Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.
Before posting, please check the archives for prior discussions of the source. If after reviewing, you feel a new post is warranted, please be sure to include the following information, if available:
  • Links to past discussion of the source on this board.
  • Source. The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example: [].
  • Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: [[Article name]].
  • Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y".
While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.
Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability.
If you are looking for a copy of a specific source, please ask at the resource exchange board.
Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228

Sources on Estonian police battalion


  • Collaboration with the Nazis: Public Discourse after the Holocaust, edited by Roni Stauber; chapter by Yitzhak Arad
  • "The report deals with the role Estonian auxiliarry forces in crimes committed outside of Estonia. ... On 7 August 1942, Estonian police battalion No 36 took part in the round-up and execution of all remaining Jews..." (somewhat loose paraphrasing, exact quote in the link)
  • The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933-1945; edited by Geoffrey P. Megargee:
  • "On August 7 1942, the Germans and their collaborators (including Estonian Police Battalion 36 ...) took away the remaining inmates (...) and shot them there": link.
  • In contrast, Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity states: "There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews". ("Estonian defence battalions / police battalions". In Toomas Hiio; Meelis Maripuu; Indrek Paavle. Estonia 1940–1945: Reports of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity. Tallinn. pp. 825–876)

Article: 36th Estonian Police Battalion

Content: "In August 1942, the battalion participated in the murder of Jews in Novogrudok, Belarus."

The relevant Talk page discussion can be found here: Talk:36th_Estonian_Police_Battalion#Novogrudok. Courtesy ping to Nug & Jaan. I would appreciate additional input on this matter. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It's very interesting that the West German investigation in the early '60s could not prove participation in the killing as I wouldn't think that they'd have any reason to whitewash the Communist gov't of the time. I think that what we have here is reliable sources on both sides, so I'd suggest laying out the evidence like so: "The battalion has been accused of participating in the killings of Jews at X, on Y, (sources) but a West German investigation in the early 1960s could not conclusively link its members to the action(source)" and let the reader decide. RSN isn't meant to decide which evidence is the "best", and that's all I'm afraid that we could accomplish here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if there might be some clarification in the text of the second source, or possibly in any sources these themselves cite. I say this because the sources don't necessarily contradict. The first states the role the police played in the killings cannot be determined, whereas the second states that there is no evidence they participated in the executions. If the two sources are taking very different interpretations of "involvement", they might actually agree. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
The talk page discussion mentions WP:WPNOTRS, and claims that we shouldn't use tertiary sources. However, WP:WPNOTRS doesn't really say that - it says secondary sources are preferred but tertiary sources are reliable also. In practice, we use specialty encyclopedias quite a lot, as they are often written by experts in the field they cover. I'd consider The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos to be a specialty encyclopedia that is probably quite a good source for information on its subject matter. And I'll also note that the three volumes of the The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos are quite extensively researched and do actually include sources for most entries. I don't have the first volume available at the moment (even I quail at buying the books - they are pricey!) but I do have the second volume here at hand and a glance through shows every article has a list of sources as well as most having footnotes. I'd suggest getting the book through interlibrary loan and consulting whatever sources are used for the entry snippeted above. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
And the work on Collaboration is also post-Cold War and the section by Arad would definitely be considered a reliable source for this subject, as Arad is a researcher in the field of the Holocaust in the Baltics. His work is most definitely NOT a tertiary source, it is in fact a secondary source also. He may be wrong, but its equally likely the commission was wrong also - especially if it based its conclusions on a West German commission from 1971, prior to the opening of many archives after the Cold War. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Your point about the West German commission not having full access to archival data is a good one, but none of these sources can be impeached as they're all post-Cold War and the commission doesn't even have any Estonian nationals as members. I'd need to see the sources myself, to see which way the preponderance of evidence lies if I were writing this article myself. But really, this is disagreement between reliable sources and should be discussed either in the main body of the article or a footnote, not a RS issue at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I don't think we should take sides on either side - it appears to be a disagreement between sources ... all of which appear reliable. The ideal solution is to cover the controversy in the article. Both sides should be presented, and other sources brought to bear. A good start would be getting the Encyclopedia and seeing what sources it used. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I would first also cite this close study in Estonian, that, based on historical documents and interviews with historians also comes to the conclusion that there is no evidence to suggest the police battalion participated in the roundup of the Jews. And let me also point out that this is not a case of poor or missing documentation. The main discrepancy between the sources seems to be generality vs. specificity. The sources that claim the role of the police battalion may be generally reliable and use reliable PS but in this specific case either do not specify their sources or rely on indirect evidence, e.g. "The reports of this squad report many entries on "military action against partisans," a phrase which conceals punitive measures against citizens and the killing of Jews."
The dispute between the sources is not notable enough to warrant a passage in the article so my suggestion is to include it in a footnote. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
The Ekspress source appears to be a general newspaper - at least I see articles on movies and other such topics on the main page of it. Google translate gives a very very rough translation which appears to be either a letter to the editor or an editoriak, which is supported by the translation of "PEKKA ERELT, EESTI EKSPRESSI AJALOOKÜLGEDE TOIMETAJA" which google gives as "PEKKA Erelt, Eesti Ekspress HISTORY sides of EDITOR". I'd suggest that the Ekspress is not exactly a scholarly secondary source here. Certainly, there appears to be a commission that does not think the brigade took part in the events. Unfortunately, an unsigned newspaper article is not a strong source contradicting the United States Holocaust Museum's encyclopedia of the various German labor/extermination camps, nor Arad, who is a scholar working in the field. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Pekka Erelt is the editor of the history section of the Eesti Ekspress. His article may not be scholarly but it is investigative journalism. Even if we do not consider his own discussion, we should not dismiss the quotes by professional historians Meelis Maripuu, Argo Kaasik and Enn Kaup in his article. And again, this is a matter of specificity. The core of this problem is trusting a general RS over specific investigation on this matter. And, again, the conclusions of the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity are not another opinion of 'a commission' but the conclusions of the commission established to investigate crimes by Estonian citizens. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It appears that the commission does not rule out the possibility that the Police Battalion participated in the massacre. If I'm Google translating it correctly, the opening para of the Estee Ekspress reads:

  • Novogrudok, Belarus received notoriety among Estonians lately. Allegedly, the 36th Police Battalion took part in the mass murder of Jews committed there in August 1942. At least, Efraim Zuroff of the Simon Wiesenthal Center is certain of it. The wording in the report by the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity is more modest; the report, however, did not rule out the participation of the Estonians. (Not sure if "more modest" is the correct translation.) link
It seems to be an incident of significance & deserves more than a footnote in the article, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
The Eesti Ekspress article was written in 2002, while the commission's work was still in progress, so obviously the commission "did not rule out the participation of the Estonians" at that time because it hadn't completed it's review of all the available evidence, including the 1960's West German investigation and post-war Soviet investigations. The commission's final report, published in 2006, concluded there was no evidence found relating to the participation of 36th Battalion. --Nug (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
From the Talk page: The report states on page 861 that the 36th Police Battalion was investigated in the Federal Republic of Germany between 1967 to 1971 and no evidence was found -- "no evidence found" does not mean that the commission established that the Police Battalion did not participate. What was the commission's conclusion? (As an aside, I would not put too much weight into a criminal investigation in West Germany in the 1960-10s, due to various reasons, which are too long to get in here). K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Why wouldn't you put too much weight on a criminal investigation of West German Police in 1960-70? I could understand your concern if they where investigating their own countrymen, but they spent four years investigating a non-German unit composed of nationals from the then Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. The Commission states on page 862 of their final report: According to data gathered by Israeli police in September 1963, about 2000 and atleast 3000 Jews were murdered in Diatlovo and Nowogrodek on 6 and 7 August 1942 respectively. There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews. Contemporary researchers accuse the local German gendarmerie, one Lithuanian unit and a Belorussian defence battalion of these specific actions.[163]. Footnote [163] cites Christian Gerlach, Kalkulierte Morde : Die deutche Wirtschafts und Vernichtungspolitik in Wießrußland 1941 bis 1944, Hamburg, 2000, pp. 701-702. --Nug (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Note re: "investigating a non-German unit composed of nationals from the then Soviet Union" -- presumably, the members of the Battalion retreated with the Germans and were residing either in West Germany or elsewhere in Western Europe; the Battalion's commander, Harald Riipalu, emigrated to the U.K, for example. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Don't see how that is significant, given that the majority of the Battalion where captured by the Soviets. Upon what basis do you dismiss investigations of West German police? As I understand it, there was an issue in the late 1950's to early 1960's in regard to the Police investigating their own members who may have committed crimes during the Nazi period, but I think it is too much to claim that this would have impeded investigations of foreign personnel in the late 60's to early 70's. --Nug (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Conclusions of the Commission

I tracked down the Commission's conclusions, and here's what the document says:

  • "The study of Estonian military units is complicated by frequent changes in unit designation, in personnel and in duties, some of which are poorly recorded. However, it has been possible by careful use of Soviet era trial records, matched against material from the Estonian archives, to determine that Estonian units took an active part in at least one well-documented round-up and mass murder in Belarus. The 36th Police Battalion participated on August 7, 1942 in the gathering together and shooting of almost all the Jews still surviving in the town of Novogrudok.
"In the published records, this unit was described as fighting against partisans at the time. The Commission believes that although there clearly were numerous engagements between police units and partisans, "fighting against partisans" and "guarding prisoner of war camps" were at times ways of describing participation in actions against civilians, including Jews."

This is stated on page XXI: Conclusions of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity (PDF). So I really don't see the contradiction between the finding of the Commission, The Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos and Yitzhak Arad.

Does the statement "There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews" perhaps refer to the act of actually pulling the trigger? Unless I'm missing something, the sources agree that the Battalion in question was indeed involved. Ping those who have previously participated: @Nug, Ealdgyth, and Sturmvogel 66: to have a look. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems that both The Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos and Yitzhak Arad are paraphrasing this document you found, so obviously there would not be any contradiction. The basis of this appears to be the view that "fighting against partisans" was code for killing Jewish civilians. But it isn't clear how they arrived at that, as it appears to contradict the main body of the report itself, which devotes several pages to the activities of the Battalion and asserts there no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion. Are you able to access Gerlach's work and quote the original German here, perhaps that may shed further light, I've given the relevant page numbers above. --Nug (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
This document [I] found comes from the website of the commission and is called "Conclusions of the Commission". Are you saying that the Commission is contradicting its own conclusions? There's got to be more context around this. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
No, I said it appears to contradict the main body of the report itself, which explicitly states "There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews". Do you have access to Gerlach's work Kalkulierte Morde, pp701-702? --Nug (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't have access to Gerlach. If I sent you an email, would you be able to scan and email the relevant pages from the main body of the report (assuming its in English)? I'd like to see more context around their conclusion. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
That is a pity, with you being able to cite more obscure German historians, like Sönke Neitzel and Wolfgang Schneider, in other articles, you may have also had access to Gerlach. I can scan the relevant pages, but I don't have easy access to a scanner, perhaps I could go to the local library over the weekend. --Nug (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I would look forward to it. BTW, Sönke Neitzel is not at all obscure. He is a leading German military historian; his 2011 book Soldaten: German POWs on Fighting, Killing, and Dying (with Harald Welzer) was a sensation in Germany. The book was published in English and is even available as an audio book. It's a fascinating read; I highly recommend it. See also this interview (in English):
  • "Mindset of WWII German Soldiers": video interview with Neitzel discussing Soldaten, via the official YouTube channel of The Agenda (TVOntario).
K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Nug: any luck? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nug: final ping. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Finally back, have been caught up in WP:REALLIFE. I've managed to scan the relevant pages and will post a link here in the next few days. --Nug (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
@Nug: Hi, do you plan to post here, or should I drop you an email? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Note that Yitzak Arad cites as his source the Estonian Institute of Historical Memory, which is the successor to the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity. The Commission was disbanded in 2007 and Arad wrote in 2011. You need to check what the Institute says. If they are cited correctly, then we have to prefer what they say over the Commission. I do not have full access to the Holocaust Museum Encyclopedia. The article may provide sources which can be checked. It was published in 2009, so it may be relying on the same info as Arad. This seems to be a case where an original conclusion was changed, but we cannot tell without looking at what the Institute says. TFD (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Finally got my scanner working and have the Holocaust Museum Encyclopedia from the library. If anyone wants the scans of the article ... send me an email and I will send pdfs. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration

I would be grateful if editors could find some time to comment on an RFC as to RS suitability at the talk page for the above article, thank you. The queried RS are

& (for comparison)

Up date martial status - Shaun Williamson

Hi I'd like to update my martial status from being married to divorced. How do I do this ? Can't see anywhere I can attach proof of this Thanks Shaun

The Needle Drop

Several days ago, Anthony Fantano created a video where he criticized Wikipedia for removing his reviews from articles. This sparked a lengthy discussion on WikiProject Albums. Because the discussion is very long, I'll do my best to summarize the progression:

  • In his video, Fantano seems to be under the impression that his reviews were being removed because they were not seen as "professional" enough; however, the reason that many of his reviews were removed were because they were self-published.
  • While Fantano's reviews are self-published, several users believed that Fantano could be considered an exception because...
    • Anthony Fantano has had his work published by third parties in the past; Fantano hosted a weekly music review radio show on NPR.
    • Fantano has a reputation for making quality music review (for example, this Spin article).
    • Anthony Fantano employs several editors to oversee his videos. These editors are in charge of fact checking Fantano's reviews and making corrections. One of these editors, Austen Walsh, is also a published music critic (and his name can be found listed here).

