Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 239

Archive 235

←

Archive 237

Archive 238

Archive 239

Archive 240

Archive 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. 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)

• Darouet, you deserve an answer. The issue of linking to such websites came to my attention when we needed to link to the source of the Trump–Russia dossier. Unfortunately it isn't linked on the websites of Fusion GPS or Orbis Business Intelligence, where the copyright probably resides. It's located at DocumentCloud, without permission, so the article doesn't link to it.

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, 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

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:-

• Marc Tracy Op-ed on Israeli Gay Rights Lifts Without Credit TabletMay 16, 2012
• Marc Tracy Italian Journalist Also Plagiarized in U.S. Outlets, Tablet May 22, 2012)

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

• Brian Dyson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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 IDV^talk 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)

• OK, I have a few questions before I weigh in here. First, Rakrsul13... did you write this book, or have anything to do with publishing it?Blueboar (talk) 11:30, 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)

• Reliable - The source, albeit wp:BIASED, seems reliable in the context e.g. sourcing commentators's notable positions--whether S. E. Cupp's, Loesch's, the formerly CNN [then TheBlaze] and now PBS's Amy Holmes's, Tomi Lahren's (now of Fox Nation)--taken during their respective employment stints at TheBlaze. Cf. wp:Selfpub.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Not reliable. TheBlaze isn't unreliable due to its bias. It's unreliable due to the absence of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It's a conservative commentary site run by Glenn Beck. It has no journalism chops. Case in point, the author of the source article you're pointing to had no prior journalism experience aside from being an opinion editor for the Liberty University school newspaper. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:36, 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)

• Not reliable for claims of fact. I'm not going to trot out some of the (still extant) false claims of fact on that site. I would simply advise anyone who is curious to give it a read through and see for themselves. It may not be as bad as The Onion, but it's certainly no better than the Daily Mail or Breitbart. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:04, 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)

• Thank you for the response! Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 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)

David Ogden Stiers, recently dead (yesterday) BLP, reliability of sources re coming out.

TO AVOID FORUM SHOPPING AND DISCUSSION SPLITTING, PLEASE COMMENT AT THE ARTICLE OR BLP NOTICEBOARD MASH star Stiers died on March 4th. In 2009 the "gossip boy" wordpress blog published an "interview" with Stiers in which "Stiers" came out as gay. This contradicts an earlier (RS) interview in which he said he was not gay. The gossip boy interview has subsequently been picked up and cited in many sources including ABC and the NYT obit for Stiers (NYT cites ABC, ABC cites gossip boy). There has been long standing but contentious consensus to exclude this info based on the WP:GRAPEVINE argument, but with Stiers death, the issue has been reopened. The discussion could use additional eyes/voices from experienced editors Talk:David_Ogden_Stiers#gay_summary — Preceding unsigned comment added by ResultingConstant (talk • contribs) 16:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Xianning (work on the Minor Administrative Divisions in China)

I have done about seventy of these for Chinese minor geography articles. This is the way I've been doing it recently. Seeking your thoughts and opinions. Please help me get as close into line with the standards of English Wikipedia as possible so I can do these in the right way.

(I'm still looking forward to any input you may have!Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC))

Summary: Source 1 xianning.gov is directly from the local government- this type of website often includes typos on rarely used characters. I feel certain that it is a good source, but am I citing it correctly? Source 2 xzqh.org is from a secondary source which I feel is a reliable source on the administrative divisions of China- it is often used by other people in English wikipedia and on Baidu Baike. It often includes typos on rarely used characters. Is it really acceptable? The third source stats.gov.cn is the central government's lists of names and statistical numbers for administrative divisions; it often includes typos. 4 is another secondary source, less reliable but sometimes helpful. Having all four cited at once seems to me to me the best way to make sure that wikipedia is consulting all the relatively authoritative sources. There are definitely other sources, but I don't know about them and I hope you will tell me about them if they are out there. In essence, is there anything obviously out of line with my methodology, citations, or the statements I create based on looking at these sources?

