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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Academics have opinions too - as well as a range of views. It is usually best to attribute such stmts - on Free Trade, for instance, we say There is a broad consensus among economists ... - which is indeed the case, however there are also dissenting academic views on Free Trade (in a clear minority these days - but - they still exist). However, what's really wrong in the diff above are the citations - ¹²³ - no page numbers. Without a page number in a book (and if it is contentious - a quote is often helpful as well) - the text does not pass WP:V. Icewhiz (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The quotes are here6. It's page 6 for the Sides book. I have the other two in epub format, so the page numbers are inconsistent with the print or normal PDF versions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The Daily Wire has published a number of articles doubting that climate change is occurring and that humans contribute to climate change. Experts have described the articles as inaccurate and misleading.¹²³

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

Climatefeedback.org has been cited favorably recently by sources such as Deutsche Welle,17 Columbia Journalism Review18, Axios19, and the Guardian which referred to climatefeedback.org as "a highly respected and influential resource"20. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The quote you linked to is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agrippa Mandangu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ex.org
(Archived via Wayback)

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

Furinkan.com (aka Rumic World)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can say bullshit all you want, but its just pounding the table not logical arguments. I presented clear evidence, the exact same statement was rated mostly true for a Democrat25 and half true for the Republican 26. How much clearer of evidence of bias could you have? And your own statement concerning fact that the more right-wing a person is, the more lies they're caught out on proves my case that you see them with rose colored glasses. -Obsidi (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

You're quite confused: "Bullshit" is the conclusion. It's only a part of the argument. As for your evidence: First off, they're two different claims. Paul claimed there was no income tax before 1913. Webb later claimed there was no federal income tax before then. Big difference. Second, you're taking two fact checks, made two years apart, by two different people and from that single data set making a generalized statement about the entire organization. The "logic" in that is so fucking terrible that "Bullshit" is the single best way to describe it. Third, you probably didn't notice that the Paul check actually links to the fact check of a similar claim by Michelle Bachman that they rated "True". I guess their left-wing bias led them to to make that distinction, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC) Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_250
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.

---