In the discussion, one of the major criticisms of Fantano's reviews were that they had "no editorial oversight or control", which was proven to be untrue. One user, @WOLF LΔMBERT, proposed the following amendment to The Needle Drop's description on the WikiProject Albums/Sources page:

Anthony Fantano's reviews are self-published, and a review from an established source (as listed above) is strongly preferred. In the absence of a review from such a source, however, (or if the review is specifically relevant to the work in question,)[?] referencing a video of his might be appropriate, but this should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Fantano's reviews are trustworthy if they have been published by a third party.

A consensus regarding the amendment above has not yet been reached, so it was agreed that it would be best to carry on the conversation in an area with more visibility as it was likely to affect many future sources. What does all of this information mean for The Needle Drop? Can we reach a consensus on the amendment above? ThrillShow (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

No, if the are SPS they are SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia's rules regarding self-published sources have specific requirements for a source to become "an exception". He is an SPS, but I believe that there is enough evidence for him to be considered an exception. Please see "Self-published doesn't mean a source is automatically invalid" ThrillShow (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I am aware of that, this does not explain why he is only RS when he is the only source for his reviews. Either he is RS or he is not, and I am not sure that he meets the requirements. By their very natures reviews are opinions, and thus many of the reasons for including SPS are redundant. I think he only meets (just) "Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." the problem is that it goers on to say "Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." So I hacve to ask, why are his reviews worthy of inclusion (rather then ones published in non SPS)?Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I didn't write the amendment above, so you can suggest adjustments if you don't like the wording. I believe that the rule is not trying to say that being the only reviewer makes him more reliable, just that Fantano's SP work should be mentioned when it is "appropriate for the material in question".
Fantano is an incredibly well established reviewer, and (from what I can tell) he meets the requirements of being an exceptional self-publisher. His channel is run very much like a business, and he has expert editorial oversight. ThrillShow (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. He might be self-published, but there's a team working behind his channel, including someone who oversees and edits his reviews (who even commented in the discussion linked above). His name is synonymous with the channel, but the channel itself has grown from Fantano with a camera to what's pretty much a small-scale company at this point. WLM / ? 18:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Fantano's reviews are occasionally more popular than the album being reviewed (case in point: Angelic 2 the Core). Always including Fantano is unfair towards other sources and probably not the best idea, as he's still a self-published source, but the current rule pretty much encourages the militant removal of any references to Fantano's reviews, which, as ThrillShow brought up in the original discussion, almost seems unfair to the reader. His reviews can be relevant, and self-published or not, he's still someone who reviews music professionally, and has quite the following. WLM / ? 17:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
With Angelic 2 the Core, it's not technically possible to prove that Fantano's review is more popular. However, I do think that his review of that album is significant, and he is one of the few critics to review the album. ThrillShow (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment — Thanks a lot for summarising the discussion! WLM / ? 17:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Unreliable - Im still convinced that it is not a reliable source. There's no editorial policy. No editorial team. No history of fact checking. He makes boastful, unfounded claims without proof or explanation. (He recently proclaimed himself the most popular music reviewer on the internet or something to that capacity. I mean, come on.) His content is questionable. (He gave an album a "humus out of ten" rating. What is that supposed to mean?) He hired a guy to manage his channel and help, but it's still largely just a guy self-publishing to YouTube. Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I've mentioned on the original discussion page that that "most popular music reviewer on the planet" statement kind of rubbed me the wrong way (although he is the most popular music reviewer on YouTube going by subscribers, that can be checked), but still — even if that's wrong and he said it to brag, that doesn't impact his ability to review a record. It seems unfair to me to take one such statement (one that isn't even about a record, but about himself) and use it as an argument against his reliability when it comes to reviewing music.
I also doubt that if Rolling Stone gave an album a joke rating, like "hummus/10", or if Pitchfork awarded the next Kanye record with an 11.7/10, they'd get thrown off the WP:RS list immediately. It appears that this only applies the other way around. There are times when Fantano doesn't take himself too seriously, and I don't see what's wrong with that if it only happens occasionally (and if we all agree that these specific reviews should definitely not be ref'd).
Fantano also does reviews where he doesn't score the records at all. He published two of those today, in fact, and also has a regular not good segment. I'd argue that the "hummus/10" review is one of those, and he just had a bit of fun with the rating. WLM / ? 19:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Gag reviews can hardly be used to describe the quality of a critic. I believe it was Anthony Fantano who pointed out Pitchfork Media's review of Jet's second album. As for his boastful claims, they were uploaded to his side channel, not The Needle Drop. Not to mention, the claims weren't completely unfounded. Also, to say that there is no editorial oversight is simply untrue. ThrillShow (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
What is their editorial policy then? Review policy? Editorial team's credentials? Do we know anything besides the fact that someone created a Wikipedia account just to say "Hey guys I help with Fantanos reviews"? Sergecross73 msg me 19:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
A gag review is not representative of a critic as a whole. I believe it was Anthony Fantano himself who pointed out Pitchfork's review of Shine On. As for editorial oversight, Austen Walsh said in a blog post on The Needle Drop's website that he was a collaborator and managing editor on the channel, which means that he has input on what does and doesn't go on the channel. As for his credentials, Walsh is best known for his music reviews published by Art Fuse. He was even cited on this Wikipedia page. As for Fantano's boastful claims, they were uploaded to his side channel, not The Needle Drop. Secondly, the claims are not completely unfounded. ThrillShow (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Things like official editorial policy and staff credentials are generally documented from the source itself. If you have to go to blogs or Spin articles to tangentially make guesses about it like that, it's a pretty sure bet they don't exist. (But since the Fantano and fans are actively watching and pushing for the website's inclusion on Wikipedia, it's probably a safe bet they're hastily making one up as we speak.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
What have I guessed about? I've cited everything that I've said. Spin is an established site and the blog that I cited was posted on The Needle Drop's website and was written by the editor of the website. How is that a tangent? I addressed all of your claims. ThrillShow (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I missed the part where you linked to The Needle Drops editorial policy page on their site? Can you provide that link again? Sergecross73 msg me 20:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Currently, there is no page that publicly lists all of The Needle Drop's editorial guidelines. But the same could be said for Pitchfork Media, Sputnikmusic, PopMatters, or many of the trusted sources listed on Wikipedia's WikiProject Albums/Sources. It would be a severe double-standard to require to see the exact editorial policy of independent-publishers and not all third-party publishers. ThrillShow (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Is Sputnikmusic listed there!? WLM / ? 21:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
If what I've been led to believe is correct, Sputnikmusic essentially has 2 forms of reviews: user reviews and critic reviews. Wikipedia allows the critic's reviews. ThrillShow (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh, okay. I was unaware of that. WLM / ? 22:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
First off, that's not remotely true - all sorts of staff info and policy available. Secondly, even if it was true (it's not), that would give The Needle Drop a free pass. Sergecross73 msg me 21:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
(1) Sorry one of my examples was off, I corrected that. (2) WP:OSE "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." ThrillShow (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
No, not just one. Sergecross73 msg me 23:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
That's just a list of the names with position titles. I gave the names and titles of two of Fantano's editors. ThrillShow (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Exactly. PopMatters has staff and policy info, but Pitchfork just gives a list of names, which I don't believe qualifies as an editorial policy. Pitchfork, however, is still listed under WP:RS (as it should be). WLM / ? 23:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Pitchfork has a massive staff list with editors with all sorts of credentials. TND does not. Which is the point. And again, your (poorly thought out) attempts to discredit other widely agreed upon RS's (that you don't even really mean to discredit) are not helping your argument for TND. I can't stress enough - that's not how these discussions work. It will not convince experienced Wikipedia editors. Sergecross73 msg me 23:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
A lot of people may misinterpret my earlier point, so I'll clarify. I'm not trying to say "because other sources did it, why can't TND do it?" Nor is it an attempt to discredit Pitchfork. I'm trying to point out the fact that it is unfair to criticize Fantano's editors for not publicly stating their guidelines when many other sources are not held to this same standard. That is a complete double standard. TND has a staff of editors, one of whom is a published critic. ThrillShow (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
But they don't have an editorial policy, editorial staff list, or any credentials for any editorial staff listed. Any one of these missing is concerning - missing all of them is a major concern. Sergecross73 msg me 00:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
It would be beneficial if they had a full list of their employees/staff publicly available. However, there is still information spread throughout TND website and other websites that confirms that these editors are real and do work for TND. ThrillShow (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not attempting to discredit Pitchfork either, for the record. As I said in my earlier comment, Pitchfork is listed under reliable sources, as it should be. However, as far as I can see, several established sources do not have all three of the requirements you brought up, like Pitchfork, and they, too, are defined as acceptable sources. WLM / ? 02:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would support using him sparingly, when there is a lack of more notable publications having covered a topic/an album/whatever he's being used to cite. Otherwise, hosting a weekly radio show hardly qualifies as being previously published and an expert in his field. As for editorial information, sites like PopMatters list their editorial staff. From a quick search and skimming this discussion, Fantano strikes me as an up-and-comer and not a respected professional yet. But rather than make this a referendum on him, let's consider how this source benefits Wikipedia's articles: In what cases is he providing usable information that more established sources aren't providing, and would leaving him in such cases be a detriment to any particular article? Dan56 (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - When I was researching, I found a lot of his NPR "Song of the day" articles. 1, 2, 3, among others. While I don't know if he should be included in the review box, if a someone wanted to add things like his song of the day and put it in a critical reception section of a song, I wouldn't have any problem with it - because it was published by NPR. --Jennica / talk 21:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Exactly, but his time at NPR, though not sufficient to give him any sort of free pass, does make him more important than just any self-published source in my opinion, especially considering how influential he has become since.
WP:RS mentions that "[s]elf-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications", and I still believe that Fantano falls under this. As that page also mentions, though, "[s]uch material […] likely lacks the fact checking that publishers provide. Avoid using [it] to source extraordinary claims", which I tried to adhere to in my proposed amendment. WLM / ? 22:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Again, as explained before, that "established expert" clause is meant for your high level Siskel and Ebert types, not "Minor-NPR-contributors-that-start-up-YouTube-channels". Sergecross73 msg me 23:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Maybe, but that isn't specified in the clause, so I don't see why it doesn't apply here. WLM / ? 14:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh yeah, it's not that all Fantano content itself is marked as non-reliable - it's fine if he is published through a legit RS like NPR. The issue is TND, the stuff which has has no review from a editorial team with an editorial policy. Sergecross73 msg me 1:03 am, Today (UTC+2)
I wouldn't use him more than sparingly either. He remains self-published. If an established source is available, that source should always be prioritised. WLM / ? 22:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Is "an up-and-comer" really a good description for him, though? He's been active in the field for a decade, and he has a million subscribers on YouTube, which is the highest amount for any music reviewer on the site. Sure, he's self-published, but he isn't an up-and-comer. Far from it, I'd argue. WLM / ? 22:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking in terms of how long he's been at it, but mainstream exposure and other sources' coverage of him. Dan56 (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, he's got mainstream exposure, doesn't he? WLM / ? 23:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Nah, I don't think he should be used. At some point, a line has to be drawn that prevents any kid with a semi-popular YouTube channel or blog and strong opinions from deciding that they're a reliable source for Wikipedia. Additionally, plenty of published critics and editors (Simon Reynolds, Mark Fisher, David Stubbs, Jeff Weiss) have their own blogs/radio shows/self-published content on the internet, and we don't really treat those as reliable sources. I'm generally suspicious of arguments about "reliability," as they're often used to reinforce a hegemonic media landscape, but Fantano doesn't add any meaningful insight beyond his (frequently dull and conventional) opinion. Leave him to the geeky music forums that provide him most of his fan base. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to act like this is a war against old media vs. new media, because I don't think that it is. I just think there are some instances when Fantano's insights are relevant to the article at hand. Also, I wouldn't be trying to defend him purely because he's popular. Popularity isn't really related to reliability. I think he meets Wikipedia's qualifications for a reliable self-publisher, and - if he does - then I think that having his reviews on articles could be beneficial. ThrillShow (talk) 01:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Frequently dull and conventional, huh? When did this become about opinions?
There are a couple sites on the list at the WikiProject Albums that I really don't think add anything to the music journalism landscape. I think The Independent is quite a shite newspaper, actually. I didn't think that was relevant to the discussion in any way, but since your opinion on Fantano's reviews has now apparently become a viable argument, I might as well throw it out there for good measure. WLM / ? 02:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
So (it seems to me) the objective is to enable him to be used when he says something a user wants to include, and to be able to exclude him when he says something a user does not want to include, that seems to me the gist if this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
That would just get rid of the rule entirely. Why would we want to do that? He's still self-published, and there are still better options, but I don't think his reviews should be removed in every single situation without a case-specific analysis.
Do his reviews belong on most articles, where a couple of reliable sources have already been cited? Absolutely not. Can a review of his be relevant to an article? Yes. That still doesn't mean that we have to cite his review in such a case, but I'd argue that it's a better option than no reviews at all. WLM / ? 14:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
An obvious fact that we seem to be skirting over is that Fantano primarily does opinion-based reviews. The exception on self-published sources basically says it's fine if they're adding something useful, but the guy isn't doing significant fact-based reporting or interviews or research or something that would add to anyone's knowledge of a subject. He's giving us his opinion, which....well, we all have opinions don't we? I've written for professional publications in the past, does that mean all I need to consider my blog or YouTube channel a reliable source is to hire my roommate as editor?
And it's always been about opinion, pal. In case you smarties who fancy yourselves "objective" haven't realized it yet, there's no purely rational justification for preventing anyone from being a "reliable source" on this website, the guidelines around self-publishing and the editorial setup are an arbitrary distinction that bears no relation to the quality and usefulness of a source. Again, what's to prevent me from considering myself as valid as him in that regard? An "editorial staff" of my friends?gentlecollapse6 (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure, it's always been about opinions, but at least I try to approach the subject in an objective manner. I enjoy his reviews, but I still don't think he's a "reliable source", because he's self-published. What I'm trying to fight here is that the current rule, at least when it's applied to Fantano's reviews, causes his reviews to be purged from the encyclopedia pretty much automatically, which I don't think is fair. Sometimes there are no reviews from major, established sources, but the album does have a Wikipedia article and Fantano has reviewed it. This does happen, considering that he also reviews lots of underground music. Angelic 2 the Core is a prime example of this; until a few days ago, the §Reception section was limited to a reference to Sputnikmusic, a user-based review site, and now the section is gone entirely. Sure, Fantano's reviews might have limited editorial oversight compared to established sources such as Pitchfork and Rolling Stone, but he still has an editor and reviews music professionally, so I don't see the problem with citing his review here. In most situations, a more reliable source with more editorial oversight is available, and Fantano should not be ref'd, but on an article such as Angelic 2 the Core, this rule pretty much serves to deny people relevant information.
And don't you think that "all I need to consider my blog or YouTube channel a reliable source is to hire my roommate as editor" is quite a gross underestimation of Fantano's situation? His YouTube career spans 7+ years and over a million subscribers (which does make him the most popular music reviewer on the platform), and SPIN called him "today's most successful music critic". Does that mean he should get a free pass for anything? No. He's self-published and thus a less trustworthy source. But I'd argue that it does make him more important than your average self-published source. WLM / ? 14:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Also, Fantano might not do any "significant fact-based" reporting or interviews, but that some of the established sources do interviews on the side doesn't mean that their reviews are anything but an opinion either. Reviews are inherently opinionated, regardless of how much research you present along with them, and I don't see what makes any of the established sources' opinions superior to Fantano's. WLM / ? 14:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Unreliable - per user Sergecross73's argument. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Reliable SPS are always reliable as sources for the opinions of their authors, while reviews wherever published are rarely reliable sources for facts. Similarly reviews published in mainstream media are always reliable as sources for the opinions of their authors, while rarely reliable sources for facts. Fantano is a well known and influential critic, he studied journalism and worked as a music critic at a radio station before building his youtube channel. SPIN published an article about him, "How Anthony Fantano, aka The Needle Drop, Became Today’s Most Successful Music Critic." So I would treat The Needle Drop as just as reliable as any other music criticism published in mainstream media. TFD (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: The main problem about Fantano is he use YouTube to post his reviews, which is a self-published website that should be avoided. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
No. A YouTube channel can have an entire editorial team behind it (with full transparency). Pitchfork has a YouTube channel. So does Consequence of Sound. This isn't about YouTube; it's about Fantano's reviews, which are self-published. That's the issue here. If "YouTube […] should be avoided", we're having a different discussion entirely (and you're wrong, because the medium doesn't influence the review, but I digress). WLM / ? 02:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
He's still a self-published critic, though, which inherently makes him less reliable. He has editorial oversight from one or two people, which is nothing compared to most established sources.
I do support using him sparingly, but I don't think he should be held to the same standard as any mainstream media outlet. He's still not the best option if other sources are available, professional or not. WLM / ? 02:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any prohibition on youtube. The only issue is that videos posted by third parties can be doctored, but that is not an issue here. Also, we do allow self-published articles by experts on the assumption that their postings should be accurate. But as with any source, whether or not to use it depends on circumstances. TFD (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

