Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 250

Archive 245

←

Archive 248

Archive 249

Archive 250

Archive 251

Archive 252

→

Archive 255

FamilySearch and LDS historical figures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peer-reviewed research within American politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reliablility of an SPS

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

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

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

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

Should Fox News be considered a Reliable Source or should it be considered in the same category as Daily Mail and Breitbart?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Proposed: That Fox News should be considered "Generally Unreliable" due to reliability issues similar to Breitbart, Infowars and the Daily Mail and a similarly poor reputation for factual accuracy. These include but are not limited to:

• Failure to issue timely retractions or corrections for false information
• Failures to clearly identify editorial content as editorial content (at present time the main headline on the website is an editorial titled "STOKING AN ANGRY MOB: REP. STEVE SCALISE: Democrats' calls for violence threaten all of us – and our democracy" by Steve Scalise that does not clearly delineate that it is "Opinion" or another editorial category in the front page headline)
• Repeatedly pushing conspiracy theories and other false information that originates from highly suspect sources (including Breitbart or Breitbart-affiliated right-wing blogs such as GatewayPundit known for producing false information).

Sources:

• Fox News's propaganda pattern, similar to other problem sources such as Breitbart and Infowars - [7]
• Fox News's pushing of the Seth Rich conspiracy theory, which was never backed up by any factual information, and failure to retract or apologize in a timely fashion - [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]
• Fox News promoting other conspiracy theories - [13] [14] [15] [16] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.6.213.186 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. There's no way there would be any consensus for this. If we're going to ban any cable news, it will start with a less prominent cable news than Fox. See WP:RSP. wumbolo ^^^ 15:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose There are definitely parts of FOX News that should be avoided for anything like an RS for facts but still acceptable as RSOPINION, and we should exclude those parts (eg like Hannity) when reviewing Fox as a whole. When you eliminate those problem actors, the rest of FOX news is fine, even if they show a strong right-leaning bias. --Masem (t) 15:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Hm. "So if we ignore the problems there are no problems"? Well alt-righty then! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.6.213.186 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• If we do this, we might as well just ban anything to the right of NPR This is a ridiculous suggestion and the OP should be ashamed of this POV pushing nonsense. Fox News is no worse than MSNBC when it comes to bias, and far better in terms of bias and factual accuracy than Breitbart, InfoWars or the Daily Mail. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

YAY WHATABOUTISM! And no I won't be ashamed for making a sensible suggestion. Thanks for the insult and proving alt-right-wingers lack basic civility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.6.213.186 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Fox News is a fairly standard news organization. While they've been accused of political bias, a source's bias is independent of its reliability. Designating Fox News as "generally unreliable" would be inappropriate. — Newslinger talk 17:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is David French's Fighting EOKA: The British Counter-Insurgency Campaign on Cyprus, 1955-1959 (2015) a Reliable Source for the article of EOKA

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

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

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

• Robbins, S. (2017) says s David French has produced a very readable and lucid account which offers an excellent analysis of the origins, course, and consequences of the British counter-insurgency campaign on Cyprus. It is well researched, exploiting the available primary sources skilfully, and providing a thoughtprovoking evaluation of the motives and actions of the participants involved in the insurgency and counter-insurgency on Cyprus during the second half of the 1950s. It is likely to be the standard volume for scholars and researchers interested in this particular subject for the foreseeable future.Robbins, S. (2017) Book Review: Fighting EOKA: The British Counter-Insurgency Campaign on Cyprus, 1955–1959. David FrenchFrenchDavid, Fighting EOKA: The British Counter-Insurgency Campaign on Cyprus, 1955–1959. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2015; xi 334pp. 9780198729341, $110 (hbk). War in History, 24(2), 250–251. doi:10.1177/0968344516686518i

• Dr Andrekos Varnava says Fighting EOKA is an engaging and, thankfully, not overly long read. In my view, it hits the spot. Some people may not like it, but French calls a spade a spade, and for this, as a Cypriot (who had one side of his family ‘serve’ in EOKA, including a cousin of my mother’s as an Area Commander’, and the other side of my family be prominent, at least locally, AKEL supporters), I am pleased and relieved, and as a historian I am thankful that he has done such a thorough job that I am not tempted to take to the archives on this subject.Dr Andrekos Varnava, review of Fighting EOKA: The British Counter-Insurgency Campaign on Cyprus, 1955-1959, (review no. 1901) DOI: 10.14296/RiH/2014/1901 Date accessed: 4 October, 2018

• Thomas M. writes: David French offers answers in what will surely endure as the authoritative account of the Cyprus ‘Emergency’. His book title, pithy as it is, sells him rather short because Fighting EOKA is not confined to analysis of British security force practices. It also delves deeply into the workings of their opponents: the National Organization of Greek Fighters (Ethniki Organosis Kyprion Agoniston – EOKA) and, latterly, the Turkish Resistance Organization (Türk Mukavermet Teşkilati – TMT). The result is a gripping investigation of a fast-moving but ultimately exasperating conflict. An ‘investigation’ for two reasons: one is that the book’s findings rest substantially on recent releases from the FCO ‘migrated archive’ of security-related colonial files; the other is that French, a scrupulous empiricist, applies the skills of the foren"Thomas, M. (2016). Fighting EOKA: the British counter-insurgency campaign on Cyprus, 1955–1959. Intelligence and National Security, 31(7), 1057–1058. doi:10.1080/02684527.2015.1125209

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are we allowed to cite climate scientists?

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subgenres of the Beast

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

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

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

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

The quote you linked to is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agrippa Mandangu

Agrippa Mandangu

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

Sourcing for image-can-be-used

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ex.org and Furinkan.com

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

Ex.org
(Archived via Wayback)

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

Furinkan.com (aka Rumic World)

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

Motherboard

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

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

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

Asatru Folk Assembly and the Wolves of Vinland

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

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

News reporting vs news opinion/commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reboot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Le Monde Diplomatique

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spinfuel

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should I be filing a more serious charge?

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

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

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

The first article in question today is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_cigarette

Here are a few more where Spinfuel has been cited.

Evolv

Electronic cigarette aerosol and liquid

Electronic cigarette

Construction of electronic cigarettes

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

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

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

Toeps.nl

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

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

Videostatic

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

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

Electronic Intifada (Again)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I constantly encounter the problem of editors refusing to except Electronic Intifada (EI) as a reliable source. Could someone suggest a method of obtaining a binding decision one way or the other on this? Can arbitration or mediation help in reliable source disputes? This isn't a dispute against any one person, but we need to make an objective decision which can be referenced when editors from any article attempt to exclude EI for political reasons only.

I believe the case for including EI as a reliable source is overwhelming. The only excuses I've seen for excluding EI are WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT which is not an argument to use in talk page discussions; or that it's biased, which isn't a reason for exclusion. See the opinionated source guidance in WP:NPOV.

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Wikipedia editors simply claiming EI is unreliable without evidence should carry less weight, than those who cite secondary sources or direct proof that EI have made valid mistakes, particularly mistakes which they refuse to retract. So far I've found no direct evidence of any factual mistakes. EI has however, exposed mistakes with fact-checkers and the unsuitability of Wikipedia editors. Therefore, far from being an unreliable source the opposite seems to be the case.

[There are some comments on EI] on the reliable sources noticeboard on secondary sources, (obviously we need to be cautious about criticisms from pro-Zionist commentators), and on the Wikipedia page for EI. The last item in the following list explains why we should be particularly vigilant against unfounded criticisms of EI on Wikipedia.

"They claim to have been favourably reviewed in several "mainstream" sources, including the center-right Jerusalem Post. An unfavourable review at the Jewish Telegraph Agency wire still called it a useful resource for understanding Palestinian opinions.

