This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

A new user, @ Michaelnelson123123:, has added references to FamilySearch for the birth/death dates of various 19th century Mormon figures (such as Brigham Young). Normally, I would revert this and explain that geneology sites are discouraged for this type of data when other sources are available; relying on published secondary sources is preferred to using primary census data.

However, FamilySearch is owned by the LDS Church, which complicates things. It may be more likely to be reliable than other sites for this information. Is this an acceptable and reliable reference here? power~enwiki ( π, ν) 23:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I would say its reliable, and even more so when the original documents are cited there. It's certainly better than no reference, which is what is left if you remove it. I'd suggest leaving it in unless/until you find a better reference. - Nunh-huh 00:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm relatively new to deliberately evaluating reliable sources, but to me the same ways I would evaluate if a source is reliable in my writing is one it would be deemed reliable from an encyclopedic stand-point. And thus, I have a few concerns here. The first is that the FamilySearch page appears to have been written with minimal POV review, and to have been primarily maintained by people directly affiliated with the site, under the direction of one of the directors of the FamilySearch project. And based on his Talk page, he appears to be someone who left Wikipedia in quite a specific type of " I'm not getting my way" huff. If you look at the Talk archive, and the reference list, you can see why the article was recently tagged as self-published. I am hesitant to treat any source as reliable if they have a long history of trying to use their Wikipedia page as an advertising or propaganda tool instead of strictly as an encyclopedia record.

Another issue is the sole comment on the current FamilySearch Talk page, which says that they are no longer open source. If you have to create an account, and thereby give an LDS-run company your email address, to view the birth or death certificates of famous figures that they are archiving, I am very hesitant to treat that as any kind of a reliable source when writing an academic paper, article, etc. Which to me makes it a specious source for Wikipedia. I realize we link to scientific studies behind a paywall sometimes, because it's the only option, but those pay sites also have an abstract and enough other information to demonstrates that the study does exist.

So I followed the reference that this user added to the Brigham Young page, and it does indeed require you to create an account to view the documents it's claiming will prove their birth/death dates are correct. I'm not saying that this makes them an unreliable source, but that's only one of a few issues. Their perception even within the LDS community as an unreliable genealogical source, their only recent reversal on treating this database as a way to trace ancestry to Adam and Eve, their requirement to stop allowing the site to be used for concocting fake genealogies to justify post-humously baptizing historical figures who weren't LDS members... to me all of this says "Not reliable" to me. If they are trying to become a reliable genealogical resource now, based on some recent proposed changes, then it's something to reconsider later. But to note that, you also have to note that the reference on the page about them adding same-sex marriage functionality to the database has been "coming soon" for about 4 years now, and is still not projected to happen until at least 2019. So, for me, it would take a few years and many changes for this site to be treated as reliable for any information that isn't 100% open-source and externally verifiable.

And on a side note, why is a bot archiving the FamilySearch Talk page so often? I'm not saying it is suspicious, I've just never seen it before. But I'm sure there's a lot I haven't seen. So please do tell me if that level of archiving activity is normal? CleverTitania ( talk) 21:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Family Search is just a collection of user created data mixed up with primary sources. It is not a reliable source - no competent professional genealogist would use an entry from Family Search for anything. Instead, you go to the sources that should be cited in the Family Search entry and verify them before considering the information reliable. It is no different than any of the family trees on Ancestry.com... user generated material. Whether its about an LDS figure or not has no bearing on whether it is reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info @ Ealdgyth:. I didn't realize there are already policies and/or consensus applicable to this type of genealogy site. If I had, I wouldn't have bothered documenting all the different concerns I had over their being treated as a reliable source, and stuck with just that. I should've done more digging for RS documentation on existing sites of a similar design/style.

Though I am still concerned over the lack of POV-review of the Wiki page for this site, and why its Talk page is being archived so often. But I've put those on my 'ToDo' list of things in Wiki I want to improve upon, on when I have time. Though eek is that list growing. :) CleverTitania ( talk) 23:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

As someone who adds a lot of peer-reviewed research and who happens to also edit on the topic of American politics, I've noticed a big problem with the removal of peer-reviewed academic research when the research in question reflects poorly on a conservative cause, figure or talking point. On pages unrelated to American politics, I virtually never see anyone remove peer-reviewed research and I'm having trouble even recalling anyone removing research when it reflects poorly on a liberal cause, figure or talking point. The removals usually demonstrate a complete disregard for Wikipedia's RS policy (peer-reviewed research are usually THE best sources), an unfamiliarity with how peer-review works (judging by talk page discussions), and a conflation of a study with "opinion". In one memorable exchange, one editor justified the removal of academic content by claiming the study was authored by an "assistant professor", not even a full professor.

This adds a lot to the dysfunction that we see on American politics pages on Wikipedia, and I was wondering if there is a solution that can ensure that editors stop removing peer-reviewed research for spurious reasons. I know this is extreme but I've always been of the mind that editors who remove peer-reviewed research published in high-quality presses and journals tarnish themselves to such a degree that they should just be banned (unless they self-revert upon warning) for extreme incompetence and bias. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this in relation to this section you also opened on the talk page there or is this a policy change proposal? PackMecEng ( talk) 17:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

This is broader problem in American politics that needs to be solved. I want to hear what remedies are already available and what policy changes can be made if existing tools are unsuitable. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

So what you are purposing is that if someone removes a peer-reviewed paper they should be banned? What exactly is the remedy you are suggesting and what kind of guidelines to enforce that remedy would there be? PackMecEng ( talk) 17:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I think s/he's proposing that if an editor makes a habit of obstructing obviously reliable sources, then some sort of sanction is appropriate. I tend to agree, as such behavior falls under our guidelines on disruptive and tendentious editing. MastCell  ^Talk 19:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I get that, I was asking how that would be defined and how it would be enforced. Without being too broad and creating non-uniform enforcement. PackMecEng ( talk) 19:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• Not an RSN problem. American politics is under discretionary sanctions, if editors are removing good reliable peer reviewed research claiming its 'opinion', make them aware of DS and then take them to AE for Wikipedia:Disruptive editing (see also WP:TE). Only in death does duty end ( talk) 18:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I 100% agree, not a RSN problem. This is a description of disruptive and tendentious editing which should be proven at AN/ANI/AE. - Obsidi ( talk) 00:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Can you please provide diffs (either here or on my talkpage) of specific instances where you believe clearly-reliable sources are being inappropriately rejected? If an editor rejects a peer-reviewed reliable source because its author was an assistant, rather than a full, professor, then step one is to gently educate that editor as to why such an objection is inappropriate. If an editor has a pattern of creating such inappropriate roadblocks to reliable sources, particularly if that pattern reflects a partisan agenda, then the next step would be administrative intervention. I am willing to review such cases, subject to time constraints, as I suspect other admins would be as well, but they require evidence in the form of diffs. MastCell  ^Talk 19:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• I can't substantiate that there are editors who have a documented pattern of doing this, but I will start to write down instances (as they occur). The most recent individual instances were on the Donald Trump (where three studies were removed under the guise of being "opinion") [1] and the Mitch McConnell (where several peer-reviewed publications and publications by recognized experts were removed) [2] pages. The most memorable instances are when Malerooster stalked me to the Federalism page to remove a study [3] [4] and when James Lambden removed a book published by Lexington Books (peer-reviewed academic publisher) because it was by an assistant professor [5]. But as I understand it, these single actions don't constitute sanctionable behavior. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Um... looking at some of those examples, I don’t actually see peer reviewed studies. They do strike me as being author opinion. It may be well informed (or even expert) opinion, but it is opinion nevertheless. That said, I agree that removing the sources was the wrong way to deal with the problem... rather than remove opinion, it should be re-phrased to make it clear that it IS opinion... the problem was that the opinion was presented as fact (in Wikipedia’s voice) rather than attributed. Blueboar ( talk) 01:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Fully agree w/ Blueboar here, and adding that once you recognize that these are opinions or subjective conclusions that should be attributed, whether to include or not fall under UNDUE/WEIGHT, which should factor in the prominence of the academic writing the book. (This would be a case where if an asst. prof. is making a very contentious claim, and no one else in the world corroborates the idea, you probably should not be weighing too much on that source.) -- Masem ( t) 02:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Nearly every study that I add, I attribute ("Study X found Y", "Scholar A wrote B"). I don't do it for mundane statements of fact or for info that clearly reflects overwhelming agreement in the literature. And Blueboar is wrong. These are studies and they are peer-reviewed. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 02:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I do not know who added what was removed in this diff but that's definitely not attributed statements. -- Masem ( t) 04:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

What should be attributed in those statements? Nothing in the text is contentious or disputed among political scientists and historians, and multiple RS are cited. It's entirely unfeasible to just start listing random scholars and studies. We wouldn't say "Economists 1, 2.... 500, 501 say that the reduction of trade barriers has a positive effect on economic growth" on the Free trade page. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 11:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Academics have opinions too - as well as a range of views. It is usually best to attribute such stmts - on Free Trade, for instance, we say There is a broad consensus among economists ... - which is indeed the case, however there are also dissenting academic views on Free Trade (in a clear minority these days - but - they still exist). However, what's really wrong in the diff above are the citations - ^{[1] [2] [3]} - no page numbers. Without a page number in a book (and if it is contentious - a quote is often helpful as well) - the text does not pass WP:V. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The quotes are here [6]. It's page 6 for the Sides book. I have the other two in epub format, so the page numbers are inconsistent with the print or normal PDF versions. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 11:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

One of the citations is also missing the authors. The epub doesn't have print page numbers? If it doesn't, then I would at least provide a chapter number/title and an inline quote for the ref (assuming it is a short quote that supports the stmt). Icewhiz ( talk) 11:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Books published by academic presses are peer-reviewed. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 02:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

No... the fact that a book has been published by an academic press does not mean it has been peer reviewed. Blueboar ( talk) 12:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

It isn't necessary peer reviewed, but the question is if it is a reliable source, and academic press qualifies for that. - Obsidi ( talk) 12:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The claim that Princeton University Press does not do peer-review is extraordinary and should be backed up. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 12:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Some may, some may not. But key is that "peer review" does not mean "factually true". -- Masem ( t) 04:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

This seems a bit silly - those sources are all peer-reviewed, any monograph published by Yale or Princeton will have been peer reviewed by multiple experts in the field, in addition to having been reviewed in depth by the press' own editors. Anyone who argues otherwise is just showing their ignorance of how academic publishing works. They are a valid source for facts, and in fact they're pretty much exactly what we should be using to write articles. It's quite possible that there's valid quibbles about the citation format, lack of page numbers, or weight of the author's perspective in some of these instances but those are clearly, obviously high-quality RS. Fyddlestix ( talk) 13:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

In the area of social sciences, where there is a lot less objective evidence that can be used to come to a conclusion as there are in the physical sciences, we have to be aware of when statements made are based on personal opinions and conclusions, and when they are more factually grounded. The peer-review is basically going to make sure that if a personal opinion or conclusions is made that it likely reflects the discourse for the journal or book publisher or avoids the extremes, as well as making sure the more objective conclusions are based on sound reasoning and science. To that end, these types of works should be treated as a mix of RS and RSOPINION, with context mattering. And when it is more in RSOPINION, then inline attribution is a requirement. -- Masem ( t) 14:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Social sciences, for the most part, still follow systemic, methodological processes to establish claims. They use theories like the hard sciences, and they rely on the principle of falsifiability as much as possible.

Though the "soft" sciences got their name for a reason, it is important that we should not be treating them differently from the hard sciences, because the experts, conclusions and consensuses that arise from them are used frequently and inform many fields. As those conclusions, experts and consensuses change, so can we.

