable with attribution especially if the author has a particular reputation (for weight). Some independent analysis report it as "unfair interpretation of the news", "hyper partisan right", so unreliable for statements of fact.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 02:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The American Conservative is fine for accurately reporting the opinions of its writers and we can presume its stories are honestly the writing of those to whom they're bylined; it has a legal personality in a jurisdiction in which it can be held liable for libel and it has a stable and consistent history of publication. However it does not have, nor does it claim to have, newsgathering capability and is essentially an opinion publication. One of the standards we should use to evaluate reliability is whether unambiguously RS cite its reporting. When I do a Google News search for "according to the American Conservative" or "the American Conservative reported" I don't get any meaningful results. So I would say it's reliable for attributing statements to its own writers but I would not use it for Who/What/Why facts like the size of a brush fire in Montana. Chetsford (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Unclear or additional considerations apply At a cursory glance it seems factual, but obviously strongly biased. They've had some very nefarious, partisan and dishonest contributors, including white supremacists/neo-Nazi types. Bacondrum (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , don't forget about WP:BIASEDSOURCES. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Use with caution and treat similarly to other advocacy organizations per Newslinger and Toa Nidhiki05. signed,Rosguill talk 04:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Seems professional, center-right publication. Mostly seems to be a venue for collected articles rather than in-house reporting, so editors should focus on individual author reputation and specific articles.  Quality if biased contributors seem the rule, so would expect that it is informed and well-written but is not balanced or comprehensive.  Editors should refer to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and be aware this is an advocacy like SPLC and others used as RS -- and like those, typically attribution should be used per WP:BIASED.  CHeers  Markbassett (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Bad RFC - what is the reason for raising this RFC? What is the actual concrete issue that we are supposed to be addressing? These general RFC on reliability of sources are swerving into WP:FORUM territory. FOARP (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at . —  Newslinger  talk   22:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Users should apply WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Except in extreme cases, which this is not, it's far preferable to a blanket rule that thus-and-such a source is or is not WP:RS.Adoring nanny (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

What sort of sources do we need to call someone a scholar?
I'm not sure if this is the right venue, but it's an issue that's concerned me for a while. At Brant Gardner I remove the word scholar, but it's been restored by User:Geneva11 with the edit summary "Added qualification as scholar based on his linguistic and anthropology publications, updates additional publication)" which I presume are meant to suffice as sources. Doug Weller  talk 14:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would usually associate scholar or scholarly with academic/research type materials rather than commercial work, the dividing line might not be too clear though. On the other hand some eg https://www.library.illinois.edu/ugl/howdoi/scholarly/ might adopt a fairly relaxed definition of scholar(ly). It's a bit generic I guess, historian, linguist, architect and so on might be better (more specific) descriptors.Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The word scholar has a broad definition, so that it could apply to virtually anyone. It takes meaning depending on the context in which it is used. I think therefore that how it is used in the lead is appropriate. Gardner has extensively written articles for academi publications on the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican studies. If a reputable university publishes your Bibliography of Mayan Languages and Linguistic I would assume you were a scholar in the subject. I would not expect a source that described someone as a scholar, just as when we write about someone who has held multiple elected offices we don't need a source calling them a politician. TFD (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I would try to avoid using it unless there are sources specifically using the term. Unlike some of the other terms listed above, it's extremely broad and carries the air and implication of some sort of expertise and higher-learning without explicitly stating it.  When dealing with academics or academic topics, there's a serious risk of cranks or armchair intellectuals (and their fans) trying to present their opinions as better-grounded than they really are.  Crucially, unlike "politician" (which is a neutral term), "scholar" is fairly unambiguously positive in this context - in the wiki-voice, it's giving more weight to what this person has to say by granting them a relatively positive label.  That's the sort of thing we need a source for. --Aquillion (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Dubious report by the Wall Street Journal
This report says that the Houthis warned of more Iranian attacks. This can't be confirmed from non-WSJ sources. I tried searching in Arabic for this news, I didn't find it. I didn't find any Houthi saying or warning that Iran will attack Saudi Arabia. There are reports that if Saudi Arabia didn't accept the peace offer that was offered by the Houthis and praised by the UN envoy, that the Houthis themselves will attack Saudi Arabia (more painful attacks). This might be the origin of this story but the Wall Street journal fabricated what the Houthi said and reworded it. Wall Street journal and Fox news are owned by the same person/Party they have neo-con hawkish point of view. Anyway that's not my point here. My point is that their Houthi report is inaccurate or fake. --SharabSalam (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In what Wikipedia article is this report being used? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , no, it is not used in Wikipedia. I was going to add it but then I searched for independent sources but I didnt find.
 * During an interview with the US Secretary of State in Fox news, the broadcaster told Pompeo about the report in WSJ, I went to search if its true and I couldn't find any supporting sources for the report. If the Houthi said that, there should be tons of sources reporting what he said but I couldn't find any. Even in Arabic.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * see Special:Diff/917210415, it is now added.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I see nothing at issue at this point, as long as attribution is used "According to the WSJ, the Houthis, as part of their cease-fire offer with the Saudis, have reported that Iran plans to issue more strikes against Saudi Arabia." WSJ is very clear this is what they've been told, but keep it out of being the world of "fact". (We have other similar information that is relays from officials through a single source, like US officials through CBS, it doesn't make sense to challenge this reliability, as long as attribution is used. (Note if you are being hit by the WSJ weird paywall, search on the title "Yemeni Rebels Warn Iran Plans Another Strike Soon" through Google News and click through that way, it works for some reason :/ --M asem  (t) 20:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I couldnt pass the paywall but the WSJ says that it was told by "people familiar with the matter" so we cant say "According to the WSJ, the Houthis, as part of their..." we need to attribute to "people familiar with the matter" then to the WSJ. Am I right?--SharabSalam (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Like we need to say people "familiar with the matter" told WSJ? or According to WSJ, "people familiar with the matter" told the newspaper...--SharabSalam (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Then say "According to people close to the matter speaking to the WSJ,..." I'm not saying that it needs to be included, but there's nothing here to challenge the WSJ's reliability as they are vry careful not to make any claims as fact. --M asem (t) 20:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it should be removed it. It is very unlikely that an unnamed Saudi official or unnamed people opinion is worth inclusion especially that we have tons of these officials in the TV saying different claims and we dont add what they say.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * WSJ is reliable WP:NEWSORG there is no problem to use it. --20:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrike (talk • contribs)
 * thats not related...---SharabSalam (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the author of the report in twitter he said this, "“The Houthis informed us that they did not carry out the operation on Abqaiq and Khurais, and they did not expect the gravity of what Iran has asked them to do by claiming the responsibility,” said one Saudi official". unnamed one Saudi official is probably not true.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter what matters that it reported by WP:RS making it WP:DUE --Shrike (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * An extraordinary claim like that requires extraordinary evidences. Unnamed Saudi official is not an extraordinary evidence.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Unquestionably a reliable source; this is a newspaper being used as a source for, not as a source for objective truth. In this context, every source, be it The Sun, Stormfront or Pornhub, is a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes provided we arrange for the article to be appropriately archived so its clear what it said on a given day should they subsequently retract it. &#8209; Iridescent 20:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not my point; My point is that their Houthi report is inaccurate; the report says "People fimilar with matter" told them that the Houthis said that. That's an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary sources not an unnamed Saudi official as per what the author said in twitter. It is also extra-natural that the Houthi spokesman denied the allegation before the exclusive report was even published. I have searched every corner in the internet in both Arabic and English and I didnt find any proof that the Houthi spokesman even knew about the WSJ. Anyway, unnamed Saudi official is UNDUE.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * While the WSJ is unquestionably WP:RS, I think it's fair to consider this claim WP:EXCEPTIONAL and wait for a second source that confirms it. If we did include it we would have to include the caveats from the source, and would have to be careful not to go beyond what it says, eg. It couldn’t be determined how serious the threat was and Houthi claims have long been met with skepticism by Western officials, Mohammed Abdul Salam, the Houthi spokesman, denied Saturday that the group had delivered any warning to foreign diplomats about potential Iranian attacks., and the fact that The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have yet to provide conclusive evidence of any Iranian role.  But I think that those disclaimers put this article below the point where it would be worth including on its own, ie. if we say exactly what the article says in its full context with all the disclaimers, it's not that noteworthy. --Aquillion (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with this opinion, or at least to preface with "According to The Wall Street Journal ..." or "The Wall Street Journal reported that ..."  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  21:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Although I agree that the Wall Street Journal is of course a reliable source in a general sense, I don't agree that in-line citations universally allow every source to be cited freely. WP:RSOPINION allows for a category of sources that are reliable for opinion and not fact, but doesn't make that category limitlessly broad - there are things that cannot be cited even for opinion (for instance, because they have no reputation at all, or because their reputation implies they may be intentionally deceptive.)  The examples in WP:RSOPINION are actually fairly restrictive - opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable, for example.  Rando web pages don't qualify.  WP:ABOUTSELF, the other option for such sources, is even more restrictive (it says it's usually meant to be used in article about the source or their activities - not just random asides in other articles about what the source says.)  More generally, opinions - and things cited as opinions, with in-line citations - still have to pass WP:RS, and still need a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, just with a lesser standard (not no standard at all).  Obviously the Wall Street Journal meets that standard, but Stormfront or Pornhub are only suitable via WP:ABOUTSELF for use in articles that are directly and unambiguously about them or their activities - they don't pass WP:RSOPINION, so if you want their opinions in other articles, you must use a secondary source that actually passes WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems like what WSJ actually reported was that a Saudi official made this claim, not that Houthis made this claim directly. As such, and considering the risk of Saudi disinformation, I'd say that the article should not use this source to state anything as fact but is probably fine to include with thorough attribution. (Something like On 20 September, the WSJ reported statements by a Saudi official that what have you. Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)attribute
 * The WSJ says that "people familiar with the matter" say that Houthis warned diplomats that Iran is preparing a follow-up strike. According to "people briefed on the warnings", not only the Saudis, but also the U.S. were informed. WSJ also says the previously cited "people familiar with the matter" allege internal divisions in the Houthi movement. I'd say the WSJ has a clear motive, but the primary source could be whoever with a stake in the Yemen War. Wakari07 (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Another dubious report
This report. What is interesting is that it's the same author of the previous article. The article says that Saudi Arabia agreed on partial cease-fire. The report says "people familiar with the plans" told them. That can't be true. If it's true Saudi Arabia would have made that public. If it's true why don't you say who are these people who are familiar with the plans? Saudi-led coalition has carried out airstrikes against civilians in Yemen after the Houthi peace offer; for example,. The WSJ, is becoming more and more unreliable. They once made a article smearing a YouTuber called Pewdiepie; cheery picking screenshots from his videos trying to make him do the Nazi salute etc etc. Anyway, that's not what I am here for. I want to highlight the fact that their reports are inaccurate or they have unreliable sources like "People familiar with the matter" or "People familiar with the plans". I would suggest caution while using the WSJ as a source.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So RT Arabic made an interview with a Saudi official and a Houthi official today regarding the WSJ. The Saudi said he has asked many officials about this report and he couldn't verify it, he said no one knows anything about it. See what the Saudi said at 4:20 . I am thinking we start a RfC and see what other editors think about this. I can dig for more unverified and inaccurate reports that the WSJ has reported. Is that enough to make the WSJ unreliable or anything like that?
 * It seems that the WSJ deliberately publish fake news. Probably not for political reasons but for clickbaits, money etc.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Wall Street Journal is a reliable source. That is not changing. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 20:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "The report says "people familiar with the plans" told them. That can't be true. If it's true Saudi Arabia would have made that public." - Yes, because Saudi Arabia is world renowned for its government transparency...  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  20:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * From what I can read of the paywalled article, the second paragraph is astounding. They mention a so-called "Houthi's surprise declaration of a unilateral cease-fire" — which is only half of a declaration that is maybe best resumed by a Reuters breaking news headline: "Yemen's Houthis say will cease targeting Saudi Arabia if other side does same -Al Masirah" . This is the more extended Reuters article. It has another citation: "The Houthi's 'would not hesitate to launch a period of great pain' if their call for peace was ignored." A conditional cease-fire offer is something very different from a unilateral cease-fire declaration. For me, that's (additional) evidence of WSJ reporting half-truth. Wakari07 (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The Internet Speculative Fiction Database as a source for BLP data
The issue of whether this is a reliable source for BLP data was raised on my talk page by an IP - see User talk:Doug Weller. I did some research and found it spoken favorably of in a few reliable sources and that it has some system of verification. I looked at our archives here and found that the issue was raised some time ago twice by User:Mike Christie - neither had a response, the latest is at where he makes some good points. There does seem to be some sort of editorial control, but is it good enough and complete? It's mentioned here. But if you read their faq and look at the bits that mention verification and at how authors are added I'm thinking that the verification process does not include biographical details, which means probably usually ok for bibiliographical details but not biographical. Take a look at Robert Heinlein's author page which shows no sign of verification, but if you look at one of his book pages it does. The IP, Mike and I agree it 's ok for bibliographical data but not biographical. I wanted to bring it here to see if we missed anything and because User:SyFyGuy removed tags added by the IP. - I think the IP is right to have added them and as there has been this disagreement it's probably time to settle it. -- Doug Weller talk 16:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Doug's summary -- it's OK for bibliographic data but not biographical data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, most of the dates come from bibliographic sources, i.e. the copyright pages of books, where you sometimes see birth years given (Doe, John, 1946-) .-- Auric   talk  18:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * such data is usually provided by the author. It may or may not be correct. There's no point in checking LC or OCLC, because they copy whatever the books says without attempting to think. There will therefore often be more than one date in international bibliographic records. And, of course, nowadays, everyone including LC just copies the date from Wikipedia. What this means is that there are for most authors no actually reliable independent sources for basic biographic data. It's therefore reasonable to take the information from anything that seems at least a little reliable, because nobody without extensive research can do any better.  DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "usually" isn't enough for a BLP so far as I'm concerned. And so far as DOBs are concerned, WP:BLP says "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." Thus there is no way we could use this as a source for a full DOB and I'm still unhappy with using something that doesn't have editorial control for biographical information. Doug Weller  talk 18:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more about years, than dates. We use the best available sources, but all sources have errors. There are no absolutely reliable sources, however we may pretend otherwise. There are better and worse sources, for particular data in particular cases. (And the subject of a bio is usually not a RS for anything except what they want to say at the time. )  DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree. I've never found the Internet Speculative Fiction Database a reliable source for biographical information. It's WP:USERGENERATED and it even says here that "the ISFDB cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given database record may recently have been changed, vandalized, or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields."--Tenebrae (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Any evidence his is more than corporate self-protection? `` — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
 * I used to be an administrator and bureaucrat there, though I have never been involved with the administrative side of the site: my impression is that this text is probably corporate self-protection. The reason I trust the bibliographic data is because there is a version of editorial oversight with a record of independent verifications of the data, and because the authoritative SFE3 endorses it.  The biographical data doesn't have the verification piece and to me that weakens the reliability to the point where I don't think we should use it.  It would certainly have been possible for me to put in an incorrect birth date for myself without anyone being able to detect the error, for example.  That's not the case for the bibliographic data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you had previously served as an ISFDB administrator and bureaucrat, do you think any administrator would question a new addition of date of birth information into the ISFDB database for such authors as Caroline M. Yoachim (ISFDB listing) and Matthew Kressel (ISFDB listing) who have not publicly revealed their DOB in either their publications, websites, or interviews? Since a very quick check of Google shows nothing that would satisfy WP:BLP, we could safely delete any DOB addition into their WP articles. Since ISFDB currently lacks those safeguards, is it possible that ISFDB contributors could add DOB information just to fill an empty field by pure guess work with no second person verification process in place? -- 147.202.209.1 (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is a question you should post over there, at their community portal, which if I recall correctly is the most active discussion page on their wiki. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. Based upon the other examples mentioned above, the biographical material at ISFDB appears to be just WP:USERGENERATED and should be avoided when other verifiable sources that would satisfy WP:BLP are unavailable. -- 147.202.209.1 (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Classical Numismatic Group as a source
We are routinely uploading on Commons thousands of coin images for usage in our Wikipedia articles from the Classical Numismatic Group as in this example, or this example, due to the vast number and high quality of their coin images, as well as the favourable Licensing conditions (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic) confirmed by OTRS, available for all their coin images. This is especially useful for history-related articles. The question is: can we also use as a source the coin descriptions that the Classical Numismatic Group provides on their site for each coin as in here. These descriptions are very useful, as Classical Numismatic Group is quite thourough and provides numerous references as well for their coin descriptions, and it is often difficult or impossible to find this level of detail with the same coin images in broadly available reputable sources (except if one manages to buys all the publications on specialized numismatics...). I would like to add that the Classical Numismatic Group staff seems to be quite knowledgeable with a high level of expertise. Thank you for your evaluation पाटलिपुत्र Pat   (talk) 11:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Unreliable CNG is a coin selling website, not an academic source by an actual scholar educated in those fields, and some of their information (not necessarily all of it, the coin description part is usually correct) is quite often wrong. They seem to use some kind of source(s) (Wikipedia?) to give the date of rule, a short biography, and name of the person in the coin, which I have seen in many cases to be incorrect / outdated. "it is often difficult or impossible to find this level of detail with the same coin images in broadly available reputable sources" I must say I disagree on this, I find it not that hard to find actual proper sources regarding coins, which you seemingly do as well, looking at your edits. If you need help regarding that bit you're welcome to ask me for help, and I'll to try to provide you with actual sources, as done before. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No opinion as yet, but I've informed WP:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome to get more input.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not reliable source: I agree with historyofiran. Although I've rarely found mistakes in these descriptions, it is preferable to only use academic sources, from which there descriptions derives (sometimes they are just copy/pasted from there). In the case of the coin you've displayed here, the reference is Joe Cribb, The Kidarites, the numismatic evidence, coin n°4B (pp. 125, 140). T8612  (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm no expert, but I agree that I often find mistakes in coin websites descriptions a lot of the time.★Trekker (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Is thestranger.com blog "SLOG" RS for the claim that Andy Ngo's WSJ article is Islamophobic?
Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Source:
 * 2) Article: Andy Ngo
 * 3) Content: "Ngo was accused of Islamophobia and subsequently issued a correction."
 * 4) The article by Ngo that the SLOG post is referring to is here.