1 Source: 4 sources

2 Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xianning

3 Content: Xianning has 1 district, 4 counties, 1 county-level city and 1 other area.

District:

• Xian'an District (咸安区) (location of Xianning's main urban area, i.e. the place that low-resolution maps would label as "Xianning")

Counties:

• Tongshan County (通山县)
• Chongyang County (崇阳县)
• Tongcheng County (通城县)
• Jiayu County (嘉鱼县)

City:

• Chibi City (赤壁市)

Other Area:

• Xianning Advanced Technology Industry Area (咸宁高新技术产业园区)

References

Germaine Greer vs Rory O'Connor

At Yugambeh people, two editors are removing Germaine Greer White Beech: The Rainforest Years A&C Black 2014 and the material sourced in it, while restoring Rory O’Connor, The Kombumerri:Aboriginal people of the Gold Coast, published by R. O'Connor, Brisbane 1997

• Greer is an accomplished archival historian (Shakespeare's Wife (2007), who bought land in Yugambeh territory and over several years examined the history of the region. It can be searched in Google Books, the sources she used can be verified. It is in short a piece of regional history written by an Australian scholar of world-wide repute.

• Rory O’Connor is a man of Yugambeh origins, who wrote and self-published his book on the people. We know the book exists, but we have no way of accessing it, or verifying its contents and assertions.

The editors who want to remove Greer and put in O'Connor,User:BlackfullaLinguist and The Drover's Wife claim Greer is an 'idiot' unqualified to write on 'indigenous issues'. BlackfullaLinguist is also claiming that his ethnicity and that of O'Connor trumps any outside scholarship (there may well be also a WP:COI problem here, esp. since he tells us that he is editing Wikipedia on this topic in order to 'get the truth out about my people.')

I have no idea what the 'truth' is. All I know is that experts have remarked on considerable confusion in our sources, and, like Greer who cites them, mention these problems. People of Yugambeh descent are conflicted about many claims various descendants have made. Can third parties please tell me why O'Connor's inaccessible self-published book is RS, while Greer's is, I am told, RS only in so far as that might be 'rat shit'.Nishidani (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the other book, but Greers work, from reading a page from your link, does not exactly strike me as an ethnography, nor is it described as such. Greer is called a "towering polemicist, Shakespearean academic, ex-pornographer and author of The Female Eunuch" but nothing in there suggests she's a qualified ethnographer, an expert on the Yugambeh people or a reliable source in this context. Kleuske (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hardly any of that page is written from sources made by a qualified ethnographer, 19 sources fail that test. 7 sources are written by qualified linguists or historians. If the rule was no ethnographic article can be written by anyone who is not an ethnographer, almost 98% of these articles couldn't be written. I am not citing controversial opinions by Greer: I am citing her technical synopsis of the existing scholarship on a single issue (which I have checked against several of the sources she uses: it is uncontroversial. Except for one detail she cites to one of the most accomplished linguistic experts, Margaret Sharpe, her remarks are very close to those made by the historian Longhurst 1980 p.18, per the talk page) Nishidani (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Then cite the linguist(s)/historian(s) Greer cites. Get it from the horses mouth instead of a second hand summary by an activist writer with no history in the field. If you insist on citing Greer, an attribution would be necessary. Greer isn't exactly known for her evenhanded, levelheaded approach to her subject. If she were, she wouldn't be a "towering polemicist" as The Guardian calls her. Kleuske (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Self-published and inaccessible would make the O'Connor book almost completely unuseable regardless of Greer. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Tend to agree, Greer is not an expert in this field, But then self published books are generally also not RS unless by an expert, is Rory O’Connoran acknowledged expert (is he indeed self published)? If this is the case he cannot be used and her opinions must not be stated as fact but her opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Greer has two sides, the dryasdust cautious scholar, who works Elizabethan era parish archives, and everyone recognizes that virtue in works like those on Shakespeare's wife. I.e. she is accustomed to the hard slog of source detection and evaluation, and when those gifts are present she is reliable. It's wrong to suggest that, because she has a history of polemics on vital contemporary issues, that in fossicking out the details of her adopted landscape in Queensland, she won't or can't separate the passionate feelings of her love affair with the rainforest from the evaluation of facts or the relevant scholarly literature. I found that the some of the remarks she was challenged over were similar to those of a recognized local historian - they both consulted the same source and came to the same summary of that source. On one important detail she adds a crucial element not available as far as I can see, in other technical sources, and stipulates she got it from Margaret Sharpe, who lives just an hour or so drive away from her own home. Why on earth would she fake evidence from Sharpe knowing the latter, as an interested scholar, would read her account? I think that attribution of Sharpe's view to Greer is fair, and gets over the impasse (until I can access the otherwise obscure source by Sharpe she appears to have used.Nishidani (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not suggesting anything about Greers abilities. I am suggesting the article would be better served if you cited the original authors Greer cites. Besides, as good as her work on Shakespeare's wife is, this book is not a scholarly study and shouldn't be treated as such. Kleuske (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not treating it as a scholarly study. I have included every source except one which I cannot yet find of the authors cited by Greer. It is a simple faute de mieux provisory solution, like much else on Wikipedia. My normal practice is to cite nothing but authorities or authoritative sources, but there is a 5% margin where important details can only be obtained, provisorily by good, but not perfect, secondary works as here. 99% of wiki articles don't adopt that high bar. Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