The Financial Times apparently said: "The Electronic Intifada is a highly professional site, apparently designed and run from the UK, which blends links to newspaper stories, in-depth comment on the way the conflict is being presented in the media, the Live From Palestine "diary project" and snippets such as a running total of Palestinian and Israeli deaths. The design is clean, using interesting fonts and images, and the material is up to date. On Tuesday morning there were already links to a dozen articles covering the Gaza City attack"

An ITV program called "The Web Review" supposedly gave EI a 10/10 rating "In form this site is a slick newsroom, rational and cross-referenced.

In an April 2008 article, online publication Electronic Intifada revealed the existence of a Google group set up by CAMERA. The stated purpose of the group was "help[ing] us keep Israel-related entries on Wikipedia from becoming tainted by anti-Israel editors". Five editors involved in the campaign were sanctioned by Wikipedia administrators, who wrote that Wikipedia's open nature "is fundamentally incompatible with the creation of a private group to surreptitiously coordinate editing" Here it is reported in the New York times"

The Media Bias Fact check site based on international fact-checking sites backs up these claims, awarding a high factual reporting rating for EI. This site also states:

"Electronic Intifada has a very strong Pro-Palestinian bias in report choices and does not always cover both sides of the story. There is frequent use of loaded emotional words that are positive for Palestine and negative for Israel. However, Electronic Intifada is generally very well sourced to credible media outlets. In reviewing fact checks we could not find any instance where EI directly failed a fact check from major fact checking sources. We did however find a case where EI refuted a pants on fire claim from Politifact that stated the Baltimore police were trained by Mossad."

I also notice reliable sources such as the New York Times and Washington Post often reference EI. So if EI weren't reliable, surely this would render these publications unreliable?

I therefore suggest that according to Wikipedia rules EI should be eligible as a source, subject to adjusting the language to a neutral tone.--Andromedean (talk) 10:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Bias should not make it not RS, look at the Fox news debate. I see no reason why it is any less of an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Its not in the same league, FOX could be compared to BBC and NYT they have left wing bias but we allow it--Shrike (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The NYT does not have a left-wing bias, and comparing it to FOX news is kind of laughable. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

What? That is something that I would have thought was undeniable. The NYTimes does indeed have a left wing bias and it's clear as day. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

NYTimes has a liberal bias, but it doesn't extend farther left than that. They're considered "left-wing" by the standards of US political discourse, but that says more about US political discourse than it does about the Times. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Not reliable. This website has a reputation for partisan advocacy, very fast (but inaccurate) reporting, and making far out claims (which, as the better known Daily Mail, do get reported elsewhere - attributed to EI). They are also very open to receiving pitches or even full written stories, and they publish what other outlets are unwilling to publish. Their reporting often blurs facts (inaccurate as they may be) with opinion, omitting responses from the "other" side. What they do not have, is a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. In fact, they have a reputation for publishing outright hoaxes when it advances their advocacy, e.g. [47]. Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  Icewhiz, most of your comments fall under the issues which I've already raised, and don't demonstrate that EI is unsuitable. However your last point might be relevant. 'If the Dutch pension company repurchased these Israeli stocks under an OECD portfolio that would indicate mere restructuring not a divestment, but did they?''''Bold text EI do state in their article that PGGM announced that PFZW was divesting from Africa-Israel for “technical reasons. They also seem to be simply repeating what the company told them in good faith. So I'm not convinced EI are at fault here. --Andromedean (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  "technical"? That is unfounded speculation. This was a blatant hoax - and a rather obvious one for anyone involved in equity trading. The MSCI and OECD classification to DM led to record trading volumes (and a trading day that was ad hoc extended three times).[48] A record that to date has not been surpassed (and is at least 3x bigger than the second highest). Many-many funds base their asset allocation on market classification - and when it changes - they sell/buy as appropriate (and this is not Israel specific - has happened on such events elsewhere). This was not and itty bitty detail someone overlooked - this was the biggest trading event in the Israeli market going back at least two decades.Icewhiz (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Unreliable and WP:UNDUE This in propaganda site that whose goal is to disseminate a certain POV that have no history of fact checking --Shrike (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Reliable A bias in a source is not grounds for it being considered unreliable, and the editors claiming it's unreliable have provided negligible evidence of any sort of wide-spread failure to fact-check. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Is not you who argued that Israeldefence is only reliable for not controversial information just because of it POV and didn't provided any evidence --Shrike (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

If you'll note, I asked some questions in that thread but ultimately supported the reliability of the source for the edit in discussion. As per the scope of this page. I just reserved the right to dispute its reliability in the future on other matters. Simonm223 (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

*Jerusalem Post is no less biased and partisan than EI, so no reason to treat different. To claim that EI is consistently unreliable needs evidence. Wickey (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Per WP:ARBPIA3 the user have less then 500 edits so he cannot participate in this discussion --Shrike (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Unreliable As its name clearly states, this is an advocacy website that does not even pretend to provide objective and balanced information. Omitting the "other side" is a given, as noted above. That's what makes it propaganda. Even newspapers in Nazi Germany occasionally stated facts. That did not make the publications reliable sources. Coretheapple (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I fear this is going to turn into yet another POV discussion about EI. Returning to my original question:

could someone suggest a method of obtaining a binding decision one way or the other on this? Can arbitration or mediation help in reliable source disputes? --Andromedean (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Not Reliable It seems to me clear as day that this is a partisan site and serves one purpose and that purpose is not to produce news. Therefore, if something is newsworthy, it should be from a newssource. If it's not newsworthy, then it doesn't' need to be covered. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Unreliable I don't care if they are biased or not. But they cannot publish what is proven to be clearly untrue hoaxes and be considered reliable such as this hoax. Additionally, in this article it says Haaretz story which does not support his claim of threats. And then go read the Haaretz story [49] of which the very first line is Former lead singer of The Animals Eric Burdon on Tuesday announced he is cancelling his planned concert in Israel, citing threats. In this article they say In 2002, Israeli army chief Moshe Yaalon declared that “the Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people." If you read the editor's note at the bottom, you will see that even they recognize that this statement is completely unverifiable but they keep it in the story anyway. They actively oppose the widely recognized by mainstream media fact that senior Palistianian officials said that 500 people were killed in Jenin [50]. Here is what the Guardian wrote Saeb Erekat, a senior negotiator for the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, said in mid-April that 500 people had been killed.. If they continue to insist on facts being different than most other RS, we cannot count on them being reliable.

As for how to create a "binding decision" on this. We discuss such things on the page and consensus develops. If people think that is a local consensus not representative of the wider WP community they can come here (at RSN) and see if a wider consensus be established, finally if they think that is a local in time consensus that other editors will understand is wrong, they can start a RfC, which will be binding unless new information or a new RfC says otherwise. But Consensus can change so on WP nothing is every "finally" settled for all time, but we can settle such issues in the short term and then reconsider them down the road if people still think they are wrong. -Obsidi (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Obsidi, I've already addressed your first claim. In the second case EI seem to have carried out extra research since it's dated 2 days later, how do you know the Haaretz claim is accurate? Strictly, there's nothing inconsistent between the two articles since EI are refuting a BDS threat, there's no mention of a BDS threat in Haaretz. In the third case they seem to have quoted a New York times article which was also widely quoted elsewhere, but the source has since been questioned. EI have placed the same statement at the bottom of their article as the NYTimes have.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talk • contribs) 18:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

If you have already addressed the first claim, I don't know where. Yes, the EI article is 2 days later. I have no idea if threats were really issued or not (I wasn't there). But what I do know is that EI claimed that the Haaretz story does not support the claim that the concert was canceled citing threats, which is a claim about the Haaretz article, which I can see for myself that EI is stating false information (that is exactly what the Haaretz article says). As to the third claim, they did add a statement at the bottom like the NYTs would, but you know what else the NYT's would do? They edit the actual text to remove the inaccurate information! (go read the original NYT's article if you don't believe me [51]) -Obsidi (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• In the last case they have simply researched exactly what the Palestinian leader said. He said 'could reach 500 dead' and didn't use the word massacre. This was incorrectly translated by the MSM that the Palestinians were claiming a massacre and 500 dead.

