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.

Archive 225

Archive 226

Archive 227

Archive 228

Archive 229

Archive 230

→

Archive 235

In the article Animal protection-related violence, I have added the following passage:

Recently there has been an increase in cow vigilantism in India, especially after Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government came to power in 2014.

To support this passage, I have cited these sources:

• New York Times: "Cow protection groups, known as gau rakshak, have proliferated in recent years, since the Bharatiya Janata Party of Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power. These vigilante groups have carried out violent attacks on Muslims and, more rarely, low-caste Hindus suspected of slaughtering cows."
• Reuters: "Hindu hardliners and cow vigilante groups have been increasingly asserting themselves since Modi's Hindu nationalist government came to power in 2014."
• The Sydney Morning Herald: "Ever since Narendra Modi and his Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power in 2014, Hindu cow vigilantes have been in the news."
• Deutsche Welle "Many observers believe that the extremists were boosted by the election of Indian nationalist Narendra Modi in 2014."
• Huffington Post: "Such attacks on religious minorities have increased across India since Narendra Modi was elected prime minister in 2014, backed by the Hindu nationalist BJP."
• Asia Times: "Ever since Narendra Modi became India’s Prime Minister three years ago, attacks from so-called “cow vigilantes” have been increasing, with the victims mostly Muslims or lower caste Hindus."
• BBC News: "Vigilante cow protection groups have mushroomed. They claim to have a strong network of informers and say they "feel empowered" because of the ruling Hindu nationalist BJP government in Delhi."

Ms Sarah Welch has argued that the above sources are "primary news sources" and not reliable enough to make this statement as written above. I understand that these sources are not as reliable as a journal article or a book, but given they are talking about recent events (post-2014), most of the sources on this topic will be newspapers and magazines. The discussion is here.VR _talk 14:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Vice regent misrepresents my concerns and the issue, though correctly acknowledges my comment about primary news sources. I have proposed the following alternate which primary sources support:

Media groups state that cow vigilantism in India have increased after Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government came to power in 2014. Many cow vigilante groups say they feel "empowered" by the victory of the Hindu nationalist BJP in the 2014 election. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is another Hindu nationalist group active, with a history of cow protection-related vigilantism.

I object to the following and related paragraphs Vice regent has created:

Recently there has been an increase in cow vigilantism in India, especially after Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government came to power in 2014. The frequency and severity of cow-related violence have been described as "unprecedented". (...)

The version by Vice regent includes conclusions and statements, relying on primary news sources / opinion columns, that secondary sources / peer reviewed scholarship do not support and contradict. WP:Primary sources can be reliable but need care in their use. If we use opinions in primary sources, we must quote exact and attribute the opinion to the source, not imply that it is generally accepted statement or mainstream conclusion based on secondary sources. We can mention post-2014 recent events, but any analysis, causal connections, anthropological/religious and historic claims need secondary sources. Please see page 161 of the Judith Walsh source, for example, for evidence why the opinion articles / newspaper articles such as Al Jazeera / Atimes.com / etc are not reliable source of history / anthropology / etc. Please also see this section for further concerns and comments on RS and NPOV issues created by Vice regent edits in that article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

MSW said above that "The version by Vice regent includes conclusions and statements, relying on primary news sources / opinion columns, that secondary sources / peer reviewed scholarship do not support and contradict" (emphasis added). Can you provide any secondary sources that actually "contradict" the content I have added?VR _talk 17:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Read the reply above for the link with the page number! I already explained this earlier on the article's talk page. See the other peer reviewed scholarly sources I have added for more. I can't help if you refuse to read the sources, or keep cherrypicking sources or content guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

page 161 of the Judith Walsh source talks about cow-protection violence happening the 1800s. It doesn't contradict (or even talk about) cow-protection violence increasing after 2014. I don't see where the contradiction is.VR _talk 02:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

It does, and it is strange that you don't see the Walsh discussion on the severity of 1880s and 1890s cow-related riots. See the Thursby source at pages 79-88, and other sources in the article for more. You wrote above "given they are talking about recent events (post-2014), most of the sources on this topic will be newspapers and magazines". But for anything beyond the simple quoting of basic info about alleged attackers, alleged victims and alleged motives from primary news sources, why can't we wait a few months or few years till peer-reviewed RS – e.g. journal articles or books by academic publishers – become available? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

"why can't we wait a few months or few years..." Because that's not how wikipedia works!! If there was a notable event yesterday, then wikipedia will have an article on it today. Most articles on recent events have absolutely ZERO books or journal articles as sources and rely entirely on newspapers. Take 2017 Sichuan landslide or 2017 Bahawalpur explosion, for example.VR _talk 07:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - "Unprecedented" is either rhetorical, in which case it has no reason to be duplicated on Wikipedia, or it is a historical claim, for which news sources are not reliable. In either case, it should be thrown out. Other than that, there is not much here that is of relevance to RSN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Indeed, that is exactly my point, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

So this can be resolved by removing one word... "unprecedented"? Blueboar (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

...and similar rhetorical / historical claim language or words! That is what the replacement para tried to do, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Wait a second. The "unprecedented" part is actually sourced to a journal article in Politics, Religion & Ideology, which is a scholarly source. Kautilya himself called it a "good quality" source. @Blueboar: The use of the term "unprecedented" was only one of MSW's objections. The other objection is whether we can state the following sentence as fact: "Recently there has been an increase in cow vigilantism in India, especially after Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government came to power in 2014." VR _talk 00:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

If the rest of the article is sourced from journal articles, well founded books, etc. - qualifying the statement by "some news reports" or "some media groups" would be in order - to differentiate that this isn't as well founded in comparison to the rest of the article due to this being a "currentish" event count.Icewhiz (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Most of the article is not from journal articles and the contemporary cow-protection violence can't be expected to be from journal articles, because it documents very recent events.VR _talk 00:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Icewhiz. The article is in a flux! in this version, if I counted right, the majority is peer reviewed RS. As Kautilya3 hints above that we need reliable sources, and the talk page discussion suggests the same, despite some opposition, we are trying to get more peer reviewed, high quality RS into the article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The sources Ms Sarah Welch is referring to are about facts that have occurred long ago. For example, Hinduism's stance on the cows, the Cow Protection Movement of the 1800s, the legislation of various Indian states with regards to cattle slaughter etc. But the truth of the matter is that there are very few, if any, books or journal articles on recent cow protection killings. And one of the journal article I found did call the violence "unprecedented", something that MSW removed in her edit of the material.VR _talk 14:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Then attribute the "unprecedented" to whomever said it - don't put in WP's voice. It needs to be qualified - unless you have actual studies and this is a clearly established fact accepted by all major researchers. Recent events are indeed mainly covered by news articles - the question is how reliable they are in relation to a wide-spread phenomena and measuring its rate (and historical references - news sources don't always look 200 years back for comparison). Some of your sources only claim that "groups have proliferated" - but not that actual acts have. It seems from quick look at these sources that you could easily say "multiple media reports indicated an increase is cow protection violence" - but it would be best to qualify this.Icewhiz (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Just want to clarify that there are two claims being discussed here. #1 is that violence increased after election of BJP (2014) #2 is that current level of violence is "unprecedented". Obviously claim #2 requires a more scholarly source that can look back at history, whereas for claim #1 current newspapers should suffice.

Discussion on claim #2: "unless you have actual studies and this is a clearly established fact accepted by all major researchers." What do you mean by studies? When historians write history they don't actually conduct scientific studies they conduct literature reviews etc. Secondly, how do I go about proving something is accepted by "all major" researchers? If by that you mean, that no major researcher disagrees, then yeah I agree. And in this case, please note that there really aren't many journal articles on this matter, I have found a grand total of 2 (one of which I'm still trying to get access to because it was published only a month ago).

Discussion on claim #1: "historical references - news sources don't always look 200 years back for comparison". But the sources are not making claims about 200 years ago. They are only making claims about the last 5-10 years. Would you say that BBC News, New York Times, Reuters etc are reliable sources for making claims about cow protection violence in the last 5-10 years?

"Some of your sources only claim that "groups have proliferated" - but not that actual acts have." Ok, then we can say "Recently there has been an increase in cow vigilante groups in India, especially after...". That's merely a difference in wording.