You're treating Greer, herself, as a reliable source on this subject. Greer is an incendiary shock jock, has no background whatsoever in indigenous history, and even her attempts at history are heavily polemic. It is absurd to treat her as more of an authority on an indigenous people in Queensland than the local historian who runs a museum about his people and - unlike Greer - is actually recognised as an authority on them in other reliable sources at a national level. There is no reason why you and BlackfullaLinguist, as two people who've read all of the subject material, can't hash out a compromise about how to work with the Greer source and other related issues, but I object in the strongest terms to you trying to strongarm him because you passionately like a book which to a neutral observer cannot be considered an WP:RS. You've made absolutely no attempt to do so beyond a bullying justification on the talk page and then unsuccessfully trying to whip up a crowd here instead of actually making any attempt whatsoever to get to the bottom of the dispute with BlackfullaLinguist. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I've read a dozen of Greer's works. incendiary shock jock is silly. Vigorous polemic by the intelligently informed lies at the heart of Western thought and scholarship. By that token, Karl Popper nis an incendiary shockjock for calling Plato a fascist, and Hegel a windbag. I do not treat her as an authority on indigenous history. And I have no passionate attachment to that book of hers. Far too chatty, and for my ends, unfocused. I have, over 600 articles, included lots of material by people without her rigorous training in archival history. Rory O'Connor, unfortunately, cannot be used, unlike Ysola Best, his aunt, because he is self-published. And secondly, he appears to make (see my edit now at the talk page) an elementary confusion between Yugambeh and Kombumerri of the very kind that has vexed the editing of this page, which when I first looked at it, seemed to consider these were interchangeable (which is precisely Greer's observation and objection). I've been working towards a compromise with BL from the start. In talking of strongarm tactics, it is better to look at the history here. When Margaret Sharpe began teaching Yugambeh in Queensland, she was confronted by the Kombumerri Corporation's insistence that they throw out the far better attested other dialects, and base the course on the Nerang river dialect they favoured, which only has 500 words (and which according to some linguistics may not be Yugambeh). It's that kind of sub-ethnic nationalism I am very sensitive to, its failure to accept that the fucked up archives that contain the residues of great cultures decimated by whites must be given close impartial attention, with no regard to the politics of knowledge, other than being wary of their intrusiveness. Land claims and defending one's dignity are one thing: seeing the past without fear or favour another.Nishidani (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Margaret attempted to teach Bundjalung, as at the time the Linguistic concensus was that there was just a single Bundjalung language and Yugambeh was simply a dialect with barely any information. It was the insistence of the Kombumerri corp that she research the northern dialects which lead to her later works throughout the late 80s and 90s. Margaret is also a personal friend of mine, whom I correspond with quite frequently, I even attended an astronomy talk of hers where she used my family's kangaroo lore as part of her evidence. Margaret also visits us often, where she either stays with Rory or his mother Pat O'Connor (An Elder who met the Queen last year as part of the Commonwealth games). Also, if you want copies of her work to read, I have pdf versions I can email you, also any source you claim is 'unaccessible' I 100% have a copy of. I have copies of everyone'swork, Tindale, Crowley, Geyteenbeeks, Sharpe, Cunningham, science of man, curr, bray, etc, if it has anything to do with my people I can assure you I ROMTIC'ed it all. (ROMTIC is the Retutn of Material to Traditional Indigenous Communities, any book in AIATSIS tagged with Yugambeh E17, I have requested. Linguistics, anthropology, musicology, newspaper articles, etc. BlackfullaLinguist (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Excellent. We can I think work together fruitfully on the talk page, where I'll take up your extremely generous offer to get access to those sources. There's a lot of work to be done, and with your expertise and my knowledge of the wiki rulebook, I reckon we should be able to make the Yugambeh page one of the outstanding aboriginal pages on Wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

