Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 209

Archive 205

←

Archive 207

Archive 208

Archive 209

Archive 210

Archive 211

→

Archive 215

U2gigs.com

Can the editors here ascertain the reliability of this website? This website is being used across multiple U2 related articles, but what I can infer is this is essentially a fan website. Their FAQ clearly indicates so, irrespective of what the editors at U2 articles think, this website does not have a mode of reliability. I request one of the users who uses this reference, Y2kcrazyjoker4 for his/her comment also. From one of the FACs pertaining to the U2 album No Line on the Horizon, I can see that this is a website run by a Wikipedia user Axver (talk · contribs). How can we accept this website, even though according to the user, "For news articles, I cite my sources; for live U2 appearances, we have either attended in person (at which we take notes by hand or produce our own recording) or listened to it - live for contemporaneous concerts and interviews, or to recordings for older shows." My eyes were exce;ptionally drawn to this statement " if I do not believe information is verifiable and could be defended in peer review, I do not publish it. " Its kind of like the user amends information for making it passable in wikipedia. I urgently ask my fellow editors to discuss this. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 18:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The website is considered reliable enough that Rolling Stone has cited it for an article about U2 and that an official publication that was included with Dutch copies of U2's album No Line on the Horizon cited it. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a tough one:fansites are usually not reliable sources, but if it's cited by other reliable sources as a useful resource, that might give it some additional credibility. It sounds like, at a bare minimum, this is a primary source and should be handled cautiousl. Better sources should be available if a particular fact is really notable enough to warrant mention in Wikipedia. Nblund (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

U2Gigs is only used for setlist information for use in tour or song articles. References for this information are hard to come by - even U2's Live Nation-run website, which has setlist info, is not comprehensive and has errors and would most definitely be a primary source. If there were other sources available, we would certainly use them. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

That seems defensible IMHO, but when I just took a cursory glance, I found some stuff that seemed like it was using the setlist information to make critical assessments or to make generalizations about the tours. Example: "Influenced by the tour's themes of technology and mass media, Zooropa was an even greater departure in style from their earlier recordings than Achtung Baby was, incorporating further dance music influences and electronic effects into their sound. A number of songs from the album were incorporated into the subsequent 'Zooropa' and 'Zoomerang' legs, most frequently 'Numb' and 'Stay (Faraway, So Close!)'." That particular example may be more of an OR issue, rather than a RS one, because it doesn't seem supported by the citation even if we assume the site is an RS. Nblund (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

If "references for this information are hard to come by" then the information probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

If there is a citation missing for the first sentence, that is an oversight on my part. Only the second sentence is meant to be cited by U2Gigs, and I don't see how the citation doesn't support the sentence. I can discuss this further with you elsewhere since, as you said, it's not really relevant to this discussion. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

International Journal of Advanced Research

Is www.journalijar.com/ a reliable scientific journal? They are claiming a high impact factor although they are not even listed by Thomson Reuters. Can an article be created for this new plant specie relying on this paper?. It appears that the [Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants]allows publication of new names in an online journal with an ISSN. Please see Article 29 However, the code doesn't take into account fake journals with valid ISSN. Would like to know what the Wikipedia community think about the reliability of this journal. --Denown (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the source is reliable, the creation of an article requires notability established by "significant coverage in reliable sources." TFD (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Verifiable species are, as far as I know, considered inherently notable. As for whether this journal is reliable for that purpose, I don't know. That it displays an image of an impact factor certificate so prominently gives me pause, and it's not listed at all in Journal Citation Reports. I've left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants, though, who may be able to say more. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The Nomenclature codes are about nomenclature only, not taxonomy. They accept all species descriptions that satisfy such criteria as that the publication is made available (it's not just a letter to your grandmother) and satisfies various requirements such as providing a statement of how the species differs from other known species. As far as I can see, the article has satisfied those requirements. Wikipedians are not generally qualified to decide which species are notable, and we rely on outside sources to do that. Unfortunately, there are rumours that The Plant List will not be updated again. Here we consider all species to be notable unless outside sources say otherwise (i.e., that the name has been assessed by a taxonomist who decided that it is a synonym of another species). If we used coverage in popular media as a criterion for notability, then a huge number of invalid names and synonyms would be included in wikipedia. Until we have a substitute for The Plant List, there is an opportunity for people to publish names in shoddy journals and trumpet the fact in wikipedia. That particular journal has been listed here as questionable in its practices, but that doesn't mean that all the articles it publishes are bad; it just means that the authors could perhaps have chosen a better venue and if they had done so their article might have been peer reviewed more thoroughly. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Some edit error has happened. Somebody experienced kindly see to it. --Denown (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what the problem was. Can you be more specific? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Blue Coat Systems

Requesting input from additional editors here.

The sources in question are Wordpress sites called "Reporters without Borders: For Freedom of Information"::

• http://surveillance.rsf.org/en/blue-coat-2/
• https://web.archive.org/web/20130317042222/https://surveillance.rsf.org/en/

The article in question is about an internet security company with $500 million in annual revenues that was recently acquired by Symantec for $4.65 billion.

The sources in question say stuff like "is best known for its Internet censorship equipment" and says the company is one of five "Corporate Enemies of the Internet."

One editor says it is basically a corporate trolling website, the other says it is an internationally recognized org with editorial control.

I have an affiliation/COI with the company (see here for example).

CorporateM (Talk) 13:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Reporters Without Borders are an internationally recognized media and human rights organization whose detailed reports are covered in-depth by not only mainstream Print[1] and online[2] Press, but also scholars and academia.[3][4][5] RSF regularly consult with foreign dignitaries and Heads of State. RSF are certainly not just a "WordPress site" (Fortune Magazine, Variety, The New Yorker et. al. also happen to be WordPress sites). RSF are hardly a "troll organization" as the IP editor claims. -- dsprc ^[talk] 15:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Reporters without Borders is a reputable organization. What is the context though, are they talking about deep packet inspection or the great firewall of China or what? Elinruby (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

looking at this -- it's also often used in large networks to keep employees from using the corporate IP addresses to download torrents or surf porn or post hate speech. Elinruby (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, it is like Great Firewall. That is customary (and recommended!) best practice within business or Enterprise settings. Use against entire populations by regimes with dubious human rights records is a different matter altogether. -- dsprc ^[talk] 20:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I know what deep packet inspection is more or less. They seem to be suggesting this is the primary use of the equipment. I mean, strictly speaking preventing people from watching portn *is* censorship, but...they seem to be sayning it's designed to prevent people from searching for Tienamen or Tahir? well let me go look. BTW why is that reference old enough to require archive.org?

ok, well, the current RSF website says there are 13 Blue Coats in Syria, so... That said, whoever wrote the cited text definitely has an opinion and a bad case of random capital letter disease. There isn't a lot IN that article besides a list of products, so here is what an editor with network certifications and a background in journalism has to say. Strictly speaking the you can't have the RSF be the only source for this. There appear to be others available so this should not be a problem. However one thing you need to show beyond that they made the call is why anyone would care. If it is notable there should be other sources for the designation. But also, if you expand the article in this direction you should imho add in the rationale for the corporate usage. And a short definition of deep packet inspection if you can manage it. Elinruby (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Quotes from primary sources?

Our article Muhammad currently contains at least one quote (the one beginning "be good to women") that apparently comes from the Quran or some other ancient source. If it was only attributed to the primary source this would definitely be a problem, but as it and the text surrounding it on both sides is attributed to three separate sources, making it difficult (though obviously not impossible) to determine where the quote comes from.

My question is this: Since it is policy that all quotations should have a source, should we also encourage naming the specific primary source for the quotation where possible?

When I write articles I prefer to specifically cite every piece of information to the source I got it from, but this is apparently more than Wikipedians are generally expected to do, and so I guess we must tolerate entire paragraphs of text with three consecutive sources, but this creates a grey area when it is a point of policy that a certain type of text (such as a quote) must always be attributed to some source.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Re. "I prefer to specifically cite every piece of information to the source I got it from" – afaik that is what is recommended by WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. If you got it from a primary source, cite the primary source; if you got it from a secondary source which quoted a primary source, cite the secondary source where you found the quote (the added value is that this indicates the original quote is significant while quoted in the secondary source). I've cited primary sources in their original language (e.g. available on the internet), adding a reference to a modern book containing its English translation (which I didn't read, while not that easily available). That's then rather something that follows from WP:RSUE.

Re. grouping of references at the end of a sentence or paragraph: that's an editorial choice afaik, for which considerations are contained in guidance like WP:INTEGRITY (maybe that is what you were looking for?)

A quote originating from a primary source, and only cited to the primary source that contains it is obviously not problematic from a verifiability angle, contrary to what you seem to imply. It may be a WP:WEIGHT issue, or maybe an in-line attribution is needed, or the quote needs to be enclosed in quote marks or whatever, but none of that seem topics for this noticeboard. "The author names himself as "John",..." appears without reference in the article on the Book of Revelation, and even that is not particularily problematic from WP:RS/WP:V viewpoint (the context makes clear it is in the opening phrases of the primary source which is the topic of the article).

Don't know whether this helps, if it didn't please give us a more precise example of the kind of problem you're trying to address, or make a bit clearer which improvement you propose for the Quran-related example above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

We run into a similar question with scientific sources in the primary vs. secondary literature. In terms of policy, etc. the secondary source alone is ideal since you can be dealing with WP:OR by simply using a primary source (translation in this topic or competency in sciences). If you already have a secondary source mentioning the primary, it doesn't hurt to have an additional citation directly to the primary source to point readers to it. It seems like good practice, but it's not a requirement either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record, I didn't imply the quote being only attributed to a primary source would be a verifiability problem; I linked WP:NOR for that purpose. Selectively quoting primary source material without secondary and tertiary sources noticeably quoting the same passages is almost always OR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't agree, but this might be related to the subject area. Articles in science journals usually have an Introduction which is a mini-review. It might state something like "It is widely recognised that....". To my mind, this is exactly like quoting a book or a chapter which are considered to be secondary sources. However, I do take the point that quoting something like "Our results show that..." is OR and should not be allowed to stand. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC) DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Are socialist magazines inherently unreliable?

User Rjensen has repeatedly deleted any mention of Hillary Clinton in the Wikipedia entry for Neoliberalism [6], specifically section 5.3.3 on Feminism. Among Rjensen's reasons is his allegation that the original source (Against the Current magazine) is not reliable, since it's published by an avowedly socialist organization with "far-out fringe views" [7]. Yet he neglects to explain how the views conveyed in the cited source are "fringe views" (i.e., unpopular), and even if they were fringe views, he does not explain why they are wrong or why the factual content of the source is unreliable. This particular socialist magazine has a reputation for serious political analysis and rigorous fact-checking, and often includes footnotes in its print version. It counts many academics on its board of editors, who have collectively published numerous peer-reviewed publications. The authors of the article itself are academics with peer-reviewed publications, and no one to my knowledge has refuted any of their factual statements. The original source is here: [8]. One of the sites that reposted the article provides hyperlinks: [9]. And the footnoted version is available at [10]. Because Rjensen offers no other explanation as to why the source is not reliable, his objection constitutes an ad hominem attack: trying to discredit an argument based on the organizational sponsor of the journal in which it appeared, with a strong dose of old-fashioned redbaiting meant to delegitimize the source a priori.

A previous editor (C.J. Griffin) tried to accommodate Rjensen's objection by rewording the passage in question to make clear that the statements represented two scholars' viewpoints, not factual consensus, and even to specify that the source is a "socialist journal" [11]. But Rjensen deleted the passage nonetheless. Here is the passage modified by C.J. Griffin and deleted by Rjensen:

Diana C. Sierra Becerra and Kevin Young, writing in the socialist journal Against the Current, argue the larger support in feminism for Hillary Clinton in 2008 and 2016 (NOW and "Feminists for Clinton") is an example of this shift in feminism towards neoliberalism considering that, in their view, Clinton has consistently favored policies devastating to most women and LGBT peoples. They contend this shift reflects a narrowness of analysis, vision, and values that only apply to wealthy white women who share in the wealth from corporate capitalism and U.S. imperial power. BiblioJordan (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

References

• First off, I don't see how the source's ideology makes any difference. MSNBC is a highly ideological source, yet it's also reliable for claims like the one above. Same for Fox News. Hell, I'd even be willing to cite Breitbart for that passage above. Now, if this were an ideology that regularly pitted them against neoliberals or Hillary Clinton in a public way, or if this were an ideology that (for some reason I can't imagine right now) otherwise gave them reason to call Clinton a neoliberal, that would be something worth discussing. But I don't see any impetus there for them to lie about Clinton.

