Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 283

Article rejected for lack of reliable sources
Hi,

My article on Tadeusz Sielanka has been rejected due to lack of reliable sources. At least on of the listed sources is scientific "objective" publication:

Antagonizmy kontrolowane. Rozmowy i eseje o muzyce współczesnej. Sacrum Profanum 2018, edited by Jan Topolski and Krzysztof Pietraszewski, Krytyka Polityczna Publishing / The Krakow Festival Office, Warsaw 2018. ISBN 978-83-65853-92-9, p. 80-81

What could have been a reason for considering this source unreliable? Can I do something about it?

Regards,

MB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mm810629 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: The draft in question is at Draft:Tadeusz Sielanka. —  Newslinger  talk   23:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * They didn't say that source was unreliable, they said there are not enough reliable sources.
 * You really need in-line citations. I have a guide here that explains how to write drafts that will not be rejected. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC about an SPS
Some editors experienced in the proper usage of self-published sources are asked to weigh in at this RfC. Thank you, -Crossroads- (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Daily Mail reliable source or not?
Firstly sorry I am new.... I have been told that the Daily mail newspaper (UK) is not considered a reliable source where a living person is concerned - would appreciate it if some of the experienced editors can tell me which newspapers are seen as reliable and which not etc. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finderman999 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:RSP is a good overview of the ones people ask about a lot. Most normal newspapers are probably fine - the Daily Mail is a special case, you can see from the discussions linked off that page - David Gerard (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, that is correct. Please refer to these extensive requests for comment in and , as well as the 38 other past discussions on the Daily Mail, for details. —  Newslinger   talk   00:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

fandom.com
As a user-edited site, fandom.com would appear to me to be generally unreliable. There are over 400 references in articles, often for trivia. Should these be removed? And if so, should an exception be carved out for Memory Alpha? (incidentally, that article is terrible). Guy (help!) 10:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems to have an editorial team, but I can find no contributor rules. Also three may be two sections, news and a wiki, but I cannot find where the dividing line is. I would err on the side of not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You're apparently talking about the former wikicities, a wiki farm co-founded by Jimmy Wales, later re-branded as Wikia, as of today Fandom (website). There's a general rule why wikis (incl. enwiki), blogs, and other WP:UGC are no reliable sources. There can be special cases, e.g., Freeciv has a Freeciv.wikia.com reference, and there could be also interwiki links to Fandom wikis. –84.46.52.176 (talk) 14:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Unreliable Anyone can edit Fandom like Wikipedia it is a user-generated site and so generally unreliable, its already deprecated as an external link so references to it should be replaced with reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * to the auto-revert list at User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. will auto-revert any additions of Fandom, as well as its former Wikia and Wikicities domains, when a new or IP user attempts to cite it as a source in a reference. The bot will not auto-revert external links to Fandom, since there are cases where they might be used appropriately. For example, Memory Alpha is appropriately linked in . See  for details. —  Newslinger   talk   01:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Medieval Feminist Forum
Is this (PDF) source and/or its journal Medieval Feminist Forum reliable? This journal does not appear to be indexed in Scopus or Web of Science. It is currently being used (alongside another source) at TERF to support that TERF describes a minority of feminists. The claim "minority" and the quality of this source are being discussed on the talk page here (this particular source was brought up toward the end of the discussion). -Crossroads- (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Indexing in Scopus or Web of Science is not necessarily indicative of reliability as there are plenty of high quality peer reviewed journals not indexed there, especially in the humanities. Medieval Feminist Forum is peer reviewed interdisciplinary journal. I've not looked at the context of how the source is being used, but my initial opinion is that it's reliable a reliable source. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * For the specific content that TERF describes a minority of feminists, No. The MFF source explicitly attributes this view to Susan Stryker and Talia M. Bettcher's work, “Introduction: Trans/Feminisms,” TSQ:Transgender Studies Quarterly 3, no. 1-2 (2016): 5-14, doi:10.23289252-3334127. Available from here. Stryker & Bettcher's work is the editorial introduction to that issue of the journal, not a study. The journal TSQ does not appear to be peer reviewed. - Ryk72 talk 20:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC) - struck - Ryk72 talk 21:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) Both Medieval Feminist Forum and TSQ:Transgender Studies Quarterly are peer reviewed journals. The point that the statement originally comes from an editorial introduction is the most relevant here. In which case, it may be worth saying that 'x and y authors are of the opinion that' but it wouldn't have the same weight as one of the regular papers. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Is the peer reviewed nature of TSQ documented somewhere? - Ryk72 talk 21:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Their website ('To facilitate the anonymous review process, please provide...'); a recent call for papers ('...TSQ is an English-language peer-reviewed academic journal based in the United States)...; and the introduction to their first issue ('To best wield the power of cultural capital for transgender studies, TSQ must follow the norms and standards of academic publishing, including adhering to the peer-review process'). Richard Nevell (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I found the "anonymous review process" on the Submission Guidelines page and was just coming back to post a link to it. - Ryk72 talk 21:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to be crystal clear here - are you saying that TSQ:Transgender Studies Quarterly is not peer reviewed?Nigel Ish (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that I could not find evidence that it is. I'm further saying that even if the journal as a whole is, the editorial introduction is unlikely to be. - Ryk72 talk 21:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

LiveLeak


I'm wading through LiveLeak links again. Last time we discussed it people were of the view that it's generally unreliable, but I am seeing issues that suggest to me that we should be blacklisting or deprecating LiveLeak. Of most pressing concern is the number of times a CNN, Al Jazeera or other press or agency report was referenced to LiveLeak, where it was uploaded by J. Random User in some random country, often with a transcript provided by no identified authority. Some are Russian propaganda uploads (e.g. "Russian separatists" campaigning for an ethnostate in Donbass), some are just broken (e.g. where the link is clearly not the same as the original link from Ogrish days), some are Taliban / ISIS snuff videos that have since apparently been taken down (e.g. ). Attribution is often questionable. Example: is actually LiveLeak or does that revolving logo in the top left identify a news organisation that owns the copyright?

It's bad enough sourcing to YouTube, but the main reason people use LiveLeak is that the content violates YouTube's policies: either it's stolen or it contains graphic violence. The approach to date - case-by-case - isn't working, as most of the cases turn out to be inappropriate. Guy (help!) 18:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Consider sources such as albawaba, netblocks and twitter, Can they support the following material? Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 10:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In order to block the sharing of information regarding the protests and the deaths of hundreds of protesters on social media platforms, the government blocked the Internet nationwide, resulting in a near-total internet blackout of around six days.


 * I think that this discussion needs to be had at the WP:Spam blacklist. A site that provides mostly copyvios should not be permitted, with no exceptions.  I'll post over there.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Is there any reason to treat it differently from YT/other UGC, though? Certainly stolen videos shouldn't be linked, but isn't there a lot of original content there, too? Sometimes it's because it violates YT policies, but that doesn't necessarily mean it violates WP policies (we do cover violent incidents, after all). I confess I'm not exactly a regular user of the site, though, sufficient to know what proportion of its content is original. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think what matters isn't whether non-copyvio content exists, but whether the particular links that editors are adding tend to be disproportionately copyvios. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

LiveLeak has been blacklisted at Special:Diff/932907600. See for the request. —  Newslinger  talk   06:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Genesys - suggest unreliable or potentially so
I came across a citation to https://www.genesys.com/customer-stories/lianjia in the article Lianjia and when I took a look at the Genesys page I thought "this looks like a paid endorsement of the company". Genesys states (bottom of page) "Our success comes from connecting employee and customer conversations on any channel, every day. Over 11,000 companies in 100+ countries trust our #1 customer experience platform...." Looking through the site suggests that it could be a closed-garden platform favorable to paying clients, a way to promulgate positive social media rather than relying on the vageries of open format things like Facebook and Twitter. Thanks for taking a look and providing commentary on whether you would view this as either an unreliable or potentially unreliable source. Regards --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 17:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

PragerU - an unreliable source?
We use it a lot. Here's an example of a use I just found and reverted. Scroll down to see more exampled of its videos. Doug Weller talk 19:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I find PragerU to be mostly political screed masquerading as education. It still mostly consists of political opinion, but is presented as though it was established research or some such.  I would treat them as any other WP:ABOUTSELF source: reliable only for reprinting the opinions and statements of the speaker themselves, not for accepting those statements as reliable facts in and of themselves.  Insofar as anything said at PragerU can be confirmed with another, better source, use that actual source.  Otherwise, use it to attribute quotes and not much else.  -- Jayron 32 19:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Depends what you use it for if we use it for facts, no it is not an RS. But it is an RS for what it claims.Slatersteven (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Generally reliable but biased. PragerU clearly has a political opinion and is biased, but seems generally reliable on the facts. Similar to the Intercept, Vox, etc, on that level. Many of PragerU's reports also are essentially reports by various academic experts (historians, psychologists, etc) and those reports may be worth citing for the expert's view, even if Prager itself is biased. MaximumIdeas (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Never reliable for statements of fact, only usable for opinion on articles directly about PragerU itself. They're, effectively, just a Youtube channel coupled with a personal website, with no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. While biased sources can be used when they are otherwise reliable, Prager itself exists only as a propaganda outlet  - simply being biased (obviously) doesn't make a source reliable.  Note, from the last one, that they have WP:FRINGE views on a number of topics, especially climate change, where they have posted videos riddled with errors without corrections.  They have promoted conspiracy theories  as well.  This unreliability isn't surprising; since PragerU's only mission is to broadcast propaganda, not to validate or report or perform fact-checking on the videoes they post to YouTube, citing them is no different than citing a video by any other angry shouty culture-war type - simply having more money behind them doesn't inherently make them more respectable. While in rare cares an expert quoted there could be cited as a WP:SPS, PragerU itself adds no notability and can never be used to establish someone as an expert - the weight given to a quote from one of their videos should be comparable to the weight we'd give eg. the same quote posted on Twitter by a verified account, with no secondary coverage, and carries all the usual restrictions of a WP:SPS, especially the fact that it can never be used for statements about third parties or for unduly self-serving claims (which, in this case, would include any exceptional claim that supports PragerU's mission and, therefore, almost anything they post.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that the Guardian source claiming it promotes "conspiracy theories" is extremely thin; it does not give a single example (and the Guardian itself is considered a biased source per RS.) MaximumIdeas (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. --Ronz (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * How so?MaximumIdeas (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't waste our time: RSP. --Ronz (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, the discussion about PragerU explicitly gives this example: "Prager U, a far-right media outlet that was invited to President Trump's recent White House media summit, released a video on Monday morning with the hashtag #TheCharlottesvilleLie, propagating the (verifiably untrue) conspiracy theory that Trump never uttered the words 'there are fine people on both sides' when addressing the violence at the Unite the Right rally in 2017." Not sure how that could be missed. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * God I hate to wade into this but that isn't a good example. The Rolling Stones is making a demonstrably, factually incorrect claim.  Contrary to RStones claim, the PragerU video doesn't claim Trump never literally said, "very fine people, on both sides".  So already the RStones claim is wrong (and easily proven so).  After that it's a debate about, in context, did Trump's "fine people" apply to the neo-nazis or just the non-violet people who protested removing the statue/changing the park's name. In the same presentation Trump said, "and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally."  Thus the RStones report fails because it falsely claims the video argues something it doesn't and suggests this is 100% clear cut (ie Trump called neo-nazis fine people) when context certainly offers evidence he didn't.  That disproved RStones claim doesn't mean the PragerU video is overall correct, the video may still have gross errors but that isn't one of them.  It absolutely doesn't mean the video would count as a RS (other than perhaps the opinion of Steve Cortes).  Springee (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Unreliable, should never be used as a source. No different nor better than any random political blog. If something notable comes out of these quarters, we need a reliable source discussing it to maintain context. Their stance on climate change also implies that they're in WP:FRINGE territory (cf. ). &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Very obviously unreliable for factual statements, but we don't used it much thankfully . Most of the search hits are articles on people who are presenters on PragerU and the website is cited to support material on their work there. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Unreliable. Propaganda. Shouldn't be used even for opinions. --Ronz (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Unreliable. Doesn't correct fact errors. Never be a case where there aren't better sources. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Unreliable. More of a publisher and promoter of its speakers' content than a source in itself. Highly partisan and publishes fringe theories. Should only be used for opinions. userdude 22:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Unreliable, and if used as an actual source for facts it should be deprecated - David Gerard (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Do a proper RfC, that being said: Generally unreliable or worse (WP:DEPS), since concern over spreading conspiracy theories. X1\ (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Unreliable. The videos seem similar to an op ed in a newspaper or blog. Maybe relevant if the speaker is a subject matter expert, but I don't see evidence of editorial oversight or fact-checking. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Unreliable per WP:RS. However, and I will ask this below, if the person in the video is an expert in their field, can the comments in the video be used as "the opinion of Dr/Prof/etc [name]"?  Springee (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It Depends On Context... Reliable for attributed statements of opinion (Whether we should mention the opinion is a DUE WEIGHT issue, not a reliability issue). Much less reliable for unattributed statements in Wikipedia’s voice. Blueboar (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Unreliable. A better source should be available for anything this is used for. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Unreliable. A vehicle for unfiltered propaganda. Clearly this should be deprecated - nothing about it meets our criteria and I am appalled to learn that we use it as a source anywhere. Guy (help!) 19:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (PragerU)
When I looked, there were only 9 instances where it was used. I removed four    as promotion, noticing that  (similar ip: ) was spamming it.

I left it in, which needs a careful review and cleanup. --Ronz (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Prior to Ronz's work, I had also removed three instances where it was used:  . While one was by SPA, another was by  and the last by , which look unrelated to the 2606. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I left the reference to PragerU in Paul Kengor, but that article also needs some work done, and the subject does not appear notable. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed it from Paul Kengor. The addition and use seems promotional and trivial. --Ronz (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Question: As a claim/fact attributed to PragerU we shouldn't treat any of the videos as RS's. What about as the opinion of the presenter? I can't think of an example where this might be the case but assume PragerU had a video by a noted economist, could the PragerU video be cited as the opinion of the economist? For argument sake assume people agree the person in question is a noted expert in the field (ie absent a discussion of where published, the views would be consider DUE opinions of an expert). My opinion is this would be acceptable so long as we have in text attribution to the speaker (not PU) and treat this as the opinion of an expert. This would be treated similar if the expert published the same information in a self published source/blog. Springee (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If a reliable source isn't covering those viewpoints, a PragerU video/profile/etc wouldn't demonstrate any weight or encyclopedic value. If the viewpoints are covered in a reliable source, then best to just stick to what's said in the reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you make a valid argument why DUE is not likely in this case but I ask that we assume DUE for argument sake. Thus from a strictly WP:RS POV I don't see why this couldn't be used as a source from which to quote the statements of the commentator.  Springee (talk) 04:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The times I've encountered it all look like soapboxing and promotion, and am assuming that's mostly what we'll have to deal with in the future. --Ronz (talk) 04:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

