Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 192

< Wikipedia:Reliable sources | Noticeboard
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Spumuq in topic Attributed statement sourced by RT news article
Archive 185←Archive 190Archive 191Archive 192Archive 193Archive 194Archive 195

Is the Telegraph a reliable source

Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

Greetings.

Is The Telegraph article a reliable source regarding this statement [1]

The Azov men use the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel (Wolf’s Hook) symbol on their banner

The unit in question is a neo-Nazi militia that has been reported to commit crimes during the war in Ukraine, and has been condemned by US Congress last week[2]. The Telegraph article is used to support(among other sources like BBC, The Guardian) the use of Wolfsangel symbol by the unit.The Wiki article in question is Fascist symbolism--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

  • The Telegraph article is most definitely a reliable source that supports the information you provided. I see no issue here. Meatsgains (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Definitely reliable. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is probably a reliable source (no one ever claimed that it was unreliable - so why bring it here?). However, the reliability of a source is not a proof of any particular statement made by a journalist. A particular statement may or may not be correct, depending on something other multiple reliable sources tell, and it's very common that sources strongly disagree with each other on contentious subjects, such as that one. My very best wishes (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Are there any reliable sources that disagree with the Telegraph on this issue? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but that's beyond the point because the question was about The Telegraph. My very best wishes (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I disagree; it is important to know if a potentially more reliable source disagrees with it. Context is important. CorporateM (Talk) 07:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Statement above is a verifiable statement. Nothing else can or should be decided on this noticeboard. Ukrainian users of the symbol claim that it was not Wolfsangel, which is just another verifiable statement. What should be written in a article about the alleged Wolfsangel is a different matter that should be discussed elsewhere if anyone would be really interested in such symbols (but I am not). My very best wishes (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
"Ukrainian users of the symbol claim that it was not Wolfsangel," the people in question are well known neo-Nazi group. As such their statements aren't really reliable(in addition reliable sources note their use of other Nazi symbols like SS runes and swastikas).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but I am confused. I thought it was Putler who attacked Ukraine. So, people who fight against Putler, like Ukrainan soldiers from Azov, can not be fascists. Quite the opposite: they are anti-fascists. My very best wishes (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

AfD: Monarchy Party

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The latter incarnation received media attention in The Washington Post and The Times of London

(1988). "NORTHEAST JOURNAL". New York Times October 23, 1988. Section 1; Part 2, Page 42, Column 4;

There is a discussion on WP:Articles for deletion/Monarchy Party for notability. I believe the article fails verification. Timeraner (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

  Resolved
 – Sources given on AfD page. Timeraner (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Political wrangling on article: Endorsements for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016

Latest comment: 9 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

I've twice made edits to the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_for_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

My edits have been reversed and someone is accusing me of being a Sen. Sanders operative. While it's true I support Sen. Sanders, I do so because I am interested in the transparent nature of our democracy. It's the same reason I want to see O'Malley, Chafee, and even Hillary Clinton have proper citations.

Here the gist of the matter:

1. The two articles that make up the lion's share of Hillary Clinton's "endorsements" are not sourced themselves:

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/238912-2016-hillary-endorsement-list http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/02/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-endorsements

2. Here's an example from the CNN article of what the Clinton folks, or people with no sense of our primary process, are trying to pass off as an endorsement:

Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota - Signed a letter with all other female senators backing a Clinton run

Every Democratic female Senator and Congresswoman signed a letter encouraging Hillary to run. That is not an endorsement of candidacy. All that represents is some people want Hillary to run for the nomination. Those reasons range from wanting a female in the race, those that want as many candidates as possible, or some sense of obligation to a former fellow Congresswoman to show her some semblance of support. Whatever the reasons, these can hardly be interpreted as an endorsement.

Need proof? The CNN article states that Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) signed the same letter for Hillary. However, the Clinton supporters wouldn't dare list Warren as a Hillary endorser since Warren is a well-known politician and anyone who follows American politics and is familiar with Sen. Warren's politics knows that she isn't going to endorse a blue dog moderate like Hillary when more left-leaning candidates are in the race. Lesser known politicians got the copy/paste.

It was not a mistake that Senator Warren was left off the original list since she's likely to support Senator Sanders. However, you don't see her name as a Sanders supporter, do you? No, even though the PAC formed to draft Warren for a presidential run is now supporting Bernie Sanders, she hasn't made a formal endorsement so she's not included in the article.

Congresspeople have campaign events, Facebook pages, Twitter feeds, and a hundred other outlets to where they can definitely give their endorsement. A citation without a source is no endorsement at all.

3. The primary season has barely begun. Many of these citations are dated before any other candidate, even candidate Hillary, entered the race. Let's not forget, much of Hillary's tacit 2008 support jumped ship to Obama before they made any formal endorsement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hillary_Clinton_2008_presidential_campaign_endorsements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2008

If possible, lock this article down and let a seasoned and impartial administrator manage this page. Otherwise, the "inevitability" folks will continue to feed a false narrative. This isn't the place for spin.

Thanks JaskaPDX (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)JaskaPDX

  • A piece of advice: if you want to be taken remotely seriously around here, don't go arguing about "anyone who pays attention" and using phrases like "corporatist." No one cares what your personal opinion of whether people's endorsements are "legitimate" or not or who they should be expected to endorse. Otherwise, CNN and The Hill are reliable sources and your personal opinions of what people's politics should be are not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Right, but as I mentioned in the post (if you had bothered to read it) Sen. Warren isn't, in fact, in Bernie's list even though I believe, and yes anyone who pays attention, that her views are polar opposites from a Hillary Clinton with a long history of supporting corporations. Whoever updated this list originally conveniently left off Elizabeth Warren. Why is that? Could it be that Hillary Clinton being a corporatist isn't an opinion and is reflected in her record? I'll let you decide. Further "anyone who pays attention", however worded, is an apt charge for folks claiming endorsements before the campaigns are even announced. These phrases were used quite intentionally. I don't care who likes me or not; the only thing I am interested in is the integrity of the political process as it is already corrupted enough and I'll reserve my "opinion" on which of these Democratic candidates is most responsible for that. For what it's worth, I should have written "people without an understanding of our political process", "folks who failed civics", or "trolls in Brooklyn trying to manipulate Wikipedia." JaskaPDX (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)JaskaPDX
I pay attention to US election policies. Do you know what I do more of? Pay attention and repeat the reliable source material rather than attempt to control the article by systematically removing all the endorsements against one candidate under the basis that anyone who disagrees with me is a shill or a troll or whatever else you want to play. WP:CIVILITY also means respecting other people's opinions and not just insulting everyone you disagree with. If you want to have a site where you rant about Clinton's corporatism and say that no one is really endorsing her, go somewhere else. This is not the place to right great wrongs. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Mine's not an opinion: I can go into the Congressional record and look at how the candidates voted on the issues and I don't need CNN or any other sensationalist media outlet to explain what that means. Regardless, I never said no one is endorsing Hillary, but 75% of the Congressional endorsements were clearly unsupported. Calling Clinton a corporatist was directly related to the fact that Senator Warren was, not surprisingly, left off the original list. It's important because this aspect of Clinton is critical to any Warren endorsement and it also has the added benefit of being true as her voting record would reflect. Regardless, let's dispense with the false equivalencies. The original editor, Tiller54, posted names without a proper citation and they got caught doing it. Simple as that. BTW, check out that user's talk page; this individual that added these poor citations has been caught deleting entire candidates from other articles and fiddling with other Clinton articles in the past. Feel free to check for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tiller54#Deleting_Declared_Candidate JaskaPDX (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I would question if a "list of endorsements" is even of encyclopedic value at all. There's a line between informing the reader and electioneering on behalf of the subject, this seems to be veering into the latter. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Excellent point! At the very least, if we are to have this page, could we at least wait for the primary season to get underway when the actual endorsements start coming down the pipe? You're right, if the manipulation continues I would hope they delete the article altogether. Regardless, I think you are correct; it probably shouldn't even be posted to Wikipedia until the election is over. JaskaPDX (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It's a fairly standard article that's part of every campaign article. I think the game of "these are real endorsements, they aren't really endorsements" is the electioneering. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Amen, you nailed it. At very least, we should just wait until the actual endorsements come down. Campaign season is going to be in full gear starting in September.JaskaPDX (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment That article has so many problems, and so much baggage attached, that it is probably a lost cause to try to improve it to typical article standards. But, if you're thick-headed enough to try (said with respect, I know the feeling), then, yes, I agree with your basic points. The two articles you mention at The Hill and CNN, shouldn't be used slavishly to add all the names in those articles to a certain candidate's list. I'd suggest a compromise where all the names with support in the The Hill article be included, but not the blank ones. For CNN, yes the letter from women legislators don't count. The biggest problem with the sourcing is that everything cited to Twitter should be deleted. WP:PRIMARY and I've seen some very questionable tweets used as "proof" of endorsement. I'd also delete all celebrities. A truly hot mess. Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree CNN was wrong to list Warren as endorsing Clinton when she merely signed a "secret" letter along with all other women Democratic senators saying Clinton should run. But there is no reason to question the motives of other editors. TFD (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Daily Mail

Latest comment: 9 years ago16 comments13 people in discussion

I know some editors won't welcome yet another discussion. But I think it would be useful to have the following account in our records: a story of how the Mail published a completely false story, obviously without any attempt at verification. To be clear: there is no current issue at an article where an editor is proposing to use the DM as a source -- there might be nothing further to discuss. But again, useful for future reference. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for documenting. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The linked article says the same is true of The Huffington Post, The Mirror, and Metro, I am not sure why this section singles out the Daily Mail for criticism. Brad Dyer (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
If anything it's yet another rebuke to absolutists who won't abide the questioning of mainstream media. Rhoark (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Yup... but let's not make the flawed leap of logic and go absolutist in the other direction either (saying that a mainstream media outlet is always unreliable). There is a difference between questioning the reliability of a specific story published by a media outlet, and questioning the outlet in it's entirety. The reality is that there is no such thing as a 100% reliable media outlet, nor is there such a thing as a 100% unreliable media outlet. When assessing the reliability of a media source, you always need to look at the specific story. If there is a reason to suspect that a specific media report is unreliable, go ahead and challenge it. But challenge that specific story... not every single report ever published by that media outlet. Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
"When assessing the reliability of a media source, you always need to look at the specific story". Yes - but per WP:RS, you also need to take into account whether the source has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The source in question has no such reputation. Instead, it has a reputation for publishing entirely fabricated material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
So... are you saying that the Daily Mail has a reputation for being inaccurate on every single story it publishes? (I doubt it). I suspect that a more accurate assessment would be that it is accurate in most of its reporting, but it gets some stories wrong. (but then that assessment is true for just about every major media outlet). Blueboar (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The Mail certainly has enough of a reputation for fabrication and selective distortion that I wouldn't consider it a reliable source in any context. Any genuine news story will also have been published in the legitimate press; I can't envisage any circumstance in which it would be appropriate to be using the Mail as a source, other than in an article about a Daily Mail or Mail on Sunday story. FWIW, as of four years ago the WMF line on the Mail was that it is "trashy and unreliable and should be treated with grave caution in all cases - and generally discouraged as a source. Political or editorial stance is irrelevant, too. It's about the quality - which is too low for encyclopedic work", and I can't imagine that's changed. – iridescent 00:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Exactly - the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" clause is in WP:RS for a reason. No source is always accurate, and no source is never accurate - and accordingly, we have to make a judgement call when looking at a source being cited for something we can't verify elsewhere, based on how generally trustworthy they are. Which is to say a judgement call based on reputation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Newspapers frequently get things wrong. As the linked article says, The Mirror, the Huffington Post and other publications have sufficient confidence in the DM that they presented their story. OTOH we should always use the best sources and normally not report stories that the quality papers ignore. Suppose we had relied on this story - to which Wikipedia article would you have added it? TFD (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
As a bystander in all this, to be fair The Daily mail is not the only newspaper or news channel to have published/aired terribly false information. Please see The Sun and the Hillsborough Disaster. Virtually everyone in an entire city (Liverpool) stopped buying it as a result. Other news channels have aired images of the dead in Iraq and claimed they came from Syria, which even risked triggering western military intervention. Even the best sources get it wrong occasionally. News Of The World and Phone-hacking etc....Z07x10 (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The linked article lays the blame for the falsified story on CEN (Centralized European News), not the Daily Mail, and says that other sites also displayed the story. This isn't exactly the smoking gun needed to destroy all credibility for the Daily Mail... although it definitely shows that the CEN isn't a reliable source. Ca2james (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The OP stated that there were currently no issues with use of the Daily Mail. That was true at the time, however, there is now one over at Dog meat. I have read through the above and the message I get from many contributors is the opinion that because the DM once published a false story, it is never to be trusted/used again as a source, no matter what it is reporting. I thought that RS was judged on a case-by case basis depending on the edit and content that is being entered. If not, do we have a "black-list" of sources that should never, ever be used?DrChrissy (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
We do indeed have sources that are (almost) never to be trusted. They include The Onion, the Weekly World News, The Daily Mail, Youtube, and USENET. The only exceptions (this happens on occasion with Youtube) is where we have a reliable secondary source that has verified that the particular story or video we are considering is trustworthy -- for an example, see the use of USENET as a source in Slackware. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
(Almost) never? Surely that depends. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I do not wish to hijack this thread subject which is about the Daily Mail, but I have used YouTube. I edit articles on animal behaviour and sometimes YouTube has a very good video of an animal performing a behaviour which can save many words. We need to be extremely careful in what caption we use for these videos, but sometimes, they show a behaviour this is highly unexpected, such as a skiing crow[[3]]. If this page finds that some sources are to be black-listed, this should be made readily accessible so that editors do not waste their time using them as sources.DrChrissy (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Academic book

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I used next reference: Edouard Sayous, Histoire générale des Hongrois,British Library, Historical Print Editions, 2012, ISBN 978-1249017387, page 25

The reference was entered in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelou more precide in: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gelou&diff=668151258&oldid=668146183

Sayous |first=Edouard |year= 2012 |title=Histoire générale des Hongrois, |publisher= British Library, Historical Print Editions, 2012|isbn=978-1249017387|ref=harv}}

Content :

French Edouard Sayous wrote a History of Hungary where affirmed that Gelou land was a Vlach land[1]

  1. ^ Sayous 2001, p. 25.

Sayous received the prix of French Academy for this work.

Is this a reliable source or not ?

Eurocentral (talk) 11:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

  • What you are pointing us to is a modern reprint of a book that was originally published almost 150 years ago (in 1876)... I would question any historical scholarship that old. A lot of research has occurred since it was written that it would not include. It may well be a 'classic' in historiographical terms, but I would definitely consider it "outdated", and thus would question it's reliability. Blueboar (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Kworb

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A site normally used to track album and singles positions on iTunes, http://kworb.net/cc/ustotals.html gave some figures which have been included on multiple articles (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Figures seem to match that of some previously reported, however source its self claims "Aggregate Sales Estimates (United States)", "Exact Soundscan figures have not been incorporated.", "Subtracted sales due to "Complete My Album" are still included." and "Only covers top 200/400 weekly sales for some periods". I'd be strong to suggest it was unreliable, but would like other opinions before I get myself into multiple edit wars with the same author of these additions. Azealia911 talk 20:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Bangladeshi defence forces

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This question comes on the back of me just withdrawing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BNS Durdondo. The issues relate to reliable sources for for the Bangladeshi defence forces. The site http://www.defencebd.com/ is a blogger.com site which may or may not be an official website of the Bangladesh Armed Forces (the primary one is http://www.army.mil.bd/); urls within it don't appear to be stable. Is this a reliable source for articles such as BNS Durdondo. What kinds of things can be sourced to it? Is there a mechanism for auto-pushing those urls into archive.org? Stuartyeates (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Graham Cawthon as a reliable source for professional wrestling results

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I would appreciate some community feedback on Graham Cawthon as a reliable source for professional wrestling.

He has a degree in journalism from Radford University ([4]).

His work has been featured and cited by Yahoo!, E!, The Wrap, Buzzfeed, The Drudge Report, The Associated Press, The Kansas City Star, The Star (Shelby, NC), and the Gaston (NC) Gazette ([5]).

He worked for the Shelby Star for a decade, including a role as news editor ([6]). In 2008, he was one of five journalists in the United States to receive a Shining Star Award from Freedom Communications ([7]). During his time with the Star, the paper won the North Carolina Press Association's General Excellence Award ([8]).

In the Acknowledgements section of Andre the Giant: A Legendary Life (Simon & Schuster), author Michael Krugman offers "major gratitude to Graham Cawthon and his invaluable www.thehistoryofwwe.com" ([9])

Wrestling author Tim Hornbaker has credited Cawthon on multiple occasions. In Legends of Pro Wrestling: 150 Years of Headlocks, Body Slams, and Piledrivers, he states, "Dave Meltzer's groundbreaking Wrestling Observer newsletter was also a valuable resource as well as Graham Cawthon's website, www.thehistoryofwwe.com, which is a must see for any wrestling fan" ([10]). He also mentions him in Capitol Revolution: The Rise of the McMahon Wrestling Empire (ECW Press) as one of "a number of friends, contributors, and fellow researchers....These knowledgeable individuals were always available to correspond and offered a great deal of assistance in the creation of this project" ([11]).

His website includes a section that compiles feedback from various authorities in the wrestling industry (wrestlers, journalists, etc.). This features praise from 20 wrestling insiders on the research and information. John Pollock of The Fight Network refers to it as an "excellent resource," and wrestling manager Oliver Humperdink states that the site " has become THE leading resource for wrestling historians" ([12]).

The website Pro Wrestling Tees sells a shirt that reads "I'm a Graham Cawthon Guy ([13]).

He is interviewed and and invited to participate in interviews on many wrestling websites, including placetobenation.com ([14]), Pro Wrestling Torch ([15]), Larry Fedoruk of News Talk 610 CKTB ([16]), Online World of Wrestling (http://www.clickwrestle.com/content/podcast-episode/oww-radio-the-rock-returns-guests-graham-cawthon - not linked here because it's apparently blacklisted), Gary Mehaffy of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter ([17]), and more.