Not Reliable. I cannot tell whether this is a self-published blog or whether it is a news blog. Either way, we should Exercise caution when using such sources per WP:BLOGS, especially for an incendiary claim in a BLP (as in this case). So this is not a reliable source for this content. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Reliable: Seems straightforward to me, and there are plenty of other sources to back it up. BeŻet (talk) 11:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about other sources, we're talking about this source. And I agree that this source is straightforwardly a blog, and thus unreliable per WP:BLOGS. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

No, its a blog by who?Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's the blog for the Seattle-based alternative biweekly magazine The Stranger (which I've never heard of). We have an article on them here: The Stranger. Their blog, the Slog, is at best a news blog, and at worst self-published. I can't tell from their website. Given WP:BLOGS, we should clearly be very careful in using such a source, especially for a negative claim in a BLP. This blog post is currently cited four times in the Ngo article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So not (which was my point) by an acknowledged expert in the field, just another blog.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * SLOG is irrelevant here, since this is not an editorial. The question is whether Katie Herzog's opinion is significant here. I have no opinion on that at the moment. Someguy1221 (talk) 12:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * She offers no support for her statement that the piece is Islamophobic except for a link to an arcdigital article that, as far as I can tell, makes no mention of Ngo's piece being islamophobic. The fact that this is a blog means we should exercise extra caution, so that's not irrelevant, it seems to me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Do we actually know that she included the link and not a copyeditor? Anyway, I think the linked article there does support the assertion, even if it's not blindingly obvious. It directly cites no examples of Ngo being called an islamophobe, only explicitly showing people calling him a racist or a moron. However, it is very clearly describing the reaction to Ngo's article as being part of a backlash against Islamophobia. Unless we are to believe that the author does not consider one to have anything to do with the other, there is really not much logic in writing about them in such a way. But we don't even need to draw the conclusion, since Herzog does that herself. So anyway, I think that's reasonable. Do I think it's true? F if I know. The one author only quoted a few tweets, and Herzog simply asserts it as true. Now that I think about it, it's kind of weird actually. If it is a significant opinion that Ngo's WSJ was Islamophobic trash, it shouldn't be hard to find prominent adherents of that point of view to quote. That would be much preferred over people saying it's a prominent point of view without citing any evidence. Someguy1221 (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If it is a significant opinion that Ngo's WSJ was Islamophobic trash, it shouldn't be hard to find prominent adherents of that point of view to quote. I definitely agree with you there. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Not Reliable The source is a blog and it doesn't have any clear editorial standard. The claim isn't extraordinary and the blog does include a link to support the claim. However, that source is of questionable reliability. At this point a bigger question becomes DUE. When following the link in the blog we find a Medium article that is written by someone who is sympathetic with Ngo. That article is critical of those who cry Islamaphobia but doesn't say Ngo's article was islamaphobic nor claims that others do. That calls into question the accuracy of the SLOG article hence reaffirming the RS question. Springee (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The real problem with the Andy Ngo article
Lack of SUMMARIZATION. This is a common flaw with articles on people involved with current events. Each event gets added separately (shortly after it occurs) and ends up being presented as if it were of equal historical significance to all the other events. Blueboar (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're exactly right. Andy Ngo is a collection of trivial stories strung together. Most of the stuff covered in that article was only mentioned in sources written within a few days of the events they describe. It's an entire article based on breaking news stories. More and more I think that we should have rules similar to the notability requirement of lasting, significant coverage to determine whether material should be included in an article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don’t think we need more rules... just periodic rewrites. About once a year, experienced editors can sift through all the breaking news cruft, determine DUE WIGHT for which new bits had lasting impact (and which didn’t), and summarize the stuff that did. That sort of editing is already within the rules. Blueboar (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The experienced editors currently dominating that page are hell-bent on adding every single news story about Ngo to the article, often within hours of their being published. Any attempt to even just stem the tide of garbage getting thrown onto the pile results in endless bickering and edit-warring. Perhaps there is someone in this world with the patience to rewrite the article under such circumstances, but I doubt any changes would stick. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

People's Salvation Cathedral
This is about. Do you think that the source is reliable or should be deleted? This also applies to the tripsavvy source. The first paragraph from People's Salvation Cathedral is quite pitiful: two sources are apparently unreliable and the other source failed verification. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

On Being
Currently in about 50 articles, being a mix of these uses (as source, mentioning the person was interviewed, or as external link). Hyperbolick (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Is radio interview show On Being RS for statements of people interviewed there?
 * 2) Is being interviewed on the show worth mentioning in articles on those people?
 * 3) Is a link to the interview appropriate for external links?


