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.

What is the standard practice for sourcing with respect to stated Youtube subscriber and viewing figures in BLPs? This is one example, see in particular the info box data. Is editorial reporting on Youtube figures WP:OR? Also, with respect to notability, do these figures matter? Acousmana (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The latter is easy, no. Notability is determined by third parties nothing you and commenting about it. As to the former, as I recall YouTube stats can be manipulated and this are not really an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

This is my reading as well. YouTube subscriber / view figures (taken directly from YouTube) are WP:PRIMARY statistics of generally unclear meaning and significance; this means that there are very, very few valid uses for them. In particular, they should absolutely never be used in a way that implies popularity or which would encourage readers to make inference about the topic's reception - that would be WP:OR. The potential risk of manipulation in particular is itself enough to make the numbers almost unusable without a secondary source, because it means that we, as editors, can't really ascribe any meaning to them, and using them in almost any context carries an implicit endorsement that we are not qualified to grant without a secondary source. --Aquillion (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Well they matter in the sense that's how streamers/content creators make their money. But it's not really relevant to notability except that someone with very high numbers will be more likely to have been mentioned in what we consider reliable sources. But in terms of listing the figures, it's either a reliable primary or secondary source, not OR. In that the figures will most often be sourced to the person's channel. But those numbers are not curated by them, but by the host. So while it's still primary, it's extremely unlikely to be fudged. They can of course be sourced to secondary sources, most articles about these influencers will mention their numbers, but those are rarely stable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

OK so in the example given, we read in the lead: "...who is best known for his music-related YouTube channel The Needle Drop, which has gathered over 2.19 million subscribers." There is no discussion of this figure, or channel subscriptions generally, in the main body, but it is stated prominently in the lead as if something notable. I'm reading this statement as a synthetic construction, so therefore OR? no? Acousmana (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the body of the text. If it's not sourced and mentioned in the body, it shouldn't be in the lead. It shouldn't be a problem sourcing it, but it needs more than a passing mention in the infobox to be lead material. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The above, but that is not an RS issue, its a wp:weight issue. If he is know for something, independent third party RS would mention it, if they do not he is not known for it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, helps. Acousmana (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Not only are YouTube views/subscribers a weight issue, the numbers are also unreliable. Just do a google search on "buy youtube subscribers". --Guy Macon (talk) 07:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• I cautiously use them to note the changes in popularity. Buying views is disreputable so I’d need some notable evidence they are accused of doing so before assuming they do. And the subscribers/views are notable as it ranks them against all others in their category, it determines their earning potential and track record, and reliable sources regularly report these figures indicating they believe the metrics are notable. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

"changes in popularity" according to what reliable source? Everything you describe here is editorialising, it's OR. The other aspect to consider is that YouTube is NOT a publisher. So, the way I see it, if an editor is not consulting independent sources that discuss a subject's viewing and subscription figures, they should not be entering this data in an info box. Acousmana (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

There are also accuracy issues, almost literally the information will be out of date as you enter it. At no time will any snapshot of views or subscribers will be current, thus its only use would be historical (in Jan 2018 gitvonwommblenose had 1.8 m subscribers). But then others issue crop up as well.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

For example: Singer X, had 20,000 subscribers in 2016; after their appearance on Foo’s Got Talent 2017 that rose to 230,000 subscribers, with their cover of “FooMerica the Beautiful” having the most views of any of their videos at 4.6 million as of June 2020. It really depends where reliable sources lead as to what you can report, but there are encyclopedic ways to do so. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

"but there are encyclopedic ways to do so" - yeah like following the guidelines on sourcing and original research. Additionally, with respect to so called music journalism, very little of it is genuinely independent, either a record label's/artist's publicity department has made a pitch or they have enlisted an advertising agency that runs a music webzine (Fader for example) to do a write up. Acousmana (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow, someone’s a grumpy glum. Many reliable sources also quote YouTube metrics, and I would only use primary sources to supplement what those state. Not sure why anyone needs to use OR to report straight forward metrics. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

"report straight forward metrics" - but we are not here to "report," that's the job of the reliable sources we consult. By "reporting" metrics you are making value judgements of their significance. Acousmana (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. The same way we report the name of an album, if they got married, the date they were born, and every other fact we report in articles, we use our editorial judgement if it’s notable enough to report what reliable sources are saying. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

"notable enough to report what reliable sources are saying" - YouTube is saying nothing about said figures, it's not a publisher, or a reliable source, that's the bottom line. Use reliable third party sources that discuss/report/assess significance etc. of the data. Acousmana (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

*If* you need to use YouTube, it’s generally a primary source, and as the world’s largest home of video content, by far, their system of recording views and subscriptions is the only one available. Secondary sources should be leaned on first but primary source usage for basic counts is acceptable. I’m not seeing anything worth getting worked up over. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