Cawthon's books include forewords written by major figures in the professional wrestling business, including Jim Cornette ([18]), Bobby Eaton ([19]), and Tommy Dreamer ([20]).

I am of the opinion that that above information establishes him as a respected journalist and an expert in the field. My question is whether Cawthon's website (thehistoryofwwe.com) and/or Cawthon's books (self-published through CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform) can be used as reliable sources for professional wrestling match results. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Cawthon, Graham (2013). the History of Professional Wrestling Vol 2: WWF 1990 - 1999. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ASIN B00RWUNSRS.
  • Cawthon, Graham (2013). the History of Professional Wrestling Vol 1: WWF 1963 - 1989. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 1492825972.
  • Cawthon, Graham (2013). the History of Professional Wrestling Vol 3:Jim Crockett and the NWA World Title 1983-1989. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 149480347X. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  • Cawthon, Graham (2014). the History of Professional Wrestling Vol 4: World Championship Wrestling 1989-1994. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 1499656343.
  • Cawthon, Graham (2015). the History of Professional Wrestling Vol 5: World Championship Wrestling 1995-2001. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 1499656343.
  • Cawthon, Graham (November 26, 2014). Sawyer, Grant (ed.). Holy Ground: 50 Years of WWE at Madison Square Garden (The History of Professional Wrestling). CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 1-5052292-6-X.
  • Support this nomination. Credentialed journalist with a connection to professional wrestling. Additionally, Canoe.ca lists Graham Cawthon as part of a "short list of others who've made landmark contributions toward understanding what the saga of professional wrestling was all about" - source - and one of the "strong names from across the Internet wrestling community" - source. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 11:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
If so, I'm more confused. The Wikiproject should know better than anyone. We're smarks, and generally wise to the Wikipedia business, too. Smikipedians? Whatever the term, we're akin to a regional sales team (or NWA territory or nerve ending or whatever distal end of a system). The central brain makes decisions, but bases those decisions on what the hands hand over.
There's no question a general article reviewer should question whether an article's sources are reliable. When they ask, a simple yes or no from one of us experts should suffice. I mean, if we already have a consensus (Cagematch?). It's not arrogance, anymore than it's arrogant for an expert witness in a trial to tell the lawyers, judge and jury what's up (What's up?) instead of the other way around.
But yeah, this would be handy to have officially authorized and archived, to link for a reviewer instead of having them trust us (Trust me.). Like showing a certificate. And I guess stuff is being reported. It just seems a bit like asking. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
We can say it's reliable, but any time we initiate a FAC, User:Ealdgyth will challenge the source and ignore any comments about the source's reliability (or reply with "I'll leave my concern here for other reviewers"); other reviewers will see that there are outstanding concerns from another reviewer and will choose not to support the FAC because of unstruck concerns. Three weeks later, the FAC will be closed and not promoted. I would like to see if we can get a community consensus that we can point to in the FAC. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
That sounds unpleasant. I'll Support building this consensus, but also support instituting our own review and award program, for the times when nobody else cares. Or if we'll have to do this for every source the wider Wikiworld hasn't heard of. Or just for the potential of naming our accomplishments "championships". InedibleHulk (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources for filmography

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I recently got into a conflict with another editor when I added Tony Longo in the Deceased Cast Members section in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_previous_The_Young_and_the_Restless_cast_members. The editor wanted a source that Longo had appeared in the show, and for the given time period and the characters that he played despite that we never put sources for that kind of information since it's only a list article. Ultimately I succeeded to find a source that lived up to all hs demmands but to avoid eventual conflicts in the future I wonder what the policy is. Is it really necessary with source for that kind of information and if it is, can Imdb be considered as a reliable source in this case since it's not a BLP article? DrKilleMoff (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

DrKilleMoff, I would say that IMDB is suitable as a source in this case. It is supporting minor information in the article and is only providing small details. Like you said, if it was a BLP article, then it would be a different story. Good luck and cheers! Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 14:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The policy is that all information must be verifiable ... not that all information must be verified. This gives us a bit of wiggle room. While we strongly encourage in-line citations, we do not actually require them unless the material is "challenged or likely to be challenged". Now, in your case, someone actually did challenge the information... so yes, you were required to find one. You did the right thing in providing a citation.
As for Imdb... since it accepts user generated material, it's not considered reliable enough to use as a citation. However, that does not mean that everything it says is bullshit. If Imbd says something, there is a reasonable probability that a properly reliable source exists that will confirm (or refute) it... we just need to locate that reliable source. And that should be enough to put a challenge on hold (ie prevent immediate removal of the material), and give you time to look for a better source. Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
(ec):
  • Re. IMDb: At WP:RS IMDb is listed as a WP:USERGENERATED source, with low practical value as a reliable source. So you can't use it, apart from a few limited exceptions, unless WP:RS and WP:V are changed (which will not happen easily, and then this is not the page to discuss guideline or policy changes, see the talk pages of these policies/guidelines if you'd like such change)
  • Listing of a living person in whatever list is as subject to WP:BLP as the person's biographical article, no distinction there.
  • Any editor can request a reliable source for whatever uncertain content of the encyclopedia, per WP:BURDEN – if the information pertains to a living person, in addition the WP:BLP rules apply. For lists it depends how detailed the references need to be. Nobody gets included (not even when dead for several millenia) in List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people without a reference, on the other hand St Matthew Passion discography lists dozens of people (dead and alive) without reference – until someone thinks lack of references is a problem and tags it like Porgy and Bess discography. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Washington Examiner op-eds

Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Jimjilin and I have exhausted discussions at Talk:Michael Kempner at I'd like to get a third party to weigh in. here is the contentious edit:

Kempner is a top investor in a company that benefits from the Obama administration's light bulb regulations.

And cites two Washington Examiner op-eds, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democratic-donors-like-george-soros-elon-musk-and-warren-buffett-get-rich-off-of-democratic-policies/article/2547924 and http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democratic-donors-benefit-from-democratic-policies/article/2554908. The issues I have are that:

  • While the Examiner is an acceptable source for basic facts, I believe that its opinion pages are too partisan for supporting claims that are potentially contentious like accusations of political cronyism
  • The op-eds misleadingly/mistakenly refers to the 2007 lightbulb regulations signed into law by George W. Bush as "Obama's lightbulb regulations".
  • While Michael Kempner's hedge fund's investment in a high-tech lightbulb company may indeed benefit from a Bush-era policy supported by Obama, to place the sentence immediately after the one talking about Kempner's fundraising seems to be clear POV-pushing and/or WP:SYNTH.

I have asked Jimjilin to provide a less partisan source and I've tried as well, but without success. Without a source more neutral/reliable than the Examiner op-ed pages, I believe this claim should be moved or reworded to avoid the appearance that there is some quid pro quo arrangement between Kempner and Obama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosmof (talk • contribs) 16:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Mosmof, we would need much better sources for that kind of implication/connection. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a reliable source for the author's opinon. The first question to settle is whether this opinion is noteworthy. If not, leave the whole thing out. If it is noteworthy, cite it as the opinion of the source, and use a better source to WP:ASSERT Obama's uninvolvement with light bulbs. Rhoark (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point Rhoark.
I've suggested: "Conservatives have accused Kempner of profiting from light bulb restrictions promoted by the Obama administration." Mosmof, however seems unbending.Jimjilin (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
How about: "According to the Washington Examiner, Kempner has profited from light bulb restrictions promoted by some Republicans and the Obama administration."Jimjilin (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
You have to either be attributing an opinion or stating a fact. You can't embellish or correct an opinion to conform to the facts. Washington Examiner attributes the light bulb rule to Obama exclusively. Rhoark (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
whether this opinion is noteworthy sounds like it's talking about an evaluation of the content of the opinion itself rather than the source. If the only sources are two op ed pieces in the same publication (and the Washington Examiner doesn't exactly have a reputation for neutrality in the first place), it doesn't merit inclusion (especially in a BLP). That's not to say they can never be used, of course -- like Rhoark says an opinion piece is a valid source for that person's opinion -- but it's not enough to introduce an allegation/connection like this. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Noteworthiness can be in the status of the author or the currency of the opinion. I don't see evidence for either in this case. Rhoark (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

For context, it appears Jimjilin has been edit warring over this specific addition since October, adding more or less the same thing twelve times (an issue for ANI rather than RSN): [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It is an ANI issue, Jimjilin has a history of that in many articles. A brief glance at his talk section is a testament to that.-Xcuref1endx (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Editorials, even in the most respected media, are not considered rs for facts, only for the opinions of their authors. So they would need a rs the presents the facts before presenting these opinions on them. Furthermore, they would also have to show these opinions are significant, which would mean that actual news articles have reported them. TFD (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Moro Rebellion

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am seeking input on a source, an essay hosted at http://www.philippineupdate.com/ . I am unsure as to whether this essay is a reliable source or not. It cites a reference list, but is not foot noted. Also Philippine Update does not appear to be a professional news organization. It is being used as a reference to content added at the article Moro Rebellion. At best it might be user generated content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

philippineupdate.com is a personal website. This essay by Madge Kho, or something very much like it has been published as a book[33] (or perhaps pamphlet, at 6 pages). However, the publisher is the "Jolo Culture and Historical Society", of which Madge Kho is the director, and no evidence of other members or activities seems to exist online. Ultimately this looks self-published. However, Madge Kho has had material on related topics[34] published by Focus on the Global South, and the essay at philippineupdate.com has been cited by a few books.[35][36] I'd say its borderline acceptable as a self-published expert source. It should be attributed as the opinion of Madge Kho, and the article should defer to more reliable sources if there's conflicting information. Rhoark (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Single Asian Female and the accusations of racism that are not covered in reliable sources

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

A while back I started an article on Single Asian Female, which uses three news articles as secondary sources: a 2006 article from AsianWeek, a 2008 article from the Northwest Asian Weekly, and a 2006 article from the San Francisco Chronicle.

There is a reader at Talk:Single Asian Female who argued that there is a serious omission being made: The article on Single Asian Female doesn't talk about accusations that the comic is itself racist. Many scathing reviews have been made about SAF on internet forums and open Wikis, accusing the comic of being anti-White racist. I actually agree with that accusation. The problem: I can't include this information in the article because it's not covered by Wikipedia:Reliable sources defined by Wikipedia! I attempted to make this clear in the talk page back in 2011 Talk:Single_Asian_Female#On_racism_accusations but I've still gotten an inquiry about this.

Now that the radar has fallen off of the subject (no new reliable sources have been published about this subject), it's difficult to further develop the article. It's a similar problem faced by the editors here: Talk:Citizendium/Archive_4#So_what_and_how_do_we_write_about_this_sort_of_thing.3F.

What do we tell readers who ask about this situation? Should we encourage them to write letters to magazines and newspapers and ask them to publish articles including the info so Wikipedia can include it? WhisperToMe (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Our position is simply this: If a fact is important enough to be in Wikipedia, it's important enough to have been discussed in reliable sources. The fact that there is some popular belief that a fact exists isn't enough to include it because we would be promoting that fact and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Finally, verifiability (V), the source of our requirement for reliable sources, is the filter which we use because unlike print encyclopedias we don't have paid, professional editors who have the right to decide what's important enough to be here. Instead we have to have a self-actuating filter and V is it. If we diverge from it and start including stuff because someone just thinks that it's important, that's an invitation to chaos. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Describing a comic as racist is definitely a controversial claim, and one that requires high-quality sourcing. It is a subjective enough claim that I would assume the usual way to cover it would be to find notable commentators who have made the accusation, and quote them (or paraphrase them if there are a lot of them). If you can't find a WP:RS with the accusition, it can't be included in the article; there are internet forums that accuse almost anything of anything, after all. --Aquillion (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Exactly what @TransporterMan: said. CorporateM (Talk) 07:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
encouraging people 'to write letters to magazines and newspapers' would probably be ineffective, possibly counter-productive and CERTAINLY unethical, it would effectively be trying to create news solely in order to record it.Pincrete (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Freedom of Information request validity

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Have a query as to the validity of a cite that is a cut and paste of a Freedom of Request email to a hosting application[37] that has been included in the New Routemaster article. Am thinking this may fail WP:V as not a published cite, but thought it best to clarify. Castroex (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Not published. Unusable. Rhoark (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The FOIA request would be reliable if and only if it was published. Meatsgains (talk) 03:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Not published, nearly impossible to verify its validity. It is also a primary source (which should be used with caution). Esquivalience t 13:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
No. Period. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Primary source vs the Daily Mail

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments8 people in discussion

Given the negative conversation regarding the Daily Mail above and the derisory comments left when some editors have tried to use the Daily Mail as a source, I have a question. If the Daily Mail is reporting a science article and reports this with 100% accuracy, which is the better source to use - the Daily Mail (secondary source) or the original article (primary source)? DrChrissy (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Impossible to answer in the abstract. A lot depends on the specifics... specifics like what the subject of the Wikipedia article is, and what the specific statement is that we are supporting by citing these sources. Blueboar (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The Daily Mail would not be an RS for science, so the primary source would be better. But the primary source might be inappropriate for other reasons, e.g. per MEDRS. Sarah (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • If Daily Mail were the only secondary source for something, I would be highly dubious about including it at all, in any capacity. Generally, a noteworthy scientific paper is going to be cited in more than just the Daily Mail, which raises questions of WP:UNDUE if only the Daily Mail has mentioned it. However, it would depend on the paper and what it's being used for; if it is going to be cited, I would cite it directly rather than cite the Daily Mail, since I don't feel the Daily Mail adds much of use in a scientific context. --Aquillion (talk) 05:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The only way we'd know that the Mail was reporting with "100% accuracy" would be if the Mail's reportage was confirmed by more reliable sources. In such a case the obvious answer is to use those sources instead. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I would not trust the Daily Mail on anything. If it says something about science, the opposite is most probably true. Kingsindian ♝♚ 05:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Would it be correct then to say "In some cases (where reliability is a concern), a primary source is preferred to a secondary source"?DrChrissy (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The Mail is an excellent source, for paper to put on the nail of the outhouse. It is a bit rough though. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 15:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • There are almost no secondary sources on scientific topics, at least not in UK mass media. You might get something from New Scientist, or a few BBC programmes, but in general the broadsheet newspapers will either reprint a press release verbatim (so still primary) or will get it wrong. That's not bias, it's incompetence and the persistent UK media dismissal of science or engineering as subjects worthy of effort.
As to the Mail, then it's not too bad on simple objective fact (but how often would there be nothing better available?), it's editorial where the Mail is worst. Anything remotely near a subjective opinion from the Mail, or an editorial selection of material, and it's poisonous. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

History of Rakhine and Rakhine people

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

An editor is making major changes to early (>1000 yrs) History of Rakhine ([38]), Rakhine people ([39]) and Rakhine State using single source [40]. I don't think it is a reliable source because (1) the website is closely associated to ARNO with is (frankly speaking) nemesis of Rakhines, and (2) I've fact-checked some of its cited source and the sources don't mean like this. So, I don't think it is a reliable source and want to remove this section. Thank you. Laurence Watcher (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

rohingya.org is a website for an advocacy organization. It is not a reliable source except for WP:ABOUTSELF statements about the organization itself. Rhoark (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek, any opinion? Laurence Watcher (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I think that in general it is not a reliable source. There may be some non-controversial info which it could be used for but not for the kinds of edits that are being made.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Block all sourcing from a "bad" TLD ?

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Per this repeated edit, Guy makes the claim that anything under a particular top-level domain is "bad" and can never be linked: "rm. refspam", "The .guru domain is blogs ans orherr such unreliable sources. feel free to cite him in a reliable source."[1] [2]

References

  1. ^ Herrman, Ralph. "Does a large x-height make fonts more legible?". Retrieved 22 June 2015.
  2. ^ Hermann, Ralph. "Designing the ultimate wayfinding typeface". Retrieved 22 June 2015.

This is simplistic in the extreme. It's the same faulty logic that leads to removing sources because their URL matches /wordpress/. If that was true, we could have 'bots do all the editing for us. We do not care what the publishing platform is, we care about the content and the reliability of its authors.

In the case of these sources, they're from Ralf Herrmann. He is not well-known, he's a typographer. There are not many well-known typographers. In his field though, his writing and this site are seen as credible sources. Not to a WP:N BLP, but certainly to WP:RS. Nor are the explanatory texts linked "refspam" as Guy has it.

Would http://www.typografie.info be similarly barred? As I understand it, it's the same content as http://typography.guru, but the German language version rather than English.

Your thoughts please. Should we disconnect editorial critical thinking in favour of text pattern matching? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no prohibition on any top level domain, though the website in question does look like a blog / web forum. In general, most blogs don't qualify as reliable sources (regardless of their url location), though a few blogs will qualify as reliable if they are written by noted experts in the field, or if they are managed as part of larger publishing organization with a reputation for reliability (e.g. a newspaper). Is there evidence, in line with WP:BLOGS that the typography.guru site or its author is a reliable source? Also, I note that the statement in question had three citations. One to the US Sign Code and two to typography.guru. Are the latter citations saying something not covered by the US Sign Code, or are they redundant? Dragons flight (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
As noted, this is Ralf Hermann. He's an authority in the field. Track record at places like the Weimar Bauhaus. Lots of publications to his name. Well known amongst typographers. His German site has been well regarded for a long time and I doubt that WP (en or de) would have any problem with http://www.typografie.info . When he created a separate site for English language content (I'm not enough of a German speaker to compare the two accurately) though he used http://typography.guru At which point en:WP seems to flip out, simply because of the TLD.
As to the refs, then their value here is not simply to source statements in the WP article, but they're most useful as well-written explanations of the concept. They would meet WP:EL on that basis. This is the reason why Ralf Hermann, and other writers with that gift, have value as links from WP.
Also the USSC ref doesn't actually mention X-height, the article topic. It doesn't go any further than comparing ALLCAPS to Mixed Case. The Hermann refs are specifically on the issue of x-height in mixed case letter forms. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Max Blumenthal

Latest comment: 9 years ago21 comments7 people in discussion

May Max Blumenthal be used for wiki articles?