O'Connor can be used - because he's a recognised authority on the subject, and the guidelines regarding self-published sources explicitly recognise that as making for a usable source. You claim it is an "elementary confusion", BlackfullaLinguist on the talk page claims in some detail that you're confused (which you've so far refused to engage with). The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Recognized by whom for what? Google finds pages like this which show that O'Connor was a journalist and is Director of Yugambeh Museum, and strives to keep Yugambeh heritage alive. That indicates a passionate interest but does not support Wikipedia's notion of a reliable source. As Only in death noted above, self-published and inaccessible mean that a source fails WP:V and WP:RS. Greer has been purposefully controversial, but describing her as an idiot is ridiculous given her PhD and long list of published works. At any rate, the Greer vs. O'Connor point is a red herring. The question for this noticeboard should be "is source X suitable verification for assertion Y?" Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you actually check that it was "inaccessible" before making that claim? His book is available in 28 libraries in four states and the ACT. I'm at the other end of the continent and I can access his work any time I need. O'Connor is an expert in the subject matter who is treated as such in reliable sources, and so is an acceptable source within Wikipedia's self-publishing guidelines. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

By inaccessible I meant not independently verifiable being undigitalised. Of course, as I said elsewhere, when these inaccessible works can be read by editors, what they do is transcribe the contested passage for other editors, so that the verification processs is in order. We've done this many times.

Look, all outside editors here agree O'Connor fails WP:RS. Numerous sources I would cite for Palestinian articles don't get past RS, as defined, and I know that. I read them and, if some information is invaluable, I work my guts out to find a source with that detail - sometimes this takes years. There is nothing personal about this at all. The fundamental rule wikipedians have to have drummed into their heads is that the ambition of the project to become the world's default source for reliable information on anything can only be pursued if we, as editors, guarantee that we have exhaustively verified the information given from the best reliable sources. In this case, we try to see where Best and O'Connor got that information. I've done work on several Aboriginal pages re dolphins, and naturally want to chase this claim down. I generally avoid editing the subjects I know thoroughly because the temptation to use my personal knowledge has to be resisted. It's hard, I know, but it is an iron-hard rule here. Nishidani (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

If a reliable source relies solely on a Wordpress blog which is unreliable ...

At what point is the fact that a reliable source quotes a Wordpress blog for a statement of fact give an imprimatur to the claim made in that blog? This is currently the gist of a dispute at Talk:David Ogden Stiers where prior discussions held the defunct "Gossip-boy" blog was not reliable, but which has now been quoted in reliable sources, sometimes with no attribution. (I rather figure that eliding attribution on a lengthy and exact quote does not make it into a "different source", by the way. What is does is show blatant plagiarism by the "reliable sources" which is now common). (The notice of the RfC above appears to give a notice sans information about the actual issues involved) Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source that some are trying to say is not reliable anymore. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/david-ogden-stiers-p6kx0dn9k So is this a RS? ContentEditman (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is another source which unambiguously describes the interview as factual. I feel that this settles it decisively; including that source immediately removes any WP:BLP or WP:RS issues. ABC News is an impeccable source, and there is no reason whatsoever to doubt them in this case - there was no objections, no retractions, no indication that there is any reason to question them. I suggest including that source and speedy-closing the RFC as moot. --Aquillion (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have read the discussion first, including this comment: What you have there is a mix of sources we already looked at and new sources that have the same problem: they are citing gossip-boy (although the fox news is claiming to reference an abc interview, the date suggests they are just refering to ABC's coverage of the gossip-boy source.--Nat Gertler (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC) --Calton | Talk 01:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, people knew the actual source was ABC News from the start, and still tried to raise an WP:RS issue? That's bizarre. The sources cited by ABC News have no relevance to WP:RS (outside of a few situations that don't apply here, like our special concern for citogensis.) All that WP:RS cares about is that ABC News itself is a reliable source; when they say something is fact, "they're wrong because they're reporting on a blog!" is not a policy-based argument against citing them. If people have a problem with that particular article, they should send a letter to ABC asking for a retraction; but that's not grounds to try and raise an WP:RS issue, since ABC News is unambiguously a reliable source. I also strenuously reject to the wording of both this section and the WP:RFC; if the ABC News source was known at the start, the question should be "is this ABC News source reliable?" --Aquillion (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Per Reliable Sources in WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, when dozens of RS have editorial over-site, check legal issues, issue retractions whenever warranted, and have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy -- everyone from the New York Times, to the Times of London, to ABC, to NBC, etc., the only way to argue this bit is not RS supported is Wikipedia editor WP:OR which is not allowed. We must strictly follow WP:NPOV, which follows these multiple RS in presentation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

OR is only prohibited in article content, not in discussions among editors. We absolutely should be engaging in original research to determine whether sources are reliable or not, whether to use source or wiki voice, how to ensure our articles are NPOV, etc.

