Page semi-protected

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
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238

Website from IITG/RCILTS

  1. Source: [1]
  2. Article: Kamrupi dialect
  3. Content: [2], [3]

The above changes are challenged by @Bhaskarbhagawati: and so I would like to solicit opinions on the reliability of the source listed above. The website claims that Kamrupi is not one but a group of dialects. The exact quote is follows:

Several regional dialects are typically recognized. These dialects vary primarily with respect to phonology and morphology. A high degree of mutual intelligibility is enjoyed among the dialects. Banikanta Kakati has divided the Assamese dialects into two major groups. They are:

However, recent studies have shown that there are four dialect groups, listed below from east to west:

  1. Eastern group spoken in and other districts around Sibsagar district.
  2. Central group spoken in present Nagaon district and adjoining areas.
  3. Kamrupi group spoken in undivided Kamrup, Nalbari, Barpeta, Darrang, Kokrajhar and Bongaigaon.
  4. Goalparia group spoken in Goalpara, Dhubri, Kokrajhar and Bongaigaon districts

This website and the text itself is quoted/referenced in a conference proceeding&mdhas;Nath et. al. "A Preliminary Study on the VOT Patterns of the Assamese Language and Its Nalbaria Variety", p543. The senior author of this article is a lead researcher in a different institute (Tezpur University). Some of the recent research has been on a number of Kamrupi dialects: Barpetia dialect, Nalbariya dialect, etc. For example, the PhD thesis on Barpetia dialect—[4]—was submitted to the Gauhati University. Some more discussion is listed here: Talk:Kamrupi dialect#Kamrupi dialect -> Kamrupi dialects

I believe it is fairly established that Kamrupi is a group of dialects, and not a single dialect all by itself as it has been accepted by the linguistic community. I seek the help of this noticeboard in establishing the reliability of the source, or failing which the recommendation of any other source. Thanks.

Chaipau (talk) 07:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The source mentioned above was written as tourist brochure many years ago.[citation needed] The references it provided itself are less reliable, none was written by any noted linguist or deals primarily on subject. Dr.Upendranath Goswami, a pioneer linguist wrote various works on 'Kamrupi language' including his Phd thesis which later published as book in 1970 as 'A Study on Kamrupi', besides he wrote dedicated works on Assamese language, Deori language etc. Nonetheless, his prime focus was Kamrupi language, ascertained by numbers of works, listed in the 'Kamrupi dialect' article. So, i believe this article should follow works of experts rather than lax sources, when there is content dispute.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 09:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I do not believe argument to authority applies in Linguistics. Goswami's work, published in 1970, is 48 years old, and much work has happened since then. If Goswami's work can extend Kakati's work (Kakati identified two Assamese dialects - Western and Eastern), then later Linguists can extend Goswami's work as well. Chaipau (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
You have misrepresented a few things above.
  • U N Goswami did not work on a 'Kamrupi language' but on the Kamrupi dialect. The title of his thesis (1958) was A Study on Kamrupi, a Dialect of Assamese. [5]
  • Goswami himself pointed out the three different varieties of Kamrupi. In page xxv he writes: "These dialectical varieties can be grouped into three divisions..." [6] Thus, the RCILTS website restates Goswami.
Therefore, the RCILTS and the recent works on dialects are extensions of Goswami's work.
Chaipau (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I would like to invite some editors who have participated in Assamese language and Kamrupi dialect article and talk pages to this discussion: @SameerKhan:, @Tuncrypt:, @Aeusoes1:, kindly contribute to this thread. Chaipau (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm all for finding more recent research, but I don't think this particular source does a good job of establishing the authority needed. It's a tertiary source and, although it's missing inline citations, presumably the sources it cites can be used to confirm the results of more recent research (and, if needed, any sources the source's sources cite). Someone's got to do the hard work of finding where the above source got its information and then we can use that to back up our edits.
That said, I don't see much reason to doubt the source's information. Bhaskarbhagawati says that the sources cited aren't by "noted" linguists, which is so completely arbitrary and subjective a measure as to be meaningless. If the sources are linguistic ones, we can use them. If the sources are sufficiently academic and back up linguistic claims with linguistic sources, we can use them. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 20:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
This is precisely my problem—and the reason for the request for RS comments on the website. We know who delineated the Eastern and Western dialects of the Assamese language (Kakati); who divided the Eastern dialect into Eastern and Central (G C Goswami); and who defined the Kamrupi dialect and thus divided the Western dialect (U N Goswami). But I see no single work that states that Kamrupi is actually a group of similar dialects. Instead I see many works (PhD thesis, conference papers, posters, journal papers etc.) on individual dialects of Kamrupi: Barpetia dialect, Nalbaria, South Kamrupi etc. All these works implicitly assume that Kamrupi is indeed a group of different dialects. The only reference I have seen that states this situation explicitly is the RCILTS website, which in fact, gets cited in academic papers as well (link above).
Chaipau (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
It is a case of WP:WEIGHT, there is no serious research done on the subject after Goswami (1970), we can find few casual references here and there.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
That is a remarkable statement. Though Goswami published his thesis in 1970, he had submitted it in 1958. The claim that no serious work has happened in this area in the last 60 years is untrue. Chaipau (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I accept aeusoes1 (talk · contribs)'s comment that the website's information is correct (that the Kamrupi dialect is a group of dialects), but that we need better sourced references. Chaipau (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, aeusoes1 is party in various disputes on the subject.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
It is OK for you to not agree with others. But that does not mean you have veto powers on Wikipedia. Chaipau (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2018


I take it as WP:CAN.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Not true. I have requested WP:RFC from all those who have contributed to related subjects. Chaipau (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Reliabilty of source can be ascertained by anyone active in noticeboard.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 22:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Jeremy Bates New York Jets Quarterbacks Coach

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

Fox News reliability RfC

withdrawn Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Following on the discussion above (permalink), the following is proposed, as the community stance on Fox News as a source, generally. Within this, as always, each specific use to support specific content must be evaluated in light of the content policies.