"Context matters" is the "you can't PROVE it isn't true!!" of sourcing discussions. It's not philosophically disprovable that there might conceivably be, in some universe, a use for PragerU link - but it's really not the usual case at all, and trying to make out that it's a reasonable consideration is simply not the case. If someone says something on PragerU, then if it's in an RS use the RS, and if it's not in an RS then the real world didn't care - David Gerard (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel like in general that concept should be refined. There are absolutely sources that add nothing, ie. anything cited equally to a random blog or the like. What "context matters" means is that even the very best sources are not universally reliable.  There are definitely "bottom tier" sources that do not count as publication for any meaningful purpose under our policies and whose only usability is therefore under the very narrow restrictions, like WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:SPS, that do not rely on having an WP:RS publisher at all.  I feel we need a more proper term for such publishers (since "generally unreliable" can be misleading and "context matters" is equally misleading - what we're really saying is that the publisher is never reliable but that some things can be cited regardless of publisher.)  Something like "contributes nothing", indicating a source whose quality is so low that 'publication' there contributes nothing in terms of reliability. This also makes me wonder if there are publishers that are so bad that they have a net negative and would actually prevent even WP:ABOUTSELF / WP:SPS citing. --Aquillion (talk) 04:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We already have a policy that relates to this: see WP:UNDUE. Blueboar (talk) 12:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not what I'm talking about. WP:DUE is about whether an otherwise-reliable source is worth including.  What I'm saying is that there are sources that provide no meaningful fact-checking, or whose fact-checking is so fatally compromised as to contribute nothing; "publication" by such sources shouldn't count as publication for WP:RS purposes - they provide no WP:V on their own, so WP:DUE doesn't matter.  This concept is already inherent in RS (and exists for WP:USERGENERATED sources and the like), but we tend to gloss over it in discussions here by categorizing sources in a way that implies that anything that isn't depreciated is merely "generally" unreliable rather than being essentially WP:USERGENERATED tier.  I think we need a more clear term for such sources. --Aquillion (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Rascians
I put citation from published scientific paper to the article which talks about Rascians. Paper is published in Scientific Multidisciplinary Research Journal and it is written by László Heka. This citation which I enter in article László Heka in reference based on his earlier book and another Hungarian source is there as  reference. I am interested in your opinion if this is RS?Mikola22 (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It is not per No original research. The article in question is part of a larger corpus of works, mostly research papers and other original research.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  00:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Happy new year to you and everyone on Wikipedia. This is an explanation from earlier I quote: "Seen from the journal's point of view, they will publish what for them is original research. (They will actually prefer only to publish original research. If it is not original research, it will either be plagiarism or uninteresting repetitions of already published works.) In order to get published by the journal, the material will be evaluated and selected for publication through peer reviewing. When it is published, it becomes, from Wikipedia's point of view, a reliable source."  This paper has been published in magazine Podravina, I quote: "The Podravina has been included in 110 scientific publications and magazines from 11 countries, and it has been referred to in four world secondary magazines. The editorial council consists of 25 experts from Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary, Czech Republic, Germany and Austria, while the magazine is edited by five editors, three from Croatia and two from Slovenia." Mikola22 (talk) 08:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Editing and Peer review are not the same.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * »Podravina« magazine publishes articles and papers, subject to review and those which are not. Papers, categorized as scientific, must have 2 (two) positive reviews. The reviewed papers are catergorized in the following manner: 1. Original scientific articles, short notes, previous notes, scientific conference presentation - with yet unpublished results of original research in complete or preliminary form; must be laid out so that accuracy of research can be verified.. 2. Revised papers and 3. Professional articles. My source or paper "The Vlach law and its comparison to the privileges of Hungarian brigands." is marked as "Original scientific paper" which means there are at least two positive reviews of that paper.Mikola22 (talk) 12:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * How do we know which ones are "scientific" and which ones are not?Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My paper is "Original scientific paper" "Izvorni znanstveni rad" and has a minimal (two) positive reviews otherwise can not get that category and be published in the magazine. The Podravina magazine(Scientific Multidisciplinary Research Journal) has A1 mark in Croatian legislation (law) ie "The journals in category A1 have an internationally recognized review, ie they have been introduced in international index publications."  Most of the articles in Podravina magazine have this name "Original scientific paper"(172 papers or 69.6 percent) and almost 70% of all papers published in that journal are original scientific papers with prescribed minimal (two) positive reviews.Mikola22 (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Predatory open access journal tag?
Hopefully this is the correct place to ask this question. I have been going through and adding DOIs to already existing journal citations, and somehow triggered some sort of blacklist. The edit is here. Can someone point me to the policy or blacklist that triggered this? I tried WP:Predatory, but it doesn't seem to explain the tag there. My assumption is there is a source somewhere on the page Electrophoretic light scattering that is unreliable, but I'd like to find the blacklist so I can find the right one to remove. Forbes72 (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, the following citation in that edit triggered edit filter :


 * Thanks. I did try a control + f on Beall's list, but got no matches because the publisher was listed instead of the individual journal. Couldn't figure out what the issue was. I appreciate the explanation. Forbes72 (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. And just to clarify, I identified the citation by going to Special:AbuseFilter/891 and checking the list of DOIs that are being caught by the filter (defined in line 4 of the "Conditions", which begins with dois :=). —  Newslinger  talk   04:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You could also expand the warning Predatory open access source list that you had, and search for those DOIs prefixes and domains. Still a bit tedious to do. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

AnsweringMuslims.com
I saw usage of this source in Muhammad in the Quran. On that website, I saw some claims that seem to be written by either an uninformed person or someone who spreads propaganda or biased claims. I investigated the website and I found this in Southern Poverty Law Center, "David Wood, who runs Foundation for Advocating Christian Truth* which is the organization behind AnsweringMuslims.com, a Christian-based, anti-Muslim and anti-Islam website." --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In regards to issues, raised above related to criticism of Islam, and 'AnsweringMuslims.com', it might be worthwhile to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Some_issues_with_the_current_Wikipedia_Quran_articles   BTW David Wood (Christian apologist), is "an American evangelical missionary known for his critique of Islam"
 * The above quote, taken from the SPLC website: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/06/05/anti-muslim-roundup-6518  is based on this interview of Daniel Scot, by David Wood:  http://imi.org.au/ps-daniel-scot-interview/       Koreangauteng (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The same Wiki editor who added the 'AnsweringMuslims' citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_in_the_Quran&diff=933643592&oldid=933639345 - one day later (above) denounces the same 'AnsweringMuslims'  citation  ??


 * "The Ismlamoblog of Acts 17 apologists" does not identify its editorial process and clearly establishes that its purpose is Christian apologetics. It is not usable as a source on Islam. All these uses should be removed. Guy (help!) 09:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Is this RAND report being used accurately to make a claim on behalf of Human Rights Watch?
This RAND report says:

This source/statement is being used in the lede section of the article People's Mujahedin of Iran to make the claim that Human Rights Watch says it "describes" this group as "a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi."

Is this an accurate representation of what RAND is stating? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Are references of Modi response on his personal platform violating ContextMatters for section "Indian Government response" of Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 ?
Kmoksha (talk) 12:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I would say that it can be used for what (attributed to him) Modi has said (per SPS), not for it being the official government stance.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion. Request to also give your reasons for your opinion.
 * Kmoksha (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * wp:sps allows us to use things like twitter (assuming this is a verified account) for the attributed opinions of the person. Thus I see no reason why this would fail that. However it is also not the official account of the Indian government, it is only Modi's own account. Whilst he may be PM, he still has his own views that may not accord with those of the government (which as a parliamentary democracy is not under the personal control of one man).Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , are you saying that the statement currently attributed to Narendra Modi should be removed from the section titled "Indian government response"? That seems to be the OP's concern here, as far as I can make out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. As head of the Indian government (yes I know presidents and all that, legislative head) It can be argued it is a semi official statement. But it is also not an official government statement. All I am saying it is an RS for Modi saying this, where it goes is another (not really RS) matter.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There is an official Government statement on this as issue as well. And that was covered widely in the Indian media. In your opinion, should that be covered in this section titled "Indian Government Response". One example of such a media coverage is https://www.livemint.com/news/india/citizenship-amendment-act-govt-busts-myths-11576477654256.html
 * Kmoksha (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes of course official government statement should be, do they contradict what Modi has said?Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not see any contradiction between the two. This is tweet from personal twitter handle of Modi - https://twitter.com/narendramodi/status/1206492850378002432
 * Kmoksha (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that FAQs for CAA released by Government ought to be put in this section. The given source links are secondary and reliable. And the personal response of Modi on this matter should be removed from this section. Abhishekaryavart (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

https://puzzups.com/
Hey guys,

While working on a media bio article, I wanted to verify and cite information that a previous editor added. This is the only web-site that confirms the info that I need but before using it I thought I'd pass by you guys.

https://puzzups.com/

ThanksFilmman3000 (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've got to say, that site looks pretty dubious to me. Their 'about us' page has no information about an editorial panel, just an anonymous e-mail address, and while the articles have bylines to authors, there is no information about who these authors are, or where the published information is coming from. I can't see any indication that this is anything other than a UGC fan site, so I'd say it's not looking like WP:RS to me. Girth Summit  (blether)  14:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Unreliable. The site looks procedurally generated. Additionally, it describes itself as "CELEBRITY GOSSIPY BIO", and should be avoided per WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:NOTGOSSIP. —  Newslinger  talk   19:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No As per the arguments that fellow editors mentioned, I vote no. Furthermore, I think more editors should vote against it, the unconfirmed information was probably added by other editors who in good faith, felt that a site like this was giving them good information. I wouldn't like it if that information came back with that citation, nor anyone else working on another media bio. However, if the web site ever notes this interaction and would prove that their content is legitimate research it could be revoked some of it could be use for personal, early life, and career section.Filmman3000 (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a tremendous number of red flags here. The site itself is set up like a blog, with no obvious editorial oversight. The material is clearly scraped from other sources, or just "gossip" completely made up. Almost every article has contradictory information with images that were copied (and attributed) from copyrighted sources. Many "authors" appears to be fake names: "Tom Cruise", "Michael Jackson", etc. Others that have unique names have no other presence on the internet or any other information available for them. The address used to register the domain is fake and the e-mail is associated with several other junk scraper sites (biographyline.com, celebsblurb.com). Frankly, this site is just another in a wave of terrible blog content farms that are pretending to be "celebrity databases" - I would say it falls in the "not in any way reliable" category. Kuru  (talk)  00:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Unreliable, for reasons already stated by other editors above. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Numerous Poor Sources Added to Yule log to Promote Religious POV
Recently has added, and readded numerous unreliable sources to the Yule log, many of them from evangelical Christian publishers and authors without any formal background in folklore studies. Examples include the following:
 * Collins, Ace (2010). Stories Behind the Great Traditions of Christmas. Zondervan. ISBN 9780310873884.
 * As his page makes clear, Ace Collins is not a folklorist nor an academic of any sort, and Zodervan is a Christian publishing branch of HarperCollins.


 * Bowler, Gerry. 2005. Santa Claus, A Biography. McCellend & Stewart Ltd.
 * While certainly better credentialed than Collins, Bowlery is not a folklorist, nor a specialist, but is also happens to be a Christian interests author. This is a general audience book not subject to peer review, and another WP:RS fail.


 * Grimassi, Raven. 2000. Encyclopedia of Wicca & Witchcraft. Llewellyn Worldwide. ISBN 9781567182576.
 * Llewellyn Worldwide is a new age publisher that regularly publishes fringe stuff with zero editorial oversight. This is an RS fail.


 * Mosteller, Angela. 2010. Christmas, Celebrating the Christian History of Classic Symbols, Songs and Stories. Holiday Classics Publishing.
 * Obvious WP:RS fail (author's site). All that aside, appears to be self-published, which, under normal circumstances, would mean immediate removal.


 * Weiser, Franz Xaver. 1958. Handbook of Christian Feasts and Customs. Harcourt.
 * Catholic theologian with no background in folklore studies, nor any background, it would seem, outside of Catholic theology. Yet another WP:RS fail.

This page could use more eyes. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I reverted per WP:BRD, as you're making major changes to an article without discussion (thank you for starting a discussion after being challenged). The sources are RS, and being a Christian author doesn't disqualify one from being an RS, just as an atheist author/publisher wouldn't be automatically disqualified. I'm pinging User:Walter Görlitz, a regular editor on topics related to this. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody said anything about "being a Christian author doesn't disqualify one from being an RS". For example, Rudolf Simek is Catholic. Unlike the sources you've provided, however, he is a specialist and an academic, and his work receives peer review. Please go ahead and self-revert. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * HarperCollins and Harcourt are reliable publishers per WP:RS. A theologian discussing a Christmas tradition (since Christmas is a Christian holiday) is most certainly appropriate. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 00:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Being published by a respectable press is one crtiterion for reliable sources, but is not probative in and of itself. For some reason the publisher's reputation seems to be the go-to argument for editors who want to add janky information to WP articles. The main goal for publishers is to make a profit, not educate or ensure that information is unbiased or true. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, the information can be hardly called "janky." The only reason the Yule log survived well into the Christian era is that it was Christianized. To eliminate the context in which it entered Christmas celebrations and instead claim that for most people, the Yule log is a Germanic pagan custom, is a specious claim and qualifies as POV-pushing. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 03:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I know our requirement is reliable, not academic. Nor is bias (religious or otherwise) a criteria for exclusion. Now one can argue that they may be non expert, but one can argue that they may well be experts about christian tradition (but not folklore). As the Yule log is now very much part of Christian tradition their views might well be RS, if attributed.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Academic is a high standard for reliability, so it's a question of weight as to whether to consider other sources alongside academic material. That biased sources aren't necessarily unreliable doesn't mean we should include them, either. It just means they aren't automatically unreliable. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Which is not an RS issue.Slatersteven (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)+
 * Agreed, Slatersteven. And Rhododendrites, I have no problem attributing the claim. My objection is to Bloodofox wanting to remove it altogether. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BIASED actually is an WP:RS issue, in that it imposes restrictions on how a source can be used (ie. a WP:BIASED source is generally not reliable for unattributed statements of fact.) But I think that Rhododendrites' point is that people have a tendency to give biased sources a degree of leeway that they shouldn't have in terms of WP:RS - simply being published, alone, is not necessarily enough to clear the high WP:RS bar needed to weigh them against an academic source.  WP:RS isn't a binary; a source that is reliable for a brief mention of a noteworthy opinion may not (as in this case) be reliable to implicitly pit against an academic description of a custom's origins.  More generally, yes, this involves WP:DUE issues as well.  My concern is that these are not simply "books by Christians" but, largely, books unequivocally described by their authors as intended to advance and celebrate Christian views.  That sort of WP:BIASED source can be cited, cautiously, provided they're not used for a large part of the article, and provided they're not used in ways that would contradict higher-quality sources; but citing a major chunk of the lead solely to such sources is waaaay over the line.  If the opinions expressed in these sources are relevant, we ought to be able to find secondary sources covering it - otherwise, I think the bar for putting attributed opinion in the lead is extremely high and there's no particular indication that these sources are noteworthy enough to clear it.  Is Franz Xaver Weiser someone so important that his personal opinions about yule logs belong in the lead? --Aquillion (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

A book which uses the same kind of declarative statement for historical and religious claims, conflating the two (e.g. "God came down to earth", reading from the introduction of the Ace Collins books published by Bible publisher Zondervan), is not a great source for historical facts on a subject which has already received coverage in academic history texts. That doesn't necessarily mean such sources are unreliable for any purpose, but they carry less weight and should generally be attributed if included at all. Also, just from a general editing perspective, it's not good form to add a single paragraph to the body and then transform the lead so that 2/3 of its paragraphs are about that bit you just added... &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

User attempting to promote a particular author and/or the author's POV
While the user apppears to have given up on re-adding self-published sources, the user is still adding random sources found on the internet featuring non-specialists next to academics and other specialists in the article. This is evidently to either promote one of these books (Perhaps the book by this guy), the ideas expressed therein, or both. Noted folklorists and philologists are currently emphasized next to these non-WP:RS-compliant sources, despite WP:UNDUE. This is stranger yet considering that academic sources detailed in the article already make the situation clear (innovation vs. tradition). The goal appears to ensure that a particular quote by a particular author occurs in the lead. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The Metal Onslaught
This is the first of two heavy metal music "zines": https://www.themetalonslaught.com/about-us From this about us page, it seems clear that it's a site for fans by fans, but it does not appear to meet some of the hallmarks required for being a reliable source: there is no editorial oversight policy, the founder has no journalistic background, and this site seems to sell what it reviews so is motivated to provide good reviews. This site is used on many articles. Can it be considered a reliable source? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The Metal Resource
This is the second of two heavy metal music "zines": http://mauce.nl/site/ There is no "about us" page, but individual reviewers do get entries and the founders are not journalists. Their mission statement, http://mauce.nl/site/mission-statement/, is interesting but makes it clear they just want to inform readers but do not claim to be journalists. The individual "editor" pages don't support journalistic experience of any of the writers and again, no editorial oversight policy. This site is used on many articles. Can this be considered a reliable source? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Airline fansites
In cleaning up some spam I found a number of aviation-related fansites that do not appear to me to be reliable sources.
 * - see about page, non-authoritative aggregator, SPS, one man website.
 * - see about page, amateur-curated photo upload site, many links are to forums or other user-generated content.
 * - see about page, group blog with two editors.
 * - appears to be a domain squatter by now. Archived about page says: "Started as a simple blog in 2010 out of my curiosity to learn aeronautics, continues its gradual pace to a professional website." Single editor, non-specialist.
 * , formerly - see About page. Personal site and web forum, no indication of editorial review.
 * - no About page linked. Appears to be a personal project of Jon Ostrower.
 * - "Air-and-Space.com is a one man operation. My name is Brian Lockett. I take most of the pictures, write the captions, create the pages, and make all the arbitrary editorial decisions."
 * - see About page. "The person behind the website Aerial Visuals, AV, is myself, Mike Henniger. I have a background in software engineering, and this website is a hobby site that I have used to develop skills in web services and applications."
 * - see About page. May be RS, at least run by people with relevant expertise.
 * - 404 now and appears to have been a firm of plaintiffs' lawyers so a distinct POV.
 * - spammed, blacklisted, one-man site run by Chris Brady, whose sole claim to authority is publishing the content of the site via vanity press Lulu.
 * - appears to be the personal site of Helmut Pyrochta, no evidence of review or reliability.