 * It might be RS (but remember wp:primary for statements made by interviewees. I doubt however it is worth mentioning they have been on the show in any article, unless the interview itself was widely reported in RS. I would say unless it is used as a source, no do not just link to an interview.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So something perhaps like, use them as a backup source but not the sole source for a proposition? Hyperbolick (talk) 02:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Interesting
[https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/wikipedia-fake-academic-journal The digital product agency MSCHF released a site called M-Journal on Tuesday that will turn any Wikipedia article into a "real" academic article. You can screenshot it, you can cite it — and you can send a link to your teacher.]

Who knows, maybe it will show up here too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Village Voice Media
Village Voice Media lists in subsections "Significant local stories." Most either completely unsourced or self-sourced. Who decides whether picked local stories are "significant"? Unclear here. Delete all unsourced? Hyperbolick (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Reads as promotional and self-sourced, delete it. There's a meta level of notability here, I guess - if the stories themselves gained WP:SIGCOV from outside sources or won significant awards, then they should be kept, but I'm not seeing any that appear meet that standard at first glance. creffett (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, will delete at least unsourced ones now. Might be pushback, so please check me. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, BTW, while section was created by User:Fusionx2222, blocked SPA doing promo for company. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

SPS at TERF
I removed this SPS at. There's discussion on Talk but it has very few eyes. Some more input form experienced source watchers would be appreciated, thanks. Guy (help!) 23:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The key issues seem to be:
 * 1. Some editors do not seem to recognize the carveout in WP:SPS that recognizes self-published material by experts, within their area of expertise, as RS;
 * 2. There is also some disagreement about the scope of linguistics as a field, in determining what counts as the author's area of expertise.
 * Also, the editor creating this RSN query initially removed the source based on WP:SYN concerns, which seems more than a little bit bizarre given the content in question and the use made of it in the stable version of the article. Newimpartial (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The carveout is for "established expert" not just expert. It is meant for people who are known as authorities in their specific domain, not just your average professor.  Even if that were not the case the paper makes clear they are using a non-standard definition of "slur".AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * But this is an expert in the specific domain, not an "average peofessor" (whatever that is). Newimpartial (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You keep skipping the word "established". They are both academics, and one is transgender so probably has a good understanding of the underlying content, but I have not found any third party resources claiming they are established experts.  Also, that one claims to be "anitfa" is probably a good reason to be careful using their content that has not been peer reviewed.AlmostFrancis (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see that identifying as "antifa" is a greater reason to be careful than not identifying as "antifa" since the scholarship in question has nothing to do with anti-fascism. Also, the bar is not "third party sources claiming they are established experts" - if that were the criterion, we would never cite an academic unless they were vaunted in particularly biographically-driven lit reviews and textbooks, which is absurd. Peer-reviewed publications in the relevant field are quite sufficient per policy. Newimpartial (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * when it comes to SPS issues, The key to determining whether an author qualifies as an “established expert” is to see if the author has published OTHER (non-SPS) works in field. So what else have the authors in question here published? Blueboar (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

English-language Asian news sites
Hello, I am still looking for Japanese news sites like The Japan Times, South China Morning Post, and The Straits Times. Contributors on this article must be verified and reliable before citing it. --TaleofTalisman (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Charles de Bourbon?
Charles de Bourbon: High Constable of France "The Great Condottiere", by Christopher Hare, published T. Nelson, 1911.

I have found nothing on Christopher Hare.--Kansas Bear (talk) 05:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * He's written a lot of books on History. Actually, I should say "she".  "Christopher Hare" is apparently the pseudonym of Marian Andrews.  See also here.  She's discussed briefly here.  That may give you a start. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * But it's over a century old, & for that alone should be treated with great caution. If, possible, find something better. Johnbod (talk) 02:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Being over a century old doesn't make it unreliable. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * When I was a young man, a common theme in my methodology class was to avoid sources written in the 19th century unless you could prove the author's specialization. In this case, 1911 falls just inside the 20th century but my concern as to the author's specialization still remains. Thank you both for your thoughts. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We aren't here to tell you what to think about Ms. Andrew's/Hare's qualifications as a historian. You're free to read her list of works, how others have cited those works, and develop your own opinion based on how the greater world of historians at large treats her work.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Is a Splinter News headline a reliable source for calling Andy Ngo's WSJ article racist

 * 1) Source:
 * 2) Article: Andy Ngo
 * 3) Content: "Splinter News' Libby Watson described the op-ed as 'racist'."
 * 4) The article by Ngo that the Splinter News piece is referring to is here.

Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Not Reliable. My own view is that headlines are not generally RS, since they are usually not written by the author of the piece (contrary to the content we have here, which claims the headline was written by the author Libby Watson), and since headlines are often written to attract clicks rather than for accuracy. Finally, I have never heard of Splinter News before, and I do not think such a fringe source should be used for a very negative claim like this in a BLP. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment. This question is irrelevant and incorrect, because WP:INTEXT is used. BeŻet (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've suggested that the in text attribution is likely mistaken, as authors typically do not write their headlines. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems more a question of UNDUE WEIGHT. The reader is left wondering: why should we care what this Libby Watson thinks? Is her opinion significant?  Is it significant enough to be highlighted in this way? Blueboar (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's undue, but it's also unreliable, and misattributed since we have no idea if she even wrote the headline. All these points are true. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's your own opinion that you've originally put forward as if it was included in Wikipedia guidelines. When I asked you to point me at relevant guidelines, you never did. We don't run Wikipedia on your opinions. BeŻet (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems mediocre at best. DN (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, headlines are not reliable. Even when something like this is in the article text, it is better to quote a specific critique. Connor Behan (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

An op-ed by Paul Gottfried about the accuracy of a PragerU video
One editor is deleting the following text from the PragerU article:


 * In an article for the American Conservative, historian and philosopher Paul Gottfried, who has written extensively on the subject of fascism, harshly criticized a PragerU video hosted by Dinesh D'Souza which maintained that fascism was a leftist ideology. D'Souza maintained that Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile, who influenced Italian fascism, was a leftist, to which Gottfried noted that this contradicted the research by "almost all scholars of Gentile’s work, from across the political spectrum, who view him, as I do in my study of fascism, as the most distinguished intellectual of the revolutionary right."

