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 lowercase sigmabot III.
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, 229, 230

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)

Primary sources at Great Mosque of Kufa

A user keeps adding a hadith to the article Great Mosque of Kufa, the source of which is the Bihar al-Anwar and some 17th century book by Mohammad-Baqer Majlesi (both WP:PRIMARY). Using them contradicts with the guidlines WP:ISLAMOR and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam#Resources, but the user keeps adding it on the grounds that some sources have quoted it. The sources are:

  •, a religious Q&A website [1] (The answer is not signed by the author)
  • The official website of the mosque [2]
  •, a news website (?)[3] (republished post of the personal blog of a cleric)

I already know that none of the sources are scholarly, peer-reviewed or considered reliable to meet the criterias mentioned in WP:ISLAMOR and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam#Resources, but I need consensus of several editors that can be relied upon. Pahlevun (talk) 11:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

This RSN topic is distorted. The sources are :

  • (, a religious OFFICIAL website by fa:مهدی هادوی تهرانی (The source is about being official and is alive yet :بخش-اخبار-59/121303-نامه-آیت-الله-هادوی-تهرانی-خطاب-به-فقهای-شورای-نگهبان) (elected as a member for Assembly of Experts in Tehran) and it is publishing Islamic official replies (no other one can reply or edit there and it is not a Q&A, it is like the Islamic Treatise Resalah(رساله) having problems? and the official answers) such as the Resalah of Naser Makarem Shirazi or Mohammad Fazel Lankarani.
  • (Great Mosque of Kufa) The official website of the mosque repeats the Hadith
  • Imam Husayn Shrine official website repeats the Hadith again :

and many other Shiite sources proving the Hadith. Also is based on many other library sources in its footer

The title of Dragon Gate is famous and has been mentioned by many News Agencies including ISNA. The user Pahlevun says why did I laugh to the Hadith :D and this is why he think the Hadith is not reliable :v (@Pahlevun What Hadith is reliable? the Masih ad-Dajjal : Bilgrami, Sayed Tahir (2005). "6". Essence of Life, A translation of Ain al-Hayat by Allama Mohammad Baqir Majlisi. Qum: Ansarian Publications. p. 104.) This source above is more reliable than the Bilgrami source --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 13:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Yet this [[4] makes no mention of any one individual.In fact it makes mention of "researchers" (plural), this implies it is not just one person answering. Thus with no by line we do not know who gave the answer.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
It is said in the about page of ( : "و این اولویت توسط مدیران و کارشناسان بخش فارسی، عربی و انگلیسی مشخص و مورد تأیید نهایی مدیران محترم بخش تحقیقات و خانه رایانه و ریاست محترم مؤسسه فرهنگی رواق حکمت قرار می گیرد، تشکیل می گردد."

translation : And this priority is proved by administrators and specialists of different language parts Farsi, Arabic, English and became proved by the admins of the research part and finally by the BOSS CHIEF :) officer of the Ravagh e Hekmat foundation (Hadavi Tehrani) --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 13:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Also there are many other sources too. How much do you want?مسجد-کوفه-در-گذر-زمان-تصاویر&catid=2279&Itemid=2882 --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 13:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

This is why I think this discussion need to be had here, I cannot find his name on that page (but this maybe a translation issue).Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: No the last one "sibtayn" was my mistake in copying the different URLs there are many more from hawzah (باب الثعبان + فیل elephant) :

  • الخرائج و الجرائج، ج 1، ص 189; الثاقب، ص 248; مدینة المعاجز، ج 1، ص 141 .
  • The right URL :ولائيات(باب الثعبان)&catid=627:2010-02-17-15-32-54&Itemid=3757
  • The right URL : sibtayn (this URL was hard to copy)

--IranianNationalist (Welcome) 13:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC) @Pahlevun Is there any problem yet? --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 13:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@IranianNationalist: I think the problem is that you are refusing to deal with WP:ISLAMOR and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam#Resources. None of these sources are RS. Pahlevun (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Can we let others chime in?Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I have seen this fragmented discussion come from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon gate, Talk:Great Mosque of Kufa, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Which is why I suggested here, it is a question about the reliability of sources. I was hoping that some Iranian speakers not party to the dispute might be able to comment on the sources, and how they are being used.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
"I cannot find his name on that page" @Slatersteven: said. REPLY: I didn't know when you read a book you are looking for the author name in every page of that book. When you read the official website of the Hadavi Tehrani (I repeat at least for the 4th time proved by Jamaran :بخش-اخبار-59/121303-نامه-آیت-الله-هادوی-تهرانی-خطاب-به-فقهای-شورای-نگهبان) as it is said in the about page of the website ( : "و این اولویت توسط مدیران و کارشناسان بخش فارسی، عربی و انگلیسی مشخص و مورد تأیید نهایی مدیران محترم بخش تحقیقات و خانه رایانه و ریاست محترم مؤسسه فرهنگی رواق حکمت قرار می گیرد، تشکیل می گردد."