Second: I nonetheless have serious concerns about the inclusion of this passage. Not only was it written by two non-notable individuals, it expresses an opinion that is not intuitive, requires much interpretation to come to and would change the way people view Clinton and feminism significantly if true. There are some serious WP:BLP issues here, especially given that this sort of claim could easily be seen as damaging to Clinton. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the input re: reliability of source. As to your separate comment, which will be discussed elsewhere, the notion that the opinion expressed is "not intuitive" seems debatable ("people view Clinton and feminism"---WHICH people are you talking about?). Most observers, including Clinton partisans on the [Talk:Neoliberalism] page, acknowledge that Clinton has consistently supported neoliberal policies, though for some reason the same people are often opposed to labeling her "neoliberal." The source cited provides abundant evidence in support of the neoliberal characterization; it is not a willy-nilly insult thrown at Clinton. BiblioJordan (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

("people view Clinton and feminism"---WHICH people are you talking about?) Umm, it should be quite clear from the context. The people referred to are those hypothetical folks who read that passage. I'm thinking you may not have understood what I said. Could you tell me what you think I said? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I THINK you said that the cited source "would change the way people view Clinton and feminism significantly." Am I reading too much into that statement to conclude that you are generalizing when in fact speaking about a specific audience? It might be more appropriate to say it "would change the way certain people view Clinton..." Or, more appropriate still: it "would change the way most liberal Clinton fans view Clinton, since it would expose the contradiction between their putative aversion to neoliberalism and ardent support for a neoliberal candidate..." BiblioJordan (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

See "News organizations": "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Since this is a "biography of a living person", even more care must be taken. The fact that the writers are academics makes little difference. Academics publishing outside academic publications are not bound to the same caution, fact-checking and follow-up, especially when they are writing for partisan publications. There are of course other policy reasons (neutrality and synthesis) for not including your edit, which you can no doubt raise on other notice boards.

Also, obscure publications are generally to be avoided because their role is to provide a forum for facts and ideas that are ignored in mainstream sources. But that reason relates to neutrality rather than reliability.

TFD (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You are quite correct that the academic status of an author is no guarantee of accuracy; I raised it only because the background, qualifications, and motives of the authors are among the many (shifting) objections raised by commenters to impugn the source's reliability. Your most recent statement makes what I believe is a false distinction between "news," which is supposedly neutral and objective, and "analysis," which is presumably rife with misleading and tendentious statements. As the discipline of media studies makes abundantly clear, that distinction is itself extremely misleading, in that "news" pieces invariably reflect the priorities and values of owners/advertisers/editors/authors and "analysis" is often based on robust facts. Your comment contains another dubious asssertion: that "obscure publications" are inherently less reliable (or "neutral") than "mainstream sources." So-called "mainstream" sources are not mainstream in the sense of representing the popular will, but because they are owned by people and institutions with the resources to disseminate their "news" and because they abide by the unwritten doctrinal strictures of subservience to corporate and state power; that truism holds for the New York Times and MSNBC just as it holds for Fox News. Again, this is amply documented by the media studies scholarship, mostly notably by authors like Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, and Ben Bagdikian but also many, many others. Scholarship aside, though, there is a fairly easy way to resolve the question of source reliability: you or someone else could offer a refutation of even a single factual statement contained in the cited source---you could show that any of the source's many factual statements about Hillary Clinton's record is false. If you can't find an inaccurate statement in the article, you could find ANY inaccurate statement contained in the nearly 200 issues of "Against the Current" magazine. In the substantial hostile commentary about the source in question I have yet to see any editors even attempt this simple test. I eagerly await a response. BiblioJordan (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

You are arguing against policy and should take your argument there. Certainly mainstream media have a corporate bias, and to conservative editors they have a liberal bias, but the policy (and you need to read them) says that opinions and facts should be presented in proportion to their coverage in mainstream sources. And no I did not say that left-wing sources are not reliable but that they do not reflect the emphasis used in mainstream sources. So if NASA and the New York Times tomorrow say the moon is made of green cheese, then we will change the moon article. TFD (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

You are addressing the "neutrality"/"verifiability" policies, which is a separate discussion. But by my reading of the rules, I am not arguing against policy. I believe you are misinterpreting those policies: less prominent, "minority" viewpoints (or facts) are not prohibited, and Wikipedia actually encourages them provided they come from reliable sources and provided that the "majority" viewpoints/"facts" are also presented and given "due weight." That the characterization of Clinton as neoliberal is not a "tiny" minority view should be evident from the massive appeal of Sanders among Democratic voters over the past year. That said, I am not even sure that your position on Clinton is the "most prominent" within reliable sources: the view of Clinton as a neoliberal is probably a minority viewpoint among her supporters (though many corporate donors support her precisely because they see her as such); however, when we extend the range of "reliable sources" beyond just the corporate media to include academic scholarship, it's quite possible that that denialism is NOT in fact the majority view. Without having conducted an exhaustive review of the academic literature, I cannot say for sure. But my point is that "mainstream" media are not defined by Wikipedia as the most reliable sources; academic, peer-reviewed scholarship is generally deemed more reliable.

I reiterate my request. There is a fairly easy way to resolve the question of source reliability: you or someone else could offer a refutation of even a single factual statement contained in the cited source---you could show that any of the source's many factual statements about Hillary Clinton's record is false. BiblioJordan (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The statement at issue as I understand it is whether or not Clinton is a "neoliberal feminist" as defined in your source. You do not appear to understand what that concept means. It does not mean that someone is both a neoliberal and a feminist, but that they subscribe to a particular type of feminism which says that powerful women should be able to get to the top in business, but everyone else is on their own. It may be that Clinton believes that but her public pronouncements are closer to the "liberal feminism" of Gertrude Stein, which is the subject of the article in the "socialist magazine." Incidentally the article is highly critical of liberal feminism. TFD (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, you have failed to address the question at hand: is Against the Current magazine, and this article specifically, a reliable source? It's irrelevant to the discussion here, but since you raised the point: I understand neoliberal feminism (or "corporate feminism," as in the article's subtitle) in precisely the same way that the article's authors do---a feminism which measures progress on women's rights largely by the number of women in positions of business and state leadership. A major point of the cited article is that liberal feminists have tended to accept neoliberal tenets (and have also condoned plenty of other nasty things), blurring the distinction between "liberal" and "neoliberal" feminisms. And the genealogies of those two schools are interlinked. Liberal and neoliberal feminisms are not entirely distinct or mutually exclusive ideologies. One person can be both. But again, irrelevant to the topic of this discussion board. BiblioJordan (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

See my comments above. According to Wikipedia policy, the article is an opinion piece and therefore not reliable as a source for facts. Note that would be true regardless of the magazine. It is of course a reliable source for the authors' opinions, although you misrepresent them. It does not say that Gloria Steinem has accepted neoliberal tenets, it says that her version of feminism is in the same strand as Elizabeth Cady Stanton (d. 1902) and Susan B. Anthony (d. 1906). TFD (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies are clear: a source may contain opinions but also be a reliable source of factual information. While the article certainly contains opinions (as, indeed, ANY piece of writing does), it is also filled with factual assertions, which can either be confirmed or refuted. Curiously, I have yet to hear a refutation of any of those facts. Moreover, according to policy, opinions that are based on reliably-cited factual evidence can also merit inclusion in Wikipedia entries if they represent a significant viewpoint (even if a "minority" one) and are properly identified as opinions.

Again, you've raised a point that is not relevant to this particular discussion page, stating that the source "does not say Gloria Steinem has accepted neoliberal tenets" and claiming some sort of vindication with that observation. In case you haven't noticed, the discussion on this page is not about Steinem, it's about Clinton. On that count, we've already been through this ad nauseam, and the source remains clear: she's a neoliberal, corporate feminist (my personal view is that Steinem isn't far off, but again, irrelevant to our discussion here). Pointing out that the article does not explicitly identify Steinem as a neoliberal is a textbook red herring, completely irrelevant and diversionary, and increases my suspicion that you may in fact be a paid Clinton troll (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-hillary-clinton-paying-trolls-attack-people-online-article-1.2613980). BiblioJordan (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

You should retract your personal attack. Anyway the policy is clear: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Your source is an opinion piece and there is no reasonable why it should be considered reliable for facts. It is however reliable for the opinions of its authors, but you would need to take that to the neutrality noticeboard. And of course it does not say what you claim it does, but that issue belongs in the no original research noticeboard. Incidentally, it is not clear which claim you are making, that Clinton is a neoliberal or that she is a neoliberal feminist. TFD (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a growing problem today with mainstream media on ongoing controversial topics that creates a catch-22 when it comes to evaluating sources and neutrality on WP. It comes from recognizing that there has been a clear trend in media to engage in more empathic, opinionated reporting rather than objective as to draw readership and stay competitive against other sources particularly the Internet (blogs, citizen journalism, etc.) and the current ongoing culture war. The right-leaning publications were much faster to take this approach and tend to be more extreme, exaggerating claims, engaging in attacks on reputation of the people they cover, etc., and hence why most right-leaning publications are routinely rejected as reliable source (eg Brietbart). But the left-leaning publications are not immune to this, they have just been much slower and far less obvious about using these approaches. The recent issue with the WaPost and Trump is a good example of this. The take-away here is to understand bias and opinion can come from what we have traditionally considered reliable sources that, say, 10 years ago, we'd not really have questioned.

How does this translate to WP? If one sticks to RS and UNDUE/WEIGHT from NPOV, then one creates a situation on a controversial topic with politicial leanings where the left-leaning media is readily accepted, the right-leaning media regularly rejected, and because one is only considering the balance that is presented in RSes (which are going to be weighted toward left-leaning), you create an article that is imbalanced to the left but appears neutral per UNDUE since that's the balance presented by RSes. Editors that then favor the left-leaning view will sit on that topic, stating they are right (which by strict reading of policy, they seem to be), and the right-leaning views will be rejected as fringe since no "RS" under their view covers it. Editors may suggest more right-leaning media but these get called out as unreliable by default, perpetuating the issue.

WP editors need to be much more cognizant of the larger situation in a controversial topic to understand where information from useable sources is coming from and what the big picture is, so that a more neutral picture that represents the appropriate balance that WEIGHT suggests when reviewing all usable sources, not just reliable sources. This requires understanding that right-leaning sources like Brietbart are acceptable for their opinion even if we are quick to dismiss facts from them, just as we'd accept opinions from left-leaning sources without question. In both cases, we should be careful to treat all opinions as suspect if they are dissenting views, per WP:YESPOV (too many times, statements from left-leaning sources if not labelled as an op-ed are taken as irrefutable facts even if they are contested by other sources, and YESPOV tells us we shouldn't make that assumption for contested statements). This is not to make a false balance, 50-50 on a controversial topic, but to make sure that the balance is reflecting the overall picture and all usable sources, not just what RS tells us to stick to for facts. Unfortunately, I've seen too many articles of late that want to keep to the "ivory tower" of only what the RSes say and not the larger picture, creating this implicit bias that only gets worse as the controversies continues with significant views coming from outside the block of RSes, exemplified by topics like Trump's campaign, feminism, and alt-right, to name a few. We need to be clear that RS is required to state anything as a fact in WP's voice, but a much larger body of sources can be used to include opinions that surround such controversies. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

So would a sources like the Washington Examiner, or Reason.com be excluded if they cover topics or have interpretations that "mainstream" media don't cover?Mattnad (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It depends, particularly in context of how much weight in the context of all usable (not reliable) sources there would be for opinions. If a solitary column in Reason was the only place in any usable source to counter a mainstream source, yeah, that's not going to work per FRINGE. On the other hand, if a common opinion expressed by Reason and several other similar libertarian works that was not addressed in mainstream sources, and is a central idea to the controversial subject, then that should be included. It's a judgment call, but this needs to be available as an option for a judgment call for consensus discussion - the current attitudes to completely dismiss the right-leaning sources generally don't allow for such discussion to take place. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I find it best to use secondary sources for opinions rather than the original source. For example, if there is a Supreme Court decision, news reports in mainstream media will explain the different reactions to it. Those articles (assuming the reporters are doing their jobs) will summarize the arguments pro and con, say who the supporters and opponents are and describe the degree of support and opposition. That is a lot simpler than choosing among hundreds of columns written and avoids long discussions on talk pages and noticeboards about the reliability of the sources and the neutrality of the article. TFD (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

For most sources up to about 2000, this is generally true, but my point above is that since 2000, with the rise of citizen journalists and blogs that are vying for readership from established papers, the escalating culture war and the currently US election cycle, its no longer a safe assumption that RSes are "doing their jobs" in summarizing all sides of the issue. You do have the most reliable sources like the New York Times and the BBC that strive for doing objective journalism, but even normally respectable RSes will engage in opinionated reporting without marking it as such (as an op-ed for example), skewing coverage if we don't take a critical eye to the sources ourselves. It's just that this is very obvious to see in right-leaning works like Brietbart, while the shift to this style in left-leaning ones is far less obvious but still occurring. It is very difficult for a subject on an ongoing controversial topic to find a RS that reasonably summarizes both/all sides if there is any political or social motivation at the center of the debate. When no such objective RSes exist, then we are forced to consider what is being said overall and make the best judgement calls of how to reflect the larger debate, keeping in mind that one is likely not to find a significant amount of factual information but a lot of claims and statements of opinion that just need to be attributed that way. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Rjenson didn't categorize the source as fringe merely for being socialist but for being Trotskyist. Reading the article, it appears to be solidly argued but perhaps the journal still fails as "fringe." Apparently others have found more moderate left-leaning sources that categorize her policies as neoliberal. Since Clinton doesn't self-identify as neoliberal nor is there an intellectual source for her neoliberal development, I don't think this belongs in the Neoliberal article. I have edited that article years ago and it is a very difficult article to achieve consensus. I suggest that other articles, specifically on political positions of Hillary Clinton, should have this criticism as opinion with the source cited. This is the best I can do without spending a few days reading all that's written here and all the sources. I apologize if I've missed a few points. I hope this helps. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

ballotpedia.org on Lane Powell

Hi, quick question. I wanted to use https://ballotpedia.org as a source for the Lane Powell page. This source was going to accompany lawyers from the firm who left to accept a Bench position. This source is going to be used to just give credibility that they worked at Lane Powell and are now a judge. I wanted to get your thoughts before posting. (LPWik97203 (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC))

It looks like a low-quality but usable source. It says it has a "professional staff", and it has an error reporting form, so there's at least some fact-checking and corrections going on; but it's unclear how much editorial control they exert, and AFAIK it doesn't have any sort of reputation. So it's usable, but probably not for anything controversial... I don't think what you're trying to add is controversial, so it's probably fine. --Aquillion (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

AnVi OpenSource Knowledge Trust

Hylics was recently redirected because it supposedly was violating the copyright of a book published by AnVi OpenSource Knowledge Trust, which appears to be another one of those damn "publishers" that just collects our articles into a theme and prints them. Only this group is claiming that, despite being OpenSource (as in source code, as from the digital era) and discussing topics in ways that they somehow have a 1961 copyright.