Fox News is generally as reliable as CNN, NBC, and ABC for mundane facts unrelated to politics, but is deprecated for political subjects. Therefore it should be used with caution regarding politics and its opinions clearly attributed.

--Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC !votes

  • Strong oppose this was already discussed ad nauseum above. Fox News is as reliable as CNN, NBC, NYT, etc. And don't waste your time badgering/bludgeoning me with the "false equivalence" assertions already made the above thread. I have no interest in such wikilawyering. Lepricavark (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support Fox News is a right-wing outlet, proudly so, and this affects not only its commentary but its news programming, in terms of selectively self-censoring news for political reasons. See, for example, "'I want to quit': Fox News employees say their network's Russia coverage was 'an embarrassment'", by Oliver Darcy, CNN, October 31, 2017. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per previous discussion on this Darkness Shines (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Although I agree that Fox News should be used with caution regarding political topics and opinion, the same could be said for many other media outlets. Fox shouldn't be singled out this way. Edgeweyes (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • support Fox is equivalent to RT. Treating it like legitimate sources is corrosive. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Terrible idea. Deprecate all right-leaning news outlets AND all left-leaning news outlets, or deprecate none of them. TimBuck2 (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • support But with the caveat (as I have said more then once) that in truth this should be applied to all news outlets that allow opinion to masquerade as news. We have to start somewhere, and it seems to be Fox is as good a place to start. I really think it is time to stop using scandal rags and political mouthpieces as sources.Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, obviously, but in the certain knowledge that in the current partisan environment this will probably not achieve consensus, because for some, to say that Fox is not RS is tantamount to saying that right-wing opinion is de facto incorrect - that's not at all what we're saying, but it's how the tribal media have led people to see it. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • oppose. This is a remarkably simple-minded approach to a complex problem. News sources of every type should be thoughtfully evaluated on a case by case basis. Deli nk (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The caveat likely should apply to every remotely controversial topic by any source, in fact. That some editors might loathe a source is insufficient for supporting this RfC, alas. Collect (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Jytdog summarized the evidence against Fox below. It's not very conclusive. --GRuban (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC) (UTC)
  • Oppose Fox isn't much worse than other mainstream sources, and certainly not on the level of the DM and other prohibited sources. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC discussion

  • I don't have time to read through previous discussions. Can someone(s) who supports the proposal please put forward their best, most concise explanation for it? I'm particularly interested in links to reliable, fairly recent analyses that evaluate Fox News' reliability for themselves, perhaps discussing recent mistakes and how the newsroom responded to them. The ideal source would be something from Columbia Journalism Review or similar caliber. I'm not interested in learning more about the bias of Fox News' opinion programming, of its news headlines, of its website layout, or of its coverage decisions. News reporting content only. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure "mistakes" is the issue; all sources occasionally make mistakes, and even The New York Times runs corrections often (usually of very small stuff such a name spelling). The issue is bias in the news reporting, as I mention (with a link) above. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes (and thank you for the link, btw) but you see, the complaints in that article were about opinion programming and news coverage, not about news content. If anything the article suggests that Fox News reporters are getting it right, but that their stories are getting demoted and ignored by the talking heads and headline writers. The article is also only about coverage of the Mueller investigation, which is much narrower than the proposal. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I would offer you the obituary of Roger Ailes who established the fundamental "messaging" of Fox News: "'If we look conservative,' he said, 'it’s because the other guys are so far to the left.' In his mordant humor, CNN stood for Clinton News Network and CBS for Communist Broadcasting System. What Fox News did, he said, was apply a necessary corrective." This is, by all reasonable accounts, a huge lie and a corrosive poison injected into the body politic of America, that rendered the world "truthy". And this NYT profile, "He implicitly injected the news with politics — and set Fox to the right of its rivals — even as he professed to be doing the opposite."
User:BullRangifer had posted the following above:
  1. Their American politics reporting is very GOP biased.

    They aren't quite as close to center as CNN is on the left, but more like MSNBC is to the left. Pew Research Center is good on this. (Play with this.) They often literally won't mention basic political facts and news stories which are counter to their own GOP POV, and when they are finally forced to do it, it's with very heavy spin.

    My wife, who isn't political at all, will sometimes switch back and forth between CNN, ABC, MSNBC, and Fox, just to see how all MSM are discussing stories, but Fox is discussing some minor event of no significance, and often it's a distraction. She points it out.

    They refuse to cover stories against their POV, and then only with spin that turns it into actual falsehood and propaganda. Sins of omission have consequences. Good propaganda is often without direct lies, but by omitting certain information the effect is very deceptive.

  2. Their fact checking is weak, and correction of publicly noted errors is slow, and usually without apology. There are many well-known examples of this. Seth Rich is one we have mentioned. Another one that's current is related to Peter Strzok#Fox News coverage.

    This means they are literally fact checked by other MSM, which forces them to finally make a correction as the caboose, way behind on the train of facts.

    When they have a GOP talking point or POV to push, they are like a bulldog that won't let go. It blinds them so their bias is very obvious to anyone who compares news coverage, and they have occasionally repeated fake news from the extreme right.

    The pathway from Russia to Fox News has been described by Paul Wood:

    "This is a three-headed operation," said one former official, setting out the case, based on the intelligence: Firstly, hackers steal damaging emails from senior Democrats. Secondly, the stories based on this hacked information appear on Twitter and Facebook, posted by thousands of automated "bots", then on Russia's English-language outlets, RT and Sputnik, then right-wing US "news" sites such as Infowars and Breitbart, then Fox and the mainstream media. Thirdly, Russia downloads the online voter rolls." Source

    Note that Fox picks up a few of the fake news stories, but by that time the MSM is aware not to do it.

  3. Fact checkers have rated their accuracy last among the major MSM.

    This is directly related to this RS policy. It has to be weighted heavily against them.