Can I get confirmation here that Gottfried is indeed a recognized expert on the topic of fascism (he has published multiple peer-reviewed books on the subject) and that an attributed statement to him where he fact-checks a fringe PragerU video is WP:DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It would probably be best to get a second source that agrees and supports the claim. This person does seem to have standing to make the claim but are they correct?  For that matter in context of the PragerU article is it due to put this much discussion into a single video? Springee (talk) 03:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not an accurate summary of the dispute. The content in question is proposed for inclusion in the "reception" section of the PragerU article. That section contains negative opinions about PragerU only at this time, including op-eds from Buzzfeed and Vanity Fair. The dispute is whether, if we are to include this AC piece, we can also include a positive AC piece here that praises one of PragerU's videos. I contend that it makes sense to either exclude AC's reception altogether, or to include both the positive and negative pieces they have published. If we're to exclude the positive piece on the grounds that the author of the positive piece is not notable (and less notable than the guy who wrote the negative piece), then we should also exclude several other pieces in the section currently, such as the one in Buzzfeed, on the same grounds. I'm flexible and open to suggestion. But I don't think the section should just be reserved for criticism, which is how it is shaping up. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Forget about the outlet, focus on the authors. Paul Gottfried is a highly respected historian and scholar whose opinion is likely to be significant. Maria Biery is a recent college graduate who majored in journalism and mostly writes for right-wing/far-right outlets. Her opinion is unlikely to be significant. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I can accept that, but only if we also remove the opinions from Tina Nguyen (VF) and Joseph Bernstein (BF) from the section on similar grounds. They're also just low level reporters like this AC author, and should have similar notability. May want to look at the assistant professor of sociology too--not really notable at the level of the others in the section. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would agree that when it comes to political analysis we shouldn't put too much weight in the opinions of most VF or Buzzfeed writers. Springee (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to look at the others at the moment, but I intend to. There is also the matter of what the pieces are actually saying. Gottfried's piece is directly criticizing the factual assertions in a PragerU publication from the standpoint of mainstream scholarship. The Biery piece is simply praising PragerU for calling out communism as being bad because During my time in public school, I never learned about communism, the Cold War, Stalin, or Mao. That's it. There's nothing intellectual in there. Biery notes some actual statistics on how many Americans have a poor grasp of history, but aside from a few anecdotes the rest is completely free of anything approaching scholarship. In short, the piece is worthless. It's more than just who wrote it and is it nice or mean to PragerU - you also have to ask, what did they actually say? Gottfried's piece is actually saying something relevant. Biery's is not. So anyway, I'll look at the others later. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the other two sources now, The Vanity Fair article and The BuzzFeed News article, well, those are actual news articles. They're not in the same ballpark as the essay by Biery. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Pulitzer Prize, George Polk Award, Sidney Award, National Press Foundation, National Magazine Award, Online Journalism Awards, and Goldsmith Prize for Investigative Reporting do put weight on what Buzzfeed News are reporting. But what do they know? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Buzzfeed also has a lot of partisan crap []. Springee (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The cite is to Buzzfeed News, which has separate editorial controls from Buzzfeed and is considered far more reliable (see WP:RS/P and the numerous previous discussions on the subject, which have turned up multiple high-quality sources specifically noting the shift that Buzzfeed News represents.) Buzzfeed is sometimes controversial as a source, but Buzzfeed News is 100% reliable and is an excellent source for this sort of thing - they're one of the few reputable sources that goes in-depth on internet culture-war things.  As a general rule, you should check WP:RS/P before discussing a source, which would have alerted you to the difference between the two. --Aquillion (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The content sourced to Vanity Fair is a description of PragerU's influence ("very influential"), aesthetics ("slick") and ideology ("conservative"). The report by Buzzfeed News, an outlet that has won multiple prestigious journalism awards in the last five years, is the most in-depth profile of PragerU that exists. Then there is the source that you want to add: an op-ed by a conservative college student who devotes one paragraph to Dennis Prager rambling about Nazism and communism, where she just repeats what he says, and says that she agrees with him. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. The Buzzfeed and VF pieces are obviously opinion pieces by non-notable authors. But, since they're critical, they're in. Oh, and also an unknown assistant prof of sociology of course writing for an activist group. But if someone non-notable says something nice about Prager U, they're out. One standard for negative pieces, a different standard for positive pieces. It's an obvious violation of NPOV. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, there's one standard for well-researched news articles that provide useful information about a subject; and another standard for an op-ed by a college student blaming her crappy public school education on some imagined inability of American liberals to talk about communism. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. Two standards. Look at Francesca Tripodi's opinion. She's an assistant professor who has published exactly one refereed article. Obviously not notable. But it's in, because she calls PragerU a white supremacist gateway, and we definitely want that in, don't we. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's hard to keep up with you when you keep moving on to different sources to complain about. "But what about this one? But what about that one?" etc. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The argument I'm making is slightly complex, but it's been the same from the beginning. The inclusion of the professor's article in AC suggested to my surprise that AC isn't automatically regarded as unreliable around here. So then, when I saw that there was another piece in AC that talked about Prager U, I included it. I judged that piece to be just as notable as several other (frankly low-quality) sources in the section. So, if you're not happy with that, the admissible solutions, from my perspective, are to either exclude all the low-quality sources (e.g., the piece for the activist group by the nearly unpublished assistant prof.), exclude both AC peices as non-RS, or leave all of them in. But of course the preference is to leave in the low quality sources that are critical, while excluding the source I found. Not surprising, I guess. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sympathetic with the desire of some editors to pack some articles with what are in effect negative factoids that don't form a cohesive theme/narrative. However, looking at the Buzzfeed and VF examples in this particular case I don't see that they are making overly controversial claims. However, I'm not sure why Gottfried's piece is DUE in this case. It seems to be more about D'Souza's opinion vs PragerU as a whole. Springee (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, this D'Sousa fringe theory nonsense is so pervasive in the US far-right internet that there's literally been serious discussion about permanently semi-protecting Fascism since the tedious requests to treat D'Sousa's mouth noises as anything other than WP:FRINGE occur from throw-away accounts with such regularity. Not only is Gottfried correct; they're in line with the vast body of work on Fascism as a far-right ideology. Simonm223 (talk) 11:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Then put it in the D'Souza article. It's not DUE in the article about PragerU. How many PragerU videos have been released? Per Wikipedia 482. Why focus on one? It makes sense to focus on generalized themes in the videos on in the replies. If the idea is PragerU gives a mouth piece for fringe ideas, fine. Find a RS that says so (I suspect that is not a hard task) but it's simply DUE, especially in such a short article, to give so much weight to this single reply to the opinions in a single video. Springee (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As if D'Sousa making his idiot mouth noises oft-repeated WP:FRINGE claim about fascism is the only failure of scholarship at PragerU... Simonm223 (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Then the article should have a RS saying PragerU's videos are often wrong/disputed etc by experts in the field. That would help the lack of SUMMARIZATION.  Springee (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the article should have a statement to that effect supported by RSes. The requirement that A) the article must be summarized and B) the RSes used to support that summarization must be summarized in the same way is untenable for right-wing internet phenomena that live and die by their ability to generate fresh controversies to draw either hate-clicks or own-the-libs clicks. However serious academics usually just ignore these nonsense propaganda sites; as such there's a dearth of summary sources rather than sources focused on this or that specific controversy - as I'm certain you are fully aware given your edit history. If PragerU is noteworthy enough to get an article on Wikipedia (which considering WP:10YT I would dispute) it is imperative we have a neutral article that positions it in its position in reality - a far-right propaganda portal. Excluding critics because they're too specific in their criticism is contrary to the pillars of Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems to be more about your opinion of the subject vs how to write an effective article. However, you hit on the correct point.  If PragerU is a far right propoganda portal as you claim then we should find RSs that say that.  We should summarize that position and include their examples.  The article should have some sort of topic sentence, "Many of PragerU's videos contain misleading analyses or go against consensus views on a topic [citation]".  This would be a topic sentence of a section.  This article doesn't do that.  Instead it has a dumping ground for random information called "Reception".  If the article is going to imply that PragerU is spreading misinformation then we need RS's that say as much.  I don't think that will be hard to find.  What we should not have is a single example of a disputed claim made by a person in a PragerU video in the article with no higher level explanation as to why that is relevant to the broader subject.  Why should the reader care that 0.2% of videos released by PragerU are disputed by this individual historian?  Springee (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the important question from a WP:10YT perspective is, why should we care about PragerU? Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The article suffers from a lack of SUMMARIZATION. If we are going to discuss Prager’s internet presence, we shouldn’t be discussing individual videos (video by video)... instead we should summarize and discuss Prager videos as a whole. Blueboar (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * While that's likely a good idea, it's outside the scope of the question before us which is whether various sources are equivalently WP:DUE. Simonm223 (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but since questions of DUE are related here it's worth pointing out. Springee (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly... Before we can discuss weather a source is DUE, we need to determine if the material it supports is DUE. If we summarize more, we could probably avoid discussing individual videos (and thus avoid the need to include reactions to those individual videos). Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Reliable The source is reliable. POV/NOT concerns are another matter, and outside the scope of this noticeboard. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that this was not the proper venue to discuss the actual dispute we were having, which should have been discussed on the talk page. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Reliable A person whose books and articles on fascism have been published by academic sources is expert enough to determine if D'Souza's "facts" about fascism are contrary to what fascism scholars say. TFD (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliable and due as far as I can tell. Connor Behan (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thesis: Fiji in 'The Life and Times of Cakobau: The Bauan State to 1855'
1. Source. Title: Fiji in 'The Life and Times of Cakobau: The Bauan State to 1855'- A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the University of Otago, New Zealand. Author: Hurray P. Heasley, B.A. (Hons.), Otago. August, 2010. Page Number 31: Genealogy on the Origin of the 1st Vunivalu from Nakorotubu, Ra presented on page 31 by the late Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi, Roko Tui Bau & 2006-2009 Vice President of Fiji.

2. Article. The above removed source was cited on Ratu Wilisoni Tuiketei Malani.

3. Content. On page 31, the late Solicitor and former Vice President of Fiji and Roko Tui Bau, Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi explains the original ancestor lineage of the title of Vunivalu of Bau and is a credible backup source to the statement Nadurucoko the original Gonesau, was the father of Nailatikau Nabuinivuaka, the first (1st) Vunivalu of Bau and Kubuna and link the first and original title holder of Cakobau's title to Ratu Wilisoni Tuiketei Malani's ancestor from Nakorotubu, Ra.

It is useful to reinstate this thesis to the article so that information on wikipedia are more informative and in totality according to the original objectives of the founders of Wikipedia. Saqiwa (talk) 08:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Is this thesis in some public repository, so we may look at it? And no, some politician is not a valid source for such claim. I would expect rigorous research in primary sources on part of the author of said thesis, it is useless otherwise. Pavlor (talk) 10:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The link that kept being added as a citation is http://www.justpacific.com/fiji/full-text/Heasley%E2%80%94Cakobau-thesis.pdf, but that includes all 461 pages of the thesis. The citation specifies the relevant information is found on page 31 which can be seen at http://www.justpacific.com/fiji/full-text/Heasley%E2%80%94Cakobau-thesis.pdf#page=88. My concerns about this per WP:SCHOLARSHIP are that it's not clear whether the writer of thesis H Murray P. Heasley is widely recognized as a expert on the subject matter, it's not clear whether his the thesis is something that other researchers/scholars or even other secondary sources have cited or reported on as being reliable, and it's particularly unclear whether the original sources cited by Heasley for the content are is reliable. There are three sources cited on that page by Heasley and he actually actually states that source for cites 1 and 2 cannot be considered impartial because of a COI, while cite 3 seems to be WP:NOR that was supplied to Heasley as a favor by the source (Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi), and that was simply taken by Heasley to be true at face value. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to clarify and for copyediting purposes; added content is underlined and removed content is strickenout. -- 01:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)] <[Note:Post edited once again by Marchjuly to correct name of the thesis writer. -- 01:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)]
 * Thanks. It is obvious the author of said thesis himself sees this issue as unresolved. Giving a definitive answer in Wikipedia voice would be certainly a misuse of this source. Source is useable, but not in the way presented by OP. Pavlor (talk) 05:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Let me clarify that Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi was not a politician but an appointee to the position of Vice President of Fiji. He was also a Roko Tui Bau with obvious historical knowledge of the title of the Vunivalu of Bau. It would be unfair to totally dismiss his claims as he was a solicitor, as he had backed up his source from the Native Lands Commission (NLC) records of 'Tukutuku ni Yavusa o Kubuna' of the Bau commission hearing of 1929. Saqiwa (talk) 07:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If the original source is not the thesis or Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi, but rather "the Native Lands Commission (NLC) records of 'Tukutuku ni Yavusa o Kubuna' of the Bau commission hearing of 1929" then that's what should be cited if those records are considered to be a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. Wikipedia doesn't try to cite content from a book by providing a citation to a person who might have read the book; it cites the actual book instead. So, the original source material should be cited whenever possible, but only if it's reliable and only if it's accessible as explained in WP:PUBLISH.The records of a commission hearing sound like a primary source to me, and such a source may be used to support certain factual statements as long as the records can be accessed and verified by someone if necessary. Wikipedia editors cannot, however, interpret such primary sources per WP:SYN and it cannot cite such interpretations made by others unless those others are considered reliable sources. So, Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi's interpretations or recollections of what was discussed or determined at that commission's hearing most likely cannot be used per WP:NOR.There is another problem that was pointed out by an administrator named when I asked her about something related to this, and that problem has to do with WP:COPYLINK and WP:ELNEVER. Wikipedia can only link to content (including citations) where it reasonable to believe that the cite hosting the content is doing so with the permission of the original copyright holder. Diannaa is quite experienced when it comes to sorting out copyright matters on Wikipedia and her opinion is that the website hosting the thesis is not the original source of the thesis and it also doesn't seem to have permission to host the thesis from its copyright holder. So, unless it can be verified that the website does have permission, a link to it on that website cannot be added (even as part of a citation) to a Wikipedia article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no need to have direct link to the thesis (or any other "offline" source), informations about publisher etc. (or university library where the thesis is available in this case) should be enough. In general, thesis for doctoral degree is useable as a reliable source - with usual caveat of due weight. Is there any other higher quality source (I mean in respected peer reviewed journal) concerning this obscure ancestry topic? Note the thesis we discuss here is not useable as a source for claim presented above, because that is not what its author wrote (he presents two views, not a single one). On a side note, I don´t share your POV about citing de facto primary source. Thesis (or even better peer reviewed article in high quality journal or a book from a renowned scholar) is a secondary, independent, reliable source we are looking for. Pavlor (talk) 05:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I should've clarified above that WP:SAYWHERE is fine when citing a source as long as it's considered reliable (this includes being published and reasonably accessible, i.e. not in someone's private collection or otherwise has severely restricted access). I didn't mean the thesis couldn't be cited if it wasn't available online somewhere. As for my POV, I think the original source could simply be cited in support of certain facts, but that it would be better supported by a secondary source (e.g. to a thesis) for interpretation purposes. Anyway, FWIW, I did Google "Hurray P. Heasley", the writer of the thesis, and the first two hits were Kubuna and Vunivalu of Bau because these are also articles where Saqiwa has cited the thesis as a source or otherwise added it as a link. Another hit was to the website hosting the thesis and another one was to a book on semantics that Heasley co-authored. I'm not, however, finding this thesis or anything else related to this written by Heasley published in peer-reviewed journals or being cited by others in such journals or books. Moreover, I tried getting feedback on this at WP:FIJI but never got a response. I also really just came across this article via a question at the Teahouse posted by Saqiwa a few weeks back and was trying to help him resolve the issues he was having with another editor named challenging his edits, particularly the sources being added as citations. That's the reason I actually suggested Saqiwa bring this up for discussion here so that get feedback from others, and I'm fine with whatever the consensus turns out to be. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's clear from Heasley that these genealogies are contentious and exist in many different versions. So even if one specific genealogy at the NLC says one thing, it's undue and bias to select it over the others. Either all variants should be presented or none. In this case, as it's all primary sources, probably none. If only one genealogy is discussed then it will have to be qualified as one variant among many. It's Murray Heasley, by the way, not Hurray. DrKay (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the thesis writer's correct name. I should've caught that myself, and shouldn't have assumed the name in the citation was automatically correct. FWIW, there are a number of hits for "Murray P. Heasley" who's an academic, but most seem to be related to something unrelated to this type of content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Most of reaction is tweet
Is it allowed to use tweets for reactions section in Sahar Khodayari, as a result, most of the section included the following tweets?Saff V. (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * FIFA made a statement about Khodayari's death: "We are aware of that tragedy and deeply regret it."
 * Paul Pogba, French footballer, tweeted: "Strength and prayers to family and friends of blue girl, Sahar Khodayari"
 * Masoud Shojaei, Iranian football team captain, expressed his sorrow after Iran's win over Hong Kong on 11 September 2019: "Condolences, girls of Iran. Today, Team Melli lost because Sahar wasn't with us".
 * Spanish Club FC Barcelona said: "FC Barcelona is very sorry to hear about the death of Sahar Khodayari, may she rest in peace. Football is a game for everyone - men AND women, and everyone should be able to enjoy the beautiful game together in stadiums."
 * Farah Pahlavi, the last Shahbanu of Iran, tweeted a statement saying: "Sahar, one of the symbols of the Iranian women's fight against the Islamic regime, will be remembered forever."
 * English Club Chelsea FC said: "We were deeply saddened to hear of the death of Sahar Khodayari. Football is a sport for all and we believe stadiums must be open to all."
 * Spanish Club Real Betis said: "Even if a few days have gone by, we don't want to forget about this. For respect, tolerance and equality. Men and women. Boys and girls. Stadiums are for everyone. Today we turn blue in memory of Sahar Khodayari."
 * Spanish Club RC Celta de Vigo tweeted: "The sport that we all love, should love us all. RIP #SaharKhodayari"
 * Fran Beltrán, Spanish footballer, tweeted: "The most beautiful sport should not exclude anyone. Stadium never without women. This is about human rights."