Finally, it should be noted that the social sciences are one of the most PC-friendly (or PC-infested, depending on your opinion of political correctness) fields out there. Anything that's even remotely contentious among the experts is highly unlikely to make it through peer review. We are not the arbiters of what is controversial: we are merely the reporters of it. Unless sources of similar quality can be produced stating opposing claims, then anything stated as a fact in a peer-reviewed work of social sciences should be treated by WP as a fact.

Masem, these are exactly the sorts of sources that arise around a political event when sufficient time has passed and the event remains notable. Basing our articles on these sorts of sources is exactly the explicitly stated goal of our perennial proposal to limit the use of low-to-middling quality sources too close in time to an event. Imagine my surprise to see you arguing against it, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Never said it can't be used, just that it falls between RS and RSOPINION depending on context. The Yale book above would appear to be an RS to describe voting patterns for the last few elections based on the material I can see in the preview. But for the claim that it was used for that Trump was "the most prominent proponent" of the Obama-birther theory, that's clearly an RSOPINION and needs inline attribution. And that once something is deemed RSOPINION, whether to include or not becomes an UNDUE factor. (The same thing would be done in hard sciences too with a novel claim: if a group just published a peer-revieed paper that claims they broke the speed of light, we'd not say in WP voice "it is possible to break the speed of light", but instead "In 20xx a group from Harvard reported successful experiments in breaking the speed of light." If that is corroborate over many years and additional experiments, then we can eventually state that as fact.). A reliable source doesn't mean its true but that it does have sound backing to be included in WP with anything that should seem contentious being attributed inline. -- Masem ( t) 15:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

If the original poster can't find places where negative opinions on liberal positions/people are removed but sees overwhelming amounts of negative material on conservative positions being removed, I suggest they search for and add peer-reviewed negative material to liberal positions until they start seeing it removed. This appears to be something that "Writing for the opposition" would cure. It's somewhat depressing that such a partisan approach to editing is tolerated in a topic area that is dysfunctional. In fact, the "concern" being raised is the reason it's dysfunctional. The easiest way to not see "your" opinion being removed is to stop adding it.

Around three weeks ago, a user added a reference to Southern soul citing this page on the website SoulBluesMusic.com. It initially seemed to be a blog written by an enthusiast and therefore cleary unreliable. However, further investigation brought forth new information that caused me to reconsider. The website is run by "Blues Critic" Dylann DeAnna (the author of the cited webpage), who uses it to host his CD-selling business and his "Southern Soul Blog". DeAnna claims on his website to have extensive contacts within the music industry. Searching for his name revealed that DeAnna was a writer for the now-defunct online magazine BluesWax. I then found this PDF copy of one of its issues, in which it is confirmed that DeAnna did write for the magazine in āāat least 2006 and that the publication's staff included at least one "contributing editor." In looking through that issue, the magazine did not appear to be particularly reputable, but what intrigued me was the number of reliable sources I came across that mentioned BluesWax's awards or interviews.

My question is this: given everything that I have stated, does DeAnna meet the WP:SPS criteria of "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" such that his self-published writings would be considered reliable? Life of Tau 03:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

For me, you would need multiple reliable sources effectively claiming the individual is an expert in this field before that provision would apply. (For instance multiple publications of a person's work in peer-reviewed journals is usually enough, as it is assumed that the journal wouldn't be publishing non-experts.) Merely being a contributing editor (even at a RS), isn't usually enough to say the individual is an expert. More often you could use it as a RS for his own views on the music under WP:SELFPUB (assuming that he has a significant viewpoint that isn't otherwise covered in the article.) - Obsidi ( talk) 12:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you; your reply is appreciated. Life of Tau 16:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a dispute between me and @ Dr.K.: concerning the aforementioned book. You can access the discussion Talk:EOKA#Preventing "David French's POV". I will provide you with my reasoning why I think D.French is reliable, I will try to debunk some of Dr.K.'s arguments that have been presented in the discussion and I will let Dr.K. make his case why D.French is not a reliable source.

First, who is David French?: Emeritus Professor of History Dept of History Faculty of S&HS] at University College of London. Please have a look at his publications and achievement (prizes he won ie Templer Medal (2005) Medal Society for Army Historical Research).

Reviews of his book: According to google scholar French book is cited 27 times. (One can read that his other overlapping book The British way in counter-insurgency, 1945-1967 (2011) has 190 citations). Among those 27 citations, there are some reviews. I present a sample.

Dr.K.'s argument is that French "David French's POV against EOKA is simply monumental. His main thesis is that EOKA are comparable to jihadists in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here he is doing a comparative analysis of suicide bombers with EOKA tactics. This is anachronistic, revisionist POV.". Actually, none of the reviewers mentioned anything about jihadists, nor Dr.K. provided evidence for it. Neither did they mention anything about relativist, anarchronistic POV. So these views are not really based on solid ground. Dr.K seems to think that because of French claims that the guerillas were terrorist, that means he is POV. But A lot of scholars have the same opinion (see ref number 29 which cites 7 RS in current version). This should be presented in the article, along with the heroics aspects of the struggle.

David French is an excelent scholar whose book I intend to use even more in the article. I will try to avoid using adjectives relating to negative nuances (terrorist) or positives ones (freedom fighters) as much as I can without distorting any source. But French can not be excluded as a scholar not his books. Τζερόνυμο ( talk) 08:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems RS to me, but would (given the nature of the statement) need attribution. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The initial statement by the OP is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. First, this is not a personal dispute between me and the OP. There are other editors involved in this dispute, regarding the claims made in this book which anachronistically compare modern-day jihadists with EOKA fighters. Please see this link, where French is doing a comparative analysis of suicide bombers with EOKA tactics, and also compares them to jihadists in Iraq and Ahghanistan. This is anachronistic, revisionist POV by this author, which, to my knowledge, has no academic currency or acceptance. I am not disputing that EOKA is viewed by some academics as a terrorist organisation. What I am disputing is French's assertion, and subsequent analysis, that are based on the thesis that Hellenism and its components, including the Orthodox religion, are similar to jihadist ideology. This is WP:FRINGE material. Dr. K. 12:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Still Dr.K. did not provide peer reviewed articles making claims about anachronism or POV. Meanwhile, let's read WP:FRINGENOT: "WP:FRINGE is most often abused in political and social articles where better policies such as WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE are appropriate. Citing WP:FRINGE in discussions and edit summaries is often done by POV pushers in an attempt to demonize viewpoints which contradict their own. Opponents to reliable sources will often argue that their opponents reliable sources are FRINGE because they spread false information or have a viewpoint which is not mainstream" and WP:FRINGE has nothing to do with politics or opinions. Τζερόνυμο ( talk) 19:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, this book was not self-published (it was published by Oxford University Press, which had editorial oversight of it), and, as such, I believe would qualify as a reliable source. That said, for a claim that the organization is a terrorist organization, we would not want such a claim in WP voice without a lot more high quality RS per WP:Exceptional claims. For instance, if they were on the state department's list of foreign terrorist organizations then we could consider such a claim in WP voice. Instead, we should treat this as his opinion and per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, it should be attributed to him when used. Oh, and this is NOT a WP:FRINGE view. There are a variety of people that hold this view other than David French, and David French is a prominent adherent of this view, as such it is at least a minority view that should be included. - Obsidi ( talk) 20:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Obsidi for your contribution. I agree with you that prof. D. French is a RS. As for branding EOKA as a terrorist organisation, that is a secondary matter. If we will ever discuss it in the Talk Page, I will ping you, if you don't mind. In my opinion, "a villain is a hero of the other side" (just my pov). There are several academic sources describe EOKA as a terrorist band. British government and press used to deem EOKA as a terrorist group. On the other hand, among Greeks, EOKA is regarded as a heroic guerilla group. I believe that the article should represent (and explain) this dual imaginary of EOKA. Anyway, thanks for your comment. Τζερόνυμο ( talk) 17:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Technically, he isn't the RS (as he didn't publish the book and I have not seen the evidence that is an independently recognized expert), it is Oxford University Press which is the RS. He just has a prominent viewpoint (which may be a minority viewpoint). Feel free to ping me if it isn't WP:Canvassing. - Obsidi ( talk) 17:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@ Obsidi: I never claimed that French's view that EOKA is a terrorist organisation is FRINGE. In my statement above, I said that French's comparison of EOKA to jihadists is fringe. Please see my statement above and check the link (I also provided the same link above), where French analyses EOKA and compares them to suicide bombers and jihadists in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also compares Hellenism and its components, including the Orthodox religion, to jihadist ideology. This is a fringe opinion, and, to my knowledge, it is not shared by any other person, expert, or non-expert. Dr. K. 18:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

So, you do accept David Frech and his book as RS? Should we close the discussion? As for the jihadist claim, I can not see how the link you provided proves that he actually made that statement. Τζερόνυμο ( talk) 18:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

What precisely is the edit you think is fringe? The only one I saw complained of was this one. Mind you, much of this should have been attributed, and I would probably cut the second sentence and the first part of the third, but I don't see anything else here that seems fringe. Is there another edit I am missing? - Obsidi ( talk) 18:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

This is the edit that makes the reference to jihadis, Hellenism, religion, etc. The edit you mentioned, continues on a similar path, trying to portray religion as part of a deliberate EOKA indoctrination process to create murderers and terrorists. By the way, the transcription of the edit you pointed to is probably wrong or OR, because French makes a clear distinction in his book between assassination and murder. Dr. K. 20:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes its perfectly reliable. Academic expert publishing in a reliable publisher. Unless there are some RS presented that state otherwise (and I have not seen any provided yet) most of the argument here and on the talk-page appears to be opinion-based assertations and a waste of everyone's time. There has been no RS provided which indicates his writing reflects a minority or fringe view, there have been no RS provided which state the point he is making is a fringe/minority view (even if they dont mention French himself). Even when attributed to him directly, an UNDUE argument is a non-starter given his credentials and reviews of his work. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 13:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• There has been no RS provided which indicates his writing reflects a minority or fringe view, there have been no RS provided which state the point he is making is a fringe/minority view (even if they dont mention French himself). This historical area is not a hotbed of activity, so it is very unlikely for an expert to write an academic paper, or book, refuting French's comparison of EOKA fighters with jihadis, and his association of the vague concept of Hellenism and the orthodox religion with the jihadist belief system. In addition, the view that EOKA is a terrorist organisation is a minority one, but at least one can find several RS supporting it. The view that EOKA fighters are comparable to suicide bombers and jihadis and that Hellenism and the Greek Orthodox religion are comparable to jihadist ideology is only held by French, and no other scholar. That, by itself, demonstrates French's extreme, minority of one, POV. Also, French's credentials as a researcher are not clear to me. I haven't seen him publishing any paper, peer-reviewed or otherwise, on EOKA's belief system and ideology as compared to the jihadist belief system. Reviews of his books are no substitute for French writing a paper and publishing it in a peer-reviewed journal, especially if his POV is so isolated academically, to the point that no other scholar, to the best of my knowledge, makes, or has adopted, the jihadist comparison. Now, obviously, by mentioning that this discussion is a waste of time, you have a position, diametrically opposed to mine. Nothing wrong with that. You are entitled to your opinion. However, I would like to see a few more opinions on this subject. Dr. K. 15:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for any of the above, otherwise your argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is no argument at all. Given that it is a widespread view that EOKA is/was a terrorist organisation, its equally as believeble that no one has felt the need to make the comparisons between one set of terrorists and another as they obvious. Only we dont actually do that, we leave it to RS to make and publish those arguments, of which you have provided precisely zero. So to the question 'Is David French reliable for the comparisons made by David French' the answer will always be yes unless you can provide a solid reason why not. If you want to make an UNDUE argument then that is a matter for the talkpage of the article, not RSN, but you have so far been attemptin to attack the reliability without providing any evidence its unreliable. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I have addressed your point regarding providing RS and why I think French's views are fringe when he compares EOKA, Hellenism and the Orthodox religion to jihadi ideology and actions. I am not going to repeat my arguments. Neither am I going to continue arguing so that you can keep labeling my points as IJDLIT, "Waste of time" etc.. I am disengaging from further discussion with you. Dr. K. 19:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

As I do have the book of prof. French, I did a quick search. I have searched the world "jihad" and the word does not appear anywhere in the book.I checked for Afghanistan and here it what is says p. 8

EOKA fought using some of the weapons commonly associated with more recent campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. They employed not only modern firearms but also large numbers of what today are called improvised explosive devices. There are also parallels between yesterday and today beyond the battlefield. In Cyprus, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, the counterinsurgents did not merely try to defeat the insurgents with guns. They also tried to bolster or reconstruct state institutions in an effort to reconfigure the local political landscape.