There is an interminable argument ([Battle of Shujaiyya]) between only a few editors, with regard to his 2 books and articles on the I/P area. He is being consistently removed from any I/P article he is cited on, but his journalism is widely cited throughout Wikipedia articles not directly regarding Israel, on the most varied topic. Part of the issue is touched on above regarding his publishing in Mondoweiss, but only one outside editor has commented there. The problem is more general.

The Occidental Quarterly;The Political Cesspool;Al Akhbar (Lebanon);Cornell Tech;Hal Turner;Regnery Publishing;American Islamic Congress;Justice Sunday;Men of Israel;Andrew Breitbart;Kevin B. MacDonald; David L. Cunningham; Alaskan Independence Party; Judith Reisman; Gatestone Institute; The Washington Times;International Republican Institute;Nina Rosenwald;The Naked Communist;Elim Bible Institute;Anton Chaitkin;*Charles Colson;Group of 184;Constitution Party of Wisconsin;Beer for My Horses;Howard Ahmanson, Jr;Scott Howell;Campaign to Defend the Constitution; Council of Conservative Citizens;Youth With A Mission; Paleoconservatism;Earl Warren;Chris Simcox;Constitution Party (United States);New Life Church (Colorado Springs, Colorado);David Barton (author);Chloé Valdary;2004 Haitian coup d'état; to cite just a few.

Could independent editors please tell me what is the operative rule here? Is there some ruling that specifies the journalist is RS for hundreds of articles, but his 2 books, one award winning, on Israel are off-limits? Has any other editorial team consistently made such a huge issue of Max Blumenthal's journalism in Wikipedia? Nishidani (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Way to neutrally explain the problem.
I like that in your list of articles most references to Blumenthal are attributed to him (several are in the external links section. Not sure why you thought those bolster your position here). Could that be because most editors understand this guy is a polemicist that RS hardly ever use for anything other than his opinion? Did you even check the articles or did you just do a search and post whatever came up? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Anyone can put Blumenthal into their search window as they click on these or dozens of other wiki articles that come up in any search and check your assertion. Since you say no to every or any comment I make on any page, and I can see no sense in your objections, I am asking for a third opinion, or preferably several.The usual technique is to bury a technical question is follow-on chat, so no passing editor has the patience to address the simple request for enlightenment. So let us just bide our time for disinterested external comment. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
If you had explained the issue fairly and neutrally, I wouldn't need to step in and point out the obvious deficiencies in your post. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy: If your point is that Blumenthal can be used with attribution, can we do that on the Shujaiyya page, instead of removing him altogether?

To other editors watching this space: my own viewpoint on the talk page is that Blumenthal is reliable in this context because his article and book detailing eyewitness testimony is used together with other sources like UN reports and other media reports, and many points are corrobrated therein. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

If other, better quality sources corroborate his points, why do we need to use him? why not quote those other sources directly? Brad Dyer (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
He reports a lot of things not in other sources. His book was recommended as an important one, of ethnography on the ground in Israel.23.15 second into the debate, and 26:30ff by one of the world's foremost scholars on the I/P area, Ian Lustick. The question therefore is, why are editors refusing its use in the I/P area, where other books and journalism by him on other topics are not complained of? Why the pariah status only for this topic area. That is why I am asking impartial editors to look into. Could RS/N experts look at Lustick's comment, and around, and make a call please? Nishidani (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Because he gives eyewitness testimonies and interviews people. It is more detailed than the general picture by the other sources. Where other sources corroborate his points, both are cited. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
This is somewhat circular . There are some things he writes which are not corroborated by other sources- is he reliable for those? That seems to be the question that is central to this issue. Brad Dyer (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
All of it is reliable. Some of it may not be WP:DUE. Rhoark (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
And is there anything policy based behind this assertion? Brad Dyer (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:APPLYRS Rhoark (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I am interested in Wikipedia POLICY, not an 'unofficial guidance essay' that you wrote. I take it there is none? Brad Dyer (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
It's an essay I wrote (and that the community has commented on and vetted) as a tutorial on reliable sourcing policy. I believe that's what you need, so I linked it rather than reiterating it piecemeal. Rhoark (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliability is always in a context. There is no blanket reason material by Max Blumenthal should be considered always or usually unreliable, in or out of the Israel-Palestine topic. Rhoark (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is the first paragraph of Blumenthal book which is an example how he can be a great novelist but untrustworthy for facts -

By the end of 2008, the 1.5 million residents of the Gaza Strip had been left to fend for themselves. Gaza was surrounded on all sides by Israeli sniper towers, electrified fences, concrete walls, and a naval blockade that prevented fishermen from trawling waters more than 3 kilometers from shore. Weaponized drones hovered overhead night and day, humming an incessant single note dirge that served as a constant reminder of Israeli control. Heeding Israeli government pledges to push Gaza’s economy “to the brink of collapse,” army bureaucrats in Tel Aviv developed complex mathematical formulas to regulate the caloric intake of each person trapped inside the coastal strip. Gazans were forbidden from exporting products and prevented from importing cardamom, potato chips, seeds and nuts, cement, fruit preserves, ginger, fishing nets, notebooks, musical instruments, size A4 paper, and toys.

  1. The description of Gaza is misleading the reader to think it is the yard at The Shawshank Redemption which is bogus. Most of what he describes exist at different areas but not all around. probably 95% is indicative fence the tells HQ if it was touched (To which I believe he refers as electric fences. Another misleading stunt).
  2. Drones day and night? Maybe during operations. There are hot air balloons but that isn't as sexy and they aren't 'humming'.
  3. IMO, the 'regulate the caloric intake' conspiracy is more then enough to destroy any credibility left (at the time there were 100's of tunnels bringing in food, gasoline and rockets). I'm sure this was discussed before!
In short, Blumenthal adds fallacious details to seeds of truth to make his book more colorful and descriptive but in the process he looses accuracy of the actual event. I tried to read his book in the past but his bias was so rasping I had to stop.
The lengthy conversation on Battle of Shujaiyya talk page has some quotes from reviews about how he is 'pretty accurate' etc'. In addition, since there is no lack of sources with testimonies about Operation Protective Edge, taking one from a source with questionable track record of reliability isn't necessary. I think he cannot be fully trusted with anything about Israel unless someone else corroborate at which point Blumenthal is redundant. DaniDin 07:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
This is a silly objection. First of all, nothing of what you say has any relevance to the points where he is cited for the article. Secondly, you haven't pointed out any inaccuracies whatsoever, you just don't like his language. The fact that there are drones over Gaza and that there is a blockade on Gaza is totally accurate, no matter what evocative language he chooses to use and you don't like. As to the "caloric intake" matter, please see this and this among many other sources. It is hardly a "conspiracy theory". You may or not give credence to it, that is a totally different matter. Again, it is fine to not like a writer: biased and opinioned sources are fine as WP:RS as pointed out many times before. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Kingsindian, the sources you bring show exactly the difference between reporting and propaganda. In short, the sources mainly speak of minimal red-line of supplies rather than maximal as he present it (once again, before talking about the 100's of tunnels of which Israel was well aware of) and both sources says those are claims by Gisha. Blumenthal states it as a fact.
Blumenthal isn't a liar just an extreme case of exaggerator. He doesn't invent things out of thin air. He just inflate the facts to the point it is impossible to know what true from false. Can you mention "Weaponized drones hovered overhead night and day" or maybe "Gaza was surrounded on all sides by Israeli sniper towers, electrified fences, concrete walls"? Of course not! I find it hard to understand how you draw a line in what are facts and what is the extra bias. There is no lack of organizations and sources for the subject so why quote one which is a gamble? HRW, Betselem, UNRWA, different media outlets. DaniDin 14:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I am afraid you have not provided anything that Blumenthal even exaggerated. Firstly, they are not empty claims by Gisha, they are from the documents which the Israeli govt. turned over to them after a court order. The quote “to the brink of collapse," is from a Wikileaks cable. And contrary to what you say, Blumenthal does not say anything about minimal or maximal. I only addressed one point of your criticism. I will not address all of them, because I have neither the time, nor the inclination to do this. What exactly does the above have to do with Blumenthal being cited for a witness testimony? Are you suggesting he made the quote up? If you are, please give some evidence. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Blumenthal is a fringe activist who commonly makes equivalences between Israel and Nazi Germany. His views are so toxic that he was roundly condemned in the left-wing publication The Nation, which is consistently critical of Israel[41]. He also compares Israel to ISIL, having coined the hashtag "JSIL" (Jewish State of Israel in the Levant)[42]. He is not reliable for any sort of factual claims and the fact that editors insist on including him as a source shows how much the IP environment has been degraded. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

'fringe activist' 'toxic', etc. Then why does Lustick recommend the book as an important work? He knows more than POV activists on Wikipedia, from whatever quarter they hail.Nishidani (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
A book can be recommended for many reasons other than being accurate. Blumenthal over-describing might be exactly why the book lets the reader understand how bad the situation is. It is great for making people aware. It is awful for an encyclopedia.

www.orwelltoday.com

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

1. Source. http://www.orwelltoday.com, specifically http://www.orwelltoday.com/afghanheroin.shtml
2. Article. Heroin
3. Content. The cultivation of opium in Afghanistan reached its peak in 1999, when 350 square miles (910 km2) of poppies were sown. The following year the Taliban banned poppy cultivation, a move which cut production by 94 percent. By 2001 only 30 square miles (78 km2) of land were in use for growing opium poppies. A year later, after American and British troops had removed the Taliban and installed the interim government, the land under cultivation leapt back to 285 square miles (740 km2), with Afghanistan supplanting Burma to become the world's largest opium producer once more.

The material is likely true, but it is the reliability of the source that I question. The website appears to be the work of Jackie Jura, self-described as "an independent researcher monitoring local, national and international events". I initially removed the source as unreliable (diff), however, it was reinserted with the following edit summary: "1. There are other more authoritative sources--this isn't necessary or sufficient as a reference. 2. This quotes other reliable sources in its text without huge POV input. This reference is valid." (diff) Bringing it here for additional opinions. - Location (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Orwelltoday
The cultivation of opium in Afghanistan reached its peak in 1999, when 350 square miles (910 km2) of poppies were sown. The following year the Taliban banned poppy cultivation, a move which cut production by 94 percent. By 2001 only 30 square miles (78 km2) of land were in use for growing opium poppies. A year later, after American and British troops had removed the Taliban and installed the interim government, the land under cultivation leapt back to 285 square miles (740 km2), with Afghanistan supplanting Burma to become the world's largest opium producer once more. "...The cultivation of opium reached its peak in 1999, when 225,000 acres - 350 square miles - of poppies were sown... The following year the Taliban banned poppy cultivation, declaring it to be "un-Islamic" - a move which cut production by 94 per cent... By 2001 only 30 square miles of land were in use for growing opium poppies. A year later, after American and British troops had removed the Taliban and installed the interim government, the land under cultivation leapt back to 285 square miles, with Afghanistan supplanting Burma to become the world's largest opium producer once more."
Further information: WP:QUOTE
  1. When quoting thus literally (the only difference being unit conversion) apply appropriate layout to indicate it is a quote
  2. Whatever the literal quote indicate where you found it (removing the ref isn't even optional)
  3. Better to convert the ref to the original source (Orwelltoday indicates as source for this: "June 22, 2003, a story from London's Independent newspaper").
  4. Better to rewrite it according to the most appropriate sources, in order to avoid unnecessary copyright issues.
  5. Removing the content without appropriate replacement and refs seems undesirable in order not to unbalance the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Not even slightly reliable, and a copyvio at that. Rhoark (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: I initially removed only the reference because the paragraph is also cited to another source (i.e. a BBC report). I am unable to find the article from the Independent, however,this website appears to have copied the text of that article in full. Confounding things a bit further, I also found matching text in what appears to be a pharmacology text here. It seems plausible that the Independent copied a version of the pharmacology text, yet the pharmacology text does have references that post-date the Independent article. I believe that the pharmacology text to be reliable source, however, the material is still a copyright violation of that source. - Location (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
#1, #2 and #3 done – but I only see that as an intermediate solution, until someone has the time to rewrite as a paraphrase (best also based on the BBC source, which I left for the time being, although probably not related to the Independent quote) --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

IndiaGlitz

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It seems to have got suitable external media coverage, according to Google custom search. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? Are you asking whether IndiaGlitz is a reliable source? Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Article by established journalist in Medium publication with editorial staff

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I used an article published on the website Medium as a source, and it was removed for being published on a self-publishing platform, which it was. However, the site is also used for professional publications with editorial staff, which is the case of my source. Further, the author of the article has several other writings on related topics published by established, reliable publishers.

The article in question is "The Transhumanist Who Would Be President" on the blog re:form. The author is Ajai Raj, who has been published by Business Insider, Cosmos Magazine, Popular Science, and Salon. I used it as a source on the Wikipedia page on life extension in the politics section for the following statement:

Zoltan Istvan, founder of the Transhumanist Party, is running for the office of the President of the United States in the 2016 election to give political visibility to ideas such as life extension.

The publication seems to me to have high-quality content. Medium is just a tool, after all, like WordPress, and not all blogs that use WordPress are unreliable. The main difference is that Medium gives a medium.com domain name.

Is this source reliable here?

--Haptic-feedback (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I do not think that the issue is moot. I made this post because I thought that (A) this would make for an interesting discussion about Medium, which seems to take a novel approach to publishing, and (B) it would be nice to cite more than one source for the information. (Indeed, you have since removed the info for other reasons, but let us deal with those elsewhere.) --Haptic-feedback (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I cannot find any mention of Medium in that post. Can you point me to it? That post seems to me to be about an opinionated Blogger post by an author who usually writes about somewhat unrelated subjects. However, Mr. Raj's piece is factual, and he has published on similar topics before.
Also, I do not follow your reasoning about Medium being only a self-publishing platform. Can you elaborate on how its formatting makes it so? Let us be clear that Medium does allow self-publishing, but in this case it powers a professional publication with editorial staff – the latter is what is relevant here.
--Haptic-feedback (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Medium is a platform on which one can self-publish. That doesn't mean everything that can be found there is WP:SPS. In particular, it has a built-in feature for users to set themselves up "publications" which are groupings of users and articles in which there can be editorial control. This does in principle constitute third-party publishing, if there is reason to believe that quality editorial control is actually exercised. This likelihood is improved if:

  • The editors and writers have prior journalism experience, or other relevant expertise
  • The writers are paid
  • The editors are medium.com staff or endorsed by them

These all seem to be the case for re:form. I don't discern any reputation, good or bad, for re:form. Some would disqualify a source on that basis, but I don't think that's required. In the absence of reputation, I'd assign reliability but little to no weight. Rhoark (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Major Vandalism on the College tuition in the United States

Latest comment: 9 years ago31 comments10 people in discussion

Major Vandalism on the College tuition in the United States, but since reliability of sources was in question, it was suggested that the discussion be brought here:

One editor has wreaked havoc via a deletion of a huge number of sources that have been discussed vetted, and agreed upon by the community. Some of them have been in there for ages, as a quick review of the edit history will show. In order of appearance on that edit, the sources are as follows: Watts (thirstforjustice), Investopedia, Mockler (NY Times, cited in Tumbler), Collinge (StudentLoanJustice, cited in NY Art World Commentary), Kantrowitz (finaid.org), gcstudent.org, Watson (cited in dailyfinance.com), and collegetips.com.

EVERY one of those sources is credible and reliable, most especially as they are either advocates making suggestions, or reliable news sources, or experts in the field. Let's take a look at each one of them, shall we:

    • Key findings: Most or all of these sources have been in the article for ages, and Flyte35, the vandal in question, even reviewed them and had no problems way back when, and in this discussion three editors (ElKevbo, who is taking time off, Flyte35, the editor who is wholesale vandalizing the article, and some unregistered editor, 71.101.54.88, who started the discussion, way back in July 2014, close to a year ago, saw the Watts, Collinge, Kantrowitz, and many other sources that were just deleted, and all three of them had no problem with the reliability of these sources.

So, if Flyte35 had no problems then, what is the big fuss now? “When the cat's away, the mice will play,” and with ElKebvo, a voice of reason, gone, and the other editor both anonymous and now gone, Flyte35 is “taking over” this article.

Even in Late July of last year (2014), we see no problem with Watts, with Kantrowitz, with USPirg, with Collinge, etc. (And rightfully so: These are all big names in the College Loan Reform advocacy movements!)

In fact, just recently, other editors put Flyte's bizarre behavior in check, as right here, where one editor even said: “(a series of edits removing the Watts source) - If the reliability of the Watts source is what this hinges on, this should probably go to WP:RSN. The source is an amicus brief, which isn't good/neutral enough to make a definitive statement about the law, but seems perfectly appropriate for a "recommendations" section if it comes from a reliable source (the issuing individual/organization).”

In this discussion on the talk page of the article in question, we find the following out:

ALL the sources were reliable:

    • Garrett Mockler, yer another source that Flyte35, just deleted is cited in this NY Times article, so while Mocker is not as "big name" as, say, Terri Schiavo, Barack Obama, Gordon Wayne Watts, or Alan Collinge, he's still been cited, and should be 'OK' as a "supportive' source which says the same thing as the 2nd source, Collinge.
    • Investipedia, yet another source that Flyte35, just deleted, is an official dictionary website, and is thus credible. So, Flyte is you losing his mind? All 4 of these are credible. Continuing...
    • Dr. Mark Kantrowitz (finaid.org) is a recognized expert in the field of higher Ed. (Google his name, if you doubt!). But Flyte35 just deleted Dr. K was well! (When clicking this link, you'll have to scroll on down to the bottom-left of the page to see this deletion, as it is not, for some reason, highlighted.) Nutty,...

Flyte35 is a vandal, whether his/her intent is good or bad ((and I will assume WP:Good Faith), and he has destroyed this article.