That being said, RS works on trust: We trust those source we consider to be reliable, even when they say something we suspect. So if an RS quotes a blog, then we can see that as the RS endorsing the claims in the blog as true, which is -for our purposes here- functionally the same as if the RS made the claim itself.

So while we should never use OR as an excuse to exclude reliably sourced content, it's perfectly fine for an editor to dig into it to see whether or not it really is reliably sourced. They just have to keep in mind that our standards can't be overridden by their personal preference. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I would say that if the major sources (NYT, WaPo etc) are explicitly quoting from the blog then the statements are not reliable. If, on the other hand, they are making a direct statement in their 'voice' then we should be obliges to consider it reliable. WP:RS requires 'a reputation for fact checking and accuracy' and therefore, unless clearly demonstrated otherwise, we assume that they checked their facts and base what we say on the strength of the re-publisher not the original blog source.

Whether his sexuality needs to be addressed in the article is another question entirely and it does not seem to have been a large enough component of his public life to merit mention. We would not be saying '...and he was straight'. So why say '... and he was gay'? Jbh ^Talk 23:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me take that last question, even though it is as you note totally off-topic - just look carefully at your question, it is, how to put this delicately, entirely personal bias - your question does not care what the sources wrote about his life - it begins with a personal proposition, 'I would not say this, so I would not write that' - which is entirely backwards, we first read the sources that wrote about his life and then we write what they wrote about (whether we approve or not) - that is NPOV. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)} Huh? What I said is that if his sexuality was covered so sparsely that the only 'original reporting' on it is a blog then it is not significant enough to put in his biography no more than we would comment on the sexuality of a straight person whose orientation was mentioned once in a blog. In other words it looks like this whole discussion is looking for an excuse to say he was gay when there is no evidence presented that his sexuality, whatever it was, was a significant part of his life since the only reference to it before his death was on a blog post. Jbh ^Talk 00:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Multiple prominent reliable sources have reported on his life and yes this matter of him coming out in the context of his life - writing as sources do, it is therefore something to reflect in writing about his life (whether we personally disapprove or not). Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Then why are we discussing a blog if there is sourced commentary during his life?! Jbh ^Talk 01:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It appears some disapprove of what multiple sources wrote about his life. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

We don't need to assume that an RS ,even a high quality one with the rigors for fact-checking, is necessarily 100% right. In the Stiers situations, where we know that the bulk of all other RSes based this assessment on a bad blog and mentioned that blogs, and other RSes published near the same time with the same info did not include that citation, that it's likely coming from the same bad blog and we should use the same caution and not assume as fact. --Masem (t) 00:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

No one is proposing to assume anything, people are just wanting to attribute what multiple public reliable sources wrote about the topic, which is what NPOV requires. Frankly, it's bizarre, that some think they are doing anything that makes any serious or useful sense, when dozens of reliable sources talk about his life - people who research his life will know this stuff. And it's even more of a rabbit hole because we will be linking to these RS articles in our article - because no one is going to ban these sources from our article - it is quite ludicrous. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because we consider these sources reliable the rebuttable presumption is that they did, indeed, check the facts. The tell-tail is whether they are attributing the quote to the blog - in which case they might not have been able to confirm it elsewhere or if they stated it as an unattributed fact. If the later than, because of the reputation for…, we can rightly assume that they checked their facts. Jbh ^Talk 00:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Wait... is this source being used to try to to "out" this BLP? If so, that's a whole different can of worms (and my answer is to that is "Hell no"). Oh, and the "reputation for fact checking" comes into play when the RS decides to quote the other source. The RS has a reputation for fact checking. Hence, we can assume they fact checked this quote before reporting on it. Unless they give the quote and then argue with it, or give it as an example of things said by one side of a debate, then the RSes reputation applies to the quote, just as it would apply to anything written by the author. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The RS that editors want to use are the two Times on both sides of the Atlantic, the WaPo, ABC, NBC, etc. And, I can go into BLP more but it's not the topic of this board - to begin with, the person is dead. (So, we already know what the RS will write about his life, because they already have). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, I stand by my statement that the information is verifiable. But my response of "hell no" to stating his sexuality above follows my usual rule of thumb for WP:DUE claims: If it changes the narrative in some way, it's due. If it doesn't, it's not. So if knowing that this BLP was gay would change how the rest of the article reads (to a person who couldn't care less about his sexuality for its own sake), then it's acceptable to state it. Or if the claim that he was nominally straight changes how the rest of the article reads, then it's due to state his sexuality. In short, if a reader can't determine that a BLP was gay from reading the article, and it wouldn't change the tone of any other claims (such as a highly notable, long-term friendship with a person of the same gender that was not previously believed to have any romantic component, but which it later turned out to have), then adding it to the article is completely undue, especially if the person in question never came out publicly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