So the parallel is not with EOKA and afghan rebels. He compares the respond by the British Empire in 1955-59 with the nowadays War in Afghanistan. It does states that they both used iprovised explosive devices. It is a textbook knowledge that EOKA was using home-made bombs. So there is nothing extreme about French's claim. And a second comment: scholars make abudent use of the word "terrorist" when describing EOKA or its actions. (see ref number 29 which cites 7 RS in current version. On the other hand I can not find a source/ref stating that it is a minority opinion among academics that EOKA was a terrorist organisation. Τζερόνυμο ( talk) 16:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I have provided you with a link where all this stuff is clear. In the link there are references to "suicide bombers", "Hellenism and its religion", where French calls religion an "important component" of Hellenism - a concept French never bothers to define or analyse in depth. French also mentions a "charismatic religious leader", "martyrs' cult" etc.. All designed to make the comparison between the faith and ideological background of the EOKA fighters and that of Islamist extremists. Dr. K. 19:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The editor PackMecEng is edit-warring to remove content from The Daily Wire about the publication's false stories about climate change, claiming that the website climatefeedback.org can't be used as a source. Climatefeedback.org is a website run by recognized experts on climate change and is basically just a collection of assessments of news stories by recognized experts on climate change. This is the content in question that the editor believes should be deleted in full (click the links below to see how the website basically works):

• The Daily Wire has published a number of articles doubting that climate change is occurring and that humans contribute to climate change. Experts have described the articles as inaccurate and misleading. ^{[1] [2] [3]}

So, are we allowed to cite climate scientists on Wikipedia? Or are climate scientists "unreliable", as the editor PackMecEng suggests? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Climatefeedback.org has been cited favorably recently by sources such as Deutsche Welle, [17] Columbia Journalism Review [18], Axios [19], and the Guardian which referred to climatefeedback.org as "a highly respected and influential resource" [20]. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

They are a relatively recent blog which has only existed for a few years now. Not enough time to build up a reputation of reliability as an organization. That said, many of people posting there are experts in their field, and they personally have the reliability. As such they could fall under Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Exceptions and be reliable. It would depend on exactly who the individual expert is. - Obsidi ( talk) 19:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Climate Feedback has a very high rating for factual reliability, the Daily Wire, only obtains a mixed rating on Media Bias fact check. I notice publications rated as mixed on media bia fact check are often considered inappropriate sources on Wikipedia. In this particular subject the Daily Wire would be highly inappropriate since

The Daily Wire is owned by Forward Publishing LLC. Forward Publishing is owned and managed by the billionaire Wilks Bothers who made their money through the fossil fuel industry with their company Frac Tech. The Wilks brothers are also a part of the extreme Christian right who interpret the bible literally. The website is funded through a subscription and advertising model. -- Andromedean ( talk) 19:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

WP doesn't determine what a reliable source is based on what mediabiasfactcheck says. Nor does it matter who owns them or where they got their money or what their subscription model is. Please just go read WP:Identifying reliable sources and make a policy based argument. - Obsidi ( talk) 19:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Media Bias FactCheck is not a RS. It's run by a random dude, has an absurd methodology and changes ratings when random users complain. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned on The Daily Wire talk, there's a reliable source for it being a reliable source, and along with Snoogansnoogans links above, there's a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" + editorial control + their summaries are based on comments from experts in the relevant field, showing reliability (interestingly enough, their community standards are inspired by "The Wikipedia’s five pillars (and references therein)") Galobtter ( pingó mió) 19:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

All I see is a description of them in that link, including where they are funded, but no claim of reliability. - Obsidi ( talk) 19:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

That is a list of "resources can stake reasonable - though not irrefutable - claims as either reliable fact-checking sources or as reliable evaluators of the credibility of other information pages" Galobtter ( pingó mió) 19:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah I see what your referring to now. That source and the guardian article are the only two that seem relevant so far, in my opinion. - Obsidi ( talk) 19:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• From what I see they would qualify under WP:USERG. Which goes along the disclaimers at the bottom of their articles Our reviews are crowdsourced directly from a community of scientists with relevant expertise. [21] Notable for their opinion perhaps but not a RS for statements of fact. Most info I can find are a long those lines as well as their original Indiegogo campaign to get started. [22] PackMecEng ( talk) 20:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC) Also side note, the section heading you choose is at best misleading to the subject. PackMecEng ( talk) 20:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Their "community of scientist with relevant expertise" statement is excessively modest -- these folks include many of the very very top people in the field. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 20:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

From what I see they would qualify under WP:USERG. If you can't sign up and write an article, then they're not user generated. They might be blogs (meaning WP:SPS), but given the authorship, that shouldn't matter. The authors are reliable sources, hence it doesn't much matter what the details of publishing are.

However, even the details of publication become entirely irrelevant when one considers that 5 RSes have described it as an RS, meaning we shouldn't even consider it a blog. It has a reputation for fact checking. As far as I'm concerned, everything I've seen here strongly suggests that this is an impeccably reliable source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

My issue is they have been around about 2 years now? I am not sure that is long enough to establish a track record of being a RS, I have also not seen anything that hints at actual editorial oversight. Granted I am sure they are very smart people and I have no reason to suspect what they write is wrong. RS listed above speak to that fact, but that alone is not enough. However the question is should their statements be attributed to them, as in "According to Climate Feedback X" rather than in Wikipedia's voice as statements of fact on it's own. It is not if they are correct in their assessments or not. Also here is their signup page if you want to become a reviewer there, if you wanted to write for them. PackMecEng ( talk) 22:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

My issue is they have been around about 2 years now? I am not sure that is long enough to establish a track record of being a RS Well, the RSes linked above do consider that long enough to establish a track record, and no offense, but I trust their judgement more than any Wikipedians. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

So, they have established criteria for vetting the qualifications of their contributors. I understand reliable sources do that sort of thing. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 04:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

That is what you saw from an online signup sheet? Wow just wow. PackMecEng ( talk) 04:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

That signup sheet states quite clearly that, in order to apply (bolding is because nowhere on that page does it state that admittance is guaranteed if you meet the criteria), you must have a PhD in a relevant field and be the first author of a paper published in the relevant field within the last three years. It furthermore requires that you be associated with an academic institute, that you have a web page giving your credentials, and encourages you to add at least three such publications. I would also note that some rather strict criteria are given for what sort of publications they expect you to have, at the bottom. I would bet dollars to donuts that individuals who have signed up who barely scrape by the minimum requirements have been declined admission to the site. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not really a betting person. But that all sounds like personal speculation. Again it is not a matter of if they are right. It is only part of the determination.(ps how many donuts are we talking here?) PackMecEng ( talk) 01:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• This website (climatefeedback.org) appears to be a reliable source for climate-science-related content. The arguments in favor of that designation are pretty persuasive—the contributors are reputable experts in their field, the site has clearly delineated editorial control of its content, and other clearly-reliable sources treat the website as reliable. The arguments against are weak (and that's being charitable). This isn't a "user-generated" site as defined in WP:USERG; it is a legitimate reliable source for content within its scope. MastCell  ^Talk 03:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
• Per above I think it qualifies as a RS. At worst it is a qualified WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Daß  Wölf 00:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@ RoseCherry64: warned me not to restore Kegan, Yrjänä (2015). Subgenres of the Beast: A Heavy Metal Guide. lulu.com. ISBN  1312984503. to the two articles from where it had been removed. This based on a discussion at Talk:Streetcleaner/GA1 that includes a comment added by RoseCherry64 that links to https://musicfans.stackexchange.com/questions/2155/whats-a-head-banging-rock-song/5098#5098 as proof. There is nothing present within the definition of "headbanging" taken from the book that coincides with the definition at the Wikipedia article, as far as I can see. I agree that lulu.com is a self-published source, but I see no reason to exclude it as a mirror. Am I missing something. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Source was deleted from Lulu.com and is not in any known library, no longer available to preview on Google Books. This arguably makes it not Wikipedia:Published. Looking at one old revision of the page and the StackExchange screenshot, it is obvious that the book was a mirror. RoseCherry64 ( talk) 14:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

cf. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_249#Nicolae_Sfetcu_ebooks RoseCherry64 ( talk) 15:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

( edit conflict) @ RoseCherry64: That "old revision" is actually a a screenshot of the Wikipedia article as it appeared in August 2015 and not a page from the book.

The quote you linked to is

The origin of the term "headbanging" is contested. It is possible that the term "headbanger" was coined during Led Zeppelin's first US tour in 1969. During a show at the Boston Tea Party, audience members in the first row were banging their heads against the stage in rhythm with the music.

A definition describing "headbanging", from the book "Subgenres of the Beast: A Heavy Metal Guide" By Yrjänä Kegan

Then below that it shows the definition from Wikipedia and posts the screenshot. So unless I'm misreading it, they are two separate statements.

And now you're edit warring based on your misunderstanding. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Christian_metal&oldid=prev&diff=863235541 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=HM_(magazine)&oldid=prev&diff=863235510 Please self-revert. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

That "cf" is a different book entirely. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Breakdown on "Jorgesys" post on Stack Exchange (only online source of the book I could find):

Probably the first HeadBanging: [quote], might be taken from the e-book which mirrored Wikipedia.

A definition describing "headbanging", from the book "Subgenres of the Beast: A Heavy Metal Guide" By Yrjänä Kegan:

Screenshot presumably for Google books. Note that there's no caption underneath it. It is clearly the book in reference. However, I did find another reference on Google Books - a negative review stating "This guy literally printed wikipedia.org"

" That "cf" is a different book entirely." — It's the same concept. Self-published book of Wikipedia music articles, uploaded to Google Books, inserted in articles by editors not checking the source properly. There are a lot of these books on Google books.

I didn't break WP:3RR? Is there some other reason I should self-revert? RoseCherry64 ( talk) 15:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@ RoseCherry64: Thanks for the self-revert. You were at 3RR. Any comment on my claim here that the "page" you're claiming is from the book is actually a mobile phone screenshot of the Wikipedia article taken in August?

Anyone else care to offer an opinion? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. I see your update comment. However, that headbanging definition is not taken from Wikipedia, and the screenshot is of Wikipedia. No idea who the anonymous reviewer is so we can't verify that review. Do you have any RSes that it's a Wikipedia mirror and not just self-published? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

And just to be 100% clear on this. The text in that posting is from the book. The screenshot is from the Wikipedia article in August 2015, not a page from the book. That picture is not from Google books. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

"The text in that posting is from the book." — also appears verbatim in an earlier revision, before the e-book was published.

"you're claiming is from the book" "The screenshot is from the Wikipedia article in August 2015, not a page from the book. That picture is not from Google books." — There is clearly a source preface over it. Wikipedia doesn't look like that on mobile browsers. It's not available for purchase anymore (lulu.com prints on-demand) and it cannot be located in any library on Worldcat. I would say it fails WP:Published — "The source is available to the public to review in some manner." It was on Google Books until the publisher pulled it. I can't even find where one would even obtain a copy now. I don't feel like I need to comment further on this source and will leave it to other editors. RoseCherry64 ( talk) 15:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The source is for the text above it, not for the picture below it. It's simple to see that the picture is from Wikipedia as books would not highlight links. I agree that there is similarity between the 2013 version of the article and the quote from the book. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

"It's simple to see that the picture is from Wikipedia as books would not highlight links."

