Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 239

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reliable sources | Noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 03:16, 15 March 2018 (Archiving 3 discussion(s) from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 235←Archive 237Archive 238Archive 239Archive 240Archive 241→Archive 245

LISTING IN FILM CREDITS

Hi--For some reason unknown to me, a song I co-wrote that was featured the film To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar, and which is listed in the "Soudtrack" section on the movie's Wikipedia page, was marked "citation needed." The song is listed among those not included on the soundtrack release; however, the song is included in the film's credits (link below). Apparently this doesn't constitute a "reliable source." Can that really be possible? I can even tell you at what moment the song appears in the film--it's playing on the car radio when the three stars get picked up hitchhiking...Thanks for your help. The credit is at 1:07 on the video. [1]Senorartkat (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

If the song is listed in the film credits, then you can cite those credits. They are a reliable primary source for this sort of thing. Blueboar (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Do I just post the YouTube link as a footnote?Senorartkat (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

No, don't use the youtube video at all. A youtube video may have been doctored, and any decent editor could do it in a way that wasn't obvious to the casual viewer. If it was a video of a person saying something, that would be much harder to fake and so might be acceptable. But it's possible (if remote) that your song doesn't actually appear in the film, and you posted a doctored youtube video to try and engage in some self-promotion. Rather, you should use {{Cite AV media}} and reference the film directly. I can help you format it. This ensures that your reference material is valid.
Also, and this is much more important: YOU SHOULD NOT MAKE THIS EDIT. COI is a complex subject, but the absolute best way to treat it is to never make an edit to a topic you have any COI with. Instead, you should use the talk page to post an edit request that the edit be made on your behalf.
I see you've had a rough start, and you have my sympathies for that. It seems that we as a community could have been more welcoming and patient with you. But at the end of the day, our main focus is on content, and the fact that you were treated unfairly doesn't really matter. But please, let me help you. I'll comment at the talk page and try to get a discussion going. If the other editors will listen to me, or they just don't care enough to respond, I will make the edit. But if there's still a serious pushback, then I'm afraid you might have to let this matter go for now, and wait until things have cooled down. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I added my name to the Wikipedia page a long long time ago, but I never thought it would be thought of as a conflict of interest since the song is, in fact, in the movie. The "citation needed" seems to have appeared pretty recently, not sure why. I cited IMDb as a source not knowing it was user edited, and once again, unaware that it could be considered conflict of interest. Whatever; I'd appreciate your help very much. You are a fine human being, and I'm not stupid enough to lie about something that would be so easy to disprove.Senorartkat (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I added the film as a source and posted on the article talk page about it. The editor who had been reverting you thanked me for my talk page edits, so it's safe to presume they're okay with the addition of the film as a source. I hope this hasn't soured you on Wikipedia. We can be a bit (read: extremely) pedantic, but once you get used to it, it's pretty easy to get along. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Nah, I think it's good you're scrupulous. Thanks all around.Senorartkat (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Is Poets & Quants an RS please?

Hello. Is Poets & Quants considered a reliable third-party source that we can cite please? It seems reliable to me but I am not sure who is behind the website. Please ping me when you reply. Thank you!Zigzig20s (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

[1] 52 Wikipedia articles use it. They have editorial oversight. [2] Dream Focus 18:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
For what? It seems reliable but that will be very dependent on the content and the article. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikileaks

Hello. I just wanted to know if a Wikileaks source can be mentioned as reference or reliable source.  M A A Z   T A L K  09:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The simple answer is "it depends." As this question has been asked many times before, you may wish to search through the archives of this page for references to Wikileaks and read what has previously been discussed.TheBlueCanoe 16:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Be aware that our WP:EL policy forbids linking to websites which host copyrighted material without permission, ergo the very mission of Wikileaks. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The main problem with Wikileaks (aside from the problem BullRangifer points out) is that we can't trust that the documents are exactly what they purport to be. An ideologically driven document thief (whatever the ideology, whether they're a believer or just being paid) would be motivated to alter stolen documents to support said ideology. Even in cases where the documents can be verified through technical means (such as with the Podesta emails), said verification is far from foolproof. Even some of the emails verified through DKIM keys might not be legit: remember that the attackers had access to the computers which ran the software that produced the keys. If the recipient of an email no longer has a copy, there's no way to verify that the key which validates the email is the same key that was originally received. (I admit, this is a bit of a stretch, but it's certainly possible.)
So no, I would never cite a WL document, unless I absolutely had to, and even then, I would be very specific that it was the document hosted by WL which said whatever it said, and not imply that the original document said the same thing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ma'az: basically echoing TheBlueCanoe and MPants (and having no idea about BullRangifer's EL note), it very much depends, and Wikileaks should be treated as a primary source, or something close to it. As MPants notes they are also ideologically driven (which doesn't exclude their usefulness, just important to keep in mind). When they're cited it should be with attribution. -Darouet (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
The policy is located here: Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking. I have just added WikiLeaks there, but even without that addition it still applies.
That policy applies even more so to WikiLeaks, where hosting stolen material is their mission. I hope that explains things. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Hey BullRangifer, thanks for explaining the situation at "Trump-Russia Dossier", and for linking to Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking. As noted above I would remain very cautious about linking to it, but not because of copyright issues. Wikileaks is primarily known for releasing material that is classified, or secret, and often related to potential wrongdoing by governments. That kind of information is of great interest to journalists (never mind Wikipedians), and as you can see on our page describing Wikileaks, plenty of sources describe Wikileaks as a kind of journalistic organization. My principle concern would be 1) that because they often dump large quantities of data, has a reference to any particular release been justified by demonstration of interest in other media, 2) As MPants noted, there could be issues with the authenticity of the document, and 3) Wikileaks is a potentially useful, but also biased source. -Darouet (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree. I think that we can usually trust multiple RS to comment on such leaks from them, and we can cite those sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I have a related question to this. What if the Wikileaks itself basis the content it on say other newspapers? Can then the opinion of the newspaper/source suddenly taken to be WP:NPOV. In this case wouldn't it be simply the diplomat relaying the information they read/heard back to State Department and sometimes including their own POV in it? Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I've read alot of comments, and still i'm confused on this. Generally speaking, can Wikileaks be considered as a source. I have received following answers:
  1. Yes, it is a reliable source.
  2. It can be mentioned but it is only reliable if another reliable source is mentioned with it.
  3. It can be mentioned as a source, however one should mention in the content that its from wikileaks.
  4. No, it is a weak source and not reliable.

So, where is the line in the sand? Which opinion is the best opinion? I would love a closing verdict on this issue.  M A A Z   T A L K  13:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:Ma'az — where the "line in the sand" is drawn, for this community, will tend to depend on the specific context. -Darouet (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
For example @Ma'az: it looks like an article you were editing had material removed that linked wikileaks, here [3]. In that particular example, I have no idea how exactly that Wikileaks link would support such a very bold and general claim. I actually followed the link — it's a large file — and the multitude of information contained there does not allow a reader to editor to easily verify the claim. So in that particular case, you might find that the leak or its contents were reported in the Indian, Pakistani, Afghan or international press. But I think removing the link would be justified. -Darouet (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • As above: it's context dependent, but the default would be "no" for Wikileaks, which might flip to "yes" for specific content in specific articles. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Forbes site subdomains as reference

Hi, I was looking at the Brie Larson article. On the opening lede, it has a link as a reference to Natalie Robehmed, who is on the editorial staff of Forbes. I know the sites subdomain is essentially a webhosting outfit, built with contributors but is it valid source. scope_creep (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Editors frequently misuse content from www.forbes.com/sites. In this case, however, because the author is identified as Forbes staff rather than as a contributor, [4] is a reliable source for Larson being on a Forbes 30 Under 30 list. I wouldn't put it in the first paragraph of the lead, because it doesn't rank up there with her Academy Award, British Academy Film Award, and Golden Globe. Also it might be better worded as "in one of their 30 Under 30 lists". If Wikipedia is to be believed, there are 41 Forbes 30 Under 30 lists published every year. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Worldbruce. That has clarified the spot a bit. scope_creep (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Ban on predatory publishing too restrictive to be fair

Since November 2017, I've had a dispute with Administrator JzG about the use of a particular source in the article on Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen. On 19 November 2017, JzG stripped the article of a book by Italian physical chemist Enzo Tiezzi,[2] see this diff. The dispute remains unresolved by the time of writing, as JzG has so far declined to enter into a discussion of the substance to the argument, see my talk page for details on this.

Let me restate my most important point already made on my talk page: According to the prevailing WP content guideline on reliable sources, predatory publishing pertains only to low quality articles published in journals lacking a reliable peer review process. But Tiezzi's book is indeed a book, so the guideline obviously does not apply here.