Does anyone consider any of these to meet RS? Guy (help!) 10:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Airliners.net is primarly a photo hosting website, so a lot of the uses are actually using photos as references - as discussed Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Archive_35 on WP:Aircraft (although without a conclusion as the discussion devolved into insults and finger pointing. Some uses, however, are using technical data & specs like, which appears to have been copied with permission from a reliable source. I would think that the last example is probably OK if not ideal (we would clearly prefer to directly reference the original source), but using photos from Airliners.net as references probably isn't.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The forum and photo sharing parts can't be RS, but the aircraft data is based on The International Directory of Civil Aircraft by Gerard Frawley and seems reliable, I use it in cite templates with Airliners.net in the via field.--Marc Lacoste (talk) but pretty pictures!


 * Aviation-Safety.net is part of the Flight Safety Foundation which appears to be a long-established non-profit organisation supported by the aviation industry according to . In general most of ASN (like the accident database should be reliable, although it also contains a user-editable Wikibase for accidents which aren't in the main database - the Wikibase sould not be treated as reliable as it is user-editable.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The Flight Safety Foundation reputation is excellent, and ASN is one excellent source for accidents. (but indeed the Wikibase should not be viewed as reliable) --Marc Lacoste (talk)


 * I am a regular contributor to two of them:
 * aviation-safety.net scores quite high as an encyclopedical reference in my very personal observation, very open to contributions, and usually checks them carefully before adding them to published content; all of which happens quite fast.
 * Aviation24.be is an interesting chat site but its encyclopedical value is questionable; editorial articles have been known to copy releases from airlines or aircraft builders with few if any critical comment; whereas forum discussion often remains at "fan" level.
 * fwiw, Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * theaircurrent.com is run by Jon Ostrower, an experienced journalist who went through CNN, WSJ and Flightglobal. Should be kept as RS.--Marc Lacoste (talk)
 * Right, but it's a self-published source, so fails RS except for ABOUTSELF. Guy (help!) 11:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The other domains seems like fan blogs or forums, not RS I think.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Treat all except the fan blogs and forums as generally reliable unless evidence is found that they are unreliable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Any website that is editable by anyone cannot be considered reliable.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 20:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR)

 * The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.  A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 * Appears to be a no consensus outcome. From what I can make out of the relevant arguments, data provided by CEPR can be attributed, though its political alignment will also need to be taken into consideration. ToThAc (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Given the recent relevance, which of the following options describes Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) the best as a source?

Note: One previous discussion was held and was not conclusive, though editors acknowledged a partisan stance.


 * Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
 * Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
 * Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
 * Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecatedZiaLater ( talk ) 17:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Survey (Center for Economic and Policy Research)

 * Generally reliable but opinionated - I would say that CEPR as a policy shop is like Cato, Hoover, et al. - their opinion conclusions are generally structurally sound but should be taken in context of their ideological underpinnings and should be in-text attributed. Neither Cato nor CEPR are likely to publish something outright false or fabricated, but neither should their conclusions be treated as gospel truth. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Generally unreliable - I normally would have said Option 2, "Unclear or additional considerations apply", but I still have serious doubts about CEPR.


 * I have cited before their report attributing 40,000 deaths in Venezuela to international sanctions, "which was refuted because of inaccuracies, methodological errors and bias." Namely:




 * The report also admits that the counterfactual data was unknown.


 * On the case of the last report on Bolivia, regardless of the findings, I'm worried that the organization mixes analytical content from political one. Specifically, in their press release, the CEPR directly accuses the Organization of American States of enabling the crisis and the coup in Bolivia, various organs of the OAS have played an enormous role in driving the crisis that led to Morales’s ouster, only using their position and the publication of the report as proof, and citing other alleged examples of actions "against the Left", namely in Haiti, Venezuela and Honduras. These appear to be closer to ad hominem arguments, rather than more analytical ones.


 * CEPR has been cited by Telesur   and Venezuelanalysis,      both sources that have been found to be unreliable and that should be deprecated. I don't want to engage in ad hominem arguments myself, but it should also be noted that the CEPR's founders and members have been related and have openly shown their support for the pink tide in Latin America.


 * Citing other discussions, The Center for Public Integrity shared in a 2004 article titled "Venezuela Head Polishes Image With Oil Dollars President Hugo Chavez takes his case to America's streets" details on the CEPR-Venezuela Information Office-Global Exchange links and how the group would issue similar letters, and the CEPR "will often choose professionals to sign large open letters that support their motives."


 * Economists Call on Media to Report "Overwhelming Evidence" Regarding Venezuelan Election Results - CEPR-led group responding to the 2013 Venezuelan presidential election
 * Economists Call on Congress to Mitigate Fallout from Ruling on Argentine Debt - CEPR-led group calling for debt-relief for the Cristina Fernández de Kirchner administration


 * I want to clarify that with this I don't mean that the CEPR publishes mistaken or wrong information, meaning that it should not be included as it is the case if it was deprecated. On the contrary, their claims usually seem to be substantiated with research and analysis, but there seems to be a consensus on that it is a partisan organization, and at times the wrong conclusions might be reached because of this, meaning that not only said conclusions should be treated carefully, but also attributed. My fear remains that the CEPR is given the same weight as, for example, the Organization of American States. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Generally reliable. As with similar agencies, its findings should be attributed. Burrobert (talk) 07:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Mostly unreliable/opinionated/additional considerations per Jamez42. Their publications are partisan and published on a trendy basis. As a political thinkthank it should either be avoided or be represented minimally in political crisis issues. In the case of Venezuela, there have been also additional counter reports. I am not saying that we should adhere to one institute or another, but we should not base whole sections on which center says what and their successive responses, as done in International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis (see also what this kind of report lead to Talk:International_sanctions_during_the_Venezuelan_crisis/Archive_1 ). --MaoGo (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also like to bring here that the CEPR Wikipedia article has some history of alleged WP:MEATpuppetry (see Talk:Center for Economic and Policy Research.--MaoGo (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Generally reliable Called by bot. It is treated as generally reliable by news outlets, and so should be treated as generally reliable by Wikipedia. It's got Novel Prize winners on its advisory board. Not many think tanks can claim that.  Darx9url (talk) 11:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally reliable as per NorthBySouthBaranof. Bacondrum (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Additional considerations - I feel this is a split discussion. Looking into it, CEPR seems to be mostly reliable, if partisan, on many things. It does engage in some political activities that are quite commonplace in the US (e.g. lobbying) which are not seen as good practice in other countries, but it is US-based. However, coming from the minor discussion in regards their reliability on Latin American issues, this is where it gets more complex and where I'd say it becomes more often than not unreliable. Perhaps this discussion could be split that way. See Jamez's analysis above for a large chunk of detail, and in the 2019 Bolivian political crisis page history for details of a CEPR report that gives very different statistics on the political outlook to most good reliable and local sources. Kingsif (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * See [...] the 2019 Bolivian political crisis page history for details of a CEPR report that gives very different statistics on the political outlook to most good reliable and local sources. The CEPR report made use of the official, publicly available election results. It doesn't give "different statistics" from other sources, it just demonstrates that the "sudden" change in the results was likely due to geography (rural, Morales-supporting regions return results later). If there are actual errors in the report, they should be highlighted, but otherwise I'm not aware of any issues related to that report. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 04:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pulling me up on that; can we change statistics to "interpretations". It's the only one I've seen that determines such a large change can be completely accounted for (as some of the other sources in the article would suggest, by not agreeing with it). Kingsif (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Generally reliable (randomly invited by bot) They are generally cited in the media as a reliable source. Jojalozzo (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Generally unreliable for factual reporting. As with all sources, the reliability depends on the text being cited.  In general, for the US topics they specialize in, they may be regarded as a partisan source whose opinions can be used if they meet WEIGHT and are attributed.  But on Latin American topics, more caution is in order, and they are not a reliable source (except in cases such as representing the Chavismo point of view, see South of the Border (2009 film)). Factual errors in analysis have been frequently pointed out: see Mark_Weisbrot. It would be (legally) risky to label extensive factual errors intentional, so let the reader decide.  The 2019 report in particular was extremely misleading according to sources.  I would also note that many of the "media mentions" alleged above may be related to the fact that "talking heads" on television shows willing to represent the Chavismo point of view are few in far between.   See also the Mark_Weisbrot section of that article for charges that Venezuelan economics were slanted by the author. Additionally, as mentioned above, the closer of this section should note that MEATPuppetry has long existed in this suite of articles.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS - mildly progressive and left-leaning, with area of expertise in domestic economics and international (Latin and South American) affairs.  Domestic topic publications are reliable, providing good factual information and clear sourcing.   South American topic pieces and sections of op-ed pieces and blogs are not reliable.   No obvious editorial oversight or appearance of retraction-handling was seen.  Generally respected in the press.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Additional considerations apply. I don't see compelling evidence of the Center for Economic and Policy Research being significantly more reliable than other previously discussed think tanks and advocacy groups, including the Cato Institute and Media Matters for America  – both of which are usable with attribution but treated with caution. The Cato Institute features Nobel laureates, just like CEPR. —  Newslinger   talk   07:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally reliable There are no serious problems cited above, no factual errors cited, just poorly grounded claims of their factual errors. Baker and Weisbrot have an excellent reputation. A large part of their work is finding glaring errors of fact and logic in other sources; deeming them unreliable is absurd.John Z (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The ridiculous notion that 40,000 deaths in Venezuela can be attributed to international sanctions, and clear misinterpretation and manipulation of data as stated by other sources, is demonstrably factually incorrect as pointed out by more serious commentators. This claim comes from a clear supporter of chavismo.  To call it a "lie" or "deliberate" could lead to a lawsuit; the evidence that it is demonstrably inaccurate and misleading is there. There is more of same. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 2-3: As the user who posted this RfC, I have waited to see what multiple users have shared before placing conclusions. Two conclusions have been made:


 * The main issue with CEPR is when it covers international subjects, mainly in Latin America. As wrote, the information about sanctions causing 40,000 deaths (!) is dubious at best and their use of fallacious arguments is a source of concern. When using Alexa Internet, we can see CEPR's audience. One of CEPR's main referral websites is Venezuelanalysis (see Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources), while Venezuelanalysis is also present in CEPR's audience overlap.


 * CEPR also has a history of advocating for the Government of Venezuela and some of their staff were previous employees of the Venezuelan government's Venezuela Information Office lobbying group. For example, Deborah James, their director of international programs, was the former executive director of the Venezuela Information Office and is a board member of Global Exchange, an advocacy organization that the World Trade Organization stated had promoted "incorrect information or downright falsehoods". James, described as "a top U.S. protest organizer" by the Center for Public Integrity in their Venezuela Head Polishes Image with Oil Dollars at the time, with the Center writing that Global Exchange and the Venezuela Information Office often promoted the same interests jointly. The Center also writes that James helped organize "solidarity groups" for the Venezuelan government while at Global Exchange and when part of the Venezuelan Information Office, she "began contacting activists and protesters". James' work with Global Exchange is noted by CEPR, but her work with the government of Venezuela is not included, however. Interestingly, two other CEPR employees were Venezuela Information Office staff; Robert Naiman[1 ][2 ] and Alex Main. According to Emili J. Blasco of ABC, "In the brief biographies that the CEPR presented by Deborah James and Alex Main it was not said that they previously worked for the Venezuela Information Office (En las breves biografias que el CEPR presentaba de Deborah James y Alex Main no se decia que previamente trabajaron para la Venezuela Information Office)". With previous Venezuelan government lobbyists working for for CEPR in such important positions, especially the director of international programs, one can see how allegations of bias exist among reliable sources and other economists. For international discussion, it is higly advised that CEPR not be used, especially with controversial subjects.


 * As some users have noted, CEPR is similar to Cato Institute as an economic policy organization. Per WP:RSP, such sources usually fall under Option 2. The group also focuses on US domestic issues in a partisan, but more polished manner. As for lobbying in the US, that is a different story. For US domestic issues, CEPR seems to follow suit with other US economic policy groups. As a result, Option 2 may also be appropriate.