translation : "And this priority is proved by admins of the research part and finally by the CHIEF officer of the Ravagh e Hekmat foundation (Hadavi Tehrani)" then you have a secondary reliable source proves the website to be official. Official ar:تصنيف:استفتاءات ARE NOT public Q&A and not a kind of a Q&A website. I ping @Darafsh: a Wiki Fa admin here.
For example when you have an official website such as you don't ask for the name of author of every page to use it in the Bahá'í_Faith article. --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 17:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'm not willing to participate in this discussion because of personal issues. Best regards Darafsh (Talk) 20:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@IrainianNationalist: You can't use other Wikipedias as a source as I see you did at the AfD. I'm sorry but your translation still doesn't make sense. I saw it earlier and it completely confused me. You can't use a Hadith for proof of anything other than what it says, and you certainly cannot "prove a Hadith". But perhaps you don't literally mean that. I see that Islamquest is run by this group. I would be interested in knowing why it shows up on this list. Looking at the article I'm not sure what "The Hadith has many different forms in some cases as a large Snake or as a Dragon, in some cases it is not kissing the feet and in some cases the Snake or Dragon is talking about a conflict between Jinns not Jaber ibn-Sami' but the base of this Hadith is" means - I hope it's not a direct translation from something. It really doesn't make sense. If you are saying that there are various versions of the hadith then we certainly shouldnt choose one to include, and I frankly don't see why it's needed at all. Right now that bit of the article is confusing to an English speaker who isn't familiar with the sources. Doug Weller talk 16:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
@Doug Weller "other Wikipedias as a source"?!! it is a completely fallacy, I'v never did such a thing (you couldn't provide a link for your claim :) ). It is weird when you use a Sunni FORUM ("this list") for your claims??!! The Hadith is needed because the background of the door name is the Hadith (do you have any other background in reliable sources?) I provided many sources above including Hawzah and IslamQuest which they are reliable. Also the Official website of the mosque is reliable. Even Slatersteven had no more reply. Darafsh can't participate in this talk because due to another subject in Wiki fa I gave him a gift (it may be seems as a conflict of interest) but I pinged him because I know him from a list of Persian users active in WikiEn. I will try to find the list again and ping some users here to say you to sources are reliable (because it is clear no one of the participants are familiar to Farsi or Arabic language excluding Pahlevun(Farsi)) Also @HyperGaruda: is a few familiar to Arabic to prove the source sibtayn but there are many reliable official Farsi sources so I will ping some users here (I wonder from the users who are not familiar to Farsi or Arabic but they adjudicating about the sources). --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 08:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I apologise, I misread a source and thought it was a Wikipedia. I wasn't using the forum as a claim, I was asking a question about it which you haven't answered, or was stating that it was Sunni your answer? I'm pleased to see that the article is now less confusing. Doug Weller talk 10:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

To those users trying to remind different policies to attempt to show me as a newbie (These are the 94 articles I built in WikiFa(translated or created) + many more other edits) (To avoid prejudices or misunderstanding) @Wikimostafa: is an experienced user familiar to Farsi (probably Arabic too) and is an impartial Muslim user. --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 08:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Also @Huji: a Farsi Wiki admin (impartial user approved by Muslims too) --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 08:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem here is that one of your sources does not say the door is called the dragon door (it does not in fact mention the door) It just relates the tale (whilst also saying it says snake as well), and in fact the quotes from the haddith (in the article) all say snake. At least one other of your sources calls it the serpent door.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@Slatersteven, But the subject you forgot to remind is that ALL of MY SOURCES are talking about the Greate Mosque of Kufa and about a dragon gate or serpent gate exactly (the only difference is about a Serpet talking in the Mosque or a Dragon talking in the Mosque. Persian Shiites call it Dragon but Arabs call it serpent, simply) :
  • (اژدها in this source means Dragon but الثعبان in this source is something like hydra or ultra large weird crawler between a dragon and a snake (for this reason it is translated to serpent NOT SNAKE)). Different understanding between the translations but all of them are talking about باب الثعبان
  • sibtayn IS ARABIC and EXACTLY TALKING ABOUT THE HADITH AND ABOUT THE Serpent or Dragon gate (باب الثعبان).
  • These two are enough I don't repeat the list of sources I provided above.
The question is : Are the opposites rationally talking about choose between Dragon or Serpent or Both reminded as different understanding of the same Hadith or they just want to censor the Hadith due to being weird (There are many weird things including Masih_ad-Dajjal Hadithes too) --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 09:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Then we have a problem, because this A: Does not say anything about the door (it is just about the passage in the HAddith) B: it says snake (not dragon). This is not about censorship (and this is the last time I will ask you to stop making comments or accusations about users) it is about the fact that what you say it says does not seem to tally with what we are reading, thus we need other users of Arabic to check the sources. Until that is done we cannot be sure what your sources actually say.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@Slatersteven, Ouch! The bab (باب) in Arabic means DOOR (Did you know that?) and the باب الثعبان is only one location in the Shiite world as it is reminded by the official website of the mosque ALSO the Islam Quest is talking about the MOSQUE OF KUFA DIRECTLY (مسجد کوفه).
  • It is a COMPLETE Fallacy when someone says the name of the mosque is not the source!!!) (GOOGLE TRANSLATION) IT IS WONDERFUL WHEN YOU CAN'T SEE THE KUFA MOSQUE NAME THERE!
  • Or when you can't see Kufa Mosque in the this! (GOOGLE TRANSLATION) : كان عليّ بن أبيطالب (عليه السلام) يخطب بالناس يوم الجمعة على منبر الكوفة --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 10:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I do not see dragon. It is not enough for Source A to say Door and source B to say dragon, you need a source that combines both. This is pure synthesis.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
This has also been taken here [5].Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@Slatersteven You SHOULD NOT search in the Hadith for the door name (باب الثعبان) (ARE YOU DOING AN ORIGINAL RESEARCH?) You must see the serpent or dragon door in the secondary source (previously links provided by me) again :
  • sibtayn Qom : GOOGLE TRANSLATION
--IranianNationalist (Welcome) 11:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
AI will bow out now and ask others to chime in.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not dragon gate anymore it is serpent door in the Article :