Erekat told CNN Anchor Jim Clancy: “What we’re saying, we see an opportunity in the secretary’s visit. We want to help in order to insure the success of the secretary’s visit, because insuring the success of implementing [UN resolution] 1402 means stopping the killing fields out there, and you know as the numbers I am receiving today is that the numbers of killed could reach 500 since the Israeli offensive began. Thousands of wounded. You know, the Jenin refuge camp is no longer in existence, and now we’ve heard of executions there.” --Andromedean (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The problem isn't the word "massacre," the problem is claiming 500 people died rather than 50-60 in Jenin. Also you are citing a diffrent interview. You are citing the interview on the 12th of April. I am referring to the one on the 17th where he said:

SAEB ERAKAT, CHIEF PALESTINIAN NEGOTIATOR: Well, I have a suggestion to make, Wolf, to Mr. Ben-Eliezer. How about if we form an international commission of inquiry, let them go to Jenin with the equipment needed (UNINTELLIGIBLE). And let them tell the world, this being American, European, anybody, we have 1,600 missing men in this refugee camp. Mostly women and children, husbands and wives. I'm not saying they are killed. I'm saying that the situation in this refugee camp which we have been reporting from there now, even milk is prevented to the children now. Bodies are rotting. It's a disastrous area, Wolf. So it is not for us to decide how many were killed. There is no longer a refugee camp there. And maybe the defense minister and the prime minister of Israel want to deny what CNN is showing, that the camp was totally destroyed. They conducted terror. They're not out there to fight terror. They are conducting terror. They're killing Palestinians. They have made Palestinians so filled now with anger, with hate. They have set the clock back to 30 years ago. All the work of the good people, Palestinians and Israelis who devoted their lives to make peace, reconciliation, healing have been destroyed in the last few weeks at the hands of Sharon and his people. So, as far as he is concerned, we officially offer to have an international commission of inquiry to get the results (ph) and to decide how many people were massacred. And we say the number will not be less than 500.

[52] -Obsidi (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Would not use it as a source for facts. Its close to Arutz Sheva, it may publish true things but with a heavy spin, and occasionally will publish false things without later at least retracting them. When they publish something of note it will be found in other sources. nableezy - 17:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: "Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."WP:BIASED When you don't specify what materials are to be used from the source, it's not possible to say whether or not the source is reliable. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Complicated. Reading up, it seems that it's often reliable for factual reporting and rarely called out for falsification or the like, but it does seem to be a situation where we'd need to look case by case and check that the individual story is itself well sourced. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• I can see why some people have a problem with EI now, they see they parts they wish to see, then reinterpret them, and always assume a opposing view refutes it. I've highlighted some of the critical terminology which should help, but probably won't. I still don't see anything to refute the professional views and assessments of EI given in my header, only people who just don't like EI.--Andromedean (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
• Unreliable: Agree with nableezy in that if it´s newsworthy, then there will be better RS options. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
• Unreliable A partisan website that may, indeed, sometimes publish accurate facts, but cannot be relied on to do so. Anything sufficiently notable to be written up in an article can and should be supported by better sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
• Unreliable per Nableezy and E.M. Gregory. A self-published blog with heavy partisan overtones does not fit the criteria of WP:V. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Complicated/Usually Reliable: Shock News .... like many other news sources e.g. BBC, Fox News, China Daily or The Jerusalem Post the Electronic Intifada is partisan to a political viewpoint/bias ~ but that does not exclude it from being RS "Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."WP:BIASED. The relevant question here is it reliable, and the correct answer based on the evidence is yes, mostly (with zero or little evidence of failure to fact check). Though I agree with Guy's caution, and respect other contributors caution, we should not exclude a source simply because WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. In some countries like the UK, news media is highly centralized, with very few alternate viewpoints. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 00:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

(I also humbly point towards Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Politics#Arab-Israeli conflict.) ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 00:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

And it says "Oddly enough, there is a significant proportion of perceived pro-Arab bias in many entries." So we should not use propaganda one sided sources that clearly WP:UNDUE --Shrike (talk) 06:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

it says: "Oddly enough, there is a significant proportion of perceived pro-Arab bias in many entries. Nonetheless, until the Arab nations establish a broad-based class of internet users, they will have fewer advocates on Wikipedia.Because of this, members of this WikiProject believe that countering systemic bias in coverage of the Middle East should be a much higher priority on Wikipedia." It should be added that EI is highly critical of the pro-Saudi bias in the media, it isn't a pro-Arab site. --Andromedean (talk) 10:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Usually Reliable: It has been used over 1000 times in scholarly articles[53], so I think we should use it as a RS and wherever appropriate, attribution should be used. If it is ok for academics, then it should be ok with us. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Not every link there is a link to peer reviewed to work also It could be user as primary source as example of Palestinian propaganda for example Protocols of the Elders of Zion [[54] appear more then 6000 times does it reliable?--Shrike (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

You surely have a point, but I have checked the first pages and most often it was used as an source in articles. As there are 1,6K results in google scholar, seems to me it is a moderate estimation that 1K is used as a source. The hoax you are mentioning gets 6K results as an object for research, not as a source of evidence. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The vast majority of these are for attributed opinion/stmts - not fact. Icewhiz (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

How can you tell? And does it change anything? Τζερόνυμο (talk) 08:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The bar for using attributed statements/opinion is far lower - particularly when citing the author of an opinion piece - to use such an attributed stmt you need to trust the site has not falsified an author (generally something even the worst of the worst don't do) - but you do not need to trust the factual accuracy of the site (as you are merely cited somebody's attributed opinion). For instance, we (and others) allow RT (TV network) or TASS as a source for attributed statements of the Russian regime - however we (and others) would never use them for fact. Icewhiz (talk) 08:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems to me it is not just used for statements. Here is a peer review article published in Racs & Class, cited by 66 other articlse according to google scholar

since 2001 the significance of the online publication Electronic Intifada has been immeasurable in providing information and analysis from a Palestinian perspective.

Palestinian resistance and international solidarity: the BDS campaign Abigail B. Bakan and Yasmeen Abu-Laban Race & Class Vol 51, Issue 1, pp. 29 - 54 First Published June 25, 2009 https://doi.org/10.1177/0306396809106162 Τζερόνυμο (talk) 10:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Given the POV character of that article,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0306396809106162, whose abstract reveals it to be an anti-Israel polemic, its appraisal of Electronic Intifada can be taken with a grain of salt. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Primary sources at Alex Paxton-Beesley

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

Sci-Hub

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

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

I changed the lede from

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

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maysarakat Indonesia

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are Thevigilantcitizen.com an RS for attendance at Bilbergber Conferences?

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

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

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

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

Is datarabia.com or "Talal Kapoor" a reliable source for biographies

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

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

Karthik Srinivasan

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

Request for comment on Wikipedia:Interviews

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

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

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

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

Request for comment on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

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

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

Web content by non-staff contributors

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

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

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

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

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

Revised follow-up RfC

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

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

Web content by non-staff contributors

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

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

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

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

Designating non-staff contributors and sponsored content as questionable in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Yesterday, I added the following to the Questionable sources section of the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources guideline:

Non-staff contributors

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

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

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

Sponsored content

Sponsored content is generally unacceptable as a source, because it is paid for by advertisers and bypasses the publication's editorial process. Reliable publications clearly indicate sponsored articles in the byline or with a disclaimer at the top of the article. Sources that do not clearly distinguish staff-written articles from sponsored content are also questionable.

I added these sections after expanding the WP:RSP entries for Forbes.com contributors and HuffPost contributors, which reference 23 discussions over the past 10 years that show strong editor consensus for designating non-staff contributors as generally unreliable, and for treating their articles as opinion pieces or self-published sources.

If there are any issues with these additions, please feel free to discuss and improve them. — Newslinger talk 03:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

That sounds good, Newslinger. I have two concerns, neither of them a criticism. Firstly, a minor one; guest authors are sometimes recognized experts in a field. We might want to clarify this policy intersection.

Secondly and majorly, identifying sponsored content can be non-trivial. I'm willing to write an essay on this if none exists. I wrote some related material in response to ads disguised as academic papers, which were mistakenly cited as MEDRS in an article averaging 2800 hits a day. The scale of this problem is intimidating, and in this discussion I write about attempting to fix it, then giving up and incompetently looking for a semi-automated solution (I've since worked on metadata for identifying sources as sponsored, advice or help welcome here).

On the various guises worn by ads-pretending-to-be-content in popular media, I recommend this article written by an expert guest author on the site I am inquiring about above. Apologies for the irony overdose. HLHJ (talk) 04:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi HLHJ, I've added the WP:EXPERTSOURCE shortcut to the Exceptions subsection of WP:RS, and promoted the subsection to be directly under the Questionable and self-published sources section. I've also added the phrase "and content from non-staff contributors" to extend the exception to WP:CONTRIBUTOR.

The WP:SPONSORED section is a bit sparse, and a how-to guide offering additional guidance could be very useful. While Truth in Advertising's content should be used with discretion in an article, the organization's advice would fit perfectly in a how-to guide showing editors how to detect native advertising. — Newslinger talk 09:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The wording in WP:CONTRIBUTOR has been revised per discussion at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Designating non-staff contributors and sponsored content as questionable. — Newslinger talk 17:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. This discussion is now here. HLHJ (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

This request for comment has been withdrawn, and a revised follow-up RfC has been posted at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#RfC: Designating web content by non-staff contributors as questionable (revised). — Newslinger talk 08:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Truth in Advertising (organization)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Biggest Loser (U.S. TV series)

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

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

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

Is the Character of Kingship a reliable source for Nepali Funerary practice?

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

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

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

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

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

www.team.net

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

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

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

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

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

Academic Blog

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

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

"Global Genius Listing" - spam or a reliable source

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

MichaelMiletic (talk · contribs) is adding this {redacted] to multiple articles. I've found no evidence that this is a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 11:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Almost no information about them on their website - no names, no discussion of methodology for compiling the list, just 'e-mail us for more info'. No way to verify the information it's presenting. Smells like spam (yuk).GirthSummit _(blether) 12:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

It is a Wix.com hosted site, effectively a blog with an unknown author. Undoubtedly unreliable. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Global Genius Listing is a reliable source. It is run by two psychologists, one in the US, and one in Canada. I was a little skeptical myself, so I emailed them on their page. They have a very strict set of criteria for those wishing to be listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Lewis 36 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC) — David Lewis 36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• No reason to believe this is reliable. Also, a nutty idea. A list of all such people would include 9,000,000 names. So as you must apply, this is actually a list of people who want to be thought of as geniuses. O3000 (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I have emailed them and done my background research. Have also worked in the mental acuity space for 30 years. Of course it isn't a list of all people, as tall people haven't taken a proper IQ test. It clearly seems to be an avenue in which those that have high enough scores can submit them. The tests are verified, and so on. It is a good site. IQ is a tricky topic. The site could provide a bit more background information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelMiletic (talk • contribs)

@MichaelMiletic: are you also the person above who says he emailed them? Please tell us what part of WP:VERIFY and WP:RS you are using to state reliability. Note that we generally expect reliable sources to be used by other reliable sources. The site itself is run anonymously, so I'm wondering how these two people were contacted. It does have their address, Market St. San Francisco, CA 94158 but that doesn't help. It seems worthless as a source. Doug Weller talk 15:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• If you can show who writes the site, and they are recognised notable experts. Then it may be usable in some articles as an WP:SPS. But it still will not be suitable for BLP's. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that given the lack of any published methodology, or any contact details other than an email address, we probably cannot consider this to be a WP:RS at this time. I also note that the WHOIS record uses a domain privacy protection service. At the very least, I'd expect the identities of the people behind it, and their detailed editorial policy, to be verifiable and published on the site. It would also be useful to know if they charge for listings. Coverage by other WP:RS would also help. -- The Anome (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

From my correspondence with them, it appears reliable. But it wouldn’t hurt to reach out to them and ask about providing more details regarding their credentials and methodology.

@Doug Weller I have emailed them using the address listed, but no, that was not me who said it above. Although I can confirm I received a similar response. They are psychologists and board certified. Therefore I feel comfortable citing the website. I wouldn't use the site as a reference until that was confirmed.

Surely the spirit of WP:V is summed up in its opening sentence: "verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source". This website looks and smells like a spam blog; there's no significant coverage in other sources; they don't even put any information about themselves on their own website. If they want to be taken seriously as a source, they should be putting their names to it, letting the world see their credentials and how they perform their checks etc. I am implying no ill will on anyone's part, but we can't ask the reader to take the word of a couple of anonymous Wikipedian that they have checked it out, and it's all totally legit. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps Somebody should inquire to the Global Genius Listing about providing this information on their website. They have been very transparent with me when I asked questions via their email.

• I’m sure this is a coincidence, but two of the editors in this section (David Lewis 36 and MichaelMiletic) with very brief editing histories and similar habits of not signing, have both edited the Grooveshark article (a defunct streaming service), and the holder of one of the highest IQs on that site worked for Grooveshark. (I can supply the real name, but that might be considered doxxing.) O3000 (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• This discussion seems to be going nowhere. MichaelMiletic (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• I have reached out to the staff on the website, and felt the response validated the source. MichaelMiletic (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that perhaps you didn't quite understand my last point. Even if they send you their CVs, PhD graduation certificates and a 200-page statement outlining their methodology, that doesn't make their website verifiable to our readers - they would be taking it on faith that you have checked them out. Until a serious academic source puts some kind of stamp of approval on this site, or reliable secondary sources start using it routinely, it's just a random website that a random editor said was legit. That's not an attack on you by the way - it's not about what we are certain about, or what we have researched ourselves, it's about what's in the public domain and verifiable. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Understand it perfectly. Perhaps someone should inquire about the website making that information accessible on the site, that way it is verifiable by WIKI users. Seems that would make the most sense.MichaelMiletic (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

That is the beauty of it. Anybody is free to contact them to verify in anyway they seem fit. Nobody needs to merely take my word or anyone else's. MichaelMiletic (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I indented your comment - I hope that's OK. I don't see why Wikipedia editors should be responsible for telling third parties how to improve their websites to make it fit our policies better, or why third parties would be in the least bit interested in the Wikipedians' advice - unless they were hoping that numerous mentions in our articles might increase the visibility/notability of their site?