If he is the only person reviewing an album or band would that not be an issue with notability, thus why would we need to use him as any material he could be used to support (as "sole noticer") would fail on so many other levels?Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The same could be said of any reviewer. TFD (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. WLM / ? 15:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
True, which is why we do not tend to use SPS, if it is published by a third party then more then just the one bloke has noticed it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
…what? WLM / ? 15:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
It's simple enough, if something is worthy of note (or even notable) more then one SPS needs to have noticed it to establish this. The issue thus becomes one of weight (and, depending on context, notability), why is this persons views worthy of inclusion if he is the only person saying it. This (at it's heart) seems to be the real issue here, not RS but rather trying to enable him to be used as a source when no others exist. So I have to ask, what is he being uses as a source for?Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I assume we're still discussing Angelic 2 the Core, correct? In regards to that album, there seems to be quite a few sources that discuss Angelic 2 the Core's existence and creation, but there are few that discuss it from a critical standpoint. ThrillShow (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
So this is about using it for one album, one that no one seems to care about? This seems (as I said) a weight and notability and not an RS issue.Slatersteven (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that that's true. Like I said earlier, there are sources that address the album's existence and creation, but the sources don't discuss it from a critical standpoint. ThrillShow (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Forgiver me but how can an album have received in depth coverage (enough to establish notability) if it has not been reviewed (critically)? Also why do we even need critical analysis, we an an encyclopedia not a music newspaper? I am failing to understand the need here, what are we missing by excluding this material, the opinions on one SPS music reviewer. Why is his opinion even worthy of note by us if it has not been deemed worthy of note by RS?Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Are you asking why reviews are allowed on Wikipedia? That is a much broader question. Reviews give readers a deeper understanding of how a piece of media has be received, which is incredibly relevant information. Also, I think that there is enough evidence to show that Fantano's reviews are reliable under Wikipedia's current guidelines.. ThrillShow (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
No I am saying that it is not important, certainly no enough to warrant re-writing an RS classification to allow the use of one SPS when he is the only person reviewing it (how does that provide any kind of "deeper understanding of how a piece of media has be received", beyond "no one cared enough to review it"). All they do is provide us with one persons subjective opinion of the media, that can only be relevant when it is more then one person expressing an opinion, which is the exact opposite of the proposal here.Slatersteven (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
If there was another source that reviewed the album, then are you saying that including Fantano's criticism alongside it would be acceptable? In that situation, Fantano's review would no longer be the only point of view, which would make for a more neutral critical reception section. ThrillShow (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
No I am saying that a single SPS should not have it's criteria for being RS altered just because it is the only source. If anything that reinforces the notion it is not in fact saying anything worthy of note. I am saying this is jot an RS issue, it is a notability and weight issue.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I would say Fantano is pretty notable, isn't he? Sure, that doesn't make him reliable, but those things aren't mutually inclusive. WLM / ? 15:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Wait, hold on — were you talking about Fantano, the album, or both? I'm a bit confused by your comment tbh. WLM / ? 15:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – Agree with Dan56; use sparingly, and decide if he's relevant on a case-by-case basis. I also like what WOLF LΔMBERT said: He's still not the best option if other sources are available, professional or not. Ss112 10:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, this seems the most fair to me. WLM / ? 15:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Never use. Reliable for its own opinion (but this would be undue); unreliable for statements of fact. The desire to use this source reeks of unencylopedic activities. Alexbrn (talk) 11:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Do elaborate. WLM / ? 15:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Never use - This guy is clearly a media whore who cares more about his ratings than the quality of his reviews. In my opinion, a true music critic/professional would not have made a lame video to protest their ratings exclusion from Wikipedia. Having a fanbase does not make you a professional music critic! Robvanvee 07:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, historically, when people pull stunts like this, where they are clearly trying to force their presence onto Wikipedia (or incite that action from the fanbase), has not been been successful in reliability or notability discussions. I can't think of any success stories, honestly. Professional sources just don't do this sort of thing. (Make videos specifically for ranting about Wikipedia exclusion, making baseless claims about their own popularity, etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Who are you to decide what "true music critic" entails? And who says that he "cares more about his ratings than the quality of his reviews"? For fuck's sake.
If he really wants to have his reviews be cited in Wikipedia articles, this video was probably not the best way to go over this, but as he said in the video, he was responding to a question he gets from fans quite regularly (just search "Wikipedia" on the subreddit) on his second channel. This isn't a Needle Drop video, and it shouldn't be held to a professional standard. WLM / ? 19:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Unreliable through his own website - SPS, if his opinion on music was notable it would be published elsewhere. If it is published elsewhere, then it may be used with the usual checks for opinion/criticism pieces. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Not for articles involving living people. It is against policy to use a self-published source who is talking about a living person. I have watched one of his reviews, and he does make comments about band members. His self-published material cannot be used in articles on living musicians. See WP:BLPSPS. He can be used as a source in an article on himself or his vblog: The Needle Drop. And I think there is a credible claim that he can be regarded as an expert in music reviewing, so could be used on music articles which don't involve living people. But, no, cannot be used on articles involving living people until he is published by a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that's up for discussion. WLM / ? 19:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
What exactly are you saying isn't up for discussion? Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Using his reviews in biographies of living musicians. (For the record, I'm the user you're replying to — I changed my username.) mountainhead / ? 20:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
This stance would still be relevant to album reviews, as much of album reviews reference the musicians (living people) who create them. For example, I can't help but think that, his review about Corey Feldman's Angelic album makes all sorts of detrimental comments about him as a person, considering his background in entertainment. Silktork says this sort of commentary would not be acceptable per WP:BLPSPS. I'd agree, especially due to his content's tendency for hyperbole and exaggeration. Sergecross73 msg me 23:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
The BLP policy applies to every page on Wikipedia, including this one, and including articles which are not biographies, but which mention living people. See the first sentence of WP:BLP and the section Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Applicability_of_the_policy. SilkTork ✔Tea time 06:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Use sparingly, but only for his opinions on an album – never as a source to support anything factual about music. That's the very most we can give him, although ideally I'd want to see more sources acknowledging his notability along the lines of the Spin piece. I've got to disagree with some of the comments made here about blogs/websites of [genuine] music journalists such as David Stubbs and Mark Fisher. The individuals do have expert status and that makes their self-published writing reliable; I'd put Peter Doggett's blog and Graham Reid's website into the same category. I mean, someone like Stubbs has worked for just about every top UK print publication on music there's ever been (his page at Rock's Backpages merely scratches the surface). JG66 (talk) 02:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the input JG66. I did a little reading, and I found several more articles positively acknowledging Fantano similarly to the Spin article. I'll link to them here: (1, 2, 3). ThrillShow (talk) 02:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I found his review of Trout Mask Replica both informative and entertaining, But I have no idea if it's reliable, dependable or notable. And no any idea how to determine that. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
That seems to be the big question. I think that Fantano's work can be considered reliable because he was a formerly published critic, and he currently employs editors. However, there are some instances where his reviews are more relevant to an article than others. If there's a massive surplus of reviews, then Fantano's review probably wouldn't take priority. If Fantano's review of an album is particularly pertinent to that album, then I think that mentioning that review is reasonable. ThrillShow (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Source for claiming Captain America: Civil War has an "ensemble cast"?