Ultimately the issue is that are newspapers reliable sources for recent events? I very strongly argue yes. If newspapers weren't reliable sources then we wouldn't be able to write articles on recent events.VR _talk 03:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Source: https://koreaexpose.com/racism-seoul-bar-failed-multiculturalism/

Article: Racism in South Korea

The Korea Exposé was removed from the article. Is the source reliable or not to verify the following deleted information: "As a result, it is common for people to be denied service at business establishments due to their race, with such incidents occurring as recently as of 2017"? --George Ho (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Well it seems to have an editorial team, but they also list an intern (which seems a bit puffery like to me). I also note the owner is also editor in chief, so I would be a bit dubious.Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Someone recently added some citations to a news satire website in this article. Can these citations be replaced with something more reliable? Jarble (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on the sources in this addition to Harley-Davidson, which says that the Prague Harley-Davidson club is the oldest such club in the entire world. There are six sources cited here:

• 1 This is a self-published source by a European organization. Where does it say "Many Harley-Davidson Clubs exist nowadays around the world"? Is it independent, and reliable? How is the writer of this web page in a position to make this claim?
• 2 ITN Source is a film library that sells clips. The summary of the clips for sale here is an uncritical rehash of the self-published claims the Prague club makes about itself (below)
• 3 This source is the root of all the others. The Harley-Davidson Club Prague is boasting about itself here, with no independent verification. The club was founded by a Prague Harley dealership to promote its products
• 4 Here is some other Harley dealership which has a copy of a press release from the Prague dealership. Again uncritically parroting the source.
• 5 A TV station making a routine announcement about a club event. It quotes the president of the club, making the usual claims about itself.
• 6 An auto website, with a direct quote from the Harley dealership sponsoring this club, making the same claims

Superlatives like "first" or "oldest" rest on proving a negative about every other club on Earth, which is not easy. How are the club president in Prague, or the staff of a Harley dealership in Prague, able to investigate the history of every possible club for the last 100 years in every other place on the planet outside of Prague, and be sure there were no other clubs in existence before 1928? Aside from their conflict of interest, are they even in a position to know what they claim? Since Harley-Davidson, a global company, is heavily invested in promoting its brand heritage and history, and has never been shy about claiming to be the first at many things, why doesn't the company itself ever mention the Prague club? H-D promotes rider clubs connected to its brand, and is known for pioneering this marketing strategy; see Harley Owners Group. Is it plausible that the company would ignore the oldest continuously operating owners club?

Perhaps its all true, but it's the kind of extraordinary claim that requires quality sources. Organizations like Guinness World Records (with all their flaws) exist to carry out the kind of independent research necessary to establish superlatives like this, but we have no evidence of anything of the kind here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You still do not believe me? Ok, here you go-another ones: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Is it enough? Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

1. Source: Sommer, Allison Kaplan (May 17, 2017). "Explained: 'Alt-right' Using Cruel Seth Rich Conspiracy Theory to Deflect From Trump's Russia Scandal". Haaretz.
2. Article: Murder of Seth Rich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
3. Content: Just the second (italicized) sentence; first sentence added here for context. "Conservatives and members of the alt-right, along with certain commentators on Fox News, featured coverage of the conspiracy theories during the same time period in which other news outlets reported new revelations about President Trump firing FBI director Comey, revealing highly sensitive information to Russia’s Foreign Minister and Russia’s Ambassador to the U.S., and having urged Comey to drop the FBI investigation of former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn. According to Haaretz, the timing of the these broadcasts about the Seth Rich conspiracy theory was most likely intended by Pro-Trump outlets as a distraction from the negative news concerning President Trump."

There are two problems here. First, "several observers" fails verification. Second, the content is relying specifically on the "deflect" language in the source's headline, which oddly enough isn't supported by the source's body. The body says that the Seth Rich story was "aimed at undermining the credibility" of the Russia scandal, which is consistent with other reliable sources. It does not say the Seth Rich story was intended to distract (or deflect) from the Russia scandal. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty standard to employ headline writers who develop headlines that will grab readers' attention. In other words, not written by the author of the article and too often not accurately reflecting the content. If the newspaper article doesn't mention it, we shouldn't. Doug Weller talk 18:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

While Haaretz is generally a RS, with a pronounced leftward bias, it is not the greatest source on news on US politics unless they are Israel or Jewish related. They usually just rehash other sources in general US items, often to an audience that is not into the details. I will note that Haaretz has done some superb non-Israel reporting, e.g. their coverage on the ground in Crimea in 2014 was unique and ground breaking. But for US non Jewish/Israel/ME related politics there are usually better sources. And their English headline editors are not great - the English side is a small outfit, they have had some English headline gaffes, particularly on translated items. Icewhiz (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Since Dr.F has made corrections, I would ask the previous commenters @Doug Weller: & @Icewhiz: to review the changes. Sorry for any inconvenience this may cause. DN (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Newspaper headlines are not reliable sources. Their role is to describe the information in the article and may be misleading. In this case the title says that the 'alt-right' is using the Seth Rich murder to deflect from Russiagate, although the article itself does not say that. I am always suspicious when dubious sources are presented for stories that have extensive coverage. If the information is sufficiently reported, it should not be necessary to glean it from headlines. TFD (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Concur. Even the most reputable newspapers use headlines which don't match the body, or they are misleading. Few years ago The New York Times or The Washington Post (or both?) profiled their web readers and served different headlines for different users, which suggests that headlines have other purposes than just conveying the clearest possible message to the reader. Politrukki (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Headlines are generally written by "headline writers" and often do not actually make accurate claims as to what a journalist actually wrote. This has been discussed, with some editors insisting that the headline is "part of the article" but the fact is that actual newspaper editors admit that the headlines are the equivalent of newspaper "clickbait" and have been so for many years. Collect (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Collect: This article is under DS regarding American Politics. Please redact your comment. @HJ Mitchell: @Bishonen: SPECIFICO talk 01:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello - I have added some information to an article and given a source but another editor keeps removing it: 8 9 10 11

Can someone please help because this true information (I gave the source twice to this guy) should be in the article and not deleted. I don't understand why he's being so unhelpful? Amisom (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

You added no source. See WP:V and WP:INTEGRITY. Since this is a BLP it was only right such unsourced statements are removed. Alexbrn (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: I put a source!!! Look here: https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scandal&diff=prev&oldid=788817080 Read it. I put the source. BBC News. I put it. Also it isn't a bLP because Jimmy Savile is dead. Amisom (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Why do trolls like this have rollback rights?? 32.218.44.102 (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Probably needs to go to ANI. Alexbrn (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

No you did not add a source. You added your text behind an existing source which means that there was no apparent connection to it, because sources always need to be given at the end of a statement. And while Saville may be dead, Fiona Woolf is still alive so any edits regarding her activities are also subject to our BLP rules. BLP applies to any living person and not just to the subject of the article. That aside, the fact that Woolf resigned had already been mentioned before in the article's text: "but on 31 October 2014 she too resigned from the role." So your edits were totally pointless. De728631 (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@De728631: What? I was writing that Lowel Goddard had resigned. Not Woolf. And I listed a source from BBC News saying that Lowel Goddard had resigned. What is the prblem here? Amisom (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

You've been told. You only added a statement which had no attached source. You were also edit-warring. Alexbrn (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: I don't understand, I did attach a source. Click here https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scandal&diff=prev&oldid=788817080 and look for it (search for "bbc.co.uk" with control-F if you need to). Amisom (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Lowell Goddard is alive; BLP applies. And no reader of the article is going to or should be expected to look in your edit summary for a source, nor should you expect other editors to move it from your edit summary to an inline citation purely to indulge your apparent laziness. WP:BURDEN is written as it is, calling for inline citations, for a reason. General Ization ^Talk 18:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@General Ization: So Why don't you fix it ("Fix problems if you can ... Instead of removing content from an article, consider adding a citation yourself") then? Amisom (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My fault, you were in fact referring to Goddard, but General Ization is right: sources like this belong into the main article text and not into the edit summary. De728631 (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@De728631: THen why on earth won't someone fix it or help me fix it instead of calling me a troll, giving me warnings and being genrally hostile? Amisom (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Because that policy isn't referring to fixing problems that editors who know or should know better create and persistently refuse to correct themselves when it is pointed out to them. Our method of dealing with that is generally to block the editor in question. General Ization ^Talk 18:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@General Ization: Where in WP:PRESERVE does it say that? Because I can definitely see the bit where it says, "Fix problems if you can ... Instead of removing content from an article, consider adding a citation yourself". Which bit are you referring to? (And if you really want to block me for adding truthful information and listing a source for it then go for it - oh no wait you're not an administrator at all.) Amisom (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