The cf. Nicolae Sfetcu ebook is formatted exactly like this — Nicolae Sfetcu - The Music Sound, Krautrock chapter RoseCherry64 ( talk) 16:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

No it wasn't. Those are blue links with a wide page layout and the ones in the screenshot are in the red colour spectrum, and have a very narrow layout. The excerpts are short in height and wide while the screenshot is about one mobile phone screen page long and narrow. I don't see them as being similar. Without a direct quote from the book you claim is copied from Wikipedia, we're left with making assumptions. Perhaps we should let others comment. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Its a self-published book which has clearly and obviously been ripped from Wikipedia. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 13:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• Do you have evidence of that claim or is it just an opinion? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

All sources are unreliable until proven otherwise. The burden of proof is on the one who wants the claim to stay, not the one who removes it, per WP:BURDEN. In this discussion, you asked asked for an "reliable source" proving a random ebook that was removed by the on-demand publisher contains plagiarism, which is not how it works. Either way, here's some more plagiarism comparisons.

The source on the Christian metal article you restored on is for the following citation:

"Black metal song lyrics usually "…attack Christianity" using "…apocalyptic language" and "Satanic" elements."

Here is a quote from the black metal article, revision as of 22 October 2014 (prior to the self-released book):

"Black metal lyrics typically attack Christianity and the other institutional religions,[13] often using apocalyptic language. Satanic lyrics are common,[18] and many see them as essential to black metal." RoseCherry64 ( talk) 16:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

And I have proven it is reliable although self-published. You claim it's a mirror of Wikipedia bit have offered misinterpreted posts and a similar book.

That two Wikipedia articles have similar test is not surprising. That the idea is supported in a book is similarly not surprising. What you lack, and have lacked from the outset, is a direct quote from the book that is a direct quote from a Wikipedia article. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

And BURDEN is about the "burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material", not proving the sources are reliable or not. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

"And BURDEN is about the 'burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material'"

"In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source."

"What you lack, and have lacked from the outset, is a direct quote from the book that is a direct quote from a Wikipedia article."

There is not a single word different from the three sentences of headbanging posted on StackExchange. Please tell me which of these I copied from Wikipedia or the StackExchange post. You have previously claimed that the text except in that post came directly from the ebook.

A) The origin of the term "headbanging" is contested. It is possible that the term "headbanger" was coined during Led Zeppelin's first US tour in 1969. During a show at the Boston Tea Party, audience members in the first row were banging their heads against the stage in rhythm with the music.

B) The origin of the term "headbanging" is contested. It is possible that the term "headbanger" was coined during Led Zeppelin's first US tour in 1969. During a show at the Boston Tea Party, audience members in the first row were banging their heads against the stage in rhythm with the music.

Trick question! Both sentences are the exact same. I would seriously, seriously contest that you "have proven it is reliable although self-published." RoseCherry64 ( talk) 07:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I did find another quote I removed, cited to said book and directly taken from a Wikipedia page:

• A characteristic metal drumming technique is the cymbal choke, which consists of striking a cymbal and then immediately silencing it by grabbing it [...] producing a burst of sound. — Subgenres of the Beast (2015), cited on Cymbal choke, old revision. I assume the ... was added by the editor.
• "A characteristic metal drumming technique is the cymbal choke, which consists of striking a cymbal and then immediately silencing it by grabbing it with the other hand (or, in some cases, the same striking hand), producing a burst of sound" — Heavy metal music, present on revision pre-book release (4 October 2014)

It does almost seem like someone just took a bunch of Wikipedia articles and put them on a self-publishing platform! RoseCherry64 ( talk) 20:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

This evidence is, in my opinion, convincing. I already removed the book in question from some of the articles within my purview. By the way, I was involved with the original discussion at Talk:Streetcleaner/GA1. Even without this evidence above, just knowing it was self-published by someone without clear credentials warranted it to me to take it out. CelestialWeevil ^{( talk)} 01:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

It's circular reasoning! The text existed before. A reference to that book was added to the text. The text exists today.

What's missing is the actual text from the book. In short, this supposedly convincing evidence is empty. Could someone with brain please look at this thread? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Huh? It's not circular reasoning, it's circular referencing. The quote was added to cymbal choke on this revision, clearly after the book was published.

The actual text from the book is absent because the book is absent. Let's say that I have $10,000 to spend on this single source and access to every library in the world. Where or how can I obtain a copy of this ebook that was deleted by the publisher? RoseCherry64 ( talk) 05:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I just showed how it's circular reasoning. And since you don't have a copy to support that any of it is actually from Wikipeda, that's all you can go on. Your sole claims are inference. No facts. And it's not going to cost you $10,000. There's a copy available from a Canadian seller: https://www.amazon.ca/Subgenres-Beast-Heavy-Metal-Yrjana/dp/B01B99PMWG/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

But still, no proof. You're a terrible logician and worse at sourcing. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

1. This quote was inserted in an article with a citation to a book.

2. It is assumed that the quote is actually in the book, per assuming good faith on the editor who inserted it.

3. Said quote (cymbal choke) exists verbatim in a Wikipedia article prior to the publication of the book.

4. Since the Wikipedia article came first and the phrasing is identical, it is assumed that the book is the copy.

5. Multiple other references (black metal lyrics, headbanging) to the book have been proven to contain content taken from older Wikipedia revisions.

6. Not a single sentence from the book which isn't traced to a Wikipedia article has been provided.

7. The book is self-published on a on-demand printing site by an author with no credentials.

Where is the circular reasoning? Circular reasoning is reasoning without evidence distinct from the conclusion. There is clearly more than a conclusion here. Per cymbal choke ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cymbal_choke&diff=788564534&oldid=750059753 revision]) — "the text existed before" isn't true. It contained a direct quote (if the editor who inserted it is to be trusted) and was added after the publication of the book.

I will admit that the source is still accessible in some form, since it seems like there was at least one paperback copy sold which is listed for sale. RoseCherry64 ( talk) 08:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Agrippa Mandangu

yes, you have a source you wish to discus? Slatersteven ( talk) 12:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Does an image illustrating an article have to be accompanied by a source which says that it illustrates the article? This was disputed when I used this fair-use image to illustrate some points made by reliable sources.

I now have a reliable source saying that the illustration illustrates the general topic of the article, though not a source that says that it illustrates each separately-sourced point. However, I don't think I need these sources in order to include the image, as "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source" don't need a non-primary source (according to WP:PRIMARY). The image is a primary source for its own contents. So if the image obviously illustrates a)the article and b)the points, it seems to me that I don't need additional sources to say that it illustrates. Am I wrong? Is it necessary to have a source saying that an image illustrates an article, and if "sometimes", under what circumstances?

I initially raised this as a sub-point here, and got no response, possibly because the post was pretty stale. Sorry to raise it again. HLHJ ( talk) 03:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Generally yes. If you have a reliable source that says 'Tobacco companies have often marketed alternatives to quitting smoking' and you want to use a tobacco company cigarette ad, you would generally need a source linking the two - the ad as an illustration of the claim. Otherwise its original research. In this specific case as I recall the ad is directly 'Why quit? Switch...' so I would personally say this falls under WP:SKYISBLUE. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 14:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Even more so, I'd recommend not using an image to illustrate a point unless it's very clear. Unlike straightforward text, a complex image can have different meanings to different viewers, in fact many visual artists play with this kind of ambiguity intentionally. So if you want to use this cigarette ad to illustrate Nicotine marketing, that's pretty clear. Or if you want to use this ad to illustrate "ads to switch from cigarettes to e-cigarettes", that's also clear, it says that outright. But if you want to use this ad to say that "this is emphasizing rebellion", when the word "rebellion" is not used in the ad, and the guy in the ad is not obviously showing any rebel qualities, that's very debatable. -- GRuban ( talk) 14:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. So, if I have understood, the image does not need a source to say that it illustrates nicotine marketing, or e-cig marketing, because that is WP:SKYISBLUE-obvious. But if I want to say more, I might need sourcing, unless what I say is also obvious. In this case, I stated that the ad offers an alternative to quitting (indeed, it says "WHY QUIT? Switch..."), that the phrase "Nobody likes a quitter" plays on social anxieties, and that "take back your freedom" empathizes choice, freedom, and rebellion. GRuban thinks the first is acceptable, because it's obvious, but the last is more open to interpretation. Have I got this right? Is the social-anxieties claim OR? HLHJ ( talk) 16:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

On the advice of Explicit, I'm just going to quote the text, and not use the image. Modified statements about the ad:

• the ad promotes e-cigs as an alternative to quitting ("WHY QUIT? Switch...")
• the ad plays on social anxieties / fears of social rejection to discourage quitting ("Nobody likes a quitter")
• one slogan promotes e-cigs as a way to actively "take back your freedom" from someone or something; it says that smoking e-cigs will give you more freedom
• the ad is targeted at smokers of other products ("switch" implies some other product to switch from)

Do these seem sufficiently obvious, or are some original research? HLHJ ( talk) 03:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Would Ex.org be reliable for Anime/Manga reviews & Interviews? I read somewhere that the magazine was under the helm of the "Society for the Promotion of Japanese Animation", but I'm not sure what the status is with their notability.

Ex.org
(Archived via Wayback)

For Furinkan.com, it appears to be a fan site but there was a discussion over at WP:A&M on the matter here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 32#Fansite or Reliable source?. I just want to clear up the status of these two examples if possible, thanks!

Furinkan.com (aka Rumic World)

- Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

One of the articles I watch in Wikipedia just had an edit with a person making a reference to an article on Motherboard, a site that is new to me. Has anybody here dealt with this or seen references to it used on Wikipedia in a way consistent with credibility and reliability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FULBERT ( talk • contribs) 17:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@ FULBERT: Here's their masthead. They are a sister site of Vice (magazine), which is not very old, but can be cited on Wikipedia. If you want to be really sure, you can look up the author of the article in question, to better determine their credibility. Hope this helps. Cheers, wumbolo ^^^ 18:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and suggestion, Wumbolo. That was helpful. FULBERT ( talk) 19:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, all. Recently the SPLC listed the Asatru Folk Assembly and Wolves of Vinland as "neo-volkisch hate groups". Both are notable "folkish" (e.g., 'whites only') heathen groups (to be clear, most heathens fall squarely outside of this designation, especially today). Both of these articles could really use a lot more eyes and an audit of all sources in use. :bloodofox: ( talk) 18:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Bloodofox; will take a review of them. --- FULBERT ( talk) 19:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Should we do more to highlight the difference between reporting, analysis, and opinion/commentary when it comes to news sources? Sources such as Fox (on the right) and MSNBC (on the left) have news reports, but they also have analysis and commentary programs (and some that mix the two). These two types of programs should be handled differently. My understanding is that the news reports are reliable for statements of fact about events... but the analysis and commentary programs need to be hedged as being opinion (and thus attributed). It is obvious that a lot of editors don’t understand the distinction. Blueboar ( talk) 18:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but this problem is broader than just Fox or MSNBC. There are a lot of websites that are considered RS but have substantial opinion commentary involved even when not identified as "opinion" articles (they tend to be explicitly ideological like Vox, Daily Caller, Mother Jones, LifeZette, Huffington Post, etc.). Probably any source that explicitly identifies as conservative or liberal we should be careful with. Frankly major op-eds in places like the WSJ/NYT's are often better than some of these ideological RS. - Obsidi ( talk) 19:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