The Serpent door

The Serpent door in Arabic (Arabic: باب الثعبان‎, translit. Bāb al-Thu‘bān, lit. 'Gate of the Serpent'‎) or Dragon door in Farsi (Persian: در اژدها‎‎) is a famous door of the mosque.
I repeat : I don't have any problem to use Serpent door (I never have had) or any other thing provided in the sources. The problem is when Pahlevun says the official high-ranked clerical sources "are not reliable" and tries to clear the article from the background of the door name (this is censorship I told repeatedly) and @Slatersteven: you supported him from one side(ok, it was a misunderstanding) --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 11:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I asked you to lay of accusations against other users.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Can't approve the "serpent door" is clearly in the sources? There are no other problem between the article text and its sources both are talking about Serpent and Dragon door(Arabic and Farsi versions).
Pahlevun (Hero in Persian language) is a Persian user can read all the sources easily why should he make an RfC for article deletion (instead of MERGE) or say ISNA or clerical sources are not reliable (at least spend a few thinking and googling time) Special:Diff/800401183 How much other similar edits can we find? Ok it was my mistake talking about him and he was not gonna violate from the wiki policies (he was probably not aware of the Shiite holy locations).
OK, now there is no problem with the sources and the article. OK?--IranianNationalist (Welcome) 11:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@Slatersteven Special:Diff/801056989 Avoid WP:RUNAWAY stay on the main discussion --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 11:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: The above user is still IranianNationalist despite the different signature. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: I changed my signature (however it is blue yet clearly :) ) to avoid being accused to be National zealot in the views of other users :) --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 08:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Random break

Honestly, it would be better to refrain from using self-published websites as sources, especially if there is no editorial oversight by a third party; see WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:RSSELF. All sources mentioned by IranianNationalist have a vested interest in promoting their religious beliefs (the Mosque of Kufa wants more visitors, while clerics would like to attract more believers in the spirit of da'wah) and while such bias is not a reason per se to dismiss their reliability, I'd urge you to find more secular sources such as (art) historians and etymologists who published their works via reputable third party publishers.
That said, I am against including entire hadith quotes, because: 1) they interrupt the flow of the text, 2) there are often various versions, so which one are you going to include without violating WP:NOTQUOTE? 3) they give the impression of da'wah which is a form of soapboxing, 4) they are borderline violations of WP:ISLAMOR and WP:PRIMARY, 5) real encyclopedias hardly ever use them. A short summary as given in a reliable secondary source is all that is needed to understand the background of the gate. --HyperGaruda (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I agree, all we need is a short summary from a reliable secondary source. I don't understand the insistence of keeping the hadith in the article and again, I agree with all 5 points you make above. Doug Weller talk 15:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
A "reliable secondary source" that HyperGaruda mentioned, is what I said from the very beginning. Constant PAs towards me, makes me less willing to discuss. Pahlevun (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Airlines and destinations

Over at WT:AIRPORTS we are trying to determine how to reference the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles (example). As you can see, providing secondary sources like news reports (example) for all the destinations is unfeasible. As a result, we would have to rely on primary sources - information direct from the airlines. This does not seem to be a problem as WP:OR states that A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts – that is all we are doing, listing the destinations that airlines serve.

Such primary sources are the following:

  • Route maps (example). These are typically interactive as you see in the example. Is this acceptable? This appears to qualify as a reliable, published source, as the information is made available to the public in some form, even though it is interactive.
  • Timetables that the user has to search manually (example). These theoretically require a user to search every possible combination of destinations to verify that the information in the table is complete and accurate. As a result, I don't think this type of source is acceptable. Thoughts?
  • The airline's actual booking engine. I don't think this should be allowed either, per my reasoning for the timetables.

