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

I'd argue Dancehallhiphop is not credible. It seems like a gossip site, with article titles such as "Are Jay Z & Beyonce Dropping A New Album? TIDAL 4:44 Ads Sparks Rumors", "K. Michelle Gets Roasts For Dissing Nicki Minaj and Meek Mill", and "Remy Ma Accused Of Stalking Nicki Minaj More Shots Fired". Two of the articles I'm monitoring, Slay-Z and "Chi Chi" are using this source as a reason to make massive changes to the article, which are otherwise rumored by other unreliable sources on the internet. Is this a reliable source? --Aleccat 02:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

From the site: "NB:All press releases and other contents (music video, music, bio, lyrics, etc) must be sent to our editor using the contact details above. All content are subjected to a strict review before publication. Press releases and other contents may in some cases be changed prior to publications. You must include full contact details including email address or phone number for any press release to be accepted by Dancehall HipHop." The site publishes gossip and press releases. It does not generate "real news content" as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

So is it an unreliable source? I'm kind of new to this determining credible sources. --Aleccat 15:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It could be reliable for reviews, but it is not reliable for gossip. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

1. Source #1. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/muchmore.jpg

1. Source #2. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z285.jpg

2. Article. Babushka lady

3. Content. The Babushka Lady was seen to be holding a camera by eyewitnesses and was also seen in film accounts of the assassination.

Are jpg images sufficient to back-up the statement that a person was seen to be holding a camera, or is this original analysis of what is depicted? Thanks! -Location (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

To state that based on a blurry photo would be original research. Are there RS sources available who state such? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source stating that those particular images show the "babushka lady", it is ok to link to the images (or even display them if the copyright rules are satisfied) and mention the way that the reliable source interprets them. However, it is not ok to write as if it is you who is interpreting the images. I.e., both the image and the interpretation of the image need to be cited to a reliable source. Zero^talk 11:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Is the following reliably sourced?

She graduated in 1990 from Caesar Rodney High School located in Camden, Delaware.^[1][2]

-- Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The reliability of the following medias, regarding the recent archeogenetic study of ancient Egypt has been questioned. The reason stated was that they represent popular medias which are unreliable for scientific content and in the case of Nature Communications publication, for being a primary source.

Sources

1.Science (magazine) *[1] 2.Newsweek *[2] 3.Jerusalem Post *[3] 4.Nature (journal)* [4] 5.The peer reviewed primary source, is Nature Communications [5] used for the opening sentence.

Article

Archaeogenetics of the Near East

Content

"In the 2017 study published by Nature and Communication, German scientist looked at DNA from 151 mummified Egyptians, which were entombed from about 1400 BCE. to just after 400 ACE in the Roman period. The samples were studied by Schuenemann, V. J. et al and recovered from Middle Egypt span around 1,300 years, showing a genetic continuity during this time. Researchers found that ancient Egyptians shared more ancestry with Near Easterners than present-day Egyptians, who received additional sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times.^[1]The genomes showed that, unlike modern Egyptians, ancient Egyptians had little to no genetic kinship with sub-Saharan populations, The closest genetic ties were to the peoples of ancient Near East, especially Levant, spanning parts of Turkey as well as Israel, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.^[2][3][4]Strikingly, the mummies were more closely related to ancient Europeans and Anatolians than to modern Egyptians.^[5]Johannes Krause, a geneticist at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History used next-generation sequencing methods to read stretches of DNA. Krause states that "something did alter the genomes of Egyptians." Although the mummies contain almost no DNA from sub-Saharan Africa, some 15% to 20% of modern Egyptians’ mitochondrial DNA reflects sub-Saharan ancestry. “It’s really unexpected that we see this very late shift,” Krause says. He suspects increased trade along the Nile—including the slave trade—or the spread of Islam in the Middle Ages may have intensified genetic admixture with sub-Saharan population. ^[6]

Talk page discussions: [[6] Tritomex (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

RS is RS, it does not have to be an expert, as we are reporting what they say, not it's accuracy. There may be an issue with Fringe or undue here, but these are RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

As I noted on the talk page, the popular media sources are not OK. The scientific sources are better, but they are primary and we should use secondary sources; to the extent that we use primary sources from the scientific literature the content should be minimal and hew very closely to the author's own conclusions, giving WEIGHT to what they gave WEIGHT to, etc. If we generate content from them at all. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Based on which Wikipedia policy you want to exclude reliable secondary sources? You said that the sources mentioned above are "a popular medias which are unreliable for scientific content." Both of this claims are incorrect, as Nature and Science mag are not popular medias, and popular medias are also WP:RS in this content. Tritomex (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Who said "exclude"? Wikipedia must be based on secondary sources. Scientific content is discussed in WP:SCIRS which says "Articles published in respected peer-reviewed scientific journals are preferred for up-to-date reliable information". Alexbrn (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Alexbrn thank you for taking part in this discussion. My question is: Are the 4 secondary sources named above and a per-reviewed primary source, also stated above, reliable/usable sources regarding the 2017 archeogenetic study of Ancient Egypt? Tritomex (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a typical example of the problems of synthesis that can arise even when using sources that would normally be acceptable or good. It is not that anything here is outside mainstream science, but just that it is very new science. That's why all you have is a single peer-reviewed article and some reports from the press. The solution is probably to reduce the article length. A single discovery should not dominate a whole topic. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Itsmejudith thank you for taking part in this discussion. You, (as others) are welcome on talk page to propose appropriate wording for this study. My question was: Are the sources named above reliable in this conentent?, as this have been questioned.Tritomex (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• As far as I can see (without examining the sources in depth), all of those sources are reliable for the claim presented. This isn't MEDRS; we don't need impeccable sources. If this claim is particularly contentious with editors, then limiting it to the Nature Communications should be sufficient, provided it can support the entire paragraph. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• While we do prefer scholarly, peer reviewed sources, if available, Both Science and Nature magazines are well respected and reliable, and help to show the topic is notable. I see nothing wrong with using them. Blueboar (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

This isn't typical science where multiple studies are required to support a theory. Unless it is discredited, a study of the DNA of 151 mummies over 1,000 years should establish what genetic groups they belonged to. The problem I see though is that we need a secondary source that connects the findings to the topic. Were these mummies royalty or slaves for example. We know that on at least two ocassions, the Hyksos and the Ptolemys, Egypt had pharaohs from outside the country. We need a source that explains how representative of the country this sample was. TFD (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Folks, this is directly related to the Arbcom case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ancient Egyptian race controversy which has discretionary sanctions. We need to use very high quality sourcing on this topic, not primary sources that people choose to pick this detail or that from, and popular media. Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The 2007 arbitration request discretionary sanctions were given for disruptive editorial behavior, not for editing a topic that is supposed to be a "taboo." You again questioned the reliability of per-revived Nature Communications article or scientific journals like Nature (journal) and Science (magazine), a claim that obviously do not stand. I am not sure if you wanted to say that I cherry picked some claims from Nature Communications [7] if yes please explain which and how?.Tritomex (talk) 05:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:ADVOCACY was a problem then, and may be now. As pretty much everybody has said the issue here is not so much reliability but neutrality. In particular I think WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:FRINGE apply. The Nature Communications piece is a primary source. Suggest a close and maybe raise at WP:FT/N if consensus is not found. Alexbrn (talk) 06:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Triomex, please read WP:RAISE and the rest of the very helpful essay of which that section is a part. Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• For the record: My endorsement of the sources shouldn't be read as an endorsement of any side of a debate, even one which advocates for the statements made. Nor is it to suggest that there aren't higher quality sources disagreeing with these (I honestly don't know). But even with Arbcom remedies in place, these sources are sufficient for any non-controversial claims about science. TFD also raises a good point: If the sources don't directly support the blanket statements made about ancient Egyptians in the text, then that is definitely SYNTH and needs to go the way of the dodo. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

This study does not fall to WP:EXCEPTIONAL or WP:FRINGIE, as there are no studies known to me that came to opposite conclusions. Also to declare a per-reviewed scientific study covered by numerous secondary sources, as fringe, you need at last some reliable sources supporting such claims. Otherwise it is WP:OR. However, I encourage anyone who sees this per-reviewed study as fringe to go to WP:FT/N

If I am not wrong, Jytdog wants to exclude any mentioning of this study. Finally, if you see this article as controversial, show us reliable secondary sources that supports your position. Otherwise, WP:CONTROVERSY, does not apply here. Tritomex (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

If you're claiming that a claim needs to be countered in RS to be exceptional (think of the many primary sources which claim herb x cures cancer), then you're way adrift of the WP:PAGs and common sense. WP:EXCEPTIONAL is plain: any claim "that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people" benefits from multiple high-quality sources. In this case they may well come along in time; what's the hurry? Alexbrn (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the above. A claim need not be controversial to be exceptional, and all exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.

However in this case, there would need to be a controversy of sorts, it seems to me. The claim is that ancient Egyptians had less sub-Saharan African ancestry than modern Egyptians is a claim which -knowing nothing about the subject- were I asked whether it was likely or not, I would likely support as perfectly logical and expected. Of course Egyptians started from Near-Eastern populations, one can see that by their physical characteristics. And of course, over several thousand years, they would have interbred with other neighboring populations, that's just what people do. So for this to be an exceptional claim, it would have to be in contradiction to established views (but only established scientific views: a folk mythology in which the Egyptian people maintain a "pure" genetic legacy is not worth considering in comparison to even a small genetic study). Of course, if there is an established scientific view that the Egyptian people are not more closely related to Sub-Saharan Africans today, then this would require better sourcing than has been provided. A single study, no matter how widely reported, is not sufficient to overturn a scientific consensus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Tell me all about it. I absolutely agree with you. I am sure if you check the sources, you will come to conclusion that the sources fully and directly are supporting the text proposed. I challenged Jytdog to point out any eventual bias in covering this secondary sources.Tritomex (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment A single study in Nature Communications, reported on by the respective magazines of Nature and Science, is not automatically excluded; indeed, the conditions for its inclusion are set up by the secondary sources. Follow them narrowly and conservatively (i.e. don't imply that this single study is remotely dispositive, or fail to mention the concerns of the quoted Harvard med prof in the Science article, etc.), and carefully attribute claims so that they're neither written in Wikipedia's voice, nor as coathooks on which to hang names for purposes ulterior to the concerns expressed here (i.e. do not abusively write things like 'genetic evidence reported in Nature and Science supporting the hypothesis that X' just because you're surrounded by true but inappropriate possible sentences). Advocata (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• as this was unfolding i've negotiated tolerable content based on the 2017 Nature Comm at another talk page; it is being implemented here for example. Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, but I do not understand what could be intolerable if we fully and neutrally cover reliable sources? You questioned the reliability of the secondary sources end the Nature Communication per-reviewed article as unusable (as it represent primary source). The problem with your wording (sourced with Nature and Communication) is that it does not cover appropriately the conclusions of this study. Namely, it does not cover the Sub-Saharan admixture of Modern day Egyptians, its proposed reasons and the population genetic distance between the population groups that were studied, (which were clearly the points of the entire study) This is mentioned partially in only one sentence of your text. In addition, the claim that "Modern Egyptians generally shared the maternal haplogroup pattern of the mummies" could not be verified by this sources.

Therefore, your proposal may be easily challenged now or in the future. Based on this discussion, concerns and proposals, I will add my new proposal to the article, which will be off course open for future improvement and adjustment. I ask everyone here to take part in that process, both on talk page and in the wording as well. I also included parts of Jytdog proposal in my text, especially questions regarding the representatives of this site in relation to entire Egypt. I gave more explanation on the talk page. Tritomex (talk) 10:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

"Tolerable" has to do with dealing the problems fundamental to using primary scientific sources in Wikipedia. I have already given you the example of the create-stem-cells-by-shaking-normal-cells fiasco, and if you actually look at that instance (and similar instances of high profile papers that were later retracted) you will see that there is always science news reporting around them, when they first come out.

The mission here is to provide the public with accepted knowledge - this is not a newspaper. There is no harm, at all, to waiting for actual secondary sources - reviews published in the scientific literature that discuss the work -- so we can see how the field actually has received the work (not how various people reacted to in near real time).

But sometimes too many people are very enthusiastic to get something into Wikipedia right now after the "hot" primary source is published, and in those cases, we do our best to work with them to get something tolerable - avoiding too much detail, and transmitting just the high level points, based on what the paper itself says was important, and attributing extensively. What you are calling "secondary sources" here are really worthless with regard to the mission. Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• Trump resistance

Concerns about sourcing at this article which appears to have been created as a WP:BLP attack page.

Are sources Breitbart News, NewsBusters, The Daily Caller, Infowars.com, Twitter, and the New York Post acceptable as reliable sources for controversial claims about WP:BLPs ?

Sagecandor (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

mostly no, but you assembled rather different sources above for which you cannot give a common assessment. In particular Twitter is rather different from the rest of the list and there is already a discussion for it further up.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, well, maybe have a look see at the article and take a look at these such sources. Sagecandor (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

What article? You didn't any!--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up and removed all the WP:SYNTH. Sagecandor (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

i would say no the sources in question are about as accurate as BuzzFeed--Jonnymoon96 (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Despite its reputation for factual inaccuracy (and promotion of conspiracy theories), Globalresearch.ca is cited in more than 200 Wikipedia articles. This includes several citations in articles about historical topics such as the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Is it necessary to replace these citations, or should they be left as-is? Jarble (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

They should virtually all be replaced. Neutrality^talk 03:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that Nyheter Idag is used as a source on articles such as Benjamin R. Teitelbaum, 2017 Uppsala rape Facebook live streaming incident and We Are Sthlm sexual assaults. Considering it's a far right[8], xenophobic[9] website I wonder if that is really OK? // Liftarn (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, I was bold and removed them. // Liftarn (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Links

• WP:RSN archive on baccarat

• Talk:Baccarat_(card_game)#What_does_the_word_.22Baccarat.22_actually_mean.3F

Sources

• The Academy, volume 41 pp.207-208 (1892)[10]
• Dictionnaire de la conversation et de la lecture, p. 336 (1853-60) [11]

Article

Baccarat (card game)

Content

Originally named Baccara, the game was introduced into France from Italy at the end of the 15th-century by soldiers returning from the Franco-Italian War during the reign of Charles VIII.^[1][2] Similar games include Macao, Oicho-Kabu, and Gabo japgi.^[3][4][5]

References

1. ^ "The Academy, Volume 41 page 207". Google Books. 1892. Retrieved 23 March 2017.
2. ^ Dictionnaire de la conversation et de la lecture page 336. Retrieved 23 March 2017. ((cite book)): |website= ignored (help)
3. ^ Parlett, David. Related Face Count Games. Retrieved 22 October 2015.
4. ^ von Leyden, Rudolf (1978). "The Naksha Game of Bishnupur and its implications". The Playing-Card. 6 (3): 79.
5. ^ Depaulis, Thierry (2010). "Dawson's Game: Blackjack and Klondike". The Playing-Card. 38 (4): 238.

Modern card game historians like David Parlett and fr:Thierry Depaulis place the invention of baccara(t) in the 19th century as opposed to the Renaissance due to the lack of primary sources before the 19th century as they reported in the sources for the second sentence. They claim Macao as the most likely ancestor to baccarat which is well attested in the late 18th and 19th centuries. In the first source, The Academy (periodical) seems to argue for a Sicilian origin by looking for similar words appearing in dictionaries but these dictionaries make no mention of a card game as far as I can see from the small snippets in Google Books. The second source, the Dictionnaire de la conversation et de la lecture 2nd edition, is a tertiary source that does not provide any sources. I consider modern research (WP:AGE MATTERS) to be more reliable than these two earlier sources.--Countakeshi (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The only comment I can find from Thierry Depaulis is: Ses origines ne paraissent guère remonter au-delà du xixe siècle.. Which is to say the origins hardly seem to go back beyond the nineteenth century. That’s not very definitive [12]. I can’t find anything by David Parlett other than criticisms of other historians on the subject. Theodore Whiting states: Circumstantial evidence seems to point to Italy as the likely source for Baccarat, where it may have appeared during the late 13th and early 14th centuries. [13]. That agrees with the current article sources. Objective3000 (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, I don’t think you got WP:RS AGE right. First, it says newer sources are often better because they may be based on newer info. But, there is no newer info. Secondly, it goes on to say that older sources are often better for historical events, like this. Objective3000 (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Let's stick to discussing here. Depaulis calls Baccarat a typical 19th-century game whose forerunner is Macao in his article in The Playing-Card. Parlett finds the absence of primary sources prior to the 19th century as well as the existence of Macao in the late 18th and early 19th century evidence that Baccara likely originates from the older game in his The Oxford Guide to Card Games. Whiting also states "The first mention of Baccara was made by Charles Van-Tenac’s in his book called Album des jeux published in 1847, Album has a thirteen page mathematical analysis of Baccara, the first known in print. I have been unable to locate a document published by a first person observer prior to the 1847 that mentions Baccarat" and "Macao, is often referred to as Italian Baccarat, is a game played to the total of nine and seems to have a longer documented history than Baccarat. It is possible that Baccarat was derived from Macao." This accords with what Parlett has stated. Whiting isn't the most reliable source anyways. The scholars at the IPCS have categorically debunked every known claim of playing cards existing in Europe prior to the 1370s (see Michael Dummett's The Game of Tarot or Franco Pratesi's articles titled Carte da gioco in Europa prima del 1377 ? at [14] in which he revisits all known claims only to debunk them again).--Countakeshi (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Let's stick to discussing here. Coulda sworn I was discussing.:) I’m afraid I don’t see how IPCS would be considered an overriding source. I’m unable to find your other sources. The fact that some sources were unable to find earlier references would appear to show that they may be lacking. I think that we should not ignore a 19th century dictionary created by Firmin Didot, who is an historical figure himself and closer to the time period involved. Now, having said that, I have no problem in adding language that makes the claim less certain. Most of history is questionable. Objective3000 (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hah, I’ll give you one point. Just looked through my e-mail history and realized I’ve had contact in the past with Ted Whiting and withdraw that source. Nothing wrong with him and a good ref on many things gambling related; just wouldn't use him as an independent scholar of history. But, I stick to the Didot ref. Pretty sure I haven’t met anyone in the 18th/19th century. Objective3000 (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The Playing-Card is a paid-subscription periodical. Parlett, Depaulis, et al. came to this conclusion because game writers like Girolamo Cardano, Francis Willughby, Charles Cotton, and the various Hoyles don't mention the game. The various and popular La Maison des Jeux Académiques series, which ran for many editions in the 17th and 18th centuries are likewise silent. There is legislation against Macao in 1788 in Sardinia but no mention of the extremely similar Baccarat. The only difference between Macao and Baccarat is that only card is initially dealt to each player for Macao. The idea that these two near identical games could have coexisted but one being well attested and the other surviving for centuries in obscurity is untenable. Didot wasn't involved with the edition you are using as a source. He died in 1836 while the edition you are citing is from 1853-60. Moreover, Wikipedia is a tertiary source so it should avoid using other tertiary sources. --Countakeshi (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

All very interesting and may belong in the article in abbreviated form. But, the fact that these sources don’t know the origin, and a similar game existed 6,000 miles away, does not mean that additional info isn’t available.

I know this isn't a source; but The Encyclopedia Britannica also says: “BACCARAT, a gambling card-game (origin of name unknown), supposed to have been introduced into France from Italy during the reign of Charles VIII.” [15]

You state that there don’t appear to be mentions of the game before the 19th Century. However, Parlett in A history of card games said :…the game was played exclusively in aristocratic circles, which may explain why it “does not grace the realms of recorded history before the nineteenth century”.

Dictionnaire de la conversation et de la lecture appears to be a respected source, last printed in 1973, over a century after first publication. This work is available in eleven languages in the library less than a mile from me. I do not see why we should ignore this source. We do not have to state it in WikiVoice. Objective3000 (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I have Parlett's Oxford Guide to Card Games which is the hardcover version of A History of Card Games. You've completely misquoted him, it should be: Unsupported protestations of mythic antiquity notwithstanding, Baccara ('Baccarat' in British and Nevadan casinos) does not grace the realms of recorded history before the nineteenth century, when it became firmly entrenched in French casinos.page 81page 82 Admitting that the origin of the game is unknown is better than perpetuating a poorly sourced claim of its 15th century origin. None of the sources you have provided tell us where they heard the legend from. The story may have been invented by Charles Van-Tenac in his 1847 Album as Whitier described. A similar situation happened with Mahjong in which Joseph Babcock concocted a tale that it was invented by Confucius.--Countakeshi (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear. Firstly, I took the quote from a paper by Stewart Ethier, Professor Emeritus, University of Utah, highly respected in the gaming field as well as one of the great probabilists [16]. (Required disclaimer: I know him.) Nextly (to coin a word), I have no idea why you bring up Babcock, Confucius, and Mahjong, all of which are completely irrelevant. (Somebody, somewhere at some time in history said something incorrect.) This is a not a political discussion where distraction is de rigueur. Let us WP:AGF.

Look, we all know that secondary sources are preferred, and we avoid other sources when secondary sources are available. But, the sources you provide all say they do not know the origin and there is no ironclad rule against all tertiary sources. See WP:NOTTERTIARY. Tertiary sources can also be primary sources, which was in my mind when I brought this to this noticeboard in the first place and obtained approval without any pushback. And, I provided the secondary source pointing to this source. Fact is, I am using as a source a respected dictionary from a time period closer to the historic event. The dictionary is an historic document. Britannica (a true tertiary source that we cannot use) provides the exact same info with sources that I have not been able to locate.

For the third time, I suggest a compromise. Add the needed qualifiers. But, do not completely hide something that is sourced. Objective3000 (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I boldly made a compromise edit to the article. Perhaps we can have some conversation elsewhere about shared interests. Objective3000 (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I can see how the confusion occurred as you were actually quoting Ethier and Lee who in turn was quoting Parlett mid-sentence. This paper can make a very good secondary source. I can add it as a reference if you believe you are too close to the authors. I will expand on the article later as I am about to travel to gather more research material.--Countakeshi (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

[17]. Both fail WP:BLP as poor sources for a BLP. Polemic and fail WP:NPOV. Sourced info was also removed. The "Guest analyst" sections should not be used as a WP:COATRACK for every negative thing said about the living person in unreliable poor sources that fail WP:BLP. Edit should be undone and source removed.

Question: Are "Newsbusters" and "The Blaze" acceptable sources for negative material about this WP:BLP ? Sagecandor (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment I feel like some source referencing his appearances on TV shows such as MSNBC is necessary. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

User made a similar comment on the talk page [18]. Dumuzid and Nomoskedasticity agree these sources are questionable, at best, and unreliable for spurious disparaging claims about a WP:BLP. Per WP:BURDEN, user has failed to back up any of their assertions with reliable sources. Sagecandor (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Despite removing the section at issue, I actually find myself somewhat in agreement with Power~enwiki. The article does feel a bit puffery-ish to me. That being said, it doesn't allow us to use non-RS sources to introduce 'balance' as we see it. Sometimes the reliable sources don't accord with my opinion--in that case, it should be obvious the way the encyclopedia goes. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Happy to make any specific recommendations of changes back up to reliable sources. Sagecandor (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess I'm semi-involved, but in my experience, editors routinely avoid those sources as unreliable. They would almost never be appropriate sources for WP:BLP content.- MrX 01:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Not reliable, and routinely removed/replaced. Neutrality^talk 02:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

More or less what others have said above -- they're very rarely going to be reliable for BLP purposes (or, realistically, most purposes). That said, I just want to note that while I don't think the sources should be used in this article, it doesn't quite seem fair to characterize Power's edit (presuming that's what's being referred to, given it's the only relevant diff here) as using the sources for "spurious disparaging claims about a WP:BLP". Maybe that claim references another edit not linked here, but it looks like the extent of that edit was to say he appeared on Bill Maher, he's a "vehement critic" of Trump, and has discussed controversial topics. Those characterizations may or may not be backed up by reliable sources, but don't seem particularly POV/problematic in terms of content. That's sort of an aside, though -- still not saying we should use the sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I initially made the statement on the talk page that Nance appears to be notable for his appearances on media shows, possibly more than for his military career. Sagecandor fought tooth and nail any attempt to discuss this claim on the talk page, much less include it in the article. I'm not convinced these are the best sources, but it seemed better than Breitbart or Media Matters. He *also* objected to my using primary sources for this claim. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

This online book review is being used to establish notability at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Plot to Hack America. We have an article on this publication New York Journal of Books, and the article has secondary sourcing. The reviewers are apparently not paid. There is no indication in sources I have examined that the reviews are edited, as would be true of other book reviews. The larger question is whether a review in this Journal would meet WP:BOOKCRIT #1. Important to know because 3 reviews of a book are a usual test for keeping articles about a book at AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The fact that the reviewers are not paid means they don't have any conflict of interest. New York Journal of Books does indeed have editorial review, with an Editor-in-Chief, and a Panel of Reviewers including Northeastern University School of Law professor Roger Abrams. Sagecandor (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Unpaid writers may indeed have conflicts of interest; after all, if they are not writing to earn a living, they necessarily have some other motive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I think maybe E.M.Gregory is referring to WP:SPS? Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, but this is not a blog, and not self-published. It is a book review company with editorial review, both from an Editor-in-Chief and a Panel of Reviewers. Sagecandor (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes the reviewers do seem to be qualified, at least some of them are, I was just wondering if E.M. Gregory could be specific about the parts of the WP:RS policy he wants us to consider here. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Well, in academic journals and general circulation newspapers and magazines, book reviews are reviewed by an editor. You submit the review, the editor returns marks up the copy and sends it back to you, often with with queries. Moreover, books are chosen for review by the editor and assigned to particular reviewers. This prevents an author volunteering to review a book written by a friend, or a reviewer proposing to review a book because s/he is keen to promote a specific political perspective (although, of course, the amount of cronyism in book reviewing is notorious.) Then, too, even newer reviews that are wholly online, and old reviews that have added online-only sections, are highly selective about how many titles they review (except of course those like PubWeekly and Kirkus ) the others limit the number of titles reviewed so that simply being reviewed confers an imprimatur of significance. And, of course, they pay reviewers. Being paid does produce a sort of moral obligation, a duty to live up to certain standards that is not always apparent in post-at-will publication. As I said at the AfD, this review seems to fall into something of a grey area that makes me uncomfortable with regarding it as on a level with a review in a newspaper, edited literary journal, or H-Net in the matter of being cites as meeting WP:BOOKCRIT #1. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Note also, that editing, that is, an editor actually going through the review before it is published, pushing back at the writer, asking gtough questions, demanding sources and verification - is one of the things that makes a book review in the The New Yorker or the Washington Post a WP:RS. And good editing is very, very expensive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Specifically, I am not certain that this unedited (in the sense of no editor reviewing submitted copy - at lease, not in the publication's self-description) publication meets "Definition of published:

The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited." — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs)

• And, yes, WP:SPS. the fact that these reviewers are unpaid, and that while the review states that it vets the reviewers it does not claim to edit the reviews nor does it stipulate that it assigns books to reviewers. And while some reviewers are bluelinked and distinguished, others [19], [20] are not. But mostly, due to the fact that as far as I can tell the Journal claims only to screen contributors, not to reit their contributions, this does appear to be a form of self-publishing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• All claims made by the user without evidence. Sagecandor (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I've provided evidence that New York Journal of Books has both an Editor-in-Chief and a Panel of Reviewers, and an Editorial Review Process. Whereas the original poster of this thread has given no evidence for their claims. Sagecandor (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Note that User:Sagecandor is the creator of the book article now at AfD that sparked this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Note that E.M.Gregory has voted "delete", at that discussion, before coming here. Sagecandor (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Can you find a source to show that the books are assigned to writers by those editors? Or that the reviews are edited prior to publication? Where is the link to the "Editorial Review Process"?E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Editor-in-Chief [21]. Panel of Reviewers including including Northeastern University School of Law professor Roger Abrams [22]. Sagecandor (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• thank you, but I am asking for evidence that the Journal is actively edited, and this link proves the opposite. Rojany, is listed as Publisher and Editor in Chief, job titles that are used to describe a manager - not a editor who wields a red (or blue) pencil or even who assigns stories in an actively edited publication. The others are a Marketing and Social Media Director, a CTO and CFO. to help you understand what I'm asking for, HERE; is the masthead of the Boston Review [23] and here [24] is the small, online, shoestring, 501c3 Fiction Writers Review. Job titles like Assistant Editor, Associate Editor, Editorial Assistant demonstrate that the Fiction Writers Review is an edited publication. It is increasingly clear to me that the New York Journal of Books is not. I think that we should regard it as we would an academic or literary blog, i.e. that it is only as reliable as the individual writers are.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• The word "editor" and "reviewers" indicates multiple levels of editorial review. Editor-in-Chief [25]. Panel of Reviewers including including Northeastern University School of Law professor Roger Abrams [26]. Baseless assumptions not withstanding, the poster's claims continue to be asserted with zero evidence. Sagecandor (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor, Try to understand that this publication has only "1" editor. A single human being cannot possible assign, review, edit, approve, and publish at a rate of 12 book review a day (the number published yesterday, 12 June.) in addition to managing the staff, finances, and promotion of this enterprise. This publication is unedited. It relies on volunteer reviewers to write and edit their own work - and most likely allows them to choose which books to review since I do not see how a single person could possible select and assign titles at this rate. It may be a wonderful publication, but it does not appear to be a RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

This, by the way, is why I described it as essentially a "group blog." Several other editors at the AfD have agrees with that description.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

False assertions of fact made without evidence. User ignores the Panel of Reviewers, in addition to the Editor-in-Chief. Sagecandor (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

That "Panel" is the volunteers who write the reviews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Note also that the Editor-in-Chief uses the website to market her services as a freelance editor. [27]. the link is at the bottom of the face page [28] alongside the link to "request a review" [29].E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Note User keeps making false assertions of fact with zero evidence. Example: That "Panel" is the volunteers who write the reviews. Incorrect. The Panel of Reviewers provide editorial oversight of the writers on the site. So we have at least two (2) layers of editorial oversight. Sagecandor (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Where are you getting that? Link or cite please.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• I've provided links and cites for all my assertions, above. User has provided none for their assumptions about the source, which are false. Sagecandor (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Update: I just got an email response back from New York Journal of Books. Question: Do you just let book reviewers post live whatever they want, or do all book reviews go through an editor first ? Their official response: "All professionally edited. And books to be reviewed are curated." I've forwarded the correspondence to WP:Contact us for confirmation. The ticket number for future reference, logging the email correspondence, is 2017061410000609. Sagecandor (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The detailed discussion above about the various roles, responsibilities, and processes seems like it omits an important element of reliability. Let's say three random literature PhDs open a website tomorrow. One edits material submitted by the other two. Is it a reliable source? Well, it has editorial oversight, which is good (and I don't mean to say that doesn't matter). But also important is the reputation of that publication. With journals, we have things like an impact factor. For this, the closest thing would be evidence that other reputable publications cite its work. I saw somewhere a New Yorker citation, I think. @Sagecandor: what is your sense of how frequently they're referenced? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: They were indeed referenced by The New Yorker [30]. They've also been cited numerous times in other sources: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Sagecandor (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

New York Journal of Books seems to meet our reliable source standards. The fact the reviewers are not paid is not relevant to reliability. There is editorial oversight as far as we can tell. There is strong case for WP:USEBYOTHERS. The journal is cited by others reputable sources: The Atlantic, Huffington Post, The Guardian, NBC News, The New Yorker, and The Advocate. - MrX 01:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It meets the standards for reliable book reviews. Since three book reviews establish notablity, it can be counted. TFD (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I am questioning the use of ElectionLiveNews.com, specifically the page at http://electionlivenews.com/french-legislative-election-2017-national-assembly-france-results/ . This page is currently listed as an external link in French legislative election, 2017.

The problem is that ElectionLiveNews has a long table titled "French Legislative Election 2017 – Constituency Vise [sic] Results", which identifies one "Elected Member" for each constituency in the French National Assembly. However, only 4 of the 577 members have actually been elected so far. The French election is a two-round system, in which generally the top two candidates in each constituency in the first round advance to a runoff to be held one week later. (A candidate would need a majority in the first round to avoid a runoff, which is rarely achieved.) ElectionLiveNews appears to have assumed that the first place candidate from the first round is the "elected member", which demonstrates a lack of understanding of the French electoral system. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

ElectionLiveNews has a long table titled "French Legislative Election 2017 – Constituency Vise [sic] Results", which identifies one "Elected Member" for each constituency in the French National Assembly. As I view the table, yes indeed it does this, but only for a small number of constituencies (e.g. Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon). For most, it shows more than one "Elected Member". (These so-called elected members are ranked; I don't understand the ranking system, but it isn't the number of votes.) Perhaps the problem is merely that what should be headed "Candidates" (or similar) is mistakenly headed "Elected Member". -- Hoary (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC) deleted my own ignorant comment Hoary (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, that is not a ranking system. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. found at http://electionlivenews.com/french-legislative-election-2017-national-assembly-france-results/ refer to the numbers of the constituencies. As in the United States where we have Alabama's 1st congressional district, Alabama's 2nd congressional district, etc., so in France they have a number of constituencies in each department and territory, which are numbered as well: Ain's 1st constituency, Ain's 2nd constituency, etc. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting me, Metropolitan90. -- Hoary (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Please check the discussion at Talk:Hungarians#Kniezsa's ethnic map and post your opinions on the article talk page. 123Steller (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The website Washington Free Beacon looks dodgy to me, but it's cited in all seriousness in the article Michael Recanati. I've started a discussion in that article's talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 05:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a right-wing WP:NEWSBLOG and doesn't particularly have a reputation for journalistic credibility; I think using it for cited opinions is probably fine but it shouldn't be used for contentious claims about living people, particularly those which can't be found in other, more even-handed mainstream sources. That is, if the only source one can find for something negative about someone is the Free Beacon, it probably doesn't belong in their biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please remove all source material from the Washington free beacon on Michael Recanati Flamingoflorida (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

My purpose in asking here was to get informed opinions on the reliabiity of the Washington Free Beacon. If there's a general agreement that it's not reliable, then material sourced to it alone can be removed. -- Hoary (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Opinions are generally citable as opinions. The site, in its articles of opinion, is clearly "reliable" for that use. In addition, its articles of fact appear generally to be correctly sourced, and usable as sources for claims of fact. The eternal problem in Wikipedia is editors who conflate "fact" and "opinion" sources. The desire to expunge "wrong opinions" is endemic on Wikipedia. And the worst problems of "gossip and rumour" are found even in The Guardian and The New York Times. Collect (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

But I'm not asking about the reliability of its opinions (whatever that might mean); I'm asking for informed opinions on the reliability of its factual (or counterfactual) assertions. (I do note your comment on the latter.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hoary and Collect: Surprisingly, Washington Free Beacon is also cited in more than 200 other Wikipedia articles. It might be worthwhile to review these citations as well. Jarble (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Military History Journal ISSN 0026-4016 published by The South African Military History Society. Website http://samilitaryhistory.org/journal.html Does this journal have a generally positive reputation? I see it is cited fairly frequently in articles about South African military history. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

We of course all know that potentially unreliable sources can be quoted for the purposes of giving their own opinions (for example, we can quote a politician's statement, with clear attribution, in order to illustrate what their views on a matter are). But if reputable newspapers report something, we can state it in a more authoritative voice. With that dichotomy in mind, I'd like to ask the following question:

• Are the CIA/FBI/NSA equivalent to reputable newspapers?

Let's say the CIA and NSA issue reports stating that country X has chemical weapons. Can we write, in the relevant Wikipedia article, "Country X possesses chemical weapons.[<insert citation to CIA here>][<insert citation to NSA here>]"? If we replace "CIA" and "NSA" in this example with "BBC" and "Associated Press," the answer would obviously be "yes."

I raise this issue because of the discussion here, where an admin is insisting (diff) that US intelligence services are reliable sources, equivalent to reputable newspapers, and that they're not more equivalent to possibly unreliable politicians. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of RSN is not to bludgeon an Admin for stating her opinion. It's to resolve article content issues. The overwhelming weight of RS support the content (that your strawman attributes to the intelligence agencies) so no article content decision hinges on the matter of Melanie's statement about those agencies. SPECIFICO talk 11:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I think for most RS/n discussions to be productive we would need to know how the source has been used in the article. I see MelanieN has asked for you to be more specific on the talk page discussion, and I would second that request. Context matters. The CIA has certainly made statements over the years that have subsequently been rejected by the majority of sources, such as the Iraqi aluminum tubes. Of course it is possible that the CIA is not RS/n for a particular statement, but we would need specifics to evaluate and compare it to other available sources. My preference would be that statements from the CIA, when used, are attributed to the CIA. However, it is true that most of the time, the current press reports will use the CIA and government agencies as the source for information that is then widely covered by numerous news agencies. I don't think citing the CIA as the source of the statement directly would be a problem, in most cases. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm asking specifically about how WP:RS applies to the CIA, NSA and other US intelligence agencies. I'm not asking whether or not we can rely on reputable newspapers when they cover statements made by US intelligence agencies (that's settled policy that everyone agrees on).

For the purposes of WP:RS, do we treat the CIA exactly like we'd treat a reputable newspaper, or do we treat it like we'd treat, say, a politician, whose statements may or may not be reliable? I asked this question directly on the talk page, and the answer I got was that the CIA is equivalent to a reputable newspaper. I'm surprised by that answer, and I'd like others to weigh in, so that we can have some clarity on what WP:RS policy is.

I'm not asking about specific content disputes (which have centered around whether to include wording like "officials say," "reportedly," "according to US intelligence officials," and more generally around whether criticisms of US intelligence reports are credible). I'm asking about what policy regarding the CIA, NSA and other US intelligence agencies is. Do we consider them reliable sources in the same way we consider reputable newspapers to be reliable sources? -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding how we use this (and other) policy. We do not apply this policy differently to different sources. Instead, we often determine that this policy applied to different sources results in different outcomes because those sources differ in significant ways. And there are very few, if any, sources that a large number of editors would agree are always reliable or unreliable. Although some sources, like the NYT, are generally reliable because of a long history of case-by-case instances usually appearing to meet our criteria for reliability they are still judged on a case-by-case basis (often with great speed and ease because of widespread familiarity with its history and practices). ElKevbo (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The policy is the same for different sources, the but the policy outcome is different. Some sources are generally considered to be reliable when they report on factual matters. If the Associated Press and the Boston Globe report in a matter-of-fact manner that X is the case, we can generally write in Wikipedia that X is the case. Obviously there are specific instances where even reliable sources make mistakes, but we still generally recognize them as reliable for statements of fact in most cases.

We regard these sources very differently than we regard, say, a press secretary for a head of state. We would only regard the press secretary as a reliable source for a very narrow range of issues (e.g., the official position of their government). Even then, we would probably seek coverage in reputable newspapers, in accordance with WP:SECONDARY. On the other hand, the "news" section of a major newspaper would be regarded as reliable for a wide range of issues.

I'm asking very specifically if we extend the same general faith that we have in the reliability of the Associated Press, for example, to the CIA. Is the CIA more like the New York Times or more like a press secretary for a head of state? I think this is a pretty clear question, even without reference to a specific content dispute. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I still don't think that we can make a generalized, abstract judgment especially for large organizations that produce documents written by many different people for many different audiences and purposes. ElKevbo (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The Associated Press is also a large organization that employs many different people across every continent to write on all sorts of issues. We consider it to be a reliable source, with very few exceptions. Obviously, even potentially unreliable or self-interested people or organizations can be cited in certain specific situations, but there's a difference between such entities and a major newspaper. I'm asking if the CIA can be treated in the same way as we'd treat the Associated Press - as a source that is reliable for almost any factual statement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The sources include: WaPo, NYTimes, CNN, The Guardian, Reuters, LATimes, et.al. Please don't omit pertinent info when taking something to a noticeboard. Objective3000 (talk) 11:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

No, those are not the sources we're discussing here. I'm asking very specifically about US intelligence agencies, and how they fit into the WP:RS policy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I do not think they are. For anything they discuss, that no-one else has or been able, they are a WP:PRIMARY source. And if others have also mentioned it, then I'm not sure we would need to use them. They are also, even when discussing something as a secondary source, not WP:INDEPENDENT their coverage cannot be assumed to be taken as their own or as at face value. And none of tihs is even approaching the question as to why we would want to use them — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

It depends. That's why the instructions at the top of this board specifically ask you to supply the specific details of the article, source, and (proposed) use of the source. It's inappropriate to try to discuss this topic in the abstract in this particular venue. ElKevbo (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The instructions expressly state that such info should be provided "if available"; in a general discussion of a source, clearly precise details like that will not be available. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

There are often discussions here of the general reliability of a particular source. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

And we generally (gently) rebuff those requests by asking for specific details. ElKevbo (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: For many newspapers, blogs, magazines, journals, etc. there are circumstances where we might find the source appropriate, an article inappropriate for a particular fact: this would depend on context. However there is no reason whatsoever that an intelligence and espionage agency would ever be considered akin to a reliable secondary source, and so the post is appropriate. I would argue that the Daily Mail - a usually terrible source - is nevertheless better as a secondary source than any intelligence agency. -Darouet (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand your argument and I completely reject it. There are clearly (potential and theoretical at this point) situations in which these organizations would produce documents that we would generally consider to be reliable for particular purposes.

I think that we've made our respective points and registered our opinions. I don't think that we're going to get anywhere if we continue to - politely and collegially! - disagree with one another so I think it might be best if we both agree to move on or at least find something else to discuss. :) ElKevbo (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@OP: please rephrase your question if you want to continue discussing this. Your original question (whether CIA rather looks like X or like Y) has been answered: that answer is "it depends" (or variations thereof). On this noticeboard general reliability questions are only addressed if a recurring mainspace problem connected to that reliability deliberation is apparent. Perhaps start with indicating which mainspace content would be problematic if the general issue isn't resolved. Probably such issue can be addressed by the provisions in WP:PRIMARY and/or WP:SELFPUB. In the event it does not, we need a more precise question. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken and Thucydides411: I have placed this comment at the bottom so that Thucydides411 is pinged, and so that discussion can be continued, as Francis Schonken requests. Francis, it is highly improper to simply close a very active discussion 6 hours after it was opened: please do not do so again. -Darouet (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• No - under no circumstances whatsoever would statements from an intelligence or espionage service, of any government, be considered comparable to a reliable secondary source, or cited as such. The moment that became a policy Wikipedia would cease to be a reliable source of information. -Darouet (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

This was closed for good reason. It should be reclosed. A properly stated request can be created. Objective3000 (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000: you are indirectly advocating a dramatic revision of the RS policy, where intelligence and espionage agencies should be treated as generally reliable secondary sources, but perhaps unreliable in certain contexts, as with any newspaper. That you believe this is so obvious it should not even be discussed is itself a major problem. -Darouet (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I never said or even hinted at anything of the sort. Objective3000 (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• I think it's readily apparent that these organizations have very well developed research and fact-checking apparatuses, far in excess of any journalistic source. In that sense they would be considered exceedingly reliable sources. However, as with any source editors should consider whether they have a conflict of interest or "skin in the game" when it comes to any particular claim. Particularly when they are trying to justify military or foreign policy objectives of the United States, editors should consider whether the claims are self-serving and balance them appropriately with other sources of information. Rhoark (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Those research and fact checking apparatuses have nothing to do with reporting to the public: they are designed to further the policy aims of the government they serve, which often include their "military or foreign policy objectives." -Darouet (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Please do not WP:SOAPBOX SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I belive that's a faulty logic since it compares apples to oranges. The real value of information from an intelligence agency is compared to the face value of a "reputable" newspaper. The face value of CIA is also good: The USA is (or at least considered to be) a democracy and, consequently, CIA is meant to serve (american) public. On the other hand, are You sure that there are no hidden agenda in what "reputable" newspapers lay down? Are not mass media empires designed to further somebody's policy aims? In the case of a governmental agency You, at least, know who's interests they serve. And if You know the real value of CIA statements, so does the reader. So the problem is solved by attributing the statement to the source: "CIA claims that..." and, in some cases, by balancing such information with information from other sources (which may include intelligence agencies of other states with contrary interests). Эйхер (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

For most purposes official documents and statements by national governments are reliable. For example, a French government website advising tax payers how to fill in their tax forms is reliable for the taxation system in France. It may be necessary to watch out for cherry-picking and marketing spin. Of course for foreign policy each country's documents are only reliable for the policy of that country, but the CIA World Factbook is generally considered reliable for economic and social statistics. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• In most cases they shouldn't be cited for anything remotely controversial, since the institutions as a whole lack the reputation WP:RS requires and since most of the time we have no insight into their fact-checking or editorial controls. In particular, this absence means, to me, that they should usually be treated as a self-published source, one we could cite only as a WP:PRIMARY document or via WP:SELFSOURCE. There are some exceptions; we know their sources for the CIA World Factbook, for instance, and it has a reputation independent of the CIA itself. But random papers or press-releases coming from the CIA (or similar intelligence agencies) do not, I think, pass WP:RS simply by virtue of coming from the CIA - we'd have to treat them as self-published things. I don't agree with the assertion some people made above that we can automatically assume that everything an intelligence agency publishes is subject to fact-checking and accuracy. Obviously they're in the business of intelligence, but they're not a publishing company and don't have the same goals, purpose, or reputation; they can and have published things based on insufficient data or filled with serious errors, and much more importantly they generally produce no public corrections or retractions when they do. In specific cases like the CIA World Factbook, we might be able to point to a reputation that lets us use it, but not in a general case for the organization as a whole. --Aquillion (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

With a source like the CIA, I think the correct answer is it depends whether it is reliable in context. If we were to just allow the CIA as a source without requiring a secondary source, then it would open up a lot of possible WP:OR - we could then go through all the declassified documents and use them as sources to support analysis. We shouldn't, unless they've been discussed in secondary sources. If its a statement that has been repeated by the press, who gives the CIA as the source, ideally we would mention that the source for the statement is the CIA and cite the secondary source for that information. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I think what you need to look for there is that WP:V - much more ironclad policy than WP:PRIMARY or even WP:IRS - requires sources to be "published". FOIA requests or old declassified documents that are just dropped in an ftp archive somewhere are not really published. Rhoark (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• I do in general believe that major public released reports from U.S. intelligence agencies can often be considered reliable sources. However, most of the time the question is moot, since there will certainly be secondary sources reporting the information, and the secondary sources can be used as references for the article. I don't really understand why Thucydides has been hammering on this one point for days. I have asked repeatedly what specific changes they want to make to the article, but they refuse to discuss specific edits or applications of this theoretical question. (BTW at the article under discussion and similar articles I do not function as an admin; I am WP:INVOLVED and should be considered just another editor.)--MelanieN (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the question can be divided into different types of information.

Take the case of the CIA World Factbook. This is one of the most reliable resources available for various types of statistical information. In this case, I'd rate it higher than the NY Times, which sometimes makes errors in day-to-day reporting on such material.

Intelligence estimates, however, can involve controversy. CIA estimates do not often make categorical judgments, instead giving answers graded in terms of certainty. Use of these in Wikipedia should include the degree of certainty. That said, National Intelligence Estimates are awfully formal things and not to be dismissed as propaganda. Yet they can be wrong. Contemporary CIA estimates of the extent of famine in China 1959-1961 were certainly off. The controversy over Communist military strength in South Vietnam may have involved errors in NIEs (see the very superficial discussion under Sam Adams).

Less formal intelligence evaluations may also be controversial. An example from NSA is the Venona decryptions, where in the notes to the decrypted cables analysts identified various cryptonyms as belonging to people such as Harry Dexter White and Julius Rosenberg. Later materials have shown that these were solid identifications, wrong in only one or two cases. The Wikipedia article treatment of the subject, however, has been characterized by a strong emphasis on challenges to the identifications. That's one approach, I guess.

Finally, there are cases where CIA is itself the subject of controversy. It's hard to generalize on how to handle this. Congressional inquiries can provide some answers, but have their own limitations as sources of information, too. After going through a lot of controversies, I will say one thing: people who claim to have been affiliated with the CIA, but have no documentation to support their claims, are not entitled to any slack.

Returning to the dichotomy posed at the beginning of this discussion between politician's opinions and newspaper reports, CIA general-purpose information AND intelligence estimates are nothing like opinions. CIA general-purpose information is even more reliable than newspaper information. For estimates, newspapers also sometimes offer estimates on various subjects. These are reporters' or writers' estimates. I would almost always rate CIA estimates higher than these. I don't think, however, that this entitles editors to use a "CIA trumps reporters" rule in rock-paper-scissors style arguments. Rgr09 (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

My two cents on the CIA as a source in Wikipedia (applies in limited terms to NSA, FBI is, I think, a different case): for general-purpose information such as World Factbook, I see no reasonable objections to its use in 99% of all cases. For cases such as intelligence estimates or evaluations, if sufficient information is available (complete Presidential briefings, NIEs), it is a primary source similar to Congressional investigations and reports. I don't think that these sources can be excluded from articles, although I occasionally see editors argue that they should be. Take the Iran-Contra investigation. Special counsel Lawrence Walsh's investigation produced a lengthy report. This is cited many times in Wikipedia articles on Iran-Contra. This is reasonable. To exclude the report as primary and to demand that the articles use only Walsh's later book on his investigation seems unreasonable. The Warren Commission report is even more frequently cited in a MANY Wikipedia articles. To exclude this, and cite only secondary works on the Kennedy assassination seems a very bad result. In cases where CIA/NSA evaluations are not fully available, however, more caution is due. Declassified documents are often redacted, sometimes laughably so. These do not form good material for Wikipedia articles. Rgr09 (talk) 01:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Long story short: reports from intelligence agencies should generally be considered WP:Primary sources, i.e. citable with attribution as a fair representation of said agencies' opinions and research. Media reports simply repeating information originating from an intelligence agency should also be attributed to the source agency. — JFG ^talk 14:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Wrong. Media and other secondary sources are always repeating the statements and actions of others. The central role of Reliable Sources is to provide independent critical evaluation in order that WP editors do not have to. Because Reliable Sources, having performed this editorial function -- not "simply" repeating everything --describe the Russian intervention in other nations as fact, WP must do so as well. SPECIFICO talk 23:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, please. Sagecandor (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

If we had access to what the CIA really believes about something they have investigated, that would be more generally reliable than any newspaper. However, we don't have that access. What we have access to directly is the public claims made by the CIA, which is an entirely different matter. Deception and secrecy is one of the job descriptions of every intelligence agency and it would be crazy to ignore that fact. Our best hope is to rely on reputable news agencies, who have professional expertise at interpreting intelligence claims and often have alternative ways to check them. To answer the original question (if I understand what it was), we should never cite an intelligence agency without attribution. Zero^talk 03:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Not reliable In general the information released by intelligence agencies, police forces, prosecutors, courts, government officers and agencies etc. is accurate, but they do not have a transparent fact-checking process and are frequently subject to political pressure. The U.S. (and other countries) has a long history of misinformation emanating from intelligence services, the most infamous in recent years being the false information about Iraq used to justify the invasion. Fortunately we have news organizations and academic publishing that is able to sift through intelligence claims and determine their validity, whose writings are reliable sources for articles. Intelligence reports should be treated as primary sources for the opinions of their agency only, unless they have been submitted to peer review. Editors should consider why the U.S. constitution guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press, if one could rely on government to always tell the truth.

Note that the media get their information from a variety of sources, some of which are unreliable. But we expect their journalists to use judgment in determining what is correct and what is not. Often they will qualify their coverage with statements such as "according to." Wikipedia editors do not have superior abilities to professional journalists in determining the validity of intelligence claims.

TFD (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: are you saying we shouldn't use the CIA Factbook? Doug Weller talk 07:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Personally I would not use it, since I dislike tertiary sources because they do not provide sources. The CIA did not count the population of every country in the world, they are merely repeating what they found in reliable primary and secondary sources. We typically allow a lower standard of reliability for non-controversial information, particularly when it comes under self-publication. We even allow unsourced information. But there's a big difference between trusting them to find the best estimate of the population of Iraq and whether Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda. TFD (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, somewhat, with the distinction you are making between secondary and tertiary sources. For instance, according to the Factbook its population numbers come from the US Bureau of the Census, so Factbook does provide sources for some (not all perhaps) of its information. In this case, the USBC is probably best thought of as primary, and the Factbook as secondary. Why is the US Bureau of the Census primary? After all, they did not count all the Pashtuns in Pakistan either. The reason I would call USBC numbers primary is that they do the professional evaluations and statistical analyses of other countries' counts that make their figures reliable to end users. The Factbook goes to USBC because USBC knows what's what. Factbook is a secondary source; it knows WHO knows what's what, it is professionally edited (they pay people to check the numbers from USBC are printed right), it arranges all data consistently, formatted in clear, logical fields, and it is now updated weekly. A super fast reference, with excellent quality control, and always current. It is used frequently in many Wikipedia articles, and I don't see how it could be replaced under Wikipedia's current modus operandi. Wikipedia is a tertiary source: we do not have professional editors (I try hard to be accurate, but no one's paying me), we do not have consistent formatting (the guys at wikimedia are working on it), and we sometimes have trouble figuring out who knows what's what. We are good for quick checks and directing people toward many useful sources. Rgr09 (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Is the following reliably sourced?

Article

Mount Athos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sources

^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

Content

Flag of Mount Athos

Difference

[31] [32]

--SILENTRESIDENT 20:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

They look fine to me—is there a particular concern you have? One only has to look at any photo taken in Mount Athos to see that they use the Flag of the Greek Orthodox Church (which is the flag being described here) as their flag. ‑ Iridescent 20:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, this is exactly what I expected. The reason I came here to request your opinion is because a certain editor is abusing the said article to have both the flag and the sources contested and removed, despite our desperate efforts to reason with him and convince him that his personal opinions (that this is not Athos' flag) are irrelevant to Wikipedia, and that we need to stick to the sources (like the ones provided above which describe it as the flag of Athos) and to facts (like the photo which you provided which proves the indisputable fact that the Athonite people use it as their flag, alongside the country's flag). Since you asked, my concern is exactly that: the user is trying to remove the sources and the flag. But I dont want to say more as this Noticeboard is not about other editor's behavior, right? --SILENTRESIDENT 20:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They look fine to me as well, thank you Iridescent. The problem is, another user has taken upon himself to deconstruct three out of these five sources. Please see also this section on the talkpage. Dr. K. 21:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Let's not be coy: "a certain editor" is FutPerf. In "Unreliable sources", FutPerf argues for their unreliability, I think rather convincingly. There's more than a little exasperation on both sides of the argument; but if we put annoyance and frustration aside, FutPerf makes some good points. -- Hoary (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Let's not make this personal by throwing adjectives around. I have provided the links that make it abundantly clear who the participants are. I simply don't see the reason for referring to people personally. This discussion is about sources and arguments for or against them. Names are of no importance. Dr. K. 23:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

You're right in that this discussion is about sources and arguments for or against their use. And names are of no importance; but the linked mention of a name serves to alert that person to the existence of a discussion. -- Hoary (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

There was no attempt to hide the matter from any of the participants. A resolution at RSN cannot be hidden. The results of this discussion would have to be distributed to all involved parties, so that an agreement can be reached. In any case, I didn't check SR's notification to the other party, but I wasn't particularly worried about the eventual notification. Dr. K. 23:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Iridescent: This is outside the purview of this RS board, as it's an argument not about the sources but about the prima face plausibility of the claim as such, but I still don't like to leave this argument uncontrodicted. You only have to look at any photo taken in Washington D.C. to see that they use the Star-Spangled Banner. Does that make the Star-Spangled Banner the flag of Washington D.C.? No, of course it doesn't; it's the flag of a larger entity, of which Washington D.C. happens to be a part. "Flag used in X" is not the same as "Flag of X". The Byzantine Eagle is the flag of the Greek Orthodox church, and it is used on Mount Athos not more and not less and in no different fashion than by every other Greek Orthodox church, diocese, monastery or other institution elsewhere. You can find these flags flown in front of pretty much any church in Greece. The point here is that some people (both Wikipedia editors and authors out there are proliferating a POV falsehood: that Mount Athos is a "state" (and as such, can be expected to have a state flag). It isn't a state, and thus there is no reason to expect it has one. State flags are typically defined by law; there is no legislation of that sort for Athos. – Now that we've clarified the issue, we can resume scrutinizing the sources; I've explained why I consider them unreliable on the article talkpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

P.S. By the way, @Iridescent: was it deliberate that when you wanted to illustrate "any photo taken in Mount Athos" above, you chose a photo that wasn't actually taken in Athos, but in Rhodes? I could accuse you of falsification of data, but it doesn't really matter. Of course, that photo could have been taken on Athos. But that only goes to prove my point: usage of that flag on Athos is exactly indistinguishable from its usage everywhere else in Greece and in the Greek orthodox world at large. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Flags are not used only by states. They are also used by autonomous polities. Mount Athos is an autonomous polity, and according to reliable sources, many written by academics with articles on Wikipedia, the autonomous area has a flag. That should be the end of it. Allegations of outside authors and Wikipedia editors proliferating statehood for Mount Athos are baseless and gratuitous personal attacks. Mount Athos does not have to be a state to have a flag; as this list shows, that's a fallacious argument. Some of the sources may not be as strong as some of the others, granted, but there are are enough left over to support the existence of the flag for the autonomous polity of Mount Athos. Dr. K. 05:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Future Perfect, I am baffled by your argument that only the states can have a flag displayed on Wikipedia but the autonomous and self-governed polities not. If we go with your logic, then the flags in many articles will have to take down just because their articles are not about states and not all flags are defined by laws. This is, like how Dr.K. has said, a very very fallacious argument and I couldn't find me disagreeing more than ever. --SILENTRESIDENT 05:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Greek Orthodox Church also has the same flag and we all know that the Greek Orthodox Church is not a state, neither are editors on Wikipedia promoting statehood for the Greek Orthodox Church when they mention that it has a flag. Dr. K. 06:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

You have, again, failed to take in the argument. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

No, you have failed to understand that I have rebutted your allegation The point here is that some people (both Wikipedia editors and authors out there are proliferating a POV falsehood: that Mount Athos is a "state" (and as such, can be expected to have a state flag). and proved that it is useless. Dr. K. 06:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it is YOU who has failed to take in the argument. The Holy Mountain existed as a religious community for nearly 2 millenias and its flag has been flying there AT LEAST (note the word "at least" because I do not have knowledge of earlier use than this) since Mount Athos' annexation by Greece, 100 years ago. The old album photos from 1940s from my grandfather who was in Athos, clearly depict the flag flown alone (without Greece's flag) in the Athonite territory during the Nazi German occupation of Greece. I am surprised how it can all of sudden be contested by an editor who probably wasn't even born back then, when even newer entities or organizations, or proto-states, (yes, even proto-states, including the Islamic State of Syria and the Levant whose the "laws" are not really laws) haven't had their flag contested. You are not helping, Future Perfect. --SILENTRESIDENT 06:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

"Baseless"? It is no coincidence that several of the authors who claim that Athos has a flag (in one case, explicitly calling it a "state flag") are also making those exact false allegations about its political status (such as claiming it declared "independence" or that it is a Greek "protectorate"). Do you find those falsehoods trivial? I don't; they display a very fundamental misunderstanding of what Athos is. It's also no coincidence that the editors who kept pushing the flag in this article have also been the same editors that kept pushing fictitious "official names" including the word "state" or "republic" into it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It's also no coincidence that the editors who kept pushing the flag in this article have also been the same editors that kept pushing fictitious "official names" including the word "state" or "republic" into it. I think you betray a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:RS and WP:V. I did not "push" anything. I found RS which use these terms and I quoted them. You don't get to use PAs against me for bringing RS to the fore that use these terms and which you happen to disagree with. Your dismissal of RS with PAs is indicative of your POV and OR. Dr. K. 06:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

You display a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:V and WP:OR. WP:V is not a suicide pact. There's a reason we threw the infamous slogan "verifiability, not truth" out of the text some time ago. It is not "OR" to use our own critical judgment to assess the correctness of sources in talk. (What would be OR would be if I were to start arguing against them in the article). I'm going to ask you two questions and I'll ask for clear yes-or-no answers: (1) Do you, yes or no, deny that calling Mount Athos an "independent state" or a "protectorate" is an obvious, blatant falsehood? (2) Do you, yes or no, deny that any source that includes such a falsehood has ipso facto disqualified itself as a reliable source on matters related to it, such as the status of political symbols? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

You display a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:V and WP:OR. WP:V is not a suicide pact. You keep trying to attack me with these nonsense statements. You have nothing to teach me. As my record of producing quality articles shows, I know damn well how to find and use RS. I am currently at RSN because I want to examine the sources, since the flag area is not my specialty. If the sources make statements not supported by facts then I have no problem to reject them. However, calling Athos a "protectorate" or some other term not absolutely technically correct, should not disqualify a source immediately if the question is about the flag itself and not the exactness of the term describing the polity. However, if the editors at RSN don't agree with my position, I have no problem agreeing that the source should be dropped. Your problem is that you use PAs as soon as people don't agree with your dogma and to add insult to injury you are hellbent implying that I try to "push" these terms, which is clearly your heavy-handed method of trying to attack editors you disagree with, as your long record of documented incivility clearly shows. Dr. K. 07:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

"It's also no coincidence that the editors who kept pushing the flag in this article have also been the same editors that kept pushing fictitious "official names" including the word "state" or "republic" into it." Future Perfect, you are dangerously crossing the defamation lines here and my patience with you won't last for long. What you call "pushing fictitious", was Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. If you have a problem with that, go open a different discussion. Here, we are discussing about the flag and only the flag. --SILENTRESIDENT 06:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Athos monastic state gets 29,600 Gbook results. So much for the "fictitious" allegations leveled above. Dr. K. 06:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• Plenty of reliable sources (Academic and otherwise) state that it is the flag, and nothing has been presented to invalidate them. Even a common-sense interpretation of photos of the location show that it is the flag. Any argument that is based upon 'it has to be a state' etc is frankly non-sensical. Mount Athos has a flag. Get over it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Yet another person too lazy to read. Next? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I did waste my time reading that talkpage. Your arguments are laughably bad and easily refuted as has been done by others above. Please provide an argument backed up by reliable sources to counter those provided to support the inclusion of the flag. Even those few of the sources provided which are less than the highest quality, are supported by better ones. Picking off the low-hanging fruit does not turn the tree barren. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

As for the sources provided by Dr.K., yes, some sources may be strong, other sources may be weak. True. But to argue on weak and strong sources and ignore the reality, is to argue about the tree and ignore the forest. This dispute for me has come to a natural end and I strongly believe the flag should stay on the infobox unless Future Perfect provides to us strong sources backing his POV about the flag of the self-governed Athonite polity.

And last, I have reminded Future Perfect in the talkpage that Wikipedia simply cannot rely on his POV, but on sources and facts. --SILENTRESIDENT 10:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• I think no-one here disputes that the flag is used in Athos, but FutPerf makes a good argument: why is this the flag of Athos specifically? In other words, is this a state flag because Athos is an autonomous polity, or is it simply in use there because Athos is part of the Orthodox Church? The sources, frankly, don't inspire too much confidence. Normally, I'd say they fulfill the WP:RS criteria, but my own experiences with Greek flag matters have taught me to be very careful: vexillological matters are notoriously ill documented and researched in Greece, and most foreign sources are (unsurprisingly) usually misinformed to some degree, or display a peculiar kind of bias in trying to fill patterns familiar to them but absent in Greece (of course a vexillologist will find "state flags" everywhere, he is conditioned to do so). For instance, "During the millennial celebration of Mount Athos, it was often possible to see this flag flying together with the national flag of Greece" is a non-argument. One can see the same flags in front of literally every church in Greece, and only complete ignorance of that can excuse its inclusion here, ignorance which does not speak well as to the accuracy of the source on this issue. It is almost as if the author has seen pictures, or read reports, of the celebrations, but never been anywhere else in Greece himself. I am all the more uncertain because the origin of this particular flag is obscure: I still have not seen a reliable source that details when and how it began to be used, and when it was adopted (if it ever was done so officially) as the flag of the GOC (or was it possibly used by Athos before that? who knows?). Furthermore, this flag is commonly known in Greece as the "Byzantine" flag, which is complete nonsense (but yet another indication of the complete lack of awareness on vexillological matters in Greece). Personally, I think that the flag is used in at least semi-official capacity (especially because the monks probably consider it to have been truly the flag of the Byzantine Empire), but would prefer a simple description on the lines of "Flag of the GOC, commonly used throughout Athos", rather than attribute to it a status that is uncertain. Constantine ✍ 12:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

When you say "During the millennial celebration of Mount Athos, it was often possible to see this flag flying together with the national flag of Greece", I hope you are not attributing this argument to me? I hope this is not a misunderstanding of my "The Holy Mountain existed as a religious community for nearly 2 millenias", with which I am pointing out to the fact that the Athonite institutions are older than most of Europe, older even than the Vatican institutions, and that not all historical institutions have a constitution in the modern sense of the word, one that defines explicitly the athonite flag in the same sense the constitution of Greece does for the Greek flag. The caption is no problem for me, so I am fine with your proposed "Flag of the GOC, commonly used throughout Athos" caption. I shall note that such a caption is already used in the article of the Greek Orthodox Church, so I can't see what problem can there be if we use the same for Mount Athos. But, Constantine, I wish you good luck in convincing the user Future Perfect, into accepting your proposal. At least from my part do not expect to say anything more. --SILENTRESIDENT 13:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

No SilentResident, my quote is taken directly from Source #2, the The Flag Bulletin article, which appears to use this as corroborating evidence. I chose this to highlight the problematic nature of the sources: this particular source appears to be the most qualitative one as it comes from a journal of the field and is not a generalist work, so one would expect the author to have researched his claims rather than copy from other sources, yet even here there are question marks as to what the author(s) actually know, guess, or repeat from other sources. Constantine ✍ 13:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• • A solution with a caption like the one proposed by Cplakidas (preferably outside the infobox, perhaps again near the "Administraton" section) would be fine with me. Indeed, nobody denies that the flag is commonly used by the Athonites. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

No way, Future Perfect. To have the flag moved from the infobox is basically to have what you wanted in the first place: remove the flag completely from the infobox to suit your POV. I vehemently am opposing this and I suggest you accept Cplakida's proposal which is to keep the flag but with a different caption, is a good compromise which takes in account both your concerns and everyone else's. --SILENTRESIDENT 14:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) He said (preferably outside the infobox,... I think that it is ok to keep it in the infobox with a suitable caption, even referring to the two strongest RS [2] and [4] which support it as the flag of Athos. Dr. K. 14:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so certain #2 and #4 are better than the rest. I was simply not yet done reviewing them. One red flag is that the intro text about Mount Athos in the "Flag Bulletin" source on p.103 (as far as I could google it) is almost verbatim copied (plagiarized) from Encyclopedia Britannica, with only quite superficial changes of wording. And #4 doesn't support anything at all, because (at least the way you quote it) it is ungrammatical gibberish. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

You can be as pedantic as you wish, but the snipet of source [4] by expert William Crampton, founder of the Flag Institute, mentions Mount Athos (Church or not) and it can easily be deciphered as meaning that it is the flag of Athos and the Greek Orthodox Church. In any case, this is resolved by someone obtaining a copy of the RS. Ref [2] is reliable, and even after Kostas Plakidas's extreme vetting the source remains RS. It is not up to you to determine the validity of these sources alone; that's why we are at RSN. Dr. K. 14:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

About #2: A source that lifts its entire first paragraphs from Britannica is quite obviously not a reliable source about anything. I'm astonished at your defending such a practice. About #4, you seem to be over-impressed by the credentials of Mr Crampton. William Crampton was a schoolteacher of sorts with a degree in sociology and an amateur self-styled "researcher" on flags. He founded a club for his hobby-horse, which he called an "Institute". That doesn't make him, or the publications spawned by his institute, an academic authority. (Nor does the fact that we have a walled garden of promotional articles about that Flag Institute and related figures, all sourced almost exclusively to their own self-published press releases and written by a handful of COI users on Wikipedia some time ago.) He certainly wasn't an academic expert on the constitutional order of Mount Athos. His Complete Guide is a 136-page booklet published by a general-interest, non-academic publisher, with no signs of any criteria of academic rigour. In that book we find (at most) a parenthetical half-sentence mentioning Mount Athos in passing, with no further documentation. That's certainly not enough for us to do anything with. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

About #2: A source that lifts its entire first paragraphs from Britannica is quite obviously not a reliable source about anything. I'm astonished at your defending such a practice. EB is a reliable source and copying EB verbatim is allowed as long as it is from the 1911 edition which is in the public domain. This practice is allowed on Wikipedia, and I am astonished you didn't know about it, although I suspect that you do but you could not resist another cheap stunt, coming after the most recent one with (both Wikipedia editors and authors out there are proliferating a POV falsehood: that Mount Athos is a "state" (and as such, can be expected to have a state flag), a fact that was rebutted and proven to be useless and a clear useless falsification intended to smear the reputations of reputable editors here. The fact remains that The Flag Bulletin is a recognised specialist publication and a reliable source. About #4, you seem to be over-impressed by the credentials of Mr Crampton. William Crampton was a schoolteacher of sorts with a degree in sociology and an amateur self-styled "researcher" on flags. Your self-serving analysis of Crampton's origins goes against his long career and practice as a flag expert and his international standing as an expert. Crampton, your original research notwithstanding, is an internationally-recognised expert on flags and as such his source is a reliable source. He founded a club for his hobby-horse, which he called an "Institute". That doesn't make him, or the publications spawned by his institute, an academic authority. More manufactured original research intended to belittle Compton and the Flag Institute. Just read the article on what you call so dismissively "hobby horse" to see what an important institute it is and go to their website to check the specialist and expert flag-related work they do in the UK and internationally. That doesn't make him, or the publications spawned by his institute, an academic authority. More pretentious academic "rigour" claptrap. You don't need to have a Ph.D. in flag-ology to determine if Mount Athos has a flag or not. That monastic state has a flag which is a fact recognised by many reliable sources specialising in flags. Mount Athos, being a primarily religious entity, is averse to creating elements associated with official statehood such as constitution, rigorous flag adoptions and descriptions etc. But its long practice of using this flag has been documented and verified by flag experts. You don't get to belittle the long practice of these flag experts, and international respect and recognition they enjoy for their work classifying and categorising flags, because of your manufactured haughty requirements of "academic rigour" for such an obvious fact, namely that Athos has a flag which by tradition and wide recognition, has become the official flag of that monastic entity. Your pretentious "academic rigour" requirements aside, this is a self-evident and RS-recognised fact. Dr. K. 16:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Mount Athos, being a primarily religious entity, is averse to creating elements associated with official statehood such as constitution, rigorous flag adoptions and descriptions etc. No pun intented, but I am wondering if Future Perfect, who declared himself an "Mount Athos expert", has ever been in Athos at all. The fact that he goes as far as to diminish all the reliable sources and even to demote the flag experts out there (who know more on flags than anyone here), only proves that we are dealing with a blatant POV case. The reason his POV has not found me agreeing with, is because the reality is quite different than his views. It is absolutely true that the Athonite institutions simply do not care about the outside world, nor they are going to write any constitutions just to formalize their flag and such. They are just running their monastic affairs and their monks are living their ascetic life. Nothing more, nothing less. And I am not expecting this reality to change anytime in the near future. Turning the flag and/or other Athonite descriptions or symbols into a big never-ending debate (I shall remind you it has been years since Future Perfect is stirring up this disruption about the flag), is not productive and I prefer that we spend our valuable time on other Wiki articles that could need our attention more than Mount Athos. --SILENTRESIDENT 17:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Who said the plagiarism was from the public domain EB1911? It was from more recent versions (EB1911 had very different language, while the language in the current web edition of EB is still substantially identical to that copied in the Flag Bulletin article.) And even if it had been from an old public-domain edition: we are here talking not about what is "allowed on Wikipedia", but what is proper academic practice in scholarly journals. Lifting text from a public domain source may be not illegal in terms of copyright, but it still constitutes academic plagiarism if done without acknowledgment. Lifting text from a copyrighted source, as was done here, is of course even worse. And therefore any "journal" article that does this is automatically disqualified as a reliable source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Lifting text from a public domain source may be not illegal in terms of copyright, but it still constitutes academic plagiarism if done without acknowledgment. Lifting text from a copyrighted source, as was done here, is of course even worse. I have an EB edition from 1985 which incorporates large-scale text from EB 1911. I suspect this text may have been copied from EB 1911 to a newer edition of EB. If the editors failed to acknowledge this copy, it may have been a breach of academic plagiarism standards, but it does not automatically render the rest of their flag-related observations invalid. In any case, can you quote the actual text you are referring to? Dr. K. 20:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I checked EB11, the text is not from there. And sorry, quoting the stuff is rather cumbersome, as I have to piece it together from Google snippets. I had started copying the stuff out bit by bit, but it got lost when I had to restart my computer. But I can assure you the first passages of the Flag Bulletin article are virtually identical to the passages in the present EB article [33], at least roughly from "semiautonomous republic of Greek Orthodox monks…" to "… only town of the subdivision is Kariaí (Karyaes)", again from "hermits inhabited Athos before ad 850 […]" to "… who granted Athos its first charter (Typikon)", and again from "The community’s present constitution dates from 1924…". There are bits in between that I couldn't access through Google snippets and I didn't work my way through all the rest of the article, so I can't say where it starts being more original. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking with EB11. No problem with the snippet-stitching. I know how cumbersome it can be. Dr. K. 20:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Above: More manufactured original research intended to belittle Compton and the Flag Institute. Just read the article on what you call so dismissively "hobby horse" to see what an important institute it is and go to their website to check the specialist and expert flag-related work they do in the UK and internationally. That intrigued me, so I clicked on the link. It's an organization that concerns itself with Vexillology. The latter article says that vexillology is defined by an organization (the most prominent?) as the creation and development of a body of knowledge about flags of all types, their forms and functions, and of scientific theories and principles based on that knowledge. Well, I wondered, what is the body of knowledge, what are the theories, what are the principles? The article says nothing. From what's written about it in en:WP, I infer that vexillology has academic aspirations but not that it's academic. (Of course, I'm willing to believe that the vexillology article is seriously defective.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Your points are well made and I agree with your conclusions. I also appreciate, as always, your understated sense of humour. As I said above, I don't think you have to have a Ph.D. to do research on the practice and tradition of flags. I also don't think that these institutes have to be academic to determine the characteristics and traditional use of flags and other symbols. I also don't expect anyone to write a Ph.D. thesis, or research paper, on the subject of the existence of the Athos flag. But I don't think that the combined practical knowledge, research, and expertise of these authors, institutes, and publications can be dismissed. The point is that longterm traditional use of this flag by Athos can be examined, and, since Athos is a separate entity from the Greek Orthodox church, the flag can be considered Athos's own. If you expect any signatures, constitutions, bureaucracy, and written papers from the monks, who have specifically made a vow to only serve the divine and avoid worldly matters, then you will not get the definitive answer you expected. The matter comes down to a choice between dismissing tradition and documented historical usage of the flag by Athos, as part of its deliberately faint worldly identity, or to respect the tradition, and longterm use, that defines its flag, as documented by the sources under examination. Dr. K. 11:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