 * At the very most, CEPR is Option 2 (additional considerations needing to be warranted for attribution, etc.) But as users and sources have indicated, Option 3 may be more appropriate if international subjects are covered, especially since CEPR does not seem to be notable for their US domestic policy position, mostly being cited when discussing international policy that is highly contentious (for example their Alexa Rating skyrocketed from a record low during the 2019 Bolivian political crisis). For anyone closing this discussion, please make note of the potential conflict with international coverage and that usage of this source must be attributed in a detailed manner.ZiaLater ( talk ) 22:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Generally reliable I have seen no major problems with using this source. It may be left-leaning but that is hardly disqualifying. I have seen academics rely on their reports so I think it is safe for Wikipedia. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 03:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally reliable per NorthBySouthBaranof, Burrobert, Bacondrum, "It is treated as generally reliable by news outlets, and so should be treated as generally reliable by Wikipedia. It's got Novel Prize winners on its advisory board." --, Bacondrum, "generally cited in the media as a reliable source" -- , John Z, " I have seen academics rely on their reports so I think it is safe for Wikipedia." --Editorofthewiki. All strong reasons. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply, for most coverage (left-leaning think tank, to be treated like CATO/AEI, etc.) Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting, when it comes to Latin American coverage. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 2. Generally reliable, including re: Latin America, but should be attributed, as with other think tanks. As noted by other respondents, it is treated by other sources as reliable. It's usually described as a "left-leaning think tank" or similar.
 * Much hay is being made by some respondents about the "40,000 deaths" paper, but in the paper CEPR are careful to acknowledge that The percentage of deaths due to the sanctions is difficult to estimate because the counterfactual is unknowable, but it is worth noting that the counterfactual in the absence of sanctions could even be that mortality would have been reduced [...] in the event that an economic recovery would have taken place.. It should also be noted that one of the authors of the "counter report" is Ricardo Hausmann, who is a member of the Venezuelan opposition and was an advisor to Guaidó at the time the report was written and published.
 * As for the Bolivia report, the only complaints respondents seem to have are with CEPR's claims that the OAS played a role in Morales's ouster. It's difficult to see how this could be objectionable given that the publication of the OAS's preliminary report alleging electoral irregularities is regularly cited as one of the factors leading to his resignation. Given that the CEPR report is a direct refutation of the OAS's preliminary report, it's unsurprising that they would criticize the OAS.
 * The traffic analyses, links from Venezuelanalyis, etc., are not really convincing, IMO. As noted, CEPR's editorial stance leans to the left, so it's unsurprising that other left-wing sources would cite them. That says nothing about whether CEPR itself is reliable or not. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding link to Ricardo Hausmann for information, as he is mentioned in the above comment. Kingsif (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 2-3: Wrt their report countering the OAS audit of the Bolivian elections, they felt comfortable releasing their examination and criticism of the OAS findings before the OAS had released their final conclusions and a host of corroborating data on 5th Dec. That also included, IMO, getting a host of people to sign an open letter condemning the OAS based on their criticism. Running a bunch of numbers to show likelihood depends on what data you put into it and their simulations are based on their own inferences about the reliability of the data and assumptions in interpretation. NYT pointed out that they had "not addressed the accusations of hidden data servers, forged signatures and other irregularities found by the O.A.S. observers, nor have they tried to explain the electoral council’s sudden decision to stop the count" . As someone who works in data science, if there is evidence that the data has been tampered with, the confidence in the results is questionable. You can't run reliable simulations on that if you are making a very bold claim about the diligence of an audit. It seems like in this case they are trying to look at data and make a conclusion to fit with their existing hypothesis while ignoring all objections. That is bad science. Crmoorhead I would say that this research is unreliable, but I cannot speak for their other contributions and will give them the benefit of the doubt. Any detailed examination of their statistical analysis would be WP:OR and I think it unlikely that there be a response of that nature as it is not a peer-reviewed paper.(talk) 14:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Definitely not Options 3-4. CEPR distributes working papers that often end up as peer-reviewed publications in top econ journals. These should absolutely not be depreciated. Publications by CEPR itself should be attributed and are generally notable enough for inclusion, in particular when authored by recognized experts. Note that the disputed publication above is co-authored by Jeffrey Sachs, a professor of economics at Columbia. NPOV applies which means that if a CEPR publication holds a fringe view, then that fringe view should not be given undue attention or focus (i.e. if other studies rebut the CEPR publication, then those should also be included). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Les Vicomtes du Mans et La Maison de Belleme
Does anyone have information pertaining to the author of this book, M. J. Depoin? I have been unable to find information on this person.--Kansas Bear (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Not the most reliable source, but according to Google Books this is possibly the same as Joseph Depoin, a historian (see the connection and additional publications). Wikidata has a record about him here. The usual disclaimers apply, I have not researched the issue in more detail. GermanJoe (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. That is more than I had. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Compare also these 2 records for more evidence: "Depoin M. J." and "Joseph Depoin" - both publishing via the Societe historique in Pontoise. Hope this helps a bit with your research - I like that digging around in old sources :). GermanJoe (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * M. Depoin is a red link on frwiki in Liste des vicomtes du Maine. –84.46.53.65 (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Question about a source used on Nick Gehlfuss
Hi,

On Nick Gehlfuss, the reference for his birthdate is http://birth-records.mooseroots.com/l/12392558/Nicholas-Alan-Gehlfuss which is both dead, and I suspect not a reliable source. What steps should I take, because this is the only reference for his birthdate?

Thanks Red Fiona (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * IMO this would be better dealt with at WP:BLP/N even if it concerns the reliability of sources. That said, I'll keep it here rather than moving it. That source is almost definitely not suitable for a birth date since it sounds like it's a violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY, some sort of birth record e.g. from a hospital or US state or something. It's therefore also a violation of WP:BLPPRIVACY since we require that the birth date is either widely published, or appears in sources linked to the subject such that we can infer they don't mind it being public. Given this, you can simply remove the birth date until an acceptable source comes along. To avoid complaints, it may be worth having a quick search to see if you can find acceptable sources. But as I was going to remove it, I did, and I only found [//www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/nick-gehlfuss-47930.php] and other worse sources. There's also [//onechicagocenter.com/2019/01/21/chicago-med-nick-gehlfuss-birthday-2019/] which I'm fairly sure is not an RS as well and only gives the date not the year.  To be clear, if you can't be bothered looking for better sources, it's generally better to remove the date anyway, to avoid WP:CITOGENESIS etc. Ultimately for that kind of thing in a BLP, it's the responsibility of anyone who wants to add (back) the info to find a suitable source.  BTW, the dead link issue tends to be less important unless you have doubts about the source that you cannot assess. Per WP:DEADLINK, if the source is acceptable, then we generally leave it until it's repaired. Admittedly in this case, it doesn't look like it's actually archived so that may be quite difficult. Still even in a BLP, I wouldn't removed sourced content just because of a deadlink, unless there is some other reason to. (E.g. I suspect the dead link is not an RS, or think it may have been misinterpreted.)  As an aside, if the common solution which doesn't seem to apply here, is if we have some RS on the birthdate, but it doesn't seem widely published, is to only include the year.  Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It was more the procedure I was asking about so this answered my question completely.  Thank you very much.  Red Fiona (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Race and intelligence
We're seeing issues recurring at the talk pages of the articles regarding racial groups and intelligence. Some participants are repeating claims that there is reliable scientific evidence that certain racial groups may have inherently different levels of intelligence to each other. These are really just the same claims that were made by fringe Pioneer Fund researchers such as Philippe Rushton and have been used here at RSN as examples of unreliable sources, but it would be good to get a clear determination that these conclusions are explicitly unreliable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In case it isn't clear what Onetwothreeip asking, the argument he's been making on this talk page is that certain sources can be judged as non-reliable based on the viewpoints they present, regardless of who the publisher is. Some of the sources being discussed there are the journal Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, the journal Intelligence, and Cambridge University Press. (Both of those journals have published papers by Rushton, and Cambridge University Press has published books by other authors arguing in favor of Rushton's ideas.) Based on the comments by user:NPalgan2 and User:Jbhunley at Articles for deletion/Differential K theory, I don't believe it is consistent with RS policy to judge otherwise reputable journals and university publishers as non-reliable for this reason, but I suppose it'll be useful if this noticeboard could give some confirmation about this interpretation of policy.


 * This discussion also is useful as background. 2600:1004:B122:68E7:3499:54EA:14FC:FCA3 (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion you have linked has nothing to do with reliable sources or with race and intelligence. Personal disputes do not belong here.
 * Being published by well-known publishers obviously does not mean the work is reliable. These views are not endorsed by those publications, and Intelligence is not widely considered reliable either. The fact that publishers may publish certain views does not make the publishers unreliable, and their reliability is not in question here. This is about the reliability of fringe reearchers like Philippe Rushton and others associated with Pioneer Fund, for whom any cursory glance shows that they are unreliable researchers. They do not represent anything resembling a scientifically accepted study of psychology. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you point to the specific sources that are being contested, and the claims they're being used to support? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't about sources being used to support claims, it's about both the sources (the authors) and the claims (inherent racial superiority/inferiority) being unreliable. The sources are sufficient enough to establish that these claims are being made by these people, but certainly not that these claims are either true or are sufficiently held in psychology, other than by a few fringe researchers. Claims like Rushton and Jensen argue that long-term follow-up of the Head Start Program found large immediate gains for blacks and whites but that these were quickly lost for the blacks although some remained for whites. and Rushton and Jensen have argued that unlike the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, these studies did not retest the children post-adolescence when heritability of IQ would presumably be higher. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that this is not about specific sources, I am not sure it belongs in a discussion here. If something is published in a respected academic journal (and not retracted), then that is a reliable source on any issue. If it is on a researcher's personal blog, then it's not. MaximumIdeas (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are still reliable sources, and they don't stop being reliable because an editor considers certain ideas they publish as controversial. Loksmythe (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources in this case are the researchers themselves. They are reliable sources for describing what their own fringe views are, but they aren't considered reliable in the context of mainstream psychology. They are only published as what these researchers claimed, not as any consensus view on the subject. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether individual authors are “fringe” or “unreliable” is the job of the editors at the Cambridge University Press, etc, to determine. This policy is in place because it is not possible for Wiki to determine the credibility of every author among the millions who are out there. If Cambridge or another academic outlet or RS publishes some research, it should be treated as any other research they publish. (Absent retraction, RS reports that the paper was fraudulent, etc, which would of course be due to mention.) MaximumIdeas (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly as MaximumIdeas says. Loksmythe (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with that as well, but in this case we have many reliable sources stating that these authors are unreliable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Onetwothreeip, You've been making this argument for about two weeks, first at talk:Race and intelligence and now here, and it has not received any support from other editors in either place. Please read this essay: Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. 2600:1004:B105:1EDC:2998:401A:F3A0:4022 (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether individual authors are “fringe” or “unreliable” is the job of the editors at the Cambridge University Press, etc, to determine. This is not entirely true.  Something published in a peer-reviewed journal form a reputable publication can still be fringe.  From WP:FRINGELEVEL:  Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance by the scientific community. It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact. Articles about fringe theories sourced solely from a single primary source (even when it is peer reviewed) may be excluded from Wikipedia on notability grounds. Likewise, exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources.  Peer-reviewed papers are useful, but the important question is overall acceptance by the scientific community. --Aquillion (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, a single primary source is not necessary notable -- for it to be notable, one would want to see significant discussion of it within the scientific field; not just a one-off paper. MaximumIdeas (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * On the article talk page, Onetwothreeip is continuing to assert that "the writer of the publication is a source, and their unreliability makes the source unreliable". (This is referring to sources published by Cambridge University Press, in journals published by the APA, etc.) As a result, he won't allow the sources he removed for this reason to be added back to the article. This is the first time I've seen an editor ask a question at this noticeboard, and then refuse to accept the answer they've been given. Now that this is where things are, what should happen next? As long as he keeps making this same argument that the sources he removed can't be added back, will the same question have to keep being asked at this noticeboard again and again, while the edit warring over his removals continues indefinitely? 2600:1004:B14D:273B:4419:B503:B258:4339 (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Fringe books used as sources for fringe theory article?
Should Nevillean theory of Shakespeare authorship use sources promoting the theory itself as its primary references? Tom Reedy (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * what is your brief and neutral statement? At nearly 3,000 bytes, the statement above (from the tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for  to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Does that work? Tom Reedy (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Further explanation reposted from original statement. I don't know whether to post this here or on the fringe theories noticeboard. The Nevillean theory of Shakespeare authorship is a sublisting of the Shakespeare authorship question, which is categorized as a fringe theory. WP:Fringe states that "for writers and editors of Wikipedia articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality." In general, Wikipedia allows discussion of fringe theories in articles about those theories as long as reliable sources discuss those theories, and the article is sourced to those reliable sources.

In contrast, the primary sources for this article are the very works that propose the theory. Other sources are used in the article, but in a manner that appears to be WP:OR, and the only source that appears to be a WP:RS for the topic is Matt Kubus' "The Unusual Suspects" in Shakespeare Beyond Doubt (2013), Paul Edmonson and Stanley Wells, eds.

These are the questioned sources:


 * Brenda James and William Rubinstein, The Truth Will Out: Unmasking the Real Shakespeare (2005)
 * John Casson and William Rubinstein, Sir Henry Neville was Shakespeare: The Evidence (2016)
 * John Casson and Mark Bradbeer, Sir Henry Neville, Alias William Shakespeare: Authorship Evidence in the History Plays] (2015)
 * James Leyland and James Goding, Who Will Believe my Verse? The Code in Shakespeare's Sonnets (2018)

On the article's talk page, three reliable sources are listed that were used to establish the notability of the article for an AFD in 2016, but only one is in fact used as a source. As far as I've been able to learn, the theory hasn't received very much significant coverage (as opposed to mere passing mentions) in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject in academic publications and web sites, nor really all that much in popular publications. If my interpretation of the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability is correct, this article should not use these sources to discuss the topic any further than has been treated in reliable sources. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Leyland teaches cyber-media in Ballarat, Goding is emeritus professor of experimental pathology at Monash University, Mark Bradbeer is a registered nurse. John Casson was a psychotherapist. Anything from those sources is clearly unusable. One might just argue that Rubenstein and James’s book could be borderline and usable. William Rubenstein was out of his field, as a specialist in modern history. But technically he does know the rules of evidence even though they are not much in evidence in the book he co-authored with Brenda James. Understandably so because at least for the 2005 book, - which originally appeared under the imprint of Regan Books, a celebrity specialist book producer that was closed down soon after, though then was reprinted by Pearson Educational somehow - she wrote it and it was such a cipher-mongering mess he seems to have stepped it to make it less weird. She was a sometime lecturer in English at Portsmouth University, but now, apparently an  independent researcher.  David Kathman’s review, one of several, shows the hackwork flourished in that work. Both were utterly out of their depth with their ‘pseudo-scholarly inanities’. This theory so far has had a 14 year old life, and there is scant resonance in the serious, secondly literature literature on Shakespeare and his age.


 * The silliness there is one that permeates all these fringe books: a heuristic method that combines crankily austere scepticism for the written records establishing Shakespeare’s authorship with a parallel facile gullibility for any inference one might make from hints on the margins of the documentary record that a noble must have written the works. Anal Pyrrhonism for the factual record, hallucinating credulity for imagined possible hidden clues in the records which never mention alternative candidates – for no record exists directly or indirectly linking any Elizabethan other than WS to the plays and poems. I.e. silence whispers the truth that the ample noise of contemporary voices fears to state. None of those books are RS: reviews of them by competent scholars are.Nishidani (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Any book is a reliable source for the existence of its own content, insofar as it is evidence that the content exists in that book. It is not necessarily a reliable source for the validity of the content. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 16:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What I'm trying to determine is whether they conform to Wikipedia policy as reliable sources for this article. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Fuck no. I mean, seriously. That's like basing an article on phrenology on the writing of phrenologists. I suppose if the books are shown to be notable crackpottery we can discuss them as exemplars, but the article itself should be written from and based on mainstream scholarship. Guy (help!) 17:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally, no, other than for WP:ABOUTSELF material (e.g., there's no better source for what exactly Casson said than Casson's own publications). When it comes to analysis of this hypothesis, and how much weight to give it, rely entirely on WP:INDY WP:RS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ABOUTSELF may take you quite a way in this fringe of the fringe topic. It isn't clear that it has yet received a full detailed refutation from an orthodox scholar (or even say a Baconian). If it has then obviously that should be used. The lead makes it clear that this theory has gained next to no traction, but that para entirely lacks references. This is when we miss the late User:Paul Barlow! Johnbod (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Johnbod I would think that the first exception would rule out their use: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: (1) the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim." This topic would certainly qualify as an exceptional claim. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The topic has (rightly I think) been found notable & carries a clear (if unreferenced) health warning in the short lead. If no one can produce a proper RS discussing the detail, we only seem to have the choice of saying there is a theory, but hardly setting out what it is, or using these sources. Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree it's notable enough to have a WP page, but there are sufficient reliable sources to source the article without using the fringe works themselves. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * While what someone writes may be acceptable as a source for their opinions on articles about them, they are never acceptable in articles about other topics. So while writings by Brenda James and William Rubinstein may be reliable sources for their articles, they are not reliable sources for an article about the Nevillean theory. The article should be based on reliable secondary sources that analyze the theory and explains the degree of its acceptance. Sometimes quotes from the authors may help readers but they should only be included if they have been repeated in reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , close, but not quite exact. Sources by Person A may and should  be used for the opinion of person A about subject B, assuming subject B is notable, or a relevant part of a notable article. Whether this theory is notable enough for a separate article is in my opinion doubtful until there are more sources about this theory, but it is certainly relevant as a part of an article, and the sources can therefore be used, making the authorship clear. (The use should also make the publisher clear, so reader can jdge the likelihood of it being mainstream). So far from being a supplement, the explanation of the person's theory should be the main point of the article or section, and it should be based in large part on what the person says--taking account when necessary of other people's views that they may not be expressing it intelligibly  or honestly.  That's what we're writing about, his theory, not the public reaction to his theory.   It is not nPOV to organize the discussion of something along the words of its opponents. We include the opponents,  and may even give them greater weight than the supporter(s). but we first need to know  what the supporters think, before the opposition can make  sense. The opposition makes sense only if it's clear what is being opposed.  DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * for example.
 * The Truth will out is published by  Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group  in 2017--that gives it an altogether higher weight than if self published, since Routledge is an academic publisher, tho not one of the most important ones.  Routledge tends to look for out of the way topics, and that has to be kept in mind, but the fact that they published it at all makes me willing to look at the theory. Otherwise, to be frank, I wouldn't even bother.
 * Sir Henry Neville, Alias William Shakespeare: Authorship Evidence in the History Plays was published by Sir henry neville was  McFarland, a publisher of considerably lower reputation, but still respectable..
 * "Sir henry neville was shakespeare." seems to be an popular version of that published by an unimportant publisher
 * "Who Will Believe My Verse?" is also by an unimportant publisher
 * But none of these is self published.  DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Rubinstein's work was sheer pathetic. John Casson was a psychotherapist while Bradbeer was a nurse and that says volumes about their expertise. The rest are published by fringe presses. Obviously, they are not reliable even for documenting the fringe theory in itself. The first one passes that bar (though CRC has published dubious stuff in past) but then the issue arises in abiding by WP:WEIGHT. So, no reason to use it, either. &#x222F; WBG converse 07:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a recent book, Stuart Kells Shakespeare's Library: Unlocking the Greatest Mystery in Literature. The author is not a proponent of the Neville theory but goes into quite a bit of depth on it. So that is a new source that can be used. Kfein (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is another article in a peer-reviewed journal. It is co-authored by John Casson, but I think should be acceptable as an RS on the subject. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244018823465Kfein (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This RfC is not about those sources. But just en passant, the first is reliable according to WP criteria, the second is non-peer reviewed nonsense. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