We managed to find two "secondary" sources that provide extensive data on airline/airport operations: CAPA Centre for Aviation (example) and Flightradar24 (example). I put "secondary" in quotes as these sources are just displaying information from reservation systems and the like (see the disclaimer at the bottom of the Flightradar24 example). Even if they are primary sources, I guess they would be fine as well?

I know I asked a lot of questions so thank you for any insight you can provide. Our discussion at WT:AIRPORTS appears to have grown stale, and we don't seem to have a firm consensus yet. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 17:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Honestly? If you cannot provide secondary sources for this information, given how extensive it is, you probably shouldn't have this information on Wikipedia. These destination listings have always struck me as WP:NOTDIR violations. --Izno (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I completely agree. If others haven't written about a topic then we probably shouldn't either. ElKevbo (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
These tables have a long history on airport articles; here is a 2005 discussion I found about them at WT:AIRPORTS. People have raised issues with them (example and example), and there was a RfC that I introduced in 2016 regarding their removal/replacement. Many in the WT:AIRPORTS community came out to defend the tables, and consensus was to keep them. Ssscienccce's argument here does appeal to me. At the same time, I fear that the removal of these tables would drive away a lot of editors/readers, as they have grown into a focal point of airport articles. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 21:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • This issue is a reminder that we have no policies for Maintainability.
    Looking at the JFK article, it appears that the idea here is to post current airline destinations.  This is a goal that is a moving target, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper.  So perhaps the first thing to do to reduce the scope of effort, by picking an "as of" date.  If the lists are too long to expect that they will be read, such as Delta Air Lines in the JFK article, perhaps cut back to samples of destinations, or maybe use the country of destination instead of the airport of destination. 
    When a primary source is the source of authority for something repeated in a secondary source, the primary source is generally more reliable.  Reliability is what matters.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree 100% about the "current airline destinations" point – seems to me like a MOS:RELTIME violation. I'm also interested in your point about scaling back the tables. Proponents often state that the tables are a clear way to determine the size/scope of an airport, but prose-style summary could have the same effect I think (see what I've done at Calgary Airport here and here). Sometimes these tables (and statistics ones too) look like plain almanacs with little to no explanatory information.
      Your point on primary sources in this case also sounds good to me. The airlines wouldn't want to publish incorrect information for their customers. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 22:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with those who say that these lists are too close to being NOTDIR vios. I do understand that the airport project members have repeatedly stated that they want them... but perhaps it is time that the broader community spoke up to over-rule that WP:LOCAL consensus. Blueboar (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

This seems like a case for WP:IAR with regards to NOTDIR. As long as the content is clearly accurate and volunteers are willing to keep it up-to-date, the articles are better off with this content than without it. I think primary sources are generally sufficient here. Airlines used to publish PDFs with this information [6], but that appears to be becoming less common. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Power~enwiki, then would you be in favor of using any of the primary sources I listed above? — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 22:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
A primary source is a perfectly valid reliable source for non-contentious information about the primary source. An air carriers own published destinations is fine to source the destinations it serves. No secondary source needed. Unless someone is going to seriously argue that an airline is lying about where it flies (although being the internet, one probably has at some point). The question of if that information is encyclopedic is another matter. But as far as sourcing goes, there is not real argument not to use primary in this case - if the info is deemed relevant to include. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you Only in death, my question was which type of primary source (of the ones I listed above) would be appropriate. For example I gave my reasoning for why I think searchable timetables should not be used as references. Thoughts? — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 15:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Thats the least useful of the 3. Routemaps where available would be the most efficient from a WP:V angle, airline booking systems are not actually that bad as you can usually tell (if its a good one) where they are flying to quite quickly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Only in death: "Unless someone is going to seriously argue that an airline is lying about where it flies": in my own, not-so-extensive experience, I've bought tickets from A to B, and, after a wait of a couple of hours, from B onward to C; for which airline X gave the very strong impression that it would fly all the way; only to find that my flight from B to C was on the plane and with the staff of the very different airline Y. I believe it's called code-sharing. If you're an assiduous reader of the small print, or know where to look, then you might find that no, X doesn't fly between B and C; it just has a contract by which it can say it does this. Though I hesitate to make an accusation of lying. That matter aside, don't lists of destinations become obsolete rather quickly? -- Hoary (talk) 13:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
RE your last point, personally I think that's the reason why they shouldn't be listed. Its unencyclopedic cruft. As the information is subject to change. But that is a different discussion and not really related to the reliability - except where as above, a primary source is better in some cases because it will provide up to date information (excluding your example) rather than secondary sources which will generally be out of date. I will say that in the UK when booking ongoing flights, where the ongoing is a different carrier, it is clearly marked. The situation may be different elsewhere. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Hoary, that is correct. WP:AIRPORTS has 15 rules(!) for the "Airlines and destinations" tables as you see here, and rule #2 explains that codeshares should not be listed. However it's interesting to see your perspective on this. You will note that for American Airlines' route map, a person needs to know to click "Routes" and then untick "Add AA Connections" and "Add AA Partners" in order to remove codeshare information. As an aviation enthusiast I don't even think about it, but now I see it's not so clear for others.
Regarding your last point, I'm not sure. The tables of airports in the US, Canada, Europe, etc. are updated so often (IPs do a lot of the work) that they tend to be accurate. I guess that means changes are indeed frequent? Meanwhile, articles on airports in China, Africa, etc. do not receive the same amount of attention at all. Also, I think the fact that the tables appear "current" (i.e. there is no "last updated" date provided) violates MOS:RELTIME.
Only in death, I am noticing that a lot of editors outside the WP:AIRPORTS community do not really support these tables. I've held two RfC's about this at WT:AIRPORTS (here and here - the latter is still active, sort of): the first one was dominated by airport-article editors, and the second has gone stale with a seeming lack of consensus. I've struggled to attract input from people on the "outside" until now. In terms of a discussion to seek consensus, do you (or anyone else) have any suggestions? — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 01:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Beware BuzzFeed articles for at least a day after publication