In the inimitable words of Guy Macon: Kill it. Kill it with fire. (For the avoidance of doubt, I am implying that the website should be treated as an unreliable source, and removed from any Wikipedia page that uses it. I am not saying that any individual should be harmed in any way, and these comments are directed explicitly at the use of the website as a source, not at any editor.)GirthSummit _(blether) 17:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I was speaking strictly for purposes of potential user verification. Again, this conversation is not going anywhere as we are not in agreement. MichaelMiletic (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

In this diff, David Lewis 36 just referred to MichaelMiletic in the first person, then hastily self-reverted. Having previously denied being the same person. Then MichaelMiletic made the exact same comment. Hmm - I wonder what's happening here. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)MichaelMiletic/David Lewis 36, the problem with using two userids is that you get them confused, as you just did here and did earlier at User talk:MichaelMiletic. O3000 (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• It appears the site is now blacklisted. O3000 (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

That explains why the SPI case I just tried to raise with Twinkle failed - I think I included the web address in my comments. Do you think it's raising a new one, or are there enough admins watching this conversation to take whatever action is necessary? GirthSummit _(blether) 17:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

All his edits have been removed. The quacking is deafening. The OP is a CU. O3000 (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I believe you can use nowiki tags to mention a blacklisted site. O3000 (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Good call. I can't see that a case has been raised, so I'll do that now. Thanks - I'm a bit new to Twinkle, haven't done an SPI before so thought it might have been my screw-up. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

About The Next Web

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Designers & Dragons a RS for: (a) games and game companies, (b) BLPs?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Generally reliable as a source for facts on games and game companies. Not recommended for use in biographies of living people or to support clearly controversial statements. (non-admin closure) — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

---

Recently the question arose as to whether or not Designers & Dragons [75], a book on fantasy role-play games, is a WP:RS for (a) games and game companies, (b) WP:BLPs.

• Publisher: The book's publisher is Evil Hat, a fantasy game and t-shirt company located somewhere in the United States (no physical address is given on its website and I was unable to locate it via a reverse EIN search either). [76]
• Author: The book's author is Shannon Applecline. A bio purporting to be that of Applecline is here: [77].
• Reception: The book has been cited in about two-dozen master's degree theses and undergraduate term papers. [78] A check of JSTOR and Google News finds no scholarly journals or mainstream media which have reviewed it. It is cited once each in Empire of Imagination: Gary Gygax and the Birth of Dungeons & Dragons from Bloomsbury and Dragons in the Stacks: A Teen Librarian's GUide to Tabletop Role-Playing from ABC-CLIO.

Is this source RS for (a) games and game companies, (b) BLPs? Chetsford (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

---

• Undecided on "A", No on "B" - I'm undecided leaning towards "RS" for games and game companies. However, I don't believe this could surmount the high threshold required to source a BLP. Neither the publisher nor author have any non-fiction credits other than this book and the author has no known educational credentials, or wider journalistic / academic reputation, that would qualify him to conduct original historical or biographical research. I have been unable to find any physical presence for the publisher by which it could be held legally responsible for what it publishes, as it appears not to disclose its physical address and even a reverse EIN search turns up blank. With the exception of undergraduate papers and master theses (which are not, themselves, RS) instances of the book being cited by reliable sources are light and there's no examples of it being used to cite a biographical statement in a RS (only product descriptions). Chetsford (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Given the lack of information on the publisher, and low profile of the author, I would say the book is not a reliable source, period. - Donald Albury 02:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree with Donald Albury, for the reasons stated. Not reliable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Being published by a game company I would suspect it fails the editorial control/reputation for fact checking and accuracy criteria. On the other hand several volumes have been published so that is enough to establish a reputation. On yet another hand, I see no evidence of other reliable sources making use of it, which is really the only proxy we have for its reputation and acceptance. Based on that I do not think it could be considered a reliable source for anything until we can get a better handle on its editorial control and fact checking. Jbh ^Talk 05:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
        • Designers & Dragons is cited by many/all of the authoritative scholarly sources in the field (as WP:SECONDARY reminds us to check whether "the source has entered mainstream academic discourse"). Most recently, Designers & Dragons is cited extensively and with evident approbation in Role-Playing Game Studies: Transmedia Foundations, the new academic text, published by Routledge, which for now is the leading text in the field. I can produce earlier citations of Designers & Dragons, but SCHOLARSHIP seems to be easily met by its role in unquestionably reliable sources, and SCHOKARSHIP is, as I understand it, the "gold standard for both BIO and CORP sources. Newimpartial (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
          • What you say appears to be incorrect. It is listed in several chapter's bibliographies and as 'Further reading' but I see nothing directly cited to the work. Without that it is impossible to know what it was used for. So, yes, it was consulted but I see no indication in that work that it was used for historical information about gaming companies which is the matter at hand here.
            This paper used it for some historical information on D&D, TSR. Jbh ^Talk 12:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
            • The above statement appears to be misleading. The Routledge text employs chapter bibliographies rather than individual citations, based on its intended use in universities. Most of the chapter references are either primary sources or academic/theoretical sources. The repeated references to Designers & Dragons in the bibliographies give it pride of place as a secondary source in the field, as having "entered mainstream scholarly discourse". Newimpartial (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
              • That is an … erm … interesting … source analysis. I will however disagree. We can not infer anything other than several authors looked at the work. In particular there is no indication that the work was used for the history of game companies, which is what we are examining it for here, or is any way considered generally authoritative purpose by the academic community.
                My concern is that the publisher has no history of academic, or even non-fiction, publishing. Therefore I do not accept, without evidence, that the editorial standards they have for publishing games are adequate, particularly in terms of fact checking and accuracy, for an authoritative "academic" work.
                I just looked at the Amazon free sample of the work and it is no more than a narrative history. I see no citations for facts nor any indications that it is reliable beyond a single person's observations and musings. It is effectively an oral history – a good work but essentially a primary source. Jbh ^Talk 17:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes it is for A and B - and a note that the user who opposed has been trying to argue for mass deletion of pages that rely on it as a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Given it is published by a games company, I would say no. There are issues if primary source and even SPS here. OK maybe they might be OK for historical information, about people or products that have no connection to the company. But outside that I would say they are not interdependent enough to be an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that each edition of Designers & Dragons is not RS for the publisher at the time, which is the one issue of independence. Also agreed that its relevance is for historical/factual information, not really for analysis.Newimpartial (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• I believe it meets all three criteria. To clarify on the part of the publisher, there have been two editions of the book, published by two separate game publishers who I believe are fully independent from each other and are headquartered in different countries. The first edition of the book was published as a single volume in 2011 by British game company Mongoose Publishing. The second edition was greatly expanded and published in 2014 in four volumes by US game company Evil Hat Productions. The first edition consists of roughly 50-60 chapters, with each chapter consisting of a history of one game company that was known for producing role-playing games, including discussing the people who have been a part of that company, and games that the company is known for. The text is written as partial oral history and partial commentary on decisions made by the companies. The second edition expands on the information in the first edition by adding more than 20 additional chapters on other companies, and expanding on the information featured in most of the chapters from the first edition; most of the text is reproduced identically from the first edition. Shannon Appelcline himself has been a game designer/writer, and he currently runs RPGnet and publishes articles there - most of the information from the first edition of Designers & Dragons was and still is on RPGnet, written for fans of the website before Mongoose agreed to publish it as a book. I would say his design experience and research qualifies him as an expert in the field. The credits of the book list a few dozen industry professionals that he consulted for information to write the book with. Important individuals in the field are discussed in detail in the book, including in some cases talking somewhat about their earlier lives and schooling, personal lives, and careers before and after getting into the gaming field. BOZ (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Appelcline does not cite his sources inline in the text, but at the end of the Mongoose edition, he provides a bibliography of sources "built from thousands of primary sources including interviews, design notes, reviews, news articles, press releases, catalogues, forum postings and other non-fiction articles. It was also built with the assistance of hundreds of readers, fact-checkers and scanners." He lists over 30 magazines and similar publications ("a solid collection of RPG magazines dating back through the ‘80s and ’90, before the age of the internet made it easy for publishers to get information out to fans"), more than a dozen non-fiction books about the industry ("Any number of RPG books was consulted, primarily for insight into that game or its publisher. The following non-fiction sources were also used. Secondary sources like the Role-Playing Bibles tended to be used for date confirmation and references to primary sources, not for analysis.") several web resources ("The web proved an invaluable resource, particularly for companies in existence from the late ‘90s onward [and] a few of the web sites that I visited multiple times over the course of the project") and he lists several dozen fact checkers, most of whom worked for one or more of the companies he wrote about ("Whenever I finished an article, I tried to get one or more people associated with the company in question to comment on it. In one or two cases where I did not have sufficient company feedback, I got some help from fans as well. These people helped to make this book considerably more accurate and informative thanks to both corrections and insight generously given. Some were kind enough to comment on multiple editions of these articles over the years."). BOZ (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Which means his assertions are untraceable and uncheckable. The reliability of the source then comes down to, in my opinion, the reputation of the publisher, which for reasons I have previously mentioned, is inadequate. The deficiencies of documentation and publisher could be offset if the author had a reputation for, or training in historiography. He does not.