As far as Truth Will Out, it is cited here as a source 4-5 times by an extremely RS. So this is overwhelmingly strong evidence that it is a RS, despite all of the name-calling and bluster above: https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/neville-sir-henry-i-1564-1615 Kfein (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * These sources are bilge. Obviously they are "reliable" primary sources for their own views, but that is not really the issue - for NPOV we should be basing articles on respectable, WP:FRINDependent secondary sources and so contextualizing the Nevillean theory of Shakespeare authorship as the silliness it is. Alexbrn (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't take its cue for what an acceptable source is from other web sites, so whatever point you're trying to make is moot (nor is that website "an extremely RS" for the purpose of the Nevillian authorship page). The consensus of this discussion is pretty clear that the book is neither an independent nor a secondary source, which is required to be considered a reliable source for the article. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus here at all, there's just a lot of cursing by people pushing an agenda. The issue isn't want you are discussing here, but it is a peculiar question for a fringe article. I just wanted to update this page with the latest information. Kfein (talk) 02:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I count 6 hard "No"s, 7 including me, 1 hard "yes" (you) and a couple of editors who brought up discussion points with no red-line opinion. Since you're the least-experienced editor here, and obvious WP:SPA, and display no real knowledge of Wikipedia policies, I'd say the consensus is pretty clear. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

"Empires and Exchanges in Eurasian Late Antiquity"
Is this book reliable? An user reverts my edit on Ashina tribe saying it is disputed although he does not put any counterargument. Beshogur (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Publisher looks OK. Reliable until proven otherwise. However, I would rather reference direct page of that quotation, not only the entire chapter (pp. 269-418). I think the editor in question (Hunan201p) could explain their concerns here (there is nothing on the article talk page about this book), so I invite them to this discussion. Pavlor (talk) 08:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The full text is "Mythology employing shamanic symbolism along with references to the sky-god Tengri were, evidently, tools to strengthen the Türk ruler's legitimacy, and some scholars see this practice as amounting to a state religion, “Tengrism,” in which the ruling Ashina family gained legitimacy through its support from Tengri." I used this as reference that their religion was Tengrism, disagree. It's chapter 20: Infrastructures of legitimacy in inner Asia: the Early Turk Empires, by Michael R. Drompp, but I can't find the book online. Beshogur (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Honolulu Civil Beat
I'm curious to hear thoughts about using this article to source the claim that lively forum discussion pre-existed media interest in the Science of Identity foundation on Tulsi Gabbard's BLP. The relevant discussion is at the talk page (diffs here and here). (NB: the question of Grube's article (also in Civil Beat) is not my primary question, though I would be interested in hearing whether that article is admissible). I gather Civil Beat is an Omidyar initiative. I don't know if there's a general en.wp rule/decree/etc. for Omidyar media initiatives at perennial sources? ^^

,, pinging you both since you're in the starring diffs. (sorry) 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 22:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

There has been media interest in the Science of Identity Foundation and/or Chris Butler's nexus to politics since 1976 (see Independents for Godly Government). The media reported on it in relation to state senator Rick Reed as well as Gabbard's parents. It is well known in certain communities in Hawaii and has existed independently of online forum discussion. It received renewed interest with regard to Gabbard when she herself referenced her "guru dev" in an August 2015 YouTube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-GLgGw6ujU&t=150s). It would, however, be interesting to know whether Civil Beat articles are admissible, as they contain useful information. Samp4ngeles (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that Honolulu Civil Beat ranks high on our scale of reliability. I'm not aware that they have a reputation for fact checking. Their policy on corrections seems to be non-existent: https://www.civilbeat.org/topics/civil-beat-policy-on-corrections/. More importantly, I believe that this minor source should not be used to rebut reportage in far better sources like The New Yorker, The New York Times, New York Magazine, and The Guardian. Here is the wording proposed by the OP:
 * Finally, the 2015 Honolulu Civil Beat article is comically out of date. All of the articles cited to support the material (see collapsed section below) about Gabbard's involvement with the Science of Identity Foundation are far more recent and the publishers are far more reputable.
 * Tulsi Gabbard was raised in part on the teachings of the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF) religious community and its spiritual leader, Chris Butler.   Gabbard has said Butler's work still guides her. and in 2015 Gabbard referred to Butler as her spiritual master.   Gabbard's husband and ex-husband have also been part of the community.   Gabbard has been reluctant to speak publicly about the SIF.
 * Tulsi Gabbard was raised in part on the teachings of the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF) religious community and its spiritual leader, Chris Butler.   Gabbard has said Butler's work still guides her. and in 2015 Gabbard referred to Butler as her spiritual master.   Gabbard's husband and ex-husband have also been part of the community.   Gabbard has been reluctant to speak publicly about the SIF.
 * Tulsi Gabbard was raised in part on the teachings of the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF) religious community and its spiritual leader, Chris Butler.   Gabbard has said Butler's work still guides her. and in 2015 Gabbard referred to Butler as her spiritual master.   Gabbard's husband and ex-husband have also been part of the community.   Gabbard has been reluctant to speak publicly about the SIF.


 * - MrX 🖋 01:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Unsurprisingly, MrX fails to cite the full context. The following line of proposed text was the following:


 * The above video is the source for the articles he cites, yet he does not believe it should be included, only the sources making a big, big, deal out of a passing mention in this video (obviously without linking to the source, because that would show just how passing a mention it is: 3 seconds out of 5 minutes)... 🌿  SashiRolls t ·  c 02:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * MrX,Please do not dispute the reliability of apparently good sources. You have a habit of doing that, e.g against Glenn Greenwald's writing in The Intercept if that writing is non-hostile towards Gabbard or Russia ("Greenwald was simply not objective in his reporting", "We're not obligated to print his misinformation", Localemediamonitor:"That's pure disinfo from Russian apologist Greenwald." MrX:"I agree."). You claimed a widespread perception that Gabbard were trading favors with Russia ("The viewpoint of the apparent Russia-Gabbard quid pro quo is contemporary with her campaign, so it's very relevant") 5 months before Gabbard's opponents (Clinton et.al.) began making a similar claim by defaming her as "Russian asset"  and 4 months before the same rhetoric of "quid pro quo" was used to justify impeachment inquiry against Trump. Your most blatant disregard for the neutral point of view policy regarding sources for Gabbard-articles can be read here: "(Sources that talk about a DNC/media campaign to marginalize Gabbard) are not reliable sources." You are judging the reliability of sources by how well they support your desired viewpoint and reject sources if their writing is non-hostile towards Gabbard (or Russia). This constitutes a pattern of systematic neutral point of view policy violation towards a BLP. Also, do not argue about the number of citations by the sources as you did there:. Xenagoras (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Simmer down . This is not the place to dredge up things wrote I did that you disagree with. I stand by everything I have written about Gabbard and about the quality of sources. Believe it or not, editors are allowed to to have differing opinions. Right now, we're discussing whether this Honolulu news website is reliable, not other things. - MrX 🖋 23:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

If there is a dispute between one 2015 article by an obscure local news site and multiple more recent articles by multiple high-quality RS, then we opt for the language and content from the latter. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * According to the Intelligencer (New York) article: When The New Yorker asked her if she had a spiritual teacher, she said she had had “many different spiritual teachers,” that none was more important than the others, and that she has never heard Chris Butler say an unkind thing. 🌿  SashiRolls t ·  c 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Civil Beat policy on corrections Humanengr (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Generally reliable as a local source with corrections policy shown in above link, but national rs such as NYT would take precedence, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I checked yesterday to see if our article (and Xenagoras' statement) was correct about Honolulu Civil Beat regularly winning Best online news site in Hawaii from the Society of Professional Journalists. It appears to be correct as the references in the en.wp entry confirm.


 * In sum, if Civil Beat is considered generally reliable there should be no problem with using it to state that the long forum campaign conducted to suggest that Chris Butler is a "nefarious influence" on Tulsi Gabbard has failed to provide any evidence: By and large, this question is met with a collective head-scratching. Beyond the vague notion of transparency, none of the people Civil Beat has interviewed, or even the Gabbard skeptics on the Cult Education forum, can point to any nefarious plot being concocted by Butler or offer an articulate explanation as to why Gabbard’s constituents should be alarmed by Butler’s potential influence on the congresswoman. But that hasn’t stopped them from looking for evidence of a secret agenda


 * Cf. the talk page of Gabbard's BLP. 🌿  SashiRolls t ·  c 13:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The concerns about it being outdated and fringe still apply. You will have to get consensus on the talk page to include it. - MrX 🖋 13:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)$


 * Weird that you call a paper that has won the SPJ award 9 years in a row for best online news site in Hawaii, fringe. I reject this argument as baseless.


 * Could you provide more recent information published in an RS contradicting the claim above? I've never read anything showing there was some sort of "nefarious plot being concocted by Butler" or demonstrating that his "potential influence"  should alarm people?  You would need to show something directly contradicting the claim.  Also, why don't you want info about the forum campaign mentioned, MrX? 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 14:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to take a deep dive into the content on this noticeboard. I've already made my case on the article talk page, where the content is properly discussed. - MrX 🖋 14:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you actually look at the corrections page? It looks blank to me. - MrX 🖋 13:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I followed this link here, also if theyve won journalism awards that is another point in their favour, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, you found an old version of their website that had a corrections policy. Notably, their current website does not. - MrX 🖋 14:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To be fair on the publication, the link above is not necessarily where I would expect a corrections policy to be. It is to a list of articles tagged with the topic "Civil Beat Policy on Corrections". The general topics page says this should include one article; but it does not, for some reason. I do, however, find this article, on the publication of the Corrections Policy, seemingly misplaced under the topic "Civil Beat Policy on Anonymous Sources"; and would think it more likely to have been mis-tagged than non-existent. No comment as to the broader reliability of the publication. - Ryk72 talk 21:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking into it, that did seem strange. Someone could email them and suggest they fix it. ^^ 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 21:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Generally reliable. It is also likely more reliable than national RS outlets when it comes to Hawaii specific issues. MaximumIdeas (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Points of information for all. I wrote HCB to report the blank page. (They promptly fixed it and said it was a glitch in the upgrading of their content management system.)
 * Honolulu Civil Beat policies: See About where there are links to their policy on anonymous sources and policy on corrections.
 * Honolulu Civil Beat awards: Civil Beat has won many awards — national (including a 2019 general excellence award from the Online News Association) and regional as well as local. Humanengr (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Generally reliable. I point to my detailed explanation from the article talk page. Honolulu Civil Beat is a reliable source, it is an investigative news website that practices watchdog journalism: fact-checking, interviewing, beat reporting and investigative journalism. Honolulu Civil Beat has been awarded best news site in Hawaii by the Society of Professional Journalists each year since 2011. Pierre Omidyar publishes and finances the Honolulu Civil Beat. He also finances The Intercept. Both news outlets have published many very critical articles about Gabbard. The specific article you are interest in shows that Honolulu Civil Beat did a lot of original research on Gabbard. It stems from a time before she resigned from the DNC to oppose Hillary Clinton and before she announced her 2020 presidential campaign. As for every source, general policies apply, as I explained here. Xenagoras (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Carey Sublette and salted bomb
I have been looking at the salted bomb article and I'd like some advice / help. The current reference two is misformatted but says

and links to http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq1.html#nfaq1.6, a site that I was not sure qualifies as an WP:RS. It doesn't seem to me to establish who Carey Sublette is or why he's qualified to write on this topic. In looking around, however, I found that: It was coming to the conclusion that Carey Sublette's Nuclear Weapons Archive is an RS, though possibly self-published and not suited for BLPs... but I then noticed that the content of section 1.6 of Sublette's FAQ is nearly identical to the content of the article's first reference,
 * Sublette's Nuclear Weapons Archive used to be hosted by the Federation of American Scientists, which suggests to me fact checking and accuracy, especially as he is the author of The High Energy Weapons Archive: A Guide to Nuclear Weapons that is listed in Google Books and which was published by the FAS in 2000.
 * Sublette has been discussed on WP a few times, including:
 * The 2017 FAC that led to the article High Explosive Research being promoted to FA. In that discussion,  asked "What makes http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Home.html a high quality reliable source?"  Nominator  replied that Sublette "is generally regarded as an expert in the field" and that he has been quoted in books including:
 * Jeremy Bernstein's Plutonium: A History of the World's Most Dangerous Element (2009), and in another of his books, Nuclear Weapons: What you Need to Know (2008), where Sublette's site was included as potential additional reading and in which Sublette is also acknowledged / thanked in a few places.
 * Dilip Hiro's The Longest August: The Unflinching Rivalry Between India and Pakistan
 * Myra MacDonald's Defeat is an Orphan: How Pakistan Lost the Great South Asian War
 * Bhumitra Chakma's ''The Politics of Nuclear Weapons in South Asia
 * Bruce Cameron Reed's The Physics of the Manhattan Project
 * In the peer review in 2005 of the article Teller-Ulam design, in which argued based on his own experience and Sublette's work that a source being used was in error and that the text needed correction.
 * On the Science Reference Desk in June 2006 when commented that "[o]ne of the best-known sources on nuclear weapons in the open literature is Carey Sublette's nuclear weapons FAQ."
 * His work / site are described positively by others, such as by Gregory Walker's Trinity Atomic Web Site and by Glen Elert's Physics Hypertextbook.
 * His work is used as a reference on other WP articles – my search on "carey sublette" in article space returned 142 hits.