BuzzFeed run multiple versions of articles for the first few hours, A/B testing what gets most readers. It's not clear from the article whether this applies to the RS serious news content or just to the fluffy clickbait content, but I would advise waiting at least a day before using their RS content - David Gerard (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Are the actual articles changed - or just the lead/teaser to get people to read them? If the content changes, then we are up the creek, if it is just the heading, then we should simply use the "latest available" one - just to avoid confusion? I tend, moreover, to find Buzzfeed to be "less than reliable too much of the time" and IMO should be avoided as much as the DM. Collect (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I've noticed this practice on quite a number of clickbaity sites. It's not uncommon at all, but this thread title is very good advice. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Any site like Buzzfeed that, while possibly generating truthful information, but whose principle M.O. is to tease headlines and images to draw readers (and the above linked articles shows the length they will go to that) should not be an RS for us. I know that not all of BuzzFeed's content is like this, but this is the equivalent of a tabloid shouting a tempting headline to make you buy the paper to learn more. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
      • The BuzzFeed News section has generally been an RS up to now. (It's really surprisingly good.) It's operated separately from the cute cat videos section. I'm flagging caution at this stage - David Gerard (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Alternatively, we could ignore articles for a day from ALL sources. Why are people in such a hurry?:) Objective3000 (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Or better yet: 1 week, excluding corrections and clarifications. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I absolutely would be in favor of a "wait at least 24 hours" rule for all news outlets. Even the best, most reliable news sources can sometimes get the story slightly wrong at first (as it is breaking). The morning edition of a major newspaper may be updated or corrected in the mid day or evening edition. A "wait" rule would help us to present updated and accurate information. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Personally I wish people would remember that news stories about current events are PRIMARY sources. But we don't always get what we want... Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
As per WP:NORUSH there is no harm in doing this for BuzzFeed nor other sources. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Reference for Business's Encyclopedia of Business (Advameg)

1. The source page in question is here: [7]

It seems to be a tertiary source, which is its own issue, but I'm having a hard time discerning whether it's a reliable tertiary source. We don't have articles on either Reference for Business or its apparent parent company, Advameg (though articles on the latter were repeatedly deleted back in 2006). The page in question includes a list of "Further Reference" newspaper articles which may or may not be what the RfB entry on Oregon Chai is based on; unfortunately none of them seem to be archived by Google Newspapers. It also leads with what looks like a company mission statement but does not seem to be sourced entirely or even mostly to the company's own statements about itself.

2. The Wikipedia article this would potentially be used as a source for, currently at User:Tk8kpgt/sandbox/Heather Howitt, is a userspace draft about the founder of Oregon Chai; I'm a Teahouse volunteer who has been working with Tk8kpgt to try to build a proper article based on independent reliable sources. Sources 3, 4 and 5 as currently listed in the draft are there not to support the sentence they follow but rather were placed there by Tk8kpgt simply because that's the end of the current draft text.

3. Tk8kpgt and I would be using the parts of the source in question with biographical information about Ms. Hewitt, if it is deemed to be reliable, to flesh out the draft. Thanks in advance for your analysis. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 12:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

not seeing an editorial policy (or who can edit it), looks like just another paid for entry business directory.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Update: found the actual source (RfB seems to be stealing the content): / International Directory of Company Histories

So it turns out that the Reference for Business / Encyclopedia of Business source is mostly an uncredited mirror of this article, which is apparently a credited copy of an article in something called the International Directory of Company Histories (copyright date 2006). I've never heard of the International Directory of Company Histories but I wouldn't think would republish it if it weren't a reliable source? I checked the archive and in the past it seems articles were considered to be only as reliable as (and should be credited to if reliable) the sources they cite. I also checked the archives for the International Directory of Company Histories, and the last time it was asked about, the discussion petered out without real consensus. Sorry for the confusion and thanks in advance for opinions on the International Directory of Company Histories as a source. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 17:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Court document as sources for statements of fact and quotes from the judge at Murder of Ross Parker