All opinion pieces are "ideological", whether they are on the right, the left or the middle. The point is not that they are biased, so much as that they are don't abide by the standards of rigour of news reporting, such as fact-checking, triangulating sources, etc, so cannot be used as sources for statements of fact. I think WP makes this clear, but maybe not clear enough as editors continually use opinion pieces to source facts. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 20:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the point isn't that they are biased (even the NYT's or the WSJ news reporting has its own bias). The NYT or WSJ opeds are not as rigorous as their news reporting, but they fact-check their op-eds a lot more than other online publications that are considered RS. But among the organizations that are explicitly ideological, I don't see a lot of difference between Hannity and an op-ed at the WSJ or a Vox article or a Daily Caller article in terms of fact-checking, triangulating sources, etc. Do they fact check, absolutely, but they also slant the facts with so much opinion that one must be very careful in using them to pull out facts from opinion carefully and not just follow the sources. What constitutes opinion vs fact for these more explicitly ideologically biased RS seems very hard for a lot of WP editors to distinguish it seems to me. At least with something like the more mainstream news outlets that claim to not be conservative or liberal, they tend to keep their statements more NPOV in the source, meaning editors tend to do a better job maintaining NPOV when they use those sources. - Obsidi ( talk) 21:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Please don't compare Hannity to Vox. That's like comparing Breitbart to MSNBC: yeah, they have the same problems, but the scale is so different. See Sean Hannity's file at politifact.com. Even Rachel Maddow, one of the worst offenders on the left has a better record than Hannity.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, just say that was a painful comparison to read... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't consider the "file" at politifact to determine how truthful they actually are. Politifact is a RS but has a liberal bias, as such it tends to "check" questionable conservative statements more often and "check" statements they already known are going to be truthful from liberal sources (this is source selection bias of what to check which changes the overall percentages). And then in choosing which grade to give a statement, they tend to give conservative statements half-truth or mostly false while liberals with the same evidence are given mostly true results (look for instance at this). In one instance the exact same statement were rated differently until they were so attacked for it they issued a correction ( [23] [24]). Mostly unless it is pant's on fire or truth there is a lot of wiggle room there for bias to get involved (and even then you got the Obama "you can keep your plan" statement they rated as 100% true, until it was pants on fire lie of the year). Is Vox better than Maddow that is better than Hannity, yea probably, but I wouldn't trust politifact to make that determination. - Obsidi ( talk) 22:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Politifact is a RS but has a liberal bias Bullshit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

So I guess its just random chance that the exact same statement was rates higher when said by a democrat? That almost all the Democrats are rated higher than almost all the Republicans? Is there any right of center person you can point to that thinks politifact is unbiased? (I can point to multiple accusations of bias from right wing RS. If they were truly neutral you would expect accusations of bias equally from both sides. That just simply isn’t the case. - Obsidi ( talk) 23:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Ahem... Bull. Shit. The major fact checking organizations (including politifact) are not biased. Every single fucking claim of bias I've ever seen made against them (and I've seen tons) all are either completely made up, or rely on the fact that the more right-wing a person is, the more lies they're caught out on. Politifact is not biased, and if it was, you'd have responded with clear evidence, instead of vague, made-up claims. Hannity is full of shit. Maddow is full of shit too, but not quite as much. I wouldn't trust Hannity as far as I could throw him and anyone who would is either dishonest or deceived. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

You can say bullshit all you want, but its just pounding the table not logical arguments. I presented clear evidence, the exact same statement was rated mostly true for a Democrat[ [25]] and half true for the Republican [26]. How much clearer of evidence of bias could you have? And your own statement concerning fact that the more right-wing a person is, the more lies they're caught out on proves my case that you see them with rose colored glasses. - Obsidi ( talk) 23:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

You're quite confused: "Bullshit" is the conclusion. It's only a part of the argument. As for your evidence: First off, they're two different claims. Paul claimed there was no income tax before 1913. Webb later claimed there was no federal income tax before then. Big difference. Second, you're taking two fact checks, made two years apart, by two different people and from that single data set making a generalized statement about the entire organization. The "logic" in that is so fucking terrible that "Bullshit" is the single best way to describe it. Third, you probably didn't notice that the Paul check actually links to the fact check of a similar claim by Michelle Bachman that they rated "True". I guess their left-wing bias led them to to make that distinction, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

You miss-read what the politifact said it was checking for the Paul quote, the question he was asked what what the highest federal income tax rate should be, and so politifact said it was checking the statement that the U.S. federal income tax rate was 0 percent until 1913, likewise in the conclusion it says Paul’s statement that the federal' income tax rate was zero until 1913.... As I said, when politifact says something is 100% true it probably is (without bias for democrats or republicans), likewise when they say something is pants on fire. Its those middle grades where bias gets involved. - Obsidi ( talk) 00:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess you couldn't be bothered to read the quotes that politifact explicitly claimed they checked, just the headlines. And you couldn't be bothered to read the rest of my comment. See, this is why I stopped editing politics: Because people like you insist upon bullshit claims about reality being absolutely true because if you squint hard enough at a narrow enough slice of reality it kinda sorta looks like they might be right in this particular case and that, of course, proves that they're right about everything. And no matter what evidence to the contrary you folks see ( [27], [28], [29], [30] or even [31], [32]), you'll just keep insisting that your version of the story is true because you say so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Politifact makes very clear he was asked a question about federal income taxes, and even it understood him to be answering in that context. - Obsidi ( talk) 11:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

They also made it very clear they were fact checking his answer: in which he talked about taxes in general. And for the third time: even if you're right, that doesn't prove shit. It's like me pointing to a Trump tweet as proof that conservatives always lie. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, I don’t think we should use MSNBC or Fox commentary programs as sources without attribution and labeled as opinion, unless they agree with other sources that we consider reliable. And then, if other sources are usable – why not use them instead? The exception would be about statements made by interviewees. I don’t think we should ever use folk like Hannity or Tucker for anything other than their own (couldn’t think of a polite term) – and then only in articles related to them. I also wouldn’t use Maddow. But, I don’t think I’m saying anything that hasn’t generally been followed as good practice according to our current guidelines. Well, not counting the fact that Fox “news” programs are so extremely slanted. But, I know that argument can’t prevail here. O3000 ( talk) 00:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Agree that we need to be careful about differentiating facts from opinions. To call MSBNC "left" is a bit laughable, because it is just as much a part of the corporate media( corporate control) as Fox. [33] Certainly you won't find anyone on the supposedly left-wing MSNBC advocating for a Communist revolution that would overthrow corporate control in the U.S. The same goes for PBS which is just as corporate as the others. [34] [35] [36]. The across the board media bias favoring and not questioning "the rush to war" like the Iraq War [37] and Gulf War [38] are well documented. (See also Media_bias_in_the_United_States#Pro-power_and_pro-government_bias)

As for facts vs. opinions, I have not found the fact-checking at Fox vs. MSNBC vs. PBS to be less reliable--at least on local stories (I pay little attention to their national news.) I was not able to find WP:RS that categorically showed Fox or MSNBC to be more reliable. (Consider this Google Scholar search). See for example [39] discussing how a false story permeated all the news.

Politicfact and other fact checking sites are of limited reliability. [40]. This article about reliability of fact checking says:

"In broadcast news outlets, attention to fact-checkers obeys a partisan logic: PolitiFact and FactCheck.org are mentioned mainly on ostensibly neutral outlets such as CNN, while liberal Media Matters and conservative NewsBusters get most of their attention from Fox News (on the right) and MSNBC (on the left), though not solely from their ostensible supporters."

This French paper on the U.S. media basically concludes that the U.S. media has gone away from solid reporting and turned in to Infotainment.

I do agree that the opinions and the choice as to what is covered and what is omitted, what experts to include, etc. varies between these stations, and this may be why so many call MSNBC "left" and Fox "right", when, in fact, their agenda is very similar--to sell advertising and make money from their programs. [to be continued--still need to talk about how to address the initial question]. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 10:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

reboot

My question above was about HOW we should use commentary/analysis sources, not WHETHER we should use them. Should commentary/analysis programs be required to have inline attribution? Blueboar ( talk) 11:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd start by distinguishing commentary from analysis. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• We should differentiate facts from opinions. For example, a reporter calling a belief a "conspiracy theory" is an opinionated label, and we should not put that in a wiki voice, but attribute it to the author and/or paper. The same article states as if it is a fact "there are the talking heads on Fox News, who last week needed something other than negative Trump stories to make conversation about." Claims by various pro-Democrat papers saying "IT'S OVER: Hillary has the Democratic primary in the bag" and "Mrs. Clinton’s chance of losing is about the same as the probability that an N.F.L. kicker misses a 37-yard field goal." were opinions. Saying there are only two candidates worth considering in any race (suggesting you can only choose between the Democrat or the Republican [41]) and that any other candidates are not worth mentioning is an opinion, not a fact. The problem is that these papers report opinions as if they are facts. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 19:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

On that I agree. (In fact, I started a whole thread just to discuss this over at WP:NPOVN#Conspiracy_theories_and_NPOV) - Obsidi ( talk) 20:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Commentary/analysis sources, because they are usually made "ad hoc" (they will come with prepared statements, have an array of facts and figures in front of them, but their actual dialog is not to a script), should be treated as opinion - requiring inline attribution and appropriate due weight considerations as a "default" mode. This does does not rule out that some of these statements can be treated as facts if there is no other source to corroborate and no other source contradicts, and sound judgement and common sense should be used, as it will depend on who is talking, what they are saying, and where that information comes from. If the director of the FBI came onto Nightline, and said something like "There are over 1 million people incarcerated in the United States", we have a person who should have proper access to that type of information giving that information so that can be treated as fact (thought it cannot hurt to say "As stated by the FBI's director on Nightline in 2018..." to just be clear it was a number uncorroborated from anywhere else. On the other hand, if a political activist came on and gave the same information under the same conditions, that should be treated as a claim requiring attribution and with due weight considerations. -- Masem ( t) 23:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  An off the cuff statement by the FBI director should always be attributed. Prepared testimony is vetted. Off the cuff remarks coming from the top of a qualified individual'a head are quite often incorrect / out of date / inaccurate. I will also note that for this particular statistic that the FBI is not always up to speed or with access to state law enforcement. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for rebooting. yes we should be applying WP:RSOPINION much more rigorously. (This thread is getting again side-tracked, now with this label thing which is a much more narrow issue. The community dealt with that crap last year in several big discussions and at least one RfC (e.g this RfC) If somebody is widely labelled X, that is what WP labels them as, ditto conspiracy theories. That is entirely separate - do not further side track this thread.) User:Blueboar do you think we need to change RSOPINION to be more clear? Jytdog ( talk) 00:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think we do. Or at least come up with something that helps editors realize that RSOPINION applies to commentary/analysis programs on news networks. (Actually, what we probably need is some further guidance to help editors distinguish BETWEEN news reporting segments and commentary/analysis segments.) Blueboar ( talk) 15:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

One clue - the use of "But", "However", "Although" and the like as qualifying parts of any piece are usually an indication that the entire piece is "opinion" and not "dry statement of fact". Such words are the glue of opinions. As soon as the material gets into value judgements or comparisons of any type, the "red card" should be held at the ready. Collect ( talk) 13:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Editors at WP:BLPN are challenging whether or not this article in Le Monde Diplomatique is a reliable source for the charge that Adam Milstein is the founder of Canary Mission, a claim he denies. They have argued that the article is an op-ed, that it is based on a documentary that al-Jazeera declined to air, and that it is based on hearsay. My question to this board is if this article is an op-ed, and if any of the other claims are even relevant. My understanding of our policies is that we very much oppose Wikipedia editors second-guessing the editorial judgments of reliable sources and that we are not in a position to judge the veracity of a claim only its verifiability. Is this an acceptable source for that material? nableezy - 19:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Of course it's an op-ed/essay/opinion piece. It is not staff written and it is penned in the style of an op-ed. Just look at how the last paragraph begins: "Everything seems to be going well for Israel, but its American supporters, despite their extensive resources, are nervous. The future seems dark to them, and even those most likely to support them are wavering." WP:RSOPINION states that opinion articles are viable as sources for statements as to the author's opinion but not for statements asserted as fact. Figureofnine ( talk • contribs) 16:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Sheesh, how many noticeboards+articles is this open on? No one is contesting Le Diplo is reliable for the opinions of Gersh or for reporting on the contents of the leaked video segments that al Jazeera canned (declining to publish). The question is whether Le Diplo is reliable for assertions made in the canned doco on which it is reporting (e.g. is a movie review reliable for claims made in the movie?). Icewhiz ( talk) 20:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I intend to ask for outside views for each of the claims made, first it was BLP now it is RS. Two editors have claimed this is an op-ed, that it is not reliable for what it states as a fact, namely that Milstein is the founder of Canary Mission. The exact quote, from this source, is

Kleinfeld managed to talk to Canary Mission’s founder and financial backer, Adam Milstein, chairman of the Israeli-American Council (IAC). Milstein was jailed briefly for tax fraud in 2009, but that didn’t prevent him from carrying on his activities from prison. He explained his philosophy to Kleinfeld: ‘First of all, investigate who they [the pro-Palestine activists] are. What’s their agenda? They’re picking on the Jews because it’s easy, because it’s popular. We need to expose what they really are. And we need to expose the fact that they are anti everything we believe in. And we need to put them on the run. We’re doing it by exposing who they are, what they are, the fact that they are racist, the fact that they are bigots, [that] they’re anti-democracy.’