Of general interest to other editors on this noticeboard is my concern that the ban on predatory publishers is too restrictive to be fair when books are boldly being stripped from WP articles whenever the publisher involved (in this case, WIT Press) is suspected of predatory publishing of articles. I would like some response from other editors on this issue, thank you.

References

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxkFaxtFqx0
  2. ^ Tiezzi, Enzo [in Italian] (2006). Steps Towards an Evolutionary Physics (PDF contains only the title and contents pages plus the preface of the book). Southampton, Boston: WIT Press. ISBN 1845640357.

End of post. Gaeanautes (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not a ban, it's simply that these are not reliable independent sources. Their peer review process is lax, their model is essentially indistinguishable from Lulu or some other vanity press. The source you mention above stinks of WP:FRINGE. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Does it matter what the peer review process is if the book is written by a reputable authority in the field? I am not presuming that Tiezzi is one in this case, but for the sake of argument, if Tiezzi was an acknowledged expert in the field, then I'm not sure it matters where that author publishes something. We do, after all, accept as sources self-published blogs by experts, which have zero peer review. bd2412 T 16:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, because vanity presses have been used to publish utter tripe, even by authorities in the field. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Policy says that we treat predatory journals as self-published sources. Whether it's a journal or a book seems to be a distinction without a difference. As with all self-published sources, the question then is whether the author is sufficiently noteworthy that his views should be included. Self-published sources should never be used to support extraordinary claims. And if the claim isn't extraordinary, there should be better sources available. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
The two statements in the diff quoted appear to already have multiple other sources in support. Is there a reason why one additional citation – especially one to a predatory or vanity press – is necessary or particularly valuable?
The only other place the source is used is to support the infobox assertion that Georgescu-Roegen 'influenced' Enzo Tiezzi, citing a mention on page 40 of Tiezzi's book. Surely there should be more and better sources if Georgescu-Roegen was a sufficiently meaningful and significant influence to warrant infobox mention. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Barnes Review

An editor is suggesting that Barnes Review is an acceptable source to comment on Walt Disney Companys's values without a third party source mentioning their criticism as significant. [5] If you've never heard of this source, try reading the second sentence of our article. (It was enough that after finding this I checked if the source was used anywhere else in wikipedia articles. It is, but all of the uses seem probably okay, fairly non contentious claims about people somehow involved in the magazine.) Assuming there is no dispute over the unsuitability of this source and I know this isn't really the purpose of this board, I'm hoping at a minimum people here will have some experience how to counsel an editor who believe such a source is acceptable since I'm at a loss and it doesn't seem to raise to the level for ANI of itself. I initially thought that maybe this editor just didn't realise what Barnes Review was, but the fact they initially added it [6], combined with a look at their edit history suggests to me they probably are aware. Nil Einne (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Giulio Meotti

At Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict Giulio Meotti's article The silence of the West Ynet 22 February 2012 was quoted for the view:

Giulio Meotti has argued the opposite position – that antisemitism has become socially acceptable in Western media and that the world tolerates murder of Jewish children

This extraordinary hyperbole is quoted in the lead as though it were a representative view. Now Meotti was shown to be a serial plagiarist soon after that date, and Ynet dropped him almost immediately afterwards from its columns.

The evidence that the views he puts forth as his own are filched from googling other journalists was documented by Marc Tracy:-

He was also dropped as a contributor to Commentary that same year and in 2014 The Italian Informazione Correttas gay rights activist Angelo Pezzana, otherwise close to the ultra-right Israeli circles, fired him.(Andrea Mollica, Furiosa lite sui gay fra ultràs della destra filoisraeliana Gad Lerner.it, 29 January 2014.