I'm not really here to ask if sources from this company are unreliable -- they're outdated versions of our own articles at best -- I'm just here to point out that we appear to have a number of articles citing sources from this so-called "publisher."

My cat died today, it's late, and I've got errands to run in the morning, so I can't fix this right now. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Use of US conservative The Daily Signal on Russia-related articles.

As Wikipedia's article on The Daily Signal notes, the website is published by The Heritage Foundation, a US conservative website. That political bias aside, I would like to question how reliable this source is in relation to Russia-related articles, such as the conflict currently arising in the Azov Battalion article. This is the source in question:

• Peterson, Nolan. "How a Swedish Sniper Found Redemption in the Ukraine War". The Daily Signal.

Here is what the source is supporting, in context: (diff)

Some members of the unit were described as "neo-Nazi", an accusation that Ukrainian ministerial adviser, Anton Geraschenko has denied. A spokesman for the unit has said this label applies to 10-20% of its recruits, and one commander attributed this ideology to misguided youth. As a result of being a multicultural and multinational unit, those with far-right convictions live and fight side-by-side soldiers from 22 countries and various backgrounds, including Arabs, Russians, and Americans—as well as Christians, Muslims, and Jews.

References

References

On the reliability of using The Daily Signal in this article: I brought this up on Kaobear's talk page here when I was first reverted for my edits, and no reply has been given, and explained on this user's talk page (as well as the article talk page) as to why I believe The Daily Signal is too biased to be used on such a contentious article as this one.

Just Googling "daily signal russia" shows that this source is especially antagonistic towards Russia, as well as looking at the Heritage Foundation's articles on Russia shows serious NPOV issues with the source, which I believe are too contentious to be used in the Azov Battalion article, or any articles discussing Russia, the Russia–Ukrainian conflict, etc. But I would like to hear from WP:RS/N on the actual reliability of the source. Liborbital (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Likely unreliable: I came here from the Azov Battalion article but am relatively new to that discussion. The first thing I noticed when reading this source was its odd tone.

  ... Russian and some Western media outlets, as well as several U.S. lawmakers, point to the symbol of the Azov Battalion, which closely resembles the Nazi Wolfsangel.
  Battalion soldiers disagree. They say their symbol stands for “idea of the nation,” which refers to Ukrainian nationalism.

• The article is bizarre anyhow. Apart from the fact that it's written like the plot of a Call of Duty game, it continues with justifying any of his or the battalion's alleged Neo-Nazi convictions by saying things likd "But is a man’s desire to die for his country or a cause any less heroic if he is a nationalist?" and gives incredible claims like a Jordanian doctor traveling through Europe in 2011, approaching people to recruit them as mercenaries for Assad. We have no way to source his statements, and a former Neo-Nazi leader and current member of the battalion isn't the best source. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. This is irrelevant request/forum shopping because there is no dispute about the source. No one ever said this is the best source on the subject. It can be easily replaced by better sources. My very best wishes (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

That would be welcome. I don't know what Liborbital's intentions are but I simply assumed it was as a result of the discussion between you two that this was brought up. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Prinsgezinde, that indeed would be welcome. And @My very best wishes: this is not irrelevant. I removed the Daily Signal source, mentioning here that the Daily Signal was too POV to be used in the Azov Batallion article; you disagreed, re-adding the content and saying that you had "double checked the sources" and that the matter had been discussed at the talk page (which it had not). If you had double-checked the sources (as you claim) then surely you believe it to be a reliable source, as otherwise you would not have added the material? I disagreed with that, so I brought it here. I fail to see what your issue here is. Liborbital (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• This is not true. (a) There was no objections on article talk page [12], and (b) my edit summary was about an entirely different matter: checking multiple sources with relation to the category, as obvious from this article editing history and talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for mixing up your edit summary. But I made my objections very clear in the edit summaries on more than one occasion, and you re-adding content from the Daily Signal (due to a "self-revert", which unless you and I are the same person was not actually a self-revert), was just after I had mentioned POV concerns in the edit summary. Liborbital (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment A quick glance at the article shows that there are numerous partisan or questionable sources being used. I'm curious as to why this one is singled out for attention. (Disclosure, as someone who works in climate I definitely have no love for the Heritage Foundation.) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I think someone should have a quiet word in Col. Biletsky's ear as to the "untermenschen" origin of the bullpup rifle he is holding so trustingly. Just a thought ;) Irondome (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: I agree; this is by no means the only partisan source being used here. Liborbital (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The Daily signal is clearly a propaganda sheet (owned by the Heritage Foundation) and should not be used. Headlines on their website I accessed today include, "New Peruvian President Pledges to Fight Populism and Expand Economic Freedom," "One Year After Same-Sex Marriage Decision, Dissent Not Permitted," "Asian Americans Students Suspect Discrimination in Ivy League Admissions," "This New Law Ensures South Carolina Students Will Study the Founding Documents," "Victims of Communism Memorial Ceremony Honors Activists Against Tyranny" and "How Maine’s Time Limit on Welfare Pushed One Woman to Pull Herself Out of Poverty." It does not matter, as My very best wishes says, that "It can be easily replaced by better sources." The point of this notice board is not to determine whether the underlying facts of any source are true but whether the source is reliable. Obviously some facts in even unreliable sources are true. There was for example a decision on same sex marriage one year ago. TFD (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Signal is owned and operated by the Heritage Foundation; it is similar to ThinkProgress, which is owned and operated by the Center for American Progress. I would generally avoid citation to both, as both are ideologically laden. There may be occasional exceptions, but I don't think this is one of them. Neutrality^talk 19:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

GAR input sought: Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz

Hi, it has been suggested to me by editor Coretheapple in the Discussion area of a current GA reassessment that the review be brought to the attention of a wider audience. The reassessment raises, in part, the questions of sourcing as the article relies on a single source for most of citations (160 in total). The source is:

• Röll, Hans-Joachim (2011). Generalleutnant der Reserve Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz von Groß-Zauche und Camminetz: Vom Kavallerieoffizier zum Führer gepanzerter Verbände (in German). Würzburg, Germany: Flechsig. ISBN 978-3-8035-0015-1. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

This appears to be an obscure book published in Germany, and is both physically and linguistically inaccessible to the English language editors. Most of the claims/details are not supported by other sources, in contrast to Wikipedia's guidelines on "multiple RS sources".

Where other sources are used, the fall under WP:questionable sources, such as

• Günter Fraschka,
• Otto Carius, and
• Gordon Williamson (writer).

For example, the military historian S.P. MacKenzie describes Williamson as a writer who attempts "to restore the tarnished reputation [of the Waffen-SS] and reiterate its superb fighting qualities" by relying on veterans' narratives, with "predictably positive results".

The latter is used for an WP:extraordinary claim of the subject's regiment destroying 270 tanks in 48 hours.

The article in question is Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz. I hope editors of this noticeboard would be interested in reviewing the article to see if it still meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria and whether it should be retained or delisted as a Good article. I would appreciate any feedback you could share. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes I did make that suggestion and I commend K.e.coffman for coming here. I would make the same request re Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/William L. Uanna/1. While improved since the GAR of that article commenced, there are still questions as to reliable sourcing and unencyclopedic detail. Coretheapple (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

An English language book on the subject is The Devil's General: The Life of Hyazinth Strachwitz, "The Panzer Graf" by Raymond Bagonas. Note that the spelling "Hyazinth" seems common in English language treatments of the subject. - Nunh-huh 14:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if The Devil's General would be helpful. It's written by a non-notable author of unknown credentials, and the author himself states in the intro:

"His records of service in the 16th Panzer Division were destroyed along with the division in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1943. After a period of distinguished service with the elite Grossdeutschland Division, he served as commander of several ad-hoc units, some bearing his name, in a period when records, if kept at all, were scanty, or lost.

"It all makes for a rather threadbare paper trail. His comrades-in-arms have now all passed away, so there are no witnesses to his many battles and exploits."

Please see Casemate's blog. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Addictinginfo as source

A little edit war has broken out on Panama Papers over the folllowing paragraph, which I have removed several times now:

"* Thousands of mentions of Donald Trump"

My own position is that the addictinginfo reference,

"As Telesur reports have shown, Donald Trump has a direct or indirect link to 32 companies exposed for unethical shenanigans in the papers. One of his personal entities, the Trump Ocean Club International Hotel and Tower in Panama, is listed. In total, financial big wigs referenced Trump a total of 3,540 times."

is not reliable or encyclopedic, and the Huffington Post merely mentions him in passing with the remark that his involvement is unproven and even unlikely. Telesur, eh, I don't speak spanish very well, but it appears to be a rather sensationalist tabloid.

Now, the name Trump strictly speaking does appear but he is known for branding other people's business deals and in this article the phrase we decided was most neutral was "appears in the papers" but every other person who is described as "mentioned" is either a client or possibly a nominee of Mossack Fonseca. There is no evidence that Trump goes overseas for his tax shelters or ever heard of Mossack Fonseca. None. Possibly maybe a business partner or some of the people who bought condos from him may have used shell companies. No evidence of Trump doing this. None.

Now, I am not fond of the man and it irks me that I have to point out that this mention, untrue as it appears to me to be, is possibly libelous, either because he chooses to take the mention to be a slur on his business abilities, or to imply that he is involved in some sort of tax fraud or other funny business. We have been at great pains in this article to repeat that yes, some people may have done some illegal things, in fact it seems certain that sanctions were skirted at a minimum, but having an offshore shell company is not illegal and may be nothing more than prudent financial management in certain cases.

See the following, which *is* a reliable source and one of the news organizations that participated in the investigation: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article74789322.html

I think the paragraph should, if we absolutely need to have Trump in there, be rewritten to reflect the more balanced MCClatchy account, and preferably stay deleted, since there seems to be no definite info. If we are going to say Donald Trump is involved we need a better source. That's what I think. What say you? Oh and here is a diff of the most recent time I removed it [[13]] There are several others; nobody seems to wat to discuss this. They just revert the revert. Maybe some of you can explain this so it gets understood? Elinruby (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Basing the text on the mcclatchydc source appears to be the best thing to do here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

(ec):Elinruby: Another source, McClatchy, which is reliable was added but you kept reverting. Any problem with that one too?--TMCk (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

elinruby: We say Trump's name was mentioned thousands of time, right below several others that are not directly involved but mentioned. What's the difference here?--TMCk (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you guys all sitting in a room together or something? @Volunteer Marek: if you read the McClatchy article, it doesn't support the statement you want to add. At least I don't think so. Please see my answers to the four or five of you on the talk page. I explain the different between Karim Wade or Nawaz Sharif and Donald Trump. If you can show me something analogous from the McClatchy article (or any other article in a reliable source) then fine, possibly I read too fast. But I see those thirty paragraphs on McClatchy as debunking addictinginfo. Elinruby (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC) Elinruby (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sitting in my room watching some Euro soccer. What are you guys doing? Anyway, here's mcclatchy:

"His name, however, appears 3,540 times in leaked documents"

"Some of his partners and associates are in the documents"

And that's just from the header.

yeah and the header also says: "Trump doesn't appear as an owner of offshores" Elinruby (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

But the text under discussion does not claim that Trump appears as the owner of offshores so I'm not sure what your point is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The entire article is about ownership of offshores. That is what the Panama Papers *are* -- ownership information for offshore companies. Elinruby (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Then

"The Trump name shows up on 3,540 of those leaked documents, many shedding light on what has become a business model. Some of his associates and business partners are also in the files."

"his business partners in the project appear as buyers of condo units, some of whom create offshore shell companies with Mossack Fonseca for the purchase." The guy you sold a condo to is not a "business partner" -- if you have specific people who were his partners, as in actually did business with him beyond buying a condo, you might have something. But from here it goes into a list of "Trump" businesses that have nothing to do with Donald Trump. oh, there is 0ne guy he sued, if you can find a source that expands that then maybe. Seriously, do you not see the difference between this and all of your friends suddenly getting rich and having billionaire bank accounts even though they are violinists, like Putin? Elinruby (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

It's actually not true that they "have nothing to do with Trump". Also the sources says "business partners" so your original research on what makes someone a "business partner" or not is beside the point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I read the article to find out who the business partners were <grin> you still haven't ready your own reference, have you? I have even summarized it for you a couple of times. Besides the condo buyers there is a guy he sued ten years ago and there is something sketchy with a guy who might have been his lawyer, maybe, once upon a time. HE might count, if you had another reference Elinruby (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

"Trump partners or customers who appear in the leak of Mossack Fonseca documents now avoid association with the beleaguered Panamanian law firm."