Murder of Ross Parker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Here two court documents are being used both for statements of fact and quotes from judges, references (at the moment) 3 and 52. I usually try to avoid such documents and rely on secondary sources, but in this case are these uses within policy? Thanks. User:Doug Weller 13:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY says Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Of the three uses, the first is supporting a statement about the nature of the crime (rather than a comment about living people) the second directly was supporting both a statement of fact (the appeal was denied) and an assertation about the character of one of the convicted - I have removed the second statement regarding their remorse as this clearly falls into the above - and the third reference is quoting the judge's comments on the changes in sentencing guidelines, rather than about the living person. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with this. the BLPPRIMARY stuff should be to avoid using transcripts, documents submitted as exhibits, and other things not part of the presiding judge(s)' decision that have BLP claims, though obviously if filtered through a third-party RS (like a news story covering the trial) so that they are pulling the key language they feel is necessary, that avoids the OR and BLP. (eg ZeniMax v. Oculus I wrote, I stuck to the statements made by parties as reported by RSes, not court papers directly). However, the judge(s)'s statements from court decision documents as primary would be fair game, since what the judge(s) decide has weight of law behind it and is not going to be a BLP violation. It's still better to try to use the highlights of a decision captured by a third-party RS to know what parts of the decision have the proper weight, but that's far less a problem compared to using the other material from the court filings. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Could you possibly clarify the point you're making above please becasue it isn't really 100% clear to me? You say you agree with the decision to remove the second statement, yet this removal is of a "judge(s)'s statements from court decision documents". Specificity, there were 4 possible grounds for appeal and the statement was a significant factor in denying the fourth and final one. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the "exercise extreme caution" clause of WP:BLPPRIMARY, however, I'm not sure that I agree that public documents should never be used. To me "exercising extreme caution" means that we need to be careful that a) we don't cause harm to someone by violating privacy issues and b) we don't cherry-pick material in violation of WP:WEIGHT in order to lead a particular POV.
From the article's edit history, I assume THIS and THIS are the documents in question. Maybe I'm not viewing them correctly, but I don't see the phrase "true remorse is therefore lacking" in either of those documents. -Location (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for everyone on their thoughtful input on this issue. While we do indeed need to exercise caution, part of the notability for this case stems from the later admissions of the media's failure to report on what was they agree was an extremely serious case and how this contrasted with their blanket coverage of other cases. This issue pattern reoccurred with the murder of Kriss Donald, albeit to a less extreme extent. Therefore, for some issues connected to the case there tends to be a relatively small number of reliable sources available, and those can lack sufficient detail/clarity, thus creating the need to use primary sources at times where permissible. FYI the quote in question does exist, you'll find it here: [8], it's obviously a very important piece of information, but it's unclear whether we can use it at present.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Unpublished FBI assessment, court report, other dubious sources at List of Juggalo gang subsets and Juggalo gangs

I posted to Talk:Juggalo gangs "This article relies heavily on a 2011 FBI report and an assessment that was the basis of it. Cryptobomb certainly fails WP:RS and the Publicintelligence source, which is an FBI intelligence assessment called "Juggalos: Emerging Gang Trends and Criminal Activity" was " isseminated for authorized law enforcement purposes only" and we should not use it directly. It formed the basis of the FBI's 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment that we do use, and that's the only FBI source that meets WP:RS. BitDefender blocked so I haven't looked at it but I can't see how it could meet our criteria. At Talk:List of Juggalo gang subsets I mentioned the same issue with the FBI assessment. That article also uses a court report and something called I'm sure there are a lot of bad guys there but we still need to follow our policies and guidelines. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I would agree it doesn't met RS, specifically via WP:V (not purposely published in an accessible manner). If a reliable source (eg like NYTimes) got it and discussed in in their terms, we could use that as the source, but we'd still not able to use/provide the original FBI report in that manner. --MASEM (t) 17:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Making citations with photos/no textual evidence

Got a question.

Lately, I've been noticing that citations used to reference stuff is used via photos with no textual evidence and such. I feel that this shouldn't be used.

Here's an example of someone who's doing this:

Ominae (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I would like clarification on this, too. There is also an example of this in Mary Moorman in which an editor cited a series of still images and placed "She [i.e. Moorman] and her friend, Jean Hill, can be clearly seen in many frames of the Zapruder film." In this example, I wouldn't know who is who unless I had read other sources. -Location (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Using a photo by itself to cite something would be WP:Original research most of the time, as in this case. You would need a reliable source that interpreted the photo in that way. Of course, you could also add the photo the article for illustration. First Light (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Blog reliability at Mug shot publishing industry

Saw a section reverted with the claim "unreliable source", the section was added back in, and I found a reliable source to verify the information (I added mine and removed theirs). The editor who added the original source is bordering on an edit war with me trying to re-add their original source. I'm coming here just to verify that it isn't an RS.