See here (and to a certain extent here).

Basically, a couple of users are arguing that this is a reliable source for the claim that the film has an "ensemble cast". It does have an ensemble cast, and the source is reliable for this claim, if one goes by the modern, slangy/marketingy definition of the term meaning "cast that includes a lot of famous actors" (essentially a synonym for all-star cast), but the discussion at WT:FILM had a fairly strong consensus against using "all-star cast" or any euphemism for it, and our article on ensemble cast prioritizes the traditional meaning in its lead.

Anyone who has seen the film knows it has a single lead with far more screen time and centrality to the plot than anyone else (Chris Evans), with only one possible exception (Robert Downey). Even including that exception, I really feel like saying a film with two cotagonists has an "ensemble cast" is kinda pushing it. The problem is that the author of the cited source had not seen the film as it hadn't begun production, and so could not be a reliable source for the content of the film and relative screen-time/importance of the cast members. Some later sources are more nuanced -- [1] [2] and [3], for example.

What do people think about the reliability of the 2015 source for the current content? Am I just going crazy?

Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC) (somewhat trimmed 05:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC))

Just don't use the term as it's confusing. Alexbrn (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
@Alexbrn: Would you mind commenting on whether you think the March 2015 source is reliable for the claim that the film has an ensemble cast? I kinda-sorta said (based partly on my experience asking about "dated" sources here) that people here would agree with me on that point, and if I go back there and say that an RSN commenter said to leave it out because it's confusing I would almost certainly be met with "Yeah, but that's not a discussion for RSN, and no one said the source wasn't reliable for the claim attributed to it".
That said, I doubt any number of comments anywhere but the article talk page would convince people. They'll probably just sub-in the above Telegraph source, whose author had seen the film if RSN agrees with me that the current source is not sufficient. So I'm considering opening an RFC, but it just seems like making mountains out of molehills at this point.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
The reliability question is irrelevant. We should communicate clearly by "translating" confusing terms into clear English. Perhaps if you could get agreement on a paraphrase - in plain English - of what it is the article wants to say, then we could look at whether sources support that. Alexbrn (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that the paraphrase would be clearly non-NPOV. Someone on WT:FILM (not sure if they would want to be pinged, but it was NinjaRobotPirate) said it sounded like a press-release. The status quo is that the article uses a seemingly NPOV euphemism for a non-NPOV marketing term, and the fact that a source uses it (and presumably that the euphemism has another, non-non-NPOV, meaning) is being used to justify that. Changing the ambiguous euphemism to the more direct term would beg the question why we are using this description at all (which would just mean opening a new thread on NPOVN). Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
It all sounds very complicated - who'd have thought films could be so fraught?! Look, is the intention to convey that the film has lots of stars in in, or that the screen time is evenly apportioned among them? If that could be agreed then a source might support one of the options. If OTOH, nobody can even agree what "ensemble cast" even means, then this is never going to be a productive line to pursue. Alexbrn (talk) 06:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I honestly have no idea how to answer either of your questions. I sure as hell didn't know they were so fraught when I first started editing Wikipedia, and I get the feeling they've only become so in recent years. As for what the intention is, as I said above I would like to remove the phrase altogether; you'd have to ask User:Favre1fan93 and User:Huggums537 what they think the intention is -- all I've been getting out of them so far[4][5][6] is that they are trying to match what the sources say, which is why I came here. I can speculate on what the intention of the sources was: they are all either primary sources from those trying to promote the film, or early sources reliant on those trying to promote the film, so if I had to guess they were using it as a round-about way of saying "all-star cast", but if that's the case then we shouldn't be following them. Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Two answers: 1. Yes the source is reliable for the statement its an ensemble cast. 2. Its not actually an ensemble cast in the technical meaning as applied to films but it is in the way it is commonly used. Ensemble casts are films where there are multiple main characters who have roughly equivalent screen time. Which is clearly not the case in this instance. However that is not how 'ensemble cast' is often used in the media and elsewhere, where the more relaxed definition of 'lots of big name actors in one film who would otherwise be in leading/significant roles'. So you can argue it either way, don't use it because we are an encyclopedia and should be keeping to the strict definition, or use it because we are an encyclopedia for a general audience which reflects reliable source usage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
@Only in death: But do we really want to use "ensemble cast" in the same way as it is used in the media and elsewhere? It's essentially a marketing slogan, just a cutesier way of saying "all-star cast". I also feel like, if Wikipedia has an article at ensemble cast, to which the phrase is linked, and that article prioritizes the technical definition in its lead, we are misleading our readers, as it gives the strong implication that we are using it in the technical sense.
If we interpret the source as meaning "lots of big name actors in one film who would otherwise be in leading/significant roles" (which, is obviously the correct interpretation) wouldn't "all-star cast" be preferable? I've been arguing against this for the last couple days, but I'd actually prefer it to the status quo. Yes, "all-star cast" is WP:PEACOCK (again, if anyone wants to ping NinjaRobotPirate they can, just please read this first and tell me he's not "done" with this conversation), but it's still better than a word that could be interpreted as meaning the same thing or as meaning something that is inaccurate.
On an unrelated note, I can totally see people throwing your first answer in my face later, based on what I wrote here. Could you clarify that you don't think the source is reliable for the claim that the film has an ensemble cast in the technical sense? I agree with basically everything you wrote above, and it's clear from your Which is clearly not the case in this instance that you don't actually mean what I highly suspect you will be misquoted as saying.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
If we go by the technical/exact definition Wikipedia uses for 'ensemble cast' then strictly speaking the source is incorrect. However 'The source is clearly wrong - as can be seen by watching the film' is usually a terrible argument to make. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. But in this case we are talking about the content of the film, and the source was written by someone who could not have seen the film unless he was a time-traveler. As I have said elsewhere, I would love if no material anywhere on Wikipedia could be written based on one having seen the film, but that assumes sources written about the content of the film by people who have actually seen it. The source is right, but that's only because it's not going by the technical/exact definition Wikipedia uses for "ensemble cast". The definition by which it was probably going is not related to the content of the film, and so it would be a reliable source for that, but that's really not what our article is saying at the moment. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I would like to point out that the article mentions "ensemble" 5 times. There are 9 sources related to this term and Hijiri88 is only criticising one of them. Also, his use of diffs here effectively takes sections of previous discussions out of context so that you are only able to see the part of the discussions that he wants you to see. I suggest (for those that have the time) to read the whole discussions in order to formulate a fully informed opinion on the matter. The article talk page is a short read, while the long discussion is here. Huggums537 (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Most of those sources are cited in contexts where our article is not claiming that "the film has an ensemble cast". The Renner quotation, for example, is clearly using the word "ensemble" in the opposite sense in context (being "the ensemble" means being a secondary cast member), and it's not like we can doctor the quote. Hijiri 88 (やや) 20:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Reading the long version, the editors there are substantially in agreement with everything I said above tbh and not in disagreement with each other. Lugnuts links to the Wikipedia article. Erik says (as I did above) that sources sometimes use it sloppily. Gonein60 makes the clearest statement that where 'Ensemble' is being referenced (as 'lots of famous people') not in its correct definition it should not be used. Ninjarobotpirate states that when ensemble is used in its traditional meaning its not a problem, but shouldn't be used as a euphemism for all-star (lots of famous people). Hoverfish says Ensemble is preferred if its being used as the article defines it - otherwise it should be stated in prose without glam terms (eg 'all-star). If I had to assess consensus there it would be to a)not use ensemble cast as the usage isn't how Wikipedia (or elsewhere) traditionally defines it, b)do not use glam/PR terms like all-star which may be more accurate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The glam term might be more accurate according to the skewed interpretation of certain sources and personal viewpoints of what people saw in the film, but if the film is not appropriately classified as an ensemble in the technical sense according to industry standards, then why did it receive an award nomination in an ensemble category from the Screen Actors Guild Awards? See the Accolades section of the article for the source on this. (I realize this is beyond the scope of the casting issue, but you can still make the connection that places the film in the ensemble division of films). Also, why did the directors, interviewer and author of this article refer to it (many times) as an ensemble in the technical sense? Huggums537 (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC) Also, if there was such a clear consensus with the other discussions then why did he come here begging for people to discredit just one of the many different casting sources? The film is accepted by the industry as an ensemble in the technical sense of the word just like another article he had a problem with, where the film was nominated for the "Ensemble Cast Award" at the MTV awards. See Avengers:_Age_of_Ultron#Accolades for the source. Let's all try to put our person opinions aside for a moment and try to see this from a NPOV. Would any of us classify the film as an ensemble in the technical sense? Probably not. Does the industry classify it as an ensemble in the technical sense? Absolutely. Does the industry care what we think about how they classify their films? Not a bit. NPOV dictates that we must put aside our personal views and accept the facts. Do we want the facts in our articles. I should hope so. Do we want the term "ensemble cast" in our article? Yes, we do. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Huggums, drop the tone, please. I did not "come here begging". The reason I came here was because you and one other editor who don't respect consensus were causing trouble on the article talk page after discussion on WT:FILM had died down. And I didn't ask anyone to discredit anything, I came here to ask if a source dating from more than a year before the film's release could be considered reliable for the film's content. I don't care what you think the answer to any of the questions you pose is: I just want Wikipedia to use direct descriptions rather than misleading ones, and use reliable sources for claims about the content of the film. Also, the context in which you write Do we want the term "ensemble cast" in our article? Yes, we do. really makes it look like "we" and "our" are WP:OWN-violations -- a couple of long-term users, and now you as well, view the article as "yours", and it doesn't matter what the rest of the Project thinks. Hijiri 88 (やや) 20:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
You make me laugh. Another desperate attempt to try to make me look bad. I just started editing the article all of 3 days ago with some minor edits, and you're suggesting I'm trying to "own" the article? You're hilarious. Anyway, I've accepted your compromise on the article talk page to just unlink the phrase because I wish to be done with this ridiculous dispute. Huggums537 (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I was working under the assumption that you were grouping yourself in with the "stewards" of the article, since you agree with them in this instance, and they very clearly do "own" the article. (If I cared enough I'd bring their OWN behaviour to the attention of the community, and virtually all of them would likely be TBANned. This will probably happen eventually anyway, when someone a bit more litigious than me gets in a fight with them.) It's possible that you were completely ignoring said stewards and were simply referring to yourself with the royal we. You could not have been referring to the Wikipedia community at large since, thusfar, everyone except you and one other editor has expressed disapproval of the term "ensemble cast" in our article. This includes two random RSN contributors, four or five random WT:FILM contributors, and me. Anyway, I really can't understand why you, if you just want this to be done and are willing to compromise, you posted remarks that very much implied you were not done arguing in three separate fora. Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Huggums537: Are you referring to the award for "stunt ensemble" as mentioned in this source? If so, does that mean we should also consider Jason Bourne and other films nominated in that category as ensemble films? I don't agree that this is a clear indication that the industry supports the ensemble label. A stunt team getting credit as an ensemble should not mean that we carry over that definition to apply to the film's cast. The most recent compromise at the film's article is to allow the term to be used sparingly in the body with proper in-text attribution, but remove the term from the lead. As Alexbrn suggests, we can replace the term in other areas (especially the lead) with plain English. There are other synonyms for the way the term is being used by the one or two sources we have that call it an ensemble. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
By the way, my reading of the director's interview is that he was influenced by ensemble films. He obviously injected some of those elements into the way he conducted the plot. However, the overall product would not be considered an ensemble film by most measures. It's also important to keep in mind that no one is really advocating the complete removal of the term from the article; continue to use it in the body alongside proper credit to the source(s). --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that is the source I'm talking about. No, you don't consider Jason Bourne an ensemble, that's well, absurd. The stunt team is the ensemble, of course. Does that make it an ensemble film? Not at all. Give it an ensemble cast? Nope. I think almost any simpleton can come to these conclusions. However, that same source also identifies these categories: "Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Drama Series", "Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Comedy Series", and "Outstanding Action Performance by a Stunt Ensemble in a Comedy or Drama Series". So, to say that the source is not a clear indication that the industry supports the ensemble label is not a complete interpretation of the whole source. Especially since most, but not all, of the nominees in these categories are in fact technically considered ensembles themselves, but even those that are not ensembles still have the right to have the "ensemble" term attached to them in the corresponding way that would be appropriate. Jason Bourne isn't an ensemble, but the stunt team is an ensemble, and that gives Jason Bourne "bragging rights" to an ensemble category . It also gives me the right to claim "ensemble" as an industry standard term. Also, to sum up the directors interview with only, "he was influenced by ensemble films" is an incomplete assessment of the whole source when you consider these statements; "Anthony explained how they tackle ensemble movies.", "we worked in ensembles a lot from our first movie Welcome to Collinwood to our television shows", "We love ensembles, and I think we’re kind of in tune to the idea of telling the story that has more than a single protagonist", "Between the Russos’ past work with ensemble casts and their knowledge of the Captain America world that they established in Captain America: The Winter Soldier, it seems the many characters in Civil War are safe in their hands.", and "Of course, that’s not to say every character in Civil War will receive a lot of screen time – given the ensemble cast that’s nearly impossible to achieve without sacrificing the main conflict between Cap and Iron Man.". As far as the latest compromise goes, and Alexbrn's suggestion goes, I say go for it. That's between everyone else now. It's really not that important. I've been trying to back away from the discussion. The only reason I commented here was to explain some of the rationale for my position. Huggums537 (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