There is no doubt the author put great time and effort into his work but, for the reasons I have stated, I do not believe it meets the Wikipedia's standards to be considered a reliable source for company histories or BLP. Jbh ^Talk 19:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Please see instructions at the top. What article and what material is this being used to reference? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Only in death does duty end, sorry. It's used quite extensively in BLPs so I can't provide an exhaustive list, however, here are a few examples:

• M. Alexander Jurkat - used to cite entire article including professional licenses (attorney), bankruptcy, inspirations / favorite things, and employment history [79]
• John Harshman - used to cite educational credentials and place of residence [80]
• Fred Hicks - used to cite the entire article, including the BLP's employment history, employment status, favorite things, friendships, and inspirations. [81]
• Andria Hayday - used to cite date the BLP's employer terminated them [82]
• Jack Herman - used to cite most of article, including the BLP's legal disputes and details of his business contracts with other people [83]
• Shane Lacy Hensley - used to cite most of article, including place of birth, childhood hobbies, and detailed employment history
• Dale Henson - used to cite entire article [84]

Chetsford (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Not reliable for company histories nor for BLP per my arguments above. The publisher is not an established publisher of non-fiction works and therefore can not be assumed to have adequate editorial controls for fact checking and accuracy. What I have seen of the work (Amazon sample) it is written as an oral history and provides no backstop for facts presented beyond the assertion of its author. Jbh ^Talk 17:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• Reliable for both Each of the four volumes provides a Bibliography citing the sources used. Many of the sources are, in turn, other publications such as magazines. There is also a fifth volume entitled "Designers & Dragons The Platinum Appendix" that also lists all the references used. For me, the books meet the criteria of a reliable source. The books have been published and are available to purchase in hard copy form, and they're available and stocked in book stores. In addition, the author is identified and the publisher identified. The books have been cited in academic sources and has been acknowledged in lots of other sources as a comprehensive history. For example, The Oxonian Review which has an editorial board.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HighKing (talk • contribs) 20:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC (UTC)
• Reliable for Games/Companies, unsure for BLP Designers and Dragons is extremely heavily used and referenced inside the RPG industry and generally hailed as the pre-eminent source for RPG histories. Shannon Appelcline is regarded as the premier historian of RPGs. The first edition was published by Mongoose Publishing and the second edition multi volume set was published by Evil Hat. Note that the author does not work for either of those companies, it was just the means of publishing. The work is generally referenced (not as specifically and heavily as Wikipedia but all sources are listed), but as for many communities the outside oversight is minor as it is for every smaller subject area. Most company information is heavily cross referenced to people who worked for those companies and additional third party sources about the companies. As for BLP I'd be a little more unsure but considering the number of people interviewed for the work and since Shannon used most major players in the industry, I'd say it's as reliable a source for BLPs of the prominent people in the RPG industry as any, but I'm open to an argument against it. Canterbury Tail talk 21:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Addition I would also like to add that since it covers all aspects of the tabletop RPG industry, it should NOT be used for notability determination, just fact checking and claim supports like any other text on an industry. The fact that a game is included in it doesn't make that game/company notable as it goes into details on a lot of obscure RPGs. Canterbury Tail talk 15:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Borderline, reliable for non-extraordinary claims about game companies but not for BLPs. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, the guideline governing the type of source it purports to be, since the publisher is not academic we ascertain reliability by citation patterns. As discussed above, it is cited only in sources that are themselves marginal—theses and tiny start-up journals—with the exception of the Routledge collection, which is edited by an associate professor and a PhD in Media Studies. In this, it's cited only a half-dozen times, albeit usually for substantial points of fact, and chapter 4, Tabletop Role-Playing Games, names it as one of two sources on which "the historical arc traced here draws in large measure upon". Balancing the fact that this is only one publication (and mostly one chapter) with the fact that precious little has been published in this field, I would cautiously say that this source seems reliable for unsurprising claims about its field, but that it hasn't been vetted widely or frequently enough to rely on it for BLP information. FourViolas (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• Based on the description from HighKing, I'd have to say it counts as a RS for all purposes. That said, if there is an extraordinary claim I'd want a second independent source (though I feel that way about nearly all sources, some things like Nature or the WSJ I'd accept as a single source for all but the most outrageous of claims). Hobit (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Marginal at best, not suitable for BLPs or for establishing notability. The first edition was published by a game company, the second via Kickstarter. This appears to be an "in-universe", hobbyist work -- slightly better than self-published. Okay to use for non-controversial details once notability of the subjects is established via other means, but I don't see evidence of fact-checking or accuracy. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Reliable for both I'm not seeing any evidence that the source is erroneous. We have numerous BLPs for people like footballers and pornstars which are supported by weak sources and, in general, we commonly use books and newspapers as sources even though these often contain errors and bias. All I'm seeing here is a case of prejudice against the field. Andrew D. (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment it should be noted that the primary Wikiproject for RPGs, Wikiproject Dungeons & Dragons, has determined it to be a reliable secondary source for their purposes. Not sure what that says. Canterbury Tail talk 11:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was added to the Resources list by User:JEB215 in 2015. The page was built by User:Drilnoth in 2008 using available sources at that time; Designers & Dragons and several other books were not written yet and so were added later. BOZ (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment on Notability A couple of editors have commented that Designers & Dragons may be an independent, reliable source for article content but not for WP:N. I believe this line of thinking reflects a misunderstanding about what WP Notability is: per policy, it is not supposed to be a measure of the importance of a topic, or of its encyclopaedicity (which is covered by WP:NOT), but simply a question of whether there are adequate sources to treat a topic; if there are not enough sources, it is not notable, but if there are enough sources, it is. (There may be some deletionists who disagree with this criterion, but the policy and guidelines are actually pretty clear). Of course, not all sources topics require their own articles, and some are best dealt with in sections of longer articles, but these are questions of encyclopaedicity rather than Notability.