    1. Fox's file at PolitiFact

    2. Comparison of MSM at PolitiFact.

    3. Snopes

    4. Fox least trusted in 2014. Pew Research Center

    5. Fox News Pounded In Ratings As Truth Mounts a Surprising Comeback, Newsweek

-- Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the links Jytdog, they quantify what the issues actually are, beyond the rhetoric. Unfortunately, the Newsweek article is strictly an opinion piece, no facts. The Snopes link isn't actually to an article? The Pew and PolitiFact links are actually useful, but don't show a clear line between Fox and the others. Pew says Fox is trusted by 44% of respondents and CBS by 46%, I'd hate to rule we don't trust Fox over such a small difference. While PolitiFact says 60% of statements from Fox are Mostly False or worse, which is terrible, but it also says NBC's statements are 44% Mostly False or worse, which isn't much better - I wouldn't consider treating a source which gets 44% of its statements wrong as a reliable source. I can only assume that means PolitiFact aren't differentiating between news and opinion statements, surely 44% of the news reported on NBC isn't wrong. But in this case it may well just mean that Fox has more opinion commentators, not that its news coverage is inherently less trustworthy. I don't watch a lot of TV, but understand Fox is actually famous for having lots of shows dedicated to commentators, correct? So if this is the best evidence against Fox being like most of the other American mainstream media outlets, it's not conclusive. --GRuban (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
As I already pointed out above in the discussion, 'Politifact' is not useful as a comparison to other sources or even representative of the true distribution for any one source (it is actually useless as a judge of anything but each individual claim itself). It is not random sourced, but rather a representation of submitted inquiries that they then look into. No system like this can ever result in a representation of the true picture. Saying "PolitiFact says 60% of statements from Fox are Mostly False or worse" is complete BS, because you should be saying is: "PolitiFact says 60% of statements from Fox selected for investigation by our viewers and that we bothered to looked into are Mostly False or worse". If most of those statements it checks are stuff that people flagged because they thought it was false (a very safe bet), then the statement is actually closer to "PolitiFact says 60% of statements from Fox that people thought were false were Mostly False or worse" which of course is meaningless to judge the actual reliability of all statements from Fox. Could I skew the numbers by requesting them to look into 100 random statements that appeared very true? Sure, but would they bother reporting on the truth of obviously true statements? Probably not, which is another clear reason why bias shows up in this kind of system. Politifact is USELESS for the purpose you are trying to put it to. Please stop. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

This RfC is getting ambiguous responses because it raises two separate issues with one yes or no question. We need to solicit editor opinions separately on political and non-political content. From the comments it appears that editors are Opposing this not because they feel Fox is RS for politics but because they feel it is not RS for anything at all. It's a nuisance, but I suggest restarting this with two separate questions. SPECIFICO talk 22:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

  • I agree. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I pulled this. Somebody else can pose something else if they like. Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
FYI... I would oppose on any RFC that singled Fox out... but I would support a statement cautioning readers about political coverage on ALL media outlets. We can set harsher reliability criteria if we want... but we have to be even handed about it, and apply whatever criteria we come up with to all news outlets. Blueboar (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
That is a rather foolish position. You would put the political coverage of Fox on a par with the Washington Post? Fox was founded by a Nixon adviser who thought the real problem with Watergate was the Washington Post. The two are very much not equivalent. Obviously all media has an editorial line, but the problem with fox is that the editorial line interferes with news reporting (as it does witht he Daily Mail, for example), in a way that reputable news organisations try to avoid. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, no one has provided the type of source I requested. All of the sources provided fail in one way or another to address the central issue of whether Fox News' news reporting is reliable. I am not saying that Fox News is reliable. I am saying that editors are talking past each other, and since the "unreliable" camp has a very heavy burden here, unless editors start listening to and responding to the other side, there is virtually zero chance we will see any sort of blanket ban, even a partial one. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • No one is seeking "any sort of blanket ban, even a partial one." Deprecation is not a blanket ban, but a limitation, in this case regarding "politics" and "use with caution". That's it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • If we've discussed this before...and the discussion was closed, then had the RFC withdrawn, what exactly do we think will change in this discussion? Shouldn't this have closed with the RFC? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

As this has now been withdrawn why is it still being argued over?Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Fine with me. Hat or archive it. Whatever works. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

comment Honestly, as I was trying to suggest before, the reliability of a source (like fox) that is generally reliable should be reviewed case by case.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

  • i left this open to see if there were ideas about how to reframe the RfC. I don't agree that any of the opposes were because people were saying Fox is unreliable for anything -- all of them are clearly opposing the deprecation. I still kinda think a multi-option RfC would provide a better sense of the community consensus.... Jytdog (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I was looking for the chart of common media sources byy bias and found it again today: Guy (Help!) 20:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Well that seems super-well researched and reliable. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
      • ...but even if you accept that "" is a reliable source, it only lists one particular Fox News show. There is more to Fox News than just The Daily Wire program. It is not unreasonable to think that Fox News could be reliable for "Olympic snowboarder breaks neck after fall in competition" but not as desirable a source for "ABC News, Joy Behar slammed for Mike Pence joke" (both current headlines for Fox News, according to my search engine). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, The Daily Wire is Ben Shapiro's extremist website. The listing is not referring to a Fox program. Fox News is included as itself, without reference to any of its programs, such as Fox and Friends. That would have ended up in the bottom right corner as Putin's echo chamber. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting it as an article source, but the woman who runs that site analyses massive quantities of claims line by line. It's written by a practising attorney, and she publishes her methodology: And anyone who doesn't think Fox News is biased is frankly delusional - even if it is presenting a neutral depiction of a kitten being rescued from a tree, the chiron will be telling you about how the Florida shooter was a communist who followed ISIS. CNN is biased too, but their balance of news to punditry is better and they seem to at least care about factual accuracy rather than ideological truth. Gotta feel for Shep Smith though - his segments are starting to look like hostage videos. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and I knew I'd read this, so went back and dredged it up. CJR describes perfectly the specific and unique problem with Fox.