The FAQ is dated 1998 and the book in 2002 (but as a reprint) so it could be that Sublette's work has just been plagiarised. We have no article on the book's publisher (and I know some publishers are blatantly violating copyright), nor do any of the authors have wikibios that I can find. So... Sorry for the length but I thought explaining would be helpful. Any and all comments / suggestions / criticisms / etc welcome. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 07:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Is Carey Sublette's Nuclear Weapons Archive an RS, and if so, is all of it or just the FAQ?
 * 2) Should I use the Sublette archive as a source and drop the book for the salted bomb article? If so, should this book be deprecated as a source due to suspected copyright infringement?  It is presently used on salted bomb, radiation burn, cobalt bomb, Raja Ramanna, Sartaj Aziz, and history of Odisha.
 * 3) Should I use the book as a source and drop the archive for the salted bomb article?
 * 4) Should I drop both and seek alternative sources?

talk:EdChem|talk]]) 07:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Carey Sublette's Nuclear Weapons Archive a RS, all of it. Sublette is a widely-respected expert on nuclear weapons, although he doesn't have a nuclear (as opposed to chemical) weapons security clearance. (If he did, he wouldn't be able to write about it.) I would like to tell you more, but one of our rules gets in the way.
 * Use the Sublette as your source in the salted bomb article. It remains our best source, although some information in it is dated. It is 20 years old.
 * The book plagiarises Sublette. For our purposes though, that doesn't maker it unreliable.
 * Hawkeye7  (discuss)  10:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ty, ... if the book plagiarises Sublette, isn't linking to it a problem as a copyvio? EdChem (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC) Edited to fix typo in ping and re-sign.  EdChem (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Minority of feminists at TERF article
We have been having a protracted debate over whether we can say that TERFS is used to describe a minority of feminists. My general feeling is that the statement is most likely the Truth, but the level of sourcing found so far has been sub par. It would be nice to get some outside opinion on this from some sourcing experts who do not have much of a dog in the fight. The article is TERF and the sentence is It was used to describe a minority of feminists... in the body and the similar It was originally applied to a minority of feminists in the lead. I haven't included the last part as that particular wording was decided through an RFC (Talk:TERF/Archive 1) and it didn't discuss the minority part. The main sources that I have seen used for this are: I guess it would be good to know if the sourcing is strong enough to say this in wikivoice, with attribution, or not at all. There have also been discussions about whether qualifying TERF as a minority is useful or whether doing so is undue weight as many sources use other words to distinguish between the two groups, but that may be beyond the scope of this board. The two most recent discussion are at Talk:TERF and Talk:TERF. AIRcorn (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Medieval Feminist Forum: A Journal of Gender and Sexuality (in article)
 * New Yorker (in article)
 * daily dot (previously in article)
 * conference paper (discussed prominently on the talk)
 * this is not an RS matter.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * How is it not? AIRcorn</b> (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Eye on Islamism
As stated at https://eyeonislamism.com/about/, this is a site that reprints portions of mainstream and non-mainstream sources with attribution to the original source. I'm thinking that this site itself should not be a 'reliable source', but the original purveyors of the content could be, or could not be, depending on the source. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

specialforcesroh.com
Previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 153.

http://www.specialforcesroh.com/ is being used in a lot of articles, and in my opinion is quite obviously an unreliable self-published source. My removal of it was reverted from SOE F Section networks, so thought it best to get a definitive answer before proceeding. FDW777 (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a one man website, by all appearances. Is John Robertson considered reliable by other people we'd trust? Any military history groups that use him as an authority? Guy (help!) 01:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

IslamQA
I found IslamQA as a Muslim-based, pro-Wahabi, anti-Christian website. It has been strongly criticised by Muslims and others.

The website was banned in Saudi Arabia because it was issuing independent fatwas. The founder of IslamQA is possibly in jail.

In regards to IslamQA issues and criticisms, it might be worthwhile to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Some_issues_with_the_current_Wikipedia_Quran_articles

IslamQA says its "answers are supervised by Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid" - otherwise it does not identify its editorial process and clearly establishes that its purpose is Muslim apologetics. It is not usable as a source in Wikipedia. All these uses should be removed. Koreangauteng (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Self-published source. I don't see any of their articles having oversight or been peer reviewed. feminist (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Self-published source. I agree with . IslamQA is self-published by Muhammad Al-Munajjid, and was banned in Saudi Arabia because it issues fatwas independently of the country's Council of Senior Scholars. As the site is equivalent to the opinion blog of a single person, it can only be used with in-text attribution under WP:ABOUTSELF to describe Al-Munajjid's own views where due, and should not be used as a source of facts to make claims about the Salafi movement in Wikipedia's voice. —  Newslinger  talk   07:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * SPS or otherwise useless. Nuke on sight. Guy (help!) 01:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing at Mottainai
There has been an ongoing debate as to the usability of certain sources for certain content at Talk:Mottainai since mid-November. Specifically:
 * this source for the text Mottainai has been referred to as "a part of the Japanese religious and cultural heritage.";
 * this source for the text Mottainai originated as a Buddhist term, though this fact is not common knowledge even in Japan.;
 * this source (or this source -- they are functionally very similar) for the text According to historian Yamaori Tetsuo, mottainai is "inseparable from Buddhist ideas about the transience and evanescence of life".; and
 * this source for the text One of the earliest appearances of the word mottainai is in the book Genpei Jōsuiki (A Record of the Genpei War, ca. 1247). This early use of the word appears in a story about Yoshitsune. Yoshitsune dropped his bow into the sea, and a vassal used the word mottainai in admonishing Yoshitsune that he should have considered his own life more valuable than even a worthy bow.

(Note that in some cases, the "facts" may be verified by the sources, but the neutrality/relevance is in dispute, as the authors of our cited sources appear to disagree with the matter asserted.) An RFC was opened, but very few outside editors have expressed interest. Some more third-party opinions would be appreciated.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Content: Mottainai has been referred to as "a part of the Japanese religious and cultural heritage." Content: Mottainai originated as a Buddhist term, though this fact is not common knowledge even in Japan. Content: According to historian Yamaori Tetsuo, mottainai is "inseparable from Buddhist ideas about the transience and evanescence of life". Content:One of the earliest appearances of the word mottainai is in the book Genpei Jōsuiki (A Record of the Genpei War, ca. 1247). This early use of the word appears in a story about Yoshitsune. Yoshitsune dropped his bow into the sea, and a vassal used the word mottainai in admonishing Yoshitsune that he should have considered his own life more valuable than even a worthy bow.
 * Trying to make this a bit clearer, i.e. by naming sources (for clarity: all of these quotes and refs, apart from parenthetical convenience links, occur in version A of November–December RFC on article versions):
 * Source:
 * Source: (convenience link)
 * Source: (or: )
 * Source: Taylor, Kevin. "Material Flows: Human Flourishing And The Life Of Goods". A World In Discourse: Converging And Diverging Expressions Of Value (2015) pages 74-75. (convenience links: pp. 74–75, and endnote 12 p. 81)
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC) — minor tweaks to sources in the above list (journal ref in #2 per current version of that reference in the Mottainai article; precision of endnote link in #4). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure what good listing the publisher and publication titles on this noticeboard accomplishes, or how the above is "a bit clearer" than my "Source X for Text Y" approach, but whatever. (I might as well also point out that Taylor cites a source, McCullough 1988, who was one of the best-regarded scholars and translators of classical Japanese literature outside Japan throughout her career, but she does not actually support his assertion that mottainai appears in the text, and the original Japanese text she used clearly doesn't contain the word. (It is my intention to contact Taylor in the near future to ask if he can remember where he got the information, since it seems very likely he got it from Wikipedia, which was added in 2008 with no source and an obvious chronological error in the edit summary -- 1247 is around a half-century after the end of the Heian era.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the Shuto/Eriguna links in both my and Francis's posts; I had forgotten that the text presented as "version A" in the RFC contained a broken link. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've already written at length about some of these sources at Talk:Mottainai. As I see it, there are a number of issues with how they're proposed to be used. Some of those issues relate to reliability, particularly use of scholars outside their areas of expertise; others relate to misrepresentation/cherrypicking & neutrality.
 * Shuto & Eriguna - Have reviewed the Shuto reference, a study on childhood pedagogy (outside the appropriate fields of study); the supporting text there is in the "Background" section (which I would not consider reliable) and references Hirose, Y. (2008). "Social Psychology on environmentally conscious behavior". (again outside the appropriate academic field). If all that Shuto & Eriguna do here is pass through something that they picked up from Hirose, then Hirose should be examined and, if suitable, used in preference.
 * Sato - The same issue with academic fields holds true for Sato Yuriko's article in the Journal of Analytical Psychology. Putting aside whether psychology is an appropriate field; Sato has an extensive introduction to this source, we choose to ignore this, cherrypicking one sentence. The source later develops into a series of anecdotes from Sato's clinical practice, which I do not consider appropriate for this article.
 * Siniawer 2014 - Inclusion of the content attributed to Yamaori Tetsuo (quoted by Siniawer 2014, which I have read in toto) is bewildering - the source covers 22 pages, largely about the "rebranding" of Mottainai in millennial Japan. It is astounding that we would cherrypick a seemingly contrary or minor view from this source and not include the main crux. Siniawer, read in context, is clearly disdainful of Yamaori's contentions; placing them in the context of a deliberate "branding" of Mottainai in the early 21st century. We ignore the primary thrust of Siniawer's work, to focus on a single quote from Yamaori.
 * Hope this helps. - Ryk72 talk 21:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It also might be worth noting that the Siniawer source has been referred to four times on the talk page as "peer-reviewed", as though that was necessarily a point in favour of inclusion of the content attributed to her, but the Yamaori source she cited most definitely was not peer-reviewed -- so if "peer-reviewed-ness" is an important quality when comparing sources in this case, then we have one peer-reviewed source (Siniawer 2014) disagreeing with one non-peer-reviewed source (Yamaori 2006), while we cite the former as support for our emphasizing the opinion of the latter. This kind of disruptive behaviour, which is clearly not a good-faith disagreement over article content or sourcing, is why I thought ANI was the correct forum for this, and the apparent lack of attention that it's getting at RSN would seem to support my initial belief. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Private Equity Professional (peprofessional.com)
I'm thinking that at least some of the content on this site is churnalism. For instance https://peprofessional.com/2019/12/frontenac-sells-liquid-technologies-pritzke/. I've not done a review of content at large, but this is the first thing I've ever looked at on the site (came up in a duckduckgo search), and it says something in regard to 'random sample' with an n of 1. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

on the topic of churnalism ...
It might be useful to start a listing of sources that are prone to churnalism but also publish reliable content. Or the reverse, outlets that are known to be completely free of churnalism - if there are any. I'm thinking of a list highlighting those outlets that are a major % churnalistic in nature, like 50%+. These outlets might not be blacklisted as unreliable in an rfc. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , interesting thought. Top of the list in my experience is Mail Online, which is already deprecated, but virtually all trade publications source much of their content from PR. Guy (help!) 10:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

zoominfo

 * Sockpuppet_investigations/Juliofcruz0902

ZoomInfo or its agents appear to be engaging in an SEO spamming campaign. I looked at the uses here; there are... issues. Examples: Ultimately ZoomInfo is a marketing tool, not an encyclopaedic reference. I think we should remove these links. Guy (help!) 01:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * references to the name on ZoomInfo, which just provides a list of all the people matching the name;
 * references to pages that are blank unless you download and install software;
 * 404 links.
 * Blacklisted at Special:Diff/934713996 due to external link spamming from sockpuppets. There are better sources available that do not serve as landing pages for their commercial product. —  Newslinger  talk   01:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I am removing these using AWB. I manually checked around 100 links, most of which were (a) a web archive that no longer appears to function; (b) links to person or company profiles that require you to register for a "free trial" (i.e. credit card required) to read; (c) links to person or company profiles that instead merely bring up a list of entities. I have yet to find a link which is actually what it probably was when added, let alone a valid RS. Please ping me if anyone finds any that are genuinely valid, and I'll whitelist.
 * Here's a representative example: diff of edit, { . The original page is not available at the original site, and the ZoomInfo archive is 404 as well (many of these archive pages have been tagged as permanently dead by bots). There's nothing I can do with this other than replace with cn. Guy (help!) 10:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Bollysuperstar.com
Thoughts about reliability / suitability of the bollysuperstar.com site? According to https://bollysuperstar.com/about-us/, "We are BollySuperStar (https://bollysuperstar.com), working under Bollywood Entertainment Ltd., which is an Entertainment Based Blogging & Technology Organization." Thanks. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Not reliable. No substantial Google hits for the alleged parent company(s). None of the supposed 30 employees is mentioned by name or credentials. The site may or may not be affiliated with a minor YouTube channel and seems little more than a personal blog with Bollywood gossip and news (quote: "We collect data from Wikipedia, IMDB, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube & over the INTERNET."). Not even suitable for uncontroversial info. GermanJoe (talk) 12:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Russian journal article retractions
Russian journals retract more than 800 papers after ‘bombshell’ investigation A Committee of the Russian Academy of Sciences has been investigating fraudulent or plagiarized articles and recommending retractions. Most of these are Russian-language so I don't know how often they might have been used on en:wiki. The full report is also available and also in Russian. I've lost almost all of my proficiency in the language, so I can't read through it myself to find out which articles and journals were affected. Of most concern are probably the eight journals that "explicitly refused" to retract recommended articles or otherwise cooperate with the investigations. If we can find out what those were, we should then probably at least see if they are used here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Yomedan-chii.jp blog in Otokonoko
Otokonoko is a topic about crossdressing in Japan. At, argues that the Japanese-language blog entry http://yomedan-chii.jp/archives/18333797.html is an appropriate source for this article, including for claims about gender identity issues, because, according to Trappy-chan, it was written by an expert in the field. I have serious doubts about that.

I cannot read Japanese, and I do not know anything about the blog's author, but: The blog has an informal, "cute" layout that is at odds with how a serious academic researcher would present their writings. And for gender identity issues in particular, I think that WP:MEDRS sourcing is preferred, or at any rate editorially reviewed sources, but certainly not self-published sources.