  • "Florida Mugshot Bill Signed". Jason J Watson Mugshot News. June 5, 2017. Retrieved September 22, 2017. 

It's a blog, hence my concern. My other concern being that the editor has only edited the article where it was used, making me think it might be a COI issue. Primefac (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can create a website or a blog. I can find no evidence of reliability. BTW, the About page contains nuggets like "On the seventh day when Nigger Jesus said “Let their be scum” he was born, of a rib from a harlot. He sucked more dick than a bag whore dope sick. Because of this, he contracted Aids". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the source from the article.[9] Other editors may wish to add Mug shot publishing industry to their watchlist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I missed that part of the about, but it definitely doesn't lead one to think that the source should be trusted. Primefac (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC) is a self-published source with no evidence that the author is an expert previously published, in the field it covers, by reliable third-party sources. So it may be used, within limits, as a source for unexceptional claims about the website and the opinion of its author, but not for statements of fact about third parties. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, it is not a reliable source. One may search Google SwordOfRobinHood (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Internet Broadway Database

Can Internet Broadway Database (IBDB) be considered as a reliable source in BLPs? DrKilleMoff (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@DrKilleMoff: Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. It depends what you're using it for. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Not IMDB, IBDB.DrKilleMoff (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


Is this Uproxx source [10] reliable for the following statement at the article Jill Valentine: "The actors who featured in the live-action cut-scenes and performed the voice work for the original Resident Evil game used pseudonyms." I hope to promote the article to featured status so keep this in mind when assessing if this source is reliable enough to support that statement at an FA article. Freikorp (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

No. That "article" is mainly personal editorial commentary on the game, and identifies (?) some of the actors, but does not use the word "pseudonyms" nor is the use of a "stage name" normally so characterized. The "article" asserts that their work was abysmal or deficient, and is not of a level suitable for use in any article in my opinion. Then again, I am not a person who thinks Wikipedia needs lots more articles on video games as a rule. Collect (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Collect: Thanks for your reply. The article does use the term pseudonyms though - "for obvious reasons all of Resident Evil’s actors went under generic pseudonyms like 'Charlie' and 'Inezh'". The article's author has also written for IGN (and other notable publications); there is a consensus that IGN is a high-quality source for video-game related featured articles. Does this change you opinion at all? Freikorp (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Nope. It is not a serious piece of journalism, and it deals in opinions and not facts. Sorry, but Wikipedia has quite sufficient cruft already, and this part (wow - an actor in a game does not use their real name!!! Wow!!) is of less than minor value. Collect (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources arising from Hearst Communications digital media strategy - celebrity reality TV Wikipedia editing

So a comedian named Josh Gondelman has teamed up with Hearst Communications to set up a reality-TV-celebrity-Wikipedia-editing web property called "Wiki What?", in which Gondelman plays "wikipediatrician" and provides "Wikipedia consults" for celebrities, "editing" Wikipedia "live" and this is videoed. The resulting edited videos produced by Hearst are posted to Facebook. These facebook videos were then used as actual sources in subsequent actual edits.

Another Hearst publication, Esquire Magazine, has promoted the web series in articles. An editor replaced the facebook video refs with the Esquire refs, and these are what you see in the instances below.

This Hearst digital marketing strategy is clearly described in this article, called "Behind Hearst’s Facebook Watch Programming Strategy".

The edits by the initial editor, Mrazzle, are being discussed at COIN but the question for this board, is whether we should consider the Esquire articles and/or the facebook videos as reliable sources.

These web videos and Esquire articles are used in several articles as follows (I have left in a few other refs where necessary):

With her horse Roanie,[1] ... With a second horse, Colby,[1]...


  1. ^ a b Rense, Sarah; Gondelman, Josh; Upton, Kate (22 September 2017). "Kate Upton Doesn't Like Her Wikipedia Page Photo" (Includes video). Esquire. 

  • T.J. Miller (used to source the exact punctuation of "T.J." - nice PR placement as 1st ref in the article, right?)

Todd Joseph "T.J."[1] Miller ...


  1. ^ Bruney, Gabrielle; Gondelman, Josh; Miller, T.J. (September 3, 2017). "Watch T.J. Miller Have a Check-Up with the Wikipediatrician (Wiki What? #1)" (Includes video). Esquire. 

Lawrence Gilliard Jr.[1] (born September 22, 1971)[2] ...

Gilliard was born in New York City.[1][2].... Jada Pinkett Smith and Tupac Shakur were classmates of Gilliard's at the Baltimore School of the Arts.[2]... Gilliard decided to pursue acting instead of music, attending Juilliard School for three years.[2]

He joined The Walking Dead cast as a regular, playing Bob Stookey, as of season 4, appearing in thirteen episodes up until he got another job on a new show,[2] which led to his character's death ...