How does that "not support the text"? How in the world does it "debunk" or in fact have anything to do with addinctingwhatever?

title of article: "What Panama Papers say - and don’t say - about Trump" Elinruby

(talk) 21:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC) addictinginfo.com doesn't seem usable at all; as far as I can tell, it's just a personal website. On the other hand, while I'm not hugely familiar with TeleSUR, it seems broadly-usable, at least at first glance; it's a state-funded news station, but that doesn't matter as long as it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which it seems to have. I don't see anything indicating that it's a 'sensationalist tabloid' or anything of that nature. --Aquillion (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure about Telesur. It might be a little better than that, maybe USA Today

, which would make it usable for some things. It just seems to me that I see it more as a source for arrests of narco-trafficantes or the hijinks of movie stars, but as I said, my Spanish isn't very good. But I still don't see a source for adding Donald Trump to a list of Mossack Fonseca, except maybe (let's suppose) Telesur and a) why is there no English-language reference; surely this would have been news in the US? b) McClatchy, which says eh not really c) does the Telesue actually make the point it is being cited for, because look at the McClatchy one, *it* doesn't Elinruby (talk)

The Good Web Guide

Hey guys, I was wondering if The Good Web Guide would be usable as a RS. What works mildly in their favor is that their about page shows that they're a little discerning. There are also a few reviews of their print books here and there. ([14], [15]) This book has a bio of one of their authors, which looks pretty impressive - although I will note that this is only one of their authors. (The same author is mentioned in this review on JSTOR.) If they all have criteria like this it'd be a good sign. Their authors also seem to be quoted here and there, but not heavily. They're also listed as a source in some books.

However what works against them is that there really isn't a lot of coverage about them since they launched in 2001. They're mentioned here and there, but it seems to always be by people who won the award. The Daily Mail covered them, but that's not really the greatest site to use. They seem to be reliable overall, but I just don't know if they're Wikipedia reliable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be on the lower end of the reliability spectrum, perhaps usable for basic indisputable facts. They have an entry fee, which raises some questions about objectivity. I would treat their reviews as opinion and mostly only use them with attribution.- MrX 11:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yikes. That makes them fairly suspect in my book. It looks like it's for the awards and many awards do have entry fees, however it makes me wonder if there's a fee for inclusion in their database/reviews. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

London Jazz News

I'm currently participating in an AfD where they're trying to use this book review as a RS to show notability. Part of the issue with this AfD is that the book in question was used at one point to back up major changes to an article for a living person, Seasick Steve. Essentially the book claims that everything SS has told people is a lie manufactured to market himself more efficiently, thus claiming that the article itself is largely incorrect. (There was a bit of an edit war as well.) If this source is usable then it could potentially help argue for the book's inclusion in Wikipedia somewhere.

My question is whether or not LJN is usable as a RS. It's hosted on Blogger, which is never a particularly good sign for sourcing but I'm aware that there are some exceptions to the blog rule. The site offers advertising, but they specifically state that reviews are not part of the package. The site and their Twitter account claim that they've won the Jazz Media Award, and the Parliamentary Jazz Awards, however I'm not entirely aware if these are major enough to make the site a RS/authority. They do seem to get name dropped, which works in their favor ([16], [17], [18], [19]) and I do see where they've been cited as a source in some books.

Offhand it looks like they might be usable, but given the situation I really want to make sure that they are. Offhand the author only looks to be notable for this one book and if this source is reliable then it'd give weight to the idea of including this somewhere in the performer's article. (Where and how it'd be mentioned is something to think about, possibly a subsection in the article?)

However I'm also concerned that the claims in the book are fairly contentious and that at present we only have five sources (including the blog) showing any sort of coverage for the book - the majority of which are sources written in the same 1-2 day period, many of which essentially say the same thing. Would this all be strong enough to justify a mention in the article? I know that's somewhat more of a BLP issue, but it also somewhat falls within the sphere of this noticeboard. Basically, would these five sources be considered heavy enough to warrant inclusion, given that the claims can easily be seen as very contentious. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• It looks like the version I wrote at the author's article is currently in the performer's article at Seasick_Steve#2016_Biography (not added by me), so this can give a good example of how it might be included. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos Article Discussion

As it relates to the Milo article, Nblund has misrepresented the discussion and conflated it with the BLM discussion. Here's the language for THAT article that was proposed:

"Several news sources indicated some protesters threatened violence, with some reporting on actual physical acts of violence against Milo and another person videotaping the protest. They also included links to a video recording of one protester grabbing a microphone and possibly hitting Milo in the face. During the interruption, some protesters shouted "Black Lives Matter" while security guards stood passively aside at the request of administrators present."

More at issue, Nblund has been suppressing any mention of threats of violence, or actual violence that several sources and published video demonstrates.

Sources:

• Breitbart: "threatened to punch Yiannopoulos in the face" and "One attendee, Matt Forney, was grabbed by activists as he attempted to film the march." and "The male ringleader screamed “Feel the Bern” and chanted against Donald Trump, whilst the female ringleader chanted “Black Lives Matter”."
• Daily Caller: "One video uploaded to Twitter, for instance, shows the cameraman joke about a protester’s weight and subsequently get attacked by a woman who calls him a “fucking racist.”
• Washington Times: "Conservative pundit Milo Yiannopoulos was threatened with violence and hit in the face by a female student during a speaking engagement at the university’s Chicago campus on earlier this week."
• Reason.com "DePaul University Black Lives Matter protesters shut down a Milo Yiannopoulos event on Tuesday night." and "In video footage of the event, a female protester can clearly be seen striking Yiannopoulos in the face."
• Heat Steet: "Conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopolous wants DePaul University to refund his security costs after his event last night was shut down by anti-Trump activists supporting Black Lives Matter and Bernie Sanders." and quoting Milo "“What I’m surprised by is that the security, which I paid a thousand dollars for otherwise they threatened they would cancel the event, refused to remove somebody from the stage who threatened to hit me. It’s so shocking."
• Chicago Tribune: "The activists snatched a microphone and refused to give up the stage as they tried to lead chants of "Dump the Trump!" "Feel the Bern!" "Black Lives Matter!" and other slogans"

Nblund has conflated discussions and confused things. There's no indication that this was a BLM protest, but Black Lives Matter was certainly mentioned. More important, per WP:RS, we don't disqualify something just because it come from a rightist or leftist source. Given this is very relevant to Milo, there's no issue of weight here or Undue when it's part of his Bio. The Reason.com article is possible opinion (and can be highlighted that way with inline text), but the rest most certainly are notMattnad (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, all of those (except the Washington Times, which consists entirely of quotes and cites to people's opinions) are opinion pieces; they can't be used to source statements of fact. What I would suggest doing is instead writing a sentence or a paragraph on the reaction to the event among conservative commentators, which seems like an important part of the story and appears to be what those sources (including the Washington Times piece) are actually focused on, presenting the descriptions of violence as the way they characterized it rather than as unequivocal fact. Those sources definitely do not support the exact statement you're trying to make (cites from opinion pages and WP:NEWSBLOGs can't be accurately summarized as "several news sources"), but you could use them by mildly changing what you're saying to make it clear that this was a common characterization of the incident among conservative commentators rather than trying to say that it was something reported by "several news sources." --Aquillion (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I asked about a specific edit by James J. Lambden. I didn't bring up the dispute you're citing because in this comment you said that we could use in-text attribution for these claims. My remaining concerns with your proposed edit were related to NPOV and WP:DUE. Since this is the RS noticeboard and not the "Festivus Airing of Grievances board" I didn't think it was appropriate to bring up an NPOV question here. If you do think that these are acceptable sources for statements of fact in this case, then I think the above discussion is probably a good indication that they aren't and I don't think we need to have a third noticeboard discussion to establish what qualifies as an opinion source. Nblund (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Since we're both fans of Seinfeld (I think), I take it back. I'm not 100% agreeing that all are opinion pieces but if we need in text, fine. As for NPOV, as I've already said, you're free to add counter sources if verifiable.Mattnad (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

If there's a situation that doesn't call for a Seinfeld reference, I haven't found it.

None of these are verifiable as statements of fact, but it is verifiable to say that both sides accused the other of threats, inflammatory language, and "assault". ( 1, 2). My own preference is to not delve in to this, because this sort of finger pointing is common after protests of this type and it's probably (on both sides) mostly hot air. There are several critiques of the protesters offered in those opinion pieces, about the nature of free speech and the responsibilities of universities, that are far more interesting and far more useful for readers to hear. If you are going to add that discussion, you should make an attempt to make it conform to NPOV yourself. Saying "I'm free to add counter sources" makes it sound like you'e expecting me to ensure neutrality in your edits. I would much rather work collaboratively. Nblund (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

"More at issue, Nblund has been suppressing any mention of threats of violence, or actual violence that several sources and published video demonstrates." -- this is very concerning. This is not like some college campus (almost all) where the First Amendment has been neutered or effectively no longer exists. Dissenting voices must be heard and the mainstream media (although not the Chicago Tribune in this case, apparently) and left wing social media sites that have garnered some measure of undeserved respectability (Salon.com, HuffPo, where snarky, bitchy, snotty comments like "Since this is the RS noticeboard and not the "Festivus Airing of Grievances board" belong), do not and will not report everything that should be reported. That is why Wikipedia must impartially record what is happening. If one right-leaning source reports something -- include it. Then if a MSM or left-leaning source disputes that, include the dispute. We cannot have people censoring Wikipedia because it is an election year or because they don't like something they read. Quis separabit? 22:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

As I said above, though, the WP:RS issue here isn't (primarily) whether they're right-leaning or left-leaning. The issue is that these are all either opinion pieces or consist solely of other people reporting on opinion pieces. The Chicago Tribune is reliable, but as you'll see if you follow the link, this cite is to an opinion piece published there (and the other sources are similar, though often from lower-quality or more fringe publications); we can cite these to say eg. "conservative commentators described the incident as..." and then go on to say much of what you said above, but we can't use these particular citations to eg. say "some protesters threatened violence" as a statement of fact. If we want to say that, unqualified, in article text, we need a news report from a reliable source rather than an opinion piece. If it is unambiguously true that that's what happened, then it should be easy to find news reports that describe it that way. --Aquillion (talk) 02:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

If a piece is marked as opinion, that's something to take into account but not an absolute prescription. It just indicates that statements of opinion may exist in the article. Facts might be presented as the background or support to those opinions. Likewise, opinions might be presented in an article that doesn't carry any disclaimer of such. The granularity is at the level of a claim. Rhoark (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I am a bit late to comment on this, but I was wondering whether the "Reason.com" link posted above meets the criteria for reliable sources. Reason.com is not an independent news blog, it is the website of Reason magazine. Reason is a libertarian publication which is fully owned by the think tank Reason Foundation. It might not qualify as a third-party source. Dimadick (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Raman Kapur, as terrorism expert

There is a question as to whether Raman Kapur is a reliable source for the article Islamic terrorism. Kapur is a Director and Clinical Psychologist, Queen's University of Belfast, Northern Ireland. Kapur is an expert in all types of terrorism and has published articles in anthologies on terrorism. He is also a regular contributor to the BBC. The particular article in question was published in an anthology called “Global Terrorism: Issues and Developments” published by “Nova Science Publishers” in 2008. His article is Chapter 4: [20] [21], see page 136. Our edit concerns the abuse of religious texts to justify hatred. [22]. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Nova Science Publishers appears to be a somewhat questionable publisher that doesn't subject book chapters to a normal peer review process. However, I don't think this argument is particularly unique to Kapur. There are lots of prominent experts who have discussed the role of hatred and "othering" in justifying terrorist violence, and lots of theologians have disputed the notion that the Koran contains endorsements of modern terrorism. Another source should be easy to track down.

That said: Robert Spencer's credentials are far more dubious. He's an ideologue who runs organizations that have been identified as hate groups by the SPLC. It seems like this would make him a WP:FRINGE figure with regard to Islamic theology. If his views are considered notable, it might be acceptable to cite his opinions about Islam in the entry, but he's not a reliable source for facts or quots about the Koran. This cherry picked quote implies Spencer's argument without making it explicit (see Wikipedia:TROJAN horse), and that raises NPOV issues. Nblund (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for noting that Nova Science Publishers doesn't always publish peer review literature. This is an anthology, not a journal. Kapur is an academic. We are removing Spencer's citation and deferring to an academic who presents a very different analysis. We are moving beyond "quote mining" and presenting an analysis although we could expand the author's analysis. Before I do the work, I thought it would be prudent to get feedback on the author as a reliable source. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me be more direct: I don't think this chapter is a reliable source, and, even if Kapur is a bona-fide expert in terrorism, he isn't a theologian and isn't really qualified as an expert on the Hadith. The quote itself appears to contain a typographical error in the text (page 136 in google books version)

I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have I have been made victorious with terror, and while I was sleeping...