"I’m not seeing anything worth getting worked up over." - it's reasonable to question the validity of the sourcing method, quite clearly it's flawed. Acousmana (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess I don’t agree there are any flaws; the stats are what they are wether we report them or not, there they are. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Buying views is disreputable so I’d need some notable evidence they are accused of doing so before assuming they do. That is absolutely not how WP:V / WP:OR works; you can't just say "saying that this source could be manipulated is an unfair accusation, therefore we must trust it!" Sources need to have their reliability and usability in a particular context positively affirmed - if we have no evidence either way, the correct solution is to omit everything. We would obviously need evidence to state that they buy views in the article text, but when approaching WP:PRIMARY data that can be manipulated in ways that can make its meaning unclear, we need a secondary source to establish any specific meaning, and probably even to establish WP:DUE weight - furthermore, using them uncritically in ways that implies the numbers are meaningful (ie. almost any usage at all) carries an implicit assertion that they are valid, which requires a secondary source to avoid WP:OR. This means that you must provide positive proof via a secondary source in order to make the implication that the YouTube figure accurately represent popularity. Otherwise, citing them directly in a way that implies that they are a meaningful measure of popularity is WP:OR. --Aquillion (talk) 01:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• You may have to take up the argument with statisticians. We measure things and report those measures. With YouTube you’re alleging their measurements are faulty. I don’t see it but I’m eager to see RS that that’s true.
  If the NYTimes or any other RS was shown to err, we would balance that with a number of factors and likely to determine they’re still reliable. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Of course we like it when secondary sources republish primary information because it makes us feel better about using it, but in this case I think it's a bit silly to say that Reliable News Daily has any more information than we do from looking at youtube.com when they say that Vlogger2 has 9,000,001 subscribers as of 1 January 1970. Either these figures are significant in general or they're still not significant when a secondary source says it—except for very rare cases where there's something significant about the particular subscriber/view milestone with reference to a particular YouTuber (e.g. PewDiePie vs T-Series). And as others have said, notability and subscriber count are unrelated. — Bilorv (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• In one case I used the counts to show subscriptions had tripled over a set time period coinciding with their time on national tv. It’s too simplistic to speak in absolutes and deny the statistics have any meaning. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• We should not be using YouTube as a primary source for the number of YouTube views. The number of views is often increased artificially, especially by people prominent enough to have a Wikipedia biography. See "YouTube Users Are Buying Views", "The Flourishing Business of Fake YouTube Views", "Google’s YouTube clamps down on ‘fake views’", "The Business Of Fake YouTube Views Has Got To Stop", "Google inadvertently profits from fake YouTube views even as it fights them: report", "How to Fake Views on YouTube" and "Inside YouTube's Fake Views Economy". It's much better to use a WP:SECONDARY source that announces a number of views reached by a particular date. The secondary source may not be investigating fake views and determining or guessing the real number, but at least they are not an automatic number generated by some algorithm that can be manipulated. Binksternet (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • These seem to support that the site has proactively combatted the practice much to the dismay of those who were vending the fakery. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say this one is unreliable but I thought I'd get some opinions first, as it's always good to have a discussion for future editors to reference.

So, allaccess.com is owned by a company called "All Access Music Group, Inc." which is a privately held corporation formed in 1995 by President/Publisher Joel Denver and his wife and partner, VP/CFO & Operations Ria Denver. I can't find much about the company but according to this source 6 All Access Music Group "specializes in promotion and marketing efforts for all major record labels, and aggressive independent record labels as well as non-music clients including radio networks, syndicators, consultants and others interested in reaching key decision-makers" within the radio industry. Their LinkedIn profile refers to them as "the largest music promotion company in the United States" 7.

The website itself says All Access Music Group is "also a marketing partner with Mediabase, BigChampagne.com, PromoSuite, A&R Worldwide, Triton Digital, Dial Global, Citadel Media, Premiere Radio Networks, Westwood One, and many others." 8

So, I think simply because the website is promotional in nature, it fails WP:RS. On top of that, I see no way to confirm the presence of editorial oversight and/or a reputation for fact-checking. Almost certainly unreliable but any thoughts? SolarFlash^Discussion 21:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable as it seems to be a glorified pr operation in my view Atlantic306 (talk) now persuaded it is reliable in some cases Atlantic306 (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

There are over 4,000 uses. The interviews might be ok to use, but probably not the "top 40" and "future releases". Examples would help. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The website is used for future releases of songs only, sure the interviews would be ok. Nobody uses the top of their charts as Billboard is the compilation of other data. It is reliable for said dates of future releases as labels send the songs there. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to say, I’ve never dug very deep into the website, but it’s used pretty frequently in citing release dates for music, and although it’s anecdotal, I’ve worked in the content area for over decade, and don’t recall it ever having errors. Actual, official “single” release dates can be hard to come by, so I think it’s at least good for that. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• I say it's reliable for future release dates of singles only, just as MarioSoulTruthFan and Sergecross73 pointed out. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable. It's an music industry source, similar to Music Week though its focus is more specifically on industry news and releases. It is heavily relied upon for radio release dates because it is the main source of where they are published. I wouldn't personally read too much into what is listed on LinkedIn because that is self-published, and the whole purpose of LinkedIn is self-promotion. The site collates useful information for the radio industry from places like Mediabase and there are tonnes of interviews on their too with people from the industry. Being marketed as a promotional/PR site, isn't necessarily rendering All Access a factor to mean it is unreliable. While it is highly promotional, its not necessarily promoting itself or its services, its promoting artists, songs and albums which would be expected when it is used to promote release dates. It is independent of record labels and radio stations though it works with them very closely! ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 10:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Over at 2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes a user has claimed the BBC is not an RS 9.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I claim I am also a billionaire. Praxidicae (talk) 10:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

No other source reported this he/she says. Quite incorrect. FDW777 (talk) 10:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I deliberately did not use potentially biased sources, there were a few Indian newspapers denying this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