Regarding the craft of acting, Gilliard has said "I do some of my best character work in front of the mirror... If I believe myself then I'm like, 'Alright,they'll believe me.'"[2]

Gilliard has stated that he "loves dessert, especially ice cream and cake."[2]


  1. ^ a b "Larry Gilliard: Biography". Yahoo! TV. Retrieved 2009-02-17. 
  2. ^ a b c d e f g Miller, Matt; Gondelman, Josh; Gilliard, Jr., Lawrence (18 September 2017). "Lawrence Gilliard Jr. of 'The Deuce' Explains the Tupac Connection on His Wikipedia Page". Esquire. 

On the eve of the season 7 finale, Bradley explains on the show 'Wiki What?', "If you think they aren't keeping [Samwell Tarly] around for a reason, you haven't been paying attention."[1]


  1. ^ Miller, Matt; Gondelman, Josh; Bradley West, John (8 September 2017). "'Game of Thrones' Star John Bradley Reveals His Actual Name in This Hilarious Video (Wiki What? #2)". Esquire. 

John Bradley West (born September 15, 1988),[1] credited professionally as John Bradley, is an English actor, best known for his role as Samwell Tarly in the HBO fantasy TV series Game of Thrones.[2][3]

Bradley West was born and grew up in the Wythenshawe district of south Manchester.[3] Bradley West has an older sister who is 13 years older than him.[1]

Growing up in Manchester, Bradley West did not have a friend that was a boy until he was 12 years old. As a young boy, Bradley West was obsessed with the Spice Girls, specifically Ginger Spice. "A lot of people ask, 'Why did you get into acting?'" Bradley West said on the show Wiki What? to host Josh Gondelman. 'Genuinely I said to myself when I was about 8 years old, 'I have to get famous in order to meet Geri Halliwell.'"[3]

John Bradley-West is a fictitious name usage that Bradley West created in drama school. His real and birth name is John Bradley West, with no hyphen.[3]

Bradley West is Catholic.[3]


  1. ^ a b Fire and Blood (3 June 2011). "Interview with John Bradley". Winter is Coming. 
  2. ^ Wigler, Josh (17 July 2017). "'Game of Thrones': John Bradley Describes Shooting Premiere's Filthiest Scene". The Hollywood Reporter. 
  3. ^ a b c d e Miller, Matt; Gondelman, Josh; Bradley West, John (8 September 2017). "'Game of Thrones' Star John Bradley Reveals His Actual Name in This Hilarious Video (Wiki What? #2)". Esquire. 

On the one hand, I also don't consider reality TV to be a reliable source for anything... on the other hand, the celebrities "really said" these things. But I don't edit content about celebrities so I will leave this for others to judge. Jytdog (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems to me like there is not much editorial control. These are basically interviews and as such primary sources that are not independent of the subject. I think that these things therefore can be used to source uncontroversial details (such as where a person grew up), unless there are reliable secondary sources that contradict this. Whether the kind of trivia listed above belong in a bio is a question for the respective userpages, I think. The Wiki What? editing is, of course, pure COI editing that should be avoided. --Randykitty (talk) 09:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • They're sources that the subjects "really said" these things. Which is UNDUE. They're not RS sources that these claims are true.
What's the problem? What isn't covered under basic Wikipedia 101 editing policy? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
* I am more than a little confused. The Media Industry Newsletter (MIN) article that is being used to support the claim that there is something sinister and deliberately manipulative going on here is simply describing the process of how the digital media is being created. It is not a description of a Machiavellian approach to infecting or influencing content on Wikipedia. Median Industry Newsletter in and of itself is a niche, paid, subscriber-based insider organization that is creating this content. It is not the greatest citation and to use the organization as a basis for this argument actually undermines the strength of the concern itself.
* Esquire is a legitimate news source. Yes the prior link was to only the video on Facebook. In my opinion and experience editing Wikipedia, I know that Facebook, although they are starting to host original content, is not an ideal source for a citation. The Esquire article is also a lot more descriptive, as it is an article with the video -- and is not just the video itself. So based on the fact that it is a mainstream publication, I replaced the Facebook video link with the news article link from Esquire. This is an acceptable use of a source for the citation.
* Just because this has to do with celebrities doesn't mean that the celebrity has less rights to control or say over what is in their article. This is their right under BLP, and to use it as a basis for argument here -- as the reason to see there is something bigger picture here than there actually is -- is misguided and wrong. -- BrillLyle (talk) 10:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
WP:BLP does not give a celebrity the right to "control what is in their article". What BLP does is limit what anyone else can add to the article about them. Blueboar (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


The page in question is here. I'm wondering whether people consider it to be a reliable source because it's listed as one of the trusted publications on Rotten Tomatoes. The article where this source is used is on Valley of Shadows. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:26, 24 September 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