Please take a look.96.59.141.200 (talk) 10:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

First, please don't refer to it as vandalism; as you said, we're supposed to assume good faith; and this looks like a straightforward content dispute to me, not vandalism. Many of those sources do look questionable to me, and none of them seem high-quality.
  • The fact that someone inserted Gordon Wayne Watts into the article repeatedly and nobody took it out until now doesn't make him credible enough to use what appears to be a letter to the editor written by him (reproduced on a personal website?) as a source. The amicus curiae brief may look more official, but it isn't actually any better, since anyone can submit whatever they like like that (so it is effectively a WP:SPS.) The fact that he's prolific online certainly doesn't change anything, either; in order to use something like this, we'd need a reason to think he's particularly notable in that field, which he plainly is not. Terri Schiavo is totally unrelated and adds nothing to his credibility for this topic. My opinion is that this source cannot be used in the article in any capacity.
  • Alan M. Collinge is slightly less useless as a source; he has at least published editorials multiple times on this topic in reputable publications, and therefore seems to be a notable activist. His opinions could possibly be mentioned, with in-text citations (or via quoting him), provided they're not being presented as statements of fact. However, I notice that this citation was to his personal website, which is a self-published source and generally not usable (I don't feel he's enough of a recognized expert in the field to reach the bar where his self-published stuff can be cited.) If you want to cite his opinion, it should be from one of the opinion-pieces by him that has been published in a reputable source.
  • Garrett Mockler's personal tumblr cannot be cited, for similar reasons. It is a WP:SPS, and he is not a recognized expert in the field; simply being mentioned in a NYT article is not enough. However, we could cite the NYT article itself.
  • Investipedia I'm not familiar with; it doesn't instantly leap out at me as useless as a source the way some of the others here do, but I'm not sure it's high-profile enough for its opinion to be relevant, either, so disputing it seems reasonable for Flyte35 to do. More importantly, though, looking at the talk page, it seems like the objection to this source was that it was being used for WP:SYNTH, which does appear to be a problem (citing an article, then citing a dictionary definition and trying to use them together to make an argument not stated in either is clearly WP:SYNTH).
  • Dr. Mark Kantrowitz might be usable, if he's really a recognized expert in the field (although Googling for his name turned up a dentist.) But I would tend to want to know where the PDF being linked was published; ideally it would be best, again, to cite something he said in a reputable publication rather than just a PDF placed on a personal website, or to find some publication in a reliable secondary source that summarizes and discusses that paper instead.
  • Bruce Watson's daily finance article is probably all right, although I'm not familiar with Daily Finance (so someone else might want to comment on it.)
  • CollegeTips.com looks like a personal website to me. I don't see anything that would make it worth citing.
Remember, the key policy to keep in mind here is WP:SPS. In general, personal websites, tumblr posts, and the like are not good sources. The fact that someone is "famous" or noteworthy or has been quoted by someone else or appears in a lot of Google searches doesn't change that; they would have to be a recognized expert in this specific field, which I don't think most of the people you've listed qualify for. If we were quoting Watts' opinion on Terry Schiavo, we could use him as a primary source (although it would probably be better to quote him via a secondary source); but none of those things make him a usable source for this topic. The other people you mentioned mostly have similar problems, although to lesser degrees. Beyond that, I'd be concerned that you're focused on citing so many people in their own blog or website as WP:PRIMARY sources for their own opinion. While we can do that in limited situations, it's better to avoid it when possible; it makes it harder to establish that the source is noteworthy, and it means that you as an editor may be imposing your own reading and interpretation on the source (which we could otherwise get from a secondary source.) In some cases it clearly feels like you're giving WP:UNDUE weight to certain advocacy sites, too; the purpose of a section like this isn't to list every opinion anyone has ever expressed on the subject anywhere, but to highlight the most notable opinions as reported in reputable publications. This is a subject that has gotten considerable coverage in both academic sources and in the mainstream news, so I'm a bit confused by the eagerness to quote obscure blogs, advocacy sites, and so on -- if those sources are genuinely noteworthy, then their opinions ought to have been covered in a reputable publication somewhere, surely? --Aquillion (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
This isn't vandalism. Vandalism is the addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. This isn't that; it's is a content dispute.
I have already addressed this on the talk page for the article. The line the anonymous editor is trying to include is something about how loan forgiveness is not inflationary. The only source that says that is this thing by Gordon Wayne Watts, which is not published by a reliable source and, indeed, appears to contain content lifted from Wikipedia. Wiki guidelines on identifying reliable sources state that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The article (or position paper or whatever) provided is sourced to "ThirstForJustice.net," which is just someone's blog. It's not a reliable source.
Some of the other sources are more reliable, yes, but none of the other sources indicate that loan forgiveness is not inflationary.
The anonymous editor went to seek the opinion of other editors on this matter. No one agreed the proposed edit was appropriate. That's why I reverted it again. Flyte35 (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
These posts are too long for anyone un-involved to read. A short neutral post would have been something like "Are these sources ___, ___, ___, reliable. Here is the diff in question that shows their proposed use." This source mentioned above by Flyte35 is definitely not an acceptable source. Court documents can almost never be used for anything. However, this source is written by the "Senior Features Writer" for Daily Finance. That seems potentially reliable. CorporateM (Talk) 07:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
As I said, some of the other sources are more reliable, yes, but none of the other sources indicate that "loan forgiveness is not inflationary," which is the line the anonymous editor wants to include in the article. Flyte35 (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

What others of you seem to miss was described by Rhododendrites talk in this reply here. He (or she) said: said: “(a series of edits removing the Watts source) - If the reliability of the Watts source is what this hinges on, this should probably go to WP:RSN. The source is an amicus brief, which isn't good/neutral enough to make a definitive statement about the law, but seems perfectly appropriate for a "recommendations" section if it comes from a reliable source (the issuing individual/organization).” While I share your concerns about the Watts post, notice, if you all would two things: First, since Rhododendrites talk makes a good case that this source can be included as an advocate (an assessment with which I agree), then it stands to reason that all the other sources that Flyte35 (talk) willy-nilly deleted can be also included. (If, as some say, they are more credible than the Watts source on college loan issues, and a good argument for that exists.) Secondly, this may sound a bit biased, but it is what it is: The college loan industry is oppressing many people who are in the age-group of those who edit here, and you are, effectively, shooting yourselves in the foot. Did you see the huge difference that resulted when Flyte35 (talk) got finished? Did you see all that he/she deleted? Did you even read it? I would recommend that you looks first, at the damage done, and then at version of the page immediately before the damage done, and note the recommendations are just that: recommendations from advocate, not unbiased news experts, who would (of course) not be permitted to weigh in on this head, and then revert accordingly.

I agree with Rhododendrites talk that these sources should be included. Thoughts? Views?96.59.134.227 (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

N/A He said "The source is an amicus brief, which isn't good/neutral enough to make a definitive statement about the law, but seems perfectly appropriate for a "recommendations" section if it comes from a reliable source (the issuing individual/organization).” But the amicus brief doesn't come from a reliable source. It's just some some convoluted thing that appears to contain text from wikipedia posted by Gordon Wayne Watts on his blog. It is not a reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Flyte35 (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
What in the h--- is going on here? I am the original editor who attempted to make these changes. I have been monitoring this situation after having taken a hiatus from editing. 96.59.134.227 is correct to describe what I did. I initially tried to make an edit about the interrelations between inflation and college loans, but I could not find a suitable source. Perhaps it was the Watts source that I saw and could not back up with other sources, but I felt that it was prudent to not proceed without sufficient sourcing. 96.59.134.227 apparently was able to find a bunch of sources to finish what I began. What really p*sse's me off here is that flyte35 and ElKevbo both gave me their word that I could include this edit if I found other sources. I have looked at both 96.59.134.227's comments as well as those of Rhododendrites. All three of us (and ElKevbo and Flyte, making a total of 5 editor) were OK with all the sources that were in the article back then. Now, ElKevbo apparently is on a vacation and not editing. So, you have 5 editors who were ok with these sources as reliable. But for some reason Flyte35 flip-flopped. (Why didn't he protest about the reliability back then if it was such a problem?) So, as it stands, ElKevbo, apparently some sort of Higher Ed expert, and 96.59.134.227 and Rhododendrites and myself all 4 are ok with these sources as "advocates." (Now, if we needed a source for a professional opinion, say, a legal analysis, perhaps even Watts, a nonlawyer, would not suffice; perhaps only a lawyer would do here. But I agree with Rhododendrites' description: as advocates (and I will add, advocates who are cited a bunch on blogs other than their own), they are just fine. What is the other alternative? I agree with 96... that Flyte35 did carnage and destructive tears on the article. You can call is a "content dispute," but one thing is NOT in dispute: Ther article got a whole bunch of obviously unobjectionably recommendations torn out. I add my voice to the chorus calling for acceptance of these advocates for recommendations.71.101.58.56 (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
It is indeed verified: But "what" is it that is verified? The accuracy of the recommendations? No: they are only opinions. The fact that these recommendations were made by many advocate (and it wasn't just Watts that you deleted, but boatloads of stuff you deleted) is indeed easily verifiable. Both Watts and the many others you deleted indeed are advocates for their causes, and all of them (except maybe Mockler) are notable advocates.96.59.134.227 (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
As I've already explained, your edits are bad just in general because they simply do not improve the article. Specifically, your edits to the section beginning "The federal government should enact partial or total loan forgiveness for students who have taken out student loans" are out because 1. Watts is unreliable, and 2. the other sources are not saying anything about how loan forgiveness is not inflationary.Flyte35 (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Look, I agree that a source, if it makes a legal argument, would need to be a lawyer (or law professor), and similarly, if it made a medical recommendation, that source had better be a doctor, a PhD in a related field, health professor, or other professional, but as to recommendations, that is not making a legal assessment out of their field. As others have said, advocates are appropriate sources for recommendations. It was a close call, and more debate is welcome, Flyte35, but you were out-voted, so let it drop. The world is not going to come to an end. (Except perhaps for your Wikipedia account, if, for example, you get censured for arguing that advocates - can NOT "advocate" for causes!) So, you were voted down. Let it drop: you were wrong; advocates can indeed advocate for a cause. Pick and chose your battles.71.101.58.56 (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
There was no voting and no agreement.
Go back and re-read. Don't make me go and get each editor, and drag them, here to protest you, Flyte35. You put up a good case, but were out-voted.96.59.135.156 (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Consensus seeking isn't about majority rule anyway. No one said the Watts source was reliable.
talk, myself, and the original anon editor, at the very least said it was reliable, at least as an advocate's opinion, even if not for legal analysis. Moreover, you and ElKevbo had no objections, even after much discussion when you all discussed this with the original editor at that time. That's 5 just by a small count, not counting your "flip-flop."96.59.135.156 (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
A source has to be reliable even if it's used to show an opinion.
And, just what do you consider reliable as an advocate? Remember, Flyte35, you can't cite news sources, as they are supposed to be objective news reporting, and anyone rich enough to be a finance expert likely works for a bank and would not have a financial motive to advocate for the students, at a loss of their own money. Again, just what do you consider reliable as an advocate?96.59.135.156 (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
The other sources do not indicate that "loan forgiveness is not inflationary" so their potential reliability is irrelevant.Flyte35 (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect. They say the same thing in a different way, but even if what they said is "different," I did not misquote them, and cited these sources, and note that, as they are cited by other sources, which are independantly not their own blogs, they, too, are reliable. So, Watts, Collinge, Mockler, and Investopedia, as well as the other sources you deleted right here are reliable. One or 2 deletions, alright, it might be a content dispute, but all this is, I'm sorry, but it is vandalism, unless you can do better than that. (But as you haven't so far, I expect you won't.)96.59.135.156 (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I just want to chime in because I was mentioned a few times above. As Flyte35 pointed out, I did not say the sources should be included (nor excluded). I said "The source is an amicus brief, which isn't good/neutral enough to make a definitive statement about the law, but seems perfectly appropriate for a "recommendations" section if it comes from a reliable source (the issuing individual/organization). So certainly the amicus briefs issued by, say, the Berkman Center, ACLU, or Stanford Law School are perspectives worth including in a section like this, but I frankly don't know about Watts." -- Certainly not an endorsement, though I guess I can see being misread there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@71.101.58.56: above you said "96.59.134.227 is correct to describe what I did...". 96.59.134.227 actually geolocates to the same part of Florida your IP geolocates to -- and not an urban center. Is this coincidence? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The Lakeland area? That's where, according to his blog, Gordon Wayne Watts lives. Flyte35 (talk) 05:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I see. Perhaps this thread is making the rounds from NPOVN → RSN → COIN & SPI... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Clarifying

There are actually two different issues going on here. The first has to do with the issue college tuition not being inflationary. That's really the only thing where reliability is the issue. Watts says college tuition not is not inflationary. Then there's another line, sourced to Investopedia, the Garrett Mockler thing, and the Alan Collinge piece, that should be removed because the authors do not say that.

They do say that, but in a different way.96.59.135.156 (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This is the only thing where the reliability is at issue, and the only thing that's really appropriate for discussion here.

The second issue is actually not relevant to this discussion board, because it doesn't have much to do with source reliability. The section section deleted (sourced to Mark Kantrowitz, the piece called "Cutting College Costs," and the Bruce Watson thing) should just be removed because it's adding personal finance recommendations to an article that's otherwise about policy. I'd be happy to discuss that, but it's not really for this forum. The only part where source reliability is at issue is the "tuition not inflationary" line. For efficiently's sake, and to try to come to resolution, I recommend only discussing that part (Watts, Investopedia, Mockler, Collinge) here.Flyte35 (talk) 00:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

First off, what do you consider an actual advocate? All the advocates (including Watts) were published in multiple places other than their own blogs. Besides, you didn't just remove the Watts source, which would be a content dispute, but rather, you removed a bunch of things "wholesale": here, which is (in my view) vandalism. (Unless you can go back and justify each deletion.) None of the college-student aged 'advocates' are expected to have any PhD, or work for a bank or finance company - if that's what you mean by a "reliable" source. (Besides, any "reliable" source, by your definition, would be tied to closely to the banking industry to make a recommendation that reflects the views of the oppressed students who, unlike rich millionaire bankers, can not files for and obtain bankruptcy. Are you sure you're not a banking executive trying to wreck this article, to protect your bottom line, and step on the backs of the students?)96.59.135.156 (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I reverted your recent edits because we didn't reach consensus. Consensus doesn't mean "the opinion of the editor who posted the most recent comment." Flyte35 (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Impasse

I know that some editors who have followed this thread may have thought that this was a dead issue, but we've reached an impasse on 3 issues, and I (myself, at least) seek your participation in the talk page of this article:

The 2nd item in this list is a Wikipedia:Reliable_sources issue; the 1st and 3rd issues, technically, not (but the other 2 issues remain in dispute as well, so additional input would be welcome).

1. Bankruptcy is loan forgiveness, partial or total - like it or not - and thus Flyte35's suggestion that the section in question "is about loan forgiveness," not bankruptcy, is moot.

2. Flyte35 still claims that the Watts source is not reliable, in spite of the fact that I found a citation to his official blog (and not some "http://thirstforjustice.net yahoo's" blog, which was Flyte35's original complaint, and a valid complain I concede). Moreover, I don't see why Watts is any less reliable? His blog seems to have just as accurate facts and well-sourced, as most other advocates' blogs I've seen: Robert Applebaum or Alan Collinge, for example, both of whom are in the article in question. Please clarify or distinguish here?

3. Even in the much less controversial issue (not involving Watts, Mocker, Applebaum, Collinge, Investopedia, etc.), Flyte35 made this deletion. He said "As I've already explained, the other recommendations are policy recommendations. Those are personal finance recommendations, and inappropriate here.)" in edit comments, but I think these are indeed are good recommendations on how to "address" rising tuition, even if it is, in these cases, by increasing income versus decreasing tuition.

As I said above, I conceded one point about the "thirstforjustice" blog, and made corrections (using Watts' offical blog, which I infer is reliable, since it is from the horse's mouth) and also made language corrections (see recent edits, such as: "(which is a type of partial or total loan forgiveness)," in this edit, here to address his "bankruptcy vs forgiveness" concerns, but we're still at an impasse. I will add one point: #4: while the Watts source is the main one Flyte35 is complaining about, nonetheless, he deleted both these recommendations, discussed in point #3. above, as well as Dr. Mark Kantrowitz, who is a world-renowned expert in Higher Ed. In short, it was not just Watts, but many other sources that were reliable, yet deleted by Flyte35. Your input is sought on these 4 points, particularly the 2nd one.96.59.148.12 (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Only #2 is a point of discussion for this noticeboard. The other issues are not about source reliability.Flyte35 (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
@Flyte35, Re: your edit here, I see you reverted it. Fine, you disagree, but I made some changes in the edit to address come concerns raised about WP:Undue Weight, and, at the least, I would point out that your edit was only 9 minutes later (18:47, 30 June 2015‎ 96.59.148.12 to 18:56, 30 June 2015‎ Flyte35), and I doubt you even saw it when it was edited, meaning you probably looked at the revisions for less than 9 minutes. Since i fixed the undue weight problem, at the least you should accord the edit a fair review, and then, if you still disagree with me, we can discuss the issues. (I will admit that I put back in all the disputed content, but that was easier than picking and choosing, and all of it is disputed, and needs review.) So, now that I got reliable sources that are sufficient in number and show that there wasn't undue weight placed on this edit, what, now, is the problem?96.59.148.12 (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Please wait until editors weigh in here to make changes. You're adding Watts back in, which is an unreliable source, as the rest of us have already explained many times. Flyte35 (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
My reply: OK, based on your suggestions in talk, here, I made this "Good Faith" edit, right here. However, with all due respect: you seem to be obsessing with Mr. Watts, to the exclusion of whatever else is (or may be) going on. Accordingly, I would ask you and the others here about this: I don't see how Watts is any less reliable than most of the other advocates, but, whatever; the article can probably still run on less than 8-cylinders, even if it doesn't run well. I do agree, as you mentioned in talk, that the Daily KOS is OK, assuming the source in question (Mr. Collinge) is reliable, but, as with any source: Anyone can open a Daily KOS account. However, getting featured in Forbes, probably, is a good argument for notoriety, I will concede. I will see what I can do, after thinking a little bit on it. Thoughts on the all the sources, Watts and the others?96.59.148.12 (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I took out the other thing in the article sourced to a personal blog, so should be good now.Flyte35 (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Flyte35, I see where you fixed some reference link formats to use names for repeated use (shorter, simpler, per Occam's Razor, I assume), and converted the CATO Institute option to a recommendation, but that was practically identical to another recommendation. I also invoked Occam's Razor and combined the 2 recommendations to 1. Yes, I do see where you not only deleted Mr. Watts, but Mr. Mocker, as well. I concede that Mockler is less notable (and thus less reliable) than all the other sources, and I sense I will be voted down on his source like (so far) I am on Mr. Watts, but with all due respect, I strongly dissent: He was mentioned in the NY Times, and thus "notable" at least in the sense of an advocate, even if not an expert. (And both 'experts' and 'advocates' were distinguished -and mentioned as having offered recommendations, remember?) In reply: I Affirm in part, Dissent in part, and remand with orders consistent with this tribunal.96.59.153.13 (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Foreign Policy - Passport blog

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

The source in question is this blog post on Foreign Policy's Passport blog:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/03/11/how-the-venezuelan-government-made-the-media-into-its-most-powerful-ally/?wp_login_redirect=0

It has controversial content that has been quoted in articles such as:

  • 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt
  • Media representation of Hugo Chávez

Such content includes the quote:

"Never in the history of Latin America had the media played quite so prominent a role in facilitating the overthrow of a democratically elected government"

... among other quotes.