FDW777 I wouldn't really consider Deccan Chronicle an RS though. But yeah, the point still stands that there's no reason to believe BBC is unreliable in this context. Praxidicae (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The editor concerned quotes this reference in an edit summary in an edit to their sandbox version of the article. I'd say there's nothing wrong with Indian media references (subject to reliability of course) for this point, since they are probably more likely than the BBC to have contacts at the Ministry of External Affairs. Whether the text really belongs in the article is another point, possible involving WP:RSBREAKING since it's not that unreasonable that a journalist's sources (apparently speaking off the record, since it's "said defence sources", "Indian military sources told NDTV" and "defence sources said on Wednesday") might not be completely honest due to it being a potentially ongoing military situation. But that's really a matter for the article's talk page anyway... FDW777 (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Just to elaborate on my previous point. The article doesn't need to have the whole "the Indians denied it, but then the Indian Ministry of External Affairs confirmed" it narrative. It can be just as simply stated along the lines of "Pakistan shot an Indian plane down". FDW777 (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• The RS question is dead easy: the BBC is reliable. The WP:UNDUE/significance question is separate. Guy (help!) 12:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

BBC News is generally reliable (though it has had some very poor mistakes). Other parts of the BBC less so, take for instance the fact that they falsely asserted that Florence Nightingale was a racist 10 11 12. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Spy-cicle, I would challenge you to find more than a handful of 19th Century English people who were not racist. There is close to zero doubt that Seacole was subject to racism, and that her interactions with Nightingale embodied at the very least institutional racism. It's a valid point, even if Horrible Histories (an entertainment show with a history theme, as the title implies) may have over-egged it.

Redux: that was a shit example, try again. Google Laura Kuenssberg if you need some suggestions. Guy (help!) 22:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The trust ruled that the sketch was historically inaccurate because it gave the impression that Nightingale herself rejected Seacole"... "They would "be likely to regard the implied allegation of racial discrimination as established historical fact", the trust said. There was no evidence to suggest that Nightingale had been racist. According to The Times. Anyway, this is not the venue for this type of discussion. However, I do ask you strike your comment: "that was a shit example, try again" based on Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying incivility 1.a/1.d. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Spy-cicle, yes, a sketch, in a popular history programme. Nothing to do with BBC News. I was hoping that penny might have dropped, but apparently not. Guy (help!) 18:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with some other editors here; the BBC is not a reliable source in some situations as it is government owned. For example the British government has interfered numerous times in the BBC's coverage of the Northern Ireland conflict. In conflicts to which the British government is a party or was significantly involved we should try to use more neutral sources. Likewise with many cases of BBC World Service, which exists to promote British interests abroad and we should view its opinions on many subjects as having a pro-British slant. Overall though the BBC is a reliable source and in this case it certainly is. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 06:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Legally, the BBC is independent from Government direction. Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Also practically, which is even more important. Clearly reliable.--Bob not snob (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Consistently reliable: The BBC can absolutely be wrong. One may dispute their facts. Any news source can be wrong. However, classifying them as an unreliable source is simply false and defamatory. They are one of the most reliable news sources in the world, and if we do not cite them, who would we cite? (The only sources I might argue are more reliable are the Associated Press, Reuters, and The Guardian. PickleG13 (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

What do people think about the reliability of The New European? It has been cited over 100 times per theneweuropean.co.uk  . Obviously it has a pro-EU, Anti-Brexit stance, and I would consider it to be usable for at least attributed opinion on that topic. However, it looks almost all of the UK politics news stories are written by Jonathon Read, which imo makes it somewhat blog-like. I can't find any evidence of a editorial policy but they at least have a complaints page. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Not blog-like in that it has a printed paper version that exists in reality, but magazine-like in the wide variety of editors, at times casual wording, and opinion-type pieces. Something like a slightly more opinionated Economist or newer Spectator? GPinkerton (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

It's just a WP:NEWSORG, surely? Seen no red flags about it - David Gerard (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Has a definite POV, I would say handle with care in anything to do with Brexit, but it crops up on my social media feeds quite often and I haven't found any obvious bollocks yet. Guy (help!) 21:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Its pretty hard to think of a paper that did not have POV when it comes to Brexit ;-) ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Everyone had a dog in that fight, at least in the UK, hard to think that in itself would disqualify them.--Hippeus (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I noticed it quoted on the Parler social media platform page. It was quoted to describe the platform's userbase. I'm not sure how relevant it can be given, A it's miniscule readership (20k in 2017, and only losing relevance since UK left recently) and B, give over 90% of users are registered in North America, a British single issue publication surely isn't a relevant source. Can someone knowledgeable /experienced wade in on this. I would like to avoid an edit war on the article. Alexandre8 (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the content you deleted, since it's a perfectly decent RS. Artw (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• catholic-hierarchy.org  

Many Catholic biography articles either cite to Catholic-Hierarchy.org or list it in the External links section. However, citations to CH often run into trouble with some editors, who claim that it is an unreliable, self-published source. Rather than duplicating it, I will point to the extensive explanation in the previous discussion of why CH passes the reliable source criteria. In short, it is a well-researched and accurate website that is routinely cited by other authorities and whose content creator (User:Dcheney) has come to be regarded as a published expert in the field. It is also considered a reliable source on other language Wikipedias. Ergo Sum 16:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• As Elizium23 pointed out in the previous discussion, the website is a self-published source. It is therefore never acceptable as a source on third party BLPs,¹ and should be avoided as an external link on BLPs for the same reason. Anything on this website that's WP:DUE should be also located in a more reliable source, such as Annuario Pontificio. buidhe 05:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The self-published source policy says that SP sources are considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. As was explained by the earlier discussion, the publisher has come to be known as a subject-matter expert who is published. Many official church authorities cite to him and directly publish his work. Ergo Sum 18:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