An editor has restored Meotti's stuff saying he is quotable for his own views, but the evidence is, given he lifts material from all over the net, no one can say if those are his views or borrowed from other journalists. In any case he is a fringe voice, and in my view totally unacceptable for an encyclopedia.Nishidani (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Prior copy-pasting issues aside, it does seem he is still in the employ of Il Foglio [7] and that he moved from YNET to Arutz Sheva [8] - publishing regularly in both. He should be reliable for his own opinion - this is more of a NPOV/WEIGHT issue than a RS issue.Icewhiz (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
His own quoted opinion is extremist, bigoted and nugatory. We do not source Wikipedia articles to fringe lunatic opinionist sources. If we did, articles would just consist of grandstanding peripheral murmurs from the web's infinite spinmeisters. Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
No one is saying he in't published: he was picked up by the conservative rightwing Il Foglio, which is basically a broadsheet with limited circulation (25,000 copies), notable for supporting the Church's former ultramontane hostility to bioethical issues though Giuliano Ferrara himself is an atheist, and financed also by Denis Verdini, who to date has been convicted of corruption, and has several outstanding cases against him for bankruptcy. As for Arutz Sheva it's a settler rag that promotes conspiracy views like Meotti's (the Pope is abandoning Europe to Islam, Obama's presidency was infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood, Kevin Spacey's only safe option would be to convert to Islam where homosexuality's acceptable (?), or firetorching by settlers of Abu Khdeir was perhaps done by an Arab homosexual. The list of fanatic bullshit from Meotti is endless. No mainstream newspaper will have a bar of him.Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
A settler viewpoint might be DUE for violence against settler children (e.g. Itamar attack - Paletinians stabbing to death a 11 year old, 4 year old, and a 3 month old settler baby) in Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.Icewhiz (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Sure, settlers steal land, kill sheep, poison wells, kill Palestinians, kidnap children, pelt stones at Palestinian children going to school, steal the olive harvests when they are not chain-sawing some of the million odd olive trees in Palestinian groves, and generally whinge that they are poorly treated in the Western press which refuses to condone their racism. Read David Shulman's Dark Hope. The next we'll have is someone saying we should have the viewpoint of the 'Ndrangheta in Italian articles, whenever the state cracks down on them, per WP:Due. Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Most of them were born there, The Demographic Success of the West Bank Settlements (and the trend line has more or less continued since 2012), they are human.Icewhiz (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Of course they're human, unlike the Palestinians. Let's listen for external input.Nishidani (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

References in Brian Dyson

  1. "Coca-Cola Names Brian Dyson Vice Chairman and Chief Operating Officer". 23 July 2001. Retrieved 4 March 2018.
    This appears to be an old press release from Coca-Cola, published by ProgressiveGrocer.com, containing outdated information.
    Used to verify, "Brian Dyson worked with The Coca-Cola Company for 35 years." and "The family resides in Atlanta."--Ronz (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Turner, Mark (10 May 2015). "Yes, Coca-Cola CEO Brian Dyson really did give that "five balls" speech". Retrieved 4 March 2018.
    This appears to be an entry in a personal blog, MarkTurner.net.
    Used to verify, "Brian is also known for his “five balls” speech." --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Taggart, Jim (3 September 2010). "How Many Balls Can You Juggle? 30 Seconds of Impeccable Sense from Brian Dyson". Retrieved 4 March 2018.
    An article in a leadership consulting company's blog. It looks like the author, Jim Taggart, was a consultant at the company, The Leadership Hub. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
    Used to verify, "In 1978 Dyson was named the President of Coca-Cola United States, the Company's U.S. soft drink division. In 1983, he was named president of Coca-Cola North America, with responsibility for the Company's entire North America portfolio. In 1986 Dyson was named president and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Coca-Cola Enterprises (CCE)" and "An author of short stories, in 1996 he published a novel, Pepper in the Blood." and "Brian Dyson is married to Sue Dyson." --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • There is a New York Times Magazine article and a Businessweek profile also being used as references that I don't think are problematic, though the profile is not being linked inline. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm refraining from following BLP by removing the three poor sources and anything not verified by the other two references in an attempt to give Lidiia Kondratieva a better understanding of WP:RS while trying to minimize escalating her personal dispute with me. (I realize the outdated press release might be used for basic historical information.)

What do others think of the three sources and how they are used? --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Mass creation of table tennis articles largely based on a single source.

ApricotFoot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is creating lots of articles on table tennis players, many of which rely solely on this website as their only source. Obscure sports notability is not exactly an area in which I have a lot of interest, but this seems kind of shaky to me. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The articles are for gold, silver and bronze medallists at World Championships so I would not describe them as 'Obscure sports notablilty'. Granted that many only carry the one source but surely that is why they have been created as stubs for other users to add and improve them?ApricotFoot (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I’m just not sure that winning a bronze medal at a table tennis contest in 1939 is a sufficiently notable achievement to merit a stand alone article. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Surely you cannot be serious, a bronze medal at a world championship in one of the worlds biggest participation sports! If you don't think that is notable then it begs the question as to whether every bronze medal for the vast majority of Olympics, Commonwealths, Europeans (non mainstream sports) should be deleted. Anyway as I said they are only stubs. I will add more citations from sports book collections that I have to help the issue, but it will take a couple of days.ApricotFoot (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