What do others think? And for those who read Japanese, does this blog post even support the added content?  Sandstein  10:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Unreliable. The blog is a self-published source authored by Chii. Chii published The Bride was a Boy, an autobiography in the style of a graphic novel. It is not an independent source and it absolutely does not establish the author as a subject-matter expert in Otokonoko. —  Newslinger  talk   10:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The "blog" is by internationally published author Chii, who made autobiographical and educational "The Bride Was a Boy", a published work available in many languages that tackles on the many aspects of japanese transgender cultures. According to Wikipedia's guidelines, this an estabilished expert and thus a reliable source. Furthermore, this blog is not used by itself to backup claims on gender identity, as there are other sources from news websites that corroborate the information being provided in the page. The blog is only used as a stand-alone source to explain the connection between the slangs 男の娘 (male girl) and 女装子 (male crossdresser).Trappy-chan (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The blog is self-published by Chii. WP:SPS states that self-published sources "are largely not acceptable as sources", but "may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". The Bride was a Boy is a manga-styled autobiography published by Seven Seas Entertainment, which is neither academic nor independent, and does not qualify Chii as a subject-matter expert. —  Newslinger  talk   11:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The argument on whether or not Chii is considered an "expert" is, first off, not relevant since there are journalistic references on the subject of how gender identities and sexualities are irrelevant to 男の娘 culture in the article, which is what was previously being complained about. Chii's post only corroborates with what's already there. Chii's is only being referenced by itself in relation to the other common slang, 女装子 (crossdresser). Furthermore, I feel like there is a bad faith argument going on here since Chii's internationally published work is commonly found discussed in independent and journalistic publications, as any piece of culturally relevant media, but this is being completely ignored. It is one of the few and biggest educational LGBT publications on trans cultures to ever come out of Japan. If, in any case, this still feels insufficient for discussing the relation between 男の娘 and 女装子, we can put more effort into expanding that section of the article. However, I do not feel it should be excluded since crossdressing is such a major part of 男の娘 culture (such that it is left as the short description for 男の娘 itself, for the sake of clarity, which some may find improper). As a final note, again, the information in the article that addresses the definition of 男の娘 and its relation to gender identities and sexualities must not be excluded as they are properly sourced with multiple non-conflicting references including references from Japan itself. If anything, this should only be reformatted, if necessary, or added to, with the proper sourcing. Undoing these revisions to the article would be improper.Trappy-chan (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Inline citations in Wikipedia articles need to satisfy the verifiability policy. The best available sources should be cited inline, and that does not include Yomedan-chii.jp in this case. —  Newslinger  talk   20:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment The article is a mess and has a single, glaring problem that the recent edits do not even purport to attempt to address, which is that the word otoko-no-ko (男の子) is obviously a pun in Japanese: the common noun simply means "boy" as opposed to "girl" or "adult man", and only takes on a nuance of transvestism because of the fact that the character 娘 ("young girl" or "daughter") can also sometimes be read ko. Anyone familiar with basic conversational Japanese who isn't also deeply versed in Japanese transvestite culture (of whom there are probably more than those who are familiar with Japanese transvestite culture but don't know a word of conversational Japanese) would be somewhat astonished by the article, making me half-tempted to RM the article to otokonoko (cross-dressing) or perhaps Cross-dressing in Japan. Anyone who is arguing over niceties like gender identity and AMAB without showing an intention to address this issue is almost certainly either (a) not acting in good faith or (b) not competent to edit in this topic area.
 * Moreover, this source doesn't appear to say anything remotely similar to what Trappy-chan is attributing to it; the source does not have anything do with gender identity but rather gives as its basic gist something like It's my impression -- MY PERSONAL IMPRESSION [Chii's emphasis] and I'm probably wrong lol -- that while josōshi refers to men who dress as women and mostly don't look like men, otokonoko refers to men who look like they've jumped out of a cartoon or comic strip in that they could pass 100% for women. Given the above post, it does seem like Trappy-chan understands that the source doesn't have any real relationship to the content it is being tagged onto, which makes me think this is some kind of Catflap08- or Bagworm-level disruption where the editor apparently believes that inline citations are not meant to provide sources so that readers can verify our articles' content, so much as a way to advertise "good sources in general". Not only do edits like this make it harder to verify the content (assuming there is some gender identity content in the numerous overlapping citations), but I have to imagine the authors of the sources being "advertised" don't particularly like being cited as saying something they don't say. Bart Ehrman often uses as an analogy to explain why "vertical reading" of the gospels is not a good way of reading them for historical purposes the idea of someone reading one of his books and then reading something by Rush Limbaugh before assuming the two authors were saying the same thing -- I'd find a video clip but it's quite late here so I'd probably fall asleep before the job was done.
 * I don't know why Japanese culture articles tend to attract edits like these, but hopefully this one can be nipped in the bud.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That. All of it. Particularly the bit about the pun; which is mentioned in the Kotaku and SoraNews24 sources. Seems marginally notable at best; should probably be merged to a broader topic. - Ryk72 talk 20:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Unreliable - Self-published; author not widely recognised as an "expert" in the sense meant by WP:SPS. - Ryk72 talk 20:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

-

There is a big problem here, which is the fact that *nobody in this discussion has actually checked the multiple references linked in the article* and are exclusively focusing (in bad faith, it seems) on Chii's references despite the fact that as I have already pointed out, they are not about the discussion on gender identity. I know you may not understand Japanese, but if you AT LEAST use google translator you can somewhat understand the context of the japanese sources. Newmo's glossary explains many LGBT terms and in 男の娘 it explicitly states that it is irrelevant to gender transition and sexual orientation. The LGBT-Life (Rainbow Life) article has a whole section for 男の娘 + 男の娘 couples and it explicitly includes transgender people. Kotaku's article interviews a non-binary 男の娘. Chii's reference was added, again, to indicate a few things:

- Not all 男の娘 are crossdressers, they can also be merely feminine people. 男の娘 does not directly equal crossdressing. 女装/女装子 are the words for crossdressing.

- However, as Chii explains, 男の娘 and 女装子 are largely used interchangibly, even though, again, as Chii explains, there is a difference between the two as 男の娘 does not necessarily equal crossdressing. That is why she mentions she personally does not use the slangs in the same way, despite the fact that they are largely used that way in general.

I agree that the discussion on 男の娘 and 女装子 is a large one and Chii's reference might not fully grasp the distinctions and similarities between the two slangs. In this case, as I have proposed, there is a need to expand on this subject (rather than pretending it doesn't exist and removing it from the article).

I also agree that we can expand on the section regarding the origin of the slang.

However, as I have pointed out, the discussion on gender identity and sexual orientation relating to 男の娘 is clear cut and backed up by many sources. There is no doubt in this subject as all sources comply with the same point, without presenting a single controversial argument: 男の娘 can be AMAB people of any gender identity and sexual orientation. We have, at the moment, AT LEAST 3 references in the article pointing this out. If there is further confusion on this subject, I recommend the work 不可解なぼくのすべてを (usually translated as "Love Me For What I Am"), a story specifically about 男の娘 people who work in an 男の娘 café and belong to many different gender identities and sexualities.

I hope now that we've cleared up the confusion on references, we can move on to improving the article which sorely needs it instead of accusing others of disruption while failing to read anything posted or referenced and undoing revisions that are backed up by sources because you haven't read them. Thank you.Trappy-chan (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * There is a big problem here, which is the fact that *nobody in this discussion has actually checked the multiple references linked in the article* and are exclusively focusing (in bad faith, it seems) on Chii's references No, you claimed your edit was based on the Chii blog, when it clearly bore no relation whatsoever to the content of said blog. You then persisted to add that citation to the content (most recently here). You don't get to claim that some other sources you didn't previously cite and have never actually claimed support the content without being synthesized with the blog you originally cited until now are the "actual" sources -- this is almost as bad as what has been going on at the Mottainai article, with the only reason I don't say it's as bad being that this topic is "sexy" enough to attract more immediate outside attention and not waste as much editor time. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This page is the reliable sources noticeboard, where editors evaluate the suitability of a source as a reference in an article. This discussion focuses on Chii's blog, and at this point, there is consensus that Yomedan-chii.jp is not an appropriate source for the Otokonoko article because it is a self-published source. If you are making content-based arguments unrelated to a source's reliability, please use the talk page of the article. —  Newslinger  talk   01:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable given the title of this noticeboard, but I was actually told to come here in relation to a different discussion in which no one was disputing the general reliability of the sources in question but rather whether the (reliable) sources actually supported the content they were being cited as saying. I have always considered this to be the place for discussion of "either the general reliability of a particular source or the reliability of one or more sources for a particular piece of content", and given that in this case the latter is most definitely not the case (the Yomedan-chii.jp obviously does not support the content it is being cited for), that seems generally a simpler and more direct route than trying to establish based on third-party coverage whether the author of a particular blog is a recognized topic expert or whether the content in question is "uncontentious" enough that practically any source would do. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. My comment (intended to be a response to ) explains why we're focusing on the reliability of Chii's blog in this discussion. Our comments are not "in bad faith" because they carry out the purpose of this noticeboard. The use of Chii's blog as a source violates the verifiability policy on two grounds (because it does not support the proposed claim, and because it is self-published), and is inappropriate in the context of this article. —  Newslinger  talk   02:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The Nation
There's been some inconclusive discussion here about the use of The Nation in this article. I believe it is a perfectly reliable source and at the very least it is as strong as other citations used in the article. The Author Donna Minkowitz is a respected journalist and writer. So, is The Nation and this article in particular a reliable source for this claim:

"Quillette has repeatedly published pseudo-scientific claims that black people are Intellectually and morally inferior to white people. a number of contributors are proponents of theHuman Biodiversity Movement (HBD), including Vdare blogger Steve Sailer, Ben Winegard, Bo Winegard, Brian Boutwell, and John Paul Wright."

Given The Nation and the author both have a good reputation, I can't see the issue with this source personally. Thanks Bacondrum (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Given The Nation's reputation for reliability, I think that the source is reliable for this claim unless someone has evidence that it is factually inaccurate. Having skimmed the discussion at the talk page, I don't think I buy the argument that this article should be dismissed as an opinion piece by virtue of being in the "Media Analysis" section. The claim here appears to be empirical in nature (as opposed to being conjecture or prediction), and I don't see any indication that the Media Analysis section is subject to less editorial oversight than news reporting. signed,Rosguill talk 00:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * No The first sentence obviously reflects her opinion of Quillette. If not, you'd have to think that the profiles of Quillette in Politico, The Chronicle of Higher Ed, and The Sydney Morning Herald, which make no mention of "psuedo-science" on race all just missed the basic facts in their reporting. That's absurd. If the piece was due (which there is no consensus about on the talk page despite extended discusison), I would think her claims could be included as attributed opinion in the reception section. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I want to clarify that I agree with those below who have said that the Nation--and in partiucular this piece--is reliable for attributed opinion, which in my view would belong in the reception section if it were deemed to be due in the article. But this is not what was being asked. What is being asked is whether this opinion piece is RS for us to repeat the author's opinion about Quillette in wikivoice. And the answer is that it is not. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me, will attribute the claims to Minkowitz. I don't believe this is about the outlets reception though, it's ideology that's being discussed in the article. Thanks. Bacondrum (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes Journalists are allowed to form opinions, and as long as their analysis is based in fact we treat the resulting journalistic work according to the demonstrated competence of the analyst, who is in this case an award-winning journalist writing under effective editorial oversight for a reputable publication. The fact that other writing about the same topic may have missed the thread picked up here may be a relevant argument concerning BALANCE and DUE issues within an article, but is certainly not an argument against the reliability of the source. Newimpartial (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment why is this being discussed in 3 locations? It was extensively discussed less than a month back.  A RfC has been opened on the article talk page and now we have this discussion here.  Springee (talk) 04:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Because there appears to have been a refusal to accept a reliable source as per guidelines, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a democracy and not liking a source is not a good enough reason to exclude said source. So, I'm asking for feedback on the source here and on the talk page (where I made it clear this discussion was also taking place). I find your attitude towards discussing the reliability of a source very unreasonable. If you point out the relevant guideline I've violated I'll do what is needed to rectify, otherwise I propose sticking to the reliability of the source. Does it bother you that admins and uninvolved editors might disagree with your view of this source? Are you WP:PUSHing a particular view of the subject? You should be looking to reliable sources, not just ones you've cherry picked because they say nice things about the subject. The question is: Is The Nation and the relevant article a reliable source? Bacondrum (talk) 05:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree with and  here. "Opinionated" is not the same as "unreliable", and one writer choosing to have a different emphasis than others is hardly a problem. There's probably a legitimate discussion to be had about how to use the source &mdash; where to place any summary of it, if its claims are lede-worthy, etc. &mdash; but that's all secondary to the basic question of reliability, which we can answer in the affirmative. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)—
 * Yes it is reliable, but opinion pieces need to be treated with care in all publications imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes... but - opinion sources can be reliable (depending on a blend of the reputation of both publication and author). However, opinion sources always need in-line attribution. The information needs to be phrased as: “according to Ima Journalist XYZ is true” or “Joe Expert disagrees, and states that XYZ isn’t true”.  Obviously WP:DUE WEIGHT is a factor in this (Not all journalistic opinions are equal).  In this case, I think the author has enough of a reputation (and the Nation certainly does) that noting her opinion is DUE... but what she says still needs to be phrased as BEING her opinion, and not expressed as being accepted fact (in Wikipedia’s voice). Blueboar (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes with attribution. Guy (help!) 19:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Bacondrum, you need to understand the difference between WP:V, which is what is being established here, and WP:WEIGHT. Just because The Nation is a RS for attributed opinion doesn't establish how much weight this particular writer's opinion should receive in the article.  The fact that about half of the 18 editors who replied to the discussion last December were concerned about the inclusion of the claims in this article suggests WEIGHT still needs to be addressed.  Springee (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Is Nejat Society a RS?
https://www.nejatngo.org/en/

Is this a reliable source for backing up in the People's Mujahedin of Iran that "According to the Nejat Society, in 1988, the Nuremberg MEK front organization was uncovered by police."?

Thanks :-) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Because it is attributed, this is essentially a statement about the opinion of the Nejat Society... not a statement of fact about MEK or the Nuremberg police. The source is a PRIMARY source, used to support a statement as to its own content. That content may or may not be accurate, but they did say it.
 * That said... reliability is not the only policy in play here. We also must consider WP:UNDUE.  We have to ask whether the Nejat Society’s opinion is important enough to mention.  I don’t know enough about the topic to comment on that. Blueboar (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

PitchBook
I'm thinking that the public information component, hosting entries like https://pitchbook.com/profiles/investor/10153-72, should not be a reliable source as the page https://pitchbook.com/research-process implores companies with "Ensure your PitchBook profile is up to date". I'm thinking it would be on par with Crunchbase (on the perennial list). Thoughts? --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , it looks as if the reliable content is all subscription-only (see PitchBook Data), and the free content is not reliable. That's taking everything at face value, of course. Guy (help!) 12:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * P.S. there is an article on this at PitchBook Data, I just noticed. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 17:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Interesting question at the Teahouse
Teahouse

Interesting question, if you have a good answer. Basically, where in our policies does it say most clearly that we don't use a work of fiction for something "realworld" in this case floor-coverings? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The most applicable guideline is (WP:RSCONTEXT). A claim in a work of fiction is not reliable for anything outside of the context of its fictional universe. —  Newslinger   talk   10:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

BioSpace
Referring to www.biospace.com. The 'about us' page starts with "BioSpace champions the Life Sciences industry as a digital hub for news and careers." My experience is that the majority of content on the site is either churnalism or straight out press releases. Putting it here as people doing searches on companies in the pharma space will inevitably encounter this site, and I did not see any reference to it in the archives. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 17:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. the article BioSpace was deleted in 2007 as an A7-G11 speedy. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me )
 * I'm inclined to agree. I think this should be purged. Guy (help!) 11:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