The reason I question the reliability of this blog post is since Passport is a blog, sometimes for summer interns of Foreign Policy. The author of the blog post, Katelyn Fossett, was also just an intern at Foreign Policy at the time. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources, "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable".--ZiaLater (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: this article and its quotations were already the subject of an RSN and the recommendation was to use attribution, which was done. In terms of the article's reliability, nothing has changed: it's just a rehash of the previous debate. The "blog" in question is here. Frankly, this doesn't look like a blog to me, unless it's considered a newsblog, and the policy for that is WP:NEWSBLOG, not the self-published sources policy.  Mbinebri  talk ← 01:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
According to WP:NEWSBLOG, "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process", with this Passport blog post written by Fossett, an intern, not a professional.--ZiaLater (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Going down the list of Passport entries, all the authors appear to be Foreign Policy staff members, including Fossett, so I see no reason to think their work wouldn't be subject to the magazine's typical fact-checking. Passport simply appears to be one of several "channels" the site uses for organization, and its articles are frequently featured on the site's homepage—again, something the magazine likely wouldn't be doing for unreliable blog entries. If FP was hiring random people to blog for them back in 2009, that doesn't appear to be the case anymore. The site certainly doesn't currently claim Passport is a blog.  Mbinebri  talk ← 03:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Something having been written by an intern could nick its reliability somewhat, but in the case of FP it has enough margin of reputation that I don't think that drops a piece below any relevant threshold. Rhoark (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the points made by Mbinebri. Further, the quote "Never in the history of Latin America had the media played quite so prominent a role...", is linked to Le Monde diplomatique, which is totally WP:RS. There are plenty of other sources which claim that the Venezuelan media played a part in the 2002 coup. I do not see anything problematic here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 03:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I was looking for the other sources that you were stating of since there may be more reliable ones. For now, I guess it will just have to work. I also want to share that Le Monde diplomatique often sympathized with Chávez, much like The Guardian. I wanted that source that would end future controversies because I don't want the work that we performed on such articles to go to waste over bickering in the future. Venezuelan articles are quite controversial. Mbinebri said that they might have a good source, so I'll keep in touch. Thanks everyone.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Americans for Prosperity the Koch's primary political advocacy organization

Latest comment: 9 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Article: Americans for Prosperity, also covers the associated Americans for Prosperity Foundation.

Content:

The Americans for Prosperity Foundation is the Koch brothers’ primary political advocacy group.

Sources:

  1. Vogel, Kenneth P. (May 9, 2014). "Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity plans $125 million spending spree". Politico. Retrieved May 6, 2015. The Koch brothers' main political arm intends to spend more than $125 million this year on an aggressive ground, air and data operation benefiting conservatives, according to a memo distributed to major donors and sources familiar with the group. The projected budget for Americans for Prosperity would be unprecedented for a private political group in a midterm, and would likely rival even the spending of the Republican and Democratic parties' congressional campaign arms.
  2. Goldman, Andrew (July 25, 2010). "The Billionaire's Party: David Koch is New York's second-richest man, a celebrated patron of the arts, and the tea party's wallet". New York magazine. Retrieved March 25, 2015. In 2004, Koch started a group called the Americans for Prosperity Foundation devoted to personal and economic freedom. AFPF is now Koch's primary political-advocacy group. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
  3. Beckel, Michael (September 4, 2014). "The Kochs' Political Ad Machine". Slate. Center for Public Integrity. Retrieved April 20, 2015. In all, Americans for Prosperity, the Koch brothers' flagship political operation, alone has aired more than 27,000 ads in a combined nine battleground states, according to Kantar Media/CMAG.
  4. Kroll, Andy (November 6, 2014). "2014: The Year of Koch". Mother Jones. Retrieved May 9, 2015. The Koch brothers' flagship organization, Americans for Prosperity, had an equally stellar Election Day.

A version of this content was added in March, 2015, collaboratively work-shopped on talk, and was recently deleted with an edit summary of "Return article to neutrality." I plan to take this content to WP:NPOVN for comment, but before doing so, I am currently seeking comments on the reliability of the sources and the reasonableness of the paraphrase across multiple reliable source references. The talk page consensus was that the consensus across multiple RS was strong enough to support WP voice, making in-text attribution unnecessary. Thank you for your time. Hugh (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This is an inappropriate waste of editors' time at this board. There has been no dispute as to RS of these refs at the article talk. This is the Reliable Source noticeboard. Take disputes to the proper noticeboard. Trying to leverage multiple noticeboards or to end run the actual dispute isn't kosher. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
My understanding is that a dispute is not a prerequisite for seeking advice here, this is not dispute resolution. In good faith I am seeking comments on the reliability of the sources and the reasonableness of the paraphrase across multiple reliable source references. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC) I agree I think this will be quick to close. I would appreciate comments. Thank you in advance for your time. Hugh (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
It's also a good idea to post at the talk when you bring an article's issues to noticeboards, as a courtesy if nothing else. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Questions

  1. Is the proposed content a reasonable paraphrase across multiple sources for inclusion in the target article?
  2. Are the proposed sources reliable in the context of the proposed content and the target article?
  3. Are the proposed multiple sources sufficiently reliable to support the proposed content in Wikipedia voice, that is, without in-text attribution?

Thank you in advance for your time. Hugh (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Clearly a case of WP:FORUMSHOP. Not sure (I've lost count), but this is perhaps the 5th or 6th forum which HughD has brought this up on (Edit warring, ANI, Neutrality, article's talk page, project talk pages, etc.). Poster also carefully does not mention that consensus on the talk pages has been reached. Onel5969 TT me 18:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Please provide a link to the talk page consensus on the above proposed content you claim has been reached. Thank you. My understanding is that this noticeboard is a resource available to Wikipedia editors, please you have no need to feel threatened by a fellow editor making better use of it in good faith to improve our encyclopedia. Thank you. Do you have any comments on the reliability of the above sources or the proposed paraphrase? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The only talk page discussion of this content is the work-shopping circa 27 May 2015, linked above. At that time the talk page consensus was for inclusion. The content was stable until you deleted it 23 June in conjunction with your section blanking. Your claim that there is a talk page consensus on the deletion of this content is false, your claim that this content has been brought up before is false, and I do not understand your use of deceit on this notice board to interfere with my ability to access an important resources available to Wikipedia editors. Hugh (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Please can I get some quick opinions on the reliability of these sources and reasonableness of the paraphrase across multiple sources? It looks pretty straightforward to me. Thank you in advance for your time and attention, which I sincerely appreciate. Hugh (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

They look like decent sources, but that's not the dispute, is it? This isn't the appropriate place to ask whether a particular paraphrase is accurate or not, since that doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not the source you're paraphrasing is reliable. --Aquillion (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
(Asking for feedback on the reasonableness of a paraphrase across multiple RS is not uncommon on this noticeboard.) Hugh (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
"They look like decent sources" Thank you! Resolved. Please close and archive. Thanks again for your patience. Hugh (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Jagran Josh

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

An external links search shows www.jagranjosh.com is linked from hundreds of Wikipedia articles. Its slogan is "simplifying test prep", and there are a lot of exam prep ads in addition to a "current events" section, but I can't tell where the news pieces are even coming from. Brianhe (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be related to Dainik Jagran Rhoark (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
This is the commercial arm of Dainik Jagran, the news on it should just be translated versions of that or from Mid Day and direct links to those two should be possible. —SpacemanSpiff 16:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Edward Snowden / Sunday Times

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Edward Snowden#Sunday Times story about whether this source is reliable. You are invited to participate there. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Mondoweiss

Latest comment: 9 years ago29 comments6 people in discussion

To my knowledge recent discussions of what one can do with Mondoweiss are not conclusive. The general uninvolved advice is not to use it for facts, but that it can be used depending on context. Some editors persist on removing it on sight, as if there were an iron clear cut consensus not to use it. The most recent case.

At Battle of Jenin I made this edit in the context of suicide bombers sent from that city against Israelis.

One of them, Mohammed Zaidan, survived due to defective equipment and provided a detailed account of his motivations and the decision to adopt this tactic. (ref Dan Cohen, ‘Interview with a suicide bomber,’ Israel/Palestine ,’ Mondoweiss June 25, 2015

It was automatically reverted by User:Averysoda, who is maka mechanical habit about this, regardless of context. He removed a perfectly innocuous use of the same journalist at Timeline of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict

I restored it, because I can see no clear RSN absolute ban on any mention of Mondoweiss.

this was in turn automatically reverted User:No More Mr Nice Guy

I'd appreciate independent review, at least of this last example.Nishidani (talk) 07:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Mondoweiss is a group blog. It has no reputation for fact checking. It does, on the other hand, have a self-proclaimed political agenda. Why would it be appropriate for the encyclopedia? How does it even come close to qualifying as a WP:RS? Not to mention Nishidani pretty much admits he only wants it there so people will read the interview, not because it adds relevant facts to the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Your view is known. Let's listen to external advice.Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Just presenting the other side of the issue, since I've been accused of something here. I hope that's ok with you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The word "blog" has long since ceased to be probative when it comes to identifying reliable sources. Mondoweiss has the structure and functions expected of a journalistic source. It's editors were and continue to be recognized as journalists. It's strongly biased and has low circulation, so should be used cautiously and with attribution, but I see no reason the above use should be disallowed. In fact, it would be allowable and I think recommendable for the article to say not just that Zaidan described his motivations, but to say a bit about what the motivations were. That would be of intense historical/encyclopedic interest.
In fact, stepping beyond just the question at hand, the article seems entirely lacking in perspectives of the camp residents. There are some potential starting points at Al Jazeera [43] [44] [45] Rhoark (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind to use Al Jazeera to describe the murderers' perspective... but Mondoweiss? Then why can't we use similar pro-Israeli sites like StandWithUs and NGO Monitor? Oh, I forgot Zero0000 or MShabazz will remove it immediately, like many times before. I'm against POV-pushing propaganda by unreliable extremely partisan sources. They only should be used for attributed opinions about those organizations themselves (for example, "according to pro-Palestinian Mondoweiss, Israel is very bad..."), as long as they have their counterparts in the same article to balance NPOV, which is the case of Rachel Corrie.--Averysoda (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

POV-pushing propaganda by unreliable extremely partisan sources.

'Mondoweiss, a news website devoted to covering American foreign policy in the Middle East, chiefly from a progressive Jewish perspective.' Amy E. Robillard,Ron Fortune (eds.), Authorship Contested: Cultural Challenges to the Authentic, Autonomous Author, Routledge, 2015 p.42
It has 25,000 hits per diem, 250,000 during the Gaza War. Your description of the journal is unrecognizable, and its articles are widely cited in RS. It is, finally, in no one's pocket, (unlike many mainstream newspapers whose credentials we accept, though they are often distinctly 'partisan'. I do not know of any newspaper which isn't regarded as have a partisan slant in this area.) It is financed by the public that reads it, and run by reputable journalists.
Your intolerance of it is well know from numerous reverts. As I said, we need outside, neutral judgements, of editors who read the specific reportage by Dan Cohen, and tell us why this kind of reportage is useful, or not usable, for encyclopedic ends.Nishidani (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Pretty funny since that source (about English lit, that only mentions Mondoweiss in passing) copied the text word for word from the Mondoweiss Wikipedia article. Where did you get the idea that it's funded by the public the reads it? That's a false assertion easily refuted by a quick google search. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
NGO Monitor is potentially usable for claims that are not contentious BLP claims. If there's a specific usage you'd like to propose, then start discussion in a different section. Rhoark (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Could you kindly disclose your previous accounts so we know who we're talking to? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
This is the only account I have ever had. Don't start none, won't be none. Rhoark (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rhoark: - you stipulate that "The word "blog" has long since ceased to be probative when it comes to identifying reliable sources.", but that does not seem to accurately reflect current Wikipeida POLICY, which states " blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable...."Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs". Your assertion does not seem to be policy based. I might have some sympathy for the argument, were it not for the glaring double standard used by the OP, who routinely removes sources he disapproves of on the ground that they are "not neutral", "crap sources" etc.. - even when they are by recognized (albeit biased) news sources like Artuz 7, and even when the writers are currently active journalists. For example :

This is nothing more than an attempt to game the system. Brad Dyer (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Go on one sentence further, "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." The question of blog / not a blog is not a useful dichotomy. What matters is user-generated content vs. editorially controlled content. As for other stuff, open its own section if it needs it. Rhoark (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand what is meant by "news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs". It refers to a situation like this - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs - the news outlet is the Washington Post, a reliable source with a print newspaper and a reputable web site, that has a section called blogs, written by its regular journalists, and subject to the same editorial control. Or a similar situation here: http://www.theguardian.com/tone/blog . There is no equivalent "news outlet' which exercises reliable editorial control and has a reputation for fact checking in the case of Mondoweiss, it is just a group blog. I understand you think that the question of blog / not a blog is not a useful dichotomy, but our POLICY clearly says otherwise. So unless you have a POLICY based argument, I am not particularly interested in your personal opinion about blogs.
As for the other stuff, when I see an editor applying double standards and trying to game the system, I am not inclined to give him a free hand to remove questionable sources he doesn't like while indulging him on others. That is poor practice for the encyclopedia. Brad Dyer (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Mondoweiss comes up regularly here, and no clear decision is forth coming. I asked for external independent advice on the quality of one article. And I asked advice from editors who have no horse in the I/P race. Let's exercise some patience, and listen.Nishidani (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Could you explain why it was appropriate for you to remove an article by an actual working journalist like Khaled Abu Toameh on the grounds that he is 'a polemicist'; or multiple articles from Arutz Sheva/Israel National news, an actual news outlet with editorial control and a radio station, on the grounds that it is 'crap', but it is not appropriate to remove Mondoweiss on similar grounds? Brad Dyer (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
If you want to talk about a different source for different claims, do it in a different section. Rhoark (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't think it is appropriate in this case, for the reason I have called out above. Brad Dyer (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:IRS is a content guideline that expands on the policy of WP:Verifiability. It gives blogs as a specific example of self-published media, but this does not imply anything called a blog is self-published. Rhoark (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:V is POLICY, and it says exactly the same thing: ' self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. '. It is quite obvious that Mondoweiss is self published, per the explanations I gave you above, as to how blogs in general are distinguished from 'news blogs'. To be crystal clear: Mondoweiss is NOT a 'News Blog' as that term is used in Wikipedia policy. That term refers, exclusively, to "newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs" - reread the POLICY if you have to.Brad Dyer (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
You have latched on to a convenient turn of phrase and ignored the spirit of the policy. Rhoark (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The specific quote says 'are largely not acceptable as sources.' That 'largely' undercuts any reflex action by editors, as several are now doing, to cut reference to a group news site like Mondoweiss as banned by policy. RS/N serves to clarify the grey area allowed by that largely. In prior recent RS/N discussions, the few independent editors around on this area have generally stated it can be cited, not for facts, but according to context. The article in question here is the version one participant in an historical event gave. We are inquiring whether such interviews are acceptable.Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Could you explain why it was appropriate for you to remove an article by an actual working journalist like Khaled Abu Toameh on the grounds that he is 'a polemicist'; or multiple articles from Arutz Sheva/Israel National news, an actual news outlet with editorial control and a radio station, on the grounds that it is 'crap', but it is not appropriate to remove Mondoweiss on similar grounds? Brad Dyer (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Arutz Sheva and Mondoweiss are two different worlds. The former, a settler organ that never obtained a government licence, defends the consistent violation of international law, the latter's major and accredited journalists insist that international law obtain in an occupied country. Please don't continue this game. Examine the heading. Mondoweiss. Don't bury the request for external input by distractive sprawl. Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

-- Note: The following 3 comments are replying to a comment user:Nishidani moved past them after his comment was replied to. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

- David Bernstein of the "Washington post" wrote:“Mondoweiss” is a hate site (UPDATED)...among other things, Weiss suggested (a) that Jews are more inclined to cheat than are non-Jews, and indeed Jews don’t even recognize it as cheating; (b) that the American non-Jewish establishment made some sort of deal with the Jews back in the 70s, in which Jews provided their economic prowess to the U.S. in exchange for support for the Israel lobby (indeed, that one is so ridiculous that my fingers rebelled at typing it); (c) Jewish media company CEOs force their Gentile employees to express support for Israel and (d) that Jews need to “understand our role” in causing the Holocaust because of the “power” we had. Weiss now elaborates that he’s talking about Jewish economic power, as if the German Jew who started as a peddler and built his business into a chain of department stores wasn’t simply an individual Jewish businessman who found success, but instead part of a cabal of Jews using their “power” to undermine the Gentiles, who retaliated via the Holocaust."
- If this site is described as progressive, than the Tzarist oppressive regime in Russia (who fabricated "the elders of Zion') was a progressive regime too. Ykantor (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Read carefully what Nishidani says above: reliable sources with editorial control reported one thing. This site I like that is a group blog and doesn't even pretend to fact check reported something different. It's important to link to this blog because it contradicts mainstream reporting and I like what it says.
This somehow is supposed to be a basis for writing encyclopedia articles. A group blog by activists that doesn't even claim to fact check must be included. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Including Modoweiss "for readers who want to hear the family's version" is a ridicules excuse especially for Nishidani who fights so dearly against Arutz 7 which reports small incidents of violence by Palestinians. Don't the Israeli families want it to be known? double standards at their best.