PRESERVE is actually irrelevant in this case. At the latest at this point when you wrote in the edit summary "I literally just provided a source. ..." the responsibility of fixing this fell back to you, even more so since Bbb23 had also told you that "sources don't go in edit summaries". De728631 (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@De728631: Cause I don't fucking know how to fix it? OK? I don't know what an "inline citation" is, I've never heard of it before. If you were interested in improving the encyclopedia instead of being superior you'd offer to help or fix it yourself. But no. Did you or @General Ization: even bother to ask if I knew how to an inline citaton? No you didn't. Thanks for nothing guys. Amisom (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, let me get this straight. You've been an editor since early 2015 2012 with over 1500 edits, you recently asked for and were granted rollback rights, you've repeatedly cited WP:PRESERVE and other policies, but it never occurred to you to click on the highlighted text in every and any one of those policy pages to find out how to perform an inline citation? Or to type "inline citation" into the search bar? Really? General Ization ^Talk 18:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@General Ization: And now, even after I explicitly told you that I didnt understand what you were saying, you're still determined to be an unhelpful WP:DICK and not try to help? Bloody hell. Amisom (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, here, I'll help. See in my response above where inline citation is highlighted in blue? Click on it, and follow the instructions found there. General Ization ^Talk 18:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Sarcasm ≠ help. Sarcasm ≠ welcoming. Sarcasm ≠ an attempt to teach someone smoething in good Faith. You don't want to be nice? Fine fuck you, I'll take my efforts elsewhere. Amisom (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

There was no sarcasm in my response. The link to the Wikipedia discussion of citing sources is, and already was, at the link I pointed out to you, which should have been very helpful if you were genuinely interested in being helped. General Ization ^Talk 18:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I went and researched the issue and added two different BBC articles citing Dame Goddard's resignation and the survivor group's reaction. Hopefully, this satisfies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that. The article is unquestionably the better for your thorough summary of the cited content. General Ization ^Talk 19:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. The following sources mention Israel's involvement in training/funding MEK against Iranian government, specifically targetting its nuclear scientists. My question is whether I am allowed to remove the word "alleged" the way I did in this edit

• Rock Center with Brian Williams (6 December 2014). "Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News". NBC News. Retrieved 6 December 2014

• "Report: U.S., Israel helped train Iranian dissidents". Haaretz. April 7, 2012.

• Time Magazine(Nov. 30, 2010), "The assassination carried the signature of Israel's Mossad"

• Independent(December 11 2010), "The attacks have all the hallmarks of Israel's secret service, which has carried out many such assignations in foreign countries over the decades"

• Spiegel(August 02, 2011), "Mossad Behind Tehran Assassinations, Says Source"

Thank You--Kazemita1 (talk) 05:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The same discussion has occurred at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Notice your first source says, "U.S. officials tell NBC news." We should follow what reliable sources do, which is to say who made the claim and who denies it, and avoid stating it as a fact. And note that excessive qualification of the allegations should be avoided too. TFD (talk) 06:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

So you mean to keep the word "alleged" wherever possible?Kazemita1 (talk) 06:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

A user has claimed that historian Rakesh Ankit's work¹ is a research paper. My position is that it is a research article satisfying WP:HISTRS. The work can be accessed here. I would like a second opinion on this work's status. Sicilianbro2 (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Rejoinder: The user who commented here had said to me that the issue was that Rakesh Ankit's work is a research paper and therefore a primary source but I believe it is actually a research article and therefore a secondary and WP:HISTRS source. Who is correct? Sicilianbro2 (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

That is not the issue. This user has claimed that this journal article is a WP:SECONDARY source. And, they have based almost an entire Wikipedia article Annexation of Junagadh on this one paper. The current version is a bit better, but it is still heavily overweight on this single souce. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you please clarify the question? First, I'm not sure what kind of distinction you (or anyone else) makes between a "research paper" and a "research article." Second, whether it's a primary or secondary source depends entirely on the context in which it is being used. And I'm not even sure why it matters if it's a primary or secondary source.

It would be most helpful if you could specifically provide the information that is requested at the top of this page: source, article, and content. ElKevbo (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The actual problem here is that the article has became something like "Annexation of Junagadh in the words of Rakesh Ankit". Using one source to add more than 40,000 bytes to the article that has 56,000 bytes.Capitals00 (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

ElKevbo, I will leave it to the OP to answer the first question. The problem with it being a PRIMARY source is that the policy (WP:PRIMARY) gives us various dos and don'ts regarding its use. In particular, it says, Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. If you read the lead paragraph of Annexation of Junagadh page at present, it says In the words of scholar Rakesh Ankit the Indian state's action in Junagadh was just another instance of India using force to incorporate princely states and Indian Muslims into India.2 These are very strong words and quite judgemental. I am not confident that one scholar's conclusions are enough for an encyclopedia to declare it in the lead. The paragraph following it is taken from the conclusion section of the journal article, which are stated as facts, even though they are again one scholar's views. Knowing the literature quite well, I can assure you that such strong views are quite isolated, and they by no means represent the consensus among sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think the article is a problem at all. As per my understanding, a research paper is one that is not published, or is compiled into a school's publication that is not subjected to peer review. Theses are a good example. I think a research article is one which is generally published in a journal, though the reliability of each journal is sometimes up for debate (for example, an article in Foreign Affairs matters more than an article in International Socialist Review, though this doesnt discredit all articles in ISR, it just makes them weaker sources than Foreign Affairs). I'm basing this off my background in Medicine, but I doubt the definition for politics is much different. While it would be good to have more than one source, the fact that the source is published in a research journal lends, in my humble opinion, enough credibility for it to be included. Maybe just try to find a few more sources?Willard84 (talk) 04:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi all,

Following on from discussions involving Beachbo, Blueboar, Chrissymad, Huon, Trainsofvictoria and Voidxor, I'd like to establish formally that the following pages qualify as reliable sources in the context of articles in the VRLocos Template, such as VicRail N type carriage and so on.

Background

• Ruling by Staszek Lem that "If social media are reliably associated with official spokespersons for the company, then see WP:SELFPUB" (Archive 65).
• Confirmed by Blueboar and Huon that the principle also applies to social media postings by individuals, if a) the account can be confirmed i.e. by checking posts over a long time frame to look for consistency and b) they qualify as an expert in the relevant topic based on previous published works. 12
• This is in response to Chrissymad deleting Facebook references for minor claims in the relevant articles on the grounds that Facebook is not a reliable source regardless of the content, which I dispute based on the above rulings and comments. Huon suggested that I list the particular references here, to discuss their individual appropriateness or otherwise.
• Some/most of the references I used are from a locked Facebook group, but the vast majority of readers of the specific articles would already have (or could easily gain) access to the group(s) so I don't see it as a problem. (ref. WP:V#Access to sources "If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf"; in addition they are only related to minor claims, not overarching statements underpinning the whole page's content).

* Example: References 22 & 23
* Source: 13
* Article: 14 – Row 4 & 5, Column 3 & 4

* Content:

2016-09-03

* Explanation: Discussion between myself and a person involved in fleet management at V/Line Passenger. I asked him, as part of a wider discussion, when Carriage Set SN1 entered maintenance (which marked when the carriages were reorganised); he replied “3rd September” and the context of the thread makes it clear that it was 2016. That date marks when carriage BN2 was removed for transfer to set SN8, as part of a project to improve reliability on the North East railway line by running four shorter trains in lieu of three longer ones. I am willing to upload a screengrab of the conversation, but I am not sure how to upload it. In any case, the claim is minor and does not underpin the validity of the entire article.

There are about sixty of these sorts of minor claims/references in the older version of the N type carriage article, and a handful of similar claims which have been deleted from other articles, which I think are reasonable, accurate, reliable and ought to be restored. Many are (that person) or his colleagues, or established experts like Daryl Gregory, who is cited in many of the ISBN references on the various pages in the VRLocos template. Others are links to random photographs or videos with timestamps showing that carriages were in a certain arrangement or paint scheme at a certain time. They are only intended as temporary, until such time as a proper, printed reference can be found. Ideally I would not need to provide this level of discussion for all sixty, though perhaps a randomly-selected handful would be reasonable, to demonstrate a pattern of accuracy. In that case, obviously I can't be allowed to select the random cases, so I suppose that's open to nominations?