It's unclear why anyone would defer to this particular academic, when his argument is also made by far more reputable scholars. Nblund (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Theologian? We aren't talking about an article on Islamic Theology, of which we have many. We are talking about Islamic terrorism and Kapur is an expert on terrorist psychology. He understands how terrorists think and how they rationalize their atrocities. It is precisely a psychologist that we need. Do you actually think there are theologians who would argue that Islamic texts support terrorism? If so we need theologians; and I'd like to see the "prominent experts" that you can produce who would argue this. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

A psychologist is not a good source on religious texts or religions. Nor is a theologian a good source on states of mind. With similar logic to the above, we could construct an article on "terrorism and mothers" or "terrorism and alarm clocks". Or even "terrorism and television sets". Tying the two together is highly problematic and requires very solid sources. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 00:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You make a good point. This can be seen as an interdisciplinary area. However, we have several sources that show that jihadist terrorist use religious texts for their propaganda. Whether they use it correctly or not requires an religious exegesis. But that they use it to rationalize their atrocities is simply reporting facts and any expert on terrorism can do that. A psychologist can go further and talk about the real motivations. That's what Kapur does. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Kapur's actual argument is barely cited in the entry. It looks to me like he was cited as a way to remove the citation to Richard Spencer while preserving his quotation. I'm pretty dubious about his expertise in any field, based on this source, but he's clearly not qualified as a source for selecting an extended block quote from the Hadith and offering an interpretation on whether its being "hijacked". He doesn't even transcribe the quote correctly.

Looking at the article talk page, it appears that two other editors made almost exactly this same point to you regarding Kapur's expertise. That's a pretty good sign that there is something wrong here. You say that "any expert" on terrorism can do this, you should cite one of those experts instead. Nblund (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I will add other experts. You haven't refuted Kapur's expertise on terrorist psychology as he has written books and works for BBC Belfast with decades of commentary on terrorist psychology. You don't like him, I understand, but he is respected as an expert. I do agree that he can't comment on the correct usage of various quotes--only that they are used. I expanded the section to use Holbrook. Now I intend to add Peter Bergen as well, he is not a theologian either but a terrorist expert. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

While I think a secular, academic source is preferable to professional, biased theologians on how are religious texts used to justify violence, there are two main issues that come to mind after reading the above conversation and the paragraph in question. First, the text of the paragraph seems to involve Synthesis of published material. The source used to support the existence of this specific hadith is the Sahih al-Bukhari (9th century) by author Muhammad al-Bukhari (d. 870). It is a primary source, and someone apparently picked a single hadith out of a collection which contains 2,602 independent hadith traditions and a few thousand repetitions of specific hadiths. Then the paragraph quotes Raman Kapur, who speaks about how Islamic terrorists "hijack" religious teachings to justify their own hatred. His quote may be reliable, but it is unclear whether it relates at all to this specific hadith or whether he is speaking about Islamic religious teachings in general. Frankly ,it seems like two unrelated texts were placed together to justify a Wikipedia editor's conclusion.

Second, Nblund seems to have confused the Quran with the hadiths. They are not nearly equivalent texts. Neither source was completed during the lifetime of Muhammad, who died in 632. The Quran is a 7th-century publication. Much of the text of the Quran was compiled based on the recollections of people who had heard Muhammad's oral teachings and memorized them. Among the scholars who were involved in the compilation of the book, the leading position is attributed to one Zayd ibn Thabit who died c. 660. Most sources place the compilation date of the book in the 650s and , with the exception of variations in transcription, the text has apparently received minimal changes ever since. It is the closest thing we have to a first-person account on Muhammad and his teachings.

Hadith stories and collections are later sources which attribute various "words, actions, or habits" to Muhammad. Most were written or compiled 2 or 3 centuries following the death of Muhammad. There are tens of thousands of individual hadiths, often mutually contradictory, compiled in many different collections. There are many theological disputes in Islam about which of these hadiths are accurate, and which are "false hadith" (equivalents to fabricated stories, literary forgeries, and apocrypha). There is even a minority of Muslims, the Quranists, which reject all of them and accept the Quran as the only authoritative source on Muhammad and his teachings. That a hadith exists does not mean that it is widely known, accepted, or even taken seriously.

Some of the theological ideas based on these hadiths are not exactly the stuff of legends, nor have any political significance. Consult the following Internet text which quotes specific hadiths from Al-Tirmidhi on whether it is theologically acceptable for a man to urinate standing up or sitting down, and what was the preferred practice by Muhammad himself. "...the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) came to a garden belonging to some people, and urinated standing up." Dimadick (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Anglefire website

This webpage from Angle fire is extensively used in Operation Opera. Can it be counted reliable? Mhhossein (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

No. An angelfire page is a self-published source, and nothing on that page implies that it's by a recognized expert or anything like that that might fit the exceptions for self-published sources. It can't be used as a cite at all, for any purpose. If something was cited to it and needs a source, your best bet is to try and figure out the sources that the angelfire page uses and see if they're reliable; if they are, use them instead. If not, replace the cite with a fact tag. --Aquillion (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Good luck finding sources. Despite this being a lengthy and detailed text, it does not cite any sources and apparently the authors consulted sources who wished to remain anonymous. The explanation note at the bottom of the article states: "This article could not have been written without the kind help of 'The First of the Last', whom the authors would like to thank for their extensive support and patience, supplied on condition of anonymity. We would also like to thank several other sources who provided help and material, also on condition of anonymity."

Also one of the main claims made in the article is that there was a secret, unofficial alliance and cooperation between Iran and Israel, but many of their own sources apparently disagreed. The article notes state "Interestingly, all the Israeli authorities and unofficial sources we contacted in connection with this article declared that any information about Iranian-Israeli co-operation was 'improbable' or 'inconceivable'. Several either stressed they had never heard of anything to this effect, or that it 'could not have happened' and that Iran and Israel had never worked together - or even helped each other - before, during, or after the war between Iraq and Iran."

According to our article on Iran–Israel relations, the two states "severed all diplomatic and commercial ties" between them back in 1979. They have also been fighting a proxy war since the 1990s, each of them funding operations against the other. That they are allies or former allies seems to be an extraordinary claim. Dimadick (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Input sought: Star Trek: Voyager

• Source: Balder & Dash web article

• Article: Star Trek: Voyager

• Content: The exact use in the article is listed below:

In an article about Voyager, Ian Grey wrote: "It was a rare heavy-hardware science fiction fantasy not built around a strong man, and more audaciously, it didn't seem to trouble itself over how fans would receive this. On Voyager, female authority was assumed and unquestioned; women conveyed sexual power without shame and anger without guilt. Even more so than Buffy, which debuted two years later, it was the most feminist show in American TV history."

• Concerns: My concerns with this is the quote makes the statement:

"Even more so than Buffy, which debuted two years later, it was the most feminist show in American TV history."

It is stating this as though it is fact which I think is misleading. A quick search on google for "the most feminist show in history" and you'll see similar type of statements being made about various shows. This seems to be a opinion and not fact. As far as I know there are no metrics/rankings of shows regards to "how feminist they are". The article also specifically mentions the author "Ian Grey". Ian Grey was not involved with the show at all so a reader reading the article and comes to the portion "Ian Grey wrote" and they'll think "who is this Ian Grey guy? Was he involved with the show?" then click on the reference to find out that he is just a random bloke who wrote his thoughts on the show.Offnfopt^(talk) 11:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

It is not stated as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. There is no problem with the reliability of this sourcing. Rhoark (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it is being stated as the opinion of Grey and is contained in quotes. What I do find questionable is whether this should be in the lead. It is the opinion of 1 writer. The lead is supposed to represent a general summary of what is in the article. DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment To establish whether some creative works were feminist or not, consulting actual feminist sources would probably be needed. The article note about the author states "Ian Grey is a New York writer whose work on visual arts, music, and identity politics have been published by Press Play, Baltimore City Paper, Lacanian Ink, The Prague Post, The Perfect Sound, Salon, Gothic.net, Smart Money, Time Out New York, and other forums. A novel on trauma, sex work and sound is now being shopped." It does not mention whether Grey is affiliated to any feminist organization. The publisher of this article is "RogerEbert.com", a website devoted to "movie criticism, commentary and community", not to feminism. I could not find who currently owns the website, but it states that it was established in a partnership between the companies "Ebert Digital" and "Table XI". Ebert Digital was apparently operated by Roger Ebert (d. 2013), Chaz Ebert (Roger's wife), and Josh Golden (who?).

Like most sources written by film critics, Grey's article does contain some level of hyperbole and POV statements. It argues that:

• the Star Trek franchise has betrayed its progressive roots ("all the qualities that made Star Trek special—the deep, silly, starry-eyed, predictable, always-inclusive things that sparked a half-century, trans-global love affair? Gone."
• that the latest Star Trek films have an ideological agenda of androcentrism and machismo ("a white man-centered Starfleet command. Random T&A." ... "As we mourn Abrams’ macho Trek obliteration")
• that the 1990s American television shows in general portrayed women in more positive ways than their successors over the last two decades ("If you look at most of many of the high watermarks of the last two decades -- shows such as The Sopranos, The Shield, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Boardwalk Empire, Justified and Sons of Anarchy -- they're all mainly concerned with alpha males struggling to hold onto their privilege during changing times. That's only a "universal" story if you agree that straight white males really are the universe." ... "In the meantime, the self-determined female leads of Voyager -- and Buffy, and a handful of other unusual genre series -- have been supplanted by strong female characters that aren't really as strong as they seem. As former Salon TV critic Heather Havrilesky noted in her New York Times piece, “TV’s New Wave of Women: Smart, Strong, Borderline Insane”, even our richest female leads come with a soupçon of instability. "I don’t mean complicated, difficult, thorny or complex," she writes. "I mean that these women are portrayed as volcanoes that could blow at any minute. Worse, the very abilities and skills that make them singular and interesting come coupled with some hideous psychic deficiency." " "

I am not American and I am personally unfamiliar with most of these shows (they get broadcast in my country only by minor channels with subscription fees), but claims for the existence of a recent widespread turn towards male supremacy and anti-feminism should probably be taken with a grain of salt. Dimadick (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Ballotpedia again

Is this source reliable enough to be used for the Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016 article? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Given that Ballotpedia is specifically noted as a poll source in the tables, my answer would be yes. Meatsgains (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay thanks! =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I did get a reply on the article's talk-page though so would like to leave this open for more input. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I will take the discussion to the article's talk page as well. Meatsgains (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Is the Washington Times an acceptable source for statements of face related to student protesters/black lives matter/Milo Yiannopoulos?

The Black Lives Matter entry contains this statement.

• "In late May BLM activists disrupted a speech by Milo Yiannopoulos at DePaul University"

I suggested this instead:

• "A student who was affiliated with the Black Lives Matter movement was involved in a protest that shut down a planned speech by "alt-right" commentator Milo Yiannopoulos."

Several sources say that one student, (example1, example 2) Edward Ward, was affiliated with Black Lives Matter, but other organizations were also involved, and most mainstream sources don't mention BLM at all.

User James J. Lamben has cited two sources (the Washington Times, and Reason.com editor Robby Soave) that characterized these as Black Lives Matter protester(s) or characterized this as a BLM protest writ-large. Are the Washington Times or Robby Soave reliable sources for the statement that BLM activists (plural) were involved in the protest?

More generally: This has come up elsewhere, so are right-leaning outlets like the Washington Times, Breitbart, or Daily Caller reliable for factual, un-attributed statements of fact about left-wing protesters that are not covered elsewhere? Or should they be treated as opinion sources? Nblund (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that only left-wing sources be allowed? The WT is a RS as is Reason, no comment on the others though. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Breitbart and Daily Caller are not reliable. Washington Times is borderline imho; it aspires to reliability but I have seen things there recently that I don't just disagree with, I am pretty sure they are very wrong. Don't know Reason.com. If it was a BLM demonstration would BLM not have issued a press release surely; where I am going with this is: are there OTHER sources? The fallback position here is that is a notable public event occurs, there will be many sources to chose from. What do the preponderance of the sources say? is there a link for the editorial policy of reason.com? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 20:57, 21 June 2016‎

"Breitbart and Daily Caller are not reliable. Washington Times is borderline imho;" -- that just it -- your humble opinion. That's not what journalism is about. Quis separabit? 22:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

There are additional sources and I'm surprised Nblund didn't mention them. In addition to The Washington Times and Reason, we have:

• "they were visibly frightened of confronting the protesters, who tied themselves to the”Black Lives Matter” movement." Huffington Post
• "They were led by Edward Ward, a student-activist aligned with the Black Lives Matter movement. " The Daily Beast
• "Videos posted online show a protester affiliated with Black Lives Matter entering the conference room blowing a whistle and yelling at Yiannopoulous" CBS

I also don't believe the claim "most mainstream sources don't mention BLM at all" is accurate - it seems about even but I haven't tallied. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

James, I did cite two of those sources, and they're consistent with the wording I proposed because they say that one student was affiliated. The Huffington Post source was already the focus of an RS post, and was roundly rejected as an RS. Nblund (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

This is where I'd say context matters. One arguably weak RS making a claim is one thing; half a dozen is another. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