What I was really hoping for here was some input from uninvolved users, but it seems that is not forthcoming. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
WP:NTENNIS, so yes getting a bronze in a major world tournament makes them notable. But it also lists what they are. So simpkle question, did they compete in any of these?Slatersteven (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: My apologies for editing your remark, but I fixed the link so we could see it, and I’m afraid that link deals with tennis, while the subject here is table tennis AKA ping-pong. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
So do we have a similar set of criteria?Slatersteven (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I haven’t been able to find one. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

vgmdb.net as a source for video game music information

I'm trying add citations for Donkey Kong Country#Audio, but I've had difficulty finding reliable sources to support its information. The difficulty, in my opinion, is because the soundtrack was published in 1994 and many of the physical sources which have documented information about it are now gone, and it's from a time before there was a large internet presence of online media documenting this kind of stuff. While I have a good idea that the two pieces of information that I'm trying to verify are correct: That the official name for the track is "DK Island Swing", not "DK Swing" as the Square Enix article names it, and that the album has "hidden" bonus tracks, it seems that the only source of information are online databases.

The most promising source that I can find is video game music database. While the site does rely on community-generated content, it requires registration, and edits are not submitted until they are reviewed by trusted editors. The about page is somewhat reasuring, though the only people connected with are online pseudonyms. While this is not the preferable source for this information, the information seems to be important information when discussing the soundtrack in the article, and I can find no better sources.

Basically, is this an acceptable use case, and if not, what should be done with the content?

Thanks, --E to the Pi times i (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure how you could grant an exception to WP:USERG for this, and I say this as an active member of VGMdb. Also, edits there aren't pre-reviewed and accepted by trusted editors like you claimed, it works similarly to Wikipedia in that they are published and go live immediately and only get reverted by others if deemed false or whatever. However, I would consider using their hosted scans of liner notes as a reliable source, as you could verify the info there and simply cite the OST itself in articles. I'd also consider cross-posting this to the WP:VG/RS talk page for opinions from dedicated MOS:VG editors. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Dissident93, could you clarify what you mean by "using their hosted scans of liner notes as a reliable source"; I'm not sure what you mean by liner notes. And whoops, I didn't realize that they didn't review in that manner, that was my impression from a brief edit there. --E to the Pi times i (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Edit: (03:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)) Do you mean like the back cover of DK Jamz? That works, except for verifying the hidden tracks. It would be nice if I could cite the album itself for the hidden tracks, since I know the tracks are there (I own the album), but that seems like circular sourcing.
Yes, all the albums and its packaging (such as liner notes) that get scanned, uploaded, and then hosted by VGMdb. As for the hidden tracks, well it has to be sourced from somewhere else; if you can't find it other than the VGMdb tracklist, then it can't really be verified (on Wikipedia) and thus shouldn't be cited in articles. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
You can definitely use the album itself as a source. It is a published piece of media.--Alexandra IDVtalk 17:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
(Yes, where applicable, think of it the same as a Plot section in an article about a film or novel -- they do not require any secondary sourcing at all because I can describe the plot myself after watching the film or reading the novel.) MPS1992 (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@Alexandra IDV and MPS1992: Ah, but after investigating policy more thoroughly, I have figured out what bothers me about using the album as a source in this context: In order to come to the conclusion that the track list is different from the album's tracks, I have to have the album, the liner notes, and perform an analysis by comparing the two. Per WP:NOR, I'm not allowed to do this. It's annoying, but it's an important policy. skirts the edge of WP:I-SAW-IT (bear with me, I'm stretching it). It's easy enough for me to say I've seen that the album has more tracks than are listed on the liner notes, but it's not as simple as song lyrics or book quotation. In order to come to the It's preferable to have a secondary source which describes it, certainly, especially since there's a citation-needed template there, indicating someone thought that statement was citation necessary (probably beyond the album itself as a source.) That said, I'm going to end up using it as a temporary supporting source there until I can bolster it with more sources. --E to the Pi times i (talk) (contribs) 02:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC) (Edit 03:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC))

Is a non-Reliable-Source reliable about who was his informant?

On Tikun Olam blog page someone added a claim by the blogger about a source of his. The blog on its own isn’t considered RS but can it be in this case since it is about the blogger?