One further example. At List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2015 after reading several, mainly Israeli reports, I duly entered the following notice.

29 June A Palestinian woman, Misoun Mussa (20).[353] from Beit Sahour, stabbed and wounded a 20 year old female IDF soldier in the neck during a security check at the Rachel's crossing checkpoint between Jerusalem and Bethlehem. The assailant was arrested, and reportedly confessed that she had approached the checkpoint with the intention of killing a soldier.[354][355][356]

I now read in Mondoweiss that her family is skeptical, and claim that the knife pictured in the Israeli media of the knife she is reported to have used, was actually one taken after the stabbing, from the family during an Israeli raid on the home. It may be sheer prevarication. But that is not the point. To date, reading the reports, it seems highly improbable that Israel just picked her out and blamed her for the stabbing. Nonetheless, Mondoweiss has field reporters who cover the background, and that is why I think it citable, for background. I think this article, Emily Mulder, Palestinian family says alleged attacker being held on false evidence Israel/Palestine Mondoweiss July 1, 2015 should be linked, for readers who want to hear the family's version. This is not a matter of facts from Mondoweiss, but complete coverage giving the family's (present) account. Advice, please.Nishidani (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Please note in any case that only Mondoweiss says the girl came from Ash-Shawawra, not, as the mainstream media reported, from Beit Sahour. Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Twitter

Latest comment: 9 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Recently I deleted a good amount of information from Tyus Jones and Jahlil Okafor, claiming that Twitter was an unreliable source. User:TonyTheTiger reverted me and said it can be used in certain situations. Who is correct? Most of the information sourced to Twitter on both articles was rather fluffy anyway. I would revert but I don't want to start a revert war. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

EDDY, please supply WP:DIFFs or put the content inside block quotes. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
This is TonyTheTiger undoing my edit. It does not appear to be one of the rare exceptions, and most of the addition is rather irrelevant to the article. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 23:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks EDDY. So, in short you removed a lot of material sourced to ESPN, NBC Sports, Star Tribune, Dallas Morning News and Twitter with a short "twitter is unreliable" comment, ref. diff. Why not try to discuss it on the talk page? You may even find out that somebody agree with you. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Was that sarcasm? I suppose I could have been clearer in my edit summary. I was also trimming some fat as well, since TonyTheTiger, while a good editor, tends to add too much content at basketball articles. I was being WP:BOLD and I am discussing it here because he reverted me. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 13:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Nope. You need consensus to remove sourced material from articles, and when that cannot be reached through editing, the process becomes more explicit. You simply open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. See WP:CONACHIEVE. See also WP:BURDEN, but don't read only the bold text. The note contains an important clarification. "Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia". Erlbaeko (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Generally not reliable, but it can be used in some rare situations as a source of information about themselves or their activities. See also WP:TWITTER and WP:SELFSOURCE. Imo, it can also be used as source #2, if source #1 is a WP:RS, and that source include a reference to the specific tweet. For example if the time the tweet was posted is important or to include a direct quotation. See WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • My point is that twitterings of common people is not reliable, but twitterings of subject matter experts on topics involving their expertise are no different than their blog statements in terms of their reliability. Similarly, twitterings by the biographical subject are most certainly reliable on the subject of his own life and the viability of such statements is governed by whether the statement is a subjective or objective statement. When a biographical statement makes an objective statement about himself or his life via twitter it is reliable. When a person says something like "I am considering attending schools A, B, C and D" via twitter this is an objective statement. Please do not remove these statments based on their reliability if the facts are encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I am receptive to editorial activity that is based on the encyclopedic nature of content. However, going through an article and removing all tweets is not constructive. My point is that the editorial contributions need to be based on the encyclopedic nature of the comments and whether teach source is reliable for the fact that it supports. Whether an expert on a subject publishes via Twitter or Time magazine the reliability is not affected much.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
    • you could argue that Twitter is inherently unencyclopedic. Also, another editor made many of the same changes to Jahlil Okafor since the article was too long. To me, it does matter whether something is written on Twitter vs Time magazine since Time is a secondary source, while Twitter is primary. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 22:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Times of Israel

Latest comment: 9 years ago45 comments9 people in discussion

Is it ok to use this source for part of a caption on the Carlos Latuff page saying "The Belgian Education Ministry website offered this cartoon in an exercise for trainee teachers"? Here's the same story in the Forward, and here at JTA. The rest of the caption would be the Belgian site's explanation of what happened from their POV from here.

Apparently some editors feel that "Jewish magazine and Israeli newspapers" are not reliable sources under any circumstances. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It depends what for.
Times of Israel is an Israeli site of information with a clear editorial line. It is certainly reliable for the meteo or when reporting some scandals in Israel ; and it is certainly not for events about the colonisation, the Arab-Israeli relations, ... and for events about what happens in other countries...
Pluto2012 (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The Times of Israel seems to meet all the expectations of a reliable source. Bias is not an indicator of reliability. What the Times of Israel says, along with opposing views in other reliable sources, are part of the range of views that must be proportionately represented under WP:NPOV. The blog section, unlike some other news blogs, is apparently unfiltered user-generated content. Rhoark (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree. Bias is an indicator of reliability for a fact.
I also think you mix things. WP:NPOV means that we gather all the relevant points of views. This has nothing to deal with reliability. A point of view is an analysis. We cannot say if a analysis is 'true' or 'false' or 'reliable'. An analysis is a point of view on facts. The question to see if the points of view that can be found in 'Times of Israel' are relevant depends on who makes them. The author must have some notoriaty and expertise in their field and here, indeed, their potential bias is unrelevant to decide to report them or not.
Pluto2012 (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
To put it bluntly: I am now deeply sceptical when Israeli media reports about anti-semitism in Europe. Back in 2009, Jerusalem Post reported that the then Norwegian Finance Minister had shouted "Death to the Jews" in a demonstration. This was of course a plain lie, which the JP had to retract. (here, in Norwegian.) They then published an article called Norway Jews still tell of tolerance. Ok, they interviewed Imre Hercz and Michael Melchior (well-known spokespersons for the Jews of Norway), who mostly said nice things about Norway. But they also gave much space to mr Uriely, an Israeli living in Norway since 1992, and to a Jew in at the armed forces of Norway called David Weiss. It turned out that mr Uriely has been expelled from the "Det mosaiske trossamfunn" ("The Jewish Society of Norway"), Michael Melchior has called him a Kahane-follower. And there is no person named David Weiss in the Norwegian armed forces, in fact he was David Weiss (fictional person). So a "main-stream" Israeli newspaper use Kahane-followers and fictional persons as their sources, which is rather frightening, actually. And then you have people like Manfred Gerstenfeld who has written a whole book about "Anti-Semitism in Norway", but has actually admitted that he does´t give a damn about the Jews of Norway, he just use "anti-Semitism in Norway" as a political tool, to "beat" politicians of Norway which he disagree with.
And that is what it boils down to: each time a politician in country A, B or C criticise Israel, someone from Israel will find huge anti-semitism in countries A, B, or C. Even if they will have to invent people, or use Kahane-followers. Huldra (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
So basically you're saying that the paper may have erred a couple of times and therefore is not a reliable source? Using this standard no newspaper should be used (not that that's a bad idea, but that's not how the way this place works). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
This is more than "erred a couple of times". To write/believe that a Scandinavian government minister shouted "Death to the Jews" in the streets just shows that they are 100% clueless about what they write about, Huldra (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Not quite. People were shouting "death to the Jews" near her, but she didn't think she should do anything about it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Simply not true. (And you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel, citing tundratabloids.com: the same site which publish the Fjordman blogs...the big hero of this piece of shit). This was not shouted within her hearing, also; by all accounts: it was shouted in Arabic, which, AFAIK, she does not understand. Huldra (talk) 02:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I see. So someone was shouting "death to the Jews" (not that there's antisemitism in Norway), but maybe she didn't hear or understand it. So the JP miss-attributed the antisemitism rather than invent it whole cloth as you were implying. And for this you think it should not be considered RS, or were you just reminiscing about something that happened 6 years ago? You also forgot to mention that that David Weiss guy also fooled a Norwegan newspaper. You were implying the JP made him up, but that's untrue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Huh? Moving the goal-post much? Off course there is anti-semitism in Scandinavia, (as there is just about in every other part of the world, sorry to say.) That does not invalidate my first point: that anyone shouting "Kill the Jews" in Scandinavia has a future in public service lasting about 0,0 seconds. And if you think anything else, then you are 100% clueless about Scandinavian politics.
And that link you posted about the "David Weiss"-guy does not support your statement. The "David Weiss"-guy was "in real life" a "noob", who fooled several newspapers. Luckily for him, Scandinavian newspapers are very far from UK newspapers: they rarely publish the "RL"-names of jokers, like him.
In short: David Weiss made David Weiss up, no-one else. Several newspapers fell for it..and apologised afterwards. The JP did not. Huldra (talk) 07:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
So two inaccuracies 6 years ago are enough to disqualify a source? I'll keep that in mind. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Being 100% clueless in your world translates to "an inaccuracy": I'll keep that in mind. Huldra (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Times of Israel works with antisemitism and the I-P conflict as British gutter papers about the Royal familly. We have the example with the Norwegian case and we have another example here with the Flemish one. The traumatism at which the Israeli population is subject, living under continuous terrorist threath (or even worse with Iran) perfectly explains why the behave that way. That's was the same with Serbian during Balkan wars. Nothing new with this. ToI is wp:rs for meteo and some local events in Israel but nothing else. Only big mainstream Israeli newspapers can be considered wp:rs. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Times of Israel is a big mainstream Israeli newspaper and please keep your psychobabble to yourself. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I just want to remind people that this is a forum for getting outside opinion on the subject. If you just want to argue interminably, you can use the talk page. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

From what I can see, the JTA and the Forward are simply quoting a Belgian journal "Joods Actueel". They are reliable for the fact that Joods Actueel actually said it. I have no idea of the reliability of this outlet itself. Pluto seems to have given another Belgian source which has a somewhat more nuanced picture of the event. Perhaps that should be used. Kingsindian ♝♚ 01:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Joods Actueel" [46] is not a Belgian journal. It is a propaganda website...
  • Time of Israel was created and is founded by Seth Klarman who is also the founder (and donator) of the Israel Project, a pro-Israel media advocacy group.
Pluto2012 (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Joods Actueel has a Wikipedia page. It's a monthly magazine.
  • Oh no, someone pro-Israel founded Times of Israel? How horrible. We must never use it for anything.
  • None of this is surprising coming from someone who thinks "Jewish magazine and Israeli newspapers" are inherently not RS [47]. The only surprising thing could have been that Wikipedia tolerates this kind of crap. But even that isn't surprising anymore, unfortunately.
No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • One of the links in the Wikipedia page actually states that it is a "Jewish group". Though it comes from the Daily Mail. I would not trust the Daily Mail on getting anything right. Not sure exactly what that means. Is it a group like the Anti Defamation League in the US? Or is it a journalistic outlet?
  • As to the founder of the newspaper ToI, that is neither here nor there. We can agree that Joods Actueel actually said this, but can disagree on whether what they said is accurate or complete.
  • I think the main point here is to clarify exactly what happened. The other source which Pluto linked is L'Avenir_(Belgian_newspaper), which is a major newspaper. Why use this unknown source when better ones are available, which give a somewhat different picture of events? Kingsindian ♝♚ 05:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
First of all the idea that Jewish or Israel press, by virtue of being Jewish or Israeli are not RS is obscene and I'm disappointed you have nothing to say about those statements by Pluto. Other than that all I have to say is that per NPOV we're supposed to show what reliable sources say about things, and that includes when they say stuff we don't like. Here's the same story from JP. Is that major enough? Not too Jewish I hope? This place has really gone down the drain. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I don´t agree with Pluto here; I generally think that main-stream Israeli newspapers are WP:RS for Israeli news (to the extent that *any* newspaper is WP:RS), I just don´t think they are WP:RS when it comes to anti-Semitism in Europe: they (sometimes? all the the time?) massively overplays it. And you don´t have to listen to me, here, listen instead to, say, the Jews of Norway: "Norwegian Jews speak up against accusations that anti-Semitic views have massively increased in Norway, and people like Imre Hercz say he has been quoted on the opposite of what he said to Israeli media. Or Manfred Gerstenfeld, who has really enraged the Norwegian Jews with his book Anti-Semitism in Norway: Behind the Humanitarian Mask. They did not agree with the conclusions of the book, and when the then leader of the "Jewish Society of Norway" met him before the publication of that book, she asked him, if he had thought about the consequences for them in publishing the book? His reply was "crystal clear": «I couldnt care less about the Jewish Community in Norway, all I care about is to get your Jens, Jonas and Kristin off the back of my Prime Minister». Get used to it: accusations about anti-Semitism in Europe, coming from Israel, are sometimes just part of a political game. Huldra (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Which Wikipedia policy are you using when you say " I just don´t think [Israeli Newspapers] are WP:RS when it comes to anti-Semitism in Europe"? If I point you to criticism of, say, Scandinavian media, from critics who claim they 'overplay' the mistreatment of Palestinians by Israel, or that their reportage on topics like organ harvesting in Israel was shown to be not only ridiculously wrong, but criticized antisemitic buy other Scandinavian media, would we stop using them as reliable source on Israel? Brad Dyer (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I´m not sure I understand you here, but to make this clear: I think European Jews are the "experts" on European anti-Semitism, not Israelis. Huldra (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
You don't understand the question 'Which Wikipedia policy are you using when you say " I just don´t think [Israeli Newspapers] are WP:RS when it comes to anti-Semitism in Europe"? what part don;t you understand? [{WP:RS]] defines what a reliable source is. This is a forum to discuss sources' suitability, according to that policy. You say Israeli newspapers or not RS on antisemitism, I want to see the policy that supports it. Brad Dyer (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
No, the question is: who is most WP:RS for anti-semitism in Europe: Jews in Europe, or Israelis? I would say Jews in Europe, anytime. Huldra (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
First of all, the original source for the topic of this discussion is "Jews in Europe", so supposedly that's ok? And second, the main question of the section is: are "Jewish magazine and Israeli newspapers" prima facie not reliable sources? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Sigh, to repeat myself; in general I regard mainstream Israeli newspaper as WP:RS on Israeli news (though *any* newspaper is far less WP:RS than any academic study, IMO), but on antisemitism in Europe: nope. Sorry, but nobody (except Kahane-followers) recognise that horror-picture that Israeli newspapers regularly paints about anti-semitism in Europe. Huldra (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
My view is that this is not a WP:RSN issue at all, but simply a developing story. The JPost article simply describes that some Jewish groups are stating so and so, and the Belgian education ministry stating that they dispute all the allegations made there. This exactly matches what the L'Avenir article states, which was the point from the beginning. Why not use that, instead of the other sources which do not mention the latter part at all? The JPost also states that the Belgian education ministry will reply in detail soon. Perhaps it is better to wait a bit. There are no deadlines on wikipedia. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

To address the question posed: The Times of Israel is an on-line news outlet, founded, run and edited by professional journalists, who have previously worked in mainstream newspapers like Haaretz, The Jerusalem Post, the Wall Street Journal. It has clear editorial oversight. It is cited by other mainstream, reliable source like The Guardian ([48]), International Business Times ([49]) or the Washington Post [50]. I don't see any problem using it to report on a story that was also reported by sources like the Forward or the JTA.

The reason to prefer The Jerusalem Post or The Times of Israel articles over L'Avenir is that the former are in English, and the latter is in French, and this is the English Wikipedia . WP:V, which is policy , says 'because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available.' Incidentally, re: your comment of 'Perhaps it is better to wait a bit' - perhaps you did not actually read the sources we are discussing - this is an event from 2 years ago...

The notion that Israeli or Jewish sources are not reliable, per se, on topics of antisemitism or others, is offensive. Editors who hold that position (a) do not understand Wikipedia policy with regards to reliable sources and (b) probably lack the required NPOV editing skills to be editing articles about antisemitism.