Anothersignalman (talk) 04:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment This is the last possible way I can say this: a locked facebook group is not suitable as a source and cannot be deemed reliable. You cannot force readers to verify by joining a private Facebook group where the sole discretion of admittance is up to the administrator. Secondly, this introduces an aspect of WP:OUTING as Facebook requires individuals to use their real name and thus would require readers to disclose personal identification about themselves in violation of this policy and this does not address the fact that we do not vet individuals on Facebook as SMEs. Ever. Add to that we do not vet SMEs elsewhere either. SMEs are considered as such because of published, verifiable material. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 04:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Unreliable: it completely and undoubtedly fails the single most important tenet of Wikipedia: WP:V. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 04:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Re WP:OUTING, have edited above to remove individual names, just in case. Hadn't considered it as a problem, thanks for pointing it out. Anothersignalman (talk) 04:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Anothersignalman That is not what I was referring to as outing. I was saying that requiring individuals to verify information (especially those that edit here) by requiring them to use their own Facebook account to join a private group is bordering on violating the spirit of outing, among many other things. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 04:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

In any case, I've emailed the Oversight group. Anothersignalman (talk) 04:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• The issue of outing is, I think, a red herring. The fact that Facebook requires a real name to join is no different than a public library requiring one to show ID to check out a book.

That said.... when commenting on this issue at WT:V, I was not made aware that the social media source in question was located in a private, locked Facebook group. That changes things. While author may qualify as an expert based on previous publication... material posted to a private, locked venue would not qualify as being "reliably published".

To be considered reliably published, a source has to be available to the general public... not necessarily easily available, or freely available, or even anonymously available... but available never the less. A closed, locked facebook group (where some may join, but others can not) fails this availability requirement. The analogy in hard copy would be a rare manuscript that is located in someone's private collection. If that person would allow anyone who shows up at his door to view the manuscript, we could (arguably) say that it is "available to the public" and thus "published" by our definition. However... if the owner picks and chooses who gets to view the manuscript, then it fails that definition. Blueboar (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

And how would this differ from a Journal that requires a 1000$ yearly subscription to a real person (with money transfer), along with possibly some guild or association membership? Creating a false Facebook account would be easier. I don't think this fails the availability requirement (depending on the gate-keeping function of the group administrator) - however I still think it shouldn't be used as a source - as a private locked facebook forum seems to indicate that the publisher didn't intend to publish his comments widely.Icewhiz (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Icewhiz In this context, there's a vast difference between something that is published with editorial oversight and a Facebook group (locked or otherwise.) Additionally, anyone can pay the fee to join/gain access to something of that nature. The only entry requirement is something universal: money. A Facebook group can be changed, edited, modified by any of the members/administrators and there is no editorial oversight and there is not guarantee that members of the public could access it. But basically tl;dr it's still not a valid source regardless of open membership or not. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

A journal could require more than money - e.g. membership in an association or society requiring some qualification which could be difficult to avheived or a defined political affiliation (e.g. party membership). A locked Facebook group may operate in a clearly defined fashion in terms of granting access. I disagree with the availability argument - though I do agree with the conclusion (for different reasons - editorial oversight would be one).13:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Chrissymad, in all the Facebook groups I've ever encountered, admins/moderators and original posters can change content of individual posts, but a normal member of a group can't change anyone else's content.

We've established previously that if content anywhere can be confirmed to be owned by a previously-established subject matter expert, then it is an acceptable source (pending WP:SELFPUB, WP:POV, and now the accessibility requirement).

With specific regard to the latter of those three, I think I'm starting to see the point. The way I was interpreting the rules was that locked FB groups would be allowed because they are hypothetically available to everybody, which I understood to mean the same as, say, a journal article which anybody could hypothetically subscribe to and find back-issues of, even articles from a century ago. Combine that with the note in WP:V#Access to sources - "If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf" - and that seems to indicate that locked FB groups would be acceptable if "others" (presumably other Wiki users?) could confirm their validity, which is why I suggested some sort of a register where User A nominates a site, User B seconds that the source actually says what A claimed. If that's not how the ruling is supposed to be interpreted, then maybe that should be made clearer on the rule page? This is probably a good principle in any case – people could easily misinterpret or misrepresent the content of a journal article.

Putting aside the possibility that a group's locked-or-not status can change (because the analogy there is published books going out of print, or journals being declared bankrupt - neither of which change the validity of the content), I don't actually know what the privacy settings are on the groups I've referenced. To that end, here are some random examples from different groups. Can someone else test them and check whether the URLs work? (I'm guessing they might work for Beachbo and/or Huon based on their areas of expertise, but not others?)

A. 15

B. 16

C. 17

D. 18

E. 19

F. 20

G. 21

On the assumption that none of these URLs pass the locked/unlocked test, I'd like to propose a compromise. I can leave the actual articles without the references that don't qualify, but I will maintain a userpage of my own matching the content and including those sources, until such time as I can find a "reliable, published" reference to add to the real article; and eventually my userpage version can be eliminated as obsolete. If, say, the reliable source gives the month of an event and the unreliable source gives the month (matching) and the day as well, then I might try to reference both in the proper article.

For the other minor points raised, just in case I need to refer to them some other time:

• Re outing, the other odd part there is that in the past Chrissymad said that FB sources absolutely wouldn't be permitted because the account holders couldn't be verified. That's the opposite of what she's said above re real names? On the other hand, public libraries (to my knowledge) don't publish membership lists for general consumption.
• Re Subject Matter Expert (SME) vetting, that's not what I was trying to do. Rather, I was trying to establish that the social media account/post is actually associated with the SME, which would automatically render it OK pending WP:SELFPUB. Other discussions suggested that WP:POV should be included in the test for SMEs, and a third test is the availability (hypothetical or actual) of the post in question.
• Chrissymad, sorry for annoying you so much through the discussion across multiple pages. In the future if you encounter someone as stubborn as I am, I'd suggest finding other people who share your views and can back them up. Especially on a collaborative site like this one, consensus is key.

Anothersignalman (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Anothersignalman I don't have time to address all this however I will address your last bit, specifically: Chrissymad, sorry for annoying you so much through the discussion across multiple pages. In the future if you encounter someone as stubborn as I am, I'd suggest finding other people who share your views and can back them up. Especially on a collaborative site like this one, consensus is key. - I don't know if you missed what Huon and half a dozen others have told you over the last few years regarding this or it's a case of WP:IDHT but please go back and read the last several discussions that I've engaged you in. I am not the odd one out on this - my whole argument is supported by current consensus and policy. You are nitpicking bits and pieces but you're missing the overall point and that is that we do not vet people based on Facebook posts in a group and more importantly, comments someone may post in a Facebook group are not published sources. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I also want to add to your comment, I shouldn't need a calvary to continue to explain what is written in clear terms as a policy, your stubbornness is not the communities problem and insisting as much brings it to the point of tendentious editing. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I just want to throw in my two cents here. WP:PRIMARY says we can quote someone for things they've said, or for purely trivial information that isn't likely to be challenged. In this case, we have:

• Information being challenged, which means a primary source is disqualified anyway.
• A locked Facebook group means that someone who wants to verify a piece of information MUST either 1) release their personal information to a group of fairly random strangers (rather than a reputable library/journal/etc. who generally DON'T share membership lists) - ie: forced self-outing to verify content, or 2) violate Facebook's Terms of Use by registering a fake account. This would fail WP:V (we cannot require someone to violate a contract - which is what a TOU is - to verify information in an article).
• We do not vet/verify SME's on social media. If a social media account is "Verified" or "Confirmed" by the social media service, then we follow that verification that the account matches to the SME and then WP:PRIMARY still applies. We are not a research journal publishing original content.
• I believe, also, that you should read Original Research.