 * There is no point, none of these reactions are notable or interesting. These sorts of comments will come up when anybody notable dies, and shouldn't be included in an article unless exceptional coverage has been generated about the tweets themselves. Zortwort (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My thoughts... instead of listing each “reaction” separately (which gives each individual reaction undue weight)... SUMMARIZE them. Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes if there were reliable source, you would be right and we have to summarize but now there is not reliable source!Saff V. (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not original research to observe that several clubs/other related people expressed condolances and thus summarize it that way. That is definitely not a contentious fact that would need more explicit sourcing for to summarize.  You can still use all the same twitter sources but just group them as a single grouped ref. --M asem  (t) 17:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You definitely can't summarise them because they are tweets= primary sources and so that would be original research. I think we need secondary sources so that we can be sure their reaction is notable.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Spacefacts
Spacefacts is being used as a reference at Hazza Al Mansouri. The website has a somewhat amateur look, like the websites I was making in the mid '90s. The only page that provides any real information about the website gives the strong impression that it's little more than a fansite. Neither of the people listed on the page seem notable and I was surprised to find that the website actually has an article on Wikipedia. Opinions? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah... it is a non-expert fan site. The major contributors are not scientists or engineers (one is a lawyer, the other a community administrator).  Not reliable.  And I too question whether we should have an article devoted to it (its major claim to notability seems to be that it is cited a lot on the German Language WP.) Blueboar (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not reliable, in my opinion. Even if its content is factual it's not a suitable source for anything. I've also nominated the Spacefacts page for speedy deletion as there is no indication of notability. Zortwort (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Taki's Magazine
I've seen Taki's Magazine listed as a source a number of times recently and I'm worried by its use, it appears to be something similar to Breitbart. Before I go removing it and related claims from articles I'd like some feedback regarding its reliability. Which of the following best describes the reliability of Taki's 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

Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Pure opinion, not reporting--and not particularly good at it. It's not as reckless as Breitbart, but that isn't saying much. Opinion is never a reliable source for anything other than the view of the author, and I don't think their authors are notable enough to have views worth including.  DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely unreliable - it's well-known for publishing racist garbage. Its managing editor was once noted neo-Nazi and white supremacist Richard Spencer, and it counts among its contributors a number of fringe extremist racists such as Peter Brimelow and John Derbyshire (fired from National Review once his white supremacist work at Taki's Mag became publicly known) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 3 or 4. Taki's Magazine (a.k.a. Taki's Mag or Takimag) occupies a similar niche as VDARE, which was deprecated in December 2018. The site is biased or opinionated, and its published opinions are very likely to constitute undue weight. Taki's Magazine 's reputation has been panned by a number of reliable sources:


 * We should not be using this. I am loathe to option-4 this without clear indication of fabrication - however it is fairly obvious we should not be using a far-right publication - mostly UNDUE for opinion, and lacking a reputation for fact checking.Icewhiz (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Bad RfC. The claim is it was "isted as a source a number of times recently" but not a shred of a hint of where or how. No evidence that there is a dispute requiring an RfC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not claiming anything, I'm asking about the general reliability of a source. Bacondrum (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You did indeed claim to have seen it used, or you wouldn't have been considering this post. But here on Wikipedia, we have no such thing known as "general reliability" of sources: sources are evaluated based on their ability to support various types of claims. A research study on the efficacy of aspirin is not "generally reliable" for the miracles of Jesus; the Gospel of Luke is not "generally reliable" for the efficacy of aspirin to treat headaches (despite Luke being a physician.) So this gives rise to the perennial objection to these generalized and context-free RFCs about "general reliability" of sources - yes, some sources like the Daily Mail are "generally unreliable" but we can't claim the converse: we need context about what type of claims are being made, in order to correlate them with the purview of the source in question. Only then can we evaluate reliability. So I hope you will understand the necessity of you producing some context, such as where this source was cited, and for what types of facts it is being invoked. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, so what if I never saw it used, what difference would it make? I want to know if other editors think it's reliable, it's called seeking consensus...What on Earth could possibly be wrong with that? Bacondrum (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't see how it makes any difference - if the source is unreliable, then that's what it is, but here's the version of the page that I first saw it on. I removed it as it was obviously not even close to good enough. Upon reading the source I was shocked at the quality of the publication (or lack thereof), I then noticed the same crappy source used on related pages (all of which appeared to have suffered from extensive tendentious editing), so I made the request, to see what other editors thought of the thing. Bacondrum (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "here on Wikipedia, we have no such thing known as "general reliability" of sources: sources are evaluated based on their ability to support various types of claims" Obviously false, as demonstrated here and here. Yes, context absolutely matters, but we do have standards for general reliability, claims to the contrary are demonstrably false. Bacondrum (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was going to respond here, but my response is better suited for the RfC below, which focuses on this matter. —  Newslinger  talk   01:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Endorse RfC. The domain is currently used in 69 articles. A number of these citations should be removed because the referenced articles are used for factual information, for which Taki's Magazine is generally unreliable, e.g. the citations in Don't Trust the B in Apartment 23, 2010s in fashion, and Tropicana Casino & Resort Atlantic City. Some of these citations should be removed because they constitute undue weight, e.g. the citations in God Is Not Great, Death Wish (1974 film), and The New Art Gallery Walsall. This RfC addresses all of these uses, including the six citations I mentioned. —  Newslinger   talk   02:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A week ago I removed takimag.com cites for "Don't Trust the B in Apartment 23" and "2010s in fashion" and Tropicana Casino & Resort Atlantic City" and nobody complained, indicating that there is nothing controversial there requiring an RfC. The cites for "God Is Not Great" and "The New Art Gallery Walsall" are of a book review and an architecture review, i.e. opinion pieces, so this is an attempt to prevent cites of opinions not cites of facts. Read WP:NOTCENSORED. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing the citations. Opinions published in questionable sources (including Taki's Magazine) written by non-notable people are almost always removed as undue weight when they do not qualify for WP:ABOUTSELF. Taki's Magazine 's opinions in God Is Not Great should be removed if consensus in this RfC determines that Taki's Magazine is generally unreliable, questionable, or worse. —  Newslinger  talk   22:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Terrible source that shouldn't be used for anything, except limited primary source use, e.g. the article in Takimag that got John Derbyshire fired from National Review - David Gerard (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Use only for attributed statements of opinion, with in text attribution per David Gerrard. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Question Is there any evidence they have A reputation for poor fact checking?Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , not that I have seen. It looks like the reasons that this source is being considered unreliable is due to some editors not liking the views of some of the sources contributors, it occupying a similar niche to sources widely considered unreliable, and due to being "far-right". Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the articles, mostly opinion, much of it is overtly racist. It's clearly a highly-partisan site which ignores general principles of journalism in order to attack perceived ideological opponents and defend perceived ideological allies. If this is the standard for a reliable source then anything and everything should be considered a reliable source, including editors personal opinion, YouTube and Facebook. It was edited by out and out Nazi Richard Spencer. You'd be setting your standards very low to callthis anything but completely unreliable, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So no then apart form its POV (and no the reason we do not allow YouTube and Facebook is because they are full of out and out falsehoods, So then at worst its RS for its own opinions, and at best it in fact does not have a reputation for poor fact checking. So I have to go with Unclear or additional considerations apply.Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Being "highly-partisan" is not evidence that a source has a reputation for poor checking. If you are claiming it ignores general journalistic principles then please provide evidence, otherwise it will come across as you trying to say this source is unreliable because you disagree ideologically with it. YouTube and Facebook are completely different. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't you have that backwards? WP:RS requires that a source have reputation for fact-checking an accuracy, not that nobody can prove they're inaccurate.  If you want to defend the use of a source, you are the one who has to present proof that they have the fact-checking and accuracy WP:RS requires - eg. descriptions in other sources, or use in high-quality sources in a way that clearly reflects a trust in their content.  I'm not seeing that here; if the best people can say in its defense is "you can't prove it's unreliable!", it probably doesn't pass WP:RS.  I think that partially this discussion might be confused because we usually discuss sources that might otherwise pass WP:RS if it weren't for evidence they were intentionally publishing falsehoods (eg. Breitbart, the Daily Mail, etc.) - but this source is different.  It doesn't pass even the baseline.  A source with no reputation for factual reporting at all fails WP:RS completely, so you have to prove it has some sort of reputation before you can demand that others find evidence it's screwed up. --Aquillion (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to prove anything, I just am not sure that "its biased" is a valid justification (and in fact " However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."). That was my pointSlatersteven (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's the quotes again regarding Taki's as provided by Newsliinger if you need more:


 * Avoid. Only as limited primary source may be of some help. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Bad RfC as per Peter Gulutzan. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Terrible source - unreliable Autarch (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally unusable for statements of fact (3) and not generally great as an opinion source, either. There's no evidence (as far as I'm aware) that it engages in outright fabrication, but that alone is not enough to get a source past WP:RS, which requires an actual reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that this source lacks.  It's clearly a WP:FRINGE outlet that posts entirely opinions; there's no evidence they do any investigation or fact-checking at all.  It also lacks the reputation that would make opinions posted there automatically notable (it was difficult to find sources for its article, and the ones that came up were often critical or only mentioned it in passing), so it doesn't have much use as an opinion-piece outside of places where the author is directly the subject of the article. --Aquillion (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally unusable for statements of fact (3) - only because even a broken clock can be right every once in a while. It's putrid garbage, and should probably be blacklisted from Wikipedia. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Bad RFC - No concrete instances of this source actually being at-issue with relation to article content have been raised. This is simply a WP:FORUM discussion. FOARP (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at . —  Newslinger  talk   17:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support referencing opinion pieces. The subject magazine is quite clearly a publicationn of opinion and not reportage. (And, by the way, whether we disagree or agree with the opinions expressed in it is entirely irrelevant.) Therefore, options #1, #3 and #4 simply do not apply; they cannot even be considered. The publication cannot be used as a source for facts. But it can be used as the source of an opinion that is added to an article. For example, if commentator Pat Buchanan writes a piece in Taki's Magazine attacking certain ideas or a politician and Buchanan's stance is assessed to be carrying value as information, there is no reason whatsoever not to use that. In so many words, we are in #2, with the subject to be potentially used exclusively as the source of original opinion material. -The Gnome (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Natural News
Greetings, all. I understand that this may come on as self evident but we do have entries in the project page for the Daily Mail and Breitbart after all! So, I hereby propose to summarily denote as entirely unreliable the website Natural News, considered to be a disseminator of conspiracy theories and fake news by a plethora of sources, e.g. here, here, here, here, here, and so on. -The Gnome (talk) 07:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Rather redundant to bring up here; the place for throwing darts at Natural News is where they're known and, uh, loved: WP:FRINGEN. For example, Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 47 and so forth. Snopes.com knows all about 'em, too. Enjoy! Elizium23 (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Elizium23. This may indeed be redundant but since I've not seen Natural News explicitly deisgnated as am unreliable (though, per Alexa, visited often) website, I thought I'd bring it up here. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Are there any? If so, I have been slipping. I remove them all regularly. Guy (help!) 22:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Blacklist. A less popular version of InfoWars with a focus on WP:MEDRS-violating health claims. The site's propagation of pseudoscience is well-documented in, in addition to the sources  provided above. I've removed "RfC on" from the section heading since this discussion isn't a formal request for comment. As even the Natural News article states that Natural News (formerly NewsTarget) "is a conspiracy theory and fake news website" with little to no editor controversy, a formal RfC is probably not necessary here. —  Newslinger   talk   22:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Requested blacklisting at . —  Newslinger  talk   01:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support blacklisting. Any instances are practically defacto removed anyways (with JzG doing most of the lifting on that too). I'm not always gung ho about blacklisting sources unless absolutely needed, but given the combination of constant WP:FRINGE coming out of it and most of it directly going against the ideas put forth in WP:MEDRS, it has no place here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Warrants the level beyond merely "deprecated". Same for newstarget.com - David Gerard (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I cannot imagine a scenario where we would ever use Natural News as a source for anything. I wouldn't even use it as a source to describe itself. jps (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blacklisting &mdash; a worse-than-worthless "source". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blacklisting this garbage site. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Blacklist: Kill it. Kill it with fire. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support triple blacklisting I browsed a couple of pages to see how it has developed and, well, it has developed and is now full-on nuts. Johnuniq (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support From the sources you provided I do support blacklisting ~mitch~ (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Euclid-site (etymological sections)
The Euclid-site (see here) presents information about various Eucalyptus-species. In the etymological sections (section: “Origin of Name”) it provides the etymology of the Latin names of these species. In these sections, various mistakes and inconsistencies are seen. Despite being issued by the Centre for Australian National Biodiversity Research, the number of etymological errors on the Euclid-site is exceedingly high for the number of Eucalyptus-species described. Unfortunately, this site is used by some editors (like as in these edits:, , , , , , ). My request is to label the Euclid-site as unreliable, with respect to the etymological sections. I explicitely state, that I do not wish to claim that the Euclid-site in general is unreliable, as I have only checked the etymological sections.

In the list below, some of the errors that can be found in the etymological sections of the Euclid-site (section: "Origin of Name" on the linked pages) are listed. Liddell & Scott’s Greek dictionary (indicated as LS-Gr) and Lewis & Short’s A Latin dictionary (indicated as LS-Lat) are used and linked for comparison.

1. Inconsistent transliterations
 * 1) -κ-
 * 2) -k- in Greek karpos (LS-Gr: = Greek καρπός (karpos))  (e.g. Eucalyptus cylindrocarpa, Eucalyptus goniocarpa)
 * 3) -c- in Greek carpos (e.g. Eucalyptus cypellocarpa, Eucalyptus leucoxylon subsp. megalocarpa)
 * 4) -αι-
 * 5) -ae- in Greek elaeo- (LS-Gr: < Greek ἐλαία (elaia)) (e.g. Eucalyptus elaeophloia)
 * 6) -ai- in Greek haima (LS-Gr: = Greek αἷμα (haima)) (e.g. Eucalyptus haemastoma)
 * 7) -ει-
 * 8) -i- in Greek -oides (LS-Gr: < Greek εἶδος (eidos)) (e.g. Eucalyptus celastroides subsp. celastroides)
 * 9) -ei- in Greek aggeion (LS-Gr: = Greek ἀγγεῖον (aggeion) (e.g. Eucalyptus gigantangion)

2. Different forms of same Greek or Latin words used
 * 1) "bark"
 * 2) Greek phloios (e.g. Eucalyptus leucophloia subsp. euroa)
 * 3) Greek phloia (e.g. Eucalyptus loxophleba subsp. lissophloia, Eucalyptus decipiens subsp. adesmophloia). Only Greek φλοιός (phloios) (LS-Gr) exists.
 * 4) "short"
 * 5) Latin brevis (e.g. Eucalyptus brevistylis
 * 6) Latin brevi (e.g. Eucalyptus brevifolia). Latin brevis (M|F) or breve (N) (LS-Lat) is the correct nominative.
 * 7) "male"
 * 8) Greek andra (e.g. Eucalyptus brachyandra)
 * 9) Greek andros (e.g. Eucalyptus macrandra). Greek ἀνήρ (anēr) (LS-Gr) is the correct nominative.
 * 10) "vein"
 * 11) Greek phlebos (e.g. Eucalyptus leptophleba)
 * 12) Greek phleba (e.g. Eucalyptus loxophleba subsp. gratiae). The correct nominative is Greek φλέψ (phleps) (LS-Gr). Maybe, "veins" is intended in the etymological section of Eucalyptus loxophleba subsp. gratiae, but that is φλέβες (phlebes) in ancient Greek and not phleba.
 * 13) "shaped like a rhomb"
 * 14) Greek rhombos (e.g. Eucalyptus rhombica)
 * 15) Greek rhombus (e.g. Eucalyptus rhomboidea). The correct form is Greek ῥόμβος (rhombos) (LS-Gr), but that does not mean "shaped like a rhomb". That is actually Greek ῥομβοειδής (rhomboeidēs) (LS-Gr).
 * 16) "horn"
 * 17) Latin cornu (e.g. Eucalyptus tereticornis subsp. mediana).
 * 18) Latin cornis (e.g. Eucalyptus longicornis). Correct form in Latin is cornu (LS-Lat).

3. Adjectives misinterpreted as nouns
 * 1) Latin ventralis translated as "front" (e.g. Eucalyptus sp. Dorsiventralis).
 * 2) Latin fasciculosus translated as "cluster or bundle" (e.g. Eucalyptus fasciculosa). "Cluster or bundle" is fasciculus (LS-Lat) in Latin.
 * 3) Latin melleus translated as "honey" (e.g. Eucalyptus melliodora). Latin melleus (LS-Lat) is clearly an adjective.
 * 4) Latin cylindroideus translated as "cylinder" (e.g. Eucalyptus oleosa subsp. cylindroidea).
 * 5) Latin pilularis translated as "small pill" (e.g. Eucalyptus pilularis). Latin pilula (LS-Lat) is a "pill".