Stewart suggested that Fox’s tendency to mislabel opinion as news is what differentiates the network from other, more traditional news sources. But that’s the least of it. The more important distinction is the conservative slant and essential inaccuracy of much of Fox’s news reporting itself. Stewart conceded Baier’s premise that because Fox has reporters stationed in Middle Eastern hot spots their reporting on world affairs is above reproach. It is not.

Emphasis mine, to distinguish CJR's view from Stewart's. This isn't FAIR or some other politically activist media watchdog, CJR is a serious source. Guy (Help!) 16:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not likely to use any television program as a source (since I have no television and therefore never see their promotional ticker stream), but I don't think we can or should ban it. For one thing, WP:BIASED sources are explicitly permitted: e.g., "Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context". For another thing, when it is inaccurate, it should be possible to exclude it on grounds of WP:DUE. This would be the case, e.g., when most sources say X and a Fox News program says Y. I don't see it as being fundamentally different from any other news source, except that we are much more likely, upon close examination, to reject the source because an alleged news article is partly an opinion piece masquerading as news and/or doesn't represent a mainstream/consensus position on the facts in question. I see it as a problem of degree, not of type. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, you write: "can or should ban it". No one is seeking a ban, but a "use with caution" for politics deprecation. That's all. Fox News is different enough for real news sources to warrant such a deprecation. No ban is being sought. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • In regard to American politics, and foreign events connected to American politics, Fox New is a central and integral part of the right-wing echo chamber. It is totally unreliable in those contexts, and for anything else which the right fights over, such as climate change. I would only recommend using Fox News as a source for the most mundane of facts, in which case there will almost always be better and more reliable source which can be used instead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
While there's no question there's a right-wing echo chamber of which many of Fox's commentators fall within, there's just as much of one from the left. There are very few sources today that attempt any type of neutral play on politics without any bias. Doesn't make these unreliable when they talk straight-up news, but when we look towards their editorial content, it can be difficult to see wholly original thoughts amid the opinions that bounce around that echo chamber and equate that with UNDUE/WEIGHT. It's all more towards why we should not be writing in as much detail about ongoing political topics per RECENTISM, at least when it comes to reactions and analysis, and wait for the dust to settle when people will be writing about the situation with more level heads. It's easy to pick on Fox for this because they have very few other RSes that share that echo chamber (Brietbart, etc. not being RSes) and make them look standout compared to all other sources, but we have to recognize that there's a bit of echo-chamber those other sources share too. --Masem (t) 14:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Political bias is no reason to exclude a source of OPINION, but that bias is call for concern when the "news" source which called itself "Fair and Balanced" for so many years (now the pretense is gone) consistently ignores facts it doesn't like, or, when it does mention them, it alters and twists those facts to the point where the result is propaganda. That's not a NEWS channel, but a propaganda channel in the "entertainment" division of Fox Entertainment Group. That was the purpose for its creation by Roger Ailes. He was the media consultant for multiple GOP presidents and the RNC, and wanted an unofficial channel for the GOP. He allied himself with Rupert Murdoch, an enemy of democracy, and created his dream. It's not a normal news channel, but a GOP propaganda network.

We must recognize these differences and deprecate it with a "use with caution for politics" label. This is not a ban. It can still be used for mundane facts. In those cases, it doesn't mix, without mention, its political spin/opinions with the news. It can state such facts perfectly well. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Salon Newspaper an Opinion website ?

Hello in the actual Wikipedia article about Salon newspaper it states in the opening line that Salon is a "News and Opinion website". Salon_(website)

If this particular website is half just opinion - why are Salon articles counted as a reliable source in quite a few Wikipedia articles? That is especially taking into account the very trashy and grotesque language that is obviously acceptable.

Has anyone looked into the opinion versus news dichotomy, in terms of accepting Salon articles as proper encyclopedia references of fact?

Thank you for your time. Maryanne881 (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It has multiple editorial staff [7] as well as a dedicated corrections page [8]. I have not fully looked into the dichotomy of the two sections though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Maryanne881, some of their articles are news stories, and some of them are opinion pieces. You may cite the news articles for facts (just like you would cite your local newspaper, which also contains opinion pieces), and you may cite the opinion pieces for facts about the opinion being presented (e.g., "Rita Reviewer wrote that the movie was fantastic"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • It's very context dependent. Salon has a pronounced leftward editorial bias, but its reporting of science can be very good indeed. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Guy and WhatamIdoing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • News and opinion means that it has both news and opinion sections (and the two are clearly delimited.) The news sections are citable as news (its editorial slant should sometimes be taken as context, but isn't itself something disqualifying under WP:RS - see WP:BIASED), and the opinion section is citable as an opinion under the usual WP:RSOPINION rules. --Aquillion (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

USA Today article on a book

I'd like to know if this news article is reliable to determine notability of the article The Spark: A Mother's Story of Nurturing Genius specifically with the criteria of WP:NBOOKS. Weddle, Eric (April 8, 2013). "Boy genius' celebrity grows with new book, movie deal". USA Today.  --Prisencolin (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions above: "please be sure to include the following information, if available: Links, Source. Article, Content." Certainly USA Today is a reliable source for what is published in USA Today. It may also be reliable for other things, but you have to specify what. TFD (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: the edit warning box suggests using a particular format but I've revised the first post to be more understandable.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
This isn’t the place for this question, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Spark: A Mother's Story of Nurturing Genius is. --Calton | Talk 09:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Multiple sources are needed for notability. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Now that you have changed your post, it is not, as Calton says, an issue for this notice board. But to answer your question, the Emir is right that multiple sources are required to estaablish notability. Whether or not this article helps to establish notability is best discussed in the AfD. TFD (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Can the Toronto Sun be used as a citation in Wikipedia?