So if Designers & Dragons is a reliable, independent source - which is certainly how the SCHOLARSHIP in the field treats it - then it is evidence of Notability based on the significance of the mention, same as any other RS. I do of course agree that no extraordinary claims should be based on the text in question, nor do I trust it's theoretical or analytical judgements very far, but it's factual accuracy is excellent. And the argument that boils down to "it covers so many games that none of them can be very important" simply runs contrary to what WP:N actually means; for example, the listing of very, very diagnoses in the DSM doesn't make any of them less Notable for WP. Newimpartial (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

which is certainly how the SCHOLARSHIP in the field treats it While I certainly understand the spirit of your perspective, I would dispute that there can be scholarship in a field that is not a scholarly field. This is not a comment on the value or import of role-playing games, however, I don't believe their design or manufacture is a scholarly field. Scholarship "within the field" might be a reasonable touchpoint for the academic disciplines, however, I don't see evidence that role-playing games is an academic discipline. This is not to say that any entertainment topic is un-scholarly. Film, for instance, is both a topic of entertainment and a topic of scholarship (the latter evidenced through the presence of indexed journals about film, a large number of university professorships studying film, and a general recognition of the viability of the field of film studies). However, I appreciate we may have to agree to disagree. Chetsford (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Is that why you didn't include the new Routledge text in your "reception" section of the RSN notice: because of your OR decision that it was not in a scholarly field? You should inform Routledge, then, and you might want to tell the publishers of the game studies journals, as well. Newimpartial (talk)

the publishers of the game studies journals I'm not familiar with any scholarly journals about RPGs. This may be a personal failure on my part; could you cite some so I could better acquaint myself and consider modifying my !vote appropriately? Chetsford (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not aware of any journals that are confined to RPGs, but the RPG form is certainly discussed within the burgeoning scholarship on game studies (or Ludology) in general. Newimpartial (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you could share some of those journals then? Chetsford (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The obvious specialty journal for you to start with would be http://analoggamestudies.org . Newimpartial (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I've checked SCOPUS and EBSCO and it doesn't appear to be indexed. Chetsford (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

That would explain why it didn't show up in the Google Scholar results. :) Newimpartial (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

So this is not an indexed journal? To my original query of the latter evidenced through the presence of indexed journals did you have any examples of indexed journals? The question as to whether roleplaying games is an academic field comes down to several factors listed above, including are there scholarly journals? If there are, I'm hoping you can help us identify them. Keeping in mind that simply starting a website and calling it "journal" does not make it a scholarly journal in the spirit of WP:NJOURNAL. Chetsford (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Please don't move goalposts. I was answering your direct question, "I'm not familiar with any scholarly journals about RPGs. This may be a personal failure on my part; could you cite some...?" I was not answering your oblique reference to indexed film journals, nor was I offering an opinion on the specifics of any journal's editorial process. (I trust that WP editors can read websites and make their own decisions about editorial oversight.) RPGs are included in the overall field or ludology, specifically in the less lucrative part of that field dealing with "analog games". I have no interest in proceeding any further down this rabbit hole, none of which explains your non-inclusion of the Routledge text in your filing here at RSN. Newimpartial (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Is roleplay gaming an academic discipline? Sorry, I assumed when I said "scholarly journals" it was evident, vis a vis my previous comment the latter evidenced through the presence of indexed journals, what it was I was looking for (i.e. not just any publication or website including the word "journal" in their name but scholarly journals). If I expressed myself imperfectly, I apologize. In any case, Analog Game Studies would objectively not meet our WP:NJOURNAL criteria since we have set-forth that "the only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journals are via bibliographic databases and citation indices". Therefore, IMO, on the basis of there being no scholarly journals on role-playing games, no or very few academics at accredited universities researching roleplaying games, no learned society dedicated to the topic of roleplaying games, and roleplaying games are not listed in the Classification of Instructional Programs [85] or the Joint Academic Coding System [86] I would maintain the position that roleplaying games are not an academic discipline. I appreciate we may have to agree to disagree. Chetsford (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Regarding BLP sourcing: I should have made it clearer above, but when Appelcline lists his "fact-checkers", these were not just random people who happened to work at the company. Many of the people written about in the book – not anywhere near all, but many – were among the 120-or-so fact-checkers listed. My understanding of how the material for the book came to be is that Appelcline would write an article about one company and the games and people associated with it by reading interviews, news articles, non-fiction books about the industry, magazine articles, websites, etc, and compile the information together based on that, and send the article to one or more people who were significant to that company in some way for feedback and to act as a fact-checker. Let's say he were writing about "Happy Fun Time Games" which was started by John Smith; he would send the article to Smith and I imagine he might get a response something like: "I actually started HFTG in my basement in 1985 while I was at Blah University in Colorado with my friend Jim Johnson who was working as a lawyer in Tennessee at the time. He left the company in 1994 to go back to BlahBlah Law school, so I hired Robert Thompson to take his place after he was let go from Goofy Games, and he left in 2002 to go into photography in Georgia. Johnson sued us and won for licensing rights in 2003. I took time off from the company from 2004-2006 to play golf, and then I came back. Other than that, it looks like you got everything right, so great work!" He would then publish the article online, and after a while there were a few dozen such articles online, so Mongoose agreed to publish these articles as a book, and the editor in the credits is Charlotte Law, and that is how Designers & Dragons came to be. The question then is, since we have people approving of what was written about them and about people they know, does that make the source more or less reliable? I suppose some people will argue that no one knows you and your friends better than yourself, while other people will say that giving input that way just gives people the opportunity to lie about themselves and people they know, so me asking this may or may not put us closer to a consensus. BOZ (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

  This thread is likely to be closed in the near future, and it may be difficult to determine the consensus here as so many differing opinions have been offerred. Wikipedia policy is determined partly by consensus discussion of what should and should not happen, and partly by practice of what does happen. Chetsford has put a lot of effort into arguing that while Designers & Dragons could possibly be used as a reliable source under the right circumstances, that a subject's inclusion in this book should not be taken as an indicator of notability, and he even tried for some reason to have it documented as such and as one of the perennial source discussions despite this being the first and only discussion of the source on a noticeboard that I am aware of. So as far as documenting practice, this noticeboard discussion came out of Chetsford nominating almost 20 tabletop gaming-related (mostly RPG, but not all) articles for AFD. Of those, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fantasy Imperium, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zen and the Art of Mayhem, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Cross (role-playing game) have been closed as delete, and as a few similar articles are also likely to be – but please note that none of them were sourced to Designers & Dragons (or sourced at all, for that matter). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who Roleplaying Game and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angus Abranson were both sourced to Designers & Dragons, and both were closed as Keep. Five more pending AFDs are also on articles sourced to Designers & Dragons, and from a look at each of them it seems likely to me at this point that they will all close as either Keep or Merge. Merge is not Delete, and does allow for some of the sourced content to be moved to another article. Since policy on Wikipedia reflects practice in part, I am urging whoever closes this discussion to not explicitly rule that Designers & Dragons does not contribute to notability. If you cannot find that it in fact does contribute to notability, then please leave it as an open question for now. BOZ (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the above that there is no consensus it is RS, nor is there a consensus it is not insofar as BLPs are concerned. I would say there is probably a consensus it is RS for non-biographical facts. Just in point of clarification of my nominations regarding RPGs, I've nominated 19, of which 4 have been deleted, 4 kept, 2 merged, and 9 are either open or have had to be relisted. I'm not sure which involved Designers & Dragons. Chetsford (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I explained here already regarding which of your AFDs involved Designers & Dragons as a source, but if my explanation was not clear – three were closed as Keep, one as Merge, and three remain to be closed but are unlikely to be closed as delete unless there is a last-minute push in that direction. That is not enough evidence on its own to say that the book definitely does contribute to notability, but my point here is that it does show some practice-based evidence that it may contribute to notability, thus my request to the closer that the book should not be ruled as clearly a non-contributor to notability, and thus leaving that an open question at worst. The majority of your recent game-related AFDs do not involve this source, so I was not discussing them here, as this discussion is about just one source, and not about your success rate which you keep touting as some important metric. But since you brought it up, on your chart, lets just say that four of the seven "red" unsuccessful nomination results on the current version of the chart involved Designers & Dragons as a source, while none of the "green" successful nomination results involved said book as a source. So, let's just say that your success rate when it comes to articles sourced by this book is… underwhelming at best. BOZ (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it appears we agree that there is a consensus it's fine for articles about games and game companies and no consensus as to whether it is or is not RS for BLPs. Since the Keep/Delete decision in each AfD was not based solely on the status of Designers & Dragons but rather on an holistic evaluation of all the sources in the article, as well as arguments for the subject's inherent notability on the basis of various awards, this centralized discussion in which Designers & Dragons is the exclusive subject of analysis is probably a better judge of the community's opinion. In any case, I think discussions at RSN usually just fade away 9 times out of 10 rather than being formally closed. Best - Chetsford (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Just adding that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillfolk was closed as Keep as well, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cthulhu Britannica as merge. The three remaining AFDs involving Designers & Dragons as a source have been relisted, and as noted above, at this time look more likely to be Keep or Merge rather than delete. BOZ (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