4. Non-existing (or incorrect) words Wimpus (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Greek ancophila (e.g. Eucalyptus ancophila). Ancophila does not exist in ancient Greek
 * 2) Greek phloia (see 2.1)
 * 3) Latin brevi (see 2.2)
 * 4) Greek andra and andros (see 2.3)
 * 5) Greek phleba and phlebos (see 2.4)
 * 6) Latin stylis (e.g. Eucalyptus brevistylis). Probably botanical Latin stylus (derived from stilus) is intended, but not Greek στυλίς (stylis).
 * 7) Latin calcareous (e.g. Eucalyptus calcareana). Calcareous is English. A possible Latin form could be calcareus.
 * 8) Greek niphophilos (e.g. Eucalyptus pauciflora subsp. niphophila). No such word exists in ancient Greek.
 * 9) Greek kephalos (e.g. Eucalyptus gomphocephala)  or Greek cephalos (e.g. Eucalyptus cephalocarpa). Greek word for head is κεφαλή (kephalē) (LS-Gr). Greek κέφαλος (kephalos) (LS-Gr) is actually a "species of mullet".
 * 10) Greek gigant (e.g. Eucalyptus gigantangion). Greek γίγας, gen. γίγαντος (gigas, gen. gigantos) (LS-Gr) is the correct form.
 * 11) Latin pseudo- translated as "false" (e.g. Eucalyptus globulus subsp. pseudoglobulus). In Latin "false" is falsus (LS-Lat). In Greek, "false" is ψευδής (pseudēs) (LS-Gr).
 * 12) Greek halophilus (e.g. Eucalyptus halophila). Does not exist in ancient Greek.
 * 13) Greek lepto (e.g. Eucalyptus leptocalyx). Correct form is λεπτός (leptos) (LS-Gr).
 * 14) Greek podos, translated as "foot" (e.g. Eucalyptus leptopoda subsp. arctata). Correct nominative is πούς (pous) (LS-Gr). Greek ποδός (podos) is actually the genitive case, but has to be translated with "of a foot".
 * 15) Greek apoda (e.g. Eucalyptus scias subsp. apoda). There exist a Greek feminine singular ἄποδἡ (apodē) (LS-Gr), but that is not written with an -a.
 * 16) Latin flora translated as "flower" (e.g. Eucalyptus cylindriflora). Flora (LS-Lat) is the "goddess of flowers" in Latin, flos (LS-Lat) the Latin word for "flower".
 * 17) Greek cypellum (e.g. Eucalyptus cypellocarpa). The correct form in Greek is κύπελλον (kypellon) (LS-Gr).
 * 18) Greek dendros (e.g. Eucalyptus dendromorpha). There exist a rare neuter δένδρος (dendros) (LS-Gr) in Greek, but probably the more common form δένδρον (dendron) is intended.
 * 19) Greek morphos (e.g. Eucalyptus dendromorpha). Greek μορφή (morphē) (LS-Gr) is the correct form.
 * 20) Greek dipterus (e.g. Eucalyptus diptera). Greek δίπτερος (dipteros) (LS-Gr) is the correct form.
 * 21) Greek carpus (e.g. Eucalyptus pyrocarpa). Correct Greek form is καρπός (karpos) (LS-Gr). The form carpus is the Latinized form.
 * 22) Greek nemos (e.g. Eucalyptus erythronema var. erythronema). Correct Greek form is νῆμα (nēma) (LS-Gr.
 * 23) Greek ptera translated as "wing" (e.g. Eucalyptus tetraptera). Correct Greek form is πτερόν (pteron) (LS-Gr).
 * 24) Greek macro (e.g. Eucalyptus macrorhyncha subsp. cannonii). Correct form is Greek μακρός (makros) (LS-Gr).
 * 25) Greek adena translated as "glands" (e.g. Eucalyptus myriadena). Greek for glands is ἀδένες (adenes).
 * 26) Greek odontos translated as "tooth" (e.g. Eucalyptus odontocarpa). Correct Greek form is ὀδούς (odous) (LS-Gr). Greek ὀδόντος (odontos) is however the genitive case, but that means "of a tooth".
 * 27) Greek oligis (e.g. Eucalyptus oligantha). Correct Greek form is ὀλίγος (oligos) (LS-Gr).
 * 28) Latin grand. (e.g. Eucalyptus ovata var. grandiflora). Grand is English, grandis (LS-Lat) is Latin.
 * 29) Greek sphaera (e.g. Eucalyptus parramattensis var. sphaerocalyx). Sphaera (LS-Lat) is the Latinized form, while Greek σφαῖρα (LS-Gr) can be transliterated as sphaira.
 * 30) Latin formis (e.g. Eucalyptus pyriformis). Correct form is forma (LS-Lat).
 * 31) Greek synandra (e.g. Eucalyptus synandra). Does not exist in ancient Greek.
 * 32) Latin valvis translated as "valves" (e.g. Eucalyptus trivalvis). Latin plural of valva (LS-Lat) is valvae.


 * I don't think that is necessary. Scholarship and Primary, secondary and tertiary sources recommend that we use secondary sources. Context matters also would suggest we not use it. TFD (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Are these sources reliable?


Are these sources reliable? please see what is happening in Samad (UAV) --SharabSalam (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * http://spioenkop.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-oryx-handbook-of-iranian-drones.html
 * https://twitter.com/JeremyBinnie/status/1148255599731384320
 * https://twitter.com/JeremyBinnie/status/1148968924056367104

Blog used in many articles
This blog http://spioenkop.blogspot.com It is used in many articles and should be removed. It is not reliable. It contradict reliable sources. Their facebook page has 500 subs (not notable). Advertisement? Why is it being used in Wikipedia when it make such bogus fake reports?--SharabSalam (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The blog is cited extensively in the military affairs literature, and the twitter user is a defense journalist who has written on this very subject. They are reliabler per WP:SPS. Notability applies to pages, not sources. Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT and stop trying to remove things just because you dislike them. Streamline8988 (talk) 06:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

It may be usable for the authors views, so how is it being used?Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear to identify the author. Guy (help!) 22:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the text that is added in Wikipedia in Samad (UAV) is presented as a fact although there are contradicting claims. The editor who I had dispute with wasn't willing to get what I am saying easily. I told the editor that we can't use the blog source without at least attribution. The source for example says that the Houthi drone was used before in Iran, that is an extraordinary claim especially that Iran denies providing Houthis drones and Houthis claim that they made them in Yemen and some of them say that they took the design from some Russian drone. The name of the drone is named after a Houthi leader who was allegedly assassinated by a Chinese-made UAE drone. I honestly don't want to stress my nerves trying to explain something so obviously wrong so I just came here for help. I think the blog is making so much unfounded extraordinary claims that are highly likely unture.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Here are the authors.


 * I don't think we should rely on these sources to present their opinions in Wikivoice.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should rely on these sources to present their opinions in Wikivoice.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I added inline citations, take a look and let me know what you think. Also be advised that some random guy is insisting the Houthis completed fabricated the successful attack on Abu Dhabi international airport; you might want to take a look at that too. Streamline8988 (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Is this academic paper a reliable source?
This:


 * Rosenberg, Shawn W. (2019) "Democracy Devouring Itself: The Rise of the Incompetent Citizen and the Appeal of Right Wing Populism" in Hur, Domenico Uhng and Sabucedo, José Manuel eds. (forthcoming) Psychology of Political and Everyday Extremisms

is a paper that was delivered at the annual meeting of the International Society of Political Psychologists in Lisbon this summer. The author is a professor of Political Science and Psychology Science at the University of California, Irvine, and has been described as "one of the lions of the profession". . As indicated above, the paper will be included in a forthcoming book that is in preparation. In the meantime, it is available at the URL above, on Academia.edu.

Given that the paper was selected for presentation at an academic meeting, and was indeed presented, given the qualifications of the paper's author, given that it's to be included in a forthcoming academic book, and given that the paper has provoked responses in the media, is the paper a reliable source per WP:RS? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Acceptance for publication in an academic book is enough. Presentation at an academic meeting is not necessarily enough since some conferences have very weak acceptance criteria, much less than peer review. Zerotalk 04:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Reliable for what exactly? For the individual opinion of an expert in the field? Reliable as a statement of fact or consensus in the field?  Reliable for it's overall conclusion or reliable for secondary comments made along the way that aren't crucial to the primary conclusion?  Does it conflict with other experts opinions in the field?  It's it cited by others?  Absent knowing how it will be used and what it will support it's hard to answer.  Certainly we shouldn't stamp it as "reliable in all cases" the way some might wish to do with a holy scripture. Springee (talk) 04:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Springee, you're being disingenuous. Since you removed information sourced to this paper, which I added to Right-wing populism,  you know precisely how it is intended to be used.  For those unaware, this is the information that Springee removed from the article:

"In regard to the authoritarian aspect of right-wing populism, political psychologist Shawn W. Rosenberg asserts that its 'intellectual roots and underlying logic' are best seen as 'a contemporary expression of the fascist ideologies of the early 20th century'. Guided by its roots in ideological fascism ... and its affinity to the fascist governments of 1930s Germany and Italy, [right-wing populism] tends to delegate unusual power to its leadership, more specifically its key leader. This leader embodies the will of the people, renders it clear for everyone else and executes accordingly. Thus distinctions between the leadership, the people as a whole and individuals are blurred as their will is joined in a single purpose. (p.5) ... In this political cultural conception, individuals have a secondary and somewhat derivative status. They are rendered meaningful and valued insofar as they are part of the collective, the people and the nation. Individuals are thus constituted as a mass who share a single common significant categorical quality – they are nationals, members of the nation. ... In this conception, the individual and the nation are inextricably intertwined, the line between them blurred. As suggested by philosophers of fascism ... the state is realized in the people and the people are realized in the state. It is a symbiotic relation. Individuals are realized in their manifestation of the national characteristics and by their participation in the national mission. In so doing, individuals are at once defined and valued, recognized and glorified. (p.12)"

According to Rosenberg, right-wing populism accepts the primacy of "the people", but rejects liberal democracy's protection of the rights of minorities, and favors ethno-nationalism over the legal concept of the nation as a polity, with the people as its members; in general, it rejects the rule of law. All of these attributes, as well as its favoring of strong political leadership, suggest right-wing populism's fascist leanings.&lt;cite to Rosenberg here>