• cliffsnotes.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sparknotes.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• bookrags.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• shmoop.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• mhprofessional.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• apstudynotes.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• quizlet.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• yorknotes.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I was a bit surprised to not get a single hit in RSN archives about those sites. I was looking for some policy / guide that would state clearly those are not acceptable, but I couldn't find anything. It would be good to get some input and consensus on reliability of those sources, as well as whether we allow linking to them (we have currently, in all namespaces, including article namespace, 200+ links to Cliffsnotes, almost 700 links to Sparknotes, 1800+ links to Book Rages, 250+ links to scmoop, 111 links to Schaum's Outlines, 5 links to Study Notes, 74 loinks to quizlet and no links to YorkNotes ([34]) except its own article, which seems totally acceptable. There may be others I am not aware of, but the existence of 2-3k links to this type of websites is an issue to be discussed. As I finished my education before such websites became popular, I have little personal experience with how content is created on them, and with their reliability. They are all unsourced, but that is not a damning issue - so are most encyclopedia articles, for example, and we are fine using those. Common sense also suggests that they are roughly accurate (not necessarily representing cutting edge of literary or like scholarship, of course). Who writes them would be good to know: is this content written by librarians/teachers/instructors, non-professionals, or (that would be a red flag) user-created by students themselves? Final thought: a lot of the content on those sites is simply plot summaries, which is not something we cite anyway. But they do seem to contain at least some analysis like [35] or [36]. What should our advice be for editors (students, etc.) which would like to use those as sources - and why? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Study guides from a named person recognized in the field are certainly usable. Unfortunately, many modern study guides do not meet that criterion at all, and, in my opinion, are not usable for claims of fact. Where they are simply a précis of a book, they are likely "accurate enough," but claims of fact elude them far too often. Collect (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I am not fully sue if this site is a reliable source. Please share your opinion. Thanks in advance. --Tito Dutta (talk) 11:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I doubt it. Looks like a blog of sorts with a heavy investment in soc media. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

are they getting paid by the movie industry to promote their movies if so they are probably unreliable in this context

also there is no published methodology on how they review movies

websites of a promotional nature are not acceptable to cite as a source

I Do not recommend MoviesFYI as a citation--Jonnymoon96 (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

[37] Veganism

From 1991 the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) recommended a low-fat vegan diet based on the "New Four Food Groups": fruit, legumes (peas, beans and lentils), grains and vegetables. The recommendation is three or more servings a day of fruit (one of them high in vitamin C, such as citrus fruit, melon or strawberries); two or more of protein-rich legumes (such as soybeans, which can be consumed as soy milk, tofu or tempeh); five or more of whole grains (corn, barley, rice and wheat in products such as bread or cereal); and four or more of vegetables.

i don't believe that an animal rights organization should be cited as a valid medical source--Jonnymoon96 (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is being used as a "medical source" here for the purposes of WP:MEDRS; it seems like it's the cited opinion of a particular organization about a recommended vegan diet, and there don't appear to be any outlandish or unsupported medical claims being made there about the diet. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree, but the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is a slightly dodgy advocacy group: their (primary) view is undue unless cited/discussed by reputable independent secondary sources which can put it in context. Alexbrn (talk) 08:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

"Slightly" dodgy? They are a thinly veiled front for anti-meat/pro-veg groups. They are neither reliable for anything medical, nor is their opinion valid for anything regarding health or diet as they are an advocacy group. The only thing they are reliable for is their own views. Which would limit them in almost all cases as a source, to their own article. "Vegetarian/Vegan advocacy group promotes vegan diet" is not surprising or a useful addition to the Veganism article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, decidedly dodgy then . Alexbrn (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oh well, attempts to remove this are getting pushback. Might be better pursuing this at WP:FT/N since this isn't strictly a reliability issue but an NPOV/FRINGE one. Alexbrn (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I've been redirected here from veganism talk page, where I was attempting to obtain consensus on the deletion of PCRM material on grounds that POV and blatantly judgemental language was being used. Here I see the discussion is still being being pursued in POV language, 'a decidedly dodgy advocacy group' with no reason for sticking that label on them. And now we are being redirected to another page? I need an admin to look at all this, we are being given the runaround with POV language. TonyClarke (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

From our very own article on this group:

The National Council Against Health Fraud has criticized PCRM as being "a propaganda machine" and the American Medical Association has called PCRM a "pseudo-physicians group" promoting possibly dangerous nutritional advice.[2][3]

I don't think we should be citing them at all, let alone in support of a major scientific claim like the establishment of new food groups. Alexbrn (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

• This group and their head, Neal D. Barnard, both make claims to have persuaded the US government to publish standards for healthy vegan diets. I think there is no counter-recognition from the government or anyone involved in publishing the dietary standards that this group or their head were causes for the change. I do think that Wikipedia articles could list this group as one which endorses or opposes various policy positions, but I do not think that this group is getting the third-party recognition which Wikipedia would expect to see before naming them as a prominent player on such a general article like "veganism". Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I'm getting increasingly addicted to this guy's YouTube channel (here), particularly his brilliant Lord of the Rings lecture series. I've long considered open courses from Yale, UC Berkeley and the like to be reliable sources for uncontroversial factual claims and the opinions of the lecturers themselves (who generally meet our notability guidelines anyway), but this appears to be somewhat different, as the YouTube videos themselves seem to be the result of him (or someone under his direction) placing a camera and microphone on a desk, and him (or someone under his direction) uploading it onto a YouTube channel named for him rather than, say, his institution.

Specifically, I'd like to cite his critical opinions in various articles on these subjects (in case folks haven't noticed, we've got a lot of pretty crappy articles on fictional characters, particularly those appearing in works of speculative fiction), but I'm not sure if his opinions are any more noteworthy than mine or yours since he is essentially self-publishing, at least in these instances that I can access for free and listen to on my phone while taking long walks.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Citing opinions is guided by neutrality. If these opinions are noteworthy then you need to establish that by discussions of them in reliable secondary sources. But then you wouldn't need the videos, since the sources would provide all the information that was noteworthy. There are books and articles about Tolkien, and Sherman is considered a leading expert, so you can always use them. You could also consider providing links to the lectures since they are by an established expert. TFD (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand TFD's reply. If Ted Spence is considered to be a leading expert on Tolkien, who has previously published on the subject in reliable third-party places, then his videos are admissible under WP:SELFPUB: "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." I can't see that it makes any difference whether the self-published sources are in textual or video format. Since anyone can upload to YouTube, it would be preferred if there was some evidence that Spence owns up to them (for example, a link to the videos on Spence's own page). Zero^talk 03:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Is the professor notable for his own article? For a self-published source (which the Youtube lecture is), I'd prefer to see a wiki page. That way, you could say "So & so says this about this character", which lends some reliability to the content. I might start with an article on the prof, if at all possible. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually that's not necessary, and being notable wouldn't necessarily make him a reliable source. My question is "Is he cited as a source in other reliable sources?" Doug Weller talk 07:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Zero, SELFPUB relates to reliablity not neutrality. In other words, it is a reliable source for facts, but the issue is whether the videos should be used for reporting opinions. SELFPUB says that self-published sources are reliable sources for opinions, whether or not the person is an expert. But this is really an issue of weight. Not whether the videos accurately reflect the opinions presented, but whether these opinions should be presented in the article based on the requirement that "each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." When you present these opinions you need to explain the degree of acceptance they have in mainstream sources. Maybe there is a raging controversy and presenting them without mentioning that would be a weight violation. Fortunately, there are books and articles that explain the relative weight of different views, and we should use them. TFD (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

User:TFD, I erred in citing WP:SELFPUB instead of WP:SELFPUBLISH. The latter is where I quoted from, and it gives a criterion that allows for some self-published sources to be considered reliable (not just reliable for the author's opinion). If the criterion is satisfied, the source can be treated the same as other "reliable sources" and no special considerations apply to it. Zero^talk 05:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Task Force Tips, HighKing seems to be POV pushing describing what seem to be clear WP:RS as if they fail WP:ORGIND. E.g., he has insisted that this nwtimes article amounts to an announcement from the subject instead of journalism that went through the desired editorial process. He has similar complaints about this Fortune article and a machine design article--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the link you posted makes it very clear that in reality, you have a different interpretation as to the criteria for establishing notability than others. The criteria for establishing facts allows for different sources than the criteria for establishing notability (where the bar is stricter). I explained my interpretation at length in a patient manner at the AfD. Coming here and labelling it "POV pushing" is a little histrionic and very questionable. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• IMHO never having seen the subject before, there is no problem with those sources being used in an article on the subject for some information. However they do not give significant coverage to confer notability (in my opinion). So if they question is 'Are they reliable' the answer is yes, if the question is 'because they are reliable is the company notable?' the answer is no. Just because sources are reliable does not make the subject notable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree. This comes up time and time again at AfDs and I try to explain this each time if I believe there is some confusion. TonyTheTiger has created a strawman argument which was not made by anyone at the AfD since nobody questioned whether the sources were reliable but that the sources failed the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

News media frequently base stories on information provided from the subjects. We expect reporters to exercise judgment when relaying what they have been told and therefore consider news media reliable sources. TFD (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Is Flavorwire article a reliable source to verify the public domain status of Born to Win? Hitcher vs. Candyman claims that it is at the "List of films in the public domain in the United States". --George Ho (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, Green Cardamom removed the entry per talk page. --George Ho (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia includes more than 50 citations to a fringe-theory website called Above Top Secret. Do any of these citations need to be replaced? Jarble (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Urgh. I chose one WP article at random: Habitability of K-type main-sequence star systems. This cites the "abovetopsecret" page "Which Stars are a friendly place for life to form.Lets see...", written by one "XRaDiiX". This person's other contributions to that website include "Israel, US Government Orchestrated 911 Osama was the Scapegoat(Fall Man)". I have a hunch that if I named myself XHoaRyyX or similar and concocted and submitted similar equine by-product (perhaps after a short history of commenting credulously on others' contributions) then it too would appear. WP:USERGENERATED, and tripe. -- Hoary (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

It's down to 26 now; I went through a few dozen articles and removed this garbage. Neutrality^talk 05:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Please note that the "more than 50 citations" uses a method that misses some citations. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=*.abovetopsecret.com ] shows that the website is linked to from Mantell UFO incident, Robbie Williams, North American monetary union, David Kelly (weapons expert), John Titor, J. Allen Hynek, Corporate Cannibal, Alternative 3, and a large number of talk pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I checked the Mantell UFO incident Wikipedia article, and the only citation to abovetopsecret I could find was a non-working link to an image of a memorial dedicated to Mantell. As the link no longer works, I will delete it. I may have missed something, but I didn't see any other citations to that particular website in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.220.41 (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2017‎

I am somewhat familiar with this site and agree that it generally should be avoided. According to themselves (the "about"): AboveTopSecret.com is the Internet's largest and most popular discussion board community dedicated to the intelligent exchange of ideas and debate on a wide range of "alternative topics" such as conspiracies, UFO's, paranormal, secret societies, political scandals, new world order, terrorism, and dozens of related topics on current events, politics, and government wrong-doing with poignant commentary from a diverse mix of users from all over the world. It is sensationalist non-expert, non-reliably-sourced, user-generated "alternate news" and discussions. Can be entertaining, but unfit for an encyclopedia. —PaleoNeonate - 06:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hoary: Thanks for your work on this. I've read it a number of times. Amusing but definitely not a reliable source - are there any examples of us using forums as reliable sources? Doug Weller talk 15:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:Progressive Alliance about sourcing for the claim that the Democratic Party (United States) is a participant/member.[38] One of the sources is an interview in la diara with an official of the Socialist Party of Uruguay, who says, "".[39] The official says, "It was initially integrated by those who had supported the candidacy of Mona Sahlin, but then began to add valuable organizations that until now had not been in the SI, such as the Workers' Party of Brazil, and begin to weave alliances, as with the Democratic Party of the United States...Then came the idea of ​​consolidating the Progressive Alliance as an organization."

First, I do not think it is clear that the Democratic Party's connection was the same as the other SI members and no mention of whether the party actually joined the organization. Second, interviews are not normally considered realible sources for facts.

In my opinion, this is a typical example of not finding the sources for what they think should be in the article in the usual sources, such as news reports, and settling for what they can find, however tangential to the subject. Why would someone go to an interview of a politician in Uruguay to determine whether a U.S. Party, which has received extensive coverage in all types of sources, is a member of an international group based in Europe?

TFD (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks like there are other sources that report the Democratic Party's involvement here, so the point may be moot. But: interviews and quotes are still primary sources unless someone makes an effort to fact check them (WP:LINKSINACHAIN) and primary sources should be used with caution - a Uruguayan politician probably isn't a great source here. Nblund ^talk 16:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I recently removed some text from this article, on the basis that the source cited described the information it was about to mention as "coming from a book with no "pretension to objectivity or scholarship". So we were citing a seemingly reliable source talking about an unreliable source. My view is that unreliable material has no verification and should not be in Wikipedia, because of WP:V.

I've been reverted by Truth be toad (great username, by the way) on the basis "The author cites a book with a specific Muslim criticism/view relevant to the article." I have no difficulty in a Muslim perspective being included, but if it is to state that such a perspective is something inflammatory like this is one of the "ridiculous stories of the Bible", it needs proper sourcing.

Not interested in edit-warring, so posting here for your views. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Define 'ridiculous stories of the Bible'... Isnt that the entire thing? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't notice this discussion before revising the two sentences in question to match what the source actually says. I added a sentence about Jacob in "The Stories of the Prophets". I made some changes in the "Other views" section also. Sections like these look like editors using Google books to find negative phrases about a religious concept and using them as sources, without paying much attention to what the source actually says. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

StarryGrandma I think we should delete it. Or replace it with something that is a properly reliable source. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Dweller, I think it should be removed. What the section now has is a secondary source analyzing the primary source's use of the phrase "ridiculous stories of the Bible" to support the secondary author's thesis that the book in question is an anti-Christian polemic. That would make the primary source a very unreliable one for an unbiased report of the overall Muslim view of the Jacob story or of Christianity for that matter ("a major source of evil in society"). I tried to balance that with an older Muslim source, but Truth be toad removed it.

Some contemporary interpretations also need to be replaced. "Other views" has interpretations from books using the incident to make a different point, rather than looking at the incident itself. Roland Baer is not analyzing views of the Jacob story or the story itself, he is using it to make a point about the Marxist philosopher Ernst Bloch. The New York Times published a scathing review of attorney Gary Greenburg's book, saying the "scholarly audience is likely to reject The Moses Mystery for its poor method." What is needed are references to major analyses of the subject itself, like the sources for the comparisons to Greek mythology. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll remove it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not a particularly controversial statement, though - my understanding is that Jacob wrestling with god is the dominant reading in both Islam and Christianity (in fact, glancing at the article, it even says that!) I mean, it's literally what his name means. The article itself definitely needs a new name, at the very least. --Aquillion (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Aquillion my problem is using an unreliable source for anything is bad, and using it to cite something being described as the Muslim perspective on "a ridiculous story" in the Bible is really problematic. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC) @Dweller: Cheers for complementing my username.
@StarryGrandma: You said: "Sections like these look like editors using Google books to find negative phrases about a religious concept and using them as sources, without paying much attention to what the source actually says." I agree with everything you said until that damned comma. Truth be toad (talk) 03:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Lol x2 --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't feel that Science Alert [40] should be considered credible for scientific matters. The homepage is full of clickbait; two headlines include "Anonymous Says NASA Is About to Announce Evidence of Alien Life" and "Finally Read Your Phone in The Sun Thanks to The Power of Moths' Eyes".

The source has been briefly discussed on this board [41] but not in detail. I recently removed a reference I considered dubious in the water article. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. it is just science churnalism. Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I have recently got into an edit war (that I have stopped in the meantime) with user Tuvixer when I tried to add polls made by 2x1 komunikacije, which were the only one to correctly predict the winner of the election. The polls are usually published on direktno.hr portal (for example: http://direktno.hr/direkt/anketa-2x1-komunikacije-hdz-biljezi-pad-popularnosti-most-i-hns-narasli-81673/ ), but are also mentioned in other media:

• Večernji list (one of our major newspapers): https://www.vecernji.hr/vijesti/ni-hdz-ni-sdp-nece-imati-vecinu-bez-koaliranja-1015326
• Jutarnji list (one of our major newspapers): http://izbori.jutarnji.hr/istrazivanje-agencije-2x1-komunikacije-domoljubna-koalicija-je-u-prednosti-pred-sdp-om-i-partnerima-pogledajte-u-kolikoj/
• Slobodna Dalmacija (major newspaper in southern part of Croatia): http://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr/stil/gastro/clanak/id/278185/josip-jovic-lijevi-pretekli-desne
• index.hr (probably the largest news portal in our country): http://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak/anketa-2x1-komunikacija-u-iii-izbornoj-jedinici-pobjedjuje-sdp-ali-ukupno-je-bolji-hdz/827601.aspx
• dnevno.hr (smaller than index, but popular among right-leaning population): http://www.dnevno.hr/vijesti/komentari/karamarko-premocno-pobjeduje-17-travnja-na-izborima-za-predsjednika-hdz-913489/

Our whole discussion can be seen at Talk:Croatian presidential election, 2014–15. Also, I saw that he reverted all mentions of the said survey in Next Croatian parliamentary election article (I HAVE NOT edited that article at all), without even discussing it, and even changing the introduction to include only polls published by TV chanells (see here: [42]). He described direktno.hr as "right wing antisemitic and pro fascist tabloid" and told me to "stop citing them". While I can't deny them being slightly to the right, they are far from being extreme. Their workers include Davor Gjenero (independent liberal, also works with Al Jazeera and is a frequent guest on HRT - national TV), Tomislav Marčinko (centre-right, worked on national TV and is one of the founders of NovaTV - one of three major TV houses in Croatia), Gordan Malić (also often a guest in other media) and other journalists and analysts with experience in major newspapers and TV houses. What I am trying to prove is that the polls from 2x1 komunikacije should be included, as they are frequently cited by other portals and newspapers and not only direktno.hr. Tuxiver provided two main "sources" against the polling agency:

• Well I am sorry to inform you but my neighbor is a professor of statistics specialized in opinion polling and surveys. I have asked him multiple times if I should look at the 2*1 komunikacije polls as relevant and he said and I quote "They don't make scientific surveys, you better make up the numbers yourself and then say that it is an opinion poll".

So, we have an unsourced opinion of an unknown "professor" (hardly a reliable "source").

• [43]

A critique written by marginal far-left activist, who seems to forgot that other major polls from the time period when 2x1 agencija conducted it excluded Sinčić completely. Plus, the critique was written before the second round, in which only 2x1 komunikacije predicted the correct winner (comparison of polls can be seen here: [44])

So, I am kindly asking the members here to state their opinion on the polling agency. StjepanHR (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: Courtesy notification to the noticeboard of prior external discussion at the article talk page, a DRN case (closed with a refferal here) and the talk page of a DRN volunteer. TheDragonFire (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Although nobody has yet replied, I will do it because I forgot to add one thing. Tuvixer also criticized 2x1 komunikacije on the basis that their founder is a HDZ supporter. Well, he surely is, but Agan Begić of Promocija plus is also pretty outspoken in his pro-People's Coalition and left-wing position (he supports Ivo Josipović - coincidentally a candidate in the elections that are a part of this dispute, Tatjana Šimac Bonačić, Nada Turina-Đurić, Andrej Poropat, etc., who are/were all from the People's Coalition): https://www.facebook.com/agan.begic . And the owner of the third agency, Ipsos Puls, Srđan Dumičić is accused by his opponents for connections with People's Coalition ([45]). To be honest, each of the three accuses the other two, so maybe we should remove all three polls (and delete the page with polls) if criticising from the oposition is a relevant source :) StjepanHR (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Could someone, please, give his/her opinion about this. Not that I am impatient, but two days seems to be a long wait time on this board... StjepanHR (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I just found out that even Transparency International used 2x1 komunikacije as a relevant polling agency for our last elections: [46] . On a side note, they missed the results ([47]) for only seven (7) seats, compared to nineteen (19) missed by Promocija Plus and twelve (12) missed by Hendal. Ipson (not listed by T.I.) missed the results by fourteen (14) seats. Week later 2x1 performed worse, but still equal to Hendal and better than the other two. StjepanHR (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Please, for anyone involved, read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=787656457&oldid=787610655

The owner of 2*1 komunikacije was a candidate in parliamentary elections in Croatia for the largest center right party in Croatia HDZ, if that is not unreliable or biased, then what is?--Tuvixer (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

He resigned from his position before the election: http://www.fininfo.hr/Poduzece/Pregled/2x1-komunikacije/Detaljno/241214 StjepanHR (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

If two sources are both considered reliable, and due to policy we can only list one, do we only list the source that is the "industry standard"? Something similar is happening here. SharkD  Talk  14:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Which policy would limit us to only one? WP:NOTPAPER. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Its not a reliability issue, its including a review aggregator as part of a template. There is no policy issue with using multiple reliable sources within an article, but if discussion on a template is to limit the included fields to 1 or 2 of the most significant/well known, thats the way it goes. Templates/infoboxes try not to include *everything* because it quickly leads to bloat. The reason other aggregators are not being included in the template is that they add nothing that is not already covered by metacritic - the de-facto industry go-to in this area. Opencritic is unliklely to be used in an article otherwise, because its an aggregator, not a source itself. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a reliability issue, as there have been numerous complaints among RSs that Metacritic is unfair, and that OpenCritic is a better alternative.[48][49][50] SharkD  Talk  05:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Not really. There is criticism that due to opaqueness, metacritics aggregate rating is unfair - primarily due to their weighting different critics reviews. This is an absurd criticism for *us* to level, since we weight sources differently as a matter of policy. However for better or worse, metacritic is the industry standard, to the extent that games publishers have in their contracts with developers that bonuses get paid when they reach a set metacritic rating. Until opencritic reaches that level of acceptedness, its not going to supplant metacritic anytime soon. Opencritic bitching about a competitor they are trying to oust is not exactly a reliable source on metatcritics reliability anyway. They have a vested interest in rubbishing it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Is this an RS please?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Its been going for 20 years, and while it has a small staff, appears to be fairly comprehensive within its specific area. I wouldnt use it for something controversial, but it seems ok. What article/information is it going to be used on/for? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

George S. Coumantaros. Seems OK then?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For which article and which content? But also, why not use the original source, The National Herald? [51] - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Good find. I didn't realize it was a mirror. I'm already using the obituary from the National Herald. I would like to find more obituaries... Anyway, I've removed it from the article as it adds nothing new.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

I'm not writing about a particular content dispute; rather, I'm hoping to solicit thoughtful feedback on an issue that has come up a several times recently: whether articles by Erik Wemple of The Washington Post (archive here) are generally reliable for the facts they contain. Of course WaPo is by and large quite reliable, and WP:NEWSBLOG suggests that Wemple's pieces shouldn't be deemed unreliable simply because they're part of what WaPo calls a "blog," but the problem here is that WaPo at least formally categorizes his work as opinion, but it often contains what appears to be factual, investigative reporting in addition to commentary. Every article written by Wemple (e.g. [52]) is designated as "Opinion" but says in Wemple's byline, "Erik Wemple writes the Erik Wemple blog, where he reports and opines on media organizations of all sorts.") To me, the fact that WaPo designated Wemple's blog as "opinion" suggests that it's held to a lower standard of review by the editorial staff--but how low?

Another, closely related issue here is whether Wemple's pieces can be used as indication of a Wikipedia article's notability. Wemple often spotlights media issues that haven't received a lot of public attention, so this issue can be pivotal in whether a media organization or journalist merits a Wikipedia article. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions for posting and give some specific content (multiple examples if you wish); this NB is not for general queries. Alexbrn (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually it is often used for general inquiries, despite the instructions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Please post queries according to the instructions for this noticeboard. Alexbrn (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

DrF's question here is a useful inquiry, and gives sufficient context and explanation so that discussion would be fruitful, plus the question is sufficiently defined/narrow. I don't consider this a "general" query that we frown upon. In any case, WP:IAR. Neutrality^talk 17:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The notability question is fair - an in-depth article, even if opinion, given by Wemple as an employee of the Post would be a secondary source on the topic. It wouldn't alone be sufficient for notability per the GNG but it helps.

As for any facts, I would stick with the usual: if they give a "fact" that seems controversial or cannot be corroborated, it should be either omitted from here (depending on its nature) or attributed towards Wemple/the WaPost. Uncontroversial facts or those that can be checked from other sources would be fine to include. --MASEM (t) 17:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

You would have to provide an example. Policy says that news reports in reliable publications are reliable sources, opinions are not and it has nothing to do with the writer. Opinion pieces do not have the same standard of verification, such as double-sourcing. Also, columnists generally are writing about things already covered in the news, but bringing their personal perspective. OTOH there are news articles that contain opinion which are reliable sources. TFD (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

TFD, I did provide an example, but here's an even better one that was on the front page of washingtonpost.com yesterday. It reads mostly like a news article, with a couple of paragraphs of commentary thrown in at the end. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I used up my free WaPo articles for the month, but it says "opinion" hence it fails rs. The article is titled, "Three CNN Employees Resign over Retracted Story on Russia Ties." If it is important, then there will be news articles about it, like this article in CNN. TFD (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I generally agree with Masem. Erik Wemple is a notable media critic, and so his view is noteworthy on issues of media criticism. The question is whether the material requires in-text attribution or not. I think this depends on context: I would attribute any commentary that he writes to him, but we need not attribute straightforward factual material that is not unlikely to be contested to Wemple. To give a fictional example: if Wemple says "Two employees from the Daily Bugle were fired last month for an ethical lapse" that wouldn't require attribution. But if Wemple writes a column labeled opinion and writes "This is the most embarrassing blunder in the history of the Daily Bugle," then I would attribute it. Neutrality^talk 17:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking about replacing reference 7 in Johnny Ace (which is a dead link [56]) with another source that verifies the quote currently attributed to it; specifically, this book, published in 2011 by RosettaBooks. (The quote can be found here) Do other editors consider it to be a reliable enough source? This publisher doesn't have a WP page and they seem to be digital-only, but on the other hand, they don't seem to be a self-publishing company. Everymorning (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)