The idea that a question about the reliability of Israeli or Jewish sources, in general, or a specific Israeli source on a specific story 'is not a WP:RSN issue at all' is strange, to say the least. Brad Dyer (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Times of Israel is not owned by a pro-Israeli citizen. It is owned by a man who pays groups like ADL to make Israel's advocacy. That's different. And how many times did we trap Times of Israel or other Jewish magazines to openly lie in order to push forward the agenda that the world is against Israel. Not enough only for those who supports this policy... The current story is just another example given the cartoon was not proposed to teachers on a website ruled by the Flemish Government. The cartoon was posted on a free access website by an anonymous contributor and removed as soon as the administrators were informed. It is like all the insults and vandalisms on wikipedia were reported on the article dealing with them. That's just "puerile".
Regarding the systemic dismiss of Israeli sources regarding antisemitism and the I-P conflict, that's obvious and totally logical. If their PoV or analysis is important, relevant and welcome, the way they report facts cannot be trusted as the ways Palestinian or Arab media report facts. They are part of the conflict and are under pressure.
Regarding L'Avenir : this is a French-speaking newspaper reporting events regarding the Flemish government in a country with linguistic tensions. They have direct access to the information and didn't report what other reported. There is no conflict of interest (and they could even have been suspected of being against the Flemish governement given the French/Flemish tensions). Given here, they just report the story as anecdotical. How to make a storm in a glass of water. :) Pluto2012 (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Pluto2012 (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
let me be as blunt as Huldra earlier: Someone who says that 'the systemic dismiss of Israeli sources regarding antisemitism and the I-P conflict, that's obvious and totally logical' is not competent to edit this encyclopedia. Brad Dyer (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Huh?? Those were not my words. Huldra (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Some information to add to this debate: when Seth Klarman was approached to become the major financial backer and chairman of ToI, he explains his motivations as follows: "My own interest in Israel has become even stronger post-9/11, when the threat of terrorism and the danger of radical Islam collided with a global campaign on many fronts to delegitimize the Jewish State. As a long-time student of the history of anti-Semitism, I know that this blind hatred is never the fault of Jews; moreover, it is clear to me that anti-Zionism is simply the newest form of anti-Semitism. When the Jewish State is singled out above all others for criticism, such as it is at the United Nations, this is anti-Semitism."[51]
There are two deeply biased and frankly ridiculous statements in here: "anti-Zionism is simply the newest form of anti-Semitism" and "the Jewish State is singled out above all others for criticism, such as it is at the United Nations"
The key point from the link is Klauman states clearly in his letter that his motivation in providing the financial backing for the publication is pro-Israel advocacy.
Oncenawhile (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
"deeply biased and frankly ridiculous statements" @Oncenawhile: ?
Klauman simply said this sad thing before such men as Manuel Valls (FRENCH PRIME MINISTER DENOUNCES ANTI-ZIONISM AS ANTI-SEMITISM) & David Cameron (David Cameron on Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism). ):) --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
++ Robert Wistrich: "Anti-zionism as an Expression of Anti-Semitism in Recent Years" (1984) --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
This is not for discussion here. The appropriate places are the talk pages behind Anti-Zionism#Anti-Zionism_and_antisemitism and Criticism_of_the_Israeli_government#Objections_to_characterizing_criticism_of_Israel_as_anti-Semitism.
The reality here is that Anti-Zionism is defined differently by different people. All sensible people will agree that extremist forms or interpretations of anti-Zionism are also anti-Semitic. But to crudely state that Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism is an absurdity, and Valls should be embarrassed. Cameron, by the way, did not make the same statement, as much as you might wish to think he implied it. Others who have more direct political motives to make such comparisons are simply creating a straw man definition of "Anti Zionism" in order to delegitimize it.
Oncenawhile (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I only have showed that Klauman wasn't the 1st and not a last, and it's you who just started this issue :)
In fact: I've been just surprised by (real?) beliefs and arguments of those who are trying by all means to exclude from Wiki a (pro) Israeli media under the slogan "they are always deceived". I even am not talking about those who (really?) consider that settlers is a dirty word, more terrible then terrorists, and therefore - information about anti-Israeli terror activity from A7 should be excluded (sic) off Wiki, only because of it reflects POV of this numerous group of Jewish people. If this is not censorship, what is it?
If one has specific examples & claims to specific source, let's discuss them rather than POV of their owners / managers. The same applies to a (pro) the Arab media. That's all. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@Igorp lj: According to the sources that you gave yourself, Manuel Valls said that "Anti-semitism [...] hides itself behind a fake anti-Zionism", David Cameron said "I have a very clear view, which is that if you disagree with the policies of Israel, fine [....] anti-Zionism is a legitimate form of political discourse." and Robert Wistrich's article is about 1 type of Anti-Zionism ("Anti-Zionism of the type I have tried to describe is a poisonous flower"), so none of the 3 equate anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Please stop lying. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@Oncenawhile: "and Valls should be embarrassed" →‎ No he should not. Please do not trust what Igorp lj wrote about Manuel Valls. FYI the official account of the speech: "un antisémitisme (...) qui cache sa "haine du Juif" derrière un antisionisme de façade et derrière la haine de l’Etat d’Israël". Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@Visite fortuitement prolongée: It's just funny (or sad?), when someone, at a first wiki-contact, is accusing his opponent of lying (what about wp:AGF violations? :) w/out any reason o r
I'd advise you to have a look in a mirror with such accusations :)
If "Anti-semitism [...] hides itself behind a fake anti-Zionism" isn't enough for you, here's a full Manuel Vall's (signed by me):

Manuel Valls made a resoundingly firm connection between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism that other world leaders—and many Jews—are afraid to make. As is his style, he went straight to the point: “Anti-semitism, this old European disease,” he said in a speech, has taken “a new form. It spreads on the Internet, in our popular neighborhoods, with a youth that has lost its points of reference, has no conscience of history, and who hides itself behind a fake anti-Zionism.” [...] Friends of France who have been nauseated by the growing wave of violence against Jews, and appalled by the even more common mainstreaming of anti-Zionism as the socially and intellectually acceptable mask for the crude anti-Semitism of the streets, can take heart from Valls’ words.

Again, full Cameron's quote, w/out your censorship :)

Cameron: As well as the new threat of extremist Islamism, there has been an insidious, creeping attempt to delegitimize the state of Israel, which spills over often into anti-Semitism. We have to be very clear about the fact that there is a dangerous line that people keep crossing over. This is a state, a democracy that is recognized by the United Nations, and I don’t think we should be tolerant of this effort at delegitimization. The people who are trying to make the line fuzzy are the delegitimizers. And I have a very clear view, which is that if you disagree with the policies of Israel, fine, say so, but that is never a reason to take that out on Jewish communities. We have to be very clear about threats—this is a dangerous line that people keep crossing over, that says that anti-Zionism is a legitimate form of political discourse.

As for your claim to Robert Wistrich's article (repeating its title: "Anti-zionism as an Expression of Anti-Semitism in Recent Years"). It looks like that you do not read it at all. :) Here is only one what you've omitted from it:

... it appears to me that there is a basic continuity between classical anti-Semitism and contemporary anti-Zionism which can and should guide us in our search. Both ideologies seek in practice to deprive the Jew of his right to an equal place in the world; to limit his activity and freedom of movement; his human civic and political rights, and even his very right to exist – at least in the more radical formulation. Both anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism imply that the Jews have no claim to be a free independent people like other peoples, to define themselves according to universally acceptable criteria of self-determination, to enjoy the fruits of individual or collective emancipation. Thus both ideologies are built on the negation of Jewish rights and seek to drive the Jews back into a ghetto – whether it is physical or symbolic. The Je4ws must be confined to the status of a pariah nation...

--Igorp_lj (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, you seem so convinced and you have so overwhelming evidences that I can not arg against your claim. I can only suggest you to go at Manuel Valls, David Cameron and Robert Wistrich and tell them that they said "anti-Zionism = anti-semitism". I disclaim any thing that could happen to you during the meetings. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


Note: (not only for this discussion)
That's the pity but I see a constant trend of double standards in e-wiki when almost same editors are ready and do try to exclude the most of (pro) Israeli / Jewish sources as being not RS. But their behavior is just opposite when anyone makes the same claims to (pro) Arab / Palestinian sources. A lot of such examples may be found in RSN archives. --Igorp_lj (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for messing up the date: this is indeed from two years ago. I am not sure if the newspapers actually did a follow up to the Belgian government reaction. I cannot find anything. I think the JPost source is fine for use, because it says essentially what the L'Avenir source says, which everyone agrees is WP:RS. Also the information contained in the JPost source is a superset of the other sources. If we simply use that, this whole question about WP:RS can end. Other matters such as weight and NPOV can be discussed on the article talk page. Kingsindian ♝♚ 02:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

DIY/underground sources to establish notability of a punk band

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Please join this discussion (linked below) to help decide if any of the proposed sources are suitable to establish the notability of the Inner Terrestrials in the DIY/underground music scene.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

  • You've gone ahead and accepted the article without even receiving a single second opinion. Of the article's few references, one is facebook, the rest being unreliable, including a forum and a very local news outlet (circulation is 40k); they also most definitely do not constitute extensive coverage. Of the WP:MUSIC criterion you cite, you conveniently excluded "note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards". Also note you've posted the discussion today, and consequently accepted the article without receiving any feedback after a mere 3 hours. The article submission was previously rejected at AfC, after which it was left to rot by its original submitter. The article includes the following statement: Completely anti-establishment, they prefer to deal only with underground and DIY distributors (distros) and collectives, and as such became "legendary". I leave this information for other editors' consideration. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Right: I didn't receive a single second opinion, but Wikipedia is not paper, so it can be deleted any time if I was wrong. While I did interpret that RSN is active enough to get an idea of interest from the regulars quickly, I did post several days ago at the WikiProject. Now it is main article space we might get a more healthy discussion.
  • However, the main reason for my rush is that I found enough mainstream local newspaper mentioned from different parts of the country (Wales, Yorkshire, Belfast) covering them to back up the significant coverage in underground zines, and the actuality filmed and posted by Christopher Lee's management. Now I fancy its chances of surviving an AfD.
  • You quoted WP:BAND #7 above. However, the criterion I cited is further down WP:MUSIC: "For composers and performers outside mass media traditions ... Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture". However, I think it does meet ordinary standards, as long as ordinary standards includes underground anarchist/punk zines like Last Hours that I haven't heard of. (I am not part of that scene.)
  • I guess the open question here, or for a possible AfD, is whether indeed those underground zines work as RS to (help) establish notability.
  • Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a chosen reference that you think is an RS? I looked at the references but they did not look like RS to me. Spumuq (talq) 13:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Great question Spumuq. I thought this thread was finished and I only noticed your question by accident. To try to keep the conversation in one place, I responded at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Punk_music#Help_me_research_Inner_Terrestrials. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Is what-when-how.com ever a reliable source?

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The website http://what-when-how.com/ is a kind of encyclopedia website, that reproduces material from other encyclopedias (apparently with permission from the publishers). I found its material to indeed be copied, without attribution, from various sources such as the Encyclopedia of Space Science and Technology and Women and War. I still have to find the first of their articles that lists an author or includes references. Since some of the material is supposedly written by "technical writers" for this specific website (I haven't found any credentials), but articles are not labeled as such, I tend not to put too much trust in this site.

Is this website ever a reliable source? It's currently cited in several dozen articles; I've already replaced a few references where I could dig up the original source of the information. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Although reliability is contextual, I would tend to say this is never reliable. It doesn't look like they're particularly careful about saying where their text comes from, and when we can confirm it comes from a reliable source, why not use that source instead? The mangled English on the copyright page and the general machine-generated look and feel of the page make me suspect that it's a content farm of some sort. --Aquillion (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree... Unless they list who their authors/editors are, I don't think we can call it a reliable source for general use (yes there might be some very limited situations where it could be used... there is no such thing as a 100% unreliable source... but they would be rare). If they copy from some other source - just use that other source. Blueboar (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Some professionally edited encyclopedia's are usable, especially when the original source material can't be found. But this looks to be a personal website and likely copyright issue. I would support a complete purge. CorporateM (Talk) 01:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

American Free Press

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

1. Source. American Free Press, specifically http://americanfreepress.net/?p=24918
2. Article. Michael Collins Piper
3. Content. Michael Collins Piper (July 16, 1960 – May 30, 2015)...

According to various fringe source, Michael Collins Piper, died on or about May 30, 2015. There are no mainstream news sources that have reported on this. Is American Free Press, a far-right paper for which Piper wrote, a reliable source for his date of death? Related discussion a few weeks ago at WP:BLPN. - Location (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a date of death as being the kind of POV issue or extraordinary claim that would require a stronger source. A google search reveals lots of weaker sources that also agree with it. Just saying "May 2015" without an exact date will reduce the chances that we have it wrong. CorporateM (Talk) 01:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorting out sources for Buddy Murphy's training

Latest comment: 9 years ago23 comments4 people in discussion
Matter is now closed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Over on the BLP Noticeboard I am having to field insistence that two sources proving WWE developmental wrestler Buddy Murphy trained with either the PCW Academy or with Carlo Cannon should be accepted, when they are promotional for the wrestling promotions to attract new wrestlers. The PCW Academy claims;

  • WWE Diva Emma (Tenille Dashwood), WWE Superstar Buddy Murphy (Matt Silva) and AAA's Australian Suicide (Ryan Rollins) first began their wrestling careers at the PCW Academy

Note that only one real name is used in brackets - Emma's. It also claims above this;

  • The PCW Academy located in Hallam, Victoria has produced many of Australia's finest wrestlers including Daniel Swagger, Slex, Mad Dog McCrea, Trikki D, Sinister, Mark Kage, Danny Psycho, The Enforcer, Anthony Dangerfield, Cletus Blood, Chris Knight, Mr. Big and many more!

The promotional language is obvious.

The MCW website claims;

  • Carlo Cannon has trained extensively with numerous Australian wrestling talents who are now signed overseas
- Ryan Rollins (now signed with AAA in Mexico)
– Matt Silva (now under a developmental contract as ‘Buddy Murphy’ with WWE)
– Tenille Tayla (currently performing on WWE NXT as Emma)

Almost exactly the same claim as PCW and exactly the same wrestlers. The rest of the link is also promotional.

In addition to this, they also attempt to claim the following podcast backs up the second claim. This claim is supposed to be at the 4:42 mark of the podcast, but there is no text back up. Further, the podcast is not run by recognised industry professionals who are independent. According to Josh Armour's Facebook he is nothing more than an announcer for one promotion. According to Todd Eastman's Twitter he is a manager of one particular wrestler, Chris Basso.

Could these be reviewed by experienced editors in the context of BLP requirements and professional wrestling who can make a firm judgment on this so we can move forward and stop the argument on the BLP Noticeboard. Curse of Fenric (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

PCW is not reliable for claims that PCW trained a famous wrestler, as it is a primary source. Facebook, Twitter, etc. cannot be considered. Text however is not strictly required and if the article-subject himself claims this is true in a podcast, I think it can be used with attribution. CorporateM (Talk) 01:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Can I check something here? I used the Facebook and Twitter links not to prove something for inclusion on Wikipedia. I know they aren't reliable. I was simply showing that the two that run the podcast aren't industry professionals, and I believe that places the podcast in a fan category as such. There are no guidelines for podcasts within the rules of RS which is why I'm trying to clarify this as to whether or not there is a rule concerning podcasts. Thank you for the firm thumbs down for the PCW source. Curse of Fenric (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Not industry professional by what standards? They are employed in the industry. That's the definition of industry professional. And Buddy Murphy stating a fact about himself is more reliable than the "I just know it's not true" and "IIRC that didn't happen" arguments you've made throughout the discussion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
By wrestling standards. An industry professional is a person of long standing. These two are not. It's a fan podcast, not a professional podcast. Your quotes are therefore irrelevant and you are again behaving like a bully. I await confirmation from an admin in this section to my above observation. Curse of Fenric (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The issue is that this podcast features Murphy explicitly stating that he was trained by Carlo Cannon at 4:42. Curse of Fenric is attempting to argue that this is somehow invalid based on some spurious WP:OR claims about the podcast ownership, when in fact the podcast is an interview and the information is coming directly from the subject. As far as I'm concerned, if the podcast literally features Murphy stating this information without prompting then it can be considered legit, since the information is coming straight from the subject and not the podcast authors. As I mentioned in the BLP discussion, the only way this information could be considered unreliable would be if you're suggesting that the man being interviewed in the podcast is an imposter. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Or if the podcast is run by fans and not industry professionals. If I was to accept what you say you would be opening Pandora's Box re the reliability of podcasts. As I said to Gary, anything beyond that is either irrelevant or back up to the core issue. This is why I need an admin to confirm in black or white where podcasts stand. Curse of Fenric (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • If Murphy is saying it then there's no way it could be unreliable. It literally is being confirmed by the subject himself. It does not get more reliable than that. Your concern would be relevant and worthy of discussion if the information was being provided second-hand by the podcast owners, but it isn't. The reliability policy exists to prevent the spread of misinformation, and there's no possible way that the information can be misinterpreted or misrepresented in this case. Once again, I'm not talking about using the podcast as a general source of information, I'm referring specifically to the exchange at 4:42 in which Murphy himself explicitly states that he was trained by Carlo Cannon. Unless you're suggesting that the voice on the podcast isn't the real Murphy (and I don't think there's any sensible way that you can suggest that) then it's totally inane to claim any doubt over the reliability of the information given that it literally comes straight from the subject's mouth. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • So any fan can include a snippet or something from the subject to a podcast and it's automatically reliable? I have a podcast and I could do that myself and be reliable. That's Pandora's Box you're trying to open and it's not on. Curse of Fenric (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • If you interviewed a professional wrestler for your podcast, and the wrestler made a benign statement like, "I like to eat chicken carbonara," I would take it at face value and assume that the wrestler in question likes to eat chicken carbonara. I don't see how this situation is any different--the information is equally trivial. Someone on one of the other boards said that BLP is to "protect the self-interest of the subjects of biographies, including how they may feel about particular information in their article" (which sounds like borderline censorship, but that's yet another tangent). I think that, if Buddy Murphy was worried that Wikipedia might report that he trained with Carlo Cannon, he would not have stated in an interview that he trained with Carlo Cannon. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • He could have to a couple of fans, and equally he could have been playing kayfabe and put over Carlo just because they're buddies. The point is you don't know for sure and that's why you can't just throw it into the pot willy nilly. Again, it would be opening Pandora's Box. Could @CorporateM: pop back here and clarify this once and for all? Curse of Fenric (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • What you're effectively arguing is that Murphy's response to the question on this podcast is unreliable, but if he'd responded to the exact same question in the exact same way on a different podcast then it would be reliable. That's utter nonsense. The fact that this content is coming directly from the subject means that it's essentially WP:SELFPUB, the ownership of the podcast is irrelevant. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • You're not paying attention. How do you know that he was telling the truth? How do you know he wasn't playing kayfabe to a couple of fans - something that he wouldn't do to a proven professional? You don't. That's what you're missing here and one thing WP would always frown upon is putting a kayfabe claim over as real. Getting it yet? Curse of Fenric (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
All interview sources, whether text or audio, have an important distinction to make between claims being made by the publication, and those claims being made by the interview subject, for which the publication is merely acting as a conduit. In most cases, interviews cannot be used for this reason - they are basically op-eds. However, in this case the interview subject is the article-subject, the claims are not controversial, and the third party involved agrees with his claim. Therefore while technically not self published, it meets the requirements of WP:BLPSELFPUB for including statements made by the article-subject. The podcast's reliability is not really of import, so much as the whether it is an acceptable case to use claims made by the article-subject. CorporateM (Talk) 03:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@CorporateM:, that helps a bit re podcasts in general. Can I just ask one more thing? I mentioned the probability for "kayfabe". To explain that to you, it's when a wrestler promotes a storyline that is not real in an interview. It is possible (and I'm not saying that in this case it's definitely a storyline) that Murphy intentionally misled the podcast hosts for the purpose of promoting the person being claimed as a trainer of his and a good one at that. This is a factor that is exclusive to professional wrestling due to it's nature. How does this fit with your clarification? Curse of Fenric (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Curse of Fenric, yeah, no, this is not a kayfabe interview. Discounting it on that basis would discount every single wrestling-related source ever. Apart from anything else, the information is the same as that on the MCW website, which is what you were contesting in the first place. You've had the administrator clarification you were looking for, now please, WP:LETITGO. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
My impression was that the content was about his real-life story and not that of a character he plays. There are some rare cases where a BLP has a specific reputation for lying, where we would therefore exercise WP:COMMONSENSE, and such conspiracy-grade information manipulations do occur in areas like politics. But being that there is no basis for that here specific to this individual, I don't think there is a reasonable argument for it. CorporateM (Talk) 06:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@CorporateM: You're obviously not familiar with the pro wrestling processes, with all due respect. My point is that when fans do things like this, lying (AKA kayfabe) is actually quite common. That's why reliable sourcing is very specific within pro wrestling - see for example a list of websites within the pro wrestling project that are seen as reliable, and those that are not. A key factor to that is the kayfabe factor. The list of sites that fall for kayfabe lies are listed as unreliable. Believe me, conspiracy grade manipulations like those in politics do happen in pro wrestling, especially towards those who don't have the experience or the respect of people like those who run the sites that are seen as reliable. It's funny, because they are genuine industry professionals - and yet GaryColemanFan tries to put these two fans who run that podcast in the same bracket, when they don't belong there in any way shape or form. I don't think he knows what a genuine industry professional is. So the application of WP:COMMONSENSE has to be done in context.
As for that blogspot reference, again that is not reliable - blogs never are. Marek for the record is another fan who is trying at present to run a promotion in Australia's Blue Mountains. So much for moving the goal posts. And 94, you don't know for sure if it's a kayfabe interview or not. How do you know for sure that it is? Explain that one to me if you wouldn't mind. Curse of Fenric (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This is not OR this is reliability based on the possibility of kayfabe. You can't deny the possibility, and as I assume he is not a person familiar with pro wrestling a further clarification in context is needed. The dispute remains meanwhile and it's YOU who has to leave the page alone until this is sorted out to everyone's satisfaction. Remember that it was an admin who called this dispute unresolved, not me. See his edit summary in the page history of the Murphy page. Curse of Fenric (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The dispute has been resolved, you asked for administrator clarification and it was given. The only thing furthering this debate is your insistence that the administrator is 'wrong' because he didn't take your side, based on some absolutely baseless logic. Once again, WP:LETITGO. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 07:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Attributed statement sourced by RT news article