    As you say, the information may well be accurate, and I wouldn't be as aggressive at removing it as a source on non-living people, but SPS and BLP policy are pretty clear that this can't be allowed. (I checked duses and it seems that many but not all uses are related to living people, such as Róbert Bezák and Jean-Claude Boulanger.) buidhe 18:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• "The website is not officially sanctioned by the Church. It is run as a private project by David M. Cheney in Kansas City". It's cited by a number of sources, but that may be due to the same mistake made here: assuming it's an authority. In the end, as a one-man self-published source with no editorial review, I don't see how it can be RS. Guy (help!) 09:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

  Appears to be self published then.--Hippeus (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• WP:SPS is pretty clear here. There's no way whatsoever this source can be used as a reliable source on BLPs. Even though I definitely agree that this person is likely a subject matter expert, this source still can't be used with respect to living people. However in general this site probably is a reliable source. It's been cited by many members of the Catholic Church and researchers in that field. Our own article on the website provides numerous instances where it's been treated as a reliable source. I would definitely be OK with using this website as a source on historical bishops or the general hierarchy of the Catholic Church (preferably better sources but it's possible this might be the only source in many cases) although our policy is clear we can't use this for BLPs. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 22:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

References (Catholic-Hierarchy.org)

• I just wanted to note that I am the author of the website being discussed. For obvious reasons, I take no position on the current topic, but I would be happy to answer any questions regarding my site.Dcheney (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Is BitcoinMagazine.com reputable? Retimuko doesn't think so. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Retimuko:, seems like it is, according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_236#BitcoinMagazine. --Ysangkok (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

That archived discussion does not seem conclusive at all. Regarding Bitcoin Magazine: co-founded by Buterin, editors claim to hold BTC (conflict of interest), almost not cited by reliable sources. So it seems to be an industry source with almost no history of doing quality journalism, with unknown editorial practices. In light of the general sanctions around cryprocurrency related topics I would suggest avoiding such industry sources altogether. Retimuko (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

We have an informal consensus that we are not using any cryptozine sources for articles that fall under WP:GS/Crypto, and both bitcoin magazine and CoinDesk both fall under that. They are top shelf junk. It is my personal opinion that the clamp down on sourcing as well as GS has made article quality better. As far as I have seen the regular crypto genre editors (even if we disagree on content) have all agreed on excluding these types of sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Ysangkok, I would ask David Gerard, as the resident expert on crypto. Guy (help!) 15:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@David Gerard:, would you mind chipping in? I know BitcoinMagazine isn't completely neutral, but I think Aaron van Wirdum writes well researched articles, here is a list 13. Wouldn't it be possible to at least allow his articles to be referenced here? --Ysangkok (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

It tries its best, but has all the problems in that CoinDesk discussion, i.e. it's fundamentally an advocacy blog rather than the specialist trade press it looks like. I would not use it for notability. I don't think it would deliberately lie, and I don't know of it being pay-for-play, but I would not trust its opinions on the facts or the spin it presents them with either. So no, file it as pink-rated with the rest of the crypto blogs - David Gerard (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@David Gerard: but you have written a book on Bitcoin, isn't there a conflict of interest here? It was described as the "first serious publication dedicated to cryptocurrencies", do you think that isn't true? You describe it as a blog, but a blog is defined as "diary-style". A blog typically is written in first-person, but Bitcoin Magazine is not. Why do you think it is a blog? --Ysangkok (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Ysangkok, no, being an expert is not a COI. There is no financial incentive for David to advance any specific POV here. Being an advocate might be, though. Guy (help!) 09:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Less free information on Wikipedia means more people buy your book. What does 'expert' mean? I was working on Electrum, can I be an expert too? By having single Wikipedians dictate what constitutes reliable, and then having everyone refer to the (see above) 'resident expert', isn't that a problem the same way primary research is a problem? I am not the only one that thinks the articles by Aaron van Wirdum in Bitcoin Magazine are reputable, and I am not convinced there is consensus that they are not reputable. David is not neutral at all, he is an admitted sceptic, and it manifests itself in the book he wrote. Is Wikipedia officially the 'sceptics' encyclopedia? No, that is not applicable because we just quote facts and statements. So you say being an advocate disqualifies you from editing, right? Why doesn't being a sceptic disqualify you? --Ysangkok (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Ysangkok, that is the most ridiculous argument for a COI I think I have ever heard on Wikipedia. The chances of David Gerard losing a single sale because someone can read in-universe cryptobollocks on Wikipedia are zero and the assertion itself, truly remarkable. Guy (help!) 15:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: your use of superlatives ('most'), vulgarities ('bollocks'), religion ('cult', below) is tiring, and it derails the discussion. Could you please at least attempt to communicate in a civilized manner? I know that you consider yourself experienced and such, but you're not helping, not even helping yourself. Tone it down, now. I may reward you with some wikilove on your talk page if you behave. :) --Ysangkok (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Ysangkok, are you familiar with the actions of the crypto cultists on Wikipedia, at all? Guy (help!) 18:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@JzG:, no, please enlighten me. I love cults. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Ysangkok, well, we got here, so look in the ANI archives for blockchain. Guy (help!) 21:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

more ridiculous was the one where I was accused of being an NSA shill - David Gerard (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Also David had a COI case raised as well and it went nowhere. Why are you pushing to use Bitcoin Magazine as a source while simultaneously nominating a number of bitcoin articles for AfD (that if Bitcoin Magazine could be used for notability would pass)? What's the rush? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: I am pushing Bitcoin Magazine because I like the articles by Aaron van Wirdum and I don't see any issues with them. There is no rush in making a decision, but the articles are about similar subjects, if you have an opinion about A, you may also have one about B. Now that so many people have commented on article A, and they have researched the matter enough to form an opinion, why delay a decision on subject B? And I don't understand the question about AfD vs sources, those two matters are separate, no? Why would nominating for deletion cause me to not like a specific source? --Ysangkok (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

