Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
460

Additional notes:

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

Known issues section of Nexus 5

The known issues section of Nexus 5 was removed because none of the sources are considered valid. could an independent party check them one by one?

Journal of Experimental Psychopathology

This ejournal resembles the Journal of Experimental Psychology in title. It claims PsycInfo listed, but does not appear there, nor in PubMed. Is it credible as a MEDRS? LeadSongDog come howl! 13:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I had read this particular reference before. Links may dead now, there are no available archives so at least for now it would be better to just avoid. VandVictory (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with access to the archives back to 2010 which is when the journal started http://jep.textrum.com/index.php?mi=7 . It is listed under PsycInfo http://www.apa.org/pubs/databases/psycinfo/coverage-full.aspx but doesn't appear to have any cites as LeadSongDog pointed out. It has an impressive editorial board http://jep.textrum.com/index.php?mi=3 however Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Also the EMDR article in question is available full text at http://jep.textrum.com/index.php?art_id=113#.VH5bRdyUd8F Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

WorldCat shows only 8 locations, mostly in Europe. On the other hand, most of the articles are from reputable people. MA van den Hout, the senior author of the article, has a distinguished career. The article itself has only 12 citations in GScholar. 10 other articles from various issues checked have similar or lower citations. EMDR in G Scholar gives many articles with many hundred cites from APA journals. I agree with ((U|VandVictory}} that it should be possible to do better. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

thank you all, especially Woody for spotting my error re PsycInfo. It is indeed listed there--not sure how I missed it. Still, the low citation rate is problematic. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this a reliable professional source?

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pop-in-eur.asp Is this source legit for academic or professional purposes, and how can I check if it's up to date? (N0n3up (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC))

The website sources the information to a book from 1972, and the webpage appears to date from 1996, so clearly it is not up to date, but then again the evidence may not have changed drastically since then. In other respects I see no problem with the website or the source uesed. Paul B (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I would look for a newer source. Such estimates are based in large part on archeology, and the archeology of medieval Europe is enormously more detailed now than it was in 1972. DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

What do you intend to do with the info? It is a primary source, so it has limited use. TFD (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Paul Barlow:, @DGG:, @The Four Deuces: I've tried to look for more up-to-date sources but had a hard time finding one. The article of Medieval demography in regards to population is mostly based in this website, thus I wanted to look for a more up-to-date, if not, more reliable source. More specifically, a source that explains the population of medieval region, for example England, Germany, Italy, Spain. (N0n3up (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC))

Or what about this?: http://www.paolomalanima.it/default_file/Papers/MEDIEVAL_GROWTH.pdf Even though it was probably from 2010, it might serve as a better or a recent source. Then again in the population section, I don't know how to tell exactly the population numbers. (N0n3up (talk) 05:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC))

I find the best and easiest approach to articles is to let the secondary sources drive the article. In this case, find sources about medieval demography and summarize what they say. Primary sources are good for correcting earlier estimates or inclusion as a link or as a source for a table illustrating demographic change. But you can't really comment on it because of synthesis, for example saying that the population declined because of the Black Death. TFD (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Right, but I was looking for a more general info in the population of medieval countries, specially Italy and Flander, whose info in here say that Italy and Flanders the most urbanised regions, and for example, the population of Italy seems similar from the two sources provided [1] here (N0n3up (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC))

@Paul Barlow:, @DGG:, @The Four Deuces:, by the way, Fordham University deleted the first out-of-date source from their homepage. (N0n3up (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC))

Deletion of devicespecifications.com references

I noticed User:McGeddon recently removed all references to the website http://devicespecifications.com in at least the MediaTek article, because this user believes the site is not a reliable source because of the disclaimer about accuracy it displays. An earlier discussion about this is present in the archives Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_179#.22Not_responsible_for_inaccuracies_or_other_errors.22. In the previous discussion, several people made the point that such disclaimers are common and do not suggest that the information on the website is inaccurate.

While the website seems to be a fairly anonymous, large collection of information about smartphone models and there are likely to be a few errors on the website, I believe the site is generally accurate with regard to the information about processor chips used in smartphones, for which it was used as a reference in the MediaTek article amongst others, although I understand that better references such as manufacturer's websites would be preferable.

While one could question whether the exhaustive lists of devices in, for example, the MediaTek article are a good idea, I don't think the references should be deleted because the Wikipedia Reliable Sources guideline does not apply in this case. Calamites (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious, why do you think WP:RS does not apply? It looks like the website isn't just fairly anonymous, it looks like it's completely anonymous. There's no indication who's responsible for publishing it, and a quick look at the sources for reviews show basic links to Russian commerce sites or cellphone manufacturers. It should probably be removed if it's an anonymous link-farm. At best it's a purely amateur database, at worst it's a clickjacking malware site. Unless you can show it has an actual author or reputation, it should go.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I was looking just at how accurate the information on the site is. The site seems to be relatively accurate with respect to the information that it has been referenced for (the SoC chips used inside smartphone models).

While I agree that the site appears to be anonymous and is one of the type that collates links and information from different sources, it not entirely clear to me that this completely disqualifies the site according to WP:RS. I don't think it is likely to be a "clickjacking malware site". Ideally better sites should be used as references for the chips used in smartphone models, but I guess it was just convenient for the user (User:Datasupplier) to add the device lists with all references to the DeviceSpecifications website. Obviously providing the best references for each model in a long list would be a lot of work. There are other websites such as http://PDAbd.net that is of a somewhat similar nature but more professional, less anonymous and probably more reliable in most respects, but covers a smaller amount of smartphone models.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Calamites (talk • contribs)

This is a completely unusable source. There's no way to show any verifiability with a completely anonymous source, even if you think some percentage of it is accurate. This is also true of material you're adding sourced to self-published websites of no reputation like this one you added here. User:McGeddon was absolutely correct to remove this. WP:V means that someone can go to our citations and see that a reliable source backs up our article material. If the source gives no indication it can be trusted or has been trusted by others, then it's not a reliable source. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment: You wrote, "the site seems to be relatively accurate." How do you know this? If it's because you confirmed it in another (reliable) source, then we should probably use that other source. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

As suggested by my edit summaries, I removed it on the strength of the entire linked conversation, not just my initial question over the disclaimer. That if devicespecifications.com is taking its data from manufacturer websites and manuals, we can and should just use those sources instead; that there's no indication of who operates the site or how much editorial control is exerted; and that all links were added by the WP:SPA account User:Datasupplier who occasionally used an accidental http://localhost/cmvc/public_html/devicespecifications URL (suggesting that devicespecifications.com is a site that's running on their own machine). --McGeddon (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Given your arguments, I can now see why references to the site are unwanted, that User:Datasupplier has been practicing self-promotion and that better references are appropriate. Calamites (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Usage of TechWhirl as a source for basic information on related articles

I couldn't find anything in the archives on TechWhirl, so I wanted to open a discussion here before using it. The site has some basic information about Content management, Technical writing and Technical communication. The site's History page provides information about its founding and ownership, and the articles published there are written by experts in the field, but there doesn't seem to be any information about editorial policies. The information they provide is accurate, but I understand that my assurance of that isn't a valid means of proving a source's reliability; I'm just one editor and that's just my personal opinion. Does anyone see any potential problems with using this as a source? Or will it pass? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I was initially a little wary of it, as this and this say that they take articles from the general public (as you can see from the large number of different author names for their articles[2]). Still, they do have an editor and an editorial policy, the bios for their contributors are generally pretty impressive and the contributors that I looked at were not single-article contributors.