Is this specific source, basing its reporting on whatever its editors found sufficient to publish, reliable for the statement that Milstein is the founder of Canary Mission? I would personally love to see that simple question addressed by the uninvolved editors on this board without the flood of repeatedly debunked claims about the source cited being made here. nableezy - 20:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The Le Diplo source also contains the rather unusual footnote - "(1) Unless otherwise specified, all quotations in this article are taken from the documentary.". I urge uninvolved editors to examine the entire piece and not fragments (e.g. the mentioned footnote (at the beginning of the article, well away from this fragment, essentially attributes most of the long block quote above to the unpublished documentary). Icewhiz ( talk) 20:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Whether this publication is a reliable source in general is not disputed, only its use in that article and it should be discussed there, at the RfC at the article in which there are multiple grounds to exclude the material in question. It should not be forum-shopped all over the place. Coretheapple ( talk) 20:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

No, when somebody challenges a source this is the venue for it. I am asking if this specific article is reliable for this specific statement. nableezy - 20:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh please. This is essentially the same issue being reviewed in the RfC [42], which you then took to BLPN and now here. What you're doing is forum-shopping, pure and simple. You want this to be the third venue at which to discuss whether it is appropriate for a few words in this source can be used in Adam Milstein. You're doing that by portraying this as a "challenge of the source" when actually it is a challenge of the use of the source in this particular instance. Any source can be challenged on that basis. People can misuse the New York Times or anything. It is not a challenge to the reliability of the Times in general What you are doing is not an appropriate use of this noticeboard, especially since you have phrased it in a non-neutral way. Please stop. Coretheapple ( talk) 20:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Please yourself, kindly stop disrupting the purpose of the board. You claimed BLP for a revert so I took it there, then you claimed that this is an op-ed and not a reliable source, so I brought it here. If you would perhaps allow uninvolved editors a chance to review the material and comment about the actual topic here that would be just great. And no, I am bringing this as a challenge of this source for this statement, you are again making deliberately false statements. Please stop. This board is specifically meant to discuss the reliability of specific sources for specific statements, not challenges to the reliability of the Times in general, whatever that is supposed to mean. If you would pay attention to the top of this page, you can see yourself that it is for assessing the reliability of a specific source in a specific context. nableezy - 21:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me? Uninvolved? I'm one of the uninvolved editors who was called to the RfC by bot. You just don't like my opinion, so you've shopped the process. And by the way, I was mistaken. There are actually four forums at which we are discussing the same issue, three of them initiated by you: 1) the RfC at the talk page of Adam Milstein; 2) the talk page of Canary Mission; 3) the BLP Noticeboard [43] and now 4) here. Can we try for five? Six? Seven? Coretheapple ( talk) 21:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you have made your position clear. You have made outright false statements (this is an op-ed) and bogus arguments. I am here seeking other outside opinions. Is there some reason you are incapable of allowing that to happen without turning every attempt at dispute resolution into a mind-numbing clusterfuck that no sane person would come near? I am asking one specific question here, is this article a reliable source for this statement. As is the exact purpose of this board. If you would stop being disruptive and allow anybody else to speak on that issue that would be wonderful. nableezy - 21:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

And didn't you just make that same point at Talk:Canary Mission? [44]? Or maybe I'm confused with your raising the same point at the RfC at Talk:Adam Milstein? [45] Or the BLP noticeboard? [46] Sorry but this has been repetitively discussed on so many noticeboards that I'm getting a bit dizzy. Your repetitive incivility doesn't help. Coretheapple ( talk) 21:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I made that point on the talk page. And since that is a low-trafficked page where two editors may be able to subvert Wikipedia policy I brought the issue to each noticeboard for policies that have been used to challenge the material. I feel quite the same about your repeated incivility and repeatedly, yet repeated, debunked statements. Hopefully my last comment here, this specific board is for asking for outside input on the reliability of a specific source for a specific statement. I would love to see outside views on if Le Monde Diplomatique is a reliable source for that specific statement. Can you allow that to happen? nableezy - 21:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The proper path to take with noticeboards is not to begin a repetitious discussion on multiple noticeboards as you have done, beating the drum in a contentious manner to spin it your way each time, but to comply with WP:FORUMSHOP by posting a neutral statement on the noticeboards with links to the RfC discussion. Instead you chose to began a "clusterfuck" as you elegantly put it (here or in one of the repetitive discussions you've commenced... I forget). Coretheapple ( talk) 22:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

No, I chose to pose a single question that this specific board is specifically equipped to answer. Well done derailing that too, a near perfect record on that score. nableezy - 22:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

"that it is based on a documentary that al-Jazeera declined to air"

I'm as uninvolved as can be in this discussion, and upon reading the sources, it seems correct. Al Jazeera's documentary is clearly mentioned in both articles as the source for this claim, as well in the Haaretz article linked as a source for Milstein denying being the founder in the article. The claim shouldn't be attributed to Le Monde diplomatique if they're reporting on a documentary from Al Jazeera. RoseCherry64 ( talk) 21:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@ RoseCherry64: Would the leaked portions of the canned doco be a RS? Do they count as published? Self published? As under AJ's editorial control? Or is AJ's rejection significant in terms of reliability? My understanding is that AJ owns the film and that the leaked video segments from the film were released without their permission. Icewhiz ( talk) 22:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't cite the documentary by itself, but there are sources reporting on it. As long as it includes:

• A) The source of the claim (Leaked AJ documentary, reported by sources. Prose should include the context it was revealed in.)
• B) Response to the claim (Haaretz)
• C) Doesn't list him as the founder (The status is uncertain—original documentary wasn't published, response to claim published. It shouldn't say that he's the founder if there's no consensus about it in media.)

I think it would be fine. RoseCherry64 ( talk) 22:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, neither I nor anybody else is suggesting that he be named as the founder, only that he was reported to be and that he has denied that according to JTA and Haaretz and the Forward. It was widely reported that he has been reported to be the founder and that he has denied it. nableezy - 23:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I think A) should be addressed. It reads like there has been two independent reports of it right now, when both sources use the same source (AJ). I don't see anything bad with mentioning the claims, given its wide reporting. RoseCherry64 ( talk) 23:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@ RoseCherry64: Just to be clear, the text that the OP wishes to add is as follows

In August 2018, Le Monde diplomatique reported that Milstein is the founder and financial backer of Canary Mission,[33] an anonymous[34] website that hosts profiles of individuals that it considers to be anti-Israel or antisemitic, focusing primarily on students and professors at North American universities.[35][33] While some of those who have been targeted by Canary have called it a blacklist,[33] some pro-Israel advocates have applauded it for harassing hardcore activists.[36] Milstein denies being the founder of Canary Mission.[35][37]

Now, we can get into the wording but let's not. We have an RfC for that. The subject of this noticeboard's discussion is whether the Le Monde Diplomatique's op-ed can be utilized, but it has to be also considered whether this is UNDUE and objectionable on other grounds, which is why I find it unhelpful to have so many duplicative discussions on this subject when there is really one place to discuss all the issues involved, which is the RfC on the article talk page at Adam Milstein. Coretheapple ( talk) 12:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Where are you getting this is an op-ed? Do you know what an op-ed is? nableezy - 16:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

No. Its A)an opinion piece, B)its not actually reporting anything itself, its just regurgitating claims made in a non-aired documentary, C)as such, the documentary would be the source not Le Monde and fails the first hurdle of RS 'is it published by a reliable publisher' - no, because they didnt actually air it. D)As its a biography of a living person, WP:BLP takes precedence and would prevent controversial poorly sourced material being used - which applies both to Le Monde's opinion piece and the original unaired documentary. At best, Le Monde would at best be reliable for what the documentary contained, but not reliable for any of the material itself - which would still prevent it being used in a biography. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 14:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

How is it an opinion piece? Where are people getting this from? And how does Le Monde publishing it not make it Le Monde publishing it? nableezy - 15:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems it was not written by the staff of the news outlet. -- Shrike ( talk) 11:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• This is an encyclopedia, and because it is, we do not include in a Bio or BLP info sourced only to a film that was never broadcast, even though the allegation was mentioned in some publications, all of which attributed the info to the same bit of film. Teh subject of the BLP denied the allegation, and no evidence to support it has surfaced. We do not deal in unsubstantiated rumour. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with E.M. Gregory and Only in Death above. Not only has no evidence to support the allegation surfaced, but an investigative series of articles on the funding of the Canary Mission in The Forward does not even mention Milstein. Figureofnine ( talk • contribs) 00:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Few mass media outlets, reference books and non-academic sources exist for all things electronic cigarette related regarding the technical information an average person interested in the topic might have.

https://spinfuel.com/about/ is an established and well respected place to look for such.

I have turned to Spinfuel for basic black and white information on 'Temperature Control' as it relates the chip regulation technology invented by Evolv in 2014 and to what that does for a vape mod plus the corresponding effects on a vape atomizer and the end result. https://spinfuel.com/vapers-glossary/

I find the entire situation silly for the same publication was used for citation 91 of the very article my edit was reverted for using an unreliable source. I will admit I made a good faith effort to use an alternative source but agree that one did not warrant dispute. This does. Doc James reverted my latest change and after I wrote on his talk page about previous uses of this source he opened a talk page regarding Spinfuel today.

All I wrote in my edit was "The 2014 introduction of temperature control added new possibilities for preventing dry wick situations and thus what is inhaled."

Spinfuel has been cited by at least 5 articles since 2013. Today I find myself having to defend using it thanks to editor Doc James who I attempted to discuss the matter with but when informing him of the current uses, he said "Okay will remove it" and he wasn't referring to his revision of my edit.

Should I be filing a more serious charge?

I believe an outside third opinion is needed here to ensure Wikipedia continues to offer a balanced perspective by including Spinfuel.

Of similar use to a vapor is in my humble opinion a source like this

https://vaping360.com/vaping-101/

The first article in question today is

/info/en/?search=Electronic_cigarette

Here are a few more where Spinfuel has been cited.