" say that the source is not a clear indication that the industry supports the ensemble label is not a complete interpretation of the whole source"
I think there is a slight misunderstanding. You and I (and probably everyone here) agrees that ensemble is an industry term. However, your post above at 17:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC) implies that there is a connection between receiving the stunt ensemble accolade and being considered an ensemble film. I was simply saying that there isn't one. We aren't talking about the film's stunt performers and coordinators when we refer to the film's plot and cast. It appears that you now agree from your last post (I think), which negates any concern I previously had regarding this source.
As for the interview, I could explain my position in more detail, but since you're trying to disengage, I'll set that aside. You did bring up some good examples in your last post worth considering, however. The main goal for me was to help all parties involved reach a conclusion, and if Hijiri 88 and Favre1fan93 are satisfied, we should be able to make the change and move on. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I did imply there is a connection and if we were only relying on that single source alone then I would agree with you that there isn't a connection. However, when you combine the so called "euphemism source" with the so called "industry standard" source, then you have a much stronger case for showing that the film is an ensemble in the technical sense according to industry standards. Huggums537 (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Please note that I use the term "euphemism" very loosely here (in order to establish a difference between my sources, which can't be confused with an "all star cast", and the other ones) since an interview with the directors can hardly be referred to as a euphemism...
Really, the only misunderstanding we have here is the carefully guided misdirection of hiriji88; who boasted that, "By the way, I can absolutely, 100% guarantee you that if we took this to WP:RSN, the folks there would agree with me. Sources from a year before a film was released are inherently unreliable for the content of the film, especially after the film has been released and other sources started contradicting them." This claim was made in the middle of a discussion which was about the usage of the phrase "ensemble cast" in the article. He came over here and misrepresented the issue to make it look like the whole discussion over there was about a disagreement over an "old unreliable source", and while that did come up, that's not what it was about. All you have to do is compare his opening statements on that page with his opening statements on this page to see that this is the case. Huggums537 (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Also, you will notice that he conveniently failed to ping either myself or Favre1fan93 until later on in the discussion, well after the misdirection had been established. Huggums537 (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I would just like it noted that off-topic personal attacks and blatant AGF-violations like the above ("the carefully guided misdirection of hiriji88") will probably lead to Huggums' being blocked sooner or later if he/she keeps it up. And someone who misread the issue from the very beginning and tried to shift it to be about what he/she wanted it to be about should not be accusing others of deliberately "mak[ing] it look like the whole discussion over there was about a disagreement over an old unreliable source" -- of course an RSN thread should be about the reliability of the source, not about some other issues that may or may not actually be at stake. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
But, you know as well as I do that there was more than the reliability of that one source involved. You cherry picked the source you thought was most questionable and then made it look like the whole discussion was about that single source. That's carefully guided misdirection by any stretch of the imagination. Huggums537 (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I opened this thread because you suggested it here: If you wish to take the issue to WP:RSN, then please feel free to do so. As far as I could tell, you wrote this in direct response to my saying I can absolutely, 100% guarantee you that if we took this to WP:RSN, the folks there would agree with me that a source written when the writer could not possibly have seen the film could [not] be considered "reliable" for the principle players having roughly equal screen time and importance to the plot. RSN is about the reliability of sources for the content we attribute to them. There was only one source cited anywhere in the article for the factual claim that "the film has an ensemble cast". The sources you listed in a different comment made at the same time as the above-linked diff (which I only noticed now) are not apparently cited anywhere in the article. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, wow. Ok, so if I don't cite sources inside the article it somehow invalidates them? And you just now noticed them before you brought the single "unreliable" source here? Please. How could you have not noticed them when you posted them in the second paragraph at the very beginning of this section? You're full of it. Well, now that you've noticed them this argument can finally come to an end then. Because we obviously now have reliable sources to validate the claim. Thanks for participating. Huggums537 (talk)
I located two of those sources by Googling "Captain America Civil War ensemble cast", and the third (the MovieBob review) is from a reviewer whose work I've been following for six years. I honestly have no idea if they are the same sources you referred to on the talk page, but I would be incredibly surprised if all three of them were.
And yes, if you want to discuss the "reliability of a source", you need to either cite it in an article or show some intention of citing it in an article. Even if I had seen your talk page comment before yesterday, it wouldn't have changed the problem as far as RSN was concerned, since you were not apparently arguing to rewrite the article to match those sources, but arguing to preserve the status quo. And again, it was not "deliberately misleading" to open the same RSN thread that I offered to open before you mentioned any of those other sources.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
No, once again you are providing false information. The time record shows I provided the sources several hours before you started this thread. Simply making a statement doesn't make it true. This shows I posted them on 00:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC) and you opened RSN here 04:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC) as shown in the first comment above. Get your facts straight, or quit lying, or whatever game it is that you're playing here. Huggums537 (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Huggums, seriously? Why can't you drop the stick already? As I have stated numerous times, I didn't see your comment in which you listed those other sources (similarly to how I didn't see this comment until just now). I was talking specifically about the one source then-cited in the article; I offered to take the source to RSN (21:41, 9 July 2017); you said, essentially, If you wish to take the issue to WP:RSN, then please feel free to do so., at the same time as you posted (further up the thread) a list of other sources that you claimed (much later) you had wanted me to bring to RSN (00:16, 10 July 2017); I didn't see your comment further up the thread until much later. The timestamp of your having posted it is not a timestamp of my having read it. If you accuse me of "lying" one more time, I will ask that you be blocked -- I already asked User:Drmies to take a look at your behaviour, but my request apparently wound up getting undermined by some other stuff another user was posting about yet another user on my talk page. But I guarantee you, if you keep accusing me of "lying" or "playing games" as you have above, you will be blocked. And why on earth is this conversation happening at RSN to begin with? Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if you saw it or not. The fact still remains that I posted the sources there before you started the thread here. I will stop making references about you being a liar, but please stop making false statements about me (or my actions). This is the second time it has happened. This is why we are having this discussion here; so I can publicly defend myself against false statements being made against me (or my actions). I understand this is not the forum for that, but I simply can't allow an untrue statement about me (or my actions) to remain undefended as long as I'm aware of it. Huggums537 (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Once again I find myself lost and confused -- what false statements about you or your actions do you want me to stop making? The above was about my actions (you accused me of opening this thread about one source while neglecting the fact that you had brought up a few other sources on the talk page. Are you referring to my false accusation that you referred to the posts I linked in my OP comment here as being the same ones you listed on the talk page? It really looked like that was what you were implying with How could you have not noticed them when you posted them in the second paragraph at the very beginning of this section? was that, and I can't for the life of me figure out what else you could have meant -- I apologize if I am missing some alternative explanation that's staring me in the face, but I'm seriously struggling here... Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Huggums537: Okay, I wasted more of my time and checked. You listed five sources and I listed three. One of mine came from the same website (ScreenRant) as one of yours, but it was a different article (in fact yours dates from January 2016, so it would not even have made sense in the context of my comment). The other two were completely unrelated (except that MovieBob was then and might still be for all I know a freelance writer also working for ScreenRant). Kindly strike your embarrassingly wrong comment, and stop making these accusations now. You have already driven this discussion WAY off-topic.
To everyone else: I apologize for dragging this needless drahma to RSN. I'll be more careful in the future.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I was expecting you to say that, since you didn't use exactly the same sources as me because you changed it up a little bit. But, nope, not striking anything because the comment you made on this page here still clearly shows you knew about my sources because you included these diffs; [7] [8] in that comment, (which both have my sources) along with the claim that, "all I've been getting out of them so far[9][10][11] is that they are trying to match what the sources say". Give it up with your feeble attempts to try to suppress the truth. Huggums537 (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
No, the fact that the diff I provided included the comment in question is irrelevant. I checked the timestamp of the comment I had read, and dug up the diff for that. I didn't read everything in the diff I posted, because I was only interested in posting the diff for the comment I was referring to. And could you please stop calling me "hiriji"? I am not sure if it is some insult or slur, or if you honestly think that is how I spell my username, but you've done it enough times by now that it can no longer be considered a misprint. Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
By the way -- apart from saving myself a tiny bit of embarrassment (having forgotten your comment rather than not having noticed it in the first place), what motive would I even have to "suppress the truth"? Normally on Wikipedia, you are expected to assume good faith. Saying that someone is lying to push some kind of agenda requires a very large amount of evidence, but in this case you aren't even accusing me of lying to push some agenda -- you are accusing me of lying just for the sake of lying, as you can't even think of any motivation I would have for lying.
Anyway, this thread should be closed. I can honestly say that in my five years contributing more than 170 comments to various RSN discussions, I have never seen a discussion get this heated over literally nothing.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Hijiri, please don't try to create an ensemble cast by pinging me. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


Is this source:

  • Breeds reported by United States of America: Horse. Domestic Animal Diversity Information System of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

reliable for a statement that the American Drum Horse "is not among the forty-four horse breeds reported by the National Animal Germplasm Program of the USDA Agricultural Research Service to the DAD-IS database of the FAO"? It's been suggested here that it is inaccurate. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Reliable for that particular statement? Yes. Is that statement a WP:DUE inclusion? I would consider not. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
How so, Ryk72? Would you care to expand a little? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Certainly. I suggest that the interpretation of something not being on a list to support a statement that it is not on that list is not original research as meant by that policy. I also suggest that, without independent, reliable sources having at least mentioned this aspect, it does not seem that inclusion is aligned with our policy on neutrality - particularly: ... articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects; should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I would like to know if we can or can not accept as a reliable source to support notability? As per their Join us page anybody can join them and share write ups and ideas which they will endorse according to their editorial policy but I can't find what their policies are. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 03:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Some additional details on the editorial board at the About page. I would be inclined to consider the site as WP:USERGENERATED. It may be worth checking if any of the editorial board or contributors have an established career in journalism. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your responce Ryk72, I do agree it looks more like WP:USERGENERATED and my quick check found it’s a group of local journalists who run the website and they also write for some other local news websites as well. I can’t find if they have done any major work in their field or have produced award winning work and the website itself failing to pass WP:NMEDIA. I’m not expert in this category so I think we need someone with more knowledge to look into this matter, please ping if you know someone. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 07:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Indian News sources are often problematical due to style and tone. This e-news one seems to have an editorial staff, so I'm going to ask for wider input from Wikipedians from that part of the world. Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • comment: Though it is not criteria, their official Facebook page has just 4400 likes (followers). This might be an indication that the e-newspaper is not widely read/accepted news source. Apart from that, the language or reports does not look like professional. It is community newspaper so it might be run by common people who contribute stories.--Nizil (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Great Adventure History