As in so many cases, context matters. If we want the opinions of the authors, or facts about certain topics, they might be ok. For talking about Black Lives Matter -- and in particular for establishing WP:WEIGHT to include an event in the BLM article, I would say no. Looking at the sources, I see one Huffington Post article that's not actually from the Huffington Post (it's through the "contributor platform", i.e. not subject to editorial oversight or part of the main blog), two articles in the Chicago Tribune (a reliable source, but the articles make no clear connection between the protesters and BLM except that the protesters uttered that phrase), and the Daily Beast and CBS (both pretty good sources again, but both only say that one of the protesters was affiliated with BLM, not that this event was actually tied to BLM). So some reliable sources, but they don't support inclusion in the BLM article. Maybe the content, reframed, would be better in Yiannopoulos's article, since it looks to be much more about anti-him, and the university's response to him, than pro-anything in particular. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's be clear that the "one of the protesters" described in RS as affiliated with BLM is also described as leading the protest. So: we have a protest led by an outspoken BLM member, about BLM issues, where the protestors chant "Black Lives Matter" - all of which is well-sourced. We even have sources specifically calling the protestors "Black Lives Matters" protestors. And the contention here seems to be there is no notable connection between this protest and BLM... hmm. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

put it this way...if he was BLM why would he conspire to hide it? I think you are doing a lot of reading between the lines. Possibly in error. Elinruby (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

No one, not even the OP, is questioning Ward's affiliation with BLM. It's too well-sourced. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah I am going with James Lambden on this one - "we have a protest led by an outspoken BLM member, about BLM issues, where the protestors chant "Black Lives Matter"" - Unless there is anything that directly contradicts this, I would say yes the WP is enough. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Only in death, not WP, which I assume was short for Washington Post. We're talking about The Washington Times. In response to OP, Reason.com is a blog, so not reliable for something contentious. It's not difficult to argue that the The Washington Times has a poor reputation for accuracy and fact checking.[23][24] That was just what I found in a cursory search. If there were a noteworthy connection between BLM and threats made to Yiannopoulos, it would show up in more places than blogs, editorials and a questionably reliable news source, so it seems WP:UNDUE, as Rhododendrites said. If this were noteworthy, it shouldn't be so difficult to find solidly reliable sources covering it. —PermStrump(talk) 23:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Doh, my only excuse is its late here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

No worries. :) I wasn't meaning to split hairs, just wasn't sure if that difference might impact your response. —PermStrump(talk) 23:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Well: according to this columnist, they shouted "Black Lives Matter" along with "Feel the Bern" and "Dump Trump". Yiannopoulos is generally offensive (it's kind of his shtick) and it's clear from the context that these are student protesters with broad lefty-type concerns. I'm sure many sympathize with BLM, but that doesn't make this a BLM protest. Ward is affiliated with BLM, but didn't mention BLM in his comments here, the only ones I can find. I actually haven't found any quotes from protesters that mention BLM involvement at all. The DePaulia specifically cites statements from the Feminist Front and the Black Student Union. Neither of those organizers mention BLM involvement or affiliation. I don't know that anyone would bother to directly refute the claim, because it's kind of obscure, but I suspect these outlets are playing up the BLM angle because it's click bait for their readers. At best, it's a misleading generalization from an outlet that has previously published unsubstantiated rumors about BLM. It's certainly not the best source we have on the protests.Nblund (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone argue the following is not accurate or adequately sourced:

we have a protest led by an outspoken BLM member, about BLM issues, where the protestors chant "Black Lives Matter"

If you feel any of the above is not adequately sourced, please be specific in identifying it. If not, and instead your argument is that it's accurate but irrelevant, please make that clear so participants can address it directly. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The available sourcing appears to best support the "affiliated with" wording; the mainstream reliable sources do not generally call it a "Black Lives Matter" protest, so neither should we. With any loosely-affiliated movement, it's difficult to discern what is and isn't "part of" the movement, but that's why we should stick with what mainstream reliable sources say, and they don't directly call it a BLM protest. It would certainly be proper to note, as the reliable sources have, that one of the protestors states affiliation with the movement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Your interpretation almost exactly matches my earlier edit on Milo Yiannopoulos - " affiliated with Black Lives Matter". Very reasonable IMHO. James J. Lambden (talk)

Except you made it plural (protesters), and it's clear there were protesters with other organizational affiliations, but that isn't mentioned. Nblund (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Neither the Daily Caller nor Breitbart is a reliable source, particularly when it comes to contentious material about living people. Both outlets have documented histories of fabricating and/or promoting false, politically motivated smears. These are exactly the sorts of sources that shouldn't be allowed to touch a WP:BLP with a 10-foot pole. The Washington Times is somewhat more of an edge case. It's certainly not a very good source. As the Columbia Journalism Review notes, the Times was for many years "a forum for the racialist hard right, including white nationalists, neo-Confederates, and anti-immigrant scare mongers"—making it a very dubious source for racially-charged material—and it's not at all clear that this legacy is a thing of the past. If the material in question can be found in higher-quality sources, then it makes sense to include it. If these are the only significant sources promoting the BLM angle, then it should be omitted in concordance with WP:BLP. MastCell ^Talk 00:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@MastCell: these opinions are your POV; don't try to inflict it on others or use it to censor articles. Quis separabit? 00:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Please don't be fatuous. My comments about the Washington Times are obviously not my personal opinion or POV. Your first clue should be the fact that they're enclosed in quotation marks, which means that I'm quoting someone else's opinion. Your second clue should be that the words appear in light blue on your browser, meaning that you can click on them and be taken to the source I'm quoting. In this case, I'm citing the Columbia Journalism Review, among the highest-quality and most reputable sources covering American media. I'm happy to discuss my personal opinion of the Times on my user talk page, but it would be out of place here, and it's not helpful for you to pretend that's what I'm doing. MastCell ^Talk 18:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I read the Washington Times diligently every day for 15 years, including the decade starting 1992. From that up close, personal, long time research, I can testify the statement above is utter nonsense. There was never any racism in the Times. It is good as any other paper and in many cases better. Getting slammed by another newspaper or group is not clear and cogent evidence of anything but political rivalry among news sources and political groups -- like the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has a rather pervasive agenda of its own. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 07:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It's really not helpful to simply post your personal opinion of the Times here (just as it wouldn't be helpful for me to post mine). MastCell ^Talk 18:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• The cite to Reason isn't usable, not because of any concerns over bias, but because it's an opinion piece / WP:NEWSBLOG (see the blog tagline at the top.) Those generally lack editorial control or factchecking associated with news stories. It could be cited for the opinions of its author, provided they're relevant and pass WP:DUE, but not to characterize what happened in the article voice. The Washington Post source is usable, but it's not the best source for this particular statement; by my reading it's reporting what people have said and the positions they've taken (rather than directly reporting on the protest), so if it's contradicted by other sources that go into more detail on the protest itself, I would go with those. Basically, my reading is that it's saying "these people have commented on the BLM protestors they say were involved in the protest", not "this was a BLM protest specifically." --Aquillion (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

From what I can tell it is not directly contradicted. Its a case of weak sources and nothing directly saying otherwise. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The Washington Times probably meets rs but there are two reasons not to use it: 1) stories that only appear in WT lack weight for inclusion and 2) although the facts presented may be accurate, their articles are often misleading. For example, the article does not say that Black Lives Matter was involved in the protest. Certainly the headline mentions BLM, but headlines are not reliable sources and the story does not mention BLM, except where it mentions a retraction in The Daily Caller. So it has no relevance to the BLM article. TFD (talk) 11:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure why a mountain is being made out of a mole hill. The problem here is that information from sources is being used to make exaggerated claims about BLM activism. This is breaking the guideline on original research. The solution is to just cite what the sources state, without adding anything more to it. Most of the reliable sources indicate that one person was affiliated with the BLM movement, so that is exactly what should be stated. However, the situation here is that there are few sources to begin with about an event that was clearly not very important—therefore, I contend that this should not even be presented in the BLM article. Also, and by the way, the usage of the phrase "black lives matter" does not immediately link a person to the BLM movement anymore than me wearing a red wig makes me an activist for McDonald's.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 14:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with MarshalN20's assessment. Regardless of the reliability of the sources, which is clearly debatable, the incident itself doesn't carry enough weight to be mentioned in the BLM article. —PermStrump(talk) 17:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Question for James J. Lambden {redacted}: WTF is a "BLM issue"? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

A BLM issue is one in which the BLM organization (or movement) has demonstrated public interest. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 18:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Then how is interrupting a stand-up comedian a "BLM issue"? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@MShabazz: we usually require more respect between editors. Your comment is out of line. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 18:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no patience or respect for editors who spout {redacted}. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you're being unfair, @MShabazz, in re "Then how is interrupting a stand-up comedian a 'BLM issue'?" -- if the responsible party is a member or claims membership in a BLM-related group, just for example, then a nexus can be made just as a nexus would unavoidably be established between someone who punches an anti-Trump demonstrator and any group to which the puncher (he or she) is a member, say the NRA or some other right-leaning group. The only question is how to respect the fact that the organisation to which an activist or other notable is affiliated -- or claims affiliation or is said to be affiliated -- does not necessarily or officially endorse such conduct, and, of course, the degree to which the incident in question, and all its ancillary points, merit[s] inclusion in a BLP article. And saying another editor is a "white supremacist" with no evidence is destructive vitriol which damages the claimant as much as it does the victim of the unfounded, as far as I can tell, accusation. And from what I can tell, based upon news reports and anecdotally as well, it appears that, overwhelmingly, those who are engaged in attempts (usually successful), doubtless with some help from Democratic Party operatives, to violently censor anyone who says anything they don't happen to like, especially but not only on college campuses, even Ivy League universities, are African Americans. Sorry, wish it weren't so but it is. Quis separabit? 22:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

And, since we are on the subject, The Washington Times, National Review, and other right-leaning publications, provided they are imparting information which is independently corroborated, should be and must be given the same deference as left-wing and mainstream media sources. Quis separabit? 22:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Nope, you don't get off that easily. You want to argue in circles: it's a BLM issue because a BLM activist was involved, and Wikipedia should report it because it was a BLM activist on a BLM issue. Sorry, but it's condescending and, frankly, {redacted} to say "black people were involved so it's a BLM issue". That's the logical fallacy your so-called sources are making, and you're making it too. Evidence? It's right in front of you if you would only open your eyes. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't need to get off "that easily". @MShabazz, your insistence on referring to any negative reference to BLM by someone you think is white as "white supremacist" is inappropriate for Wikipedia and deserving of a WP:RFA. If someone disrupts a Trump rally or attacks a Trump supporter, while screaming out "Black Lives Matter" or any other political slogan, or belongs to a political activist group, these facts should not be reported and analyzed?? Seriously?? You ask if "it's a BLM issue because a BLM activist was involved, and Wikipedia should report it because it was a BLM activist on a BLM issue" -- yeah, that makes sense to me. It is not synthesis to report two or more connected events. The reader will always draw his/her own conclusion(s). Whites (Caucasians?) who criticize politically correct sacred cows are no more frustrated white supremacists than everyone using Black Twitter are "reverse racists". Assaults on free speech should be a concern to us all. Quis separabit? 17:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Can an uninvolved editor please remove these personal attacks? Contrary to the editor's contention respect for our NPOV and RS policies are not evidence of racism, systemic or otherwise. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm speaking as someone just reading through this and not really interested in either side: saying someone is "spouting white supremacist bullshit," (in response to asking someone to show respect, for pete's sake!) gets people nowhere fast and is just flinging shit and seeing what sticks. Try not to lost your temper and insult people like that if you want to be taken seriously. Sethyre (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a hierarchy in Wikipedia and some members are allowed to freely flout the rules. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: who would those be? Are my ears supposed to be burning or am I on the side of the angels here? Quis separabit? 00:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Think I got them all. Arkon (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Arkon: "Think I got them all" -- clarify, please. Quis separabit? 00:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we may be getting off track here. James J. Lamden, to answer your question: the statement that Ward "led" the protests isn't well supported. It appears to only occur in the Soave opinion piece for the Daily Beast. Ward doesn't describe himself as a leader or organizer in any of the comments he gives to the press, and we know that this protest was organized by several different student organizations, so saying it had a single leader seems unlikely. The statement that this protest as about "BLM issues" isn't supported by any source, and Ward himself cites multiple social justice causes as his motivation in this editorial. So a lot of that statement isn't well supported. The statement that the protester chanted "Black Lives Matter" is supported, but they also chanted "Feel the Bern" and the campus Republicans chanted "build the wall". It seems equally plausible to add this event to the Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump entries.