I'd use it. Bromley86 (talk) 08:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to check out the link, User:Bromley86. I suppose I will use it as a citation for already-existing info in the articles with minimal changes to text. If nobody else objects in the coming days, I might start adding new material to the articles based on the source as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing on Electronic cigarette

It has been proposed on electronic cigarette that the following text be added:

"A 2014 review stated that tobacco and e-cigarette companies interact with consumers for their policy agenda. The companies use websites, social media, and marketing to get consumers involved in opposing bills that include e-cigarettes in smoke-free laws. This is similar to tobacco industry activity going back to the 1980s, showing coordinated 'vapers' like coordinated smokers. It was concluded that the companies used these approaches in Europe to minimize the EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013."

based on the following source:

Convenience link to PDF here; relevant material in first paragraph of page 1982. It is published in the medical journal (Circulation, probably one of the top two or three most read and respected cardiology journals in the world). A question of reliability of this as a source has been raised that since this is a medical source and the text being added is not strictly medical in nature. Comments on the reliability of this source for this text is appreciated! Yobol (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• It's a review article in a peer-reviewed journal. You can't really get higher quality in terms of reliability for content in general. It would seem kind of odd if someone is opposing this because it's in a medical journal. It appears the paragraph you mention is not based solely on author opinion as they are citing examples and documenting some occurrences, so it would seem this could be place pretty solidly as content based on a high quality secondary source. If it appeared to be more just the unsourced opinion of the authors, then I would call that content based on a primary source (within the review), but that doesn't not appear to be the case here. Seems pretty cut and dry that it should be fine. While the journal may be medical, it is commenting on a related topic and is nothing like a sociology journal commenting on astrophysics where we'd say the scope of the journal isn't in a relevant field either. I don't see any issues here in terms of reliability. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The question is dealing with this section link The overall consensus of the editors who are discussing it is against inclusion because the medical journal is being used to make claims outside its expertise. Per WP:RS/MC a medical journal article is only a reliable source when making medical claims. WP:MEDSCI tells us to "Be careful of material published in a journal.... that reports material in a different field.". A side note of concern is that some the sources the review used to come to these opinions are studies by the authors of the review. If this had WEIGHT suitable, non medical sources should be easy to find. AlbinoFerret 21:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Except this is a related field, which is what I was commenting on above. It is often the job of scientists to be a sort of balance against industry when they're out of line in a respective field. As an example in my area, if a pesticide company was pushing a particular unneeded pesticide formulation on farmers, we'd not only report in an agricultural journal that it wasn't needed, but also what tactics were being used that are problematic in pushing it. That's what scientists do. In this case, a journal like this would be the venue to discuss such things. It's not directly on medical information, but it's within the scope of such a journal and such a review. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I still have concerns that the medical journal is basing its opinions of medical studies by the authors of the review. I would like a different source. That would also prove it has sufficient weight. AlbinoFerret 21:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I have concerns about your comprehension of RS/MC, which says "Being a "medical source" is not an intrinsic property of the source itself; a source becomes a medical source only when it is used to support a medical claim." It does not say "a medical journal article is only a reliable source when making medical claims". It says "if it's not making a medical claim, then it's not a medical source (as far as our sourcing rules are concerned), even if it's a publication that often makes medical claims/is often used as a medical source".

As usual, if you've been supplied with any (one) reliable "source that [another editor] believes, in good faith, to be sufficient," and you want a better/different/additional source, then the burden for finding another source is on you, not on the other editor. WP:BURDEN requires the editor adding the source to supply exactly one source that s/he believes to be sufficient. If you want more sources or other sources, then you get to find them yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I would perfer a source that isnt based on its own authors previous work. That should factor into reliability. AlbinoFerret 22:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Every source is good for supporting some kind of content; no source is a "blank check" for all kinds of content. In my view the source you bring is very reliable for anything health-related. But the content you want to write is about politics, and this source is no better, and possibly worse, than high quality news sources like WSJ, NY Times, etc. As an aside, I find it bizarre that anybody would be challenging the statement much less its sourcing. This is like "the sky is blue". Everybody lobbies, even Mr Rogers. And that includes astroturfing. the sad state of the e-cig article, i guess. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I should clarify that I'm talking about reliability above. In isolation, the proposed text is fine with the source, but including it within the larger article becomes a question of weight where there could be more of a political tinge to a section rather than scientific. Weight's not the purpose of this noticeboard and isn't really something I'd like to delve into in the e-cig article at all either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• • more sources for same content: NY Times, NPR, WaPo, Bloomberg, public interest groups like center for public integrity... so many! the sky is blue. Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

All of those sources except one, the NYTimes article are addressing companies lobbying efforts, not getting consumers to push an agenda. The NY Times article has a very questionable link to a website ran by a previous employee, only mentions one company, and no mention of tobacco companies in the past doing similar things. But the center for public integrity puts the lobbying in perspective, e-cigarettte companies are mostly small businesses that are not lobbying or pushing any agenda. Placing the activities of the few against that of the many is questionable. I also question if the lobbying is any different than any other company, like say a pharmaceutical company. AlbinoFerret 22:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• This entire text is arbitrary and prejudiced WP:FRINGE opinion by a well-known anti-tobacco activist and does not belong on Wikipedia in any article. Particularly, the statement "showing coordinated 'vapers' like coordinated smokers" is nothing more than magical thinking and has no factual support. None of the proposed text is medical - so WP:MEDRS is irrelevant. Rather, it's unsubstantiated propaganda and in violation of multiple items in WP:ISNOT, in particular, WP:SOAPBOX. This statement is clearly WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG and has no place in any WP article. In addition, extensive discussion has occurred on the article’s talk page here, and I’m concerned that the opening of this discussion here without informing the original participants is dangerously close to WP:CAN. Mihaister (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's impossible for a discussion here to violate the canvassing guideline. On the question of UNDUE weight, if it's undue, then why are there so many sources (see Jytdog's links) that mention this? DUE means we pay as much (or as little) attention to the issue as the reliable sources do. If a lot of them mention this, then it's DUE for us to mention it, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

But it can be canvassing if instead of notifying the other parties, a location is chosen to inform uninvolved editors.link AlbinoFerret 22:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

"a location is chosen to inform uninvolved editors." That's where you are. It's not canvassing by that very definition, and is entirely appropriate when there has already been discussion going on at the article's talk page already. Part of that involves potentially notifying relevant Wikiprojects if it's in their topic area. That's the whole point of this page when questions can't be resolved at the article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: Jytdog's links - the first 3 and the last are about e-cig or tobacco companies hiring lobbying firms, a practice which is common and legal. The Bloomberg link is actually about Pharma doing the same thing. None of them provide support for painting tens of thousands of politically-active e-cig consumers as Big Tobacco shills. Mihaister (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Re painting tens of thousands of politically-active e-cig consumers as Big Tobacco shills-- I do not get that the proposed content based on the source is saying this, at all. Zad68 03:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

So what is it saying then? The claim is that vapers are opposing regulation because e-cig and tobacco companies are enrolling them to do so, and this simply isn't true. More e-cig companies supported the EU TPD than campaigned against it; it's users who are angry.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 08:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The source is merely saying the companies are recruiting consumers (in thus and such a way, and toward thus and such ends, etc.) It is not saying that everyone who's active was recruited. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

But it's saying that based on a newspaper article, which is hardly WP:MEDRS.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I must say I'm surprised that it is being said that its acceptable to notify WP:MED of this discussion without notifying other interested parties at the article talk page. Anyway that is a separate issue, with regards to the source's reliability, surely a marketing strategy claim by a public health official is not as reliable as a medical claim? I understand that public health officials regularly voice their opinions on such issues but this fact surely doesn't make them experts on a non-medical topic? Lots of people regularly voice opinions on many things without being experts. Also does the disclosure that one of the source's authors "is a consultant to several pharmaceutical companies that market smoking cessation medications and has been a paid expert witness in litigation against tobacco companies" affect the reliability in relation to marketing strategy claims about e-cigarettes?Levelledout (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Per the last bit, not particularly. If it was the consultant self publishing something then there would be issues, but since this is published by a peer-reviewed journal, there's enough separation to call it reliable. Now if you were looking between this and another identical source that didn't have the consultant, the latter would be a bit more reliable, but both would still meet a minimum reliability threshold. In this case, the editor and other scientists in the field have vetted the article, so that is supposed to remove author conflict of interest concerns for the most part. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Review articles are high quality sources for both medical and none medical content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• Clearly reliable, especially for the very basic and unsurprising content it's supporting. It is very normal and well within the expected range of coverage for a high-quality review article to cover political and regulatory topics, so the idea that it's a "medical journal ... being used to make claims outside its expertise" is simply unfounded. Zad68 03:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Since the review paper provides a summary of expert opinion, it should be included. My one concern is the equivocal wording. "A review study stated that" waters it down, and there should not be in-text attribution except for direct quotes. TFD (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's a strong source and it findings can be simply asserted, unless there are correspondingly good sources that give us reasons for doubt. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: except of course that the review paper doesn't do a summary of expert opinion in this particular section of the paper. This particular information is cited in the paper to a The New York Times article (ref. 112), not to an academic review, examination, summary or likewise. It is purely the opinions of the authors of the paper, just as the policy recommendations given in the paper is the same. --Kim D. Petersen 03:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Kim, actually, in the paragraph the content is summarizing, Grana is using four sources. Two sources, one from JAMA and the other from Tobacco Control, cover the background of marketing by tobacco companies using "astroturfing". The third is this, a recent research article from the BMJ titled Promotion of electronic cigarettes: tobacco marketing reinvented?, and that covers the online marketing and lobbying. Source 112 is the fourth, and it is indeed a New York Times article (any reason to think that wouldn't be a reliable source?) which covers the lobbying in Europe as plain fact, not opinion. Zad68 05:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Zad68: that is actually incorrect. You are confusing tobacco and e-cigs.

Ref 22 (BMJ)[3] is about e-cig marketing/advertisement, not lobbying/collusion/grassroots.

Ref 110 (JAMA)[4] from 1991, so can't be about e-cigs but is purely about tobacco, and to top it, it is written by one of the authors of Grana (Glantz).

Ref 111 (Tobacco control)[5] is also about tobacco alone as well, and is written by 2 of the authors of the Grana paper (Grana & Glantz), where the only mention of e-cigs is "In 2012 NCPPR was continuing efforts, such as its ‘Occupy Occupy D.C. Smoke-in’ to protest about taxes on smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes".

Ref 112 (NYT)[6] which is the only one about collusion between tobacco and e-cig grassroots and that is the one i mentioned. A newspaper article!

So no, this is not a summary of expert opinion - it is based entirely on an NYT article, and the authors opinions. --Kim D. Petersen 05:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

When I worked as an analyst one of the things we were most wary of was "circular corroboration", when an apparently well-backed source turns out to be essentially backed by itself. What we have here is a clear example of that; the work of Grana and Glantz is solidly based on the work of Grana and Glantz. Ethics aside, we shouldn't rely on a "review" that couldn't find any independent support and was reduced to citing the work of its own authors.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 06:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart again

The edit at issue:

Commenting on the reception, Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro said “It is absurd to have movie critics critiquing the politics of documentaries professionally; they seem unable to separate their artistic sensibilities from their political ones.”

IHO, Breitbart is a reliable source for opinions by its commentators clearly presented as opinion. The material has been repeatedly excised with comments: The "consensus" on BRD doesn't override WP policies involving questionable sources, they can't make claims about 3rd parties, reverted to revision 636802416 by Gamaliel: Per WP:BRD and WP:BLP concerns; please discuss on talk and reach consensus before edit warring to include contentious material, Dubious source commenting directly on living individuals, should be used with caution and only after consensus for inclusion, Undid revision 636723525 by Srich32977 (talk) Breitbart is QS and multiple past noticeboard discussions have concluded that it is not a reliable source, and Contentious claims about third parties is against wp:qs and wp:aboutself. Such quotes can only be used if "it does not involve claims about third parties" and "They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.

Again IMHO, the comment about "movie critics" is not directed at specific individuals, and is clearly an opinion about some critics who are not named or singled out here. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_176#Is_Breitbart.com_a_reliable_source_for_its_own_author.27s_film_review. seems to have a result, as did Talk:America:_Imagine_the_World_Without_Her#RFC_-_Is_Breitbart.com_a_reliable_source_for_its_own_film_review. which had a clear result - that is the cavil that it is not RS for opinions fails in a nanosecond. Leaving only the claim that WP:BLP is invoked for the reference to "movie critics". As the primary issue is asserted in the edit comments to be the one of WP:RS, this board is the place for discussion. Collect (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that Breitbart has a reputation of any sort for high-quality movie reviews, or for movie reviews at all. Maybe we should source movie opinion to third-party independent reviewers with actual reputations for offering critical opinions about movies? There are plenty of bloggers and questionable sources that write about movies they've seen; that doesn't make them RS for movie opinions.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure it is a reliable source for its own opinion, but the issue isweight - who cares what its opinions on film critics is? TFD (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, that there are potential WP:Weight problems, but that is a different issue. The question before us is if it is a reliable source for its own opinion in this matter, and the answer to that question I think is yes. --Obsidi (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It could theoretically be considered a reliable source for article content for some of its opinions, not all of them. If this is a questionable source, it can't be considered a reliable source for article content regarding its opinion about third-parties. That goes beyond WP:WEIGHT, it's from the WP:RS guideline.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but in this case, I don't think what they are talking about meets WP:BLPGROUP. --Obsidi (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Reliable Source, Breitbart.com meets all the requirements set forth in WP:IRS, just as does the Huffington Post. It is partisan, just as Salon and Huffington Post are, but that does not make any of them unreliable. See WP:BIASED regarding Breitbart.com and others I listed. This board is not about weight issues that is for WP:NPOV/N.

I agree that at least in my opinion Breitbart is as reliable as Salon and Huffington Post, and probably more reliable then Rolling stone after this most recent UVA Rape Story (I mean talk about a poor reputation for checking the facts). In the past it has been considered a WP:Questionable sources but wp:Consensus can change. --Obsidi (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Simple question.. can using a journalists interpretation of a quote be used in an article?

Just looking for some clarification, as I am not sure. http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-10-31/breakaway-buddhists-take-aim-dalai-lama is the article.

Quote is:

Barnett says the Dalai Lama discouraged rituals aimed at Dorje Shugden starting in the 1970s, but some members of the clergy ignored him and carried on with the tradition. So in 1996, he prohibited his followers from engaging in Shugden rituals altogther. What has happened since then, Barnett says, is that Shugden practitioners in the Tibetan exile community have faced persecution. And he says the Dalai Lama’s administration hasn’t dealt with that very well.

This is reporting by the Journalist, but issue has come up whether it is usable in a wikipedia article because the journalist doesn't put it in direct quotes ("Barnett says "The Dalai Lama discouraged.." To use it the article wouldn't mean saying this is a DIRECT quote from Barnett, but that its reported this was said.

The article in question is Dorje Shugden Controversy. Thanks! Prasangika37 (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Even things in direct quotes very often aren't the subject's actual words (see e.g., this discussion at the American Journalism Review), so that's somewhat of a non-issue. If it's a responsible mainstream reporter then it should be OK. Partisan or low-quality sources are another issue. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Matthew Bell of PRI (Public Radio International) ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_%28radio_program%29 is the program. Seems like a "go" @Short Brigade Harvester Boris: ? Prasangika37 (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Kanzenshuu reliable?

Is Kanzenshuu considered a reliable source, since it is a fansite for the Dragon Ball series? There seems to be some sort of disagreement (which I am uninvolved) over at the Dragon Ball page using it as a source for the actual publication dates. The discussion is at Talk:Dragon_Ball#publication. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It is reliable for information it gathers and references in its guides and features, but the forums are clearly not. The site is operated by Michael LaBrie, who is both a contributor to Anime News Network and Mania.com, and has been a recognizable figure for more than 15 years since founding the Dragon Ball fan site. This was prevalent even a decade ago, as evidenced by an informative panel on the topic that was hosted in a large convention (Anime Next). Kanzenshuu is also host to a key discussion on the ouster of Kenji Yamamoto from Toei Animation in a very public music plagiarism issue.[7] However, an excellent example is this well-written document on Dragon Ball Kai using Toei's fiscal reports to provide an analysis of the market, success and intentions of the company. Kanzenshuu not only gives context and insight into matters - but always cites its sources.[8] The quality can be seen by these informative pages that actually corrects errors or provides details that are verifiable, yet critical to comprehension. Sometimes this means giving a break down of the production credits and the English mis-translations of staff names to a breakdown of the remastering process. It is not the greatest source there is, but the content is verifiable and intelligently put together and managed by an expert who has been doing this for over fifteen years. Seems to meet the basic requirements to me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Right off the bat the site is to be avoided because it is self-published; WP:USERG. This actually makes it completely unacceptable as a source for information about any living individual, such as the above mentioned Kenji Yamamoto or anyone else involved in the series. I'll also just point out that Toei's fiscal reports are publicly posted by themselves, and are reported on by other more reliable sources. This fansite has what I believe to be a troubling number of copyright violations. Notable examples being; watermarking their (former, in this case) logo onto images they do not own, and fully republishing 147 interviews they do not own the rights to.[9] Leading to WP:V, which says "If there is reason to think a source violates copyright, do not cite it." Xfansd (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that you just proved you do not understand U.S. copyright, fair use and Wikipedia policies while making my argument stronger? The site is clearly not USERG, and you violated WP:COPYLINK by directly linking to the image which is from Toriyama's contributions to the anime-only content. This removes the fair use rationale and glosses over the fact that the site operates within all concerned parties (including Toei's) wishes.[10] Now, can you please remove your infringing link and stop making borderline WP:BLP violations against the operator? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

There is an edit notice on this page that says to link to your sources, it would seem that I took it too literal. I believe the people who create the site's content make that content available to the general public themselves, making it selfpublished. "Personal web pages are World Wide Web web pages created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature". This site states "Our mission and goal continues to be to spread our love and enjoyment of the original Japanese version of the Dragon Ball franchise".[11] Is operating a site solely about your interests not personal? Xfansd (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Casa particular

Is casaparticularcuba.org a reliable source? User:Songonero wants to use it in the article Casa particular, specifically sourcing it to the content found here (permalink). Our conversation can be found User talk:Apparition11#Casa_Particular. I think that it looks like simple ref spam, but the editor adding it (also the creator of the article) used it to write the article and wants further input on its reliability and appropriateness. Thanks. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 21:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Not suitable. There's infinitely better, non advert, stuff. For example Rough Guide (although the prime page, 114, isn't in the preview), Frommer's Cuba, another Rough Guide. Couldn't find anything on an official tourist site, which might be better. Bromley86 (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources for media blackout of Kermit Gosnell case

Kermit Gosnell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has the sentence "In April 2013, 71 other Members of Congress joined Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn in a letter condemning the media "blackout" on the Gosnell trial". The sources are [12] which is a pro-life website, and The Hill.[13] I don't see the pro-life website as an RS but it does link to copies of the letters, eg [14]. The letters don't actually use the word blackout, although Blackburn used it in a statement. There was some media coverage but not much until April 15th, according to the article. Her letters were sent on the 17th. Hm, this is one of those reports that as I write it makes me wonder if I'm at the right board, as it looks as though this was more for publicity than anything else, being done 2 days after major coverage started if I've got that right, and might be WP:UNDUE. Still, there's certainly the issue of lifesitenews as an RS. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Lets see, LifeSiteNews was founded 17 years ago, there haven't been any significant problems with their checking the facts that I am aware of, they have an editorial staff consisting of:

editor-in-chief John-Henry

managing editor John Jalsevac

managing director Steve Jalsevac

U.S. Bureau Chief Ben Johnson

Associate Editor Patrick Craine

They are not a self-published source, Alexa Rank overall US Rank of 8,225 (not required, but nice to know they are not a tiny organization). They were owned by Campaign Life Coalition, but they appear to have fully split from that organization. They are clearly a very WP:BIASED pro-life source, but that doesn't mean they can't be a WP:RS. So far I don't see any reason they wouldn't be a WP:RS. --Obsidi (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal "Saturday Essay"

At Talk:SWAT we've been having a discussion about trying to provide reliable sources for the SWAT article, which is mostly unsourced at present, except for some part of the "history" section and for content describing SWAT armaments.

One question which has been raised by Mark Marathon is whether this Wall Street Journal "Saturday morning essay" might be more of an opinion piece or editorial than news. The essay is written by Radley Balko, author of the book "Rise of the Warrior Cop." Mark's concern is important, as it's quite plausible the "Saturday morning essay" is editorial: I'm not familiar enough with the WSJ to know how to approach this issue.

More concretely, would the article be a reliable source for the raid described in Ogden, Utah? What about for describing raids in Georgia, Virginia or Connecticut? Also, the article compiles statistics gathered by others: should we rather cite those original sources than this article, or perhaps verify them? -Darouet (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Children's book only source to describe SWAT police?

At SWAT, the only source used in the lead, and the only source providing a general description of SWAT police, is a children's book called "Police Swat Teams: Life on High Alert," a part of the "Extreme Careers" series [15]. The Rosen Publishing Group explains,

Twenty Attention-Grabbing Career Titles Guaranteed to Get Your Middle Schoolers Thinking About Their Future This compelling new series for the middle school reader is designed to appeal to the thrill seeker in all of us. Each book includes information about a different extreme career, with a focus on safety and training. Readers will learn what it takes to get into these professions and what to expect when embarking on one. These volumes also provide information on the exciting aspects of these extreme careers and highlight the possible dangers and risks involved. Colorful photographs and informative sidebars help to make these books an invaluable resource for those young readers looking for a thrilling and fun-filled profession.

I have found two academic textbooks on police or policing and a dictionary of law enforcement that describe SWAT police [16][17][18], and another academic book specifically about SWAT police [19], all describing SWAT police and policing in quite different terms. These books were all published more recently than the children's book. There's a lot of resistance to using different sources or language however, and my edits trying to remove the children's book have been repeatedly reverted. Advice would be appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

World's best selling book (apart from the Bible, Mao and the Koran)?

• Source: Mitchell, David. (8 May 2010) "David Mitchell on Historical Fiction", The Telegraph: "Charles Dickens’ second stab at a historical novel, A Tale of Two Cities, has sold more than 200 million copies to date, making it the bestselling novel — in any genre — of all time...."
• Article: List of best-selling books
• Content:

Title	Author	Language	Year of publication	Number of copies sold
A Tale of Two Cities	Charles Dickens	English	1859	200 million

Bearing in mind that the figure of 200 million has been in our article since 2008, where it was based on a throw-away line from a theatre review, and that our list is widely copied, including by the mainstream media, it seems likely that David Mitchell sourced the information directly or indirectly from Wikipedia.

The claim that this book has outsold its nearest rivals is extraordinary, and needs extraordinary evidence. Further making the claim unlikely and increasing the demand for evidence:

• The field is not without serious researchers, for example A Hundred Years of Publishing, Being the Story of Chapman & Hall, Ltd. 1930, who would have been likely to comment on such extraordinary sales.
• In 1910 it was reported in The Strand that a total of 24 million copies of all of Dickens works put together were estimated to have been produced.
• Generally "A Tale of Two Cities", though not without its proponents, is significantly less popular than "A Christmas Carol", and less popular than "Great Expectations" and "Oliver Twist".

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC).

You're right that the claim in the article predates the citation given to support it. I would suggest removing the recent citation because it's hard to have total confidence in its reliability, recognizing the possibility of circular reference. However, I wouldn't remove the claim yet, without a good faith search that contradicted it. The list is clear about its limits, and it shouldn't be taken to authoritatively say who wins, when the list is incomplete and contains estimates of unknown range. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Considering that, as had been explained to Rich Farmbrough before he came here, the claim about the 200 million was made in sources independent of Wikipedia before we first published it, there is no reason to assume that David Mitchell got his information from us, and not from our original source or from whatever source that one was based on. I made it clear on the article talk page that the claim dates from at least 2005. And I dispute the claim that Tale of Two Cities is less popular than his other works, since it seems to be very often used in a school context, which, over the decades, creates a significant number of sales... this source claims that he sold 2 million copies of all his books together between 1900 and 1906 alone, and that's just from Chapman & Hall, not the many translations. This source claims that Dickens (all works together) sold 1 million copies in 1968 in the US alone! The Daily Review (for what it's worth) claims that Dickens' works were printed by the millions in the USSR[20] (20 million by 1966![21]) This source[22] seems to go more into detail on the success of "A Tale of Two Cities" specifically, but from what I can see, it is clear that figures from 1910 and thereabouts are meaningless, as the sales figures of Dickens were still increasing significantly in the 1960s. This source claims that only four titles rank consistently among the bestsellers of Collins (whatever Collins is, it has sold 29 milion copies): David Copperfield, Oliver Twist, A Tale of Two Cities, and Treasure Island. This indicates again that "A Tale of Two Cities" is one of the best-selling books by Dickens, more so than e.g. "Great Expectations". Fram (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

There is plenty of reason to think that he used Wikipedia, for one thing almost all mentions of 200m copies are in lists which are clearly derived from that article.

Secondly the raw arithmetic does not add up. In 1968, for example, the US probably formed at least half the market for English classics. The total US sales would have had to be running about 20 million if we are to believe the Canadian Bookseller and Library Journal that the sales are reasonably equally divided amongst his (20 or so) titles.

Nelson, and Collins are publishing houses.

200m might be a good estimate for Dickens as a whole (a decade or so back), and may even be what someone mis-quoted. But to stand this figure up for one book requires good secondary source, not OR extrapolated from his Russian sales. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC).

I think removing that source would indeed be a step forward. I and I presume the others that have commented on this here, here, here, here and externally will have searched for supporting data. But that is not really a question for here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC).

Your links to discussions don't dispute the 200 million, but ask for sources for his other books[23][24], ... I don't dispute that other works by Dickens have sold more than 10 million copies, and invite everyone to include those for which they find reliable sources. But to remove a reliable source on the mere speculation that it may have been based on our list, even though there is clear evidence that the same claim circulated before we published it, and there is sufficient evidence that "A Tale of Two Cities" is indeed the or one of the two bestselling novels by Dickens (e.g. the Collins source given above), is pointless bickering and goes against WP:V and WP:RS. Fram (talk) 08:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

A reliable source which seems not to be based on our list but still gives the 200 million figure: this French magazine, which includes a number of books missing from our list (Alice, Don Quixote, ...). Fram (talk) 08:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Russian Media

Hi! I am mediating a case concerning Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on WP:DRN. This case has an interesting sourcing issue, and I would like some advice. It appears that a lot of media sources in Russia -- and not just the ones officially controlled by the government -- tell a completely different story than sources in the US and EU. How do I determine which, if any, are reliable? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Guy Macon - unfortunately the editing environment surrounding the Ukraine/Russia dispute is almost as rancorous as the political situation in southeast Ukraine. I've been involved in editing on the subject since the spring. Not surprisingly, Russian and western media have mostly lined up behind the foreign policies of their respective governments. This has led Russian media to place undue emphasis on far-right participation in the Ukrainian conflict, and western media to often deny it completely.

The issue in this particular case appears to revolve around the JIT secret treaty described by Elsevier, a Dutch paper, in August. Malaysia's exclusion from the secret treaty caused anger and disquiet in Malaysia (e.g. [25], [26]), where culpability has never been a foregone conclusion [27]. Furthermore, the authority of Ukraine (considered a suspect in the downing) to veto information in the final report caused an uproar in Holland [28] and Russia [29].

I don't know how the plane was shot down, but I really don't believe that western press should be given more credence than Russian, or vice-versa. "Conspiracy theories" may well describe dubious skeptics of science, but in politics the epithet is often a mechanism of shutting out opponent voices. This is a political issue, and unfortunately there are few clean hands to be found. -Darouet (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It's sort of looking like the Russian media vs, the rest of the world's media. But I am not sure yet -- I have only been studying this for a day, and most of that has been wading through the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This has led Russian media to place undue emphasis on far-right participation in the Ukrainian conflict, and western media to often deny it completely. - this is completely not true. When the trouble in Ukraine started there were a TON of stories in Western media about some far-right groups on the Maidan side, like Right Sector or even Svoboda. But the facts of the matter are that these are actually pretty marginal groups (witness the results of the few last elections) whose presence has been amplified by Russian government media. Western media has NOT "denied it", it just, after a reporter or two actually figured out what was going on in Ukraine moved on to other, actually notable stories.

On the other hand, there is a TON of far-right and even neo-nazi groups supporting the Russian government here. The National Front in France, Jobbik in Hungary, and a whole assortment of far right fringe parties have squarely lined up to be the first to lick Putin's boots. Not surprising since by all accounts, Putin's been funding a lot of them for the past few years. And then you got folks like Aleksander Dugin or Alexander Prokhanov who are quite nasty anti-semitic/neo-Nazi characters and who pretty much epitomize Russian government's current foreign policy. So you've actually got it backward. It's the Russian media who's been downplaying the extremist nature of its own politics, while Western media... well, actually not there much either, although reliable scholarly sources are plentiful.

The idea that western press (what is that anyway?) should not be given more credence than pure propaganda outlets like RT or RIA Novosti (which are NOT synonymous with "Russian sources"), which have been caught red handed reporting fake news, photoshopped pictures and all, is silly. If we have a Reliable Sources policy then it has to mean something. And it means "reputation for fact checking and accuracy".

This has actually been discussed previously. To reiterate, whether a source is "Russian" or "western" (whatever that is) is completely irrelevant. Guy, as someone who's been around on Wikipedia for some time you should be well aware of that. There are Russian sources which are not reliable. There are ... let's say American, sources which are not reliable. There are Russian sources which are reliable. There are American sources which are reliable. The focus on the "ethnicity" of a particular source is completely misguided and signals a total lack of understanding of Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Even if we eliminate all Russian sources, there are plenty of Malaysian, Japanese, Irish, German and Dutch sources that report the same thing as the Russian sources. None of those are state owned. USchick (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

First, as I say above, nobody's talking about "eliminating Russian sources". Please stop pretending otherwise. Second, it is not true that Malaysian, Japanese, Irish, German and Dutch sources (aren't these, except for the Malaysian and Japanese, the same as "western sources"?) "report the same thing as Russian (government) sources". So stop pretending otherwise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: There is not a single Russian source in the diff that is the basis for the DRN case in question. The sources in the diff/passages in dispute are all Dutch. Thus, as far as I can tell, the reliability of Russian sources is irrelevant to that dispute. – Herzen (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I find it amusing that Guy Macon came here for an independent view, but all he got were either parties to the DRN case, or people already heavily involved in the Ukrainian conflict. Stickee (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

lol, can we move on now? USchick (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that there are a number of prominent sources telling different stories, and a final decision has not been reached. The thing we normally do in such a case is to write the most representative and prominent versions of each story, and who supports each. If, for example, all the major sources supporting story A are from one country, we should make that clear. --GRuban (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

And the article does do that, but probably gives the minor view a bit too much prominence. It should probably be reduced. Stickee (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The incident we're discussing occurred well into a brutal propaganda war between the west and Russia. Media from all parts of the world was already playing its (sometimes unintended) role in that propaganda war. The plane's crash simply caused a massive escalation in that propaganda war. It's a time when almost all media must be consistently questioned. My recommendation has therefore always been for that article to ignore ALL speculation about the crash from anyone, along with all statements from politicians. Removing such content from the article would remove problems with sources, would do no damage to the genuine informational content of the article, and would make it overall a much better one that Wikipedia could be proud of. Right now it's a propaganda tool itself Of course the Russia haters among the self-appointed owners of the article detest my approach. One can only wonder why. HiLo48 (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Disagree, I'm afraid. Ten years from now, someone reading this article won't get a full picture of what happened if we don't write that there was a propaganda war. I entirely agree that most of the "expert speculation" and almost all of the politicians' statements, on all sides, are blatant misinformation. Unfortunately that misinformation is important to the story. We shouldn't leave it out, we should only make sure we are clear we don't consider it the truth. --GRuban (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure who you were disagreeing with there, but I at least partly agree with you. We should definitely mention that there was a propaganda war underway when the crash occurred. However, I don't see the point of adding any of the propaganda nonsense and political statements to the article. It adds no information. And leads to some editors finding fault with every source that doesn't support their obviously strong views on who did it. (Or who they want us all to believe did it). HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• There is "a brutal propaganda war between the west and Russia... It's a time when almost all media must be consistently questioned." This is like telling: "hey, there is a brutal propaganda war between the Big Lie of Stalinist/Hitlerite/whatever propaganda and the rest of the world. It's a time to question all media". This is ridiculous and against all our policies. My very best wishes (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Guy Macon. Good news sources are ones by independent and reputable journalists. There are very few of them in Russia, because independent journalists are killed and badly beaten on a regular basis. One of the best sources is Novaya gazeta (short English version) - three famous journalists from this newspaper were killed. Another decent place is grani.ru [30]; it is currently blocked by the Russian government for readers from Russia. That one and a couple of others are good, but it's all in Russian. There is also RFE/RL (see this, for example) - a lot of contributors are Russian. My very best wishes (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "I find it amusing that Guy Macon came here for an independent view, but all he got were either parties to the DRN case, or people already heavily involved in the Ukrainian conflict." I am fully aware of who is involved in the the conflict and who the regulars here at the RSNB are. While I don't in any way discount or devalue input from the former, I have heard much of it already as I have been crawling through the article talk page archives. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I make very few contributions to discussion on that article these days. I don't enjoy the bullying, threats, and being shouted at. It's a very unpleasant place. Some editors who have posted here have followed me to my talk page to continue the harassment. Sadly, bullying and harassment seem to be guiding the content of the article. HiLo48 (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether or not the above is accurate (as a DRN volunteer I need to stay strictly neutral). I can assure you that on WP:DRN there will be no hint of any such behavior, and in fact editors are not allowed to talk about other editors. Please feel free to join the conversation -- you can post a single comment and leave if you wish -- and help me in my attempt to resolve the content dispute. Your input would certainly be welcome.

You can ask an editor to stop posting to your talk page, and if he continues, you can go to WP:ANI with the usual result being that that user is warned and then blocked if the behavior continues. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I have said my piece. The problems with the article are obvious. The bad behaviour is obvious. The guilty parties are obvious. If the artificial boundaries of this process prevent anything being done about it and them, the POV pushers are winning again. HiLo48 (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

More generally, I'd like to point out that you can't ask about the reliability of "Russian media" in general. That's not what this board is for and that's not how we evaluate reliability of sources (by their nationality?). What you can do, is take specific sources and ask about them. Obviously, some Russian media will be reliable, and some Russian media will be unreliable. Just like some American media will be reliable and some American media will not be reliable. So you have to ask about or discuss specific sources not a blanket category such as this one. The question is ill posed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the main point of that post, that each outlet needs to be considered individually. I would also argue that the issue under discussion is also relevant. British tabloids are excellent sources - for soccer results - but not much else. (Maybe the date, and the price of the paper too?) Sadly, however, that post frames the issue as a US vs Russia one. As far as we know, the USA had almost nothing to do with this incident. (The plane was built in America?) Framing it as a US vs Russia issue is seeing it as part of the propaganda war, not a plane crash. The problems surrounding this article are highlighted yet again. HiLo48 (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Iconic Photos

1. Source. http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2009/07/21/moorman-polaroid/

2. Article. Mary Moorman

3. Content. "Moorman sold her original photograph of the assassination for $175,000 in an eBay live auction in January 2008."

Alec Selwyn-Holmes, the author of the Iconic Photos blog, posted this July 21, 2009. Conversely, Christopher Bonanos, an editor at New York Magazine and author of Instant: The Story of Polaroid, stated on February 2, 2012: "Moorman still lives in Dallas, and reportedly still has her original print, despite a report (on Wikipedia and elsewhere) that she sold it in 2008 for $175,000." [31] Thank you! - Location (talk) 06:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

LoneSentry.com

• www.lonesentry.com
• StG 44
• [32] being used to support this [33]

This personal website is run by an individual and is advertising supported. It contains photographs and text that the site claims are reprints of government documents, but there is no supporting information such as a scan or photostat for this particular source of the original document text, just the transcribed text. There are scans of images and I assume that since its a government publication that its in the public domain and thus not a copyright violation.

This site itself carries a disclaimer, "DISCLAIMER: The following text is taken from the U.S. War Department publication Tactical and Technical Trends. As with all wartime intelligence information, data may be incomplete or inaccurate. No attempt has been made to update or correct the text. Any views or opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of the website."

Granted, other areas of the site do have scans or images of the original documents such as these, but not the series of source articles referenced above.

I am not disputing the information, assuming it was taken from the original government document, but without any means to verify what is posted, how can all portions of this site be considerable reliable? According to one User, this website is cited and referenced by numerous authors in books and magazines and for the sections backed by scans of the original material I can see how that is the case, but that does not seem to remove the verifiability issue for posted sources that do not. Since there are government documents being referenced, shouldn't there be a better source available? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Scalhotrod refuses to accept reference that refutes his point of view and makes unreasonable demands.

User:Scalhotrod is apparently on a crusade to eliminate U.S. War Department publication "Tactical and Technical Trends No. 57, April 1945, Machine Carbine Promoted" from http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html because it completly refutes his point of view. The lonesentry.com site is a well establish internet resource proving digital copies of government documents. A simple Google search reveals that it is widely used as source material in many articles, books and other publications (with approximately 80,000 hits). I then composed a list of the first 25 books that popped-up using lonesentry.com material as sources. Scalhotrod rejected the list, denounced the writers stating that "Authors want to make money too" and demanded that I produce additional evidence. I now believe that Scalhotrod is toying with me and that no evidence will satisfy him.

Also, it should be noted that many "personal websites" are routinely used as references on wiki. One http://world.guns.ru/index-e.html is a website run by one man. This website also uses..."Site mission satement (yes, statement is misspelled) and legal disclaimer 1. I do not sell or buy any weapons. This site is for education only! 2. In no case I shall be liable for any damage or harm, caused by use or misuse of any information, facts and opinions, placed on this site. 3. All information is gathered from the open sources" He offers no supporting documents whatsoever for his facts and opinions. Whereas, lonesentry.com simply proves digital copies of government documents. User:Scalhotrod, has provide no evidence that lonesentry is manipulating the data other than to claim that its own legal disclaimer somehow invalidates the information provided on the website. Below is a copy of the relevant conversation on the StG 44 talk page.--RAF910 (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Gewehr means "rifle" ?

Oh hoh hoh, so "Maschinengewehr" is machine... rifle ??? Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

A look in the dictionary tells us that "gewehr" can be translated as both "gun" and "rifle". Words can have multiple meanings. Translating is also more than putting the literal meaning of words into the translated text.--Sus scrofa (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

How about sturm?

But apparently "sturm" can only mean "assault" in this article (another look in the dictionary) or maybe there's another explanation. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Sturm = storm...as in "have fun storming the castle". In this context, the most commonly used translated synonym is "assault". Therefore, the most common english language translation for "sturmgewehr" is "assault rifle". See...the fifth definition in the verb section of the above source (another look in the dictionary). This is also well referenced within the article. As Sus scrofa said above..."Translating is also more than putting the literal meaning of words into the translated text."--RAF910 (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I can appreciate the intention of a catchy phrase, but the lead says "(abbreviation of Sturmgewehr 44, "assault rifle 44") is a German assault rifle...". Aside from being grammatically redundant and poor writing, its a misnomer considering that how the name came to be is detailed in the body of the text. So in this context, since the term did not exist until the creation of this firearm (but I'll acknowledge that it is responsible for the terms future popularity) it is misleading without explanation which is what I attempted to do with this edit. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of LoneSentry website

Scalhotrod refuses to accept reference that refutes his point of view http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html Machine Carbine Promoted," Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 57, April 1945. This is a well establish internet resource proving digital copies of government documents, it is widely used on wiki and in books and other publication (a simple google search will prove this). I believe that he cannot accept the fact that the German word "sturmgewehr" is commonly translated into English as as "assault rifle" and believes that it should be translated as "storm gun" instead. Also, he seems upset that the source states that Adolph Hitler coined the term (see assault rifle page). And, since the reference in question is the first time that the term "assault rifle" is used, he is attempting to discredit it.--RAF910 (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

What exactly are you basing the phrase "well establish internet resource proving digital copies of government documents" on? The reference pointed to text that claims to be a reprint of the Government document, but even the LoneSentry.com website states, "As with all wartime intelligence information, data may be incomplete or inaccurate. No attempt has been made to update or correct the text." How is this a WP:RS? The source you are pointing to is just text, not a copy or photostat of the original. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

With regard to "storm rifle" vs. "assault rifle", from a historical and encyclopedic standpoint, I believe that this (and only this) article should use the phrase "storm rifle" simply because this rifle is the origin of the entire category of firearms. Furthermore, I only tried to insert the phrase ONCE in the lead to emphasize the fact that this firearm was origin of the term that became popular or common much later on. I'm not trying to discredit anything, I'm trying to better explain something within the proper context. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that you forgot to write the first and last sentence of Lonesentry.com disclaimer...so for my fellow users it states "DISCLAIMER: The following text is taken from the U.S. War Department publication Tactical and Technical Trends. As with all wartime intelligence information, data may be incomplete or inaccurate. No attempt has been made to update or correct the text. Any views or opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of the website." U.S. War Department publications are by definition reliable sources. The website simply puts a standard disclaimer at the top of each article.

Also, Lonesentry.com is clearly an established and reputable source of information. A simple Google search reveils that numerous books use Lonesentry.com resources as references (see sample list below...I'm afraid there are too many to list them all).

MG 34 and MG 42 Machine Guns By Chris McNab

The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II By Harry Yeide

The Legacies of a Hawaiian Generation: From Territorial Subject to American ...By Judith Schachte

The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II By Harry Yeid

Soviet Submachine Guns of World War II: PPD-40, PPSh-41 and PPS By Chris McNab

German Automatic Rifles 1941-45: Gew 41, Gew 43, FG 42 and StG 44 By Chris McNab

Faith and Fortitude: My WWII Memoirs By Ronald Bleecke

Unforgettable: The Biography of Captain Thomas J. Flynn By Alice Flynn

Steeds of Steel By Harry Yeide

West Point '41: The Class That Went to War and Shaped America By Anne Kazel-Wilcox, PJ Wilco

Tragedy at Dieppe: Operation Jubilee, August 19, 1942 By Mark Zuehlke

The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II By Harry Yeide

4th Armored Division in World War II By George Forty

A Cause Greater than Self: The Journey of Captain Michael J. Daly, World War ...By Stephen J. Ochs

The Sky Rained Heroes: A Journey from War to Remembrance By Frederick E. LaCroix

The Generation that Saved America By Bettye B. Burkhalte

Dig & Dig Deep By Richard Arnold

World War II By Walter A. Haze

Hero Street, U.S.A.: The Story of Little Mexico's Fallen Soldiers By Marc Wilson

Letters Home: From a World War II "Black Panther" Artilleryman By Philip M. Coons, Harold M. Coons

Savage Lies: The Half-truths, Distortions and Outright Lies of a Right-wing ...By Bill Bowman

One-of-a-Kind Judge By Joan Cook Carabin

Operation Thunderclap and the Black March: Two Stories from the Unstoppable ...By Richard Allison

Going for Broke: Japanese American Soldiers in the War Against Nazi Germany By James M. McCaffry

Hard Times, War Times, and More Hard Times By London L. Gore

Saving Lives, Saving Honor By Jeremy C. Schwendiman

--RAF910 (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how the first and last sentence change the fact that the website admits that its contents may not be accurate. I'm not contesting that the original source of the information is the U.S. Government, I'm challenging that LoneSentries reporting of it can't be trusted as a WP:RS by the site's own admission. It's reposted text without any proof of the original source.

As for your list of books, OK, so what? Without the context of how each and everyone of these publications is citing the information, this is a baseless assertion. You seem to be accepting blindly that the LoneSentry site is 100% accurate, but not offering any verifiable evidence as to why. Authors want to make money too, why wouldn't they use sources that back up their writing. Would you mind posting links to your research and better explain your opinion?

Back to the subject of "sturm" for a moment, I asked about this on the Lead talk page and also looked up the translation here. If you click the "More translation" link to show the full list, it pretty clearly shows that another use of the word "sturm" is attack or assault. So my apologies for the misinterpretation, "sturm" = "assault" in German. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand this...the hundreds if not thousands of authors that have use Lonesenrty resources as references are all a bunch of hack-writers and you expect me to prove their research. While you...who now by your own admission could not correctly translate the German word "sturmgewehr" to the English term "assault rifle" (despite 70 years and countless books and articles on the subject), alone possesses the knowledge to invalidate the research of hundreds if not thousands of writers. I don't think so...and, I will no longer entertain you.--RAF910 (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

RAF910, just show me (and everyone else who might be reading this) a link that supports any of what you are saying. If there are "hundreds if not thousands of authors that have use Lonesenrty", then lets see it. Please try to calm down and have a rational discussion. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

|}

Factual, but a blog, and entered into Wikipedia by said blog author

A blog [34] entry is being inserted as a source in several articles by User:StephMac1981 when the blog itself is written by a Stephen T. McErleane. While I must say I agree with his assertions that the "French fort" was indeed actually an Indian fortification (other Native American villages in Upstate New York were called "castles") there is no reliable source that states this. His blog entry fails our RS standards based on being published in an open blog that is not peer reviewed in any manner. Plus the fact that the blog itself advocates its very use by individuals for the purpose of being the source to link to. It is a blatant end run around our OR requirements by creating a pseudo-RS to "publish" one's own OR and then link to it. Plus, the problems inherent in any possible link between StephMac1981 and the author Stephen T. McErleane. Just because one's personal research is correct, and Stephen's research IS, that doesn't mean Wikipedia can use it as a source. Unfortunately, a preeminent scholar on Albany history Jack McEneny (literally wrote the book on Albany) uses the story of the French fortification. The best we can do is simply ignore the story and omit it entirely, but we can not claim it has been debunked or false.Camelbinky (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The "StephMac1981" username isn't actually registered? What articles? Where does this McEneny use the story? What? __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Stephmac1981. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is a registered account. The name is red linked because they have not created a user page. User talk:Stephmac1981.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It was a capitalization error by Camelbinky, not a redlink issue. It's all understood now. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

− ::(edit conflict) x2 Actually they haven't edited their user page but the person is registered. There's a difference. I have now posted on their talk page about this discussion, so you can find them that way. I forgot to put User: that is my fault. The articles in question include, but not limited to- Fort Nassau (North River) which I have reverted, and Castle Island (New York) which I have not as I am waiting for this discussion. May also include other Albany, New York articles specified in the blog as articles that should be edited, and which the author states he may and that his blog should be used as the link as the reference source. McEneny uses the story in his book, Albany: Capital City on the Hudson.Camelbinky (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Stephmac1981 (talk · contribs).--Mark Miller (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Removing the challenged material (fort and no fort) until an independent RS can be found looks like the most appropriate thing to do. If editors decide that the blogger is considered an expert with a history of being published by third-party RS, then it might be okay, but someone would have to make that case (and preferably not the author himself).__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

His bio lists him as a PhD student who also helps manages the website with one blogpost. I don't think that qualifies him as an allowable "established expert" of reputation and history of being published, per WP:SPS. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

A few things: 1) I did not write that the French fort was actually an Indian fortification. I wrote that there is no reliable evidence that the French fort existed and that the likely source of this myth is woefully unreliable for reasons I explained in the blog post. My point that the island was likely named after the Indian fortifications is tangential to my main point. (I did not edit the Wikipedia article to say such a thing.) What I wrote was that Charles Gehring, who has 40 years of experience with such things, surmised that it was. I trust the reader to do with that information what he'd like. 2) Perhaps Wikipedia does have a policy that prohibits using blogs as a citation. The great irony here, of course, is that McEneneny's book is wrong. 3) I can't use my research as a source. Again, if Wikipedia has foolish policies, so be it. The blog post is an elaboration too long to put in the page. It has citations. Citing a statement does not give it validity. (Even if it is some awful 19th-century book from Google Books.) It gives it a basis that can stand or fall based on the reader's evaluation. 4) The myth is in the public memory as evidence by its presence on 3 (or more) Wikipedia pages. So at the least my assertion that the first European fortification was not French could have been changed to something like "The story that the first European fortification was a French castle is of questionable authenticity." Then one can site my blog post. If one dares. Stephmac1981 (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Your blog post won't, and can't, be used. Wikipedia has policies, and as an encyclopedia for good or for bad those policies include that third party sources are preferable, reliable sources based on peer review or published by major publications that put their reputation at jeopardy and therefore have editors or fact checkers, or peer review in magazines and journals. To do as you suggest as an alternative to use each of your individual sources on your blog post becomes original research (which is not allowed per WP:OR. I'm sorry you either don't understand or accept our policies and guidelines, but over all they have worked to make Wikipedia work. For the most part. Continue your education (which happens to be at my alma mater) and publish your own book. Until then, yes McEneny's wrong book (and that's not the only thing he got wrong in that book) does get preferential treatment to your correct blog. And for the record yes it was an Indian village that lends the name castle to Castle Island.Camelbinky (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

We could cite Charles Gehring, who does have a reputation as an expert, if his work on this is published in any way that other readers could theoretically access (even if it was in an offline physical public archive), but not you at this point. I'm sure you're convinced of your own arguments, but we have to show that historical material is supported by sources with more of an established reputation. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Which book presses are reputable? Just curious.Stephmac1981 (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Best are ones which specialize in books on the general topics at hand. Unusable are "vanity presses." All university presses, etc. are generally fine. Collect (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I get the policy, and I get why it exists. However, editor discretion should be permitted. But I don't want to get bogged down in that discussion.... I initially thought that my assertion that there was no French fort was removed. Fair enough. But then Camelbinky just reverted the page back to the old version that says that the French had a castle on the island, something that s/he knows to be false. It seems to me that the sensible thing to do would be to remove the reference to the French fort altogether. Stephmac1981 (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)