This RS noticeboard is because you like a blogger's posts? I like to read zerohedge sometimes, but I am pretty sure it isn't an RS per WP:SENSE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that it is probably reliable for non-contentious information but its information should be considered a dependent source - it is owned by BTC so there's a clear vested interest in promoting one form of cryptocurrency over another - and thus definitely should not be used for purposes of establishing notability. I don't do much in the area, but I see the work as something that if an existing RS mentions a subtopic Y as part of a larger topic X, and this source has more details on Y, I'll use that to expand reasonably, but not to build an a standalone on Y. --Masem (t) 15:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: The articles by Aaron van Wirdum are not pitting cryptocurrencies against each other, they are talking about features and products the same way a review in e.g. the New York Times would. How can you judge a media solely based on who owns it? If anything, they would have a pro-Ethereum interest because it was founded by Buterin. But look in the articles, is it unfairly biased for Ethereum? No. Did we stop citing WSJ because Bezos owns it? No, give the man a chance, if the articles are all right, they can be used. Everyone can be accused of bias, but you can't dismiss everything. --Ysangkok (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying they can't be used, they just can't be used to establish standalone notability, nor should be used for rather glorified claims (something akin to "Our analysis found that cybercurrency had the best rate of return compared to any other investment at 2000% in 5 years.) But if you have RSes already talking about a topic, then its fair to bring in this source to give some additional detail that the RSes likely will not have or overlook, but not too much detail. --Masem (t) 15:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Masem, nothing about crypto is non-contentious, though. It's like any cult: a description of its beliefs as if they are genuine, fails NPOV pretty much by definition. Guy (help!) 15:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

There are things about cryptocurrency that can be said factually - how it is meant to operate in terms of its basic principles of computation and why it would be considered a currency -there's definitely a realm of actual facts to explain. Now as for being a "true" system of currency and claims from that, I agree now you start getting into claims which is where you would have to be careful.I would say, for example, if one way trying to describe how the creator of a new cryptocurrency envisioned how it was going to work via this source, that's a claim but that's not a contestable one - that's what they believed they could do. But then if the source makes the claim "This clearly is better than gold, invest in it now!" yes, there's a line there. There's a spectrum here for certain and we'd expect editors to be careful. Treating it as a dependent source, which are the type of sources we try to minimize in use, is a good way of approaching this. --Masem (t) 15:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Masem, yes, we can describe the technicalities - there are decent academic sources for that. But these in-universe sources are like citing Freedom as a source on Narconon. Guy (help!) 15:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, again, by tagging these as dependent sources, it would push editors to locate independent sources for replacement and avoid inclusion of outlandish claims from it otherwise. If you do that for the technical side, the only real areas I could see (doing a quick check on some articles this source provides) would be citing interviews with the creators of certain currencies on their reasonings for it, and the like, which is an acceptable use. --Masem (t) 16:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• We may be confusing reliability, neutrality and notability. I would say the magazine is generally accurate as a source of facts, but perhaps a bit biased in its opinions due to its ownership. The same could be said of the Washington Post, Fox News or any other source. Coverage of a topic in the magazine would contribute to notability, since it seems to have wide readership, but I would warn the reader with an inline citation: 'According to Bitcoin Magazine, "this technology is deeply flawed ..." ' Aymatth2 (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't edit crypto areas, from my cursory reading of the sanctions, the placement of effectively self-published crypto blogs sites as generally unreliable questionable sources and unable used to establish notability seems well founded. I don't see a reason to make an exception in this case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: What makes you think it is a blog? Is it diary-style? No. So what is it? --Ysangkok (talk)

I am using "blog" as effectively equivalent to a zine. Bitcoin Magazine is controlled by BTC media since 2015 a cryptocurrency related company, I don't think this establishes independence from effectively being self-published. The website also looks pretty unprofessional, having a "You on Kazoo" meme hype video right at the top of the page. I'd say it's about on par with The Grayzone, which places it barely above totally self-published, but not enough to matter. Like The Grayzone, it clearly has a non neutral point of view regarding its main subject matter. Being published in print does not make something reliable, see the Daily Mail or The Sun. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

BTC media is a company that covers cryptocurrency topics, as one might expect for the owner of Bitcoin Magazine. To show that the magazine is unreliable, we would need examples of repeated inaccuracies. See this article, a film review first published in Bitcoin Magazine, republished by Nasdaq. Nasdaq, which most people would consider reliable enough, is comfortable endorsing the views given in the Bitcoin Magazine article. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

So what? Nasdaq also publishes CoinDesk, which according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#CoinDesk "should not be used to establish notability for article topics, and that it should be avoided in favor of more mainstream sources. Check CoinDesk articles for conflict of interest disclosures, and verify whether their parent company (Digital Currency Group) has an ownership stake in a company covered by CoinDesk." Advice which I think is also salient for use of Bitcoin Magazine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The rapid expansion of the internet has resulted in far more opinion-based commentary, even from reasonably high-quality sources, than was once available. In practice this makes it easy for any editor to find a source for any opinion they desire, which frequently turns sections of articles devoted to reception or opinion into dumping-grounds for commentary from sources whose only credentials are being a columnist and having opinions that an editor agrees with. Often these sections become massively bloated as editors argue back-and-forth by proxy, or become painfully one-sided as one editor overloads it with opinions they agree with.