The compromise of leaving the information unsourced in the article isn't a good one, Unsourced or improperly sourced content that has been challenged should be removed until a reliable, secondary source is found to support it. On a userpage, the rules are more lax, but you cannot link to your userpage from the mainspace article, so you can keep it as a reference for yourself, but it's not useful for the article. Waggie (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Not useful references, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I never agreed that "checking posts for consistency" was confirmation, nor did I agree that having published a book is automatic proof of being an "established expert". In fact I disagree with both, and that would not have been a conclusion from the wording I said was redundant over at WT:Verifiability#Permitting use of established experts as references, if posted on social media?. I rather do not think having published a book, even if it's on the relevant subject, is on its own good enough to make someone enough of an "established expert" to take someone's Facebook posts as references. Regarding that kind of "confirmation by looking at posts", it would be original research, and we cannot expect our readers to engage in such an analysis to determine the reliability of a source. Beyond this doubly doubtful expertise, there's also the problem that these specific social media posts are to a closed group. That's pretty much the opposite of being published. Waggie has said it better above, and Icewhiz' comments about the author maybe not even wanting it to be "published" beyond that group also carry weight. I also disagree with the reasoning that the source being a closed group is not an issue because our prospective readers are likely to already be members of that group. Shall we write small walled gardens for members of specific Facebook groups that others aren't expected to look at? Sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works; we cannot predict the social media activities of our readers. Huon (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Before worrying about WP:RS it may be helpful to consider whether the source(s) and information meet WP:DUE. If the source and information are not of sufficient weight to include in an encyclopedia article - and if some obscure social network post is the only source then things aren't looking good - then we don't even have to determine the reliability of the source. ElKevbo (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Waggie - I could be wrong, but my interpretation of previous discussions in the last few days was that Chrissymad was challenging the source of references (Facebook) rather than the content (the various dates, i.e. 2016-09-03 per above example). Does that count as "challenging a primary source"? Notably, the content where I was using FB as a source is not the main content of the article, which should help with WP:PRIMARY.

I now accept that locked FB groups are a problem. That's why I posted the seven random links above - for other users to test whether or not they are accessible, because I don't know.

I'd expect, based on these discussions, that using FB as a source is acceptable if, and only if, it ticks a list of boxes including accessibility, WP:SELFPUB, WP:POV and perhaps a few others.

Thanks for noting "vet/verify" - two different concepts. I misunderstood previous uses of "vetting" to mean that "verifying" was still permitted, based on the Staszek Lem ruling.

Huon - Re verification based on past works; I can see that one peer-reviewed publication might not qualify an individual's (assumed confirmed, for sake of argument) Facebook account as a reliable source. In the case of Norm Bray, Peter Vincent and Daryl Gregory, there are over fifteen peer-reviewed publications over the past decade; and Gregory in particular has used Facebook to post updates on events between publication and current.

If you disagree that "checking posts for consistency" qualifies as confirming that an account is linked to an SME, then does that mean you disagree with the ruling here - "If social media are reliably associated with official spokespersons for the company, then see WP:SELFPUB" (Archive 65), Staszek Lem?

A few months back you suggested that Wikia might be a better host for the sort of content I'm assembling. At the time I thought Wikia was exclusively for fictional media, and not for summaries of real-life events. Maybe that was wrong?

ElKevbo, I'm not sure if WP:DUE is relevant here because the content in question is not the whole of an article or even a quarter. It's just a table at the end.

Anothersignalman (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

"Reliably associated" is not an invitation for original research. That refers to things like, say, Donald Trump's Twitter account which Twitter has verified is indeed Trump's and not some impostor's. If Gregory uses Facebook for updates between peer-reviewed publications, we can simply wait for his next peer-reviewed publication and cite that when it's ready. I am not particularly familiar with Wikia, but it's my understanding that it's for "fandom", which wouldn't necessarily imply fiction. Huon (talk) 06:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Anothersignalman RE:Waggie - I could be wrong, but my interpretation of previous discussions in the last few days was that Chrissymad was challenging the source of references (Facebook) rather than the content (the various dates, i.e. 2016-09-03 per above example). Does that count as "challenging a primary source"? Notably, the content where I was using FB as a source is not the main content of the article, which should help with WP:PRIMARY. I am challenging both. The content is not verifiable and I am challenging the use of something as ridiculous as a closed Facebook group. So yes, it is challenged per Waggie's point. Stop parsing everything to fit your desire to include this. I'm not sure who brought it up but I think WP:DUE absolutely applies. If the only place this can be sourced is an obscure, closed Facebook group, it's rather unlikely to be appropriate for an encyclopedia. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:DUE is not just about how much space in an article is devoted to a particular piece of information but also about whether the information merits inclusion in the article at all. My brief-and-uninformed reading of this discussion is that there is some information that someone wants to include in an encyclopedia article but that information is only found in an obscure, difficult-to-access location. If my understanding is accurate then I question whether the information merits inclusion in an encyclopedia article at all. It seems very unlikely that the information is of high importance or represents a significant point of view if it's only found in one source. ElKevbo (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I recently found several hundred citations to the Stack Exchange Network in various Wikipedia articles. Can these online discussions be considered as reliable sources for Wikipedia? Jarble (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what is Wikipedia's policy regarding Q&A websites since I never saw one cited before, but I hope it is to treat them as unreliable sources, at least websites like Stack Exchange where anyone can answer. It's true that a good amount of accepted answers are of good quality and usually written by professionals, but that's not always the case nor is it verifiable most of the time. Maybe if it's a known specialist with a verified profile it would be acceptable, but then again I don't think Q&A websites are acceptable. I'm curious to see other answers to this. Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Stack Exchange is ever a reliable source, no. Some users generally provide sources for their answers on that site, which could be helpful for replacing references to SE on Wikipedia, but the discussions themselves do not meet WP:RS. Though I have to say, the site is a great deal more reliable than, for instance, Yahoo! Answers, and most of the information on it is true (but I could say the same of Wikipedia and we're not a reliable source). — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 11:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

No. It's a forum whose content depends entirely on its users. Don't use. —WLM / ? 15:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia itself is not WP:RS but can Geohack be used as WP:RS for coordinates? If not, does anyone know of alternatives? Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage#Leigh Rayment's Peerage Pages (2017) for a discussion on whether Leigh Rayment's Peer Page is a reliable source. So that the conversation is not split over several pages, if you want to comment please do so there. -- PBS (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

ethnicelebs.com appears to be a homegrown website with user-generated content. It's written using a Wordpress theme, says it's a "sole proprietorship", says "The information on Ethnicelebs is provided for entertainment purposes only ... we make no assurances that all information on our Site is accurate", refers to "submissions by Users", and "relies on the content submitted to its Site". (See http://ethnicelebs.com/all-celebs/welcome/terms) Is it a reliable source for the ethnicity and ancestry of people? 32.218.44.102 (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

No. Not a reliable source for any article, much less for the higher standards needed for information about living people. First Light (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe no, maybe yes. Exactly what basis are you using to say that this is not a reliable source? Have you found examples of inaccuracies? I would think you would need to cite some incorrect information in order to support your statement. I'm not an expert regarding this cite, but I found information on this cite about a celebrity's ancestry that was actually more accurate than the information in the celebrity's own autobiography! This celebrity corrected his ancestry information in a subsequent book, and the new info was consistent with the info on ethnicelebs.com. Until there's some evidence that this is not a reliable source, there's no basis to judge if it's reliable or not. Finqqq (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: Ethnicelebs.com is linked from 120 pages, mostly talk and user pages, but also some actual BLP pages such as Rob Gronkowski. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

It was used in two articles - I have removed from both. Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Also Tucker Carlson, which I removed in responding to a related edit request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