Is it your contention that similar sources on the left, like the DailyKos or ThinkProgress, could be used as the sole sources for characterizing right-wing protests, without in-text attribution? I have a feeling that the Yiannopoulos entry as a whole would look very different if this were the case. Nblund (talk)

Returning to the original question on what sources can be used for assertions of fact—I agree with MastCell and Elinruby in all respects. The Daily Caller and Breibart are certainly not reliable sources. The Washington Times is more borderline. Generally, where there is a better (more reputable, higher-quality, higher-circulation) source available to support the same or similar assertion—as appears to be the case here—we should cite to those better sources (New York Times, Washington Post, Reuters, Associated Press, academic articles, etc.), and not the WT. If the WT is the only source available, I would generally seriously question whether the fact is noteworthy enough to include. There are probably (rare) cases where it's OK. I would not rely on the WT in any case involving a contentious statement, an anonymous source, or a BLP. Neutrality^talk 18:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Neutrality: This:

Generally, where there is a better (more reputable, higher-quality, higher-circulation) source available to support the same or similar assertion—as appears to be the case here—we should cite to those better sources (New York Times, Washington Post, Reuters, Associated Press, academic articles, etc.), and not the WT. If the WT is the only source available, I would generally seriously question whether the fact is noteworthy enough to include. There are probably (rare) cases where it's OK. I would not rely on the WT in any case involving a contentious statement, an anonymous source, or a BLP.

is your political and partisan opinion. You're welcome to it it but use it on your own blogsite. What about FoxNews or the NY Post or any Murdoch-owned news outlet? Quis separabit? 00:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

This conversation is really getting off-topic and I think says more about the particular political preferences of some of the editors involved than about the potential biases in the sources. The actual topic should be whether The Washington Times meets the criteria for a Reliable source. Is it a third-party source or directly involved in the events or ideas described? Does it have a reputation for "fact-checking and accuracy"? To determine whether it meets such criteria, involved editors should provide some sources on the Times and its past handling of specific news items. Their personal opinions are neither reliable, nor easy to verify by other editors.

Also be weary of dated sources. One of the sources criticizing the Times, provided in a link above, is from 2009 and criticizes its affiliation with the controversial Unification Church. The ownership of the newspaper changed in 2010, and while it is probably still affiliated with the Church, its editorial policies may have changed. Dimadick (talk) 06:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dimadick, To answer your questions:

1. WT isn't directly "involved" but it has a well known political orientation on this topic, and has previously been criticized by independent sources for lazy or sensationalized coverage of BLM in particular: (ex 1, ex 2)
2. WT does do some serious reporting, and so I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand as always unreliable for anything. In this particular case however, it doesn't appear that they did any meaningful fact-checking. There's no indication that WT sent a reporter to the event, interviewed a single source, or attempted to verify any claim being made or even get comments from the concerned parties. The author of this article also does not appear to have any training as a journalist, and as far as I can tell, this is just repeating claims made by Yiannopoulos himself. This is in stark contrast with the coverage in the Sun Times and the DePaulia student newspaper, which both interviewed organizers, attendees, and protesters.
3. Lastly, as this CJR analysis lays out: protest reporting is hard, even for media outlets without well-known biases. This is exactly the sort of detail that a reporter could get wrong through simple laziness. Even if we accepted that WT was acceptable, it clearly isn't the best available source for this information, we should err in favor of the outlets that gave more in-depth coverage.

Nblund (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The Snopes article cited above (ex 1) that mentions the WT story does NOT criticize the WT for its coverage, and the WT article (at least the part quoted) does NOT include direct assertions about the BLM movement. It is not an example of what is claimed, and it contains not a shadow of discredit on the The Washington Times newspaper. The second article (ex 2) was more ambivalent, trying to verify (or disprove) the very thing that Snopes wrote could not be verified -- that is, were the tweets speaking authoritatively for BLM. But when we look, we see WT makes no statement critical of the BLM movement. Truly, a "news" story on Twitter trash is trash itself, but that is another subject. Since these sources for "well known political orientation on this topic" fall flat, the statement must also fall. Certainly the The Washington Times is not perfect, but there is no evidence that the WT is less perfect than The Washington Post. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 21:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you may have clicked the wrong link. The Washington Times story is headlined "Marine bronze star recipient assaulted, mugged by Black Lives Matter group", Snopes said that WT was one of several outlets who passed this story along without bothering to verify it. That's not a compliment.

In the second story, WT claimed that BLM protesters at Missouri University tweeted that they were upset at the press coverage of the Paris attacks. Politifact found the tweets were authentic, but weren't able to verify any connection to BLM.

In both cases the Washington Times reported stories that cast BLM activists in a bad light. In both cases, independent fact checkers were unable to verify that the subjects of those stories were attached to BLM in any significant way.This is just in the last year. It seems like WT is particularly prone to call people "BLM activists" without bothering to verify it. Nblund (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nblund, I find it hard to believe you're still arguing the references, when they've been exposed so thoroughly to be fallacious. Let's just take the [Snopes article]. The whole thing is reads like one long insinuation that there were problems with the story, and that the WT was negligent in it's reporting. But if you want to make the case that a source is not reliable, it helps to have an example where the reporting was actually, you know, not reliable.

So let's hop over to the [Washington Times article]. It describes the the events from the victim's perspective, using "alleged" in all the right places, and quoting him as descibing the perpetrators harassing him -- asking him whether or not he thought "black lives matter", as a way to provoke him. So, we don't have any proof that they actually did that. Maybe he made it up. I guess the best way to judge that is to see if he is credible, and whether or not the facts that are verifiable check out. Hey, guess what? In every aspect of this story where corroboration is obtained, they confirm the victim's story.

The most potent is the video. The Washington *Post* followed up on the story, and posted the video: please make sure you watch it, [here]. Seems like maybe he was telling the truth. Seems like maybe the WT article was accurate.

So, in what way, exactly, does this indict the WT as unreliable? Klortho (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you're confusing "possibly being correct" with being reliable. It's possible that WT was correct in both of these cases, but that doesn't fix their poor fact-checking. You're correct that the Washington Post followed up, that's exactly the point: the Post is considered reliable because they follow up on stories like this. This is the contrast Snopes is drawing. To recap:

• The Washington Post interviewed the victim, sought comments from the police, obtained the video, and talked to the manager of the restaurant. They headline the article: Former Marine, AU student says he was beaten in racially motivated attack
• The Washington Times, by contrast, used quotes from another interview, and then attached a more sensational headline "Marine bronze star recipient assaulted, mugged by Black Lives Matter group".

The RS guidelines highlight the importance of fact-checking. Snopes and Politifact point to instances where the Washington Times didn't adequately fact check a story. Perhaps you think their reporting was perfectly fine here, but the point is that two well-respected non-partisan sources are criticizing their lack of diligence in reporting about BLM related events. Nblund (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

If the first source does anything at all, it calls into question the reliability of Snopes. Facts matter. Klortho (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Is Peter Reynosa a reliable source for Edward Tryon's BLP

A Huffington Post blog[25] by someone named Peter Reynosa is a major source for this BLP, eg his birthdate, his academic position and some of his work history.

This is also for these two sentences "When his paper came out in 1ate 1973, it was not attacked by other physicists or publicly rejected by the scientific community. It was just ignored. "Science just unnoticeably ignored him in a silent quietness of Indifference."[32] And there were several legitimate reasons why there were scientists who were very skeptical of his paper. Many thought it too speculative, lacking a good mathematical foundation, and also wrong in stating that if this kind of universe existed it would be made of equal parts matter and antimatter.[33] "

It's also used for "And the theory seemed to solve the horizon problem, the flatness problem, and the monopole problem that had plagued the Big Bang" (this is something about Alan Guth and the source may also be a reference for the preceding statements - the article is pretty badly written, eg 31 sentences begin with "And"). It may be relevant that most of the content was added by JanetTom55 (talk · contribs) who today added excerpts from poems by this author to 6 articles. I can't find much about the author, there's his short bio at the HuffPost[26] and he's written some articles about us, eg [27]. Doug Weller talk 20:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

First - it is a blog about a scientific topic written by a person who asserts precisely zero training in cosmology or any other sciences. Second - the writer is specifically not notable in the first place even as a writer. Tryon might well be a genius, but Reynosa is not a valid source for such a claim or set of claims. Collect (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed: the stuff about his impact on physics, in particular, should definitely go. You don't need a PhD to figure out someone's birth-date, but assessing someone's impact on a discipline takes a lot of deep knowledge about a field.

FWIW: He's not listed at all in the current faculty directory for Hunter College's Physics and Astronomy dept, but he is listed as a faculty member (not emeritus) in this 2006 graduate catalog. Other than that, I don't see much on him. It looks like he's a popular figure among creationists, for some reason.

My views aside: seems like JanetTom55 is, uh, a big fan of this Reynosa fellow, and might have a bit of a conflict of interest. Nblund (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

It's published on their blog platform, so it falls under WP:NEWSBLOG; and a newsblog by an "artist and writer" with no scientific background is definitely not usable as a source for facts in a biography of a scientist. Worse, this article seems to fall under WP:BLP, which means that the last clause in WP:SPS would forbid us from that piece as a source even if it were by an established expert in the field. That newsblog does contain a reference to nine pages about him written in Creation: The Story of the Origin and Evolution of the Universe, which is presumably the source for most of the facts and figures in the blog and could probably be used in its stead. --Aquillion (talk) 04:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Chick tract

Is this YouTube video a reliable source for this statement, "Interestingly the 1992 version] did not have this Bible or creation in public schools reference at all and the claims regarding the various states of man (which did not have Lucy but is otherwise identical to the 2002 version) were credited to The Collapse of Evolution by Scott Huse which was being published by Chick publications at that time."? I gave my own opinion at Talk:Chick tract#YouTube as a source, but another editor and I disagree and I've already been unreverted once and don't want to get into an edit war. —PermStrump(talk) 21:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

We have had different views regarding youtube as a reliable source. In Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_3#Youtube_video and I am quoting here "YouTube is undoubtedly a reliable source, say, for recorded interviews and seminars (that aren't potentially copyright infringement). For example, Google sponsored a series of talks by notable people and posted them all on YouTube. Assuming there's no synthesis problem, we could certainly cite these as a primary source. Care should be taken when handling primary sources; we have to insure that secondary sources exist to demonstrate weight and avoid original synthesis" Comparison and contrast video such as what I am citing are in a gray area.

I would prefer to use the actual 1992 comic but I can't find online anywhere. Besides this is the only reference that shows a page by page the difference between the two versions. More Than Darwin: An Encyclopedia of the People and Places of the Evolution-creationism Controversy of 2008 (by Greenwood who is now part of ABC-CLIO) stated " Some of Chick's other publications (e.g., The Collapse of Evolution)..." but it does't state that was once in the Big Daddy tract.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

There's no blanket answer about YouTube. That quote (from a nearly decade-old thread) is clearly about " recorded interviews and seminars [by notable people] ... assuming there's no synthesis problem ... cite[d] as a primary source". In other words, if there's a clip of a lecture by Michel Foucault in which he explains the concept dispositif, and it's clearly him giving the lecture rather than some YouTuber's transcription, then there's no reason not to use it as a primary source (the venue/publication/site matters, but it's only one aspect of WP:RS). Here however, I don't see any reason to think the uploader is known as an expert with a reputation for accuracy. YouTube in this way might as well be Flickr or any other user-generated content site. That said, it's possible a scan of a tract on Flickr/YouTube could be used as a source. We don't know the uploader or where he got it, so we don't have an authority on which to base its authenticity, but it wouldn't be crazy to use it in rare cases. The bigger problems, however, are WP:WEIGHT/WP:SYNTH. Why would we include it? What difference does it make if there was a version 16 years ago that didn't have a particular quote? We rely on what reliable sources consider interesting, not what we observe to be the case. TL;DR - YouTube itself is not a reliable source; some of the videos it contains can be reliable sources; this video is not reliable for anything except maybe as just a scan; if it's just a scan we need some other reason to make mention of it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the "What difference does it make if there was a version 16 years ago that didn't have a particular quote?" question in this case it makes a major difference.

You see when the tract was originally written in 1972 the "It has never been against the law to teach the Bible or creation in public schools." claim was not in the track and even then it would have been a borderline given Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) when it was ruled that in the United States school-sponsored Bible reading was unconstitutional (ie "against the law"). Come Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) where it was ruled that Creationism was specifically intended to advance a particular religion and therefore violated the establishment clause (ie i"against the law") and the claim would have been in serious trouble. But the track didn't get that reference until 2002 when it was against the law to "teach" the Bible or creation in public schools (see the Spinney, Jacob (November 2004). "A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims". Skeptic Report. Retrieved July 18, 2011. reference for a clarification of this statement).

More importantly the current version of this says:

"IInterestingly the 1992 version not only didn't this Bible or creation in public schools reference at all and the claims regarding the various states of man (which did not have Lucy but is otherwise identical to the 2002 version except for the note) had "for more details see The Collapse of Evolution by Scott Huse available from Chick Publications" rather then the "for more details watch part 2 of the Creation Series video by Kent Hovind" note at the bottom.

Look at the video at the 0:56 and 1:14 marks. Are the above points true? Yes. And as you stated "it's possible a scan of a tract on Flickr/YouTube could be used as a source" and I have stated I would prefer to use a printed version of the tract but that could be viewed even more WP:SYNTH then the video as such a scan likely wouldn't have the one on one comparison of the video and we would need the video to verify that the earlier version track existed in that form in 1992 and make the comparisons.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You're only restating what you added to the article with more detail, not making a case for why it's important to include. Yes, it's different, and more wrong. How does an unsourced claim of "it was less wrong before" help anyone's understanding of the subject, is what I don't get. More importantly for this board, however, we don't have a reliable source pointing out the differences as significance to establish WP:WEIGHT (the YouTube video is not, I don't think, a reliable source for analysis of the tracts -- just, if anything, but the images of the tract itself -- so original research comes into play to introduce differences into the article).

Taking a closer look, honestly that whole paragraph looks like WP:SYNTH. The sources it cites don't even mention the tract it's talking about. They're about Hovind's arguments elsewhere. So those sources would belong at Hovind's article, or perhaps an article about creationism/anti-evolution more generally rather than this article, which has a section about a specific tract.