Evolv

Electronic cigarette aerosol and liquid

Electronic cigarette

Construction of electronic cigarettes

Thank you for this forum to discuss such. Mrphilip ( talk) 11:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

At a glance Spinfuel seems to have an editorial staff and the outward trappings of a magazine. Still I'd not consider it a reliable source, for a combination of three reasons:

1. Their "about" page shows loaded language and bias. That alone is not enough to render them unreliable, but it certainly is a problem.
2. Their reviews seem quite promotional to me and come with links to sellers' websites (including ones who advertise on Spineful).
3. The glossary (which is one of the pages used as a reference on Wikipedia) contains numerous grammar errors, an indication that, despite the staff's titles, not much editorial oversight is exercised. Huon ( talk) 19:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Is toeps.nl a reliable source? It appears to be a blog written by a photographer. Ratherbe2000 is adding it as a source for surnames of Holland's Next Top Model contestants here for instance, but the creator of the blog does not seem to have any direct connection to HNTM, and blogs are generally not acceptable to use as sources for contentious material about living people. Linguist ^un Eins ^uno (Linguist111) 13:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, identifying reliable sources states "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs". It then later states "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications" - I don't believe the creator of that blog is an "established expert" (though I could be wrong..), therefore I don't believe this is a reliable source - TNT ^💖 19:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Videostatic has become the most convenient way to find the directors of music videos. But the question is, is it a reliable source suitable for use in GAs and FAs? I'm yet to see it used in one and from the website itself it remains unclear what publishing company runs this website.-- N Ø 23:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• No. All of the main posts on the home page are authored by Steven Gottlieb, which makes Videostatic a self-published blog. Many of the posts linked from the sidebar are attributed to people or organizations affiliated with the videos, and it's troubling that these sponsored posts aren't clearly labeled. They've also had almost five years to update the "Copyright © 2013" footer at the bottom of the page. Taking all of these red flags into account, Videostatic shouldn't be considered a reliable source for any article, not just GAs and FAs. —  Newslinger  talk 03:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

A long-time editor placed {{ primary sources}} on Alex Paxton-Beesley and on the talk, Talk:Alex Paxton-Beesley#Primary source? claims that festivals, theatre companies and TV networks that discuss the subject are primary. I don't see that, but would like some input from the larger community. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Sci-Hub (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sci-Hub is blacklised under multiple domains. It's now being considered for the meta blacklist due to constant TLD hopping as successive registrars boot the site due to copyright violation.

I changed the lede from

Sci-Hub is a website with over 70 million academic papers and articles available for direct download.[2] It bypasses publisher paywalls by allowing access through educational institution proxies. Sci-Hub stores papers in its own cache to speed up future requests.

to

Sci-Hub is the world's largest source of pirated academic papers and articles.[2] It bypasses publisher paywalls by illegally using educational institution proxies,[3] after which it stores papers in its own cache to speed up future requests.

The original source was sci-hub's about page, my sources were published articles. The change was reverted and I confidently expect that to happen again. Guy ( Help!) 09:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi JzG, since this is likely to be a controversial change, I've restored the opening paragraph to the previous version and opened a RfC at Talk:Sci-Hub#Request for comment on opening paragraph. —  Newslinger  talk 12:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

In what way controversial? Using a promotional claim by a site known only for systematic copyright violation is controversial, but using academic sources to describe it as such really should not be. Sympathy for the like of Aaron Swartz should not blind us to the fact that what the site is doing is, according to all relevant reliable sources, unquestionably illegal. Guy ( Help!) 13:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the change is likely to be controversial because the word "pirated" is in the first sentence and the word "illegally" is in the second sentence. The opening paragraph of the article for The Pirate Bay is phrased more neutrally. You also stated that your change was reverted, and that you confidently expected it to happen again. —  Newslinger  talk 14:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The word pirated is used in the sources. I am OK with stolen if you would prefer, but I think pirated is the more usual term of art for stolen copyright documents. Guy ( Help!) 20:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

At this point, I'd like to defer to the results of the RfC. Other editors have also expressed their opinions, and at the moment, it looks like everyone can agree on "pirated" being in the second sentence. —  Newslinger  talk 01:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Guy on this. The edit in the OP looks completely reasonable, contains nothing remotely approaching opinion or value judgement and is a more accurate description of the site. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• And, how is this relevant to this board? ∯WBG ^converse 14:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Point 1, that it is now blacklisted. It has been used to link to a lot of papers in the past. Point 2 is incidental but also about sourcing. Guy ( Help!) 20:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, does someone know whether the journal this article is in is a reliable source? There is something odd about the webpage that makes me wonder. Is the author Anthony Reid (academic)? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The English is a bit odd in places, but that could be language differences and maybe a proofreader relying too much on translation software. If I understand the Indonesian-language journal description correctly, the journal is bilingual. The name and the year-and-institutional-affliation in the paper match the WP article, so I'd be fairly confident just from that this is Anthony Reid (academic); if there were two in one university, they would distinguish themselves with initials or some such. But the author's page at the university lists it among his publications, so no doubt. The actual content of the paper is not obviously ridiculous; no glaring errors or dubious fringe theories that I saw. It is noticeably a historian writing about geological disasters, and I'd prefer to cite another source if writing about, say, the causes of a recent tsunami. The Indonesian Institute of Sciences exists. Worldcat lists some editions of the journal from the 1970s, but the current journal may not have much to do with that one. I can't find stats on the journal, though more through searching may uncover them. The DOI does not resolve. More on the basis of the content and the author than the journal, I'd tend to say this article would be reliable, but in some academic contexts there would probably be better sources. What are you citing it for, Jo-Jo Eumerus? Are you citing multiple articles from the journal? HLHJ ( talk) 03:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

HLHJ No just that article, to get some perspective on the not-yet-Indonesian response to the 1257 Samalas eruption as it is strongly slanted towards western perspectives. And now I think I should have mined the Campbell 2017 source a bit more thoroughly. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

In that case I think it's a good source. Campbell 2017 looks interesting too, from the abstract; do you not have a saved copy? There would probably be something in Chinese written sources, and possibly Indian ones; historical astronomy records, maybe? And there's some good en sources on Australian oral histories, some of which record much older geological events in impressive detail. HLHJ ( talk) 15:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Aye, in fact I've applied both Campbell 2017 and Reid now. I didn't find anything on Chinese or Indian stuff, prolly because the eruption has only recently been known and is still primarily known as the "1257/1258/1259 event". Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 18:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I interpreted your tense wrongly. I had a quick look and couldn't find anything either, but I don't believe that is because there is nothing to find (I'd believe "nothing online in English yet"). If I find anything I'll let you know. And now I'll scat before you get throughly fed up with my presence; it seems I find your taste in topics agreeable. HLHJ ( talk) 03:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

It's used several times at List of Bilderberg participants. Doug Weller talk 10:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It's literally a blog promoting conspiracy theories. Unless you have some secondary coverage, the blog can be both dismissed and blacklisted. wumbolo ^^^ 11:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• No. I agree with Wumbolo. The Vigilant Citizen is not reliable, and the quality of its content is on the same level as InfoWars. The domain name is actually vigilantcitizen.com, not thevigilantcitizen.com. I support the blacklisting of this domain. —  Newslinger  talk 10:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Talal Kapoor is the "senior analyist for datarabia. [55].. Note the recommendation by one "Rick Smith" who turns out to be the owner of datarabia. [56] [57] I can't reach the site and it seems dead. [58] We reference Kapoor directly in about 12 articles [59] and the site itself a lot more. [60] Note that it's listed as a resource at Portal:Saudi Arabia/Web resources. That was added by an IP in June 2008. [61] Doug Weller talk 12:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

given it appears to be dead and thus cannot even be checked, no. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

He is a researcher of Indian music, and manages two websites ( http://www.itwofs.com and http://www.milliblog.com). The former website (stylised as ITwoFS), which tracks plagiarism in Indian music, has received good coverage from third-party sources, such as The Hindu. Read about him here. Now Karthik even writes the weekly column " Carbon Copy" for Film Companion, which is an RS. Can he and his websites be deemed RS in this regard? I would like the perspectives of Indian editors as well. -- Kailash29792 (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a request for comment on the Wikipedia:Interviews essay:

1. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be designated as an explanatory supplement?
2. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the verifiability policy?
3. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the no original research policy?
4. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the identifying reliable sources guideline?
5. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the notability guideline?

If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia talk:Interviews#RfC: Explanatory supplement and links from policies and guidelines. Thanks. —  Newslinger  talk 18:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

This request for comment has been withdrawn. Thank you for your feedback. —  Newslinger  talk 07:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a request for comment on the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources guideline:

Should the following section be included in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources § Questionable sources?

Web content by non-staff contributors

Shortcuts

• WP:CONTRIBUTOR
• WP:CONTRIBUTORS

On news websites, periodical websites (excluding academic journals), and blogs, web content authored by non-staff contributors is questionable, even if it is published in a source that is otherwise reliable. Compared to staff writers, contributors are subject to reduced editorial oversight and have a lesser reputation for fact-checking and error correction. Reliable publications distinguish articles written by staff writers from ones written by contributors by indicating the author's job title in the byline. Less reputable sources only display the author's job title on their profile page or the website's masthead.

Examples of sources that publish content from non-staff contributors include Forbes.com and HuffPost.

Opinion pieces in reliable sources have their own guideline, which applies in addition to this one.

If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#RfC: Designating web content by non-staff contributors as questionable. Thanks. —  Newslinger  talk 18:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

This request for comment has been withdrawn, and a revised follow-up RfC has been posted (see below). Thank you for your feedback. —  Newslinger  talk 08:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Revised follow-up RfC

There is a request for comment on the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources guideline:

Should the following section be included in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources § Questionable sources?

Web content by non-staff contributors

Shortcuts

• WP:CONTRIBUTOR
• WP:CONTRIBUTORS

On news websites, periodical websites (excluding academic journals), and blogs, web content authored by non-staff contributors is questionable if the contributors are subject to reduced editorial oversight, even if the web content is published in a source that is otherwise reliable. Compared to staff writers, contributors generally have a lesser reputation for fact-checking and error correction. Reliable publications distinguish articles written by staff writers from ones written by contributors by indicating the author's job title in the byline. Less reputable sources only display the author's job title on their profile page or the website's masthead.

Examples of sources that publish content from non-staff contributors include Forbes.com and HuffPost.

Opinion pieces in reliable sources have their own guideline, which applies instead of this one.

If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#RfC: Designating web content by non-staff contributors as questionable (revised). Thanks. —  Newslinger  talk 08:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I am involved in a debate about whether Truth in Advertising (TINA) articles are reliable sources. At issue is whether TINA is unreliable due to non-neutrality/bias, or as a primary source, or as a watchdog advocacy group running campaigns against advertisements, and whether there is information on their editorial control and fact-checking.

Truth in Advertising's website, which publishes their articles, is truthinadvertising.org. Their goal statement says in part that they are a "a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization based in Madison, CT, whose mission is to be the go-to online resource dedicated to empowering consumers to protect themselves and one another against false advertising and deceptive marketing. We aim to achieve our mission through investigative journalism, education, advocacy, and the promotion of truth in advertising. We are independently funded and do not accept any advertising dollars to support our work." The US gov source says that such an organization files tax returns; I see no reason to doubt this.

Apart from publishing articles, TINA has been involved in bringing court cases, regulatory actions, FDA investigations, fines for false advertising, and so on. They have done this for 5+ years, which might bear on WP:SOURCE's "professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments." They have an executive director, a legal director and a staff attorney, who also has a journalism MS; three lawyers on the staff. They also have two wtiters, a graphics designer, and a "Director of Marketing and Communications", for a total of seven staff listed. Staff members seem to specialize in sub-areas of TINA's field, and the organization seems to be recognized for its area of expertise by standard reliable news organizations (this list of news articles citing them includes the Washington Post, NYT, Wall Street Journal, Slate, CBC, CBS, Fox News, The Economist, Reuters, Al Jezeera, and a fair number more). They seem to have staff journalists and an editorial staff ("Before joining the editorial staff at TINA.org, Jason was an editor and reporter at Patch Media."). TINA do publish corrections, and their website says:

Corrections: TINA.org takes its responsibility to maintain the integrity and accuracy of the content of its website very seriously. If you think you’ve spotted an error, please use the form below and enter “Correction” in the subject line.