Those things are theoretically addressable, but... assuming their opinions lack secondary coverage (ie. there is no reason to think they are significant or representative of anything), what value is served by including them? There is a huge risk that their inclusion could mislead readers into believing they represent some meaningful opinion or credible, reliably-sourced facts. Even the implicit assertion that an opinion is representative (eg. citing a single commentator from a well-known liberal or conservative publication with the implication that this is the liberal or conservative position on a topic) is WP:OR. Furthermore, opinion pieces often have lesser or no fact-checking, yet are frequently used to introduce "facts" to the article, or arguments made by someone with no expertise in the field that we have no genuine reliable source for.

Therefore, I suggest changing WP:RSOPINION to require that opinion pieces either be from published subject-matter experts (as with WP:SPS), or that they have secondary coverage in a reliable source. Obviously, opinion can still be included from non-opinion pieces when it is reported there (that would be using a secondary source!); the point is that this would place additional restrictions on using labeled editorial or opinion pages. What do people think? --Aquillion (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The only issue I have is how we ascertain who is a subject matter expert. I say this in the knowledge that I have seen some sections of Wikipedia argue that a paid professional critic isn't notable / relevant, despite being a paid critic / commentator on that specific subject because he wasn't a formal "expert". This is particularly common around new media formats. Koncorde (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that the WP:SPS definition is usually all right - even if sometimes it results in back and forth, it's generally a discussion worth having. There's no rule or guideline that would be completely certain; it's enough to ensure that we're actually having that discussion rather than having people citing people with no relevant expertise whatsoever. I'd also say that what they're being cited for matters. For instance, we could cite a professional book reviewer to say "this is a badly-written book." We shouldn't be citing them to say "this book is wrong on the science" unless they actually have the relevant scientific expertise in that field to back it up. --Aquillion (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion, This was just discussed: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_298#Proposal:_Guidance_note_on_"attributed_opinion"_sources (t · c) buidhe 09:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The book/film/etc review question raised there struck me as important, and not particularly well answered. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't that just make those who do this claim that sources whose only credentials are being a columnist and having opinions that an editor agrees with are subject matter experts? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned this above, but my answer is that they have to have expertise in the specific things we cite them for; "established commentator / critic" has to be considered in the context of what specific statement we're citing for and what expertise means in that context. We could cite Roger Ebert to say "this is a bad film", because his expertise as a film critic is impeccable. We should never cite him to say "the science in this film is wrong", because that's outside of his field of expertise. We can cite Paul Krugman on economics because he's a Nobel-prize winning economist, not because he has a NYT column. But we shouldn't cite his opinion for points of facts on genetics, or arguments that rely on or imply points of facts on genetics, even if he's discussing them in a cultural / political context. --Aquillion (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I am unsure we can say a critic (which by its very nature is a matter of taste) is an expert in the same way someone who is actually qualified in a subject is. That is why we have undue.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

How about this? If someone is reasonably well-known as a commentator or reviewer, they can be cited on that basis only for things that are genuinely subjective (ie. matters of taste.) They cannot be cited for statements of fact even phrased as their opinion. Saying that a film is not entertaining is opinion; saying that it got the science or history wrong (even with an in-line citation) is a statement of fact that ought to require appropriate expertise. --Aquillion (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I would echo those who say how do we determine who is an expert.Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion, I've said it before, I'll say it again: opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one (and most of them stink). No we should not be using opinions from non-experts. In my view we should not be including opinions unless they are demonstrably significant, with a presumption that they have been mentioned in secondary sources. We're not supposed to be part of the echo chamber, we are supposed to get past the bluster and bloviation and look at the facts. The use of opinions, especially self-published ones, is far closer to what you'd expect from a news publisher than an encyclopaedia. Guy (help!) 15:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• For determining expertise in science, I'd propose a bright-line definition of having a Ph.D and actively publishing in the area. For clinical medicine we can require practicing MD. JoelleJay (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

In the relevant field? After all having a PHD in Klingon would not make you an expert about Shakespeare.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah the "in the area" should be distributive. JoelleJay (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

So would a practising GP have expertise in rare tropical diseases? how broad do we count it, does a phd in history make you an expert in all human history, or just your specialised field?Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

It would depend on how general the opinion is supposed to be, but "in the area" should be interpreted to mean "in the topic under discussion". Medical specialization should apply too. JoelleJay (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: That particular line would exclude the rare prominent researcher that hasn’t held a PhD for one reason or another.

In mathematics alone this includes the extremely influential Srinivasa Ramanujan, Stefan Banach, and Mary Everest Boole. Moving away from mathematics (and living/recently living people), this also includes Freeman Dyson, Jane S. Richardson, Oliver Heaviside, and Ed Fredkin off the top of my head. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21:That's true, although (from the wording "rapid expansion of the internet") I interpreted this question as regarding opinions in the very recent past or in the future, which would exclude most people with such a distinction for the obvious reasons. Opinions from the past should be treated with the same discretion we use for a lot of historical subjects (although scientific opinions become outdated very quickly, so someone's input on a contemporary issue would probably become unDUE unless it was otherwise newsworthy). For those few who gained esteem as academic researchers before the barriers to entry made it difficult to even get a post-doc, I would say holding a professorship and/or winning prestigious awards would suffice. JoelleJay (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