Latest comment: 9 years ago45 comments15 people in discussion

In the Initial claims section of the Ghouta chemical attack article, the following statement is sourced by this RT article.

The Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, said the claims that his government had used chemical weapons were politically motivated and that it would go against elementary logic.

An editor tagged it as a unreliable soruce, and describe it as "Russian propaganda", ref. diff. Is the source reliable for this statement according to the identifying reliable sources guideline and the verifiability policy? Erlbaeko (talk) 07:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

No, RT is «Russian propaganda», it is not neutral, or reliable. Spumuq (talq) 09:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure? The reliable sources guideline, says: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.", ref WP:BIASED. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I think RT(TV) can be used for sourcing non-political issues, and a lot depends on context. In this particular context (promoting a political conspiracy theory), no, I do not think this source should be used. My very best wishes (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that context matters, but the context here is not to promote anything, it is to describe the Syrian presidents view, in a section that covers initial claims from both sides, and the source I included do support the information as it is presented. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
In the diff above [52] RT was used to source claim by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. I am sure that if he made such claim, it could be referenced to another/better source. There was no need to make this posting, especially since RT has been already discussed many times on this noticeboard. Please do search prior to your posting.My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I found another source here, but I don't know if "The Irish Times" are reliable. (It looks reliable to me at first glance, then.) It can be used to verifiy that he made that statement, I guess. However, it does not include the "politically motivated" part, so I like to use RT anyway. I also did search for old discussions, but there was no consensus that RT is or is not reliable for general purpose. Ref. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_173#Russia_Today. However, most users seems to agree that it can be used as a source in the simplest way (the government said "bla-bla-bla"). Erlbaeko (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The unreliability of RT, which has direct editorial oversight by the Kremlin and operates in a media climate commonly described as "unfree", has been extensively documented. I have noted just a few examples of critical analysis on Talk:Khan al-Assal chemical attack. I think we have a responsibility as Wikipedia editors to use high-quality sources whenever possible, and RT isn't one. It is the functional mouthpiece of a totalitarian dictator who has been unabashed in his support of Syria's embattled government. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
" It is the functional mouthpiece of a totalitarian dictator who has been unabashed in his support of Syria's embattled government" WOW now that is a really neutral statement!!!do you have any reliable neutral sources to show that President Putin is a totalitarian dictator rather than a democratically elected President? if you don't, then you are in no position to make judgements about what sources are reliable. In this case "reliable" means can they be trusted that if they quote somebody saying something, that person actually said it. Whether you like what was said or not is irrelevant to the topic of reliability. KoolerStill (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Citations of RT in articles about politics, wars, international relations &c should be treated as a red flag for neutrality problems. bobrayner (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinions; however I believe you described your position better here, Kudzu1. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Disagree. RT should be used in the same way as we use CNN or BBC. CNN is "not" oversighted by White house? It sure is! If one is reliable, other is too. Equality and neutrality. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 10:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Disagree with classifying RT as unreliable source, although all news sources must be taken with grains of salt -- some more than others, and especially on some topics. For this specific fact, or any fact in question where there may be a reasonable suspicion of bias due to RT affiliation with Russia and its geostrategic interests, let the editors seek other sources for the position of the Syrian president. If RT is to be classified as an unreliable source due to a level of affiliation with a government, then so would the BBC, VOA, and on another level, also pseudo-private sources like WSJ, NY Times, Fox News, etc, because bias and agenda certainly do not come only from formal superficial association. At some level there can be suspicion of agenda in all reporting. We as editors must use our minds sensibly to source claims as well as possible and fact-check to other sources when possible, and otherwise attribute controversial claims in the text. In terms of parallelism, the BBC could be claimed to be equally as involved in propagandizing news reports as RT, if one wished to make that case. There are literally hundreds of articles from dozens of other sources by which to fact-check a claim about a position of the Syrian president on this issue. SageRad (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
RT should be used in the same way as we use CNN or BBC. - No, see WP:GEVAL. Apples and oranges. Discussed to death previously. "CNN is "not" oversighted by White house? It sure is!" - No, false analogy. Apples and oranges. Discussed to death previously (and a telling statement about the bias of the commentator). Disagree with SagaRed (an account active for only a month). Please cut it out with the false equivalence. "BBC could be claimed to be equally as involved in propagandizing news reports as RT" is a an empty (and very stupid) assertion. Obama could be claimed to be from Mars. 2+2 could be claimed to equal 5. The Earth could be claimed to lie on the back of a turtle (with turtles all the way down). So what? There's dozens, if not hundreds of reliable sources, including scholarly ones, which say RT is in the business of propaganda and disinformation. While CNN, BBC or whatever may have their shortcomings and may have certain biases, it's in a different league all together. Also. If you want to discuss the reliability of CNN, please start a separate discussion.
Did I mention that this has been discussed to death already and the same bullshit false equivalence arguments get trotted out again and again, only to be shot down by the mature and sane people on this website, again and again?Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I think a lot of attention should be paid to the media climate in particular countries. If there are political considerations, there they lie: RT is among a number of official or semiofficial media outlets under state control operating in countries with an unfree press. It just doesn't make any sense to treat these outlets as if they are reliable news sources. They are propaganda, plain and simple, especially when they are used to report on events and situations in which the state has a strong interest. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Sure it is reliable and there is no doubt that al-Assad denied responsibility for chemical attacks. TFD (talk) 07:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not, and there's plenty of actually reliable sources which can be used to source that Assad denied responsibility.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

RT is well established (by known reliable sources) as being the propaganda organ of the Russian state. Article in The Economist describes RT:

At home Russian media, which are mostly state-controlled, churn out lies and conspiracy theories. Abroad, the main conduit for the Kremlin’s world view is RT, a TV channel set up in 2005 to promote a positive view of Russia that now focuses on making the West look bad. It uses Western voices: far-left anti-globalists, far-right nationalists and disillusioned individuals. It broadcasts in English, Arabic and Spanish and is planning German- and French-language channels. It claims to reach 700m people worldwide and 2.7m hotel rooms. Though it is not a complete farce, it has broadcast a string of false stories, such as one speculating that America was behind the Ebola epidemic in west Africa.

-- GreenC 20:"50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The article you quote as..... "...now focuses on making the West look bad...." is itself engaged in making RUSSIA LOOK BAD...it is in an article headlined in part with "Russian aggression"... not further proven in the story. So you are using the propaganda of one nation to prove the other point of view is propaganda. It is not evidence/ It is bias in your choice of which to believe. The article in any case is an OPINION piece, nothing proven in it at all; it would not be allowed as a WP article. KoolerStill (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The reporting by RT in this case seems quite plausible and consistent with other sources. For example, the BBC says "President Assad accused rebel groups supported by the US, Turkey and Saudi Arabia of using chemical weapons to turn around the conflict in Syria because they were losing. He also said it would have been illogical for the military to use weapons of mass destruction in an area where its soldiers were present." What should happen in this case is that you add an additional source such as the BBC to confirm the point that Assad denied responsibility. Andrew D. (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the links/replies. However, the question here is if the given source is reliable for the statement in the described context (according to relevant guidelines and policies). Based on this discussion, I believe most users see RT as reliable according to the guideline, at least for statements like this ("the government said..."). As KoolerStill wrote above "In this case "reliable" means can they be trusted that if they quote somebody saying something, that person actually said it." Erlbaeko (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I am disturbed that, despite the recent arbcom case and a current mediation case, and countless objections, Erlbaeko is still pushing to use a Russian propaganda source. If it actually happened and if it's worth mentioning then some other genuinely reliable source will cover it. bobrayner (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Do you mean, this, this or this report? The first two was rejected. The third is a violation of the 1 revert per 24 hours rule, which applies to Syrian Civil War related pages. I thought blanking whole sections against consensus was vandalism (a 3RR/1RR exemption), but I was wrong. I now know, that the Vandalism policy states: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." However, I don't see why any of this should disqualify me from asking a question about RT here. None of the cases even affect RT. Nor does the mediation case. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
You don't think that POV-pushing around the Syrian civil war has any connection to the reliability of a source which is POV-pushing around the Syrian civil war? bobrayner (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
How is including the Syrian presidents view in a section that covers initial claims from both sides “POV-pushing”? If you have personal problems with me, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand that some users just don't like RT to be used as a source, but this is not a question of personal taste. Nor is it a vote. Even when using RT as a source in the simplest way possible (Mr. x said y), users delete it or tag it as a[unreliable source?]. I do not see any policy based arguments to do so, and their arguments is not founded in the policy, nor in the guideline. In fact, enforcing a specific non-neutral point of view is against the behavioral guideline of gaming the system.

In this case the source do support the information as it is presented, and it is definitely not and exceptional claim. In fact it is not even a contentious claim. Does anybody doubt he said it? Yes, RT has a bias. That’s fine, according to the biased or opinionated sources section of the guideline. Yes, some of their reporting may be seen as propaganda, but that is true for most news organizations.

What we have here is a well-established news organization that is referring another well-established news organization (Izvestia). Both is "reliable for statements of fact". That is what the relevant part of the guideline says, and that is what the policy on sourcing says. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Some could profit by reading these statements:
  1. "A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view." Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources
  2. "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources
  3. "It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content." Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete
  4. "The reliable sources guideline refers to a source's overall reputation for fact-checking and reliability--not the source's neutrality. Reliable sources may be non-neutral: a source's reputation for fact-checking is not inherently dependent upon its point of view." Wikipedia:Neutrality of Sources
Mnnlaxer (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia consensus on RT

WP consensus has never held RT to be a priori unreliable or reliable: most have argued it can be used for uncontroversial statements of fact (including attribution of official statements), and that for specific contentious issues, discussion is required.

This particular case is a simple case of attribution. The relevant question is not reliability but the editorial question as to whether Assad's statement deserves mention here. Kudzu1 should have known that.

We've had many discussions here about RT as a source. Linking users uninvolved (so far as I know) in the Syria/EastEurope debates, with diffs:

In 2013, Formerip, Elinruby, Itsmejudith, Tom Harrison, AQfK, Blueboar and BorisG voiced different opinions available here: [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59].

  • The first 4 users generally wrote that RT is a predictably biased source, not in all cases more biased than western sources, and can be useful for some news items or for opinion with attribution.
  • The last 3 users wrote that RT is heavily biased or gives credence to conspiracy theories, and should be avoided in almost all cases, or used only with great caution.

In 2014 there was a very long argument about RT, ultimately closed by a user who is now banned. Nevertheless, Collect, Ubikwit, GRuban, Herzen, Ian.thomson, Kmhkmh, Viriditas, Mjroots, TheBlueCanoe, Carolmooredc, Jytdog, and TFD all contributed, with diffs of their statements here: [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71]. Of these users,

  • 6 wrote that RT is equivalent to many other national news outlets and has spin that should be evaluated accordingly,
  • 3 wrote it can be used for simple, non-controversial facts and otherwise requires evaluation/discussion
  • 1 wrote it should never be used for controversial issues,
  • 2 wrote it is as reliable as Fox or a tabloid, or should never be used.

This month (June 2015), above, SageRad, TFD, Andrew D., Spumuq and GreenC also commented.

  • 3 wrote it is generally reliable (perhaps as biased as other national news sources), and
  • 2 wrote it is propaganda and in no way reliable.

At this point, further discussions here on RT's reliability in general, or its reliability for simple statements by officials, or even for perspectives attributed to RT, are a huge waste of time. Controversial facts should be discussed and probably need secondary sources, or contrasting views, or should be avoided. If RT's reliability as a source is not the issue and their perspective is, the appropriate tags are WP:POV and the appropriate forum is WP:NPOVN.

In my view, blanket removal of RT as a source without specific discussion of WP:POV should go to WP:AN or WP:AE. -Darouet (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Well done. I agree that knee-jerk removal of content sourced to RT is wrong (see the links I posted in 1-4 above), but I disagree with blanket recommendation for AN or AE. Repeat offenders, certainly, but not in general. And see also consensus can change. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I too agree with Darouet that RT should not be used for sourcing controversial political subjects, if that is what he is telling in the summary. My very best wishes (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
That's neither what I said, nor what the provided diffs demonstrate. You should read them. -Darouet (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
OK. So you are simply telling there is no consensus about this? I think that sources may not be especially reliable for a number of reasons. Some, like Bellingcat below, are not sufficiently professional, others (such as certain "Western" news media) may be biased, and others (such as RT TV) promote professionally cooked disinformation on a number of political issues. So, I would strongly caution anyone from using it indiscriminately, although, yes, it can be used with care, just like Bellingcat and a lot of others. My very best wishes (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I know that's how you feel. However, I compiled the responses above, both pro-RT, anti-RT and ambivalent, to show that most editors don't agree with you. That's fine, but the resource of their views is available to you if you want to make use of them. -Darouet (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. FYI, there was also a general discussion about RT in 2012. See Talk:RT_(TV_network)/Archive_1#RFC:_Is_RT_a_reliable_source_as_per_WP:RS.3F. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
...and BTW, that discussion was closed formally by an administrator (Beeblebrox) after a request for closure. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
This discussion 3 years ago is irrelevant. The final transformation of Russian state-controlled media to disinformation outlets had happen more recently - during the Ukrainian campaign, when these media were forced to deny the obvious (such as Russian military involvement) and resort to outright fabrications. My very best wishes (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
flamewar Rhoark (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Jeez freakin' crust. Just drop it already. It's been discussed to death. Stop beating the dead horse. Stop grinding the axe. Stop grinding the axe into the dead horse. Stop twisting the pencil into the donkey. Stop petting the monkey with a spork. Stop wrench plucking the crow. Stop buttoning the shirt of the gazelle. Stop flea jumping the octopus. Stop sculpting the turnips with a spatula. Stop running with the sea urchins. Don't float the gazebos into the shrimp. Stop ... just stop beating the dead horse please. It's not reliable for 99% of instances where people try to use it and in the 1% where it may be reliable there's better sources out there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, RT is a Russian state newspaper but that doesn't make it's facts wrong all the time. All newspapers have bias due to their sponsors. In addition, your comments are highly POV and uncivil. Erxnmedia (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I see that you've now started stalking my edits. And complain about "civility". Right.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
It is so funny when Volunteer Marek provides a perfect example of the behavior he is objecting to in the comment making the objection. This really deserves a meta wiki mention somewhere. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about?Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Are you really that un-self-aware? Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Instead of trying to be cute how about you explain your comment. I've objected to the continuation of pointless discussion. I added in a joke. Yes, and? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Gentlemen, try to stay on the topic. This is not a discussion forum. Erlbaeko (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
No, RT is «Russian propaganda», it is not neutral, or reliable.Spumuq (talq) 15:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_192&oldid=1167732327"