I could not find a COI declaration. I did not get a response to an e-mail asking for links to a COI disclosure and a formal editorial policy, not do they seem to publish much by way of financial details online; the public tax filing is not posted by them (if a professional journalist is reading this, please ask TINA about this next time you interview them). There is this policy in the FAQ:

Will TINA.org take down a post if the company gets rid of the deceptive advertising? No. As a general matter, TINA.org never takes down an article or post. But we will always consider updating an article to let consumers know what the company has done since the original post was published. So if you’ve got an update, please let us know.

TINA could be cited in Nicotine marketing and Marketing of electronic cigarettes. Several TINA articles were cited in this old version of the e-cigarettes article. Generalizing, they were investigative journalism articles on e-cigarette marketing practices, cited to support statements that these practices existed. I can give more details, but for brevity, here are the cited articles: [62] [63] [64] [65] [66]

Apologies for expanding and reposting this, but my original post two months ago drew only a question about editorial policy in response; I've provided a lot more info this time. HLHJ ( talk) 03:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

​After reviewing TINA's website, it's clear that TINA should be considered a biased or opinionated source, and that any use of their content should be properly attributed. TINA can be compared to three advocacy organizations indexed in WP:RSP: the Southern Poverty Law Center (generally reliable), Hope not Hate (no consensus), and Occupy Democrats (generally unreliable). Since TINA publishes its staff list and issues error corrections (examples: [67] [68] [69]), I wouldn't consider the site "generally unreliable". However, since most of the articles linked from TINA's home page don't name their authors, I wouldn't consider the site "generally reliable", either.

For this particular case, none of the five linked TINA pages have named authors, and the version of the article you linked doesn't mention TINA at all in the article body. For example, the following sentence is an unsupported attribution:

It has been recommended that consumers research merchants, read all the terms and conditions, and use a pre-paid credit card to avoid repeated and unwanted charges. ^[1]

While TINA might be an acceptable source when other sources are not available, more neutral sources should be preferred in almost all cases. If TINA is used, it's important to label their statements (especially their recommendations and opinions) to prevent the article from becoming an advocacy piece.

—  Newslinger  talk 06:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems generally reliable, but please remember that it's best to use this noticeboard for questions on reliability of specific content.

It's use would probably need qualification, special attribution, or other POV solutions because of their biases, depending on what it was used for. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Newslinger, Ronz. I should have attributed that statement on purchasing scams. On specific content, I'd like to use it for the existence of certain marketing practices. I had used it to support some statements where I really didn't need to use it, but I also used it to support the following:

• relative costs of products, claimed and actual (it varies, and I haven't found another source for this yet; could attribute)
• marketing claims made by sales reps in shops as well as online (lots of sources, including MEDRS, for the same claims being made online, but TINA sent a journalist around bricks-and-mortar shops and counted how often each claim was made in person; could attribute)
• a particular set of purchasing scams they investigated (there are obviously government regulatory-action sources on this, and I could try citing them, but they will be less descriptive; a major source for this was also a TINA FOI request, which perhaps I could also cite directly. The sourcing would, however, then be primary. Some vaping websites have also covered this, but they are generally unreliable sources. Could attribute)
• to describe the context surrounding FDA statements (one on GRAS, one on child poisoning risks) in a more digestible form (obviously one can cite the FDA as well; I cited them on poisoning and quoted them on GRAS, and could drop TINA here)

HLHJ ( talk) 15:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

So I just had to remove two WP:DAILYMAIL sources from this article ( [70] [71]). So it got me wondering if two other sources ( The New York Post The Hollywood Reporter) which I added to the article awhile back, both which talk about the show being under fire. What's the general consensus regarding The New York Post and The Hollywood Reporter?— Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 04:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The article from The Hollywood Reporter is fine. This is a trade magazine, and it's quite reliable for entertainment news, reviews, and analysis, subject to the normal guidelines ( WP:RSOPINION, WP:NEWSBLOG, WP:ROUTINE, etc, as applicable). The New York Post is a sensationalist tabloid. I usually replace citations to the New York Post with something I consider more reliable. In particular, I don't think it should be used in a biography of a living person, and I don't think it should be used to source scandals about living people. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 23:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Even with the slightly tabloid-ish nature of the NYPost, it is now part of the story (they ran the initial interviews that raised questions and as the Hollywood Reporter points out, they are seeking subpoenas to investigate further). So it's hard to separate it now, but better RSes should be used as much as possible to track how the story develops alongside the NYPost ones. -- Masem ( t) 14:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Coming from this edit dispute Bahun a key source is this book [72] - while Bloomsbury files it as an Anthropological text, as best as I can find the author is an Irish journalist specializing in motor sports - as such, I have misgivings about its use as a reliable source for some rather extraordinary claims. Can anybody else weigh in here? Is this a different Declan Quigley? Simonm223 ( talk) 15:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Addendum, in the same edit dispute this source was provided [73] - it's a PDF hosted on a blog so again I have questions regarding its reliability but would prefer to get feedback. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Bumping to see if I can get some feedback on this source for ethnography or anthropology. There's a pretty heated content dispute that this is a component of so some assistance would be appreciated. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Presumably "as best as I can find" means a search on Wikipedia! Putting the name into google gives me a prompt for "declan quigley anthropology" which gives this search [74]. Because of his legal case he has a remarkable amount of national media coverage. You ask "Is this a different Declan Quigley?" Answer: Yes of of course it is. Please don't waste people's time here. Johnbod ( talk) 16:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually Google Books was the culprit. When you click the link from the excerpt that was being used in the associated content dispute it doesn't point to the anthropologist Declan Quigley. It points to the Irish car dude. So while the sass was unnecessary, I do appreciate the clarification. Also it turns out the whole content dispute was a good hand / bad hand sock puppetry thing and it sort of fizzled out when the sock farm got blocked so it's not entirely relevant anyway. But based on this info I'll not object if somebody else decides to use this source in the future. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I've run into some pushback regarding using http://www.team.net/ as a source. To me, it is merely a personal web page that is put together by various individuals who crowdsource information from team.net's listserv, or what we call a WP:SPS. It is cited in a number of automotive related articles:

1. Jonathan Tennyson (car designer)
   • Negyesi, Paul. " Sunray Archived 2013-04-26 at the Wayback Machine." team.net Web. Mar 1995
   • Negyesi, Paul. " Geneva 1995 Archived 2012-10-25 at the Wayback Machine." team.net Web. Mar 1995
2. Automobilwerk Eisenach
   • (external link) History
3. Dacon
   • Negyesi, Pal. "Dacon". KTUD Automotive Web. Archived from the original on 2012-02-29. Retrieved 2012-10-10.
   • Negyesi, Pal. "Dacon 828". KTUD Automotive Web. Archived from the original on 2013-05-12. Retrieved 2012-10-10.
4. Carrozzeria Ghia
   • (external link) An enthusiast site on Ghia history
5. Kobalt (tools)
   • Blair, John T. (2003-02-10). "Who Makes What Tools". SOL's Morgan Web. Archived from the original on 2010-11-11. Retrieved 2010-04-06.
6. Wartburg (marque)
   • (external link) History of Wartburg — long introduction
7. Mitsubishi HSR
   • Coverage of Mitsubishi exhibits at European Motor Shows, Team.net
8. Trabant
   • (external link) Technical details and pictures of the Trabant 601
9. DKW
   • Vogel, Jason; Gomes, Flavio. "DKWs in Brazil". KTUD Online Automotive Archive. Archived from the original on 2013-05-15.
10. British Leyland
    • British Car Linage Archived 14 November 2003 at the Wayback Machine
11. Rootes Group
    • (external link) * A short history of the Rootes group
12. Alfa Romeo V6 engine
    • This had been cited as Williams, Dave (6 March 2003). "Engine Weight FYI". Retrieved 2007-12-20., but it was recently changed to Complete Handbook of Automotive Power Trains, Jan Norbye, 1981, which is the citation given by team.net author Dave Williams, on the assumption that if Dave writes a personal web page such as Engine Weight FYI, and Dave cites Norbye (1981), then we can take Dave's research AGF, and simply copy the data and citation here. To me it's a plain and simple case of a self-published source with this citation, and all of the above.

It makes sense for a Wikipedia editor to refer to a crowdsourced or listserv generate personal website like team.net and find facts and sources, but then the Wikipedia editor must verify those facts themselves, ie., read Norbye (1981) with their own eyes, and then cite it in a Wikipedia article. Unless Dave Williams is proven to be a subject expert and his writings on this site are reputably fact-checked, it does't meet the minimum requirements for RS, IMO. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 02:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

As a group blog, a self-published source, so it's unreliable. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Anyone else? This source is used on a dozen articles and I don't want to just remove it without a bit of consensus. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Would this be considered a RS to help establish notability for Club Nokia? ^{Atsme ✍🏻 📧} 21:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• The author is notable due to passing NPROF as a full professor with a named chair, but Javier Gimeno is a redlink. As Javier appears to be an established expert it is a reliable source to be used with care per SPS but fine for an article on a product. For notability it is not so good, mainly due to failing WP:ORGDEPTH. Of course that's common enough with any source. — Frayæ ( Talk/ Spjall) 21:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Is The Next Web a reliable source? I first started wondering if TNW is a reliable source or not when someone in this discussion listed TNW as an unreliable source, but i'm not sure if that's the case. 344917661X ( talk) 20:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• It is used about 1,500 times on Wikipedia, the only other time it was questioned on this noticeboard is here. The article on it is being deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thenextweb. They employ 70 staff, though the page listing them does describe the site as having previously been a blog and now being a media company. They do not brand themselves as news or as independent.

Looking more closely, they appear to have a lot of media partners and partnerships with technology firms. They boast about their advertising and branding ability as proven by their work with their existing partners.

My take is that it is a media company, the majority of their content is sponsored by their partners and thus not independent. What they publish is intended to be accurate and presented as interesting and informative to their readers, but it is information according to the company sponsoring it and not critical journalism. It is not intended to be, their position is clear on that.

As a primary source for product announcements and information on technology companies I would say it is reliable. It is not independent, and certainly would not count for notability due to WP:ORGIND. — Frayæ ( Talk/ Spjall) 21:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• I would generally not use a site that fails WP:GNG because that very lack of notability means the pressure to stay accurate is much less than with more widely-examined sites. If a site that has no significant, independent coverage gets something wrong, nobody cares. So unless such a site had some strong indicator of reliability (such as an errata page full of the the most nitpicky stuff, where the few actual corrections link to articles that make a big deal of noting the correction), I'd avoid using it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Looking at their about section, "As they were organizing things, they soon realized they needed somewhere to promote the conference, and that’s how thenextweb.com was launched. It later became a blog and the result is what you are looking at right now." It has no evidence of a fact-checking process or an editorial board, so I have trouble calling it a WP:NEWSORG. One of the six tabs under "News" is sponsored content. It's not obviously a WP:NEWSBLOG, so is it just a group blog? The other tabs at the top of the page are all things that they're selling or promoting: their conferences, "Index" (some sort of networking platform), "TQ" (a "curated tech hub in the heart of Amsterdam"), "TNW Deals" (literally a sales website), "Answer" (an AMA platform), and "X" (a "B2B label that uses all of these qualities - TQ, TNW News, the TNW Conferences and Index - to give startups, enterprises and governments fresh and unique propositions to scale, connect and innovate.") I'm starting to wonder if it doesn't fall under "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services." -- tronvillain ( talk) 22:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, their "Team" page (which I didn't find an obvious way to navigate to) establishes that they have an editor and staff writers, but they also have a contributor platform that they acknowledge includes "intermediaries (such as PR peeps)" and they mention that full "TNW Contributors" (who have had 3–4 articles accepted) have "direct publishing access." -- tronvillain ( talk) 22:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)