  Just adding for the record that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cubicle 7 was closed as No consensus (delete 3; keep 10). BOZ (talk) 11:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

  Likewise, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic McDowall-Thomas was closed as no consensus. The last AFD in question was relisted for a second time earlier this week, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D6 Fantasy, with most respondents split between either Keep or Merge/redirect, and only the nominator and one other arguing to delete. So, to reiterate, with all the AFD results noted above going "merge" at worst, and most as keep or no consensus (aka, default keep), I will again dispute the notion that the community should consider Designers & Dragons to be not a RS or contribute to notability. It was not the only source in question on those articles, so it alone does not determine notability, but the failure to get a single delete result among the 7 articles that used this source tell me that the community does consider it enough of a RS that contributes to notability (along with other sources) that consensus could not be found to delete any of those 7 articles. BOZ (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D6 Fantasy was finally closed today as Keep. BOZ (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• Most certainly reliable. No idea why this is not considered a reliable source. It is every bit as reliable as any other source compiled by a specialist historian of a subject. The fact its publisher is a games company is neither here nor there. Inclusion in it does not make a game, product, company or individual inherently notable, of course, but as a source for facts on the tabletop RPG industry it is certainly a reliable source. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Appears Reliable. I found this source popping up in some scholarly ghits and I've found no evidence of negative claims against it, so, at least for now, I have no reason to doubt its general reliability. Certainly it's an appropriate source for WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes for A and B. First referring to Evil Hat as "T-shirt company" is akin to calling Microsoft a "company that sells mice and keyboards". It is an attempt to weaken the status of a publisher. No one that has any familiarity with Evil Hat would call them a T-Shirt company. They sell books and games and happen to have branded t-shirts. Secondly, the scholarship of these books (there are now five) rests in the hands of the author, Shannon Appelcline who is also the editor-in-chief of RPGnet and historian for DriveThruRPG/RPGNow. While he has no page himself he is mentioned in over 900 Wikipedia pages. Third. The book was originally published by Mongoose Publishing and is based on his articles at RPGNet. Web Warlock (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes for both, with the caveat that it's a book about the history of RPGs, not about people's biographies outside RPGs. It's a respected series in multiple volumes. It's a genre piece, but so is, say, a book on history of Physics. BOZ seems to know quite a bit about it. --GRuban (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Closure requested at WP:ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the discussion is closed. (I am adding this because discussions frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.)

  Cunard (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Prelim tally

Since the above discussion is becoming more detailed than anticipated, for ease of overview (but not to replace or substitute for the above discussion as per WP:NOTAVOTE), I have created the following summary table of the position of individual editors as a GF attempt to represent an interpretation of their opinions. Please feel free to edit or modify it directly if I have misrepresented you (edit - or remove yourself entirely if you do not want your opinion presented in summary format or to add yourself if you're not represented but contributed above). Chetsford (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Editor	Reliable for Games or Game Companies?	Reliable for BLPs?
Chetsford	Maybe	No
Jbhunley	No	No
Cullen328	No	No
Donald Albury	No	No
BOZ	Yes	Yes
Simonm223	Yes (non-extraordinary claims)	Yes
Newimpartial	Yes	Yes
HighKing	Yes	Yes
Slatersteven	No (except on rare occasions)	No (except on rare occasions)
Canterbury Tail	Yes (facts but not notability)	Maybe
FourViolas	Yes (non-extraordinary claims)	No
Hobit	Yes	Yes
K.e.coffman	Maybe (facts but not notability)	No
Andrew Davidson	Yes	Yes
Necrothesp	Yes	Yes
Reyk	Maybe (non-controversial facts, but not notability)	No
Praemonitus	Yes	Yes
Webwarlock	Yes	Yes
GRuban	Yes	Yes

Thanks - you might want to put a "ping" next to each of their names or something to give them a chance to make sure they agree with your interpretation. BOZ (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Excellent point - done. Chetsford (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

That's fine but I should note that I agree with FourViolas' qualification that it be used mostly for non-extraordinary claims. Simonm223 (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I did in fact say no, I just accepted there might be rare occasions when it might have not been "not RS". But these do not outweigh my overall concerns about its neutrality and independence.Slatersteven (talk) 08:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven - I apologize and have amended accordingly. If I've still got it wrong, please feel free to edit it as you see fit. Sorry again. Chetsford (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Continued !voting

• Krikey! Unreliable for anything, and hell no for BLPs. btw writing something about a company and sending it to a company founder, and taking his or her recollections as a "fact check" is about as amateur hour as it gets; doing that is called "PR' not "journalism" much less scholarly research. I imagine there will be decent scholarship done on this stuff one day. Jytdog (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC) (tweak formatting Jytdog (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC))

• I wrote a critical review of a portion of this work which may be found here http://boggswood.blogspot.com/2011/11/designers-and-dragons-only-4995.html In my opinion the work is not wholly reliable, though certain sections dealing with later game development may be. DHBoggs (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC) DHBoggs

• "...on the basis of there being no scholarly journals on role-playing games..." The content is there, of course, with Games and Culture and Simulation & Gaming both publishing decent amounts of info on RPG's—and if anyone's curious what a true academic publication about RPG's looks like—you can bypass Designers and Dragons and look straight to Dungeons, Dragons and Digital Denizens (doi:10.5040/9781628927900)  spintendo  16:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• comment just a note that, in addition to contributing to the wrong section of the noticeboard, none of the last three comments actually contribute anything to the policy-based determination of whether Designers & Dragons is a RS, which is to be based on the editorial oversight of its various publications and not on whether its claims correspond to those documented elsewhere. WEIGHT should be given to its citation in the developing scholarly literature on RPGs, though it is not of course a scholarly work so [;[WP: SCHOLARSHIP]] does not apply.

Anyway, this whole thing should probably have been closed "no consensus" last week... Newimpartial (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

DHBoggs, it seems likely that you found your way to this RSN discussion after I started this other thread regarding your addition of blogs and forums posts as citations for an article. I see that you posted a review of the book on your blog; per your comments here and on your user page you have an interest in archaeology and anthropology, but can you state what qualifications you have as a book reviewer, by which you can assert that your WP:SPS review of a 7-page portion of the book has any real relevance here? I am concerned about your ability to judge what sources are and are not reliable. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• There is no universal pronouncement to be made. You've got to take into account whether a claim is contentious, self-serving, an invasion of privacy, or "likely to be challenged". In any of those circumstances, I'd be wary of this source. If none of those conditions apply though, it's not necessary to be extremely picky about things like the author's educational background as long as you're satisfying WP:V - ie, a reader can track down the claim and see what they think about it for themselves. Rhoark (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that statement sums up this discussion about as well as anything that could be said. I'm not sure why no one has closed this yet, considering anything meaningful that still needed to be said was done about a month ago. BOZ (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Generaly reliable This seems to be the type of source where great care has been taken to ensure accuracy, written by an expert in the field. The quantity of source material referenced would support further research should there be anything controversial, which has not AFAICS been suggested. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC).
  
• This is getting kind of stale Could an uninvolved admin please do an analysis of the !votes here and put this ancient thread to bed? Simonm223 (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Marginally Reliable Should not be cited in Wikipedia's voice about anything controversial, or in BLPs. LK (talk) 04:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.