I have recently been given cause to reconsider the reliability of a source I have used: Great Adventure History. The site is a bit glitzy, and there is a phrase at the bottom that states "This is an unofficial Great Adventure fan site." However, this site is not a wiki. It does not accept input from internet users who stop by, but rather the operators of the website research the information presented and they solicit information and photographs from others for consideration. I believe this site is reliable, it's just not encyclopedic in itself.  — Myk Streja (when?) 17:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I left out the following information: the article using this source is Haunted Castle (Six Flags Great Adventure). The source was used through out the sections Operation and Construction and history. Sorry about the omission.  — Myk Streja (when?) 20:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Why not just use the official site?Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The official site does not keep historical facts on attractions that are no longer being used and have been removed.  — Myk Streja (when?) 20:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Ahhh, so if it is noteworthy would it not be reprted e4lsenwere, rather then a fan site (which may not be all that accurate)?Slatersteven (talk) 07:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
And it is being reported elsewhere. Because others disparage a source does not make it unreliable. They call themselves fans, but they've been at it for ten years. Do you have a "hobby" that you think you can devote ten years to? I know I did: it's called a job.  — Myk Streja (when?) 08:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
No what makes it unreliable is not having editorial over sight (for example), thus it can include anything the author wishes. Just being in a hobby ten years ) I have been in at least two far longer then that) does not give you some special incite into (for example) manufacturing if the products (and I know people who are in the manufacturing side of it). What would make my views on my hobbies RS is people reporting what I say as authoritative. If the media do not care what this person thinks n why should we?Slatersteven (talk) 08:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Who says there's no oversight? There is obviously some sort of oversight, just look at the layout of the site. It's consistent throughout. I bet if you published a magazine about your hobby, you would get plenty of people to declare you an authority. Experience counts. If you however demonstrated yourself as a neophyte, you would be ignored. Think of the site as archeologists: they're digging up the past and preserving it.  — Myk Streja (when?) 17:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
It is not down to us to prove there is no over sight, it is down to you to prove there is some (and no being laid out consistently does not prove it, though grammatical and spelling errors can be seen as proof that there is no proper over sight). As to archaeology, there are a lot of amateur archaeologists out there, we do not use their work until an RS takes notice of it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Not reliable – As explained at WP:SPS, personal websites are self-published. If any of the material is worth reporting, it would have likely been published by independent reliable sources. Content that isn't reported elsewhere is cause for concern, as the potential lack of fact-checking is why most personal sites are largely rejected on Wikipedia. Anyone can build a website and claim to be an expert, or also claim to have thoroughly researched their content. Also, I question the overall presentation. There are a lot of grammar and punctuation mistakes, and generally poor phrasing in some areas. That really begs the question how many sets of eyes are really vetting the material. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment -Slatersteven: As you might guess, "Official Sites", usually being owned by the corporate entity which owns the theme park or attraction, are less than forthcoming about problems, injuries, lawsuits, disasters, and even things like attendance, income and bad reviews. We would never learn anything using the official sites, and anyway, they are unacceptable sources for most uses as they are self-published, first person accounts, most likely promotional in nature. Oddjob84 (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Wohhh, then I think we have an issue here. There is no way a SPS fan site should be RS for what would be litigious material. If it is not in RS why do we need it in an article? I think we really need to know what material you want to add.Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
We would never learn anything using the official sites, and anyway, they are unacceptable sources for most uses...
There are plenty of exceptions, so many in fact I'm not sure I would phrase this to mean "most uses". While press releases and other items tend to be promotional in nature, we often learn specific, factual details about new attractions including specifications, manufacturer info, themes, and opening dates. We may not repeat any peacock verbage, but we can easily sift that out to get to the useful facts. Also, don't forget that some of the bigger amusement park websites contain historical park information as well, including timelines. Information like that can also prove useful, as long as it's not self-serving per WP:ABOUTSELF. A first-person perspective on things is perfectly fine when the source is used in an article about itself. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Really? When was the last time you saw anything about ...problems, injuries, lawsuits, disasters, and even things like attendance, income and bad reviews.... on Disney or Universal's sites? I have personally caught errors in "official" park histories and timelines, whether willful or accidental I can't say, but there nonetheless. As to specifications and manufacturers, perhaps some of the small parks publish factual information, but the big guys don't at all, or deliberately distort it. I worked in this industry, personally know many companies and players, and actually saw many of these attractions designed and constructed. Marketing is always self-serving. And yes, I will stick with "most uses", see WP:Primary and WP:Rs#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Oddjob84 (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Yet an amateur can get access to all this information?
Again, we cannot use an SPS for highly contentious material. If there are injuries or lawsuits we could go to more reliable RS who would report them.Slatersteven (talk) 07:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, in fact, you can get access to all this information. You just have to be skeptical and dig. You might also read the article in question. The editor is using the SPS to support the color of the paint and the existence of a spooky sound system. That is not "highly contentious material". The portion of the article dealing with the injuries and lawsuits is fully covered by references from the likes of the New York Times and the NFPA, and is not the topic of the present discussion. Oddjob84 (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
So why all the strawmewn about accidents and litigation then? I find the idea that they have s "spooky sound system" and odd thjing for the official site not to say, as to the paint, does the official site not have pictures?Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
It should be clear that I'm not saying one should expect to cite an entire article on a primary source. That obviously goes against policy outlined in WP:ABOUTSELF. Material provided in reliable, secondary sources is always preferred over primary sources. My point was that there are situations when citing a primary source is valid, especially when it's in an article about itself. When the same information appears in a secondary source, cite that one as well (or in its place if the information there differs). Just wanted to clarify my position in case it wasn't clear before. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: The "strawmen" came about because a couple of editors jumped in with their opinions without understanding the nature of the discussion first. This discussion was never about the fire and litigation. As to official sites, I think you may have a fundamental misunderstanding of what they are. They are creatures of the Marketing and Public Relations departments. They are not about history, they are about selling tickets today and tomorrow. They quickly scrub yesterday's news. And aside from a "we are working with authorities to find the problem" they never acknowledge accidents and incidents. We generally have to depend upon "fan" sites at least as a starting point, to research anything which has closed and been replaced/removed. If you doubt me on this, I can give you a couple of very well regarded (famous, even) theme park shows to try to research. They might as well have dropped into a black hole. Oddjob84 (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
No we do not have to depend on fan sites, look at the pages already mentioned (how many fan sites are used on these?). What this boils down to is if a ride was famous it will have had RS report on its closure, if is was not then why should we mention the fact?Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment -Gonein60: -(First, a disclaimer: my remarks here apply specifically to pages on entertainment, in this case, themed entertainment.) Entertainment is seldom the subject of the scholarly or otherwise serious coverage which we would prefer to use. Worse, it is really ephemeral, dying out quickly in preferred sources, and often being the first material purged by the more serious publications. If not for the fan sites, many very worthy articles could not be researched at all. Yes, I absolutely agree that fan-like sites need to be carefully scrutinized and used very sparingly. I think the fact that all of the relevant Wikipedia policies I have read do make exceptions recognizes this. Sometimes the only available information is on a fan site. This faces the editor with making a judgement call, which is subject to peer review. Sometimes one can find several different fan sites which broadly agree. Sometimes a single site appears well curated. Sometimes the fan site agrees with patently obvious facts which are broadly agreed. My point here is that there is room for discussion, probably on a case-by-case basis. That is my input in this venue. I will take my comments on the specific article in question back to its talk page. Oddjob84 (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree. That's why we're having this discussion. I can see a fan site being permitted when it is referenced or cited by a reliable source, and is well-articulated in its presentation. But the exceptions are rare, and if there's problems finding good, solid publications to support the claims, then the claims probably aren't worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. No information is always better than shady information. Verifiability is an absolutely crucial part of one of the five pillars. We don't want to encourage fans to go creating their own personal websites in order to find a way to skirt policy here on Wikipedia, finding a backdoor way into getting their opinions and experiences through the door. There are plenty of other forums where this may be acceptable and even encouraged, but not here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
The fact that this page didn't appear overnight just so I could use it should be in agreement with your statement. Its seniority should be considered as an argument in favor of reliability. Not as proof, just as a consideration.  — Myk Streja (when?) 17:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The source being examined is not a fly-by-night website but is rather a labor of love. The editors there are doing the work because they have a great interest in the subject. They are currently celebrating their 10th anniversary maintaining the site. how many sources can you name that are still good after ten years, and I don't mean archived pages. There's another site I have come across that is similar in purpose that is relied upon heavily: Roller Coaster DataBase. It does not proclaim itself to be a fan site, but then who is maintaining it? I know there is a large list of contributors, but that just means they kept track of who donated information or photos to the site. Is it any more reliable than, say, IMDb? They, just like the GAH site, ask for input from people who have visited the objects of the site. GAH is simply focused on Great Adventure. As the article the source is being used in is about Great Adventure, the source is rich in relevant data. The data is gathered from current and former employees, visitors to the park, documents issued by the park and newspaper articles, some of which are included in the site in their entirety. The site is a reliable source for the specific subject. I wouldn't try to write an article on military history based on this source, but then it wouldn't be relevant.  — Myk Streja (when?) 20:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Valid question why is this other site RS?Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC) has generally been considered reliable by consensus. There is a history of questioning its reliability, though I'm not sure it's ever been brought up here at the RSN. If you'd like to begin a discussion on that source, I recommend discussing at the WikiProject first to get feedback from other editors who may have been involved in discussions from years ago. Then if needed, we can bring it up in a new RSN thread. As for the source being discussed here, you defend it in such a way as I have to ask the question, are you directly affiliated with that site in any way? Are you one of the "maintainers" or have you ever contributed to it? You should provide that disclaimer now if the answer is yes to any of those questions. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I am not impugning RCDB here, rather, I'm holding it up as an example of how an "amateur" site can be considered reliable. I will not use emoji here, so I can only try to convey tone. Please don't get defensive, and you need to stop attacking me; I did not attack you. As for my affiliation with Great Adventure: my mother asked me to go get my brother and sister from the park the night of the fire. I was 22. I had no idea what was going on until the following day when I read about it in the Asbury Park Press. As I recall it, I was stoned that night. That's it. I think I'm allowed a passionate defense of something I believe in. I believe in this source. If I did not defend it, then why would anyone else believe it to be reliable. If I really were stupid enough to bring to RSN, you wouldn't defend it?
You mentioned a history of defending a source. This RSN is the start of that history. Well, actually, our discussions on the talk page started it... You know what I mean.  — Myk Streja (when?) 17:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I haven't attacked you. I just asked if you had any affiliation with the GA History site. I realize you feel passionately about it, and if that question offended you, I apologize. My understanding then is that you have no affiliation, but you care about the source. Fair enough. Thank you for clearing that up for me. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see any way that this fan site fulfills Wikipedia policies on WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Wikipedia:Third-party sources sources have "no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic," and "cover the topic from a disinterested perspective." And "A third-party source is reliable if it has standards of peer review and fact-checking." Notability is another common issue when sourcing entirely to a fansite. If the specific topics are notable, they will be covered in truly reliable sources. First Light (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
So, any sources used by an article on Model railroading that are based on references made in model railroad magazines should be discoounted? How would these "standards" be determined? Are you going to tell me that you are using the "I know it when I see it" argument? The source being questioned is not the only source, but it does go to the history of the article's subject.  — Myk Streja (when?) 17:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
As they would have been published by a third party source with an editorial team (and police available to see) possible not. Of courts "Berts big model railway fanzine" would most likely fail., publishing it on line does not stop it being a self published fanzine.Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
A reputable magazine (obviously with editorial oversight etc.) is a reliable source unless the article in question is, for example, a sponsored or paid review (aka an ad), then it would not be reliable for most purposes. That's was "no vested interest" means. Seems pretty straightforward. On the other hand, self-published sources that are not by established, published experts in a given field are not reliable. The standard is pretty clear. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
At what point does a magazine become reputable? That's the issue here, when does a source become reputable, and at what level? If it's good enough for certain applications, then it needs to be taken that way on a case-by-case basis.  — Myk Streja (when?) 22:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
A magazine becomes RS when it is demonstrated it has a reliable publication process and that it is recognised by its peers as an authority in it's field.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Not reliable per all of User:First Light's points. I don't believe this is what is intended by WP:RS. Any notable controversial or newsworthy information would be reported by real sources. You could use a fan site to find legitimate sources like news articles if it provides citations. Being a "labor of love" (???) does not make for a reliable source. Look at the sources for List of incidents at Walt Disney World. That is what we should expect for any such articles. "If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." Has the creator of this site been published by reliable third parties in this field? —DIYeditor (talk) 11:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment@First Light and DIYeditor: and other interested parties: The article under discussion can be divided into two parts; about a third is exposition to introduce the attraction and the following two thirds is about a fire, loss of life and subsequent legal actions. The larger section on the fire is fully sourced with 40 references from the likes of the New York Times, the NFPA, and the State of New Jersey. This section in not under discussion. The above discussion is about the expository section wherein the "fansite" is used to source things like the color of the paint and the existence of a sound system playing spooky music. I think we can trust them to provide that sort of information. Oddjob84 (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I can trust my brother to be a reliable source for certain things. That doesn't make him a reliable source by Wikipedia standards and for citing information on Wikipedia. This site is also clearly not a reliable source for information on Wikipedia, period. Read the relevant WP policies, which you are not addressing at all with your answer. First Light (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Not reliable for any purpose on Wikipedia. It is a self-published site which is not by persons who have, correct me if I'm wrong, been published by reliable third parties in this field. The exception to self-published sites does not apply. There is no clear situation of peer review, editorial oversight, or expert reputation in the field. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • My "answer" above was not an answer, but an explanation of the point of discussion. I have, in fact, read all of the relevant WP policies, all of which make certain exceptions. My judgement is that this site does fall within the exceptions, for this article, particularly in that it supports only non-controversial statements about the attraction, none of which are otherwise available. Oddjob84 (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I have a hard time believing you have actually read WP:RS/SPS or WP:SPS. The exceptions are either that 1) the site creator is an established (published) expert or 2) that the source/creator is being as a source on itself. Those are the only two situations (exceptions) listed where a self-published source would be allowed. "non-controversial" is a condition applied to situation 2) which is not relevant here, and to which "it does not involve claims about third parties" also applies. Really straightforward if we are talking about those policies as written. And just to be clear WP:RS/SPS is a guideline and WP:SPS is part of a policy. Deviating from a policy would require consensus. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
You may believe anything you like. I have read the relevant policies and guidelines and stated my opinion. I do not recall, at any time, agreeing with you that SPS applies at all. Oddjob84 (talk) 03:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you would like to quote the relevant section?Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Slatersteven: Your challenge to follow you WP:down-the-rulebook-rabbit-hole is simply a resort to obfuscation in lieu of honest discussion. Your post above is a personal attack which is both gratuitous and condescending. Oddjob84 (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
How is a request for you to post a quote so we can see what you are seeing what we cannot see a PA? You have said that you read policy to say X, we cannot see this and so it would be a good idea for you to actually post the policy section you think supports your claim.Slatersteven (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
A fan site is a type of personal website, and personal websites are covered in WP:SPS. I'm not sure why you believe it is exempted from this policy. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
GoneIn60: I find nothing in the policy which specifically makes all fan sites self published. I do not believe the site in question is self-published within the stated meaning of the term. Therefore, I do not agree WP:SPS applies. Perhaps we could, and should, get back to the actual discussion, which is on the use of, and appropriateness of, a single citation, used in a way that could not mislead a fourth grader. Oddjob84 (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
That's exactly the sort of site anyone can and did make. Who is the publisher if not the site creator? Who is the creator? Who are the editors? Where have they been published with editorial oversight or peer review that qualifies them as experts? Just because this is a fluff topic doesn't make the standards for something being "published" or by a "published expert" not apply. Do we even know the name(s) of the site curator(s)? If there are grammar and spelling errors as has been indicated why aren't there other errors? We are kind of going around in circles and you don't seem to want to offer any direct reference to policy to support your position. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
You have apparently missed a few useful facts. First, I am under no obligation to do your research for you. If you had bothered to actually access the citation, you would already know the answers to your questions. Secondly, I am under no obligation to educate you. If you want policy references, go look them up. I have, and am satisfied my opinion is adequately supported. Lastly, if you are tired of circles, try engaging me in a substantive discussion. Oddjob84 (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually you are under just those obligations. It is down to you to convince us with reasoned argument and evidence that this site meets the requirements for RS, it is us who have no need to do that. If people say they are not seeing what you see it is down to you to show why they are not seeing it. But I think it is clear there is no consensus (and pretty much a majority with the opposite view) that this site is not RS, and thus we can I think close this now.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Among uninvolved editors here, mostly regulars who know RS policies, there is very strong consensus—perhaps unanimity—that this site does not meet WP standards for reliable sources. First Light (talk) 10:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Opps, I have altered the above to reflect what I meant (I created a double negative by mistake), a good example as to why spelling mistakes and poor grammar should be a warning sign that a site is not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Oddjob84, the others are correct. The burden lies with the editor(s) wishing to retain material whose source is being challenged, not the other way around. I'm still baffled that you do not consider this fan site a personal website, and because the phrase "fan site" does not appear in WP:SPS, you are claiming it doesn't apply. If we can't agree on this much, then further discussion isn't likely to lead anywhere. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
GoneIn60 The others, and you as well, are incorrect. I quote from the policy: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". I neither added nor restored the citation under scrutiny; I am essentially an interested bystander, "uninvolved" you might say. So there really is not unanimity. The term fan site does not appear in policy, and is not defined. You yourself have allowed that not all fan sites are necessarily unusable. The point of discussion really comes down to the fact that I think this site is credible for this use, and you do not. That is a valid point of discussion, on which we may never agree. But the virtue of that discussion is that both of us have actually bothered to read the article and look up the reference. Oddjob84 (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── A closer reading of WP:BURDEN may be in order. It clearly states (with my emphasis):