The person who is supposed to be the informant past away about two years ago do no BLP issue here. But he was a public figure and I would assume th reliability of the source is important. Change

Kigelim (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

If the author of a blog writes about his previously anonymous source, of course he's qualified to describe the source. That's axiomatic. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
It would have to be attributed to Silverstein, but Tikun Olam is RS for Silverstein saying something. Note you may have BLP issues regarding naming the informant (from a non-RS - so saying Silverstein named Y) - separate from RSness. See WP:SELFPUB].Icewhiz (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
BLP isn’t an issue bc the guy is dead. Self published says “it does not involve claims about third parties;”. This claim includes another individual.
in addition and possibly more important, no one have picked on the story. It is a big deal a person at his position will reveal secrets to a foreign blogger. This isn’t just a cute fact rather he would have been tried for breaking Israeli law.
In short, is Silverstein RS to claim an individual broke the law? Kigelim (talk) 03:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Silverstein didn't claim the source broke the law. That's your interpretation. He wrote that "he offered me scores of scoops on major stories which could not be published in Israel due to judicial gag orders or military censorship" (emphasis added). Since Silverstein is American and his blog is published in the U.S., I don't see a claim anywhere—except in your post—that the source violated the law.
And why do you have such a bug up your ass about Silverstein anyway? Are you an unrequited lover? A stalker? You've been on this jihad for almost three years now. Isn't it time to find a more productive way to spend your time? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:BDP actually still possibly applies. However, per WP:SELFPUB(2) it does not involve claims about third parties and possibly SELFPUB(4) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity as well - this should be excluded as long as it is sourced to Silverstein himself (whose blog is generally not a WP:RS - though I admit I read it regularly (in between of the crud, some 10%-15% of pieces actually have some information. Middleeast Eye is not a RS either, and in any event they have stated The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye. making their RSness moot).Icewhiz (talk) 08:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I didn’t suggest Silverstein broke the law but the other individual who shared the information did. That individual is a 3rd party. Kigelim (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
That's what I wrote. In any event, you haven't explained your obsession with Silverstein. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Did or didn’t his informant break Israeli law by telling Silverstein the information? Absolutely! For your question, Silverstein uses whatever source to blackwash Israel. He even relays on comments on his blog as sources. The fact no one caught on this scoop of his means either he isn’t taken seriously or WP:BLP prevents me of completing the sentence. Kigelim (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, so now you're an attorney as well as a stalker? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Is that your defense line? Do you have any doubt revealing state secrets are breaking the law? Since you are such a Silverstein fan you know he thinks he doesn’t visit Israel bc he is afraid to be arrested and that when he isn’t even subject to Israeli law while publishing any piece of supposed intel. Kigelim (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't need a defense. You're the one asserting that a law has been broken. I'm simply asking if you're a lawyer. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
FWIW (this discussion is getting off topic - SELFPUB applies anyway) - discussing the subject of an Israeli judicial gag order privately, as opposed to publishing it via public means would not, in and of itself, breach the gag order. This is much of what Silverstein publishes (in terms of scopes). Discussing matters under military censorship would potentially be different - depending on the particulars. Whether such a defense (which would entail claiming Silverstein's subsequent publication was unrelated to the aforementiined discussion) would hold up in court... Is a diferent matter.Icewhiz (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Spam at Metaphysics

A WP:SPA who has a WP:COI insists against WP:SPAM and WP:SOAP to insert his own work, which is apparently WP:SPS, at Metaphysics.

The text he entered is "* Ramakrishna Surathu (2018) You are God, Independently Published, ISBN 1977025641". Please chime in. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

This isn't spam. User Tgeorgescu haven't read the book, he / she is removing my edits based on prejudice. The book deals with "being" and "existence" which are the main subjects of Metaphysics. This book is a proof that metaphysics isn't just a theory. The author of the book gave a technique called "witness" which in itself is a proof that Metaphysics is a science in itself. Being is a subject, another being is no less than an object for the being in question. This can't be proved with any external object other than subjectivity which by it's very nature is a witness. If this book is not Metaphysics then what is it about? Did you read the book? If you haven't then your decisions are more prejudice than sensible.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakrsu13 (talk • contribs)
WP:NOTBLOG: we have no interest for your book, take it to your own blog or website. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not your (Tgeorgescu) property.
It's not just your book: in general we have no use for WP:SPS works. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Self published doesn't mean the information published is worthless, after all if it's selling on amazon. The whole book is centred at the "Being" and "Existence". Perhaps the author is new, perhaps the author has truly known him/her self. What the author says in the book is exactly what is popularised as Metaphysics. The author in the book gave a technique called "wintess", perhaps the reader of the book may benefit by knowing that metaphysics (concepts of Being / Existence) is not just a dull theory (without any practical applicability) and it can be practically proven as a result of execution of the method him/herself.