User T****** wrote that the Toronto Sun is an unreliable citation. I looked in Wikipedia article, Toronto Sun, and it doesn't confirm this. Is the Toronto Sun, which appears to be a major newspaper of Toronto ok to use as a citation in Wikipedia? Vanguard10 (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

For context, here [9] is the post in question. Wikipedia:QUESTIONABLE would exclude most North American tabloids as they have a reputation for the opposite of fact-checking. WP:BLP requires the highest quality sources for claims about living persons. Unless and until there's a consensus that the Toronto Sun is a rare exception to the unreliability of tabloids, you should avoid citing it for details about living people. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Copy-pasted from elsewhere: The Toronto Sun certainly is one of the least reliable "newspaper" in Canada, and is modeled after The Sun of the UK. It's a tabloid, not a serious source of news. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
It's edging on a tabloid; I would avoid it for any BLP related issues (like this), unless they are the principle source and information corroborated with them and/or their coverage becomes central to the story at hand. --Masem (t) 23:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
In this case, the Toronto Sun clears him. So it fixes BLP issues. Still, I don't know this Patrick Brown politician so I don't really want to edit the article after this current issue settles. Vanguard10 (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
If this is about the Patrick Brown scandal, you want this the absolute best sources for this stuff, not tabloids. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
It is really a BLP violation if Wikipedia is biased either way. If there is only mention of allegations then it makes Wikipedia a hit piece. If it is all positive, then it can make Wikipedia like a propaganda piece. It's important that anything be covered as neutrally and comprehensively as possible. Otherwise, nothing should be covered. I have fixed it to be neutral. There is no mention of the Toronto Sun in the text of the article. Only the fact that Brown took a lie detector, which is not disputed by anyone or any source. Thanks for the analysis. Vanguard10 (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
No, that's not how BLP works. BLP raises the bar for any sources about living persons, especially negative statements. That doesn't mean that the bar is set lower than usual for positive statements. Like, we generally wouldn't accept a tabloid's claims about non-living individuals either, because tabloids have an earned and well-known reputation for being unreliable. Neutrality does not mean that we're under any obligation to create an artificial balance that isn't present in reliable sources -- see WP:GEVAL. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
For example, if a tabloid reported that someone used their fourteen inch penis and incredible lovemaking prowess to raise enough money for charity to cure cancer, we still need a better source than that, even if it was somehow true. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Even if a tabloid did an article about a death mask of Pope Alexander VI, we still would need a better source -- even though it's about an object that happens to look like a person who has been dead for centuries. Tabloids are not real news, and this should not be news to you. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
What Wikipedia and we should do is to make a list of unacceptable sources. I didn't know the Toronto Sun was unacceptable until now. How about newspapers from countries with dictatorships? Should both left wing MSNBC and right wing Fox News be on a list of banned sources? Or, for now, just keep it to the Toronto Sun? I don't ever intend to use the Toronto Sun again as a Wikipedia citation. Vanguard10 (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
You're missing the point. It's been common knowledge that tabloids are not real news but sensationalist pablum for years. I've known not to trust tabloids since I was in elementary school, back in the Clinton administration, well before Wikipedia was a thing. We already have policies and guidelines that make it clear that professional, mainstream sources with a reputation for factchecking are what we want. There are more news sources and more fake news sources than you realize, so creating a set list for users who somehow don't know that tabloids are not real news would be a pointless waste of time. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Its news reporting is reliable. Note it is a member of the National Newsmedia Council, which investigates complaints of inaccurate reporting and The Sun is owned by the Postmedia Network, which owns broadsheet, tabloid and local newspapers. The paper was founded by staff from the broadsheet Toronto Telegram after that paper closed and chose the tabloid format for the convenience of its largely blue collar readers who read it on the bus to work. I note that there are no complaints about it on the Council website. The website says, "Journalistic standards require a news story to be factually accurate, including identification of individuals and quotes. The article should acknowledge the ‘other side’ of a case, and allow opportunity for response."[10] That fully meets the requirements of a reliable source. TFD (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
This is not news reporting, though, it's scandalmongering. Guy (Help!) 12:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

News reports no longer considered as RS?

WP:NEWSORG notwithstanding, would anyone care to comment on this: [11] and "news reports are primary sources for historical events". This is in relation to BrowseAloud and now AfD:BrowseAloud (3rd nomination). It's a piece of software that was barely notable in the past and was deleted on its 3rd AfD. As it has recently, since that AfD, become news-worthy for a whole new reason it went through DRV, and now AfD. This AfD seems to hinge on excluding sources like these: [1] and [2] I cannot see anything in our RS policy to support this new "news reports are not RS" approach. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The issue of whether a given source is primary, secondary or tertiary has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the source is reliable. All three types of sources can be either reliable or unreliable, depending on the content and the reputation of the source. Someone expressed the opinion that newspaper articles are primary sources. Such articles can be primary or secondary, depending on context. A "police blotter" type newspaper article saying that a burglary was reported at 123 Main Street is a primary source, and is probably reliable. A lengthy article by a staff reporter about a wave of burglaries, including interviews with detectives, victims and detailed reporting of court testimony is a secondary source. And significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources is required to establish notability. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "The issue of whether a given source is primary, secondary or tertiary has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the source is reliable."
OK, I can agree that point. But over at the AfD, this same issue is being used to argue for deletion, on the basis that the sources fail RS, and thus the article topic fails WP:N. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
See WP:PRIMARY and WP:PRIMARYNEWS (part of WP:USEPRIMARY which is directly linked from WP:PRIMARY). Its nothing to do with reliability as such. However notability (see WP:GNG) prefers secondary sources to primary ones. So a news story from the point of time of an event - reporting the event absent any real analysis as such, would be a primary source. Almost all 'current event' news reporting falls under that, exceptions might be an indepth expose that causes a scandal, the original expose would be secondary, the subsequent news reporting on the scandal would be primary. A news report written significantly after the event analysing the causes, effect etc in depth - would be secondary. For the purposes of notability all the sources could be reliable per our policy but not an indication of notability. WP:NOTNEWS also exists for a reason, where there is a flurry of news items about a breaking story, we are not a news ticker. Notability *should* be assessed by its impact over time. Sadly NOTNEWS is routinely ignored. -add- for the two references listed, I would class them under current event reporting and so primary sources per the standard non-wiki definition as well as the wikipedia one in the linked pages above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • So where would you stand on this AfD question? And if that was delete, would that be on the basis of NOTNEWS?
I used to be very much on the fence for this article. It's a bad product, WP should not promote it, but I also see value to WP debunking it, or at least pointing out that it's not universally supported. In recent years, it has become widely used for the sort of government websites who frequently behave in a dumb and profligate manner because government thinking encourages that ("Something must be done, this is a something, let's do it."). Recently though there is an upsurge of interest in it, driven by the malware problem. It is within encyclopedic scope to answer public demand to explain such topics and I see articles like The Reg (a competent, technical specialist publication in this field) as being exactly the sort of source we should be using to justify that. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I think I already stood on the AFD and the DRV (prior to that) before you posted this ;) I dont have any problem with the reliability of the sources. Its that absent its use in the malware issue, its just not notable at all. And the malware issue is hardly unique or 'notable' as wikipedia would class it, plugins for browsers being vectors for virii/malware is not a new or uncommon problem at all. If there was an article on the specific malware issue itself, or a section in a relevant article on cryptomining it might/probably be worthy of inclusion there as an example. As it stands though, the article (unless something drastically changes) is just going to be an attack page completely unduely weighted towards one event in software's history. To make it not weighted that badly, you would have to restrict it down to a sentence or two and then you are still left with nothing notable. If you have to bulk out an article with a load of news reports about one event *that isnt even specifically about the subject of the article* then its a good sign NOTNEWS should be looked at. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I think the arguments are reasonably clear. This is a non-notable software component that was caught up in an exploit. It's not that news reports arent reliable, or that they are primary, it's that they are about the exploit not the non-notable plugin. The same sources would be fine ot mention this in an article about bitcoin mining browser hijacks. Guy (Help!) 12:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I would almost say that we have some type of equivalent concept of WP:BLP1E when it comes to commercial products, entities, etc, which the GNG considers part of enduring coverage. A piece of software that is part of a significant news event that is not directly tied to the intent of the software doesn't make the software notable. Instead, we look to the event, or in this case, the class of events of other illicit cryptomining incidents, and can mention the software in there. It is the same how the legit piece of software Medoc in 2017 cyberattacks on Ukraine isn't notable on its own, but is mentioned in context of the attacks. --Masem (t) 14:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • News reports are primary in the general discipline of historiography = our problem, as is often our problem, is that are regularly trying to cover 'current events'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ Greenfield, Patrick (11 February 2018). "Government websites hit by cryptocurrency mining malware". the Guardian. Retrieved 19 February 2018. 
  2. ^ Williams, Chris (2018-02-11). "UK ICO, Thousands of websites hijacked by hidden crypto-mining code after popular plugin pwned". The Register. Retrieved 19 February 2018. 

Question about

Hello everyone! I was looking for sources for the "My Man" (Tamar Braxton song) article, specifically to add information on the song's composition. Would I be able to use the following site ( to cite the key and beats per minute? Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like it. There's no evidence it is authoritative. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Makes sense, thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

If reliable sources say something is a concept, does that make it so?

Having a disagreement at Talk:Mottainai#additional_references_for_expansion so want some clarification here. If a reliable source, such as which a search shows is used in 1,906 Wikipedia articles already, has an article titled Avoiding waste with the Japanese concept of 'mottainai' , does that prove its a concept not just a word? The argument is that they and other sources found aren't experts on "Japanese linguistics", that you need a "university press or peer-reviewed source by a Buddhist specialist", not a "popular news websites" to state something. Dream Focus 12:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I note how you start from the assumption that the sources are reliable, despite this being the forum to establish if sources are reliable for the content. Anyway, they are all "popular" media sources, none peer-reviewed scholarly sources, so they are not more reliable than the standard dictionaries that say mottainai is just a common word meaning "wasteful", "What a waste!", etc. is a news site, and is generally trustworthy for content like that, but they are not Japanologists, linguists or Buddhologists; when the word mottainai doesn't appear anywhere in either the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism or Routledge's Encyclopedia of Buddhism, it's safe to assume that it's not a unique Buddhist concept, and you need a better source than popular news site to contradict that. And even if it is "a concept" (a word which you have been continuously refusing to define), it doesn't matter when we already have an article on that same concept: Pratītyasamutpāda (which in Japanese is engi, not mottainai). (Note that this is based on your source; I have read and understood it, even if I don't agree with it, where you apparently have not read/understood it and are only using it to prop up an argument you are making to undermine my contributions to an article you clearly have no interest in improving.)
Additionally, what are you even doing on the article? You made one drive-by !vote in the AFD five years ago, then when I went to the talk page and suggested merging you suddenly showed up again, and your conflict with me on the swamp monster AFD and other places has made this your most active month of editing in over three years; are you hounding me?
Hijiri 88 (やや) 20:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
During your long drawn out nonsense about the the ARS at various places, you did mention that article multiple times. So I did check it out. You complained about no one adding sources to it in your village pump rant and/or elsewhere, I don't remember, so I looked for some, and found some I thought useful and put them on the talk page so they could be worked somehow into the article. I honestly thought that'd be helpful. But you wish to declare yourself an expert on everything Japanese, and dismiss any major newspaper or other reliable source as being wrong, so I asked here for opinions from those who regularly deal with cases about reliable sources. Dream Focus 20:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
No, I mentioned it once -- one other editor kept honing in on it and I made the mistake of responding to him.
My complaint was never about no one adding sources to it; it was about ARS members not working to fix it (and a lack of "sources" was not the problem so much as a lack of specialist sources that made it clear that there was no WP:NOTDICT problem -- Wiktionary already has an entry on it, BTW) after having steamrolled the AFD, which is the opposite of how ARS is supposed to work. I concurrently made a concrete proposal (cut all the etymology crap, most of which is OR based on a rudimentary knowledge of modern Japanese grammar that wouldn't make sense in classical Japanese, cut the "Cool Japan" marketing stuff sourced to defunct ex-pat magazines, and merge what's left into Wangari Maathai), and then a few days later you showed up and basically said "I found these popular media sources, one of which is just another Cool Japan ex-pat magazine"; don't merge the article".
"drawn out nonsense" and "village pump rant" are off-topic and uncivil, and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making snide remarks like that here or elsewhere.
Also, neither ABC nor NBC are newspapers; they are (the websites of) national television networks in Australia and the United States, repectively; are you referring to The Japan Times? JT is a "major newspaper" now? It's essentially another Cool Japan ex-pat magazine, with a slightly larger circulation that is inflated by Japanese readers wanting to improve their English literacy, but no Japanese would read it for reliable information on their own country. I seem to recall they once called the Man'yōshū Japan's "oldest anthology of domestic poetry", translated its title as "Collection of 10,000 Leaves", and misspelled Susumu Nakanishi's name, all in the same short book review? It is reliable for uncontroversial claims mostly related to modern (Japanese) politics and society, but not for anything related to traditional Japanese culture if they are contradicted by better sources.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
JT is a "major newspaper" now? It's essentially another Cool Japan ex-pat magazine, with a slightly larger circulation that is inflated by Japanese readers wanting to improve their English literacy
Oh, horseshit. It's a straight-up daily newspaper, for sale in kiosks all over the Kanto area, at least. When I see someone at the point of having to make up stuff to prop up his case, I have wonder why the obsession? --Calton | Talk 00:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@Calton: Sources? I doubt 99% of customers frequenting those kiosks are buying an English-language newspaper to get the inside scoop on Japanese current affairs, let alone the detailed niceties of traditional Japanese culture; they do it to practice their English. The ex-pats who use JT as their primary source of information on any of that stuff (who are definitely a tiny minority of the paper's readership if it is indeed on sale in "kiosks all over the Kanto area") are just as likely to use Japan Today, Nipponia or Look Japan. All of these sources can be used for uncontroversial BLUE content that can easily be verified in better sources, but none of them are as good as scholarly reference works from Princeton and Routledge. Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
BTW, it's not clear what you think I "made up" -- if you could clarify, I'd be happy to back up anything you think I made up with. Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Sources? I live in Tokyo, and have read it for years. So from personal experience I know that your characterization is, to put it charitably, off-base. Oh, and protip: if you have to make up shit ("...get the inside scoop on Japanese current affairs"? Who said THAT?) you're not helping your case. --Calton | Talk 06:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Please drop the tone. I did not insult you personally, and I don't deserve you issuing me "protips" and accusing me of "mak[ing] up shit". I honestly have no idea what your last three sentences are meant to mean -- are you saying that few people use The Japan Times for information on Japan? That's the same as I am saying. The simple fact is that most of its readership consists of Japanese people who want to practice their English reading, but we are not using it for English-language advice; we are using it for information on Japanese culture, in this case an alleged ancient, or at least medieval, Buddhist (or Shinto -- no one seems to be able to make up their mind) "concept". If you don't have anything to say about article content and are just here to defend a paper you've been reading for years from an off-handed remark I made about how it should only be used when better sources agree with it, which has next to nothing to do with the core issue here (the JT doesn't actually disagree with me), then I would kindly ask you to go build the encyclopedia rather than picking fights for the sake of picking fights. Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I did not mean to imply with any of the above that I believed The Japan Times to be a disreputable smut rag that should never be cited. What I meant was that general news media (regardless of format or editorial bent -- the applies equally the The New York Times and The Daily Mail) are generally considered inferior for Wikipedia's purposes to peer-reviewed scholarly works, at least in fields like linguistics, religious studies and classical literature. (The question is actually tangential to the content dispute, though, since the article in question does not contradict my claim that mottainai refers to the concept of wastefulness.) It's obvious that multiple good-faith contributors have interpreted my comments as saying what I didn't mean them to say, so I apologize for my lack of clarity. In that spirit, I have stricken everything I wrote above about The Japan Times specifically. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Nonsense. If the New York Times and others said something, that'd be enough. Even if you couldn't find something in what you considered to be a "peer-reviewed scholarly works", that wouldn't mean that you could just decide something doesn't exist, and argue nonstop about it not being real and having no reason to have an article. Dream Focus 16:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I haven't seen a clear actionable content proposal yet: unless someone can provide one, with proper sourcing to the above or other publications, that we can discuss, I propose to close this thread as impossible to process on this noticeboard. Or is this only about finding sufficient independent reliable sources for WP:GNG reasons? Even then, sufficient sources should be usable for actual content in the article, so content proposals would be the way to go anyhow, even for proving notability. Or, alternatively, post {{merge to}} & {{merge from}} tags in appropriate places, in which case this RSN thread can probably be closed too (open a discussion regarding the proposed merge on the talk page of the article you propose to merge to). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOTBLOG: questions that don't affect article content do not need to be answered on this noticeboard. Also, please stop commenting on named or unnamed other editors.
The following discussion has been closed by Francis Schonken. Please do not modify it.
My original question remains. Do reliable sources saying something is real make it real? I would assume it does, but one editor keeps insisting that they don't. Dream Focus 16:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Content based on Look Japan article

  • Look Japan is used in the article as a reference, but then tagged as an unreliable source with the long message "unreliable source|reason=These magazines designed to introduce Japanese culture to resident foreigners are generally oversimplified and juvenile, and are frequently wrong. This is like attributing an entire paragraph of a Wikipedia article to a sixth-grade textbook.|date=February 2018". Mottainai#Modern_Japanese_environmentalism So, how about that specific example here? Is it a reliable source, or can someone give their personal opinion and declare it not one? Dream Focus 16:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
    • For that example we would have:
      • Source: Chiba, Hitoshi (November 2002). "Restyling Japan: Revival of the "Mottainai" Spirit". Look Japan. Archived from the original on April 5, 2004. Retrieved July 22, 2013. 
      • Article: Mottainai#Modern Japanese environmentalism
      • Content: "In November 2002, the English-language, Japan-based magazine Look Japan ran a cover story entitled "Restyling Japan: Revival of the 'Mottainai' Spirit," documenting the motivation amongst volunteers in a "toy hospital" in Japan to "develop in children the habit of looking after their possessions," the re-emergence of repair shops specializing in repairing household appliances or children's clothes, the recycling of PET bottles and other materials, the collection of waste edible oil, and more generally the efforts to stop the trend of throwing away everything that can no longer be used, i.e. the efforts of reviving "the spirit of "mottainai""."
    & some prior discussion about this content-reference combination at Talk:Mottainai#Merge?, (ii). Thoughts (apart from those already mentioned above)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Inside the article itself, where its used as a reference, there is a tag saying "unreliable reference" and anyone clicking edit on the article can see that long reason given as to why. Should that "unreliable reference" be in the article?" Dream Focus 16:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The above-quoted section title is my softened version; the content as it was originally written was complete nonsense. My version at least doesn't appear to contain fringe content, but as written now it would seem to belong more in an article on Environmentalism in Japan. An ex-pat magazine using a common Japanese word that virtually everyone who lives here and has at least a passing knowledge of the language knows does not demonstrate anything beyond its being an everyday word. Even use of more obscure words in such sources could easily be attributed to an intention to teach sub-N1 foreigners the language. The reason parameter in my tag focused on the apparent lack of critical nuance in the source (and I might even be wrong about that -- you should take it to the talk page and see what User:Curly Turkey and User:Imaginatorium think), but there are plenty more reasons why that source is inappropriate for the content attributed it and the context in which it is attributed. Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Hijiri, you're arguing with someone who's not trying to understand what you're saying. All they care is if the article's sources meet the lowest of thresholds, which they unfortunately do. And so we're stuck with bullshit. At this point, the best you can do is damage control, like you did with that section header—and delete all that uncited text in "Origins" (which should be titled "Etymology"—"Origins" borders on POV-pushing).
Mottainai is a "concept" only in the sense that words in general stand for concepts. It's deserving of no more than a mention in Environmentalism in Japan, but an entire article on mottainai ignores the fact that it's a common, everyday word, not normally loaded with political or religious connotations. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
So multiple reliable sources and a noble prize winner talk about the concept, but two self proclaimed experts on anything Japanese say something else. Others please add in your input here. Dream Focus 22:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Dream Focus: you're not even trying to understand what the issue is, so trying to communicate with you is only exasperating. Thank you for "improving" the ecyclopaedia with bullcrap. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Curly Turkey: As I said on my talk page, I'm done wih the article. You even suggested I focus my efforts elsewhere. I might take a look at that bushidō article you mentioned: even if it is somewhat outside my normal wheelhouse, I can at least keep it from saying things like "The Heike Monogatari dates to the eighth century and is one of the earliest Japanese writings."[12] I guess this thread can be closed. Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Dream Focus: Could you just answer, simply: who do you think knows more about the Japanese language: a person who has studied, speaks, and reads the Japanese language, or a person who has not, but has received a noble, or even a Nobel prize (not for linguistics)? Imaginatorium (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of for film/entertainment entries

Specifically the article [13]--Prisencolin (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

My attempts to find anything about their editorial standards keeps pulling up advertisements for their services, or "opportunities" to write for them, or other things that leave me rather concerned about the site as an RS. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Is "Religious Studies News" reputable?

  • Is "Religious Studies News" a reliable source for editing articles on Wikipedia? It is located here. Instinct for me would indicate that it is not, but I want to gauge the opinions of some editors more experienced in these matters before making a judgement either way. It relates to a question at the Teahouse. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Stormy... you might want amend your question using the full name of the source in the header... the abbreviation “RSN” is used on Wikipedia to refer to our “Reliable Sources Noticeboard” (ie this very page) and so others might not understand what you are asking. I know you clarified things in the actual text of your question, but for someone just glancing through the headers to see if they want to respond to a question, it LOOKS like you are asking if this Noticeboard is reputable (and they might assume you were trolling us).
Whoops... Done. Sincerest apologies, I really don't know how I missed that. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
no problem... I hope you get a quick reply Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to throw my hat in with those who were confused by the original section title. It's even worse if you see it in the page history without any context. One would almost suspect deliberate punning; if this were the case (and I don't think it is -- the above apology looks sincere) I would likely praise the genius wit responsible, but as is I guess it's just a humorous accident of the kind that occasionally happens on Wikipedia. Still got a good chorkle out of it, though. Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
As to your actual question... I don’t know enough about the source or topic to give you an answer... hopefully someone else will. Blueboar (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "Religious Studies News is the web magazine of the American Academy of Religion". It also looks like it's the name of the association's quarterly newspaper? AAR is a legitimate academic association, as far as I understand, so I'd treat it the same way I would any other academic association's non-academic members-oriented publication. In other words, it may contain some useful columns, reviews, summaries, etc. that would make for a decently reliable source, as long as you keep in mind it will have some promotional bent regarding its members and is not itself an academic journal. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)



Article: List of most-subscribed YouTube channels

Content: § By country and territory

The "most-subscribed by country" table is currently based on the lists compiled by VidStatsX, but the website has been inaccessible for about two weeks. If the table is to remain, another reliable source must be found from which relevant, regularly updated statistics can be derived. I believe the best candidate is the website DBase, which provides lists of most-subscribed YouTube channels for around 200 countries and territories (examples of some of the lists that would be used: [14] [15] [16] [17]), but I am struggling to determine if it is reliable. The lists are most likely automatically generated, but does that preclude them from being dependable?. LifeofTau 07:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC) and

These two sources are being mentioned in the infobox on this article. To me it seems like a case of questionable sourcing for the map link as there's nothing indicating how or why it's notable, what its editorial standards are, etc. From what I can gather, it's crowd-sourced news; twitter reports, blogs, etc. While could be used as a source in the article itself, including either of them by name in the infobox seems like giving their estimates undue weight and seems highly unorthodox. Eik Corell (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2018 (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