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references...

I simply did the courtesy of allowing the questionable material to remain, giving yourself and Myk_Streja time to either provide better references or to explain why you believe the source supporting that material is reliable. I was in no rush to remove it. Don't mistaken this courtesy for the fact that had I removed any of the material in question, one or both of you would have attempted to re-add it and defend the source as reliable. The burden ultimately lies on those who defend the source and the material in which it supports.

I'm not sure if you'll reach a similar understanding of the policies and guidelines, but I can assure you that these straight-forward interpretations have held up time after time. One thing that should be more obvious is the forming consensus in this discussion; it doesn't look good for the GAH site. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Unless we are in Wonderland, the WP:Burden quote changes nothing. "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". I am not that editor, and am mystified how you have decided my dog is somehow in this fight. Unless you have three precogs in your bathtub, you have no idea what I would or would not have done. Further, I note you have used the word "interpretations". So the written policy is only a guideline? Subject to the whim of whomever can line up a claque? I am continuing to discuss this with you as you have heretofore demonstrated respect for the Fourth Pillar and some awareness of the Fifth.
As to the GAH site, I researched and supplied Myk three reliable references to replace it days ago. I am according him the courtesy of letting him make any edits.
I leave you with a Japanese proverb: Don't fix blame, fix the problem. Oddjob84 (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
That passage illustrates an example of when an editor may decide not to remove material that is being challenged, instead notifying whomever it may concern, giving them time to fix the situation (or defend it). That is precisely what led us here to the RSN. Notice was served! As for your precog comment, which elicited a grin I might add, I didn't need them. Your comment on the article's talk page exposed your intentions and placed your proverbial dog in the fight. So no, I wouldn't consider you an uninvolved editor. If you discount the three of us who debated on that talk page, then there are three uninvolved editors here, all of which have weighed in against the source. It's great to hear that better sources are being considered as replacements. If followed through on, this would become a moot discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources issue

Hello, everyone. There is a discussion going on the talk page of Ehsan Sehgal regarding the reliability of the sources. Anyone interested could help us. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 12:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Daily Dharti

Numerous articles from this source have been used on the Ehsan Sehgal article, both to establish notability and to furnish biographical details (such as his army career etc). There've been multiple issues with other references on the page. One editor has stated they believe that the Daily Dharti does not constitute a reliable source as it's mainly an advertising paper. I'm looking for a second opinion on that. [Website is here]. Relevant footnotes in the article are 2, 4, 13, 15, & 17.

Thank you for any help.Landscape repton (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit: Apologies, I didn't see that the other editor had already made a request here. This is the same issue as that in the previous section, sorry for the duplication.

anyone can soon

i am not much familiar about wikipedia, i just want to sure about reliable sources, i am immediate family and i nominated article ehsan sehgal for removal because some people have hidden agenda to spoil article which twice was aproved notable, though, i nominated, i want to sure that the references are not reliable, because only that are not anymore online on newspapers website, but i have some links where can be seen the reality, can this helpful and these are reiliable? you can see the standard newspapers even dutch newspapers are being rejected because they are not online.

1 -

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moona Sehgal (talkcontribs) 08:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia and Hephthalite Empire

  • Source: White Huns
  • Article: Hephthalite Empire
  • Content: Used as a citation for these parts (bold texts):
    • There are several theories regarding the origins of the White Huns, with the Iranian[10][11][12] and Turkic[13][14]
    • For many years, however, scholars suggested that they were of Turkic stock.[14]

Is it reliable or could pass as an expert source for such claims? --Wario-Man (talk) 04:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Is The Australian Jewish News a reliable source for an interview it held with Brigitte Gabriel‎?

Earlier today I noticed that a quote from Gabriel during an interview with the AJN and sourced to the AJN had its source removed by User:Music314812813478 and a cn tag added.[9] I replaced it since it seemed sensible to use the interview itself as a source, and now a "better source needed" tag has been added and the quote changed from ""Every practising Muslim is a radical Muslim" to " "Every practising Muslim (Muslims who actually read and carry out what the Quran teaches) is a radical Muslim" (the material within the brackets isn't in the quote) with the edit summary " I clarified a statemebt to avoid possible confusion by the reader."[10]. None of this seems appropriate but as I'm also having problems with the editor on another article I don't want to revert at the moment. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The AJN is definitely reliable for the transcription of the interview quote in the article. I removed the tag. However, the quote was inaccurate, so I added the accurate quote from the AJN RS. Dr. K. 18:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Trouting myself for not having adequately checked the quote. Doug Weller talk 18:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
You are very welcome Doug. Trout is annulled since you did the right thing and reported this to RSN. :) Dr. K. 18:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Jihad Watch

I recently found more than 60 Wikipedia articles with citations to Jihad Watch. Do any of these citations need to be replaced? Jarble (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I've yet to see any reason why it should be considered a RS. The New York Times describes the website as Robert Spencer's "blog"[11]. The website has on the other hand frequently been described as promoting conspiracy theories and falsehoods.Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Should be blacklisted. Alexbrn (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Agreed.Slatersteven (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Checking past references here shows no formal consensus, but there seems to be a trend stating that it is an extremely slanted blog. It appears to be problematic when it comes to WP:NPOV. As for being a reliable source, it has been notated in many third-party publications, but rarely quoted by them. Everyone is very strongly for or against the anti-Islamic views expressed there. I would say they are reliable but should be used with extreme caution.  — Myk Streja (when?) 20:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
It is reliable enough, but editors should know how to use it properly. Nevertheless, editors should be free to use it.Music314812813478 (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Not RS - it's a blog run by a self-proclaimed expert with extremist views. It had no hallmarks of reliable sources (editorial oversight, independent journalists, etc.). It's just a blog with a major pov motive. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Not a reliable source - No evidence of significant editorial controls or fact-checking; it may be useful for attributed opinions, but it shouldn't be used to make claims about living people unless those claims are corroborated by other, qualifying independent reliable sources - and if they are, why not just use those reliable sources instead? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Not reliable for factual information Reliable for the views of Robert Spencer when attributed as such. Whether Spencer's views are sufficiently relevant or noteworthy to merit inclusion in any given article is a separate issue. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Reliable only for attributed opinions it is a WP:RSOPINION and WP:BIASED source. Should only be used with attribution, and only for opinions when considered WP:DUE. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 02:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Not a reliable source for factual content. It should only be used for attributed opinions, in the extremely limited cases where those would be due weight. It should not be linked in an external links section (as it is in, e.g., islam and antisemitism, where it was predictably added by an indefinitely blocked User:JanDeFietser). If links continue to be restored after removal, I would support a blacklist. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Not a reliable source for facts not related to itself or associated people, sometimes for attributable opinions A better search is [12] Doug Weller talk 18:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Not a RS for facts Group blog by authors with no scholarly or journalistic reputation for accuracy. May be used as a primary source in articles about its authors or when their opinions have coverage in independent RSs. Undue elsewhere. Eperoton (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Not a reliable source for facts; can be used only for attributed opinions as a primary source, and as with all primary sources that should be done rarely and with great care and only if DUE; that it is DUE would be shown by having highly reliable sources discussing it (not other blogs - we are not part of the blogosphere). Jytdog (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Andrea Martin's manuscript, Ceaseless Effort, documenting the life of Dainin Katagiri

Source: Martin, Andrea. "Ceaseless Effort The Life of Dainin Katagiri" (PDF). Minnesota Zen Mediation Center. pp. 18,19,26,30. 