Please answer the question that was asked... Did YOU write this book, or have anything to do with publishing it? Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah... I see from his user page that he was indeed the author. Now blocked and mention of his book removed from the article... end of discussion. Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

www.bcbusiness.ca/

Hi, ALL! :) Dear people, what do you think about this sourse: https://www.bcbusiness.ca/ ?

Thanks beforehand, Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Depends on where and how it is being used. We need context... Which article, and which statement in that article? Blueboar (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

TheBlaze show Dana etc. w rgd Dana Loesch

  1. source mentions on noticeboard:
    -link
    -link
  2. partisan source: TheBlaze
  3. article (blp): Dana Loesch
  4. disputed content:

    "...[Loesch's] questioning the conservative political credentials of commentators who were supporting Donald J. Trump at that juncture."["'Who The Hell Is This Chick?': Dana Loesch Goes Off On Trump Supporter Kayleigh McEnany". May 9, 2016. Retrieved March 5, 2018.

    --22:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@DrFleischman and Hodgdon's secret garden: Despite its unreliability, there are more than 400 Wikipedia articles that cite The Blaze. It would be worthwhile to review the accuracy of these articles, and then find more-reputable sources if necessary. Jarble (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
That would indeed be a worthwhile endeavor but it's not the purpose of this discussion. We're focused specifically on Dana Loesch here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
cmt - Presumably Scott Baker (journalist) was providing that inside-hire editorial oversight.[9]--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah yes, Scott Baker, who prior to working for TheBlaze was a co-founder of Breitbart, and before that was a local news anchor. Who has zero editorial or real journalist experience. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
And Andrew Breitbart had prev. co-founded the HuffPo. wp:IRS: All three partisan opinion/current events sites may be reliable, accdg to contexts. (Salon. National Review. Dailycaller. Humanevents. Mediaite. MediaMatters. Townhall. Redstate. ...) Necessary as as it is to give special care when history renders some among such media platforms WP:Questionable sources, such care is manifested when an opinion is properly attributed to the individual offering it, who was on staff as a commentator whatever the venue in question, as Loesch was in 2016 with TheBlaze.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Not reliable - As per DrFleischman, there's no demonstrated reputation for fact-checking and accuracy here. Clearly one can find Glenn Beck's attributed opinions on TheBlaze, but it's unclear as to whether one can find high-quality factual news coverage. As with many things from partisan news sources, if the only place you can find something is TheBlaze, one must question whether it merits inclusion in Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Opinions attributed to not only Beck but to Loesch and other co-hosts of TheBlaze are found at the TheBlaze source because she'd hosted--along with a radio show syndicated by America Radio--the show Dana on TheBlaze TV 2014-2017. As to the question of wp:weight you broach: Dana aired likewise her 2016 primaries-season contra-Trump sentiments on her radio show, in interviews with Megyn Kelly on Fox News, and in columns in National Review opinion pieces, too.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Not reliable per the previous points raised. Also because of those points, it calls into question whether the comment being discussed is notable enough to even be included in an article; if there's no other source besides TheBlaze, that, to me, means that it isn't significant, and including it could be WP:UNDUE. Rockypedia (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The comment immediately above points out four additional sources.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
The point is Breitbart et al. are reliable per WP guidelines withn contexts where opinions sourced from them are to be attributed to their opinion contributors or editor in chief... e.g., w rgd Breitbart, in blp's for Breitbart former contributors/editor Milo Yiannopoulos, Ben Shapiro, Steve Bannon or w rgd The Final Call for attributed opinions in the blp for Louis Farrakhan.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
This discussion is expressly about the reliability of TheBlaze. If you want to discuss Breitbart or other sources, you're free to do so but the appropriate place is probably Talk:Dana Loesch. And you have made your point. Please review WP:BLUDGEON before commenting again. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  1. Repeated myself cos people state the opposite of what I'd just written.
  2. DrF, are you addressing the people in this thread "shunning" by association-with-Breitbart?

    You wrote: "Ah yes, Scott Baker, who prior to working for TheBlaze was a co-founder of Breitbart, and before that was a local news anchor. [...]"

    Or, just addressing me, for my pointing out, (as you yourself imply) that referencing Breitbart is a nonarguement here?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Neither. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Generally not reliable for facts, but reliable for opinions of the publication. But in this particular case, where it's supported by the video, it seems to be sufficiently reliable. That's why I said "generally". However, if there are other sources, I'm not sure why we need this one DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

DBase

Note: This was originally posted here on March 23 but received no response and became archived seven days later. I am positing it once again at a different time of day in hope of it receiving attention. Please remove this post if my re-adding it is disallowed or otherwise inappropriate. Thank you.

Source: DBase.tube

Article: List of most-subscribed YouTube channels

Content: § By country and territory

The "most-subscribed by country" table is currently based on the lists compiled by VidStatsX, but the website has been inaccessible for about three weeks. If the table is to remain, another reliable source must be found from which relevant, regularly updated statistics can be derived. I believe the best candidate is the website DBase, which provides lists of most-subscribed YouTube channels for around 200 countries and territories (examples of some of the lists that would be used: [10] [11] [12] [13]), but I am struggling to determine if it is reliable. The lists are most likely automatically generated, but does that preclude them from being dependable?. LifeofTau 22:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

They are certainly automatically generated, and it looks to be on an hourly basis. I'm a bit unsure how they do country specific sorting, but if VidStatsX could do it accurately, I have no doubt they can too. Go ahead and use that while VidStatX is down (perhaps indefinitely). Unless there's a relevant policy which I do not know about, it should be fine. Since the normal numbers check in with the numbers reported on YouTube, I see no reason to be skeptical. --E to the Pi times i (talk) (contribs) 04:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, your comment is very much appreciated. LifeofTau 01:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Celeb Mix and Direct Lyrics

I'm currently reviewing the GA nomination for Nirvana (Inna album) and I'd like to ask for some more opinions regarding two sources: CelebMix and DirectLyrics. As I've pointed out to the nominee, CelebMix has no indication of editorial oversight and is largely written by volunteers: [14]. DirectLyrics reliability was brought up here in 2016, with two editors questioning whether it was reliable in general: see Archive 216. I'd consider both sources to be unreliable in general.

As the nominee has pointed out, however, the authors of the articles he has sourced are a cut above the rest from both sites. The CelebMix author cited, Jonathan Currinn, states he is a graduate of Staffordshire University and has written for several other minor publications [15]. The DirectLyrics author cited, Kevin Apaza, is the manager of the website and is a University of Roehampton graduate: [16]

Neither of the journalists are used to say anything that is controversial, libelous or overly-promotional. I have no reason to doubt their statements are accurate. But would you consider either of these journalists notable enough for general information added to a music-related article? I don't want to make a ruling on accepting or rejecting the sources without hearing from at least a couple people here. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Freikorp: consider linking diffs to the disagreement and the type of content where you or either parties have disagreed. Excelse (talk) 08:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@Excelse: What?????? There are no diffs! The sources are in the article. I'm reviewing the GA nomination. I want opinions on whether they satisfy WP:RS or not. Freikorp (talk) 09:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I decided to search the dispute myself, and I have found the link.[17] I think CelebMix can be included mostly due to the credentials of the author. Also see 9 Lives (Alexandra Stan song), another GA where CelebMix has been included. Directlyrics should not be used for those statements for a GA. The website can be used only for lyrics. Excelse (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I didn't understand all you wanted was a wikilink to the GA nomination. Anyway thanks for your comments. Freikorp (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of Interview with youknowigotsoul.com?

I am currently working on a draft for the Natina Reed article, and ran across this interview here with youknowigotsoul.com. I was wondering if this would be reliable enough for me to use in my draft? It is one of the few more extended interviews that I could find with Reed. Aoba47 (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

"Started in late 2009, YouKnowIGotSoul was started as a dream by a music fan who had a serious passion for r&b music", per the footer of this website.[18] While such websites are not enough for confirming notability, you can use this source for sourcing the statements from interview. Official website of RCA Records has also mentioned interview from You Know I Got Soul in one of it's page.[19] Excelse (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

David Ogden Stiers sexuality RFC

There is an RFC which may be of interest to the members of this wikiproject Talk:David_Ogden_Stiers#RFC_regarding_the_sexuality_of_David_Ogden_Stiers ResultingConstant (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_239&oldid=830485476"