There are more recent examples as well, and this even extends to undergraduate degrees as well, e.g. Edward Witten doesn’t have a Bachelor's degree and Jack Horner has no degrees!. I’m fine with what you’ve said in principle, but just wanted to exclude the strict bright-line for the occasional exception that does occur with provisions based on professorships and awards (essentially a WP:NACADEMIC-lite). — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Witten has a Ph.D in physics according to his page. Anyway, I agree we can leave some room for exceptions; my concern is leaving the wording vague enough that editors could cite idiots like Ocean Ramsey as experts because some news sources mistakenly credit her as a "marine biologist". But if we throw in professorship/awards as alternative requirements then that would be fine. JoelleJay (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• For politics, ANY opinion will be contentious... even those by “experts” with PhDs in political science. In-text attribution is fundamental. Blueboar (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Definitely, but I'm mostly concerned about the use of sources who have no expertise at all, or whose only "expertise" is being a cultural commentator with a column. Sources like those shouldn't be cited for definitive statements of fact (even when phrased as their opinion) in areas where they have no other expertise. If we're going to cite someone saying eg. "in my opinion, the US is heading to a recession for reasons X, Y, and Z", they need to have actual economic credentials. Perhaps it could also be noted that opinions should be replaced with ones from more authoritative sources rather than allowing a WP:FALSEBALANCE between experts and non-experts - the example (and this is something we see a lot) would be eg. "here's a bunch of expert sociologists and historians talking about the history of a social issue; now here's a bunch of opinion-pieces from people with no expertise in either field disagreeing with them." In that case the opinion pieces should be omitted or condensed to a few brief sentences cited to secondary sources to note their existence, rather than massive quotes that treat them as equally-authoritative. Contentious opinions are fine, but we have to rely on the best sources there like we do for anything else. Similarly, if someone wants to argue "this opinion, while it goes against the experts, is common, and we need to show that fact to the reader", we should rely on secondary sources to establish that. --Aquillion (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose this proposal as written. Where would I find a subject matter expert on the question of whether a comic book character has been successfully translated to live-action film? There is no degree in that discipline, so it has to suffice that a venue with some editorial control specializing in the area allows publication of that opinion on their platform. I would agree that specifically with hard science questions, hard science qualifications should be favored, but in areas of the arts and popular culture, we must be on footing more grounded in the reality of what is available and what people generally trust as sources. BD2412 T 17:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, Joe Blow, respected film critic, said "this is an excellent film" is an entirely reasonable thing to cite to someone who has an established history as a respected film critic. Joe Blow, respected film critic, said "this film gets the history entirely wrong" is not. The in-line attribution does not change the fact that we are citing them for a statement that they have no expertise to support. Partially this might also be interpreted as saying that we should cite opinion-pieces from people whose expertise is "commentator" only for actual opinions (ie. matters that are genuinely subjective); if a quote makes a definitive statement of fact then expertise should be required to cite it. --Aquillion (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

This. Taking the case in BD2412's example, the question if a comic book character was translated to film well, I would be looking for an expect in comic books or in film, and ideally one that has shown interest in book. There are experts that fit that bill (Kevin Smith would be a starting point), but to identify those, if that was an issue, would be require consensus discussion on the talk page of the work/character in question , and if needed, drawing in from appropriate Wikiprojects and potentially pinging a Village Pump for input. What I would say that at minimum, such "experts" should have at least had been recognized, even by a name drop, in an normal RS as an expect; that still can lead to be debate if they are the best expert but that's a way to avoid "but YouTubeFanboy2003 is really an expert!!!" type arguments. We can consensus build on who the experts should be with some help from sourcing - it will take work to do that but its not insurmountable and it is not an impossible task. --Masem (t) 21:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this. Most news articles, even, are not written by people who are themselves noteworthy or passed upon in other media. If something is published on CBR or ScreenRant, the presence of the piece on the notable platform should suffice, irrespective of what third parties have to say about the author. BD2412 T 02:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

If I understand the OP point, and given how I see CBR and ScreenRant categorized for matters for comic book and film articles, those are actually RSes, and we would not have to be reaching into RSOPINION to ask their opinions to be considered to be used in an article. UNDUE would become a factor at that point, but that's a separate matter. What I read would be like if we were talking, in the example, Kevin Smith's personal blog commenting in depth about something, which would definitely be an SPS and fall under RSOPINION but as a subject matter expert to draw from. In other words, the question here is being asked beyond sources already considered RSes. --Masem (t) 14:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as too restrictive, attributed opinions such as the film got the history wrong (don't they all?) should not be omitted if they have been published in a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Either way they are one step removed in wp:relevance E.G. in the "Person A" article, if person "B" expresses an opinion about person "A", this is not info about person A, it is info about person B's opinion about person "A". And the wording to include that inherently includes attribution. Such should require stronger reasons for inclusion in the article than info about person "A". North8000 (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

If we are talking commentary about a living person, WP:BLPSPS explicitly disallows the use of self-published sources, no matter how expert that other person may be, to be used in such cases. --Masem (t) 14:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I think the opinions by non-experts can be included, but not in all cases. A couple of examples. #1. 14 - Yes, Harding is great investigative journalist and his opinion matters, but he tells nothing of substance on the subject in this example. #2. 15 - Using vews/opinion pieces by notorious xenophobes like Aleksandr Dugin and Igor Shafarevich 16 to accuse others of xenophobia is bad. My very best wishes (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

This proposal basically describes the existing guidelines on self-published sources: they may be used (with discretion) as sources on themselves, or where there is significant secondary source coverage, or where author is an established expert writing within their field. Two other points:

• It is not universally true that opinion pieces are not usually fact-checked. Any publication with a solid reputation for fact-checking is going to fact-check their op-eds as well. Not for the opinions or personal experiences relayed therein, but for the statements of fact.
• The line between conventional news reporting and opinion has blurred immensely, to the point that many younger journalists, in particular, openly view their profession as a vehicle for advocacy, and are taught to do in journalism school. People writing op-eds are at least more likely to be up front about where their biases lie, and there are circumstances in which an opinion essay, written by an expert and grounded in empirical evidence, may in some cases be more useful as a source than a news article.TheBlueCanoe 22:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Article Three-finger salute (Serbian) and information: During the Croatian War, there were instances of massacred Serb civilians having had their three fingers on the right hand cut off.17 Source for this information is Serbian or Bosnian book ("Станко Нишић (2004). Од Југославије до Србије(From Yugoslavia to Serbia). Књига-комерц. p. 162. ISBN 9788677120399. одсечена три прста десне руке" (cut off three fingers of right hand)). As far as I can see there is little information about this writer Станко Нишић(Stanko Našić). What I found is this "The first doctor of military sciences in the Banja Luka district, he graduated from the Military Academy in 1961 in Belgrade. After serving in the JNA for five years, he graduated from the Higher Military Academy in Moscow in 1971. In addition to his work, he studied pedagogy part-time at the Faculty of Philosophy in Skopje and obtained a master's degree in industrial pedagogy in Rijeka. He also graduated from the School of National Defense in Belgrade and received his doctorate in the field of military education system in Belgrade. He has written several books in the field of Geopolitics." In serbian 18. Since I can’t check what exactly is written in the book I found this in google, page 162 from his book: "Вршене су и масовне егзекуције, па је, на примјер, у Жарговићу пронађено девет убијених цивила старијих од 50 година, којима су претходно одсечена три прста десне руке. Радио Лондон не рече која су то три прста, али зна се — три прста православног крста, да се, стари четници, више мртви не би крстили или показивали три прста у знак побjеде. Не зна се за двије стотине људи из тог краја" "Mass executions were also carried out, so, for example, nine killed civilians over the age of 50 were found in Žargović, who had previously had three fingers of their right hand cut off. Radio London did not say which those three fingers were, but it is known - three fingers of the Orthodox cross, so that, old Chetniks, the dead would no longer be crossed or show three fingers as a sign of victory. It is not known about two hundred people from that area.... "19 20 21

• Since in the source is mentioned Radio London, Chetniks, village Žagrović I assumed these were events from WWII not from Croatian War. I tried to find possible crimes of the Croatian army(91-95) in village Žagrović but I did not find anything, even Serbian sources do not state anything, Serbian Wikipedia also. Whether this information can be part of the article even though it can’t be verified and whether that source is RS at all. Thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 11:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

As always with Balkan related article subjects, outside sources are preferred. Although there were several crimes committed by both sides in the nearby area (at least judging by HRW reports), this particlar claim is so specific and exceptional it requires a better source. Maybe the very next source (Martin Gilbert (1997)) in that paragraph offers a better context? Pavlor (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem is and with information from source(Martin Gilbert (1997)) as well, see talk page22 I can't find that book publicly. Otherwise 9 people had been killed and their fingers had been cut off, I think the whole Croatia would known that. I immediately assumed it wasn’t about Croatian War. Mikola22 (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

That is an assumption, and thus cannot be used to dismiss a source (not can you not having access to it).Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

You mean at the first book "Од Југославије до Србије(From Yugoslavia to Serbia)from Станко Нишић (2004) "? If you are right, then we must state everything which is written in the source, ie that 9 people were killed in Zagrovići and that three fingers were cut off from their hands for which we do not know which they are because Radio London did not specify. In addition, we will state the fact and that this is happened in Croatian War(91-95). This means that we will have a new crime in Croatia for which no one has been accused or convicted, nor do Serbian and Croatian sources mention that crime. Did I understand you well? Mikola22 (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I will look into our library, if that book by Gilbert is there (no guarantee) and report back. Pavlor (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: It looks like this third volume is not available in any public library in my country (even university libraries and National library have only the second volume). Pavlor (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems that Gilbert is citing Misha Glenny (The fall of Yugoslavia: the third Balkan war) and his interview with a refugee that talked about her lossing three fingers in an attack on them. On page 282 is her statement:

"Vacillating between tearful hysteria to the numb indifference of deep trauma, a middle-aged woman holds up a tree-stump bandage around her left hand. 'Some shells hit our village which began to burn, so the whole family, seven of us, piled on to our tractor and left without taking anything. We were just outside Knin when some Croatian soldiers hidden by the side of the road opened up with machine guns. Three of our men died immediately. I suppose I was lucky just to lose three fingers.'"

That is not related to the three-finger salute. Tezwoo (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Please provide a picture of the scanned page. The book is per WP:RS, for now. I could get the book but not any time soon. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Was this a fake site pretending to have an affiliation with Forbes? The site has been sold as per here but is used on 41 articles here, a number of which are promotional and/or suspected upe articles such as SoftServe, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

This article gives a handy explanation. Essentially the story is the website was originally opened as forbes.ua in 2012 as the website of the officially licensed Forbes Ukraine (set up in 2010-11) run by UMH group. In 2013 the group (including Forbes Ukraine) was sold to Serhiy Kurchenko, and the original editor in chief resigned stating that he thought it was likely that Kurchenko would interfere with the editorial policy. In 2014 Forbes revoked the license of which is stated in the piece to be due to "editorial interference" by the UMH group, although other sources state that is due to Kurchenko being under US sanctions and a fugutive after the Euromaidan.

The website then moved to forbes.net.ua while UMH appealed the license decision which failed and the website stopped being updated in February 2016, (this is contradicted by the internet archive which shows that the website stopped updating in early 2017) but the website was only taken offline during mid-2019. So the website (at least initially) was legit. As to whether it is reliable? I would say that the publication was probably reliable for its initial year of existence, but the alleged editorial interference since the sale in 2013 would make me question its reliability for the remaining lifespan. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's interesting. So it can't be outright deprecated but is at least questionable from 2013 Atlantic306 (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)