What to do?
In short, the original book and Austrian historian mentions the census of Lika and Krbava 1712. In that book is talked about "Greek-Orthodox" and Croatian historian write about that census and mentions "Serbian Orthodox". What should I do? Should I delete claims of the Croatian historian or to add claims from the original census and the Austrian book itself next to claims of the Croatian historian. Everything is explained here but there is no answer so please help. Article is "Vlachs in the history of Croatia" Thanks.Mikola22 (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It might be nice to see who these "Croatian historians" are.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The first book is from Austrian historian. It's a book about the original census from 1712. While a Croatian historian writes his book based on that book and instead "Greek-Orthodox" he uses term "Serbian Orthodox".This is his biography. Mikola22 (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure an MA would trump a professor when it comes to weight. Not does your link tell me what book it is.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Original scientific work of Marko Šarić and book of Austrian historian Karl Kaser Mikola22 (talk) 11:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You first source does not look like a book, it looks like a paper. Nor does Marko Šarić appear to be a respected historian. So whilst Karl Kaser is an RS, Marko Šarić is less clear, no more RS than any other student paper ever published.Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And what to do, to enter information from an Austrian historian.Mikola22 (talk) 12:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Its an RS, so is usable, with attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

southfront.org
In the original posting I was referred to here. This site has been blacklisted for being fake news. What to do with the over 500 uses as a source on en.wikipedia? (just wondering, as I am not a regular user here) Hardscarf (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * These uses should be removed. There was an AfD for a bunch of timeline articles that accounted for thousands of uses of these state-sponsored fake news sites, what's left after that deletion should be removed as and when you encounter it. Guy (help!) 14:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove for statements of of anything other than what SF says (that is another issue altogether).Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , we don't have an article on them, so any self-sourced statements are likely to be WP:UNDUE. Guy (help!) 15:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said another issue.Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The default should be remove, with the onus on others to show we can use it. Doug Weller  talk 13:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Newsbusters and The Washington Examiner as sources for facts in the lead of CNN
A user on CNN is arguing that Newsbusters (an arm of the Media Research Center) and The Washington Examiner can be used for statements of fact in the lead of CNN, in this diff; Adfontesmedia and AllSides (familiar to anyone who frequents this board, I think) are also being cited. Note the removal in that diff - they're using them in a way that directly contradicts Slate, the Columbia Journalism Review, Southern California International Review, and Vox, and are directly removing a statement sourced to those four sources to replace it with something cited to the ones I mentioned. See further discussion here. --Aquillion (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's nuts. They can't even be used for attributed opinions. We can only use RS here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's hard to believe we are even discussing this. But I think we need to revisit the issue of Newsbusters/MRC as the last discussion listed at Reliable sources/Perennial sources was in 2017 and says "There is no consensus on the reliability of Media Research Center publications, including NewsBusters. As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be attributed. See also: CNSNews.com." Doug Weller  talk 08:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a competence issue. It's unambiguously inappropriate. Guy (help!) 08:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Newsbusters is a fact-checker, and their view should be included along with the other sources on the CNN page. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Newsbusters claims to be a fact-checker. It is up to this community to determine whether their opinions are acceptable as a source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Newsbusters is as much a fact-checker as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is actually democratic, of the people, or a republic. You cannot go by just what someone says they are, it has to be proven. Zaathras (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to get the other side of the argument in here thank you. If one looks at Fox News, for instance, you will see outwardly biased sourcing such as Media Matters, as one example. Now, tell me how MM, which I'm sure we can all agree on is a hyper-partisan left organization for claims there, but we can't use a conservative leaning news organization, The Examiner, for claims on CNN. Yes, I know this is WP:Other, but if somebody seriously wants to argue this point, they should argue the same on the other side of the fence. Also, nobody has yet explained actually how The Examiner does not follow reliable sourcing standards. All I've heard as of yet, is that it's simply not, its biased (which does not matter, NPOV was followed), or now that I'm not competent. Good arguments here guys. Curivity (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Bias is not the issue, but accuracy is. Those two sources are so extreme that their bias pushes them into counterfactual territory, just like most of what comes from Fox News. It's entirely possible for both left- and right-wing sources to be biased and still remain accurate, and we can use them, but those sources go too far. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The Washington Examiner is a poor source in general. But, the particular article Curivity is citing is an opinion column about chyrons. Chyrons are on-the-fly, electronically generated captions at the bottom of the screen picked up from what is being said and often containing misspellings they are generated so quickly. A cite that is wholly an opinion column rant about CNN chyrons is about as accurate a source for news network bias as an episode of the Simpsons. O3000 (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * No. François Robere (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not suitable: These sources are not suitable for the CNN article. Also, before a more broad discussion is created about Media Research Center, I do want to point to Curivity's concerns and the previous discussion of it's left-wing counterpart Media Matters.<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 11:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * usable with attribution- no policy based arguements for exclusion have been made. Nor had any proof been provided that they are not accurate. All I see here is a group of editors arguing for exclusion because they simply don't like the source. One editor even voted "no" without any explanation and another editor (an admin who should be ashamed of himself) even went as far to suggest the editor arguing for inclusion was incompetent ( a clear personal attack). If we want to actually practice neutrality, we cannot have a double standard that allows media matters as a source, but excludes newsbusters.  Both have biases and both report on the media.  I challenge anyone here to justify different treatment for these two sources. Rusf10 (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Anyone want to weigh in at Talk:Mottainai?
No idea why the last thread, before it got archived, only attracted a few comments from those who had already commented on the talk page, but I would like to ask again if anyone would be willing to look at the sources and analyze whether they properly verify the content attributed to them. I would also like to ask that anyone who has already commented at least once on the article talk page refrain from posting here, in case the problem last time was TLDR. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Climate Feedback and InsideClimate News on accuracy of claims by proponents of climate change denial
There is a noticeboard discussion regarding the use of Climate Feedback and InsideClimate News to describe the accuracy of claims made by proponents of climate change denial. If you are interested, please participate at. —  Newslinger  talk   10:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Filter 869
Filter 869 traps addition of deprecated sources to mainspace. I think we need to tweak this to also catch draft space - I just picked up a citation to a deprecated source that had been introduced in Draft and moved to mainspace. Guy (help!) 10:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Filter
 * , I just boldly did that after reading this. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks Guy (help!) 15:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Boston Globe
Hello, I need to concern for a perennial source for the Boston Globe (www.bostonglobe.com), it would be a reliable source? But unlike other major newspapers like New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, etc. --119.94.160.112 (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * What? —DIYeditor (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes it is a reliable source, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 100% reliable. May be annoying with its ad-blocking strategy but reliable. --M asem (t) 17:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online
There are >500 uses of gameo.org as a source in Wikipedia. It's a wiki. It has restricted editorial access. Its mission is to promote the Mennonite Anabaptist cause, obviously, so there seems to be some risk of publishing Truth&trade; rather than fact. Is it reliable? Guy (help!) 11:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Additional considerations: It does have restricted access, but it is also an advocacy group. It does not seem to be usable for facts, but possibly to attributable opinions and ABOUTSELF information.<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 12:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally reliable for Anabaptist history. It is not an open wiki. It uses a wiki to allow recognized editors and historians to add content that has been review. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

hymnary.org
This site (>600 references on enWP) has an editorial board but is volunteer edited. Example from :


 * GIA Publications published a hymn text in 1991 directly based on the Apostles' Creed, called "I Believe in God Almighty." It has been sung to hymn tunes from Wales, the Netherlands, and Ireland.

That looks to me like reliable-but-undue. I would tend to classify this as OK for sourcing facts about hymns but not OK to support notability of any specific work for inclusion either as an article or as a paragraph in a separate article. What does the panel think? Guy (help!) 11:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable for basic facts about hymns, but beyond that, I wouldn't use it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

monergism.com
This site has 61 uses on enWP, so not especially high priority, but still. There's plenty of information on the website about its theological objectives, but nothing obvious about its editorial and fact-checking policy, or the expertise of its writers. It argues a particular POV on Christian theology, so it seems to me that in the absence of any compelling evidence of authority it should be restricted to WP:ABOUTSELF. Guy (help!) 12:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I would avoid the use of this one as it is clearly pushing a reformed (Calvinist) PoV and with no editorial position, it's difficult to justify its use. And when they equate "evanglicalism" with reformed theology, we have a clear problem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Is Fortune (magazine) considered reliable? it is not covered in WP:RSP
I am using this article (https://fortune.com/2019/10/01/hypr-comcast-mastercard-samsung-funding-password/) to source an statement in HYPR Corp but I don't know if it is considered reliable. What about eweek? for example this article (https://www.eweek.com/security/hypr-debuts-biometrics-sdk-to-improve-authentication). Thanks! Kriptocurrency (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:RSP is not an exhaustive list. Yes Fortune is an RS by any definition other then "No magazines".Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree, it is a reliable source, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Post-WWII US intelligence reports on German intelligence figures
In multiple AfDs—including Heinz Bonatz, Adolf Paschke, and Rudolf Hentze— is arguing that postwar reports by US intelligence agencies on German intelligence figures from World War II constitute reliable secondary sources and help for establishing notability of these figures. Yay or nay? <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 11:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My comment have been left on Hentze and I will review the other AfD's also. In short - reports are likely secondary as filled with analysis. However that the report exist doesn't inherently make any named person in the paper of any particular significance. To quote myself "Whether this makes it notable for a biography is a separate issue as the historic records are really not intended to establish notability. In fact as secret documents they are intended to not be notable. It might be that the unit is notable, and in the future analysis by further reliable sources may elevate such a person.". Koncorde (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Reports by government agencies may be reliable sources (WP:N note 2). I think the core wikilawyer issue here is, if these comply with WP:PUBLISHED. Pavlor (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * For notability no.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Reliable for facts, do not establish notability. Guy (help!) 13:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

castlewales
This is identified as a personal project of Jeffrey L. Thomas. I cannot find any information showing him to be a recognised authority, the website doesn't seem to have anything about him (the links to his name are mailto: not links to a biography). I think this needs to be removed. Guy (help!) 13:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In an interesting twist it has a few different contributors. Jeffrey L. Thomas seems to do most of it, and there's a short bio of him here. I think he's the main contributor but there are pages from Lise Hull (who has written several books on castles) and the above mentioned Philip Davis (I'll reply to that at some point too). It's described as a 'useful website' in and used as a reference in, as well as.
 * So looking to the world of academia, it is being used as a source of information. As a bit of background, Robert Liddiard is one of the leading researchers on castles so I'd give his opinion on it being a useful website some decent weight; I appreciate it's not a detailed description and 'useful' can cover an awful lot (ie: the visual resources certainly are useful but wouldn't be suitable as sources for Wikipedia articles). Overall, I think the use of the site depends on the context. How is it being used at the moment? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Reliable as per the information given above that shows it to be considered a reliable source in academia, no evidence of any unreliability, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Secret war
A book by Philip J. Cohen is often used on the project. The question can pretty much relate to other books authored by the same person. Cohen is a MD (without a degree in history) who was connected to Clinton administration (plus the political party led by Franjo Tuđman) which had their own interests during the Yugoslav Wars, which took place at the time of the publishing. More importantly, the book/s is/are met with heavy criticism (bad use of sources, use of fringe sources, cherrypicking, not going per NPOV and what not). Several notable persons like Jovan Byford even called it "quasi-historical writing". The more information is given in the article on Cohen. Should this book be used as a RS? ty  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  18:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * He is also a BA, he also has a wide expansive of the area (having been A UN adviser). Thus he may be RS for his views (and thus can be used with attribution).Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Bachelor of Arts, not History. That is important. Not just anybody can/should publish a book on sensitive issues such as these. The position of UN adviser is of little merit, because the book is about WW2 and other periods, not the 90s.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  19:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Errr a history degree is a BA.Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Texas A&M is a well regarded, peer reviewed academic press, which should be considered for due weight. It got a reasonably positive review from a non-Balkans scholar, while the negative evaluations seemed to come from individuals from the the area, who may have their own agenda. Perhaps would have some insight? <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 01:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * This comes up regularly, usually from those that don't like his conclusions (they are critical of Serbs). They usually complain that he was a dermatologist and ignore his UN work. An overview of the praise and criticism of the book is provided at Cohen's article. I consider him reliable and he certainly is reliably published, but his opinions generally need to be attributed and used with care, as he, like many authors, has his biases. His factual stuff is fine to use unattributed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not the point. One can be critical with proper use of sources, which is just one of several problems with Cohen's work. This is not I just don't like it. Exactly, thank you for pointing that out, he is critical of Serbs instead of Serbian government or Serbian leadership or parts of the Serbian army, parts of the Academy, choose your pick.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  18:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm glad someone brought this issue up. First of all, Cohen does not have a degree in history. He has a B.A. according to his Wikipedia page, in what is not clear. Though even if his B.A. is in history, that doesn't make him a historian. That's what a PhD. is for. He is a medical doctor who for some reason, became interested in the Balkans during the 1990s and took a hard-line anti-Serb stance.


 * He cozied up and maintained strong ties to Franjo Tudjman and his ruling Croatian party during the 1990s, receiving a medal of honor from Tudjman. This from a leader who, mind you, if he hadn't passed away would have likely been indicted by the ICTY for war crimes and a regime who committed their own atrocities in Croatia and Bosnia. The regime also tolerated and even at times promoted a revival of the country's WW2 fascist regime and holocaust revisionism. Yet Cohen, a Jew, had no issues with this, writing exclusively about Serbs, who undoubtedly were responsible for a good amount of atrocities during the 1990s.


 * My main problem with Cohen is that, upon observing his bibliography, literally every single one of his books (and other works) is about how bad the Serbs are and how they're responsible for all the problems in the Balkans. This isn't my opinion, it's plainly obvious when glancing through his works. I'd give him a pass, if say he had also written about other topics like the rise of Croatian or Albanian nationalism for instance, but there is none. It's just a strange obsession with demonizing everything Serbian. Unlike a serious academic or historian, he makes no attempt at objectivity. As the OP has noted, several Western academics have questioned his motives and historical interpretations. Little is also known about him, except what is written on the back of Serbia's Secret War and what other writers have been able to find. Only one picture of him exists online, also from the book. For someone who has written so much about Serbs, been a U.N. adviser for the Clinton administration and fancies himself an expert on the Balkans, it's bizarre.


 * Therefore, my view is that he can't be considered a reliable source, due to his dubious academic credentials, personal connections, promotion of one-sided POV and unusual criticism from reputable scholars regarding his work. If Serbia's Secret War or any other Cohen material is to be used at all, it should be done very sparingly and with an abundance of caution. I'm not necessarily opposed to it being used for uncontroversial statements but not when it comes to interpretations of history and documents or formulation of views and conclusions about Balkan issues.--Nolanfranyeri (talk) 03:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * This Manchester University Press book calls it a "controversial pro-Croatian revision of Serbian history." A Stanford University Press book "Century (Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate, 1997). Two studies that explore important topics, but in which censorious zeal trumps balanced scholarship, are Branimir Anzulovic, Heavenly Serbia: From Myth to Genocide (New York: New York University Press, 1999) and Philip J. Cohen, Serbia’s Secret War". A book by Raphael Israeli after a few other negative comments says "Dennis Reinhartz, a professor of history, said in his review of Cohen’s book that Serbia’s Secret War belongs to "the current popular-historical and journalist literature that seeks to demonize and condemn more than to chronicle and elucidate fairly."* He also added that the book was in danger of degenerating itself into an irrational conspiracy history and belongs to those history works of the Balkans that contribute little to our understanding of past events and their impact on the present.". There are a few positive comments in his article on the book, but I don't see how such a controversial book can be a reliable source. The Bachelor of Arts degree will almost certainly have been a science degree, required to get into medical school. There seems to be a common misunderstanding with people thinking a BA is always a humanities degree. Doug Weller  talk 13:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It works the other way too. My partner, an academic historian, has an MA, an MSc and a PhD - all in history. You can't make assumptions about the subject from the title of the degree. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  07:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, his degree is listed online in archives: It's in Social Sciences. But a degree neither validates nor invalidates anyone as a subject matter expert by WP guidelines. SilverbackNet talk 05:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm opposed to deeming this source unreliable in all situations. This book was published by a solid academic press, and if you check Philip J. Cohen's Wikipedia page, you can see that a half dozen reputable scholars have a high opinion of the book. In cases where other reliable sources don't clearly refute what Cohen is saying, we should just cite Cohen without attribution. If a specific claim that Cohen is making is found to be disputed by other historians, then Cohen should be cited with attribution. Almost every history book will have some positive and some negative reviews, and this is no exception. However, a few negative reviews is not good cause to purge the book entirely. ErinRC (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

It looks like ordinary wartime propaganda: "An objective and thorough history of the World-War-II Serbian puppet state under Milan Nedic certainly is needed, but Serbia's Secret War is not it. This is not an exhaustive study, nor did I find it unbiased" [...] "Serbia's Secret War addresses several important historical topics, but does so poorly and incompletely." The war is over, or someone still fighting?--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Use of iffy birth certificate for date of birth
Heather O'Rourke was a child actress who died 30 some years ago. The reference for her date of birth is a PDF of her birth and death certificates from a site called Autopsyfiles.org. I would not call it a reliable site (although there are about 60 uses of it on Wikipedia as a source). I have read WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY and I am sure we would not use this reference for a living person. Given that Heather O'Rourke is long dead, is this an acceptable source? Bitter Oil (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Per the look, name and closest I found to an about-page, I would not use this as a source for anything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Findagrave.com has same information but is also not recommended for us for the same reasons, largely user generated information (even if they try to audit it). A search online doesn't bring up any other source, most from '88 don't even mention her year of birth only her age. Koncorde (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm an idiot. I looked at the Find A Grave link and recognized the plaque bcause we have a picture of it in the article. It has her birth date on it! That takes care of this article at least. Bitter Oil (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)