 * Is this a reasonable use of the source, in your opinion? Contrary to Springee's contention, the opinion of a subject expert is only unacceptable if it contradicts the views of the consensus of subject experts, not if another subject expert has a slightly different, but compatible, view, which is the case here.  The full context of the section of the article in question with the deleted section above, can be seen here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * If it is a fair report of the source, which I didn't check, it is acceptable. It is largely informed opinion rather than purely factual statements, but attribution is enough to cover that. Zerotalk 05:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Based on the information that you have provided,, I conclude that this is a reliable source for the specific assertions in question. , it would be intellectually honest for you to disclose that you had already reverted content cited to this paper before commenting here. Honesty is the best policy, after all. BMK, you should not be wikilinking words or phrases in direct quotations. Let the quote stand on its own. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point, I've removed the link. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * BMK didn't say how or where the content was to be used and asked such an open ended question that I gave the same answer I would have given anyone. As RRC below says it wasn't reverted as unreliable and it would be misleading for BMK to suggest as much.   Springee (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't see a debate over whether this source is reliable, but rather whether such a large quote from a recent paper is due. There have been hundreds of books and papers published on the relationship between fascism and populism; any material on the subject should be based on the consensus of academic experts. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In the discussion on Talk:Right-wing populism, an editor said specifically that it was not a reliable source. Note that I used to have the first paragraph only, without the quote in the article, until I was asked on the talk page to provide further elaboration, which I did. Then, after I added the quote (and other sources), it was removed as UNDUE.  There's been a considerable amount of goal-post shifting in an attempt to reduce any commentary on the relationship between right-wing populism and fascism to an absolute minimum. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should let summarize their own position on the issue.  Buffs said it wasn't reliable based on the fact that it has yet to be published.  Several editors said it was UNDUE.  Editors are allowed to evolve their thinking and aren't required to state all objections the first time.  Springee (talk) 13:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Buffs said it wasn't reliable based on the fact that it has yet to be published." Exactly, which is why I came here to determine what the RSN editors thought. Your UNDUE argument is wrong on on both policy and procedure, but it's not what this discussion is about.  Just as you and Buffs continually sidetracks my behavioral complaint on AN/I by constantly bringing up content, please do not attempt to sidetrack this discussion about reliability by constantly bringing up UNDUE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You suggested I removed this material as unreliable so it’s more than reasonable for me to defend myself from your incorrect accusation. If the only question was prepublication you could have said as much. If you don’t want this derailed perhaps you could not throw out the first accusations. Springee (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Yep, seems like it's reliable, but it's surely undue for a forthcoming paper to receive such a spotlight and a huge blockquote, rather than being one of many papers that informs a summary of expert opinion, with this perspective given weight according to the degree to which other experts have tended to agree with it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's a quote from another paper--one by Mudde from 2004 that has received nearly 2400 citations: "Many observers have noted that populism is inherent to representative democracy; after all, do populists not juxtapose ‘the pure people’ against ‘the corrupt elite’? As argued above, I disagree with this view, and believe that both the populist masses and the populist elites support ‘true’ representation. In other words, they reject neither representation per se, nor the lack of social representation. What they oppose is being represented by an ‘alien’ elite, whose policies do not reflect their own wishes and concerns."
 * This seems to offer a different perspective, and it also notes that there is disagreement about exactly how to think about the relationship between populism and representative democracy. I've omitted footnotes in the above quote, but he cites two authors for the claim that populism and democracy tend to go together. An accurate summary of the literature would reflect all these views, together with other significant views in the no doubt vast literature on this topic. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * (1) I see no conflict between the two. (2) The current discussion concerns the relationship between right-wing populism and fascism, not the relationship between populism in general and representative democracy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you read the paper, you'll see that he means his statements to apply to right-wing populism as well as other forms of populism. The view that right-wing populism is a form of of fascism is obviously a different view than the view that populism is "inherent to" and a natural expression of representative democracy. The subject is more complicated than a summary of (or a huge block quote from) a single forthcoming paper is going to suggest. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Right-wing populism is a form of fascism" is a point of view that nobody who is being cited (or potentitially being cited) is espousing, so to bring it up is a bit of a strawman argument. What is being said are (1) Some right-wing populist parties have roots in post-war fascism and (2) Right-wing populism, under specific circumstances, can become fascistic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The quote you provided states that right-wing populism has roots in fascism that guide it. The quote you provided does not say "some right-wing populist parties" have such roots. It does not say that such parties become fascistic "under specific circumstances." Rather, the quote you provided says that right-wing populism (no restriction stated) has guiding roots in fascism (no restriction stated). That's it. And that's obviously a different view than the view referenced in the quote I gave, which says that several authors have seen populism as "inherent to representative democracy". As I say, all these perspectives from RS should be put together in a summary, and the preprint you found isn't more due than these other perspectives, and in fact is far less due than perspectives in published work that has been widely cited. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a distinct difference between "[some] right-wing populism has roots in fascism" and "right-wing populism is fascism". I'm not going to argue your re-statement because it is neither accurate nor properly representative. It is, in fact, a straw man that you invented. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The addition of 'some' in your reconstruction is inaccurate. It's not there, and isn't implied in English. The quote says that right-wing populism is rooted in fascism, and those roots continue to "guide" it. I don't see the difference between that and saying that right wing populism is a form of fascism. In any case, the source is not due for such a huge quote, and what the source says does not cohere with other, far more influential sources that have been published. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Pre-prints should never be considered reliable sources or cited in articles except in the most unusual of circumstances. ElKevbo (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a very strong statement. Pre-prints of accepted manuscripts should surely be evaluated for inclusion on the same basis as published articles because the only difference is typesetting. No comment on the specifics of Zero0000's case at the start of this thread. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that substantive differences between the two documents should be very rare but why in the world would we ever cite a pre-print instead of the actual published article?
 * In this specific instance, it sounds like one or more editors are advocating a citation to a conference paper that is being published as a book chapter. That's even more concerning that a pre-print because it seems to imply that the editors in question believe that the conference paper can be cited as a book chapter i.e., no changes will be made to the conference paper when it's published in the book.  If that implication is correct, it's a troubling assumption.  Either cite the conference paper or wait until the book is published to cite the chapter.  Don't quote the conference paper and cite the book chapter. ElKevbo (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Because the published work may be behind a paywall. If there was a case where someone gave a reference to an article behind a paywall and linked to the pre-print that would be entirely reasonable (while still linking to the pay-walled version through a DOI if applicable or similar). University repositories often contain pre-prints as the green open access version of a publication. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For purposes of citations in Wikipedia, it's irrelevant if a source is behind a paywall. More importantly, it's confusing at best and dishonest at worst to claim to be citing a document but then link to a different document.  If you want to cite a document, just cite the published version and not a copy of it that may differ in important ways. ElKevbo (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The point is that a manuscript that has been accepted for publication will not differ from the published version in important ways. The key change is in typesetting. There is nothing dishonest about linking to an open access paper, that was why universities created repositories in the first place. Richard Nevell (talk) 07:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The version of the paper on Academia.edu says specifically that it is the forthcoming chapter for the book cited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. ElKevbo (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Just a follow up, has restored the material to the article in question based on the view that this discussion has said it is a RS. I think most here agree it's reliable as a recently (soon to be) published peer reviewed paper/chapter. However, I don't believe that addresses the DUE concerns raised above and at the article. Springee (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said, I am open to edits but not to wholesale removal of the source. This looks an awful lot like more WP:GREENCHEESE. Simonm223 (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between removal of the source and removal of a block quote etc that was seen, by local consensus, as undue. Springee (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I would contend that local consensus became questionable the second this hit noticeboards; thus my involvement per review of the thread here. As I said, I'm not opposed to editing the use of the source; I'm opposed to whole-cloth redaction of the source from the article. Which is what you had done, with the argument that it'd been voted on. (WP:NOTVOTE notwithstanding). Simonm223 (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with that argument and I generally agree. The board discussions can indicate a different consensus.  However, I don't see that case here.  To some extent here and at the talk page there is a concern that this new article doesn't represent a consensus view among academics.  The original source that introduced this paper to the article, a Politico article by another expert in the field called it "shocking".  That may not apply to the quoted section but it did apply to the overall paper.  More critically, editors here raised UNDUE concerns.  Those were the same concerns raised on the talk page.  Also, as Shinealittlelight pointed out, this paper is somewhat in conflict with a highly cited paper on the subject.  Based on the number of citations we shouldn't give this paper more weight (in terms of text length) than the highly cited paper.  Per ONUS we can verify the content but that doesn't mean there is consensus that it's due in the article as a definition of right-wing populism.  Springee (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Also I'm fairly sure it's irregular to restore challenged content while talk page consensus regarding it is being established. Springee was right, as I see it, to keep it out of the article while the conditions for its inclusion (and the weight that is due to this source) is still being discussed. This was mentioned on the local talk page and I don't see that anything has been changed by bringing the matter to this talk board-- the fact that there are many editors here who seem to be of the opinion that it is not reliable at all makes your restoration even more questionable. Zortwort (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Having finally looked at the content beyond skimming through concerns of edit-warring, it's my opinion that the edit this concerns at Right-wing Populism gives the source far more than its due weight. Reliable or not, and I think it may be technically reliable, this yet-un-published paper should not be given 3 paragraphs worth of attention in the definition section of that article. Zortwort (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

A RfC has been opened at the article talk page related to this material
An editor has opened a RfC regarding the inclusion of this material in the Right-wing populism article. The RfC is located here [] Springee (talk) 02:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

factsanddetails.com
Quite a bit surprised this hasn't been discussed here before. Factsanddetails.com is a single author-compiled tertiary source, an encyclopaedia of sorts in itself, which covers lots of international topics. The author uses a variety of sources, and sometimes, but not always, makes direct citations. Of course, editors can use the site as a guide and optimally should follow the source trail, but is there a categorical "yes" or "no" as to whether Wikipedia citations to factsanddetails.com should be permissible? --Paul_012 (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * . From MER-C's tool, it's used 178 times in article-space. Haven't looked through that yet to see what it's actually being used for. I'll note also the possibility of a source being considered appropriate as an external link but not as a reference. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Not as RS, as the creator says "I am not professor or an expert on the subjects I write about ..." he is not different from most Wikipedia edds.Slatersteven (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

BigAndi, MrOllie and a Springer textbook
is a new editor. Today they have added a lot of references to a scientific textbook published by Springer:. Unusually this is not merely a recent and relevant book from a credible scientific publisher, it's actually an open access text under a free CC-by licence. We should rejoice at having such a resource available to us. (Apologies as I haven't checked every edit here, nor every chapter's licence.)

, a well-known defender of WP from spam, has reverted the lot and template-warned uw-coi BigAndi for doing so. See User talk:MrOllie as well.

I have no idea of the size of Andreas Maier, just one of the many authors involved in this book (like so many textbooks, it's mostly an author per chapter). Nor do I know if "BigAndi" here has any connection with them, or anything to do with this book. Nor do I care: this is a clearly RS textbook and source, and additionally as the full thing is open access then we should really welcome it, whoever is adding it.

I have no time for editing, certainly not for getting embroiled in this type of spat. However it could use some more eyeballs over it. Personally I'm inclined to restore the lot. We should be welcoming it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * FWIW I think it is very plausible that BigAndi has a COI here. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Possible, yes, but I wouldn't go much further than that. And such a COI is only going to be to one chapter.
 * Even if so, I'd still use this as a reference. COI is a limitation on how we add content, not a ban on what we can use. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

is sorry for the mass editing. He tried to use the upload feature for one image and got the error that he has to do at least 10 edits before this is allowed. Only after that discovered Wikimedia commons. agrees with removing the entries in the references only section. He would still like to move more content from the book to wikipedia as it seems partially not yet covered in wikipedia. is sorry that his contributions were considered as spamming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigAndi (talk • contribs) 21:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Why does BigAndi speak in the third person? Someguy1221 (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I didn’t know how to use the sign function. I guess this shows that I am new... BigAndi (talk) 06:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW if you fear, I have a COI, I will not reference this book again. I still think the material is of value. BigAndi (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If there is a COI, it is recommended to suggest sources on the article talk page, rather than add them to the article yourself. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Sensor Tower
Does anyone have experience with this website? Is it reliable for sourcing data on revenue and downloads for mobile apps?~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 11:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)