So these deletions are being made based on the statement of one person that's not supported? That doesn't seem very logical. Finqqq (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Your question has multiple inaccuracies. A: It is not "one person". While the IP is clearly questioning its reliability, First Light explicitly said it was unreliable and the deletions made by Jytdog and myself are clear implicit recognitions of non-reliability (although I apologize in advance for presuming to answer on Jytdog's behalf). B: It is not "not supported". By the site's own Terms of Service: "...we make no assurances that all information on our Site is accurate" (which the IP started by pointing out). The definition of a reliable source says: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. emphasis added A site that explicitly disclaims any claims to accuracy obviously does not fit that definition. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The site is very clearly not a reliable source per WP:RS; this is not ambiguous. Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• In no way does this website meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sourcing for the reasons explained by Jytdog above.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations, and I recognize that weeding out the trash sources from Wikipedia is not easy. But your chief criticism of this particular site seems to hinge on the site's Terms of Service. It's true that their TOS was written with an abundance of caution, but if it had been written more artfully (referring to best efforts to fact-check, etc.) it appears this would not have been the sticking point. Also, you may have noticed that the definition of a "reliable source" contains the word "reliable" within the definition, as do some of the other somewhat circular definitions. It's not easy to have a litmus test for reliability, but it clearly should be strongly connected to accuracy. And if you're saying that a given piece of information from a source is not accurate, then you should cite YOUR source to refute it, hopefully from a more "reliable" source. In my case, this site was a goldmine of information that was accurate and was later confirmed by a published source, so it just doesn't seem logical to banish it completely from Wikipedia. Finqqq (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Finqqq:, before you talk of "banishing" a source, please try this: Go and read the standard on what is a reliable source. It's linked multiple times above. Then, if you can identify any reason (besides "I like it") that ethnicelebs.com qualifies under that standard, then you will likely get positive responses here. As it is, all you are doing is making allusions to censorship and requesting others to prove a negative. It's not an argument that is likely to change anything about how the source is perceived. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• I've been looking at EthniCelebs.com additions since early this year. I didn't believe anyone would disagree with past consensus on it being unreliable and suitable for automatic removal by XLinkBot. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_76#Ethnicity, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_207#EthniCelebs.com, User_talk:XLinkBot/RevertList#EthniCelebs.com. I've not seen any spamming of the site during that time, and the few additions made are from editors that seem simply unaware of relevant policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronz (talk • contribs) 15:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
• Per the OP and several other comments, ethnicelebs.com is not a reliable source. In principle, even a generally unreliable source might be reliable for some fact, but that is not what is being discussed. The above claim regarding "cite some incorrect information" is incorrect—please examine WP:RS. Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

What_the_Health#Critical_analysis. Take a look and share your opinions on whether the sources, especially the second one, are appropriate. --Rose (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Link: 22

I first noticed this used as reference and external link at Allah as Moon-god. An insource search shows that it's used on about a douzen articles only. I've seen worse, I wonder if it can be used as a source like here. I find no existing article about it either. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 12:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

You didn't identify which source, nor for what information. Can you please do so as required for this noticeboard?

Taking a cursory look across Wikipedia: I see what looks like a great deal of discussion mentioning bismikaallahuma.org vs it being used in articles. I suggest looking at the discussions to see what others have said about using the website.

I see currently three uses of bismikaallahuma.org sources in the article you mention, all apparently original works for bismikaallahuma.org. They look like opinion pieces. I'm not seeing any evidence of fact-checking and attention to accuracy from the website. --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The domain name is in the title and the specific example in my above "here" link (a diff). Do you mean also adding a direct link to the website? If so I have now added it at the top of this thread. I didn't search for article talk pages discussing the source but thanks for the idea, I only searched this noticeboard's archive unsuccessfully. Thank you for your assessment. —PaleoNeonate - 18:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I was confused by it being used in two other locations in the article.

All three are opinion pieces, and the backgrounds of the authors are unclear. I'd hope that better sources could be found for the content you are concerned about, as well as the other. That said, there are fringe/parity issues here. If these sources are of the same or better quality that those making the original arguments which these are countering, then they are may be fine. It might be helpful to have yet another WP:FTN discussion if these FRINGE problems are continuing.

Has anyone other than the single ip tried to add these links? --Ronz (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

My impression is that at least in this article, these sources are used to support that the fringe theory is erroneous, which would also be the scholarly consensus. My initial concerns were a possible clickbait or soapboxing blog because it was added as an external link as well, but considering the date of the entries I doubt that it's a site dedicated for Wikipedia clicks. It still appears to be a blog however. The slogan "Muslim Responses to Anti-Islam Polemics" may indicate that its purpose is activism (which doesn't necessarily prevent its use depending on the quality, I think?). The tone is not always neutral (i.e. "the claim that Muslims worship 'Allah the moon-god' is nothing but a heinous lie which is not based on any concrete evidence" which implies that hatred must be involved in the erroneous belief). I can't answer your last question for now, I'll have to check who inserted the other instances. Thanks again, —PaleoNeonate - 00:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I used an interview with Sean MacEoin posted on YouTube as a source for information regarding his life. Is this an RS?Apollo The Logician (talk) 10:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It helps to have the specific details...

• The interview in question is: here
• Apollo wishes to use it to support the statement: "He joined the United Irish League in 1908. In late 1913 he was sworn into the Irish Republican Brotherhood and joined the Granard circle of the organization."

The source is being objected to on the grounds that an interview is a Primary source, and the statement requires a Secondary source. Not sure about either of those objections. Blueboar (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I would object. In order to use an interview, I believe, we need details about the original production. Note that either the original producers or the youtube poster could have edited the original. You need to find the original production and use the published transcript, or a book that reports it. Also, I think that individuals memories of events decades ago can be faulty, so it should be mentioned in-text, that is, "according to MacEoin...." TFD (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment (Please note that I am respondinf to the information in the OP comment, which did not link to the video in question, and the thread title. I have not read the other comments, and I haven't checked the source in question, or the article context, yet.) Interviews are primary sources and so should be treated appropriately, perhaps with inline attribution to the interviewee, and with care for WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. "a YouTube video" is the medium, not the publisher or author, and so has no influence whatsoever on the inherent reliability or unreliability of this or that source. One problem is that a lot of videos on YouTube are bootleg uploads that we are not allowed link to per WP:ELNO: in cases like that (where, for example, an interview was recorded off TV and then put on YouTube by YouTuber RandyFromBoise420420), the original interview is itself as reliable as any other interview from the original publisher -- we just are not allowed link to the YouTube upload. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Having read User:Blueboar's summary of the issue, I have to say I agree with those objecting to the source in this case. I haven't watched the interview yet, but I have to imagine it was recorded late in the subject's life (television was not really a thing in Ireland when my parents' generation were children, so unless this is a YouTube video of a radio interview I'd guess it was from the late 1950s at the earliest). This would mean the subject was looking back on events from 50-60 years earlier: I don't remember off the top of my head what month I joined my alma mater's Japanese Society, and that was less than nine years ago. If there are no reliable records and secondary sources by historians to confirm or deny his claims, then we must assume they are wrong.

@Apollo The Logician: You should try to locate a reliable secondary source.

The one caveat is that, in the article on him and nowhere else, it might not be undue to say that he stated that such-and-such is the case in a later interview. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

There has been an edit war over whether or not to add sources, leading to, among other things, e.g. an addition of a warring faction in the infobox of the Yemeni Civil War article. Consensus was never reached as the discussion descended into personal attacks, and the dispute was not to be resolved. One party argues that the sources in question in the context would count as WP:RS, another party argues that the sources are WP:QUESTIONABLE at best and thus a lot of information should be deleted (compare the infobox without removals 23 to with removals 24). The sources in concern, among others, are e.g. Middle East Monitor, The Guardian, alaraby.co.uk, criticalthreats.org. Do also note the differences in the unfoldable support sections of the infobox. Thus, the dispute concerns various sources. Can neutral third parties of this board figure out what to include in the infobox and what to delete? --87.116.0.30 (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The article Ariosa v. Sequenom cites in the Ariosa v. Sequenom#Commentary section a number of blogs for the opinions set out there, in particular:

• http://holmansbiotechipblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/federal-circuit-decides-ariosa-and-its.html
• http://www.patentdocs.org/2015/06/ariosa-diagnostics-inc-v-sequenom-inc-fed-cir-2015.html
• http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/08/30/federal-circuit-should-reconsider-ariosa-v-sequenom-the-panel-decision-threatens-modern-innovation/id=61171/
• http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/08/09/ariosa-is-a-good-example-of-outcome-driven-%C2%A7-101-decisions/id=60433/
• https://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2015/12/03/judge-dyk-would-add-reduction-to-practice-to-patent-eligibility-requirement/
• https://patentlyo.com/patent/2016/04/concurrence-rehearing-sequenom.html

Are blogs like these considered RS? Is the way they are used in the article appropriate? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so. These are some of the better-known IP blogs, particularly Patently-O, but I don't think any of them make our RS criteria. I believe these are all just self-published blogs. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

We have on ongoing dispute on the James O'Keefe article about whether or not Isthmus, which is apparently a weekly alternative newspaper out of Madison, WI can stand alone as a RS for a quote. The discussion can be found here. We have an RfC going here, although it's so far getting a bit testy and receiving minimal participation. This is the text in question:

We've been bussing people in to deal with you fuckin' assholes for fifty years and we're not going to stop now." Foval went on to discuss the legal consequences of voter fraud: "Let's just say, in theory, if a major investigation came up of major vote fraud that way, how would they prove it?...If there's a bus involved, that changes the dynamic... You can prove conspiracy if there's a bus, but if there are cars, it is much harder to prove."94 Foval later said he was talking about busing people to rallies.95 The accuracy of the videos has been questioned for possibly omitting context, and the unedited raw footage has not been made available."