In this case I believe it is a major part of his life as he had to deny he was gay in the past due to risk of losing voice work, esp on children shows. At least that was his worry and he said as much. No history of family, relationships, etc... and why he denied he was gay in the past really shows how he had to live his life and it affected his work as well. I was really surprised it was not already on his page when he passed. But I digress, this thread is mostly for is The Time, ABC, etc... reliable sources. Of which I believe they are in this case. ContentEditman (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I feel the general rule is that it's inappropriate to second-guess an otherwise reliable source based purely on an objection along the lines of "they shouldn't be covering this; why are they reporting on a blog?". Without that approach, we would never be able to cover things happening on Twitter or Reddit at all, even when they're extensively reported in reliable sources. Another common example is a story that starts on eg. the Daily Mail and is later republished in a reliable source; in that case, we could cite the second source. It's important to pay attention to the tone and wording of the secondary source we're using, of course (if it's cautiously worded, we'd want to reflect that ourselves, eg. by saying inline that "a blog said that...") But essentially, coverage in reliable sources attests that the blogpost is noteworthy and 'real' insofar as we can describe the facts that the reliable source covering it does. It's extremely important to pay attention to the wording in the source we're using, though; essentially, if a New York Times article says "a blog accused this politician of adultery", we could then say "a blog accused this politician of adultery" and cite it to the Times, since the Times coverage establishes that the accusation is real and noteworthy despite being on a blog itself. We couldn't use that to say "this politician is guilty of adultery", because that's not what the Times said (even if it's what the blog says - after all, the blog itself isn't our source.) This is no different than using an WP:RS to describe the contents of a personal letter or conversation (things that would obviously be WP:OR and not WP:RS if we cited them directly.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Books on Demand, Norderstedt

Should books published by Books on Demand GmbH located in Norderstedt Germany, be considered a reliable source? A search shows hundreds of Wikipedia articles citing BOD publications as a source.

Both their website and the German article de:Books on Demand describe it as a Self-publishing platform. To my understanding, unless the author is already notable or trusted, this pretty much rules out such sources as references for most things other than themselves, per WP:SPS. Mathglot (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:MIRROR. Never use. - Sitush (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

What can be done, then, for the hundreds of articles already citing it? A bot? Get someone to let AWB go to town on them, perhaps tagging them all {{Better source}} with SPS in the reason? An edit filter to alert users going forward? Mathglot (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hundreds? Yep, hundreds. [20] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, this:Günter Preuß is pretty bad. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

How scared of snakes is Indiana Jones

Dispute at Talk:Ophidiophobia#Indiana_Jones_BRRD,_if_anyone_is_interested if the sources used are reliable in context. More views welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh em eff gee. MastCell ^Talk 23:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Yup... it’s confirmed... Wikipedians can argue about anything. Blueboar (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

This takes lameness to a new level, someone create an entry if there isn't already one. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Jeremy Bates New York Jets Quarterbacks Coach

The page for Jeremy Bates (American football) incorrectly identifies him as the Offensive Coordinator. He is listed on the official New York Jets website as the quarterbacks coach, a position he has held for about a year. On January 19, 2018 a piece was published in the New York Daily news that contained speculation that Bates would be named Offensive Coordinator for the Jets but no announcement has been forthcoming and no change has been made to the official website. There has been no verification of any kind by Bates or anyone connected with the Jets that he has been promoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.58.128 (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2018‎ (UTC)

I'll fix it in the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Use and citation of intermediate sources?

• Source A says 'In source B, Ralph wrote "Water is Wet."'
• No one has yet read source B.
• Wikipedia article says 'In source B, Ralph wrote "Water is Wet."' (Source: B).

I believe this is plagiarism, and Wikipedia should say

• 'According to source A, In source B, Ralph wrote "Water is Wet."' (Source: A) or
• 'In source B, Ralph wrote "Water is Wet."' (Source: A).

Please confirm or correct my understanding. Thanks! Carte Rouge (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

See WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT... we should both attribute and cite to source A, unless we have seen source B. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. The link is quite helpful. Best wishes. Carte Rouge (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)