Archive 200 ← Archive 202 Archive 203 Archive 204 Archive 205 Archive 206 → Archive 210

United States Social Security Death Index as a source about a dead person

"United States Social Security Death Index," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:JGGT-JZQ : accessed 17 February 2016), Henry Gibson, 14 Sep 2009; citing U.S. Social Security Administration, Death Master File, database (Alexandria, Virginia: National Technical Information Service, ongoing

Is proffered as a reliable source for the particular claim that "Henry Gibson" was the legal name in United States Social Security records of a person who died on 14 Sep 2009, born 21 Sep 1935, with a residence in Malibu. One editor says this is not a ".gov" address and thus can not be the SSA.

I suggest it is the SSA database clearly being used, and that the editor is using a weak cavil at best. Discussion at Talk:Henry_Gibson#name_per_Social_Security_System and note that the land records for Malibu indicate the person was Henry Gibson as well. The dates on this record precisely match those for Henry Gibson, the place of residence matches Henry Gibson and, more to the point, no record for James Bateman matching any known facts whatsoever about the person Henry Gibson in that database. I am getting tired of an editor warring that his only "real name" is James Bateman. Pinging EauZenCashHaveIt, Mlpearc.., Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a fine example of original research. You have no idea how reliable that website is. It could be rife with errors. You have no idea if this is the same person in the article or somebody else. Go find a reliable secondary source (not a primary source). If no book or newspaper has reported the death, why should we be the first? That's the heart of no original research: Wikipedia is never going to be the first to report some fact. (A database dump or scrape isn't reporting.) As for the name, just tell that editor to find a source that supports his argument. No source, no argument. Jehochman Talk 13:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
It is an official United States Government database. I think prior discussions on this noticeboard, as linked above, agreed already that it is "reliable" in fact. All of the dates are the same, the places are the same. There is no "James Bateman" matching any of the facts known about the person, period. Unless "James Bateman" is still alive, the death index should reasonably have him in it <g>. The land records for his house in Malibu (on Latigo Shore Drive) (also official database) show his name as Henry Gibson. The death has been quite widely reported (i.e. hundreds of newspapers published his obit) - and the obits (including LAT etc.) are already cited in the BDP - stating his birth name was "James Bateman" but that his name was "Henry Gibson." And since the editor rejected every source which did not say what he wants it to say, I suggest an official government source is damn near as good as one could ask for <g>. And note that primary sources are allowed for statements of fact other than (in some cases) for living persons. The man is dead, Jim. <g>. Collect (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with @Collect:, the information from the SSN database is a reliable source and Gibson's article should be adjusted accordingly. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Mlpearc, aren't official governmental databases always .gov domains? That has always been my understanding. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 20:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
User:EauZenCashHaveIt, no, official government data sources don't always have a top level domain (TLD) of .gov. For example, the U.S. Postal Service uses .com (though they have an alias at .gov). Many states have websites of the form state.XX.us, where XX is the two letter abbreviation of the state. Many government agencies use the .org TLD. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
The website familysearch.org is not a direct link to the SSN database; it is a user-contributed site like Wikipedia. The entry specifies that it was cited from that database, but that claim is not verifiable by us. Wikipedia should not use this information, any more than we would link to our own articles as a source. Scr★pIronIV 20:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Right on. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but we shouldn't be using primary sources in this manner. Gamaliel (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
No obits state that his legal name remained "James Bateman", No "James Bateman" with same dates is found in any Social Security source, nor found in the Malibu real estate records as owner of his specific property, at least five separate news articles about the property identify the owner as "Henry Gibson" and now "Henry Gibson (Trust)". Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
After his death, his best friend still called him "Jim": "He was the kind of guy at that time, nothing could stop him," Voight said. "He was very talented. I just thought the world of Jim and was so glad for his success." However, when his wife Lois died in 2007, the obituaries called her Lois Bateman. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Official US government records would seem to be an eensy bit more reliable about names than an anecdote about Jon Voight. And try to be accurate [1] is the cite you give:
Longtime Malibu resident Lois Gibson died Sunday at her home after a long illness. She was 77. is what your source states in simple English. It continues:
Gibson is survived by her husband, actor Henry Gibson, sons Jonathan, Charles and James and two grandchildren.
Did you think your absolutely dead wrong assertion that the cite you gave said "Lois Bateman" was in any way not an abust of Wikipedia here?
And your LA Times Obit is titled: Henry Gibson dies at 73; original cast member of 'Laugh-In'
Henry Gibson, a veteran character actor who came to fame in the late 1960s as the flower-holding poet on TV's landmark satirical comedy show "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In," has died. He was 73.
Gibson was still known as Jim Bateman in the early '60s when he was living in New York City, where his roommate was another struggling young actor -- Jon Voight, whom he had met when they were both students at Catholic University.
Your LA Times cite says he was known as "Jim Bateman" in the early 1960's - not that his name was always Jim Bateman at all.
In short - using a cite for a claim it does not make, or actually lying about what a website says, is less than proper here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • You are rude without cause. Everyone else can read what I wrote about Voight. My statement about Lois Gibson was a typo left over from researching both sides of the question as shown by my word "however" and the supporting link. We do not use government records -- they are called "primary source". The quote from Voight shows that until his death, Gibson was known to his friends by his birth name. Voight's statement to the LA Times report is not an "anecdote". Do you know of any sources that show Bateman legally changed his name? That is the purpose of this research. Can you find anything that refers to "Jonathan David Gibson", a Universal Studios director? Such is said to be the son of Gibson, and sources may mention a usable fact. That son JDG retains the "Gibson" name strongly suggests Bateman went through legal name change, but again it is not definitive or usable. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry GLH, but you are wrong here. We certainly can use primary government records, provided that they are accessible by the general public (which does not mean easily accessible). Primary sources are explicitly allowed by WP:NOR... We simply must use them with caution. The question is... Has anyone actually confirmed what the government records say? Blueboar (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Government records of persons are often ambiguous when dealing with names so common. Unless a secondary source can be found that indicates a legal name change, we cannot state or imply that such occurred. Obituaries do not mention a name change. The Gale Group Encyclopedia states he was "Also known as Olsen Gibson." Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The records of the US Social Security Administration would not be ambiguous, as there is a unique identifying number attached. Blueboar (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually - look at the record given. Then make statements about what is and is not included in the death index database <g>. It includes state of birth, place of death, and dates of birth and death. Note also that it includes precisely zero "James Bateman" records remotely corresponding to the known data points. Collect (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
The implication may be enough for an amateur genealogist, but it is not the kind of evidence we need to make the statement that Bateman legally changed his name. Rather, since no one has found any statement that his name was legally changed, this rather impeaches the SSA death index as evidence of anything. The only support for its veracity was the same presumption we had in the beginning, and is now incidentally shown to be prone to error. The SSA itself admits it is an incomplete collection of rumors and hearsay: "We receive death reports from many sources, including family members, funeral homes, financial institutions, postal authorities, States and other Federal agencies. It is important to note our records are not a comprehensive record of all deaths in the country. ... includes, if available, the deceased individual’s SSN, first name, middle name, surname, date of birth, and date of death"[2] In this case, we don't know whether the "Gibson" entry has an SSN, or if it has one, that it is the same as the one assigned to Bateman way back when. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
"Implication"? The index is regularly used by .'professional genealogists.'. It indicates names and locations of birth and death, and date the social security number was obtained. And I note the local obituary for his wife specifically uses the Gibson name contrary to the claim made by one editor here. As there exist "missing persons" in this world, it is a "Captain Obvious" point that their death records might be wrong <g>, but that is not a rational argument against using this well-established resource, used by professionals in genealogy here. Nor are we using it for parentage or children - just the government record concerning a single person. Cheers. And you did note the Malibu obit for "Lois Gibson", I assume. Collect (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

"Pegida...is a far right wing neo-nazi movement"

1. Sources: Times of Israel, Guardian 1, DW, Guardian 2, Maz, RTE.

2. Article: Pegida.

3. Content: Lead sentence of the Pegida article.

Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West (German: Patriotische Europäer gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes), abbreviated PEGIDA or Pegida, is a far right wing neo-nazi movement...

My take on it: except for the Maz article, none of the sources refer to Pegida as "neo-nazi". While many of them discuss neo-nazis at Pegida events (which obviously should be covered in the Wikipedia article), none of them refer to Pegida itself as neo-nazi.

  1. Times of Israel: "the Islamophobic Pegida movement"..."Anti-Islamic group Pegida"
  2. Guardian 1: "Far-right group Pegida"..."a nascent anti-foreigner campaign group"
  3. DW: "the anti-Islamization PEGIDA movement"..."the anti-Islamic PEGIDA movement"
  4. Guardian 2: "far-right Pegida group"..."a far-right group based in Germany"
  5. RTE: "Anti-Islamisation group Pegida"...

The Maz article is an interview with an activist for an anti-right wing group, and really isn't suitable at all for stating these things in Wikipedia's voice.

I would also argue that the sources don't even support the "far right" label - of these sources, only The Guardian appears to use this label. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Guardian and ToI are generally reliable. I think this might really be an original research or NPOV issue.
Guardian 1 quotes other parties that refer to these people as Nazis: Pegida supporters, seen here in Dresden, include neo-Nazi elements as well as ordinary Germans with concerns about immigration. Photograph: Jens Meyer/AP and Its members have been dubbed the “pinstriped Nazis” and Pegida’s growing presence has presented politicians with a dilemma over how to uncouple the strong neo-Nazi element Corroboration: [7]
Guardian 2: Étienne Desplanques, from the Calais public prosecutor’s office, justified the arrests saying the demonstrators were “ultra right, of a neo-Nazi type”.
Times of Israel actually says they're neo-Nazis in the title of that article. It also quotes Desplanques: “Some groups began to circulate in the city center, mainly far-right, neo-Nazi types,” regional official Etienne Desplanques told AFP.
If your question here was whether the content has to be excluded on verifiability grounds the answer is that it doesn't. The claim is reasonably solid with these three sources alone, though if you want to tighten it up the lede so it says they are "right-wing organization allied with the neo-Nazi movement" or "right-wing organization that has been characterized as a neo-Nazi movement," that would probably be fine. If you want me to look into DQ and Mez for reliability I guess I can, but if your question was "Was the editor who added this reading too much into things?" or "Is this biased?" you might find a more direct answer at WP:ORN or WP:NPOVN. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
But neither the Guardian nor the Times of Israel refer to Pegida as neo-nazis in the voice of their respective papers. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Good question. Wrong noticeboard. You need to go here: WP:ORN Your question is not about whether the sources are reliable but about whether they are being interpreted properly.
For my part, I'd say that "Pegida’s growing presence has presented politicians with a dilemma over how to uncouple the strong neo-Nazi element" (G) and "Neo-Nazi anti-Islam protesters arrested at Calais rally" (ToI) support the claim to the point where, if I didn't want it in the article, I'd either show a source actively stating that they are not Nazis or show enough other sources to prove that the majority of articles that mention Pegida do not call them Nazis. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
You're right, thank you - I'll take it to ORN. However, what about the "Maz" activist interview? That one does explicitly say "Pegida is a neo-Nazi event". Or is that a NPOVN (undue weight) question? Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't speak German, but Maz, or Märkische Allgemeine, looks like a garden-variety newspaper, so it is sage to assume that it is reliable. Per WP:NONENG being in German does not disqualify it for use in the English Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not doubting that this activist said these things, I just think she's an extremely biased source with not nearly enough authority on the subject to take her at her word. Or is that yet another thing that doesn't belong at RSN? Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I can't tell what she's saying myself, but this is covered under WP:BIASED. It is sometimes okay to use biased sources. If the activist is relevant enough, it might be appropriate to say, "So-and-so has described Pegida as a neo-Nazi movement," but probably not in the lede. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
News media are a poor source for determining the political orientation of groups. Their main value is that they tell us what happened this morning. It is inadvisable to use their descriptions unless better sources are not available. Having said that, the sources do not say they are neo-nazi, just that they tolerate open neo-nazis. But they are clearly part of the "far right," the political family that includes the BNP, EDL, English Democrats, National Front, neo-nazis and other groups. It is characteristic of the British far right that groups are constantly being formed and dissolved and try to re-invent themselves as moderate. The EDL denounced the BNP, the BNP denounced the National Front. But they are the same people and articles should reflect that. Islamophobic is accurate too but it goes far into the mainstream. Donald Trump for example expresses views that could be seen as Islamophobic. TFD (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The description of the AFD as (far) right-wing as in right of the center right fairly common in the German press and a common assessment by scholars in sociology and politics (in interviews). I understand the skepticism towards quick superficial labeling in the press. Maybe a better a approach is having the lead without any such label and moving that information in separate section dealing with the political placement of the movement, where the assessments of reputable news publications can be given but possible augmented by German publications of which there are plenty and more important scholarly sources (which do exist in German at least). Note that the German article uses currently "right wing populist" ("Rechtpopulismus") as label and it has a section with scholarly assessments, that could be utilized for the English article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


Sources appear to support "right-wing anti-Islamization group" but the "neo-Nazi" epithet appears to be in the nature of "editorial opinion" rather than a statement of fact. The pejorative term is "contentious" thus the fact one source states it as an opinion is insufficient for Wikipedia to state it as a fact. Collect (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

They should still be included in some form per WP:BIASED and WP:NOTCENSORED. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The more I think about this, the more I come to feel that the article should have a sub-section specifically discussing allegations of Naziism where all these statements can be attributed rather than addressing the matter in the lede. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
This makes sense, especially as it is clear that at least some, including law enforcement officials, believe that Pegida has at least some element which is neo-Nazi. Also, the sources (which have now been removed) which were added by an IP user, use "far right" and not "right wing populist". ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
And "far right wing" is both redundant and ungrammatical. It's "far-right" (which is PoV, unless multiple RS independent of the dispute use that label; see MOS:WTW) or "right-wing" (compound adjectives are hyphenated). "Far right wing" (or, grammatically, "far-right-wing") is just a step less histrionic than writing "super-mega-ultra-right-wing"; it's unencyclopedic in tone even if it weren't biased. As for the RS matter, while we can used biased sources sometimes, our use of them has to be balanced by other views, especially if the biased one does not represent a clear consensus among the RS; see WP:UNDUE.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Collect and others: even "far-right" is questionable (per SMcCandlish), but "neo-Nazi" definitely should not appear in introduction. My very best wishes (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think Pegida is 'far right'. I am not aware of a single political position the movement holds which can be described as 'far right'. I think the article should stick to describing its anti-Islamisation stance which is germane, and avoid labels which its opponents use to try and discredit it.Flexdream (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
What you think about the group is not really important for our description - what reliable sources say is. Reliable sources call it "far right", but don't, as a rule, call it "neo-Nazi". As far as I'm concerned, that means "far right" is in and "neo-Nazi" is out, unless, of course, the weight of sources changes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Is there any source which cites an example of why Pegida can be considered 'far right'? Or is it just a label?Flexdream (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, many. And yes, right/left has been a label ever since the Estates-General of 1789. There is no political position connected to a relative direction by natural law or mathematical necessity (and the ones that have been connected otherwise have shifted over time). But that's a bit irrelevant - while I personally find it satisfactory to be able to follow the reasoning of a RS, it's not required. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Pegida is routinely described as "far-right" and as including neo-Nazis in their ranks, a hallmark of far-right politics. Based on reviewing what sources write I think you should also describe the group as "xenophobic," since every other source uses this term without qualification.

The German establishment Deutsche Welle writes that Pegida is one of a number of "far-right movements" throughout Europe. [8] They also write, "Germany's well-organized neo-Nazi scene is merging with the anti-Islamization PEGIDA movement... an integral part of the group's weekly marches... appear to be tolerated by organizers." [9]

Germany's flagship magazine news source Der Spiegel describes Pegida as "a xenophobic grassroots movement," whose growth is fueled by hate and threatens to make far-right politics mainstream. Pegida has close ties with Björn Höcke, Götz Kubitschek, Jürgen Elsässer, and Michael Stürzenberger. The article describes debate among German officials about whether Pegida is "far-right," but even the Saxon official who is more sympathetic to Pegida describes it as a "populist far-right movement." [10], [11], [12]

The International Business Times describes "regular marches by the far-right group Pegida," [13] and labels them "far-right." [14]. So does MSN. [15]

The Guardian describes Pegida as "a far-right group." [16], [17] The Telegraph and many in the German political establishment describe Pegida as a part of the "far-right." [18] So does Public Radio International. [19]

The Independent describes Pegida as a "xenophobic group," that has surprised main parties by including "known neo-Nazis and far-right hooligans" in addition to middle and lower class Germans worried about immigration. [20] The BBC writes that Pegida "has attracted a variety of right-wing and far-right groups", some ordinary citizens worried about Islam, far-right hooligans, and praise from neo-Nazi groups. [21] Newsweek writes that Pegida is "a far-right German group whose name is an acronym for Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West." [22]

The French press regularly describe either Pegida or their supporters as extreme right. [23], [24], [25], [26]

Anyone who thinks that Pegida isn't far-right doesn't know what the term means and isn't reading the news. -Darouet (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Pegida shouldn't be descibed as a neo-Nazi group, but their close ties with neo-Nazis, described routinely in sources, needs mention in the article. -Darouet (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not about what the sources already cited say. It's about what reliable sources say. Googling for news articles with the terms "Pegida" and "neo-Nazi" brought up some interesting results. Deutsche Welle explicitly contrasts the group with the "neo-Nazi scene" (not saying they are not similar, just saying they are two distinct entities). The Times of Israel explicitly calls the group's members neo-Nazis. Breitbart.com says they totally aren't neo-Nazis and it's only pinko commie liberals who confuse the two, which makes me really think that there are probably a very large number of more reliable sources that call the group a neo-Nazi group. The Irish Independent refers to them as "the neo-Nazi movement". Exactly how many reliable sources do we need to find? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Breitbart.com is not quite unreliable enough to assume that everything they write is wrong - they have, for example, the name of the website right, and if you click on the "Search button", there really is a search box underneath. Moreover, there are many different ways of being wrong, so simply assuming a position different from Breitbart is not a sound approach (unless we are in a strictly classical logic and only have a binary choice). As far as I can make out, many sources acknowledge that neo-Nazis have become part of the Pegida movement, and try to exploit its popularity, but not that it is, in its entirety, part of or controlled by neo-Nazis. It's a different brand of assholes, most of which lack any theoretical framework for their assholyness. They certainly can't even recognise the enlightenment values they claim to defend... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: It is true that Pegida has many links to neo-Nazis, who speak at their events, make up some of their membership, and have some similar ideological positions. Those are links that Pegida cultivates in order to broaden their support, and also deny in order to win legitimacy in the mainstream German political scene. However, most of the mainsteam press that I cited above 1) describe those links, but also 2) note some of the differences between Pegida and neo-Nazis. For instance many, many members of Pegida are people who would traditionally never have been in such a movement and might even be hostile to neo-Nazi politics. It's important to note the distinction between a semi-mainstream party linked to neo-Nazis via far-right, xenophobic and hate politics, and a traditional neo-Nazi movement. -Darouet (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Mondoweiss article on Noam Chomsky and criticism thereof?

BLP and WEIGHT concerns about the subject himself aside, this edit looks more like personal opinion than any objective measure of whether a source is generally reliable and should be cited in a Wikipedia article. Thoughts? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely the comments are "opinion" and should be weighed and cited as such. In the case at hand, I rather think the material is undue, and makes contentious claims by direct statement and by the inference that Kamm acted at the behest of a group in order to attach Chomsky. And the specific claim made that Chomsky has been "misreported" on by The Guardian. As such, and as a catenation of claims which are contentious, the material is improperly in the BLP. What might be of due weight would be on the order of
Edward S. Herman and David Peterson have opined that Kamm is obsessed with Chomsky.
Period. Collect (talk) 13:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Do the scarequotes imply you are joking, or did you genuinely misinterpret what I meant by "personal opinion"? What I meant was that while I'm inclined to agree with you on the WEIGHT problem, that wasn't the rationale provided for removing it. The rationale in the edit summary was "this is not a reliable source", which as rationales go is pretty ridiculous when the statements are directly attributed to the authors inline. The source being "unreliable" in general is just the opinion of a Wikipedia editor, is what I meant. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
As I noted - the short mention of an opinion cited as such is not a problem. The rest of the paragraph which asserts matters of fact ("misreported" for example) is where the problem lies - thus the short sentence I gave above. And, in the long run, all opinions by named individuals are "personal opinion" - I used the normal quotation marks to indicate I was dealing with a defined word as a defined word, not that I was saying the word was inapt. As for my rationale differing from that of another editor - that is the "way of the world." In general, if a person in notable in a field, their opinions are also usable regarding that field. Collect (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Merriam Webster does not have that definition or usage for quotation marks.[27] Do you have a source? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps if we could agree on what the word "word" means, you would notice that I use quotation marks when dealing with the word as a word. "Quotation marks can be used when referring to a specific word or letter." [28], etc. etc. Is this clear? Is the nit still enormous? Collect (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Also read M-W before asserting it says something it does not say - it says "...to show that a word or phrase is being used in a special way, etc." In short if one is referring to a word as a word, then this clearly is apt per M-W. With exceptional cheerfulness, Collect (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

GNN

Would this website be reliable for anime/manga related content? The website is in Chinese so I would need someone fluent in the language to check on this one. Here is the page in question [29]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:NONENG not being in English does not disqualify this or any source. I have to wonder, though, if you aren't fluent in Chinese, how do you expect to use the source?
If you do read Chinese and just need some help, we might be able to talk you through it. To start, who writes this website? A company? A person? What text is it being used/do you plan to use it to support? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: I can translate the website using google and go from there but okay thanks for the info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Email verification

Hi, I was wondering can anyone guide me how to source a content from a valid email response? For the song "Living for Love", the Australian chart regulatory board, ARIA, replied to an inquiry email with the chart peak position. So how can I source it in the article? —IB [ Poke ] 09:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Email is not a type of reliable source, so you can't, unless it's published by a reputable organization. See WP:USERG.- MrX 13:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
But its an email from the governing body themselves? I don't think WP:USERG falls within that when we have established that the source from where the info is coming is reliable anyways. —IB [ Poke ] 09:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
@IndianBio: An email is a type of correspondence, not a citable source. Who's word would we trusting that it actually came from the governing body and is unaltered? This is why we use book publishers, universities, journal publishers, and reputable news organizations. If they publish something, they are backing its authenticity and reliability with their own reputation. - MrX 01:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I've found that engaging in original research like emailing relevant parties is a decent way of attaining the "truth", which can then be verified by finding reliable sources that back it up. However, the reliable sources need to back it up to the letter, otherwise Wikipedia should not be stating the "truth", but rather what appears in the reliable sources as it appears there. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I've had the same experience. Contacting an author directly may supply useful information for a talk page discussion but it is not itself RS for articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. It's OK to conduct original research. It's not OK to use it directly in an article, or to cite it as a source.- MrX 12:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Demi-blogs and self-publishing

Where do the sort of sites which essentially allow "letters to the editor" to be published fit on Wiki's spectrum of "reliability?"

I'm thinking about the online version of "Counterpunch", which posts unsolicited, uncompensated articles, with a degree of editorial oversight. Some of the stuff, leaving aside questions of POV, is pretty good, some not so much.

Would writing for this sort of website a couple of times qualify someone as a "journalist" by wikiish standards? Anmccaff (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It would be an acceptable source for the attributed opinion of a noted authority on something, but only that I think. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
It depends. If the site has a reputation for fact checking the unsolicited articles, or if reputable sources cite the articles, then it's probably usable. If the site simply hosts user contributed content without clear editorial oversight, we should look elsewhere for better sources regardless of who authors (or claims to author) the content. - MrX 01:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
But are the people posting "journalists," in a wikipedian sense? I'd say not, but am open to argument. As you say, the closer the editorial oversight -or peer review; there are some usenet newsgroups that skinned bad scholarship alive, and then rolled the writer in salt for good measure- but on the whole I don't see this as "journalism," although a self-published website occasionally can be. Anmccaff (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I concur; writers of letters to the editor are not therefore journalists. The rules for this are at WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:SPS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Factual claims: No. Never. It may be adequate to use such a source for an easily-verifiable WP:BLUE claim, but IMO no source at all would be better than a self-published one. Even reputable authorities can have crack-pot theories from time to time, and we should always ask ourselves why they chose to self-publish.
Opinions, cited as such inline: Of course, but preferably with the venue of publication (blog, etc.) mentioned inline as well.
Anything else: Umm... no...? Maybe...?
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The source would be reliable if there was proof of fact checking, or if the site was sourced in other reliable articles. I would say that it is not reliable though, due to a lack of editorial oversight and fact-checking. I would look for other sources to use as well. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Donetsk People's Republic article

Guys, we have problem here[30], can you help a little bit? Some ukranian according to profile (seems not objective) moderator doesn't want to fix a mistake (propaganda) in article. DPR Poll Support discussion.

Does this have to do with whether or not a source is reliable? Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, for some reason in article used reprint from so called "reliable source" (UNIAN) which took it with mistakes (or distorted it on purporse) from "not reliable" source (DPR site).
Up from archive, cause nobody answered and bot got rid of it. :s User:bazik210 18:22, 01 Match 2016 (UTC+3)

Donetsk People's Republic article

Guys, we have problem here[31], can you help a little bit? Some ukranian according to profile (seems not objective) moderator doesn't want to fix a mistake (propaganda) in article. DPR Poll Support discussion.

Does this have to do with whether or not a source is reliable? Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, for some reason in article used reprint from so called "reliable source" (UNIAN) which took it with mistakes (or distorted it on purporse) from "not reliable" source (DPR site).
Up from archive, cause nobody answered and bot got rid of it. :s User:bazik210 18:22, 01 Match 2016 (UTC+3)

"electronic harassment" term/take 2

I didn't get back to the recent discussion Roger Tolces before it was archived. I have been in email contact with him. He confirms what is popularly believed, that he coined the term. He says he called it that in 1973 and was at the time testing people for electronic implants. He has a very detailed definition of what he means by the term on his website, which does coincide with popular use. What else would be needed to put both in the article? To me it seems it should be the starting point, if he was the start of it, no matter how anyone sees the issue.Jed Stuart (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

What kind of source? Has he given this statement in a published interview? Has he written a book? Does he have his own website (per WP:ABOUTSELF, it would be RS for his own words)? However, given the evidence shown in the previous thread, at most, the article would say that he's claimed to have coined it or that he's one of the term's possible originators. That can be construed as self-serving, which would render it unusable under ABOUTSELF. A third-party source would be best. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
He must have made the statement in the Coast to Coast AM interviews, as he says that those interviews starting in 2003 popularized the term. I am not a subscriber though so I can't check that. He has his own website: bugsweeps.com where his definition is. So far I have not found anyone else claiming to be the one to coin the term or anyone defining it in the way he does.It is no big deal to him, he said. I am thinking it is though as the term has been used in the mainstream media.'claimed to have coined the term and defined it as... etc' would seem to be appropriate.I suppose I could try and get him interviewed by the print media, if it is too thin a case for inclusion. He prefers radio which is not so easily verifiable.Jed Stuart (talk) 05:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
So far it seems that he is not actively claiming that he coined the term, so perhaps it would be more accurate to say "Roger Tolces acknowledges that he coined the term" or "Roger Tolces takes responsibility for coining the term"? At this point this still comes down to my having had email confirmation of that. Could I get him to sign some form of legal statement that he did? In Australia that would be a Statutory Declaration. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Please read our policies about original research, thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Cancer quackery

A recent blog post from Edzard Ernst notes that a "journal" is soliciting for papers supporting cancer quackery. This is the same journal the Burzynski Clinic used to publish some of its bogus trials of "antineoplastons" - it is open access and very likely predatory. Journal of Cancer Therapy is clearly not a RS, and it's likely that others from the same publisher, Scientific Research Publishing, are equally problematic. There are over 250 links, we should check these carefully I think. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

122 are in mainspace. --Izno (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of SCIRP, can anybody make heads or tails of what [file.scirp.org/Html/23065.html[predatory publisher] this] is supposed to mean? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
After careful analysis, I think the core message of the author is "Look! I can do equations in LaTeX! Shiny!" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Is being awarded the Guinness World Record a significant award?

Hi all, I have a question that arose from an Afd discussion I have been having with a very experienced editor. The question is: Is being awarded a Guinness World Record a significant award? Thank you. Xender Lourdes (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you're asking if a Guinness World Record is enough to guarantee WP:Notability. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. A quick search shows that Chandran Superman doesn't show up much of anywhere outside his Ice Bucket Challenge video and facebook page. Has he written any books? Have any books been written about him? Did he perform at a famous event? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I would say not notable if the subject isn't showing up anywhere. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I believe that does not fully address the question asked. Suppose X were already notable. If X were ALSO awarded a Guinness World Record, should WP mention it? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Xender is posting here because the article on Chandran Superman is up for deletion, but yes, if a person is in the GBoWR, that merits a mention in the article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Darkfrog24 you are right. It was for the Chandran Superman, now deleted, article. I believe your replies and those in the Afd gave me great inputs. It has been such a learning experience participating in Afds, including this one. I have spent a short time here on Wikipedia and am amazed by the vastness of this place. Comatmebro, Sfarney and Darkfrog, thanks for the replies. Xender Lourdes (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
No problem! Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Same thing happened with me in my early days. This place has a huge learning curve. You're very welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Popcorn Time

Background: Popcorn Time is a program/website/repository that was shut down by the MPAA. Subsequently, various more or less "legitimate" forks were released, some of them with allegations of containing malware (I mention it just to show it's best to be careful before legitimizing any of these).

Now, popcorntime.sh has appeared, and it stands out because some of the original project's resources (site, repositories and even the Twitter account) now direct to it. This is being used by some editors at Talk:Popcorn Time#popcorntime.sh to justify treating this new website as the "official successor" of the original popcorntime.io.

However, some sources were presented by one of these very editors that seem to strongly contradict this claim:

(emphasis mine)

The other editors seem to argue that because the sources do not rule out it may be official, it might be treated as official: they say "Not Knowing who is behind the new website do not say it is not official" and "Torrentfreak not knowing who the developers are (since they chose to stay anon) doesn't imply a negative, either. "Evidence of absence" and all that stuff.".

Teemome in particular also states "Since other third party references (separate from the new website) state that it is the successor (the statuspage.io, the old popcorntime.io facebook and twitter, etc), then we can use those as a reference and consider it true." as if implying that websites and accounts previously run by project members are "third-party references".

So I have some questions:

  1. Can TheNextWeb and TorrentFreak be used as a source to state that the people behind the new site/software are unknown, and the original team actually disclaims any connection?
  2. Should things like "the statuspage.io, the old popcorntime.io facebook and twitter, etc" be used as reliable references for anything, and in particular to claim that it's true that popcorntime.sh is an official successor of popcorntime.io?
  3. Can the fact that we clearly don't know for sure if people behind popcorntime.sh are the same as the ones behind popcorntime.io be discounted when deciding whether to state (to simplify) "we don't know" or "chances are they are official"?
  4. Should we, based on the sources, indicate popcorntime.sh as the official site of Popcorn Time in the infobox and everywhere else in the article, as is the case now?

LjL (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

  1. TheNextWeb is RS. TorrentFreak is a blog but may or may not meet SPS.
  2. I do not think that, given the RS that suggest otherwise, the sites themselves are RS for that piece of information in this case.
  3. Both those conclusions sound OR to me. They're also not necessary. You have the facts: Say that it reemerged under a new URL and that Owen Williams of The Next Web has speculated X, Y and Z. Speculation is acceptable when it is the sources who are doing the speculating. However, I think it would be best to find more independent sources that agree with Williams.
  4. Given the sources that you have listed, no we should not. However, if more sources should emerge—this feels like a situation that could change in the next few months—it wouldn't be that hard to put it all back. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The biggest problem I have with this, is that it's incredibly difficult to base it on secondary sources as wikipedia requires (to be a tertiary source) and avoid primary sources (I'm trying hard, but there's a severe lack of them). When I say "primary sources", I mean things like known accounts of old popcorntime.io developers posting comments "yeah, we know who it is/yeah i'm working on it". However, nobody is willing to give an official answer to the press (Torrentfreak, in this case), since doing so would open them to legal problems.
Ok, let's talk about actual referenced stuff. In the TNW article, it says "the project still uses private keys that match the original team’s for distribution". Because the application updates are signed, so due to cryptographic encryption, only the people working on the original project can push out this update. This is a very strong indicator that popcorntime.sh is actually the successor of popcorntime.io- a non successor fork would not have access to the signing key.
The only other alternative is (warning, I confess that this paragraph is my own thought process, and can be considered "original research") that the MPAA also got the update signing key, and released the new Popcorntime, but wild conjecture and conspiracy theories aside, their lawyers would never allow this in a million years: the MPAA doesn't have the rights to all the movies on Popcorntime, so they would be legally liable; in addition, they can't persecute users, since it would be entrapment for them to provide this service that is easier than regular torrenting. (end "original research").
The problem with everything I've said, of course, is that I can't find secondary sources for all of these. I do confess that most of the content I have here are sourced from primary sources. I'm not really into linking reddit comments by the developers or stuff like that on wp... so I'm not sure what the best way to present this information would be.
As a last note, one argument I can make is that "since the keys, the facebook page, the twitter account, the website code, etc are the same between popcorntime.io and popcorntime.sh, you can consider the latter the successor of the former". The Torrentfreak and TNW article do corroborate this, and state that the only thing that's changed between the two is the website domain, and the fact that the programmers' identities are now hidden. Therefore, just the articles from Torrentfreak and TNW may perhaps be considered enough to call the .sh website the successor. This would be based on just a reading of the facts from these articles, and skipping over their guesses and speculations on who the developers are. Teemome (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I find that your conclusion, not just your process, falls under WP:OR. It sounds like you're saying that you're taking raw facts from TNW and TF, skipping their own conclusions, and using those facts to draw your own. That fits Wikipedia's definition of original research. You've got to find the conclusion itself published somewhere. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
It's a lot less WP:OR-y when you go through the primary source comments and stuff ex-popcorntime.io developers wrote, they basically lay it out as such. Oh well, no big deal.
Conveniently Torrentfreak just published a new article today which does outright state that Popcorntime.sh is the successor, (https://torrentfreak.com/popcorn-time-fork-claims-official-relaunch-after-mpaa-shutdown-160225/) so I guess that settles that. Would that count as a good source? Teemome (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
No, mainly because it doesn't state what you make it seem it states. It says there are two things, Butter and popcorntime.sh, and that most of the original team is now working on Butter (not on popcorntime.sh). It also states that "no one is really able to say absolutely definitively which forks are totally trustworthy and which ones aren’t, since everyone is keen to hide their identities and remain unaccountable" and that "it’s no longer possible to publicly point to a set of trustworthy developers and use their credentials to give credibility to a project", which runs directly contrary to the concept of naming an official successor.
I will also add that when you said, above, "the project still uses private keys that match the original team’s for distribution". Because the application updates are signed, so due to cryptographic encryption, only the people working on the original project can push out this update, I'm afraid that makes very little sense, because if the MPAA seized these people's assets, then it's perfectly plausible that they seized their private keys as well, and encryption doesn't magically stop that. LjL (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
You're arguing different points than me:
  1. Whether popcorntime.sh is trustworthy or not
  2. Whether the MPAA is involved or not
I'm just talking about:
  1. If popcorntime.sh is the successor to popcorntime.io or not
I'm not talking about if it's "trustworthy", it might contain 1000 viruses (I'm being facetious when I say this, it's an open source project, which tends to not contain malware... but let's assume it's not trustworthy right now). I'm also not talking about if the MPAA, which only received an injunction in a Canadian court for the popcorntime.io and some other domains- the rest of the assets are not known to be taken.
Torrentfreak and other sources are basically stating "the popcorntime.io project shut down, and the popcorntime.sh project replaced it, although we don't know who is running it now or if it's trustworthy". I'm focusing on the second part of that sentence "the popcorntime.sh project replaced it", while you're focusing on the third part "although we don't know who is running it or if it's trustworthy". The Torrentfreak article is pretty clear on this: from the sources, quotes include: "The variant of Popcorn Time most closely linked with the edition shut down by the MPAA last year has announced its official return"" and "we now have the first official statement from the people behind the reincarnation"" and "Noting that an explanation is long overdue, the team (located at popcorntime.sh)".
From these quotes, we have legit WP:SRS sources that state that popcorntime.sh is a "reincarnation" of popcorntime.io, which is all I'm trying to argue for right now.
Teemome (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
There are a number of Popcorn Time forks, which all in some way "replaced" or were "reincarnations" of the original. None of them could be labelled "official successors", because they weren't necessarily run by the same people. This is not necessarily run by the same people, either, and that's what your source states: it never states it's an official successor, and in fact suggests it may not be (by stating we don't know who's running it), so we can't call it an official successor. It's that simple.
To address your individual quotes:
  • "The variant of Popcorn Time most closely linked with the edition shut down by the MPAA last year has announced its official return"" ← "most closely linked" doesn't mean "official successor"
  • "we now have the first official statement from the people behind the reincarnation"" ← yes, the people behind the reincarnation, which may or may not be the same people who were behind the original thing
  • "Noting that an explanation is long overdue, the team (located at popcorntime.sh)" ← this refers to the reincarnation's team (see the paragraph that comes before this one), and it's not saying it's the same team as the original one
"Official successor" is a strong statement to make; one that is not backed by the sources at all. LjL (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
It's already been stated that the people behind the .sh version are staying anon, so talking about the people is useless. You're being too hung up now on the "same team" idea: nobody is stating that everyone from the popcorntime.io team is on the .sh team, even the statement the .sh team put out states "Most of our old teammates have left the ship to focus on a new technology", so clearly it's not the exact same team and yet successors can be determined.
If I may make an (imperfect) analogy to basketball, you can look at, say, the Los Angeles Clippers, between 2011 to 2015. The team was forced to change owners after the NBA basically sued Donald Sterling over racism, changed coaches, changed a lot of players, but it's still considered the same team.
For this, you state "None of them could be labelled "official successors", because they weren't necessarily run by the same people." which implies that successors can only be considered such, if it's run by the same people. That's not the case, however; this has already happened before in August 2015: https://torrentfreak.com/original-popcorn-time-team-backs-popular-fork-150812/ Where some members of the old project declared the .io fork the "official" successor to the 2014 Argentine Popcorntime. The old team clearly has the right to do this, as history has shown, so even though we don't know which programmers are working on the new project doesn't affect the succession status. Software projects hardly need to have the same people working on it for it to be considered successors, that shouldn't be considered a requirement.
Lastly, I disagree with your interpretation of "reincarnation" as referring to "any fork", which doesn't make sense from the definition of the word, which stems from a classical religious context- one person can't be reincarnated into multiple animals. There is a clear 1 to 1 connection when you are talking about reincarnation. When Torrentfreak uses the word "reincarnated", it clearly implies a 1 to 1 connection from the old popcorntime.io to the popcorntime.sh project. Teemome (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
From the Verge article "Popcorntime.io, probably the most popular iteration of slippery movie piracy app Popcorn Time, is back — sort of. Earlier this week, part of the team apparently behind popcorntime.io announced a comeback" source http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/26/11119290/popcorn-time-io-movie-streaming-piracy-back-online This is about as clearly stated for a secondary reference source as you can get. Is there any more discussion needed? Teemome (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Because the New York Times and other newspapers use TorrentFreak as a source, I'd guess it fits WP:SPS expert criteria. The question seems to be whether its content is being interpreted correctly. Teem, can you post a link to the exact page you're citing? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Clarification, did you mean a Torrentfreak source or a direct primary source?
The Torrentfreak article is here: https://torrentfreak.com/popcorn-time-fork-claims-official-relaunch-after-mpaa-shutdown-160225/ Teemome (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
There is a new article from the Verge, here: http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/26/11119290/popcorn-time-io-movie-streaming-piracy-back-online Teemome (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Goodreads

This site is already considered to be unreliable on Wikipedia, but I thought that it would be a good idea to have an official RS/N thread to refer to when it comes to this site. There was mention of this in this thread, but an overall thread about the site would be helpful for future reference.

Goodreads is a social media/networking site that allows users to post reviews of work. Users can also edit entries on books and submit updates to material or even create new entries entirely, which makes it popular with self-published and indie authors whose work might not be collected in libraries and end up in WorldCat. While the site says that only "librarians" can edit entries, it really isn't difficult to become one. I used to visit the site and became a librarian after a fairly short period of time.

An example of why the site can't be seen as reliable even for primary details would be things like Scott Sigler's book Nocturnal, where two versions of the book exist - a podcast "rough draft" and the final version, which was released in print. The two works share some basic similarities with the plot (detective discovers that he's part of a race of monsters that prey on San Fran), but they're otherwise completely different stories with some fairly major changes that would make any reviews for one version irrelevant to the other. Various librarians repeatedly merged the two together thinking that they were essentially the same thing, which led to user confusion with reviews and it eventually became necessary for some of the site's mods to fix the mistake. Material like rumors and hoaxes have also made its way into records as well, mostly because of good intentioned people believing the material to be fact. It's usually fixed, but this makes the website similar to Wikipedia in terms of reliability - you can't use Wikipedia to back up claims in anything except the most rare situations.

Now I am aware that there are places that list Goodreads, mostly because people add it thinking that it's the equivalent of WorldCat or even Google Books. There are some of us that have made a concentrated effort to remove the links as we see them, but there's always someone trying to add it for various details, ranging from basic information to review claims. I'd like to have some sort of basic thread to pull back on when trying to explain that it's not reliable because it's ultimately a self-published source. Amazon did buy the site, but they did not take away users' ability to edit data, so it's still a SPS at best because of its social media site nature. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Happy to endorse everything you've said here. We shouldn't be using it. Doug Weller talk 12:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Does that opinion invalidate Wikipedia's Goodreads template? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I would think so, @Tokyogirl79: thank you for this I will mention it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I wasn't even aware that we had that template. My argument is really only about using Goodreads as a source in an article, so I think that its merits as an external link should be a separate discussion. Offhand I'll say that I don't link it, partially because it's become so synonymous with people trying to promote their works on here. I do still use the site (albeit rarely) and if all you're looking for is a place to socialize, it's good for that reason. In any case, I think that what we need to consider is whether or not it's in heavy enough use to where it would be comparable to sites like IMDb. For example, IMDb is not a reliable source for the same reason Goodreads wouldn't be, but it's so heavily mentioned in various media and sources on the Internet that it's reasonable for it to be found in the EL section. I'm just not sure that Goodreads is really at that level as a whole, but again - that's kind of a different conversation since that essentially revolves around popularity rather than reliability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I completely agree with your reasoning Tokyogirl79. It's not a reliable source.- MrX 01:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Why not make everyone a librarian?
"Initially, we allowed everyone to be a librarian. Anyone could edit book and author data, add cover images, or combine books. However, we found that while 99% of the people did a good job, occasionally we had someone who messed things up. So we created a new status that we bestow on those interested in helping keep things nice and tidy, which has worked out well."
If the subject is the author of a book or some such, then how do we use Goodreads to determine that they wrote such-and-such book? The example Tokyogirl179 gave above explicitly addressed this issue, as if we had used the source to verify that "a book existed" we would still be wrong, as there were two books that existed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I was under the impression that Goodreads did not sell books because the links are fairly subtle, in the middle of the page. Unlike Google Books, Goodreads provides a link to Worldcat so the reader has easy access to a library copy. If we are going to only allow book references to come from the NYT and sources that the mainstream media prescribe, we have lost the battle.
Beyond that, having a few editors decide this, out of 27 million, without investigating the current policies of the website or contacting them seems like WP:CONLIMITED to me. 009o9 (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Rebuttal
Goodreads allows almost anyone to be a librarian - all you need to do is shelve 50 books (ie, "to read" or quirky titles like "I like cheese") and ask for the permission. You don't have to review them. It's a lot like how users will be able to create articles after making a set amount of edits. The above quote that you used refers to the earlier practice where everyone had this user right - the form I discussed above is the current standard and it's not exclusive.
Misinformation on sites like Goodreads and IMDb does happen. Sometimes it's immediately detected, but there are cases where it isn't, like in the case of Warren Chaney, and sometimes it's extremely obvious and visible. For example, there was a case of two unrelated women. One claimed she was playing She-Hulk in a Captain America movie and in Agents of SHIELD, a claim that you could quickly tell was false since She-Hulk wasn't in AoS. The other claimed to be a major Disney actress and singer. One of them (I can't remember which) claimed that she'd presented a Grammy... at a completely different awards ceremony. IMDb had to be told' that these were false, despite both being very obvious hoaxes that should've been detected prior to profile approval. The point here is that while IMDb is often correct, there are enough cases where it isn't to where it can't be seen as a reliable source while they still accept user submitted information.
Now as far as Goodreads-as-seller goes, they don't sell books directly but they do list e-commerce sites prominently on the page, normally Amazon since they own Goodreads. You can see the "buy a copy" section here as "Get a copy: Amazon, Online Stores, Libraries", right under the book synopsis. They sell ad space as well, but my main problem with the site isn't really that they link to merchant sites but more because pretty much anyone can edit a book's information.
I don't mean this next part to come across badly, but this is likely how it will be received. I just think that you're too lenient and forgiving with sourcing. You mean well, but you need to be careful since you're in one of the most precarious positions on Wikipedia, since you're a paid editor. In an ideal world we'd be able to use sites like Goodreads or IMDb as sources, use trivial mentions to establish notability, and so on, but there's been so much abuse over the years that guidelines have become strict by necessity on what will be considered reliable or give notability. Now don't get me wrong - I don't think that you're lenient because you're a paid editor. In fact, I think it's because you're predominantly an inclusionist, something that you'd be even if you weren't a paid editor. However since you are a paid editor I'm concerned that this will trip you up in the future and it's why I've pushed so hard for stronger sourcing from you. As a paid editor you're held to a far higher standard than the average editor is - heck, even higher than the expectations for a COI editor, which is sometimes seen as fairly close to paid editing. (Some view it as the same thing, although it very much isn't.)
My reason for pointing this out is that many paid editors have come under fire for various issues that include weak or unreliable sourcing and some have been blocked for this. Sometimes these editors were operating out of deliberate bad faith (ie, they knew that the sourcing wasn't good enough) and sometimes they genuinely didn't understand where it came short of what Wikipedia requires but were blocked anyway because it was assumed that they were operating in bad faith and/or just couldn't/wouldn't understand the argument against them. It takes a lot of abuse to get to that point, but my point here is that there is a lot and I mean a LOT of bias against paid editors. There are increasingly strong moves to get paid editing blocked on Wikipedia and I wouldn't be surprised if it was banned in a few years. Don't give them extra justification to back up the bias and arguments - and there's almost always someone watching.
Personally I don't overly mind paid editing since I know that they fill a need. The average paid editor writes about the "boring" stuff like non-mainstream companies, academics, and professionals that tend to get overlooked. Some of them genuinely don't merit an article, but some of them do. However because there's been so much paid editing abuse on Wikipedia and it's caused a lot of scrutiny over the years, paid editors (or anyone with a COI) have to be more careful since many editors will jump all over a paid editor if they so much as far too loudly.
The TL;DNR of this is that Goodreads hands out librarian privileges extremely easily and errors do happen on the site, either because of deliberate or accidental actions. The same goes for IMDb. As far as overall RS guidelines go, they're strict out of necessity and I do think that you need to be more careful not to be very lenient with sourcing, as you're a paid editor and there are a lot of editors that actively dislike paid editors. That there's been far too much rampant abuse from places like Wiki-PR has only served to convince many that the practice needs to be banned, so unfortunately you have to be more cautious than even a COI editor, another type of editor that is frequently the subject of bias on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
@Tokyogirl79 You are right, this is not the forum to debate it in. FYI, the data I'm interested in from IMDb is Awards and Events. Neither locations are user editable, submissions are reviewed by the editorial staff. Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh, I know - I wish that we could use it for that. Not all awards sites archive their past winners, which is frustrating when you have newspapers that don't publicly archive either. Out of everything this is usually one of the aspects of the site that's more dependable since the average user can't add these (I've tried in the past and couldn't), however the whole IMDb issue keeps it from being usable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Library of Congress

I have been using LCCN entries for people as sources for their birthdates for a little while now, assuming it was reliable. But now, when I was looking up Chuck Cleaver's entry on there [34] to see if his birthdate was listed there, I noticed that one phrase, sourced to "Wikipedia website", appears in his LCCN entry, leading me to suspect that LCCN entries are not reliable sources, at least not for BLPs. I would like to know what others think. Everymorning (talk) 01:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The nature of Nippon.com

I can't quite get a handle on the nature of the nippon.com website. It clearly isn't a conventional news site nor is it merely a blog as it has an editorial board.[1] The website does not appear to be an online extension of a dead tree magazine or journal either.

The page/article/editorial (what is it?) that I'm using as a source[2] is written by an apparently reputable academic, so it's reliability per se seems established. I'm trying to figure out how to properly cite it - none of "cite news/editorial/blog" appear to me to be a comfortable fit. Help! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.nippon.com/en/about-nippon-com/
  2. ^ http://www.nippon.com/en/currents/d00133/
You could ask user:Hijiri88, who is in Japan and usually well informed on such things. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Hijiri88... -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
@JzG: @Dodger67: Emailed both of you. That's all I'm gonna say on-wiki for the time being. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Freeze

Was the character created for the TV show and loosely based on an obscure one-off comic villain, or created for the comic and renamed/popularized by the TV show?

The line between these two is extremely blurry, there is a dispute between me and User:Darkknight2149 over how our article should be worded on this point. A problem is that the majority of sources that discuss the problem in detail can be interpreted either way. No "full history" of the character can completely neglect either the fact that a similar character first appeared in the comics in 1959 or the fact that said character was essentially a one-off until the TV show renamed and popularized him. Thus, Darkknight2149 and I have interpreted this source differently. A lot of sources are also written "semi-in-universe": within the universe of the comics "Mr. Zero" and "Mr. Freeze" were later determined to be the same person. So a lot of sources simply say "the character first appeared in 1959". It is my view that sources saying the character first appeared in 1959 cannot be used for the claim that the character was not created for the TV show and loosely based on a one-off villain from the comics, because they are taking the in-universe retcon that the two are the same person as a matter of fact.

In my opinion, the only source already cited that explicitly states one way or the other is this Escapist video, which says the TV show created Mr. Freeze, loosely basing him on an obscure character with a different name. Darkknight2149 appears to be of the opinion that a source saying the character first appeared in 1959 under the name "Mr. Zero" is adequate to dismiss the assertion that the character was created for the TV show.

I proposed that we say the sources are divided on the issue, with some saying the character first appeared in the comics in 1959, and others saying the character who appeared in 1959 was a loose inspiration for the character who was largely created for the TV show. I am not yet sure what Darkknight2149's opinion on this proposal is.

Sorry to post this on RSN, but since the sources (or lack thereof) are the problem here, in that they can almost all be interpreted either way, I thought it reasonable. It's my opinion that taking a source that says "First appearance: 1959" to reject the claim in a reliable source that the character was created for the TV show is borderline OR, but posting this on ORN would have been a worse option.

Any thoughts?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Based solely on what you're saying here, saying that the sources are split on whether this is one character or two etc. seems like the way to go. However, if you need more direct options for help, why not post a request for more voices at the talk page for Wikiproject Comics? That may be a good place to get editors with the expertise you need. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
EDIT: Okay, I took a closer look at your conversation and the sources that DK offered and I think I know something that might help. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Daily Mail again

Is the Daily Mail a suitable source for this addition to John Noakes? The detail is reputed to be a quote from Peter Purves. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It is neither a contentious claim nor one remotely of "celebrity gossip", and the claim is sourced to a specific person. Fairly reliable in such a case. Not on the order of "person had sex with unicorns" or the like, and pretty much a "vanilla claim". Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Lightweight claim and the source supports it directly. I concur that this is acceptable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
As far as I know, Noakes doesn't even like unicorns. So many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with the source or how it is used, but the wording of the sentence should be changed. In the context of our article it looks like, if not outright claims that, Purves reported that Noakes "had refused to speak with Baxter" (my emphasis) over some extended period of time, whereas the source is actually talking about a very specific event (the 50th anniversary at Buckingham Palace) at which Purves and Baxter were civil to each other but Noakes refused to talk to Baxter. It may indeed be accurate to infer that Noakes had refused to speak to Baxter over an extended period of time, but inferring is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, good point. I'd probably prefer, at this stage, to avoid seeing "remove wanker comments" in an edit summary again. But I may try and adjust it. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Every time the Daily Mail comes up as an RS question, there is a confusion between distaste for the style, content and ideology of the paper and its validity as a source. It is an RS.Martinlc (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Best we tell User:Hillbillyholiday. Personally I love chips. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
It may surprise y'all to learn that I have recently undergone something of a Damascene conversion on this subject and no longer regard those at the Mail as a gaggle of rebarbative maledicent misoneists given to plumeopicean stultiloquence and vilipensive honeyfuggling. I take it all back, it's clearly a trustworthy publication. Please, use it freely with my blessing. --Hillbillyholiday talk 12:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah great. Thanks for telling me. I'll get in some bread and dripping to go with the chips. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
No worries, Mister EotW. Please excuse my latest Mail-related meltdown. --Hillbillyholiday talk 07:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC) ..and do go easy on the chips
Taking that story as an example, yes it's completely trivial. But it was a real event that has been reported and checked, subject to the IPSOS code of conduct, quoting real people, with editorial oversight. If there were a wikipedia page for images of faces seen in food this article would be usable as an RS. You seem to be confusing the desirability that the Mail didn't exist with the technical question of whether the stories it recounts carry greater weight as sources than random individuals on the internet.Martinlc (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Is WP:RS black and white? Or is there some kind of hierarchy for the UK press? I tend to use the Daily Mail as a last resort, although it's photographs are often excellent. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm late to the party, but I note the source supplied at the top of the thread includes the phrase "Peter Purves dishes Blue Peter dirt" in it's title - that's a "no" from me. John Noakes clearly loved Shep (that's obvious from anyone who's ever owned a pet) and doesn't like Biddy Baxter, we don't need the specifics. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

""Headlines" are not "articles." The headline is written by a headline writer - and very rarely by the article writer at all. They are designed to get people to read - not to be n accurate precis of the article. Thus, I suggest, and have suggested, that "headlines" are not, in themselves, reliable sources other than for the fact the headline existed. Collect (talk) 13:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Some questions for Collect. Obviously all sources need to be judged for accuracy, reliability, etc. -- sometimes good sources can get it wrong, sometimes poor sources get it right, and yes, standards are dropping across the board -- but does WP accept, say, the National Enquirer or RT as a source? Would you agree that there's some kind of cut-off point: that when a source has been caught falsifying stories time and again, it simply shouldn't be accepted as reliable anymore? Isn't it, in part, the function of this board to determine when the line has been crossed? Wouldn't you agree that the Mail has indeed crossed the line? Wouldn't banning the Mail for BLPs be a net-positive? Wouldn't it stop these interminable arguments? Have you read this? --Hillbillyholiday talk 17:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
All of those are valid questions. See also rule #21. MastCell Talk 18:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually, RT is a valid reliable source for some items (see prior discussions thereon) - specifically such material official statements from those quoted as Russian officials. The Daily Mail is not a good source for contentious material in the "celebrity gossip" area, but neither are any newspapers good sources in that area. The claim that the source has routinely falsified stories is erroneous here - once one removes the "celebrity gossip" retractions, the DM has pretty much the same record as other popular newspapers (yes - I checked the formal records - and even The Guardian has been caught with their pants down). In short - the Mail has not "crossed the line" although some here seem to think anything other than "correct opinions" should be debarred. And if we start saying "some newspapers are more equal than others" we should recall the fact that a very large number of stories in all newspapers originate in press releases. [35] provides the sourcing for my claims. Collect (talk) 19:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
But of course some newspapers (and some sources) are better than others. The process of evaluating sources, and choosing the best ones, is called editing. Wikipedians who perform this function are called editors. The Daily Mail is not uniquely bad, but it is emblematic of a particular type of low-quality yellow journalism that editors with good judgement typically avoid. As I alluded to above, when Wikipedians take to these noticeboards to defend the Daily Mail, it says a lot about their understanding of our sourcing policies. MastCell Talk 22:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Even the "best" newspapers routinely use press releases, and not even The Guardian is immune to the "celebrity gossip" illness. And you are welcome to diss those who find the Daily Mail covers some topics better than The Times does, but I find your tone here to be disputatious for the sake of being disputatious. Is there a reason you wish to call into question the motives of those who use the Daily Mail? The big problem with all popular sources is the handling of "celebrity gossip" and I suggest that all "celebrity gossip" is the problem. Can you name a source you find to be very reliable for "celebrity gossip" for contentious claims? Collect (talk) 23:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't question the motives of editors who defend the Daily Mail as a source. I question their judgement.

It's not about "celebrity gossip". The Mail has a justifiably atrocious reputation for its scientific and medical coverage; its coverage of international affairs is sensationalist and often completely false; it fabricates human-interest stories and legal coverage (including fake quotes), and so on. Again, it's not the only terrible, tabloidy source out there, but it's emblematic. When you, as an experienced editor, defend this kind of thing, you discredit yourself, you set a bad example, and you call your judgement into question. MastCell Talk 00:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

"Celebrity gossip" is indeed the problem -- the victim of false gossip has no protections in the US under two prongs of tort practice. In the first place, the victim is a "public figure" and we hold public figures to be open season 12 months of the year; and in the second, periodicals ("news sources") are have court licenses almost equivalent to 007. In consequence, NOTHING said about a public figure in the popular press is reliable. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

No, the Daily Mail is not a good source for that material. That newspaper cannot be trusted in this context. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Please read the relevant policy WP:NEWSORG. News organisations we don't like are still WP:RS. Are you doubting that the interview took place? That the journalist didn't record the works?Martinlc (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
and also see WP:VERIFIABILITY not truth. The Mail has published these comments. If there is a policy debate it's around WP:UNDUE.Martinlc (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
This isn't the place for discussions of UNDUE. And it's been quite a while since I've seen someone say "verifiability not truth"... I repeat that the Daily Mail is not sufficiently trustworthy for this sort of thing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree- UNDUE is a content dispute that should be resolved on the page. But I don't see why you see this source as untrustworthy. Are you implying that the paper din't speak to the person, or that they didn't say what was reported? I mentioned TRUTH because it appears that editors are taking the line that because they don't believe material as reported it must be false.Martinlc (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Because they have a long and sordid history of getting things wrong. I don't have a view about the "truth" of this particular episode, but I'm skeptical enough about the source in general that I think in general we shouldn't use it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
If you don't have a negative view of the truth of this episode as reported then you would have to accept that it is an appropriate source for the edit. Like it or not the Mail is a mainstream newspaper with a corrections column and membership of IPSOS.Martinlc (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't have to accept anything of the sort. And in fact I don't. I'd advise not telling people what sort of input they "have to" contribute to a noticeboard. As before: the Daily Mail is not a good source for this material. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
What I meant was that since you have 'no view' either way on the accuracy of this specific story then it seemed that there no grounds to object to it, apart from a general view that the Mail should automatically be ruled out as an RS. Such a position would not be in accord with RS policy as I understand it where each case is decided on its own merits.Martinlc (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
This is rather in contrast to what is happening in science editing at the moment. Some editors are deleting sources on the sole basis of them being published in predatory journals. There is no attempt to discuss or consider them on a case-by-case basis. DrChrissy (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Going right back to the OP, wouldn't a way around this be to make a direct attribution in the text (indicated in bold) so the sentence reads "with the Daily Mail reporting that co-presenter Peter Purves later said that Noakes refused to speak with Baxter. DrChrissy (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks. I had considered that, but took the advice of User:Hijiri88 to limit it to the single event. I also considered avoiding any paraphrasing at all, by using direct quote marks, but then thought the Daily Mail wasn't really worth that kind of care. I also thought it was a bit unfair on Noakes, using "hearsay" to put words in his mouth like that (or rather, take them away!) This whole discussion has been very enlightening. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

catalogue of open source software confer notability

Several editors have attempted to argue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuleap (project management) that http://www.dhbw-stuttgart.de/fileadmin/dateien/KOS/pub_kos.content_1.2015.band1.pdf confers notability on Tuleap. I don't believe it does. These editors appear to be active editors of open source software and I believe that they are grasping at straws here. By extension, if it is significant coverage, then every other product listed in the catalogue is inherently notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Obviously not, it is a directory listing. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
It's a reasonable source to show that the software exists, but does nothing to show notability.- MrX 13:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but has somebody clicked on the link? It's not a catalogue at all. It's a collection of student group theses, published as a report by the Kompentenzzentrum Open Source (KOS) (a research center on open source by the department of Business Informatics at DHBW Stuttgart). The individual reports compare and evaluate open source tools for different purposes. People may be confused by the Word "Katalog", but the "Katalog" in question is just a scheme of evaluation criteria applied to the tools. This is certainly only gray literature, but it is an independent academic reference, and the fact that the KOS has published it as a report means that it has passed at least the scrutiny of the grading professor. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I did click the link and I read it, in German. It is just a catalogue. Knowing that it was only students makes it all the less notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
In that case, we may need go agree to disagree. Let it be on the record that this native German speaker does not think it's a catalogue, and is somewhat confused as to why other people would think that. Also note that the reports, while written by students, are ordered and paid for by industry, and go through quality control of the KOS and its professors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
You're not the only one confused. I guess some people call Cochrane reviews catalogs of medical studies, history books catalogs of past events ... I also think the opinion of someone who claims to have read it but doesn't know who wrote it would not carry much weight. On the other hand, I don't think it's enough to make Tuleap notable. Prevalence 05:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The Coast

The Coast is a weekly publication in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Is this article suitable to support the following claim on the Frankie MacDonald page:

In 2016 CTV Atlantic meteorologist Cindy Day made online comments perceived by some to be insulting towards MacDonald and a Change.org petition was launched demanding that she be fired.

The source is reliable but the issue here seems to be giving WP:UNDUE weight to an otherwise insignificant comment made by Cindy Day. Meatsgains (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah. Change.org petitions are not exactly a big deal. This is a teapot tempest. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

itv.com

How reliable is itv.com as a source? To give an example, Katie Hopkins' recent brain surgery was added here citing the website. I followed this up at Talk:Katie Hopkins#Surgery (and relation to WP:BLPSOURCES) as a search for better sources brought up little more than the "usual suspects" such as the Daily Mail which I would, by and large, avoid like the plague on BLPs, tabloids and similar "gossip" publications, and finally itv.com? While ITV itself can produce high quality work (I am impartial to a bit of Morse and Lewis myself), I'm concerned that the website typically focuses too much on celebrity-focused sensational gossip, and a story that is genuinely worth reporting will appear in high-quality publications such as BBC News or The Guardian. What does anyone else think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd say ITV_News is reliable enough to use. It isn't user-generated, it's professionally written and it has editorial oversight. NYTimes and BBC are clearly better, but Wikipedia itself has many articles that are themselves celebrity-focused, so ITV News has its place here. If you just want a better or additional source for this particular fact, the matter is also covered in several other sources. I will add, though, that I don't usually work BLP. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Er, did you look at the search results you supplied? I got stereotypical WP:BLPSOURCES violating tabloid fodder; I especially note the Irish Independent source claiming Lily Allen called her a "massive twat" - wholly unnecessary for a BLP I think. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I did. Considering that Hopkins gave The Sun a direct interview, I'd infer that she at least considers them worthwhile. The "massive" comment is a direct quote attributed to one of Hopkins' critics. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
ITV.com as a source for this seems perfectly cromulent, in the context of Hopkins' epilepsy (already covered in the article it seems) - it is a legitimate source and the information seems not to be contentious in the eyes of the subject. Wags will of course comment on the keen eyesight of the surgeon who was actually able to find the organ in question, but Hopkins does not seem to be shy of discussing the procedure. It is possible this is a play for sympathy or an attempt to excuse her numerous unforced errors and rampant bigotry, but I am inclined to assume good faith and simply accept that she is actually standing up for the epileptic community and speaking openly about something that is a source of substantial prejudice and misunderstanding, so, rarely for Hopkins, I say fair play, and given that she seems not to have a problem with it being discussed openly, let us include it.
On the subject of Lily Allen's comment, while I think she is bang on the money we would not, of course, include that unless it was the subject of substantial detailed commentary in sources a bit more heavyweight than Hello. Guy (Help!) 11:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Jaime Alguersuari

Jocular remark, won't be included in Wikipedia unless there is more substantial coverage. And actually, wouldn't it be nice if nobody cared? Guy (Help!) 11:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

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.

Jaime Alguersuari (ex-Formula One racing driver, now retired) posted a photo on Twitter / Instagram of himself kissing another guy with the caption "Yes I am gay hahahah" (he is on the left in the photo: [36]) An editor has updated Alguersuari's page to state this as fact [37] but many people seem to be treating it as a joke. Alguersuari is a bon viveur to say the least. I know Twitter and Instagram are poor reference material but I've got nothing else to go on – it doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere else yet. Should we wait for a proper interview or something? What's the form regarding self-published stuff like this on social media? Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll be brutally honest and say that I haven't seen anyone take it as a joke, leading me to believe it is cast-iron fact. Considering that the source comes from Alguersuari himself, this makes it more credible than a secondary source in my honest opinion. Spa-Franks (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
There are plenty of comments on that Instagram post suggesting it's a joke. That's the problem with this kind of source. You seem easily convinced. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
EDIT CONFLICT: Wikipedia has a policy specifically for things like this, WP:TWITTER. If this is Alguersuari's official account, then it is RS for things that he says about himself. However, it sounds like you're not sure if people have been interpreting what he said in the caption correctly, that you can't tell if he was kidding or not. For that, I would say yes, wait for corroboration. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's basically what it comes down to. I can't tell if he's joking or not, although Spa-Franks is convinced. Someone saying he's gay followed by a big "hahahahaha" doesn't seem like a very serious declaration to me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

In normal usage, "hahaha" indicates that one ought not take the prior statement with any credulity at all. Collect (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

"hahahah" indicates he is laughing, therefore his tweet was implied to be a joke. This information should not be added to the BLP until/unless it is reported by an independent reliable source. Meatsgains (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, this source notes "the Formula One driver might not be gay after all." Meatsgains (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, everyone. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:21, 29 February 2016 (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.

James Sears circulation claims

There is an ongoing problem at James Sears regarding the claimed circulation of a newsletter, Your Ward News, for which Sears claims to be "editor-in-chief". In a Toronto Star article ([38]) dated 16 May 2015, the newsletter's publisher (Leroy St. Germaine) is quoted claiming a circulation of "about 50,000 copies"; the article on Sears was created not long after that story appeared. Around November an IP (and then several others) began changing 50,000 to 77,000 supposedly based on a claim in Your Ward News, which I believe is an entirely unreliable source for this claim. Sears is fairly well known locally for making highly exaggerated claims about himself, and feeding off controversy in order to promote his pick-up artist business. I don't keep the copies of Your Ward News that some unfortunate postal worker is forced to leave in my mailbox, but there are archived online versions, and from those we can see that the paper's circulation claims have steadily increased since the controversy started with Canada Post over whether the newsletter could be circulated at all: (links to newsletter NSFW)

Based on all of this, what claims can be considered reliably sourced? In my opinion 50,000 is as accurate as we can be (the Toronto Star source) however I have a small army of IPs disagreeing with me. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right, the newsletter is not a RS for its own circulation (or for anything, really). Even with the star article, emphasis should be placed on the fact that this is their claimed circulation - pretty much anything these guys say should be taken with a grain of salt. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh yes, I should have said that our text says "[t]he publication, which claims to have a circulation of 50,000, has been criticized ..." which is sourced to the Star piece. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Award recomendation quoted in memoirs

There is firmly established by the the totality of reliable sources that a certain military person was bestowed the nation's highest military honour 20 yrs after the war for the sum of the person's military achievements. According to the memoirs of the said person the reason for recognition to be so late was that in the recomendation for the award, written by the person's command during the war, the person in question had been cited as killed in action, but indeed the person had survived and had been captured by enemy (beeing POW untill the end of the war) and, without "heroic death" the sum of feats was considered lesser, so the person was bestowed a lesser award immediately after the war, but 20 yrs later the government changed it's mind. This explanation is confirmed by one (more or less) independent source. Now in the memoirs the person quots (directly) the excerpt from the original award recommendation, which enumerates the feats. At least one of them is confirmed by many independent sources. Some are, essentialy, trifling. One of achievements is, in my opinion, deserve to be mentioned in WP, but the only source known to me is the said quotation in the person's memoirs - thus a not independent source. On the other hand, false quotation of the award recomendation is quite a disgraceful thing, the one, that, in my opinion, should not be supposed for a decorated warrior without a due reason. The deed is, though, to some extent, outstanding, by no means extraordinary (actually, in comparison to other recipients of the award, even the sum of the feats of the person in question fits the award but barely, if at all). What are opinions on the matter? Эйхер (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Two sources needing feedback

I would like, please, feedback on whether or not these two sources are good:

The content it supports is:

"...In Canada, it is legal to sell and serve cat meat if the animal is free of disease and an inspector of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency witnesses the killing of the cat..."

Many thanks.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Both sources are valid. This is the law in Canada...Anna does not know anything about Canada, so she is a little confused...please forgive her -:) IQ125 (talk) 12:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey, come on IQ125. A quick search produces many sources that say that Canada allows the consumption of dog meat, including CBC News and The Toronto Star. Cats are harder to corroborate. But if it is the law in Canada, laws are public knowledge. The law itself would be citable as a source.
However, A Beating Heart's About Us page shows that it is a personal site run by a non-expert. It's not RS. Paws for the News doesn't seem to have an About Us page, so I can't tell if it has editorial oversight. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Darkfrog24. I agree. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Both are correct citations, you can eat doggies and kitties in Canada...YUMMY -:) IQ125 (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association

Is the Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association a reliable source for medical information? Specifically, I came across this journal used as a reference in SierraSil, an article that appears to be promotional in nature, relying on authorative-sounding sources and celebrity endorsements to promote the effectiveness of this supplement. Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association is actually referenced three times to three separate articles by the same authors, who I would not be surprised to have a connection to the company making the product. Deli nk (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

No. [40] At best it gives "a good avenue for science-based, smaller sample studies of the “pilot” or “pre-mainstream variety.” " Which is less than we require for any use of sources making actual medical claims. The Journal has ads from "nutraceutical" manufacturers, which is also a problem. That said, if it runs studies by persons noted in the field, and such use is done conservatively, noting the limitations of small studies, I can imagine cases where such a study might be relevant to a Wikipedia article, but only on a specific case basis. Collect (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. For the record, the use of this source as a reference has already been removed from the article mentioned above. Deli nk (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources at NamePros

There is some difference of opinion regarding the reliability of sources for this article per WP:BLOGS. Can visitors to this noticeboard please comment on whether or not the following websites are considered as reliable sources for the history, desciption and services of the domain forum, NamePros?

Any comments or insights? Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Keithbob and I are currently in disagreement over the usability of these sources, so again, feedback/additional insight would be appreciated. My counter-argument is that they are reputable news sites within the relevant industry, and the authors are well-respected. Both have played key roles in the distribution of informational content within the domain name investing community. While there's no guarantee they're edited by a third party, articles written by specialists and experts are still reasonable sources of reliable information, provided discretion and common sense are used. The corollary to this is that an edited article is not guaranteed to be a reliable source of information, and the formal publishing of a claim does not make it an indisputable fact. —Zenexer [talk] 20:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:BLOGS, part of WP:VERIFY: "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. ([in <ref> tag] Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources.)" —Zenexer [talk] 20:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources written in the future tense cited for past claims

This is more of a general question, but I've noticed a lot of articles with this problem. The "Ireland" source in Star Wars sequel trilogy was my immediate impetus so ... if a source written last summer says filming "will take place this week", can we use it after the fact to state that filming took place that week? I ask not because I think it didn't (I have no reason to think so) but because a strict interpretation of WP:V would mean that technically such a source is only valid for the claim "it was reported that filming would take place that week". In some cases I'm sure our citation of a source has been "updated" thusly when something had gone wrong and the source's prediction had not come true, in which cases our information is neither true nor verifiable. But even in this benign example, the information is not directly supported by the source although probably true. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. A source that reports what actually did happen should be added, or the content should be revised. For example, "...filming was planned for the week of X".- MrX 13:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Mirror.co.uk

I would like some input here to help vet this so-called source. It looks questionable to me. An new IP user recently cited this article from the Mirror to add content to the Intelligence Support Activity article. Any feedback here would be appreciated. Thanks - theWOLFchild 08:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Low-end English tabloid newspaper. Not a great source and has had notorious low points. If something - other than the mundane - is being added to the encyclopedia and the Mirror is the only source, it's almost certainly not something we want. (This is a general comment made without looking at this specific case). Alexbrn (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
A decent enough but Left-leaning tabloid, probably not the right source for this particular edit, due to potential ideological bias. Guy (Help!) 12:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
The actual "facts" are certainly usable - it is the "colourful commentary" on those facts which would be at issue. In the case at hand, the writer has generously used his large supply of paints to limn the facts to make the language used a tad too colourful for use in a Wikipedia article. The remaining fact claim would be "The ISA, sometimes called 'Grey Fox', is an American military and intelligence unit which currently has a mission to attack Al Qaeda, and has been used in the past for other operations, including anti-drug operations." It does not support any name for any project, as the attempted edit asserted. Collect (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
The article starts off with; "GREY Fox – an elite American Special Forces kill squad...". My understanding is that they are primarily a recon & SIGINT/HUMINT unit, used for deep infiltration/long-term undercover operations in hostile areas. It goes on to say; ISA members were among the Operation Geronimo squad of Navy commandos who killed bin Laden... That's the first I'm hearing of that. Apparently this is basis for the attempted edit. This article states their info comes from an "unnamed intelligence source". It all sounds a little to sketchy, hence the reason I reverted the edit, and requested the IP user propose it on the talk page. They haven't as of yet, but it were to, I would suggest finding another more established and confirmed reliable source to support the edit. To me, this article sounds like they took a real unit, but added a bunch of pulp-novel-esque fiction to amp it up to sell more papers. In short, not reliable. - theWOLFchild 23:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Note that the edit the article would support does not include the "interesting" claims which you have a problem with at all. And I suggest that headlines, as such, are not actually source material, as they are written with the sole aim of attracting readers. Thus, Mirror.co.uk is a reliable source for the claims of fact in the article which are not presented as anonymously sourced opinion. Collect (talk) 12:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Franz Kurowski for a GA article (WWII)

Source: Kurowski, Franz (2007). Oberleutnant Otto Kittel—Der erfolgreichste Jagdflieger des Jagdgeschwaders 54 [First Lieutenant Otto Kittel—The most successful Fighter Pilot of Fighter Wing 54] (in German). Würzburg, Germany: Flechsig Verlag. ISBN 978-3-88189-733-4. ((cite book)): Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Article: Otto Kittel

Content: Two types of content (the article is largely cited to Franz Kurowski):

(1) non-notable details and potentially unverifiable statements, such as:

(2) Military statistics:

More info on the author:

According to the historian Ronald Smelser and Edward J. Davis, Kurowski is a "guru". Gurus, in their definition, are "authors popular among the readers who romanticize the German army". In addition, the gurus are:

“authors, (who) have picked up and disseminated the myths of the Wehrmacht in a wide variety of popular publications that romanticize the German struggle in Russia….. who insist on authenticity in their writings, combine a painfully accurate knowledge of the details of the Wehrmacht, ranging from vehicles to uniforms to medals, with a romantic heroicization of the German army fighting to save Europe from a rapacious Communism. There is little in the way of historical context in the writings of these men.”

Franz Kurowski, a veteran of the Eastern front, saw his two major works released in the U.S. in 1992 (Panzer Aces) and 1994 (Infantry Aces). Smelser & Davis write: "Kurowski gives the readers an almost heroic version of the German soldier, guiltless of any war crimes, actually incapable of such behavior... Sacrifice and humility are his hallmarks. Their actions win them medals, badges and promotions, yet they remain indifferent to these awards."

Kurowski's accounts are "laudatory texts that cast the German soldier in an extraordinarily favorable light", Smelser and Davies conclude.[1]

References

  1. ^ * Smelser, Ronald; Davies, Edward J. (2008). The myth of the Eastern Front: The Nazi-Soviet War in American Popular Culture. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-83365-3. ((cite book)): Invalid |ref=harv (help), pp=5, 173–178, 251

If you are curious about the book I'm citing, here are two reviews: Tracing the Resurrection of a Reputation: How Americans Came to Love the German Army by a professional historian ("The book is a fascinating immersion into a simple but important question: How did the German soldiers who fought on the eastern front during World War Two become hero figures to so many Americans?"), and another one, surprisingly nuanced, from feldgrau.net, one of outlets for "romancers" that Smelser and Davies critique. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Responses

It sounds as though it's not exactly history, that it's historical narrative, like Little House on the Prairie. Is the publisher, Flechsig Verlag, reputable? Is it a vanity press? Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Here other titles published by "Würzburg : Flechsig"
  • To the gate of hell: the memoir of a panzer crewman by Arnim Böttger; Geoffrey Brooks; Charles Messenger (In English)
  • Duel under the stars: factual report by a German night fighter, 1941 - 1945 by Wilhelm Johnen
  • Panzer Regiment 11 Panzer Division 65 and Panzerersatz- and Training Division 11. Part 2 , as firefighters at the focal points of the Eastern Front - from October 1941 to May 1944 by Michael Schadewitz
K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
That only shows that they specialize in certain subject matter. A vanity press is a publishing company in which the authors decide what will go into print rather than going through a professional selection process.
But let's say it is a regular, third-party publisher. The issue here seems to be whether this book is really nonfiction. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
This may help -- Kurowski has a German Wikipedia article. I had it google translated and, while it's somewhat difficult to read, statements like "historical revisionist tendencies", "right-wing publisher", "far-right", "journalism of gray and brown zone"; "inspired by British Holocaust denier David Irving", etc, appear prominently. ''The Myth of the Eastern Front" is also mentioned. The article is well sourced to various historians. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree that this isn't a reliable source. Smelser & Davis' analysis of Kurowski's works is convincing (I've read the book). Moreover, I can't remember ever seeing him used as a reference in high quality books on the war, despite being very prolific, and the English-language editions of his books seem to have mainly been published by firms which provide little if any editing or fact-checking of works. Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

While the source The myth of the Eastern Front reminds us that we need to be cautious, I think to reject Kurowski completely as unreliable on the basis of that source is a tad bit over-zealous, and frankly, lazy. Kurowski may well indeed be a "Romanciser" of the German military, that does not mean that he is completely unreliable, particularly in regard to factual operational matters and events.

To recap what was quoted above, the historian Ronald Smelser and Edward J. Davis, say Kurowski is a "guru". Gurus, in their definition, are "authors popular among the readers who romanticize the German army". In addition, the gurus are

"authors, (who) have picked up and disseminated the myths of the Wehrmacht in a wide variety of popular publications that romanticize the German struggle in Russia….. who insist on authenticity in their writings, combine a painfully accurate knowledge of the details of the Wehrmacht, ranging from vehicles to uniforms to medals, with a romantic heroicization of the German army fighting to save Europe from a rapacious Communism. There is little in the way of historical context in the writings of these men.”

Lots of veterans have written books on WW2 topics, Brits, American, Russians, and no doubt there is a certain degree of romanticising by these authors too. However these historians do acknowledge that the "details of the Wehrmacht, ranging from vehicles to uniforms to medals" are "painfully accurate". We just need to assess each claim per WP:BIASED and leave out the bits that heroicize the '"German army fighting to save Europe from a rapacious Communism". --Nug (talk) 10:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Kurowski is an extremely prolific author, with over 400 books to his many pen names. He has written several series of children's books, and he has published a lot of his "popular history" (mostly on WW2 topics) with a number of known revisionists and extreme right-wing publishers. He's always writing to please his different audiences, not to give a factual history. It's not enough that there are some correct facts in the books to be considered RS, we need to be able to have reasonable trust in all factual statements. By that standard, Kurowski is not a reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:BIASED says we don't have to have "reasonable trust in all factual statements" of a source. It is not all or nothing. It depends upon the context. Historians Smelser and Davis acknowledge that authors like Kurowski have a "painfully accurate knowledge of the details of the Wehrmacht, ranging from vehicles to uniforms to medals". Is it really that difficult to identify and exclude Kurowski's "romantic heroicization of the German army fighting to save Europe from a rapacious Communism" while keeping those details of the Wehrmacht that have been acknowledged to be accurate? --Nug (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that you cannot know when that knowledge is used and when it falls victim to the story. WW2 is one the the periods in history with the broadest and deepest academic coverage. There is no reason to go to questionable second-rate sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
That simply isn't the case with respect to the Eastern Front, it is precisely because that academic coverage isn't as broad and deep compared with the Western Front that authors like Kurowski are able to find a market to fill that gap. When it comes to broad outlines of who was involved and what equipment was used in which battles and where, I think it highly unlikely Kurowski would actually fabricate such things for sake of the "story". --Nug (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Kurowski was criticized by other historians, see for example: "Military historian Jürgen Rohwer began a critical examination of the data published by Nazi Germany on successes (sunken tonnage) of submarine commanders in 1957. Afterwards, Kurowski belonged to the authors, who held on to the details of the Nazi propaganda regardless of the research results." (Please see source and exact citation on De Wikipedia article above). So his numbers of "victories" are not to be trusted.

On "authenticity" -- Smelser & Davies extend it only to "details of the Wehrmacht, ranging from vehicles to uniforms to medals". They do not extend this to operational history or actions of individual soldiers. He could be considered a reliable source on Wehrmacht uniforms or medals, but otherwise sounds like "militaria literature" to me, not a work by a historian. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Also from De.wikipedia: "In his 2001 book Bombs over Dresden Kurowski included a 16 pages long "eyewitness reports" of low-flying aircraft hunting civilians. In fact, that was a made-up account. Lars-Broder Keil and Sven Felix Kellerhoff criticized Kurowski in their book German legends. (Please see citation on De.wikipedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
From the responses so far:
  • Darkfrog24: "sounds like it's not exactly history, that it's historical narrative; Is this indeed non-fiction?" Is that a no?
  • NIck-D: not WP:RS -- "can't remember ever seeing him used as a reference in high quality books on the war"
  • Stephan Schulz: not WP:RS -- Kurowski writes "'popular history' (mostly on WW2 topics) with a number of known revisionists and extreme right-wing publisher"
  • Nug: considers Kurowski to be a WP:BIASED source, but okay to use for "broad outlines of who was involved and what equipment was used in which battles and where", as potentially an only source available on the subject
  • K.e.coffman: not WP:RS, as the original poster
Question: does this constitute consensus that Kurowski is indeed a non WP:RS source for WWII articles, and I can take it to the article's Talk page? Or would I need more? K.e.coffman (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
RS can be like the Bechdel test; it's not always either-or. I'd say that while there maybe some case in which it is appropriate to cite this source, not in general no. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion with article's editor

Infinitely more. You've been asked for sources at Talk:Otto Kittel. You haven't given any. What evidence do we have that Kurowski and the information provided by him is unreliable in relation to Otto Kittel? None has been given. This isn't a controversial book about a controversial subject. It is about one man, a pilot. It is good enough for him. Using one source, who criticises Kurowski's work on broader, controversial topics, cannot be used to infer his work on Kittel is biased. It is beyond absurd. The opinions of a few editors on Wikipedia is not enough. One editor described that it as lazy analysis, I'd go further.... Dapi89 (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

We are discussion a particular source — Kurowski, Franz (2007). Oberleutnant Otto Kittel—Der erfolgreichste Jagdflieger des Jagdgeschwaders 54 [First Lieutenant Otto Kittel—The most successful Fighter Pilot of Fighter Wing 54] (in German). Flechsig Verlag., — not other sources on Otto Kittel. Could you clarify? ("...You've been asked for sources at Talk:Otto Kittel...") K.e.coffman (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Your post doesn't make sense. Please read mine again.
No criticism has been made of Kurowski's work on Kittel by anyone. You are the only person doing so. You have been asked over and over again to provide specific criticism of this work on Kittel by others. Thus far, you have failed to do so. No source, no go. It is that simple.
The specific pieces of the article you have criticised in your opening address are non-controversial. It's barely believable that one could even attempt to cite total unreliability for this man's work on Kittel using them as an 'example'.
Are you really disputing these things, such as Kittel was frustrated. The ground crews kept up his spirits, On 3 May 1943, Kittel resumed his combat career with three victories, Kittel had achieved a one kill per day average to reach 94 victories on 4, as made up facts, or some sort of evidence of bias? Are you saying that they're wrong? Are you saying they show Kurowski is guilty of hero-worship? Do these passages show he is a closet Neo-Nazi? What is it you're trying to show via these quotations?
These complaints and accusations are really odd, at least, certainly the way you present them. Dapi89 (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

What is WP:RS?

From WP:Identifying reliable sources guidelines:

"The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."

In this case, the "creator of the work" (Kurowski), has been seriously criticized. In this context of the article in question, his account also appears to be semi-fictional, as Darkfrog24 pointed out.

I would like to hear other editors' opinions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Where a single citation is removed because it is unacceptable, either the statement is removed or (if the statement is uncontested and material to the article) the unacceptable cite is replaced with a CN (citation needed) flag. The statement should not be left unsupported until another editor finds and flags it for proper maintenance. That is simple etiquette. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
K.e.coffman, this another evasion tactic, it is not an answer. You are not offering any evidence that Kurowski's work on Kittel is unreliable.
If we looked hard enough, we could find criticism of the most celebrated and respected authors. The fact that one other book has taken a swipe at him about other unrelated topics is not good enough.
"His work appears to be semi-fictional"? Does it ? According to who? You?
The canvassing for the opinion of other editors belies your ultimate problem: it isn't the opinion of Wikipedia editors that matters it sources. I've repeated this request for evidence on over 10 occasions and you have not delivered one iota to this discussion. You seem to think you can prove a case without proof itself. It's time you learned otherwise. Dapi89 (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2016
Before accusing others of WP:Canvassing for posting to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, the editor might do well to familiarise themselves with the concept of Appropriate notification. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
By definition, that is what you're doing here. Trying to gather support, without sources. You can't prove your case without proof itself. You have made a lot of accusations about Franz Kurowski and you haven't substantiated any of them. Dapi89 (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Since we appear to be talking past each other, I will go ahead and post to the MilHist Talk page for outside perspective.

Summary

4 editors deemed Kurowski non WP:RS, 1 editor deemed it WP:BIASED and 1 editor deemed it WP:RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I have come to this late, but what appears to be missing is a closer focus on the source. eg is it reliable for what it is being used for? Given the above, I would consider it reliable for non-opinion material (ie places, dates, actions). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Statements that source supports

@Peacemaker67: Thank you for your comment. Here's the partial list of statements that are cited to Kurowski; there are 35 citation to this source.

  • Looks fine, prose needs tightening.
  • interesting fact, you misunderstand notability?
  • not sure this is necessary or relevant to the subject, except that he hadn't scored a victory at this point.
  • odd prose, but the info is fine.
  • the stats are fine, the rest needs trimming to bare facts.
  • flowery language needs to be cut down.
  • you're a bit confused about WP:V. If he's reliable, that meets WP:V. Personally, I wouldn't include this stuff, except his frustration, the prose isn't the best.
  • Again, you are off-track on WP:V, and your comment about something being "non-notable" betrays a lack of understanding about WP:NOTABILITY, I'm afraid. It doesn't apply to facts, it applies to the subject (ie is this chap notable? Clearly yes.)
  • the prose isn't the best, too conversational, but the content is fine.
  • fine.
  • unless you have info that contradicts the detail, what's the problem with this? The prose could be tightened, but generally I have no issue here.
  • fine.
  • fine.
  • fine.
  • fine.
  • that is how victories were scored, it is entirely unremarkable.

References

  1. ^ Kurowski 1996, p. 268.
  2. ^ Kurowski 1996, pp. 299–300.
  3. ^ Kurowski 2007, pp. 10–11. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFKurowski2007 (help)
  4. ^ Kurowski 1996, pp. 270–275.
  5. ^ Kurowski 1996, p. 277.
  6. ^ Kurowski 1996, pp. 277–280.
  7. ^ Weal 1996, p. 16.
  8. ^ Kurowski 1996, p. 281.
  9. ^ Kurowski 1996, pp. 285–287.
  10. ^ Kurowski 2007, pp. 67–69. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFKurowski2007 (help)
  11. ^ Kurowski 1996, p. 288.
  12. ^ Kurowski 2007, p. 65. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFKurowski2007 (help)
  13. ^ Kurowski 1996, pp. 292–296.
  14. ^ Kurowski 1996, pp. 302–304.
  15. ^ Kurowski 1996, pp. 306–311.
  16. ^ Kurowski 2007, pp. 87–88, 139. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFKurowski2007 (help)
  17. ^ Kurowski 2007, p. 142. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFKurowski2007 (help)
  18. ^ Kurowski 2007, pp. 142–143. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFKurowski2007 (help)

Would you consider Kurowski reliable for these statements? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

see above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

"Journalism of gray and brown zone"

I'm not sure if you missed the discussion above, via Franz Kurowski & The Myth of the Eastern Front:

The article is almost exclusively cited to Kurowski.

Cheers, K.e.coffman (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: as I have reposted summary of criticism of Kurowski from above discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes. I've read all that and taken it into account in my opinion. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Revisiting

At a separate discussion on MilHist discussion board, the involved editor posted that "in actual fact three have yet to return to give a substantial opinion" and "three (including myself) regard him as a reliable enough source for Otto Kittel".

I'm pinging @Nick-D, Darkfrog24, and Stephan Schulz: as non WP:RS voters and @Nug: as WP:Biased voter. I had thought that you guys had made your position clear, but it appears that further clarifications for the editor are needed. If you could return and restate/expand on your position, that would be very helpful. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

My opinion has been clearly stated. Kurowski is not a reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
A very sensible summary, IMHO. Thanks, Nug. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
A knowledgable author (and in this case the acknowledged knowledge is quite limited) is a necessary, not a sufficient condition for reliability. As an example, David Irving is generally credited with a good knowledge of original sources - but he misrepresents these sources and synthesises positions that are widely regarded as ridiculously wrong. Kurowski is a mass market author who has written about 400 books under at least nine different pseudonyms. Many of his books have been been criticised as deeply flawed and misleading. He is not a reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
So what has Kurowski synthesised about Otto Kittel that is widely regarded as ridiculously wrong? --Nug (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Wrong question. What Kurowski wrote about Kittle might all be correct or it might all be wrong, or most likely there are some correct parts and some wrong parts. He is not reliable because there is serious doubt about the quality of his work in general. We cannot rely (als in "reliable") on the source to establish the truth of any particular claim. Reliability is not the default assumption, in particularly not for biased sources published by fringe publishers. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Right question. As stated above "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." Note that Smelser and Davis in The myth of the Eastern Front do not question the quality of his work in general, in fact accurate knowledge of the details is a necessary pre-condition to be deemed a Guru, according to them. The only criticisms with respect to factual accuracy I've sene presented is related to Kurowski's 2001 book Bombs over Dresden and some other book about the successes (in sunken tonnage) of submarine commanders (2 out of 400 books), which Smelser and Davis don't mention. But that is unrelated to Otto Kittel. And I hardly think Osprey Publishing is a fringe publisher. --Nug (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

A quick note about a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (WWII content: Otto Kittel, other GA/FA articles) that you may be interested in.

Add: Smelser & Davies attribute to Kurowski "painfully accurate knowledge" about "medals, uniforms, and vehicles"; they do not extend it to personalities or operational history. They suggest the opposite. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Chesterfield F.C.

There is currently a ongoing dispute at Chesterfield F.C. regarding the year in which the club was founded. An anonymous editor is using three articles published by the club[45][46][47] to backup their assertion that we use 1866 as the date of their foundation (diff). I am contending that the club cannot be considered a reliable source in this matter for two reasons. Firstly, the 1866 date means that it is their 150th anniversary this year which they are using to garner publicity and revenue (two of the articles are specificity for this purpose). Thus they are biased in this regard. Additionally, they have shown themselves to be inconsistent on which date they support. There was in-depth article about the club's foundation which was held on the club website until about 2012 that stated that the club was founded in 1919. There is also another article published on the site in January this year that uses the 1919 date.[48] Only recently have they switched to using the 1866 date. Eckerslike (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The dates given in these articles are not necessarily contradictory. Many organisations go through name changes, mergers, reorganisations etc and, cetainly where several different organisations have united, it is perfectly reasonable to accept the formation of the oldest as the earliest history of the later entity. Note also, that one of the articles cited above refers to 1920, but this is only in the context of the club being incorporated as a limited company, a purely legal undertaking, and makes clear that the club existed before then. 1919 seems to be when the current name (Chesterfield FC) was adopted, for a club that already existed as Chesterfield Muncipal FC. It does not say the club was founded in 1919, or 1920. Emeraude (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
There is possibly some useful recent information here. Thincat (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
That is already a source for the article. The convoluted history of the club (or clubs) is already covered. The problem is just with the 1866 date of formation. As illustrated by the article given by Thincat it has highly dubious origins. All third party sources (and the club themselves until recently) use dates ranging from 1867 to 1919. An editor is insisting that we use the 1866 as the date of formation because the club is celebrating its 150 anniversary this year. I feel that they cannot be considered a reliable source due to them promoting the date for promotional/economic reasons. Eckerslike (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Reliable Source for this Article?

1. Source Phoenix New Media Limited Article on Sabrina Ho [49]

2. Article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sabrina_Ho

3. Query Can I use this news source as a reliable source to demonstrate notability of the subject?

Justification: 1. Phoenix News Media Limited is a mainstream Chinese media company with financials: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/phoenix-media-reports-fourth-quarter-220000273.html 2. The article discusses the topic directly and in detail

As far as I can tell, yes that source would contribute toward demonstrating notability, but insufficient without additional sources.- MrX 02:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Musicbrainz Blog

Is the MusicBrainz blog a suitable source [50] for this accusation of corporate forgery? VQuakr (talk) 07:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, as it is the Metabrainz Foundation speaking for itself. The post in question contains the text of the accusation itself, from the organization making it and the document in question. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I read it, including their invitation for readers to go copy what they wrote to the Wikipedia page where you copied what they wrote. Our article on them doesn't give me the impression that their blog is a publication with a reputation for fact checking or investigative journalism. Why do we care what they have to say about birth certificate authenticity? VQuakr (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
There is no call for readers to add this to the Wikipedia page in the article, instead it is a suggestion to cite the article and the Wikipedia page in one's own defense against Web Sheriff. As to journalistic, I'm not asserting that this is journalism (3rd party investing and reporting on a matter), but merely a statement of facts (as they see them) on a subject they (MetaBrainz/MusicBrainz) are involved with. I don't see why we wouldn't cite original source of a statement. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Youssef Bey Karam Information Source

Is www.youssefbeykaram.org a reliable source for having and extracting information about Lebanese Hero Youssef Bey Karam?

This site is dedicated for Youssef Bey Karam Foundation, non-profit organization.

The site contains large information about Youssef Bey Karam, his life, his battles, his toughts. It has two versions (Arabic & English).

Yes, as far as I can tell. Additional corroborating sources would also help.- MrX 02:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Paragraph removed for failed verification

GMO conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The following paragraph was removed from this article:

Vandana Shiva, an anti-agribusiness activist, is in particular known for identifying Monsanto as the major source of the conspiracy,[1] while Bill Maher was criticized by science blogger Kyle Hill on the Scientific American website for promulgating Argumentum Ad Monsantum. According to Hill, "[m]aking the leap from Monsanto’s business practices—whatever you may think of them—to the “dangers” of GM foods is a mistake in logical reasoning. It is akin to saying landscape paintings are potentially evil because the painter was a serial killer."[2]

I would like to see some people who are independent of the ongoing controversies over GMO articles offer their evaluation of the paragraph. Are the sources adequate for what the text says? Is there a rewording that may be better?

jps (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


First - "marklynas.org" is a SPS of Mark Lynas. As such it is usable for non-contentious claims about himself, but clearly that exception does not work here.
Second is the Scientific American blog - Kyle Hill is listed there as a "blogger" and the blog represents his opinions only usable as opinion. Alas, I find no basis for asserting that he is a recognized expert in the field, only that he has blogged on many topics, including about Sherlock Holmes. His expertise per his c.v. appears to not cover GMO issues at all.
So, alas, I fear neither source is usable for much more than "Mark Lynas on his own website said ..." but as the claim is not directly related to Lynas, that fails. And "Kyle Hill, a blogger, says ..." which is also not exactly in the "recognized person in the field" territory." Sorry. Collect (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay. What do you think a good summary from the Lynas source would be as it relates to the subject of the article? I think we may simply have to remove the Hill source in spite of it being the first place where Argumentum ad Monstanium was coined (and it is a useful summary of closely related issues per the subsection indicated). jps (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
AFAICT, nothing from the Mark Lynas SPS is good for any claims on the topic at hand (GMO), though some claims about Lynas himself might be sourced to it. Collect (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
As a science communicator, some of what he says is obviously reliable. We aren't yet at the point where Wikipedia has declared suspect everything that is simply "stated by thus-and-such" except for personal claims as inadmissible. I can understand when it is a statement about another person, I guess, but if you're, say, a science communicator talking about science communication, your opinion on science communication is something that Wikipedia can report on, I would argue. If not, then why include any opinions? Having an editor isn't magic pixie dust. jps (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Mark Lynas (29 April 2013). "Time to call out the anti-GMO conspiracy theory". marklynas.org. Retrieved 31 January 2016.
  2. ^ Hill, Kyle. "Argumentum Ad Monsantum: Bill Maher and The Lure of a Liberal Logical Fallacy". Scientific American Blog Network. Retrieved 2016-02-02.
I'm about as neutral on the subject of GMO as one could possibly be. The first source is unusable per WP:BLPSPS and the phrase "...is in particular known for..." can not be used. The Maher material is fine though.- MrX 02:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Interesting perspective. I decided not to include either source for the time being, but the Maher material, it was argued, was not about "conspiracy theories" per se but instead logical fallacies. A fair point, I suppose. jps (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Herding cats: Alt-right & sources mentioning white supremacy being challenged

Editing this article - and even its talk page, seems a bit like herding cats. The lead states that "The alt-right is a group of right-wing ideologies that are an alternative to mainstream conservatism" which seems more or less correct. The term itself is said to have been introduced in 2010 (in the lead, but further down earlier dates are mentioned) and is used for a heterogeneous political grouping that is seen as the main support, for instance of Trump. The lead also calls it a movement, which may be a bit strong. According to the lead it includes beliefs such as " neoreaction, monarchism, nativism, populism, racialism, identitarianism, white nationalism, and American secessionism" although the "Definition" section has a slightly different list, "neoreaction, eugenics, reactionism, racialism, white nationalism, traditionalism, identitarianism, and archeofuturism" - a couple of those being redirects.

There have been a number of sourcing issues and still are. The one that concerns me is about including "white supremacism" as part of the lead (and I guess definition). I'm on the side of including it. Sources for the term include [1] (one of the main sources used in the article) which describes it as " "white supremacy perfectly tailored for our times", Cathy Young[2] and [[Chris Hayes {journalist)]] who describes it as "essentially modern day white supremacy."

There was a source from the ADL[51] which was described as a blog by User:Maunus "ADL blog for example is not a reloiable source for what this "movement" is or isnt)." It says "Though not every person who identifies with the Alt Right is a white supremacist, most are and “white identity” is central to people in this milieu." I think we can use this source and would like specific comments on it.

Another source using the term is by Betsy Woodruff "a political reporter for the Daily Beast and formerly of Slate and National Review" in an article in The Daily Beast. Not only does she link white supremacism to the alt-right, she quotes an ADL spokesperson as saying "“It’s basically a term that white supremacists use who see themselves as part of a new movement,” she said. “They want to differentiate themselves from the conservative or mainstream right. They see the mainstream right as being opposed to white interests.”[52]

There's opposition on the talk page to including the term. User:Denarivs wrote "There aren't any sources yet that describe that, but a clear majority of sources do not describe the alt-right as white supremacy, which would be a very strange distinction to overlook. The Newsday source is of very marginal reliability–it's just an editorial and probably should be removed from the article." and ": the vast majority of sources do not describe the alt-right as white supremacist.... Based on this clear evidence from reliable sources across the ideological spectrum, I strongly oppose use of the descriptor "white supremacy" to describe the alt-right per WP:UNDUE. Reliable sources provide unambiguous evidence that the alt-right does not include white supremacy. If the phrase is included at all, it is best included in a quote in the article's body, as in the previous version of this article." and mentions " a fringe minority of marginally reliable sources with a clear idoelogical bias calling the alt-right white supremacist." (Note that one of the sources used to write for National Review", so they seem to spread across the political spectrum).

I obviously disagree. Not mentioning "white supremacy" doesn't mean we shouldn't mention it, and look at some of the ideologies mentioned in the lead and definition - it's not as though many sources mention them. WP:UNDUE may be OT for this board usually but perhaps not in this argument. I also thought that "According to Rosie Gray, "The alt right’s targets don’t include just liberals, blacks, Jews, women, Latinos, and Muslims, who are all classified a priori as objects of suspicion...The alt right’s real objective, if one can be identified, is to challenge and dismantle mainstream conservatism."[1]" was useful but it was removed as being WP:UNDUE also.

There's a general sourcing problem in that the academic world hasn't paid much attention to this yet, something that I'm guessing may change this year. We really need more eyes on this article, but I'm obviously looking for specific comments related to the use of the term "white supremacism". Doug Weller talk 11:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Since the term white supremacism has been associated with violence, hatred, and extremism, I vote we err on the side of caution and not use it without solid foundation -- none of which is yet available, as you note. As we remind each other constantly, WP has not undertaken the job of prognosticating events or being cutting edge. We can state what has been established, and wait for the establishment of the rest before stating it. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Go to White supremacy, Right-wing politics and Far-right politics and find some sources there. I know for a fact there are a number of reliable sources which identify white supremacy as an 'alternative' right-wing ideology. Hell, any good article about David Duke's endorsement of Trump is likely to contain a few passages to support the claim. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
All sources state that alt-right is a coalition. The "white supremacy" label can be applied to some groups within the coalition, but this does not justify the description for the coalition itself. By WP:RS, those primary sources (such as David Duke) can speak only for themselves, not for the coalition. Ref: basic set theory. E.g.: All cities in California are in the North America. But not all North American cities are in California. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The wording that Doug wants to keep states that the alt-right includes white supremacy, not that it is white supremacy. You've just acknowledged this same distinction, so I'm not sure what you're saying here. I must be reading you wrong, but to use your own analogy; you seem to be suggesting that because not all cities in North America are in California, that we shouldn't state that there are cities in California. I'm pretty sure this isn't what you meant, so could you please clarify? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
You mean this sentence? The one that concerns me is about including "white supremacism" as part of the lead (and I guess definition). I respectfully disagree with your analysis. Doug Weller says he wants to include the term as part of the definition of the group, not just a mention of "white supremacy" as one of the included factions. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Grammar'sLittleHelper's on this, and his arguments above. White supremacy is being used as a label for white nationalism which has already been included as an ideology in the alt-right article. It is redundant to also include white supremacy, and if so, firstly as a solution that means you'd have to identify white nationalism in the article as also being otherwise known as white supremacy, or secondly including white nationalism or white supremacy exclusively and removing one or the other, to avoid confusion. Yet, the first solution would be messy and confusing, and the second solution would still be confusing. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
@Sfarney: The group is defined as a collection of ideologies. One of those ideologies is white supremacy. You're saying that we should exclude white supremacy from that collection in the definition, but that would only make the definition incorrect. I understand that this is a charged and volatile term, but WP isn't censored. We don't misrepresent facts to avoid controversy. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
@Connor Machiavelli: White supremacy is different from (and a subset of) white nationalism. If some white supremacists are also alt-right (and enough of them to be worth mentioning, as has been established), then it makes sense that we should include the subgroups. By taking your argument to the logical extreme, one could argue that every group should be defined as a group of humans, since "humans" necessarily covers any subgroup. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
White supremacy is not an ideology contained in the alt-right, white nationalism is, of which white supremacy is frequently used as a label for, and of which white supremacy is considered a subset of. White supremacist is being used as a label for white nationalists, even white nationalists that consider themselves in the alt-right movement. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The sources disagree with you, and the sources always win. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The sources disagree with each other on whether or not white supremacy is an ideology within white nationalism, such as within the alt-right, with their white nationalism. It's pretty redundant to include white supremacy as an ideology in the alt-right article when white nationalism is already included. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

That has no bearing on this discussion. Whether white supremacy is a subset of, or a different movement than white nationalism does not address the issue of whether or not reliable sources indicate that white supremacy is a part of the alt-right movement. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The statement that "X includes Y beliefs" (as the topic does now) is very different from "X includes Y believers." (E.g.: While Catholicism does not include belief in ghosts, some Catholics believe in ghosts.) We have RSs that say the latter about alt-right and white supremacism. We do not have solid RSs that mply that all those who identify themselves as alt-right are white supremacists, certainly not enough to surmount the BLP bar. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
@Sfarney: That has got to be one of the most self-serving twists of logic I've seen in a while. Please explain to me how one goes about separating the ideology from the ideologue. By your logic, I could claim that the moon is a hotbed of communism. After all, there's a huge difference between "the moon has no communism" and "the moon has no communists." MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Quite politely -- and we are always polite to each other, of course -- When many people get together in a group, the people are of different beliefs and persuasions. The group itself has a defined set of beliefs and persuasions. If the group has an official belief or ideology, you can assign it to all the members. But the mere presence of one person with Zionist or Nazi or Republican or Democrat attitudes cannot be used to define the group. Thus, on the strength of the presence of one skin-headed, Nazi, etc. etc. member or supporter of the alt-right, if we cannot state that "the alt-right includes skin-head Nazi beliefs." We would be wrong. The purpose and effect of doing so would be to pretend that everyone involved endorses those beliefs. We could only say it includes those believers. And yes, there have been Communists on or near the Moon, but the Moon itself has never endorsed communism -- at least not on the record, and not recently. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we are always polite, and let me assure you that anything I say about your arguments does not, in my mind, extend to you personally. I found your argument self-serving in that it only supports your case if applied very specifically, and it fails if applied differently, or elsewhere. If I found you personally to be lacking of positive attributes, I simply wouldn't engage with you. That being said, as I've stated more than once now, I'm not opposed to wording that states that white supremacy is included in the long list of beliefs that comprise alt-right ideology. I'm not even opposed to a disclaimer that not all alt-right people hold all of those beliefs. But, in looking at the sources, I feel that it is well established that some white supremacists are alt-right, and some alt-right people are white supremacists, and this needs to be stated in the article. I don't want the article to paint the alt-right as white supremacy with a broad brush, but I don't want white supremacy excised in the interest of whitewashing the movement, either. Also, your deconstruction of my moon analogy ignores that I stated it (intentionally) in the present sense. My point was that it would be nonsensical for the article to state something like "while white supremacy is not a part of the alt-right movement, some white supremacists are part of it." The distinction between the ideologues and their ideology is meaningless with respect to classification of a group such as this. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Sources do not always win, as tempered by our WP:NPOV when there are contentious statements. As I see others arguing, while some sources might present white supremacy as a fact of being a defining trait of alt-right, others do not, and as such, should be treated as a claim per NPOV, and certainly would make sense to avoid stating in the lede if that contentious. --MASEM (t) 23:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
@Masem: The sources do always win, unless you can show me where in WP policy it is ever even suggested that OR (as I was responding to) can be substituted for sourced content. NPOV concerns are addressed by finding other sources, not by inserting our own assertions. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Second point of WP:YESPOV. We don't present contentious statements asserted by a source as fact but as opinion. That's not OR in any means, but editorial discretion and that we strive for neutrality. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
But that's not actually what it says. It says "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts". Is it seriously contested that the alt-right includes some or a lot of white supremacists? Doug Weller talk 14:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Membership verses characterization is the important distinction here. Membership's less a touchy point but potentially can be a POV-synthesis as well; just because one or persons of group X are part of group Y does not necessarily mean that Y includes X, just that some X are Y. Characterization has to be explicitly sources; just because X is part of Y definitely does not mean Y is characterized by X. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
@Masem: Do editors get to decide on their own, without recourse to RS's what constitutes a contentious statement? No, we need either reliable sources to state that some claim is contentious, or else we need sources explicitly disagreeing with each other. If it were up to editors to decide what is contentious, then any fundamentalist editor would be within his or her rights to edit all evolution related articles to attribute every statement within to the author of the source. In this case, I've yet to see a single source which states that there are no white supremacists in the alt-right movement. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
No, this is still based on consensus discussion which should evaluate the sources and the situation to decide what is contentious. Also, you can't prove a negative (that no X exist in Y) so expecting that type of source to exist is nonsense. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
@Masem: I'm not sure how to respond to this, because your assertion that no reliable source has ever made a negative claim is beyond ridiculous. There absolutely could be alt-right sources writing about white supremacists which state "These groups are not a part of my movement, but rather a..." The fact that there are none presented here doesn't in any way demonstrate that there could not be. Here's an example of an article which flatly states that Libertarians are not certain things: What a Libertarian Is and Is Not. As I said before, all we need to establish that this claim is contentious (and not simply offensive to those with a bias towards the alt-right) is a few RSs stating that white supremacists aren't true alt-right, or that white supremacists are attempting to hijack the alt-right from outside, or even that most alt-right individuals disagree with the views of white supremacists. I'm not asking for a source that says "there are absolutely no white supremacists in the alt-right." MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Just because there is no obvious source for someone from the alt-right stating that "white supremacy is not part of our character" does not make the inverse (that white supremacy is part of the alt-right's character) true. As others have pointed out, because of how new the "alt-right" is, it hasn't the type of academic analysis that something like libertarian has that would provide the necessary broad coverage we'd like to see. Instead, as we are hodge-podging what this is from a wide variety of news sources (which is itself not a problem), we have to recognize that because there's no clear, established definition, not every source is necessary reliable here, particularly with a political topic that clearly is being covered with a lot more opinion pieces than factual. So we have to balance NPOV with NOR/RS. Also keep in mind that "white supremacist" is a WP:LABEL and potentially a BLP if not self-stated by individuals. As I pointed out above, I don't think there's any contest to say that some self-identified white supremists fall with the alt-right, but this is not clearly shown (but instead opined) that the alt-right, by default, includes all white supremists and definitely not shown that the alt-right is characterized, in part, by white supremacy. Cited opinions that the alt-right leans towards white supremacy with the sources given above is acceptable, but we absolutely can't state that as fact. (That is, this is a WP:SYNTH issue to make that leap of logic as a fact). --MASEM (t) 16:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you think we can state as a fact about the bundle of beliefs that are - not sure what word to use, "found"? in the alt-right. Or what sort of wording you'd like. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, since I think it would be crazy to suggest that all the ideologies held by people in the alt-right are held by everyone in the alt-right, there's no BLP issue here. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Except at the history I see at alt-right, that's exactly what's been happening: white supremacy is being used to define how the alt-right is characterized, rather than simply saying "There are some white supremacists in the alt-right" which is what it seems the sources can only support. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
@Masem: Now we're getting somewhere. As I said below, I don't have a problem with the article saying "the alt-right includes some white supremacists" as opposed to saying that "the alt-right is white supremacist." In truth, I think the former is far better. One point however: I don't think that there's really much leg to stand on with claiming that it's merely an opinion that the alt-right contains some white supremacists. I think it's a well established fact that some white supremacists have self-identified as alt-right, and the sources back this up. Again, if it were mere opinion, we'd expect to see sources disagreeing with it, something which is notably absent. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
There's a careful bit here, in that the language "white supremacist" is a contentious label and would require self-identification: Let's say that a random notable person Joe Smith is considered without a doubt part of the alt-right (which I don't think is very contentious for this discussion), and others have called him a white supremacist because of his actions, but Smith himself has never stated (either way) that he is or isn't a white supremacist. If we are basing our statement "The alt-right contains some white supremacists" on the sources that want to classify Smith as a white supremacist, that's a problem; it might be true but its a absolute BLP violation until Smith says something otherwise. On the other hand, if Smith has self-identified that he is a white supremacist, then that above statement is fine. (This is obviously simplified, as I would expect there's a good # of people to consider as part of the "some" language, but the point still stands). And again, absence of sources that disagree with a point does not mean there's no disagreement to discuss. We use judgement and consensus to determine if a claim that is otherwise not contested by sources can still be called contentious for our purpose of being neutral, which is what things like BLP and LABEL are built on. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
@Masem: I've seen a number of news articles about self-identified white supremacists supporting alt-right causes. I understand what you're saying here, but I'm not seeing that situation. What I am seeing is a number of reliable sources stating "the alt-right includes (or is) white supremacy," other reliable sources stating "these particular self-identified white supremacists have endorsed alt-right ideology or candidates, and refer to themselves as alt-right," and no reliable sources disagreeing with either claim. I understand that using the second group of sources to support claims that the alt-right includes white supremacists is edging dangerously close to WP:SYNTH but, like I said at the talk page, I don't think using them to inform our judgement of the first group of sources is questionable. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
If you do have those sources, and those are RS (in other words, we know that those people identified are being quoted/paraphrased accurately), then I think you're okay to say "the alt-right includes some white supremacists". That doesn't seem like a controversial fact. But the issue of the first set of sources, that characterizes the alt-right as being white supremacy, seems very contentious. Take the Buzzfeed article by Gray; this NYTimes shows she was hit with a lot of negative feedback and complaints about it. It doesn't outright say the negative, but given how contentious "white supremacy" is to start, we as a neutral source should toe the line and avoid calling alt-right as that. We can include Gray's opinion that the alt-right is about white supremacy, cited to her, but simply avoid it as fact and instead treat it as a claim. --MASEM (t) 18:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Amen, particularly in light of BLP concerns. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Also, it's previously been debated on the alt-right Talk page on whether or not alt-right has white supremacy as an ideology, and about that being WP:POV that it does. White nationalism has always been presented as being part of the alt-right, but white supremacy has not always been presented as such, and when white supremacy is, it appears to be conflated with white nationalism. That's what I mean. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Answering the comment: reliable sources indicate -- the sources are not "reliable" on this point -- those cited are opinion pieces and commentary, not scholarly studies or news reports of fact. Political commentators sometimes (at least in the US) write things they know are not literally and factually true. They sometimes write color rather than substance. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, political commentators, such as in the USA, would especially misrepresent a politically controversial movement such as the alt-right, for political reasons. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Gray, Rosie (2015-07-07). "How 2015 Fueled The Rise Of The Freewheeling, White Nationalist Alt Right Movement - BuzzFeed News". Buzzfeed. Retrieved 2016-02-05.
  2. ^ Cathy Young (2016-01-25). "Donald Trump's rant against political correctness is comfort food to racists". Newsday. Retrieved 2016-02-05.
Right on -- opinion pieces, not factual analysis. Part of America's name-calling sandbox politics. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Sfareny I wrote "mentioned in the lead and definition." "Definition" is probably a bad name for the section, but it is a section and includes a number of other ideologies included in the movement, and all I meant is that it should be included in the ideologies in both lead and the section called "definition. Both sections should say the alt-right includes white supremacists, ie add it as one of the included factions, are you arguing against this? I am NOT saying everyone in the alt-right is a white supremacist (see my comments on the talk page trying to explain to Connor about the way the terms relate) I've already lamented about the lack of scholarly studies. I'll reply to more of the above later, I've just got up and am out to the gym shortly. I don't normally use bold, but as bold is being used to (inadvertently) make it appear I'm saying something I'm not saying, I've used it. Doug Weller talk 06:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Connor Machiavelli believes that "the sources disagree with each other on whether or not white supremacy is an ideology within white nationalism". I'm not sure if that's true, but it's irrelevant to this discussion where we are discussing what the sources that discuss the alt-right say about the ideologies are beliefs that are part of the alt-right. This is just part of the argument he is making that mentioning "white supremacism" is redundant, and that argument seems to say that all white nationalists are white supremacists, ie that there's no difference. If he doesn't believe that then there's no redundancy. And yes, Grammar'sLittleHelper, I'm happy with "x includes y believers". Doug Weller talk 08:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
And yes, Grammar'sLittleHelper, I'm happy with "x includes y believers". For the record, I would be quite happy with that, too. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh Doug Weller, apologies, but I meant alt-right's white nationalism, I forgot to mention the term alt-right before white nationalism in that sentence. I meant within the white nationalism that exists in the alt-right. The sources do disagree on that, but actually though my statement remains true even without my clarification, because they say white nationalism is another term for white supremacism, as if white nationalism is not an ideology that contains the subset white supremacism, but rather is the exact same thing as white supremacism, not another ideology that is a subset. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

What? Sorry Connor, but I'm struggling with what you are saying. Let's start with some links to the sources that say white nationalism is another term for white supremacism. I know some say that there are white supremacists who call themselves white nationalists, but I assume you mean something else. Doug Weller talk 22:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

And the ADL

No one has responded to my question about the ADL source yet. Any comments? Doug Weller talk 14:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I checked it out. It seems to use blogging software (or at least to be laid out more like a blog than a press release or news article), but doesn't attribute a specific author, doesn't permit comments or discussion (one of the biggest characteristics of blogs) and ends with the disclaimer not that the views expressed above are not necessarily those of the ADL, but that the ADL doesn't endorse candidates. That, my friend, is an official statement from the ADL, not a blog. I say that it's as reliable as anything they say. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I didn't see a problem about using it so long as it's attributed. Then of course there's the quote I mentioned. Doug Weller talk 16:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
This ADL article seems to equate the two terms without distinction, though we should note that ADL can be like a long-tailed cat for whom all chairs are rocking chairs. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Remember, your opinion of the ADL is not something we take into consideration when evaluating the reliability of it as a source. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I believe I have little direct interest in this topic, but simply knowing about what the ADL is and why they exist, and knowing what their broad stance is to aspects like white supremacy, they would not be considered a neutral source, so statements made by the ADL directly should be carefully weighed. This is not to say they are necessarily wrong in what they publish, but if they present a factual statement that cannot be corroborated by other sources and that's seemingly contentious, I would avoid using them, or at least make sure to treat it as opinion cited to the ADL. It would be like using material published by the Democratic party to source information on the Republican party. --MASEM (t) 22:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Definitely. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't disagree in principle, but I feel it's worth pointing out that WP:UNDUE exists for a reason, and that reason applies to the estimation of sources as well as the estimation of content. As we all know, different sources get different weight. I would contend unreservedly that the ADL is a far far more trustworthy source than any white nationalist. So it's not so much like using material published by the Democratic party for info on the Republican party as it is like using information published by the NCSE for info on the Discovery Institute. Honestly, this case is probably somewhere in the middle, but closer to the latter, in my view.
P.S. Also note that it wouldn't be impermissible to use DNC material to source info on the GOP, we just have to be careful about it. There are certainly cases where one party might happily publish true, damaging information about the other, and the other party not respond or acknowledge it at all. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
The Republicans and Democrats share podiums, neighborhoods, workplaces, and fraternal lodges, and the culture of debate is strong with this one. They sometimes get married (e.g., Mary Matalin and James Carville). But many opposed groups do not conduct a dialog of charges, counter-charges, and defenses, particularly when divided by profound hostility. Nationalist causes rarely share in cross-cultural debate, and often consider each other beneath notice. Black Muslims will not be answering KKK statements, nor vice versa. ADL rarely engages in debate in any depth, and white nationalists are the same. That much only do they share. In that climate, the accusations about each other become increasingly extreme and any relation to the truth is little more than accident. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, the ADL isn't perfect, but are we really saying that because it's opposed to white supremacy, it's not a trustworthy source for info on white supremacy? That's a ridiculous standard. Setting it up as a parallel to Black Muslims and the KKK is a false equivalence. The ADL is an organization that's specific mission is to expose and combat bigotry, not a competing fringe movement. Sources which advocate for a specific position (WP:BIASED if you want) can still be reliable, and extremist views don't need to be given equal time to be discussed. Again, they have their flaws, but dismissing them because their main purpose is to oppose bigoted and racist organizations is totally missing the point. Grayfell (talk) 05:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I want to be clear that my statement about the ADL was not that they should be dismissed in discussing the alt right, but that we should be more critical of what they publish, and if they publish a statement that seems controversial and there's no corroborating sources, we should avoid assuming the ADL is being factually correct and instead cite as opinion. --MASEM (t) 06:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Right. A mission to "oppose and combat" is not scholarship. As any lawyer will tell you, advocacy is not always consistent with the truth. We need scholars for sources, not lawyers and advocates. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Then remove all the sources as none of them are scholarly. This really isn't helpful as notability isn't dependent upon the use of scholarly sources. Doug Weller talk 13:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
@Sfarney: Three points: First, Masem is right. Just because the ADL is opposed to white supremacy doesn't automatically disqualify anything they say about it. It requires us to look a little closer, but as I said above, the ADL is the more trustworthy of those two groups by a long shot. Second, Tom Metzger, founder of the California Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and White American Political Association (later renamed the White Aryan Resistance, or WAR) did in fact speak at a black Muslim event hosted by the Nation of Islam, and even donated (a small amount of) money to the group.
Finally, Doug is also right. If we limit ourselves to scholarly sources, then we need to nominate this article for deletion, because there are no scholarly sources covering the subject. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
You don't have to limit yourself to scholarly sources, and can use newspapers and other sources, but simply keep a minds eye that this is the type of topic that will be written about with opinionated journalism by its very nature, so per NPOV, make sure to only state factually, in WP's voice, what is non-controversial, and when bringing in opinions or claims from others, make sure to state it is a claim and cite who made that claim. The ADL seem like a reasonable source to include opinions from on the alt right (as their take will be more critical of the alt right) but we just simply don't need to take every word they print on the alt right as 100% fact. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
We use a conservative student newspaper, The Cornell Review, 5 times, the conservative The Weekly Standard 6 times, the National Review twice, Occidental Quarterly once, Breitbart once, Taki's Magazine once, someone writing on the newconservative David Frum's forum, etc. Most of the sources are on the right. Some are attributed, some not. I've started to list some source problems on the talk page. Doug Weller talk 16:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

lubpak.com

I want to confirm if we can accept this as reliable source to support these changes. Thank You – GSS (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

From that link, the article cites: Source: Twitter and Facebook Written by: Tarek Fatah. I don't see how we can use it. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I reverted the edit again and asked the user (50.153.173.37) to cite a reliable source to support changes on his/her talk page. Thank You – GSS (talk) 09:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

bulk removal of WashTimes

Volunteer Marek has been bulk removing citations to Washington Times, in some cases leaving previously cited material without citation. There has been no talk page discussion on any of the relevant pages. None of the citations removed appear to be regarding anything that requires special scrutiny (one of the citations is for the circulation size of a small newspaper for example) I am unaware of any larger decision which universally dismisses WT. When I asked VM about his action he said "It's enough that it doesn't satisfy the criteria for WP:RS"

[53][54] [55] [56]

Is the WT so unreliable that it can be removed without discussion and leaves material with no citation? If so, presumably it should be blacklisted. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that "bulk removal", just four articles. But yes, in general Washington Times is not a reliable source, although of course it depends on context. It's a publication of the Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon. See also [57]. Basically, it's not a "newspaper" with a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy". It might also be useful to check the archives of this page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I do not think everything published by WashTimes should be automatically discarded, but these are good removals. For example, the source removed in the first diff above) leads here. That does not look good. Last diff is removal of link that does not lead to any specific publication; some statements are already supported by other sources (excessive citations), etc. My very best wishes (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Washington Times can be easily confused with Washington Post. The content from the former that I've seen has been "pulpy", non WP:RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. My very best wishes (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The The Washington Times should usually be avoided, as they tend to present news with an extreme bias, similar to World Net Daily. I've also removed citations to The Washington Times, especially on controversial subjects. If no other sources can be found to support some content, it almost certainly doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article.- MrX 02:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. The Washington times has rarely been caught in synthesis or exaggeration of the news in all its 30 years of history -- unlike some mainstay newspapers, such as The Washington Post. In my personal experience, I subscribed to both papers and read both daily for 20 years. I don't see any substantial support for discarding it as a source wholus bolus as you suggest here. Yes, it was initially started by the Moon group, but other newspapers were not started by Mother Teresa or Albert Einstein. The Washington Times is not run by the Moonies, and it provides a valuable balance for other papers and news sources, which being owned by a small group of international conglomerates, can tend to a corporate bias. The origin of The Washington Times could be compared to the origin of The Christian Science Monitor, the backbone of NPR news. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with My very best wishes; while it may be a situationally-usable source, there are probably better sources available for most things which could also be sourced to it, and if the only source for a certain piece of information is The Washington Times, it's probably best to consider whether that citation places undue weight on a minority viewpoint. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof's view here. The Washington Times should almost always be avoided. For most things, there are far better sources out there which should be used instead, and if the only available source for a particular statement or piece of information is The Washington Times, then its noteworthiness is in serious question. Neutralitytalk 07:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, the newspaper is now a full step below direct Unification Church operations - it is in the same "Operations Holdings" group as the New Yorker Hotel Management Company, etc. and a bunch of marine corporations and the like. In short - opinions cited and sourced as opinions from it are generally usable, and direct statements of fact from its "fact articles" are generally usable as statements of fact. Material related in any way to the goals or beliefs of the Unification Church are more problematic - and should likely be regards as "self-published" in that area. Collect (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

iHorror.com for movie reviews in filmmaker's article

Is this iHorror.com's movie review reliable enough to include when mentioning the films of Jack Thomas Smith in Smith's article? Nightscream (talk) 05:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment on medical diagnosis of TV character

There is a request for comment about whether a popular TV character should be diagnosed with a "psychosomatic" condition based on a source that is not reliable for medical diagnosis. See Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity#Request for comment. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Law firm publications

I added the following text to the article on Amway however it was removed with the claim none of the sources were reliable.

A similar class action case lodged in Canada was rejected by the court and confirmed on appeal, with costs awarded to Amway and the plaintiffs directed to arbitration. [1][2][3]

Searching through the archives there seems to be some debate about the use of law firm published articles as RS. Should the primary source (decision) be used instead? --Icerat (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "No class action this time: Federal Court of Appeal upholds arbitration agreement". Globe Business Media Group. April 9,2013. Retrieved March 12, 2016. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ "Federal Court of Appeal Holds that Competition Act Claims are Arbitrable". McCarthy Tétrault LLP. February 26,2013. Retrieved March 12, 2016. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ "Federal Court of Appeal confirms availability of contractual waiver of class actions in favour of arbitration absent contrary statutory language". Stikeman Elliott LLP. March 28,2013. Retrieved March 12, 2016. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |date= (help)
Did you even check the sources? The ILO article is published by a global media company. Check this earlier discussion on law articles.--Icerat (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I did check the sources. What is a "global media company" and why does that matter? It looks like they're content aggregators who rely on a self-described "panel of experts" with no strong indication of editorial oversight or discretion. Globe BMG also runs several other sites, mostly offering commercial services for corporations and law firms. Their about page is less than inspiring, also. Grayfell (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Since when are law websites meant to be "inspiring". They have well-known and respected expert partners [58], their third-party content is reviewed before publication and their articles are cited often in the legal literature [59]--Icerat (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
First of all, are we talking about Lexology, or about International Law Office? Lexology might be usable? I dunno. That's not what you cited, though. Also, being mentioning by Google Scholar isn't all that relevant. It's even less meaningful than an impact factor. Lots of far less reliable sources get far more google scholar hits. The list of partners looks like it's firms of lawyers who submit material. Where are you getting that ILO posts are reviewed? I'm not seeing any such indication, and without a clear explanation of what that review process entails, I'm not sure how much it matters. Grayfell (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
ILO is a subset of Lexology. Look under ILO "Join our panel of experts" and you'll see mention of quality assurance and an editorial team. The "list of partners" includes a range of international bar associations which represents orders of magnitudes more lawyers than just those who submit material. Their material is written by acknowledged experts, cited in academic articles (forget the number, look through them), and is subject to editorial review by other experts. --Icerat (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
You mean the subsection of the about page? It talks about "...enhancing your international profile and building your online brand" and says "Whether you are looking for a broader distribution for existing content or producing new material for publication, our dedicated and experienced in-house editorial team provides unparalleled support and guidance to unlock the full potential of every article and help you to get optimum benefit from this platform." That's not exactly what we mean by editorial oversight. "Post-publication, we deliver a full analytics report that allows you track exactly how well read each update was. These metrics are key in helping you to generate more relevant content for our audience and maximise the return on your investment." That doesn't seem like the kind of review process that makes a source reliable, that seems like marketing junk to try and recruit more contributors. Grayfell (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
RS lie on a continuum from "no bloody way" to "no disputing". These are verifiable articles written by indisputable, independent experts and published by reputable firms with at least some form of editorial oversight. Furthermore their veracity can also be verified with the primary source, since all that there being used for is a non-interpretative statement of facts. I would take their commentary on a court case over a beat reporter any day, wouldn't you? --Icerat (talk) 05:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
You say they are indisputable, but I am disputing both the expertise (as Wikipedia regards the concept) and the level of editorial oversight, so that's a leading question. If a beat reporter covered this, that would start to indicate that it's of general significance. If the case were covered by better sources, than I guess these blogs could be considered for clarifying some specific point, but I'm not sure of that, and the case is so esoteric, I can't imagine what that would be anyway. These are not professional scholarly journals, these are some working papers published as blogs. These fail to explain how the case reflects on the company, and the issue seems like extremely niche-interest coverage of arbitration agreements in Canada, rather than of Amway, the decades-old multinational corporation. Grayfell (talk) 06:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
How is the case "esoteric"? It's the same case as the one they settled in California that has quite a bit of coverage in the article, the difference being they decided to settle there and didn't in Canada. Given the vast majority of expert legal commentary exists in these types of sources, you're basically excluding an entire field of expertise. In any case we clearly differ on this point, I consider the authors as experts and there is an editorial board, that makes it RS. You consider them not experts and no oversight, so that would be not RS. Hopefully we can get some additional independent opinions.--Icerat (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I think you're only partially correct. CLE is a US term, while Canada seems to prefer CPD. Those requirements do not seem to require such stringent editorial oversight as you're suggesting. Past discussions, such as the one Icerat links above, seem to agree that this isn't at the same level as publications in peer reviewed journals, of which there are plenty. These links give no indication that they are strictly reviewed, although they may be, but these seem pretty clearly to be law blogs. The Canadianappeals.com link specifically says it's a blog, and brags about having won a "Clawbie", which is a Canadian law blog award. This also fails to address the significant due weight issues, as the California one ("the same case"?) was covered by general-audience news sources, because it was settled by Amway for millions of dollars, while this one was dismissed based on legal issues which require an expert opinion to even summarize. I think that counts as esoteric. Grayfell (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The CLE article actually addresses Canada too, however I'd note that from your journal list (a) many of the ones connected with universities are edited by students, sometimes without other editorial oversight - that would seem a lesser standard than those edited by qualified lawyers and (b)the list includes things like The_National_Law_Review which is a similar service to the one we're discussing. Finally, a search for Lexology on Wikipedia[60] reveals there are at least 90 articles using the type of source we are talking about, including many WP:BLP articles (which have strict sourcing requirements) and well-watched and much edited articles like Orrin Hatch, Strategic lawsuit against public participation, Health insurance in the United States, and Provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--Icerat (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
More