The bolded text is the Isthmus-sourced material. My issue with this material is three-fold:

• Isthmus is a local "alternative newspaper" with minimal circulation, not a respected/mainstream/known publication. For those unfamiliar with this format, an alternative weekly newspaper is typically printed on low-quality paper and picked up in a rack outside of grocery stories and other local businesses, or available for free at bus stop benches.
• Isthmus is literally the only source on the planet that carried this man's quote. No mainstream source saw it fit to report the alleged rebuttal of Foval to the very heavily reported videotapes on which he appeared, and subsequently cost him his job.25 This oddity lends credence to the possibility that this quote may have never actually been uttered.
• Finally, the quote makes no sense at all, which helps explain why only one writer in the world printed it. As we can see from the above text, Foval is clearly concerned about conspiracy charges and avoiding a "vote fraud" investigation as a result of "bussing people in." Since busing people in to rallies is neither conspiracy, nor vote fraud, this claim would clearly be false. However, when I suggested that we classify Foval's claim as false (if we can't agree to delete it outright) and change the wording to "falsely claimed", this prompted personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, strangely enough. If there was another source that carried this quote, perhaps we could crosscheck it with that source, but no such source exists. For these reasons, I think it's a pretty open-and-shut case that Isthmus woefully fails WP:V policy, and the user who wishes to add this material is defiantly refusing to fulfill his responsibility of burden of proof.26 Any help with sorting this out would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

This isn't really a matter for WP:RS, but rather WP:DUE and/or summarizing the source accurately. Is there any doubt that Foval said it to the reporter? I don't think so; so the attributed statement is technically not a problem. The issue is how to (or whether to) present it in the article. I'll discuss the matter more on the talkpage. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I doubt that Foval said this, is that good enough? Lol I'm only half-joking, but I will absolutely acknowledge that his response would absolutely be DUE, should this quote actually have been uttered. But if there is only one source on planet Earth that claims Foval said this, and not a single other outlet so much as referenced the alternative newsletter, my real question is can we rely solely on Isthmus for nationally-relevant news? Especially when considering the alleged quote makes absolutely no sense, claiming that he was talking about "busing people to rallies" after he was expressing his concerns about getting in hot water for conspiracy/vote fraud charges for "using buses." Thanks for your input, I'll check out your notes on the talk page. Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• However intended, this is disruptive forum shopping. HiddenTempo gets points for disclosing the RfC, but all !votes and substantive comments should be made at Talk:James O'Keefe#RfC: Foval busing comment. Editors are invited to participate there. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I am considering to use this article from Denmark's Gaffa (magazine) but it is a free magazine. I saw somewhere on Wikipedia that somebody stated that free magazines or newspapers are not reliable for GA or FA. Is that true? Phamthuathienvan (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I've never encountered such an assertion, and would reject it out of hand. Business models have changed enormously for newspapers and magazines, and some of the finest U.S. journalism is done by free publication. What you do have to look out for is certain types of "trade journals" which are free because they are basically wrappers for advertisements, and their "editorial content" is mostly regurgitated press releases and thinly-veiled adverts for products with overt advertisements elsewhere in the publication. --Orange Mike | Talk 11:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much this, but I would add some free local papers too.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Just make sure that the free publication still has expected editing/journalist standards (that there's an editorial process for the most part) that we'd expect of a paid-subscription paper. --MASEM (t) 13:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I have a disagreement with User:KGirlTrucker81 about this facebook post as a source for Yosef Kleiner. This facebook post is the only source for this part of the article

In 2012, after four years of interruption as congregational rabbi, Yosef took the rabbinical position at the Union Libérale Israélite de France in Paris, when that congregation was seeking to try a more traditional self-definition

and

Still, the ideological divergences between the congregation lay leaders and Rabbi Kleiner proved to be deeper than what they had thought at the beginning. In spite of a thorough work done by both parts trying to overcome their dissimilarities, they arrived to the conclusion that the basic differences were too deep

as I wrote in her talk page:

the WP:RS page itself it says that facebook material is useable in some cases.

Now, if you read the article & open the sources you can see that the facebook quotes are quotes from the congregation official facebook page talking about changes and updates in the community life. This posts talk only about does changes in the community life and therfore complie with the regulations of reliable sources "The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.

The article is not based primarily on such sources.".

I belive this is a reliable source in this case and the template she dropped in the page should be removed.

Tnx for your answersDasEditor (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on independent reliable sources. Two parties who are definitely not independent here are the employer and the employee. If this is a significant event it will surely have been covered elsewhere; if it is not, there's no need to include it in our encyclopaedia. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi all. It's the second week of our Movement Strategy Cycle 3 discussion, and there's a new challenge that will likely be of particular interest to folks here: How could we capture the sum of all knowledge when much of it cannot be verified in traditional ways? You can see more details, and suggest solutions or point to previous discussions at Wikipedia:Wikimedia Strategy 2017. Next week's topic will also be of interest. You can also read a summary of discussions that took place in the past week. Thanks. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone know if this source 27, is reliable to be used on a song article? It explicitly calls "Wild Thoughts" R&B so I'd like to use it if possible.--Theo Mandela (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Up by the author's name it says "Curated by Jane Flowers". Looking at the link to jane I'd say that this represents editorial oversight. Given this, and the fact that the material it is cited to is relatively trivial, I'd say it is probably a RS in this instance. The writer does not appear to be an expert however, so if another RS disagrees with this assessment as R&B I'd go with the other one. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 21:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems trivial until you meet a WP:GWARrior. :) I would prefer stronger indication of editorial oversight, and stronger (multiple source) categorisation for inclusion. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

"curated"? Sorry but the choice of that word (over edited) tells me that that "Jane Flowers" does not act in a editorial, but rather an archivist role. Plus the phrase "Blasting News is the leading global social news magazine. Created by you. Curated by professionals." reinforces that view. In fact it seems that their editorial methods are A: algorithms. B: More experienced editors (a system not wholly unlike here in a way). So No I do not thin this is RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not a really a "quotation" so much as a "description", but we put it in quotes so I'm counting it.

The lead of our Fevre Dream article includes the text it has been described by critics and Martin himself as "Bram Stoker meets Mark Twain", but the GRRM source puts it in quotes (albeit in a manner that doesn't necessarily imply he is quoting someone) and the independent source does as well, explicitly attributing the quote to some other unnamed party, with the implication of the plain past tense that it was a contemporary critic at the time of the book's original publication. But if GRRM was quoting an old review he was aware of, one wouldn't think he would write it as he did (in a manner that implies he came up with the description himself while putting the blog post together).

Now, this is actually fine sourcing for what we say (actually attributing one critic's opinion to "critics" would be worse), but ... the Independent source post-dates GRRM's blog by two years, and at the time GRRM wrote his blog our article already included the quote, attributed, somewhat weaselishly, to "some", which makes me a little suspicious we might have made it up, GRRM thought it was a reasonable description (though not as good as "Dracula meets Huck Finn"), and one random critic checked Wikipedia in 2013 and ignored the ^{citation needed} tag.

Should it be tagged as needing a source that might actually be the original source of the quotation, since the earliest source that has been located was Wikipedia itself? Am I just paranoid? Both?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Beyond a "suspicion" do you have anything else to go on?, as this all seems a bit like the very kind of OR you are talking about.Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Not really. Looking at the record, we had an unattributed quotation, and when sources were requested, the only ones that could apparently be located were ones thay post-dated our use of it. Technically, we never should have included the quotation if it did not appear in a reliable source before we used it -- in the disastrously bad first draft created by an IP in August 2004 -- so if no sources can be found that existed before that date that is a problem.

Yes, I am, in a manner of speaking, engaging in "OR", but as the opening paragraph of WP:NOR specifies, this kind of "OR" is appropriate. Removing material, or discussing the possibility that some otherwise reliable sources may have taken the relevant information from Wikipedia, can never be violations of Wikipedia's NOR policy.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:Citogenesis is not new, but it is rather rare. --Izno (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing either of the sources as supporting "described by critics". The Independent does not specify such, and is as likely to be referring to Martin's own description. Martin does not attribute the phrase to any person. Suggest "... described by Martin as ...". - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

At Aokigahara#Flora and fauna, there is a non-neutral section that lists a source for the purposes of calling it "clickbait" and then presents contradictory sources saying the opposite. My first thought was to just remove the first two sentences of the section, but I am unfamiliar with these sources and have no idea which are reliable and which are not. The alleged "clickbait" one is from a site called Fusion. The sources contradicting it are this PDF, a second PDF, and a natural park website. DarkKnight2149 02:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there are problems with this section. I have removed the first two sentences. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

All 3 sources seem reliable in their own ways - but reliable for what? The first and second - academic studies on bears and moles - seem a very roundabout way of verifying the presence of those creatures. I would prefer to rely on the third source, as providing a simpler verification, but am happy for other editors to differ. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Reliable for contradictory information that was in the first two sentences. DarkKnight2149 20:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The use of this source has been in contention in discussions at Carl Benjamin and Pepe the Frog - is Heat Street, a website launched in April 2016 a reliable source for factual content, or merely for WP:RSOPINION stuff? PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Insertcleverphrasehere, who stated that it is the right wing equivalent to the apparently partisan Guardian. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Heat Street, while a WSJ spinoff, doesn't seem to have the same journalistic integrity as WSJ, and I would avoid it outside its use for opinion. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone have any examples of fabricated/made up stories being published by Heat Street? While a partisan source, I don't see a lot of difference between it and partisan left wing sources in terms of quality and journalistic integrity. In a lot of cases, I find that they are often the most comprehensive source for internet nerd culture stuff (such as in the above articles) as their contributors tend to be a bit more internet savvy than other outlets. They might be less reliable for political stuff, I am not sure. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 18:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Their handling of mistakenly-run articles and retractions is not what we expect from reliable sources, and it says a lot about their fact-checking and accuracy.

In September 2016, they published "No Hillary, Pepe the Frog is Not a Racist Meme" about the Pepe the Frog meme. Five days later, they issued the retration "Hillary Clinton Is Absolutely Right, ‘Pepe’ Meme Is Antisemitic – An Apology" written by co-founder Louise Mensch. (She is no longer with the site.) In it, Mensch wrote: "That piece was inaccurate. We apologize for publishing it. The piece was floated and rejected in a story meeting yet somehow, at high volume, this one slipped through the net." (How a site could accidentally publish an article that had specifically been rejected is beyond me.) Later in the piece, she wrote: "I have discussed this matter with our contributor and showed him the evidence. He offered to delete the original post but we decided it is more in the spirit of No Safe Spaces to admit our own foul-ups." Sure enough, an Editor's Note was added to the original piece. But sometime later the Editor's Note was removed from the version of the article currently on heatst.com and Louise Mensch's apology/retraction was pulled from the site. So is Pepe the Frog a racist meme or not? There was "evidence" pointing to yes, but then it was removed. It's tough to say what Heat Street's official editorial position is.

Also, unlike many (most?) other reliable sources, they don't differentiate between opinion and fact-based reporting. For example, articles like "SJW vs. SJW: SJW Mad That SJW New York Times Writer Praised SJW Who Wrote SJW Book" get in plenty of digs with lines like "social justice warriors will always be outraged about something". There's no indication if they consider this real journalism or a gossipy opinion piece. Woodroar (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, they did issue a retraction when the preponderance of sources were agreeing at the time that Pepe was a 'racist meme', the issuing of retractions is a good thing, and indicates a reputation for accuracy and fact checking (WP:NEWSORG). Note now that the Heat Street article in question largely agrees in content with what our own article says about the racism of Pepe the Frog based on current sources (i.e. some pepe memes are racist, and others aren't), perhaps they decided in hindsight that a retraction was not necessary (If this is the case though, I still find it odd that there is no editor's note about the retraction of the retraction on the article). The second source you mentioned, about SJWs also largely agrees with what our article on the subject says about the term (i.e. reputation for overly politically correct views). Heat street might have a right wing veiwpoint and perspective of these issues, but neither of these sources demonstrate printing of false material IMO, they are well within the range of legitimate views on the topics in question (just like sources on the other side like Mother Jones or Salon might have a reasonably strong left leaning viewpoint on similar issues). Partisan sources are not really a major issue, so long as they are not supporting conspiracy theories, or printing false material without fact checking (i.e. Infowars), it is just a matter of maintaining proper WP:WEIGHT of sources in our articles. Anyone have anything else that might demonstrate that Heat Street is not a reliable source? — InsertCleverPhraseHere 21:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The initial retraction is the only reliable-source-worthy move they made here. Publishing a rejected article with errors apparent to the editor and later the author, pulling the retraction, and republishing the original article (with, again, apparent errors) are not hallmarks of fact-checking and accuracy. (Seriously, for a source that's supposed to be "internet savvy" to play games with retractions suggests that they really don't know how the internet works.) It's also misleading to say that the Heat Street article reflects what our Pepe the Frog article says. Which version of that article? With or without the Editor's Note stating the article is wrong? Our article doesn't say that Pepe is "now a symbol of the Nazi Jew-baiting of the alt-right" or characterize the alt-right as "actual racism" as the offline retraction does. Is it not cherrypicking to reference one article yet ignore a contrary article from the same publisher?

As for their bias goes, the issue isn't with their partisanship, but with their lack of distinction between analysis of facts and mere gossip. Are we supposed to treat conclusions like SJWs are always mad, the left are puritans, criticized game devs retreat to alcohol, and making gold isn't what MMOs are about as evidence of hard-hitting journalism? When referencing them, how do we tell what's factual and what's hyperbole? Woodroar (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I would say opinions are allowed to be wrong. We would never count it against The New York Times if their opinion section published a column railing against climate science. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

That's precisely the problem. Is it supposed to be an opinion piece or fact-based news reporting? Unlike The New York Times, Heat Street doesn't differentiate between the two. Woodroar (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

No. Heat Street does not have a good reputation for fact-checking an accuracy. It may be usable for its own opinions, but not for statements on facts -- at least not for most subjects. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

It's easy to point to mess ups by any RS that is widely used, InsertCleverphrase has it right in the way such mess ups are handled, is a good indication of what that source is. Arkon (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Arkon Its not me, its in our own guidelines (bottom bit of WP:NEWSORG), all sources make mistakes, how they handle those mistakes, and how often is what matters.

@Rhododendrites what made you come to the conclusion that they have do not have such a reputation? The New York Times re-used quotes given to heatstreet here, The Washington Post cites Heat Street's sleuthing on a fake news story here. The Post also examines reporting by heatstreet that led Trump to believe he was being wiretapped here. Digiday talks about them positively here. As does Business Insider here. NPR reported positively about their reporting here, indeed NPR says that "The BBC and The Guardian in January confirmed much of Mensch's report and built on it.", referring to a post on Heat Street, indicating that the BBC28 and the Gaurdian29 also consider Heat Street to be a reliable source. Fox News is considering taking on their head editor to run Foxnews.com, as reported by the Wall Street Journal. Regardless of how you feel about their conservative leanings, it is pretty clear that they are taken very seriously as a reliable source by other, more established, reliable news sources. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 04:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC) Pinging all other users who were involved in a similar previous discussion about Heat Street's reliability Mark Schierbecker, Grayfell, Jeff5102. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 04:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the first comment made by Masem in this thread. Sagecandor (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'd like to see a bit more comment here, as only Woodroar's comment had any sources and/or information indicating the reasons behind his arguments (and has not responded to my reply to thier comment). Sagecandor, saying that you agree with Masem's comment above still doesn't indicate why you or he/she has that view ("It doesn't have journalistic integrity" isn't an argument unless you demonstrate that the statement is true somehow).

Most importantly, I'd like to have some input on the specific issue this was raised because of. Specifically:

Is this Heat Street source appropriate for use in the Kekistan section of the Pepe the Frog article. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 05:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_228
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.

---