I'm a fan of explaining the ways tracts like this distort reality, but based on this we could list every single one of Chick's tracts that makes any pseudoscientific claim and cite various sources that have nothing to do with the tract to debunk. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

"The sources it cites don't even mention the tract it's talking about." SAY WHAT? The video is using images from the Big Daddy track itself. Also the "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" reference already in the article specifically mentions "More importantly these eight examples are used to discredit the entire human fossil record.." (my emphasis) the video does indeed show eight examples in 1992 version but the 2002 version shows nine. So are you saying that the Columbia University Press can't count or that they validate there were at least two different versions of the track?--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

BruceGrubb, can you please explain like I'm 5? I'm trying so hard to follow what you're saying, but I'm lost. Assuming we could prove the YouTube video is actually showing comic strips from Big Daddy (which I'm not sure how we'd be able to verify), how do we know that it's the whole thing or that the missing information wasn't omitted from the YouTube video by accident, due to time constraints or other reasons? I don't understand why the fact that it was missing from the 1992 version is noteworthy or relevant anyway and the Columbia University Press source doesn't support the statement I started this thread about. —PermStrump(talk) 22:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, the sources I was talking about that "don't even mention the tract" were the secondary sources in that paragraph. I intended "Taking a closer look..." to be a segue from the sentence you added to the rest of that paragraph. Indeed, the video we've been talking about is about the tract -- in fact, as above, it would really only be used as the tract, but again, that's not what I was referring to. Sorry to confuse. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

After doing some research on what turns out to be a surprisingly fascinating phenomena, it appears that The Jack Chick Museum of Fine Art[28] is the gold standard for sourcing Chick Tract variations. People send in old tracts and the site neutrally reports the differences between versions. You are proposing that we accept as a source a Youtube video from a self-described maker of "skeptical bible videos from an ex-pentecostal". Now I agree that the video likely consists of him simply showing his two copies with a music track, but if Wikipedia allows such sources then it will be an easy way to corrupt the encyclopedia -- just put up a legit-looking but subtly edited version of something then use it as a source. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The Jack Chick Museum of Fine Art site is useful for old versions of the tracks...up to a point. The variations page you referenced above is just above useless:

"Big Daddy: Info on evolution has changed (evolved?) in several versions. Four different versions exist, plus the original version which says on page twenty, "Then He was an invader from outer space?" (Later versions replaced the question with, "Are you saying He is the Creator?") Also, the Spanish version has the student's hair black... until page 16 and the last panel when it goes white (from fear?) The current Chinese version still has the older hair styles from earlier variations."

Thankfully Big Daddy is one of those tracts that got a more in depth review then the one on the tracts page. The existing link to Terrible Tommy's review is broken but can be resolved via internet archive. And it give far more detail:

""Big Daddy" is one of Jack Chick's oldest tracts. Unlike many other old JTC tracts, "BD" has staying power. Why? Because it evolves! There have been four, count 'em, FOUR, incarnations of "Big Daddy," each leap forward occurring about 5-10 years after real advances in real science turn the older versions into tribble feces.

[...]

A number of "Anti-evolution facts" that were preached in the original BD have been discarded in favor of more modern twists. One such fact was the absolutely hilarious contention that scientists had produced a barrel of oil from ten pounds of garbage in less than an hour, thus proving that it did NOT take millennia to form oil deposits. As usual, the students in the background called out: "In less than an hour?" "Wow, we didn't evolve!" And also, as usual, there were absolutely no scientific references to any such experiment.

[...]

Another purely idiotic "proof" was the spotted moth in England. This was in the original BD. Basically, what happened was simple: In England, after the aerial pollutions from the Industrial Revolution had caused the trees to darken in color, a species of spotted moths were forced to turn dark themselves to avoid the birds that preyed on them. Chick has his Jew Prof declaring that this darkening "proves evolution.""

So an tract on the evils of evolution itself evolves. It would be funny if not so ironic.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BruceGrubb topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

eBooks as RS

Apologies if this has been asked before but I have checked every page I can think of and I can't find anything. What is the stance on eBooks as reliable sources? I'm not talking about self-published material. I'm talking about electronic versions of works that are professionally published that may or may not be available in traditional printed form. If they are considered reliable, how are they properly cited? They generally don't have page numbers, rather they have "location" numbers on the devices I have used and I don't know if those "locs" are consistent across devices or formats. Thanks. Mars Felix (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The medium of publication isn't particularly important. If it's a reliable source in print, it's a reliable source as an ebook.

Regarding citation formats: You're right that location numbers are generally not especially helpful. WP:PAGENUM suggests using a chapter and/or section title if page numbers are unavailable.

FWIW: 3rd Generation and beyond Kindle's can give you "real" page numbers. If a print edition of a book exists, you might be able to search for the passage in question on Google Books. Usually, even if the relevant section of the book isn't publicly available, you can search for an exact quotation and it will give you a page number. Nblund (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense. A source that is reliable in paperback form doesn't suddenly become unreliable simply due to it being in a digital format.--192.252.136.159 (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

PWInsider

I can't believe I'm having to ask this, but seeing as there seems to be a mass delusion in the professional wrestling WikiProject about our core policies: is this article from PWInsider a reliable source? I'm edging to "absolutely fucking not", given that the information in the source can't be verified against the apparent original source. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The question should be can the people who want to use PWInsider reasonably demonstrate that it is reliable? As WP:BURDEN expressly states "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" Also remember that WP:RS also applies especially the Questionable and self-published sources part. There is also the issue of WP:WEIGHT; it this reference to one year change to the WWE PPV really that important?--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is a reasonably reliable source. The staff claim to be experienced reporters and other sources cite it [29].- MrX 13:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, there seems to be little editorial oversight and distinction between reporting of fact (for example, results of a certain show) and backstage rumours (for example, when a certain wrestler is going to debut on TV). In the case of the article in question, PWI cite Eric Ganzerli, a self-employed blogger who is not affiliated to either the WWE or its broadcast partners, for giving the supposedly "confirmed" information. I don't think reliable sources would do this sort of shoddy reporting. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Based on Sceptre's above comment I would have to say that this reference (if not the entire site) fails reliable.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's a more important question, if we deem PWInsider to not be a reliable source website, do we then go around to every single wrestling/wrestler-related WP page that uses them as a source and remove each and every one of those references? Because either they ARE a reliable source or they are NOT a reliable source. There shouldn't be a middle ground where we have to decipher that "some" articles they post are reliable while others aren't. Frankly, I'm surprised this is even a discussion because PWInsider has been used as reliable source for over a decade on WP and I've never heard anyone ever question their reliability until Sceptre started questioning them a few days ago. OldSkool01 (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, the writers on that site have been working in the wrestling business for over 20 years. Dave Scherer ran ECWWrestling.com (the official website of ECW back in the day) where they did live coverage of the ECW ppvs while they were on the air. He was also offered a job from WWE back in 1999 to be the editor of WWE Raw Magazine. Mike Johnson also is one of the top reporters in the business. Pretty much every other "newz" site copies and pastes their stories from PWInsider. OldSkool01 (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

And there's this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Sources As you can see, PWInsider has been included on that list for many many years. OldSkool01 (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

If consensus is that it's not a reliable source for this instance, that doesn't necessarily mean it's never a reliable source. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. It might be fine for uncontentious material (depending on the context). It might not be appropriate to use when the material is contradicted by other sources or questioned by other editors. —PermStrump(talk) 01:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Sceptre: Can you link to edit in question or paste the material that was attributed to this source that you're questioning? I'm not seeing that PWInsider has a published editorial policy, so it's hard to imagine many situations where it would be the best source. If it's used to support material that isn't mentioned in better sources, it would likely be undue weight and if the material is mentioned in better sources, it would probably make more sense to cite the better sources. It still depends on the context though. I guess it might ok to use in a BLP of one of its writers to illustrate the personal views of that writer, if it were properly attributed. If it's super notable within the genre, it might be ok to use with proper attribution as long as editors were super careful not to give it undue weight or use WP's voice. It's hard to say without knowing more about the context. —PermStrump(talk) 01:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The specific source in question on PWInsider(here: http://www.pwinsider.com/article/102934/the-brand-extension-means-new-ppvs-for-wwe-full-revised-schedule-of-events-through-2016.html?p=1) is not contradicted by anybody. In fact another reliable source(Wrestling Observer) also independently confirmed the same story(here: http://www.f4wonline.com/daily-updates/daily-update-wwe-split-brand-ppvs-roh-ppv-aries-joe-and-nakamura-debut-215206). Sceptre's hangup on the whole thing seems to be that the person that PWInsider credits the story to is not reliable, ignoring the fact that Dave Meltzer, whom Sceptre has agreed is reliable, had already broke this story in the Observer Newsletter several days before PWInsider made their post. The way I see it is we have 2 verifiable sources reporting the same story. And both sites are listed on the above link(I'll post it again: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Sources) showing all wrestling sites that are considered verifiable. OldSkool01 (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, OldSkool01, but I meant, which article are we talking about? Or is this just a general question about the source? —PermStrump(talk) 03:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• The article where this discussion first came about is List of WWE pay-per-view events, which Sceptre has now had fully protected from editing. OldSkool01 (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I should point out at this point in 2009, the professional wrestling sites were still working on the assumption that the late October PPV was going to be an iteration of Cyber Sunday (when it ended up being the first Bragging Rights) and the late December PPV was an iteration of Armageddon (when it ended up being the first TLC). Ultimately, the schedule of WWE events and storylines are subject to change at any point, and this is an industry that is still incredibly insular. I don't see anything in the sources provided that would satisfy the WP:CRYSTAL policy – especially regarding arenas, which aren't even in the PWI source – and if any wrestling site apart from the promoter itself is asserting certainties about future events, I would be personally very wary. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a dirtsheet, and it is better to take it slow and get it right. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Something that's being overlooked in all of this is that the new ppv schedule in question, that was reported by the Observer and PWInsider, has already begun to be proven legit. When the Observer first reported this new lineup, WWE.com and Ticketmaster.com were listing "Night Of Champions" on their respective websites. Then several days after this lineup was reported, both of those sites changed "Night Of Champions" to "Clash Of Champions", which is the new name that was reported by the Observer and PWInsider. So that right there shows that this article in question is already beginning to prove it's legit. The article in question also does not list any arenas, just cities, so that's not an issue. As for PPV names being changed in the past, in 2009 Cyber Sunday and Armageddon were reported as being the original names of those events because they were. That is until WWE decided to change them. But as of the moment they were reported, it was a fact. If you're saying we shouldn't list future events because WWE is constantly changing their minds then we should never list any future shows at all. Look at WrestleMania VII for example. For a whole year straight that show was advertised as taking place at the LA Memorial Coliseum and then a couple of weeks of before the show WWE decided to move it to the LA Sports Arena. My point is anything can change at any time. That doesn't mean what is known right now shouldn't be listed on WP. If and when a change occurs(event name, arena change, city change, main event change, etc.) then we change it on WP accordingly. OldSkool01 (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• It being right on the name of the September PPV doesn't mean it's all correct. We already knew that WWE had filed for the trademark before this story came out, so the idea that Night of Champions was getting a rename was already a possibility. In any case, your comment doesn't do you any favours. Our policy on future event articles says that we should only have such articles if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. The events are currently not notable, and not certain to take place. I believe WrestleMania VII is a poor comparison, as they were already selling tickets for months before moving it (allegedly because they weren't selling enough). Wikipedia does not do speculation, it does facts. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• But this isn't speculation. Meltzer didn't say this MAY be the upcoming lineup, he said this IS the upcoming lineup. His exact quote: "...there has been talk of doing individual Raw and Smackdown Pay Per Views/WWE Network Special Events similar to what they did during the last time they split brands. Until now, that was purely speculation. The PPV schedule that has been going around is legit." Meaning he confirmed it with WWE. When he's not sure of dates he says it's only the tentative plans. My point about Mania 7 was to show that WWE changes their minds all the time. Whether the show is months away, weeks away or days away. As far as having articles that are "notable and almost certain to take place", all of these articles are indeed notable with 2 verified sources confirming them. And a key word there is "almost" certain to take place. You seem to want to take it one step further and eliminate the word "almost" and just have sources confirming that they will indeed certainly take place. OldSkool01 (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It's still, primarily, speculation, though. If we took as statement of fact every item of speculation about an industry, we would have been saying the iPhone was getting rid of the headphone jack for the past four years. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• But this isn't an item of speculation. These PPVs are "almost certain to take place". And 2 verified sources confirmed them as being "almost" certain to take place. OldSkool01 (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• The threshold for "Almost certain" is "Ticketmaster start selling tickets for the events", not "a self-employed blogger emails a mythical corporate document to a newsletter". I have the greatest respect for Dave Meltzer, but I know, and he knows, that this plan can be subject to change at any time up to them starting to sell for the event. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• At what point did Meltzer say he got the news from some blogger? He never mentioned that. Also, where is this "threshold" written as gospel? There have been times in the past, even after tickets for shows go on sale, that WWE has cancelled shows, for a number of reasons. So even tickets being on sale does not make the event "certain to happen". Events are always subject to change. Right up until the moment the event takes place. That does not mean we shouldn't create pages for events, just because there's a chance that things can change. OldSkool01 (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)