Article: Draft:Dosho_Port


Dōshō Port (30 April 1956) is a Sōtō Zen rōshi (teacher). He is a Dharma heir to both Dainin Katigari Rōshi[1] and James Ford Rōshi[2].

Commentary: Andrea Martin's manuscript, Ceaseless Effort, documents Dosho Port's involvement with Dainin Katagiri.

Dainin Katagiri was a famous American Zen Master. He founded the Minnesota Zen Center. The MZMC Web site has a page documenting the history of Katagiri: "The Katagiri Project".  Andrea Martin is the official archivest for the MZMC.

Within the world of American Zen, MZMC is held in high repute. Their promotion of Andrea Martin's archival history is a stamp of approval and authenticity. The American Zen community considers the manuscript to be reliable and authoritative.

TooTallSid (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Verification of a source

Hi. Can anyone please check whether this Source be considered as a relaible source? I am apprehensive as though the publisher is reliable, but the author is a professional photographer who is writing about a historical monument. RRD (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Royroydeb: Could you tell us what article it is being used in or might be being used in? The general relaibility of the source is not important, since most of the stuff on Wikipedia that would be attributed to semi-relaible or generally unrelaible sources is actually uncontroversial and could be verified in better sources anyway. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but the reverse is also true; ideally, sources about historical monuments written by art or architectural historians should be cited for claims about historical monuments, but you need a better source that appears to contradict the one whose relaibility you are questioning. Pakistan Today is a newspaper with an editor, and the assumption about such sources is generally that they are reliable for uncontroversial claims. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
By the way -- it's not a good sign when I have to check your contribs to figure out what you are talking about, and doing so reveals you posted essentially the same thing on WT:RS and were specifically told to identify the content you wanted to address. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: I did not continue the discussion there as I was asked to start a discussion here. Anyway, I am going to use the source in an a article "Haveli of Nau Nihal Singh" which I will create. I also plan to use the plan to source the architectural details. RRD (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, if you're looking to use it for an article you are writing, then I would say you can probably trust it for non-extraordinary claims. Just be careful, and preferably try to verify as much as possible in more than one source. This is just generic advice, since I'm not a topic expert. Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Redskins and bodies

In the Redskin (slang) article, we currently have the statement:

"A third controversial etymological claim is that the term emerged from the practice of paying a bounty for Indians, and that "redskin" refers to the bloody, red scalp of a Native American,[13][14] or perhaps the bloody bodies left behind.[15]"

There's no dispute over the belief by some that redskin=bloody scalp/skin: we have the primary sources (e.g. Suzan Harjo), who have been referred to in secondary sources (e.g. the Slate and the ICT articles above). However, the latter part of the sentence is the bit we're having trouble with.

It's supported by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz. This is what she says: "The settlers gave a name to the mutilated and bloody corpses they left in the wake of scalp hunts: redskins." We have no secondary sources that refer to the suggestion that "redskin" refers to the bodies/corpses left behind. I've accessed the chapter in her book (via WP:RX - happy to email it to you for confirmation), and this is the only mention on the subject of redskins in it. Likewise, while she references other statements, this is unreferenced. So we have a single statement in the book that is not supported, or explained. It's not referred to by other RS, so it seems to me that it's not a notable opinion.

Is she a reliable source for the statement that redskins referred to bloody corpses/bodies? Bromley86 (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Exclude the second part of the statement in question. This opinion seems to be an outlier and its inclusion would be undue. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to cite another wiki as a source for info on Wikipedia ?

Is it appropriate to cite another wiki as a source for info on Wikipedia ?

  1. Please see article Battery Harris.
  2. First sentence of article cites another wiki as a source.
  3. The wiki is another website that anyone can edit.
  4. The wiki page is

Can we please remove this source as a cite on Wikipedia ?

Thank you, Sagecandor (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

No, as Wiki's (generally) have no editorial oversite and can be edited by any idiot who think it's funny to randomly insert the word "nipple" into every other sentence.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@Slatersteven:Thank you, so can we remove the wiki cite as a source from the article, Battery Harris ? Sagecandor (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
This particular wiki seems to have a regular crew editing it - and the pages are locked - it is impossible to edit anonymously (at least linked page and several others), and it isn't obvious it is possible to create a user. The locked pages are attributed to authors (in this case (and in several others) - John Stanton based on work by Bill Thayer)). In short - while running on wiki software, this isn't a wiki in the usual sense - it is locked for editing (at least this article and other finished articles). This still doesn't mean that it is a reliable source (I'm unable to evaluate the personnel there) - but it doesn't fall just because it is on wiki software.Icewhiz (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Per their about page: [16] - "FortWiki is an invitation only Wiki. This mode of operation keeps us spam free and restricted to people who care about forts. To get a login just send me an email and I'll fix you up." - so it's not open for editing in the sense of a "usual" wiki.Icewhiz (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The wiki page also cites Wikipedia, so that leaves us with a circular reference. I would leave the material intact and replace with {{citation needed}} for awhile. The second reference in that article is extensive and may already serve to back up the material in the first sentence. On that I would have one of the editors interested in military history look it over. -Location (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
If citing Wikipedia, ever, even once, makes a cite unreliable, then we have to take out the NYT and NPR. The problem isn't use of Wikipedia per se, it's its use as an authoritative, stable source. An expert source could easily use a particular snapshot of Wikipedia as a convenience cite; the problems come when Wiki itself changes underneath it. An expert source could also stove-pipe through Wikipedia to a rock-solid source, again, the problem is with Wikipedia's instability, not its accuracy at a particular point in time. Anmccaff (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
If 25% of the sources in NYT and NPR were cited to Wikipedia, then they, too, would be unreliable. -Location (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
No. If 25 percent of the cites came doesn't matter; what matters is the final aggregate output. Newspapers are very used to evaluating and weighing sources, and rejecting those that score too high on the bulshometer...or selecting them, if it's a bad tabloid. Now a particular article might fail, but that's true of any generally reliable source. Fortwiki is not an openly edited source. It's more like the NYT in that sense than it is like Wikipedia. It has a strong general reputation for accuracy; any challenges should be case-by-case, like they would be with other RS. The fact that it uses "wiki" in its name, which is the only part of @Sagecandor:'s argument that is not based on a falsehood, doesn't mean anything here, it's mere equivocation. Anmccaff (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Agree with all comments by Location, above. Sagecandor (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I too agree with Location, except that I would add that the problem is not so much the percentage, as whether we can be fairly confident that a source went through some kind of editorial fact-checking process. A lot of the material on Wikipedia is accurate and reliably sourced, so journalists consulting Wikipedia to get their information and then verifying it elsewhere is not a problem per se. Anmccaff seems to be largely missing the point here, as there is a huge difference between citing Wikipedia (which is technically what sources do when they say "Wikipedia says X, but it's wrong because Y.") and frequently taking factual claims from Wikipedia without verifying them, and not saying that one got them from Wikipedia. And then there's the fact that most of the stuff in NYT and NPR that Wikipedia might want to cite to them can easily be verified in multiple independent sources, so we aren't stuck speculating about whether they got this or that piece of information from Wikipedia. We should always be far more skeptical of outlandish and bizarre claims in otherwise "reliable" sources (I'd link a certain disastrously researched "book review" in a certain "reliable" newspaper source, which might as well have been sourced to Wikipedia, but I'd be potentially outing myself for reasons I don't want to elaborate on), than seemingly mundane information that they might have got from Wikipedia but that can be easily verified elsewhere. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm just going to add that there shouldn't be any confusion about this source. It's a private Wiki, but it's still a Wiki in which anyone that has access to the site can edit within. Getting access is not that hard. You simply send the site's creator, John Stanton, an email, and in his words he'll "fix you up". This additional step of requesting access helps weed out spammers in their eyes. Also, if you read the profiles of some of these editors, they're just like the average author of a personal blog; they're enthusiasts with a passion to share information they believe to be correct based on personal findings and/or experiences. The Fort Tilden article doesn't even use inline citations. It does list a solid reference or two at the bottom, however. The solution here is to avoid citing the wiki page. Instead, cite the book or CDSG website mentioned on that page for material you're able to verify support for. Everything else on that page is inadmissible until a reliable source for it can be found. Simple as that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Round Table India

This Round Table India article is used as a source at the P K Rosy biographical article. Round Table India is a Dalit activist advocacy website; it has nothing to do with the Round Table (club). The same site is used as a source in a few other articles where it is not cited to support a statement about itself.

We do not usually accept caste-affiliated website as sources in these circumstances precisely because they are advocacy bodies and their reliability is otherwise dubious. Should that apply to the Round Table India site, too? This news story might provide some background for anyone who is unfamiliar with what goes on. - Sitush (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Do we not accept caste affiliated websites as a rule?Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
As to the website in question, not getting much of a vibe either way, there appears to be an editorial team (of 2) but I cannot find what their editorial policy is. I would be dubious about using this, but cannot say no with any great certitude.Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Yep, caste-affiliated sites are a non-starter. - Sitush (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Could you please point to the discussion on this matter?Slatersteven (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The consensus was in existence when I turned up here 10 years or so ago. It is regularly applied but I'm not digging back a decade or more to find the original discussion, sorry. The problems with them include editorial oversight, glorification, sanitisation, and attempts to claim "ownership" both of people and events. - Sitush (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Odd because a search for "caste" does not bring up any such discussion that I can find, from over 10 years ago (or indeed any discussion prior to 2010 about caste, and that does not seem to say that we cannot use caste associated websites). So as far as I can tell there is no such consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Pfft. Well, you don't have to believe me, of course. Who says consensus has to be formed at RSN? It does exist, although this particular matter can probably be dealt with under the "advocacy" heading anyway. Dalit activism is rife. - Sitush (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Generally RSN is where we developed consensus on what us RS (that is why it is the RSN notice board). I am not sure where else we would develop consensus on a wiki wide policy relating to RS. Also whether or not Dalit activism is rife you need to show that this particular site is an activism site, and not just a Dalit one.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Shima: The International Journal of Research into Island Cultures

There's an article in Shima: The International Journal of Research into Island Cultures that I might like to use for Forewick Holm. It looks fine to me, but I'm not an expert on dodgy journals, and it doesn't have a WP page, so I thought I should check.

Its editorial staff:[17]
Its peer review policy: "All research and photographic articles are peer refereed by two or more assessors and reviews and reports are refereed by one or more assessor."[18]

That all looks good enough to me. Any comments? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 10:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Press Trust of Kashmir

Is this a reliable source? I'm specifically asking because of this article that was mentioned on my talk page in support of the notability of the subject of said article. Regards SoWhy 11:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Not seeing any editorial policy, or list of staff or anything to indicate this is anything other then a "peoples newspaper".Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The PTK basically functions a s news syndicate, and articles shared by it are often published by multiple news agencies, here's another link for the article mentioned above. This one appeared in a publication called Kashmir patriot. Samar khurshid (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

So then they do not in fact check the stories?Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Dear Slatersteven, The Kashmir Patriot is a very well circulated publication in the region, and you are more than welcome to check the authenticity of the story with the publication's editorial team. Regards, Samar Samar khurshid (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm doubting their reliability because of this. It looks pretty easy to send in some work to them, and I can't find any signs of an editorial board (let-alone an "about us" page). Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, there is [19]. Regards SoWhy 13:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
All rather anonymous.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA