Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 246

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 245 Archive 246 Archive 247


Book written by Haganah (later IDF) commander, Joseph Tabenkin

On 24 July 2018, our fellow co-editor, User:Huldra, deleted a source cited by us in a series of articles, namely: Khulda (see here), Saris (see here), Suba, Jerusalem (see here), Dayr Muhaysin (see here), Bayt Naqquba, and Qalunya, claiming in each revert that the source was "unreliable." A complaint was lodged on each of the Talk Pages. The source in question is taken from a book published by the "Tabenkin Memorial," in Ramat Ef'al (Israel), and written by Joseph Tabenkin, the commander of the Harel Brigade during Israel's War of Independence, and specifically during Operation Nachshon and Operation Ha-Har. A photo of the author from Wikimedia Commons appears on the Talk-Page of Operation Ha-Har. Here, in Israel, the author is held in utmost esteem. Although there is no Wikipedia article devoted solely on him and his exploits, he is still mentioned in numerous web-sites, among which are Palmah Information Center (Hebrew), and Yosef Tabenkin Dead at 66, and The Raid on Ramla , et al. The book is available in Israel's public libraries, including the Hebrew University Library, containing 176 pages with illustrations. Excerpts from the book, published in Hebrew, have been transcribed in English for our readers. It seems that our co-editor, based on her edit summary, had confused our "Yosef Tabenkin" with another by the name of "Yitzhak Tabenkin."Davidbena (talk) 05:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Tabenkin was a military leader during a war, and the question is whether he can be used as a reliable source of facts about that war. The answer is "obviously not". Not only are memoirs treated with suspicion by historians, being often inaccurate and self-serving, but the author had an obvious conflict of interest. If the memoir is published by an organization dedicated to the memory of the author, that makes the situation even worse; it is as close to "self-published" as a book by a dead person can be. Given Tabenkin's senior position, a case could be made for citing some of his claims as official claims with attribution, but that would require a consideration of whether he was writing on behalf of the authorities or only for himself. What we need to cite is sources by historians, as they have evaluated all the sources including memoirs on the basis of their professional expertise. Tabenkin's standing as a war hero in Israel and the availability of the book are both entirely irrelevant to the question of reliability. Zerotalk 09:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
These aren't memoirs - Tabenkin in his post-war career was a part-time historian and in the 80s devoted a significant chunk of his time to research. The book should be perfectly fine for an attributed statement in relation to all of the cited articles.Icewhiz (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
On what basis? What's the publisher? You objected to using an actual historian with works published by actual academic presses because of a supposed bias here, but a part-time historian who is actually a primary source qualifies because he devoted a significant chunk of his time to research? Are you at all concerned with even the appearance of being impartial on this board? nableezy - 12:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I said attributed use - he's certainly a reasonable attributed source for what the IDF thought/considered.Icewhiz (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
And I again compare that position to what you said about an actual historian with actual scholarship on this topic. A so-called part time historian[citation needed] qualifies in your mind but an actual historian does not? nableezy - 17:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest he's reliable for some things, like his own opinion on things that he was involved in. I'd suggest he wouldn't be reliable for speculations about others' motivations, for example. So I'd say he's a primary source. Whether he could be a secondary source for event he wasn't involved in is an interesting question, but I get the impression that's not what's at stake here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised at the incredulous allegations that a person who took part in that war is seen as an invalid witness of events, when even the US Civil War diaries, written by officers who took part in that conflict, are viewed as reliable sources. The real reason, it would seem, for their disapproval of using Joseph Tabenkin's war accounts is that it clearly points out the reasons for the Haganah offensive, which in military terms was a just offensive. However, some editors seem to have an agenda to paint Israel as the aggressor, based on their history of edits in articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The issue at hand has, therefore, little to do with its reliability as a source (as it is), but rather an objection by them to point the blame, as it were, on blockage of the Tel-Aviv - Jerusalem highway, just as it is described by Tabenkin, and just as it has already been mentioned in articles on Wikipedia: See, for example, Battle for Jerusalem#Food rationing and Operation Nachshon#Background, to name only a few. When the author mentions orders that had passed down from the military echelon to destroy Arab villages along the Tel-Aviv - Jerusalem highway which had been used as a base of operations to intercept Jewish convoys, this is NOT coming from a Primary Source, but rather a Secondary Source. This is precisely what our edit entails. Davidbena (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say he wasn't reliable. I said he was reliable as a primary source. Like I am a reliable primary source about how flipping hot my tube journey was this morning. ("Boiling"). Useful for getting an impression. Not scientific though. You'd want a reliable secondary source. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
So, if it's a matter of citing also a Secondary source, saying exactly what Tabenkin said, we have it here: Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins, O Jérusalem, Robert Laffont, 1971, p. 369 ISBN 2-266-10698-8 --Davidbena (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I would say he is reliable for his views, not for those views being facts.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
In other words, you would support citing the same information in his name, such as: "According to Haganah commander, Joseph Tabenkin, etc., etc." This would also be acceptable to me.Davidbena (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I was replying to the OP, and this was indented correctly. But yes that is my basic point.Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Totally agree with Slatersteven. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Everybody is reliable for their own views. But whether or not to include that view in an article on history is another question. For statements like those in the diffs above, eg this, a secondary source should be used, not a primary one. This covers a time-period and place with no dearth of reliable sources, so the "according to primary source" formulation is entirely unnecessary. nableezy - 14:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
True, and if they are published then they may well be worthy for inclusion, but that is less of an RS then an Undue question. So the question is is this a history or a memoir, the other question is is it SPS? It is an SPS, which must raise some concerns. But (if) as claimed he has some reputation is Israel as a historian it meets the SPS criteria (a recognized expert expressing an opinion). But it would only be his opinion, not an uncontested fact. So it all boils down to what is his reputation as a historian, or is this just an SPS memoir?Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
On that diff from Nableezy, I think the way the source was used was wrong, but it would be right if it said that "Israeli military believed..." sourced to someone who was in the Israeli military. I'd also contend that "a village" is poor. A village is inanimate. People from, or villagers from would be more accurate. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
That one part gave me pause as he might be usable for the portion on what the Haganah commanders decided, but even then that is well-covered in scholarly secondary sources making any use of a primary source superfluous (see eg Benny Morris (October 2008). 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. Yale University Press. p. 119. ISBN 978-0-300-14524-3.). nableezy - 15:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
This isn't quite a primary source. It is a possibly biased secondary source (which we can make clear via attribution). As for no lack of sources - for some of these lesser known villages - there actually are fairly few sources. Using Tabenkin on 1948 Arab–Israeli War would not be necessary - using him for lesser discussed villages can fill in holes.Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I've looked through Benny Morris on each of these villages, and compared his numerous comments to what the reverted edits stated. The content of the latter is generic, subsuming, as one would expect from a memoir by a soldier, complex details into the village/villagers whereas Morris is nuanced, with roving bands of irregular going around villages trying to get support, and different reactions from the villages affected. Suba, Jerusalem, for example, had a made an agreement with Jewish neighbouring villages not to be involved in attacks (p.75). The destruction of (Saris was planned in January before the real heat of open warfare developed, for strategic reasons, apparently regardless of the behaviour, whatever that was (and attitudes could change over time) of the villagers; The Nachson Operation was planned to treat Khulda and all other villages along the Khulda-Jerusalem route as enemy assembly points, whatever the individual village realities were (p.233)-it's not therefore as Tabenkin has it that the villagers had invariably taken part in operations against the Jews . At Qalunya, villagers chased off an armed band (p.97) early in the piece, not wanting to get involved, for example. In one case, a single motor-cyclist from one of those villages spied out Jewish positions, and passed the information to Arab irregulars, but that doesn't translate into the village/villagers. In other words, using a self-published memoir that fails to provide the complex factors at play, of the kind Morris's archival masterpiece supplies (in part) makes it effectively unusable as reliable history. These matters are covered quite thoroughly in, esp. Israeli historiography of the highest quality, and we should only cite Tabenkin if those secondary sources consider some specific detail in his work important.Nishidani (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
He was a commander for one of the parties to the conflict that he is writing about. I think the general consensus here is that he is indeed a primary source for this material and should not be used for facts. nableezy - 17:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


The 1948 Arab Israeli war is one which is covered in numerous academic sources, in English. I cannot see any reason to add a (self-published?) memoir in Hebrew, not unless it has been quoted by any of those historians.
(Also, I totally disagree that Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins are good RS..they were not historians. Eg, their book on the India/Pakistan breakup is shockingly they take what Lord Mountbatten said as God given truth...evnen though there was absolutely no backing up of what he was alleged to have said. That is a mistake no historian worth their salt would do. With such shitty methods, I would not be surprised if they took 100% of what Tabenkin said as the God given truth, too.)
Also, Icewhiz is wrong saying that there is not a lot of material regarding many of these 1948 villages: there are new books published about them all the time. (However, it is an understandable mistake by Icewhiz, as he has not been editing their history much: I have.) Huldra (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
First, in response to Nishidani's comment, Joseph Tabenkin's book makes it clear on pp. 154–155 (ch. 4) , in generic terms, that a decision had been reached on 14 April 1948 in the military echelon "to utterly destroy all Arab villages along the Tel-Aviv - Jerusalem highway which had been used as a base of operations to intercept Jewish convoys." This information in each of the aforenamed articles is vital, as it gives us (1) a "motive" for the operation, and (2) "when exactly the orders filtered down in relation to other events." The illustration on p. 74 shows the order of advance throughout each of the villages named by me above, in the original post.Davidbena (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Second, in response to Huldra's comment, Tabenkin's book is NOT a memoir, but a factual account of events in the Haganah military campaign, known as Operation Nachshon. The book was NOT "self-published" as Huldra wrongly assumes, but was rather published post mortem, two years after his death, using his own writings. The information therein contained is anecdotal and will help readers understand the logic behind the operation, specifically for each of the villages named, and which were visited by troops of the Palmach during the 12 days of engagement in April of 1948. It does not surprise me that some editors who take a strong anti-Israel bias would want to expunge this vital information. As for Huldra's complaint about the book written by Dominique Lapierre, I suggest to all editors here to look at what Wikipedia has to say about his seminal work, O Jerusalem!, wherein he refers to the same events.Davidbena (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
David, you need to stop this nonsense about strong anti-Israel bias. You've done this here and on an article talk page, while you have consistently pushed fringe political POVs in a number of articles. Kindly refactor the personal attack above and we can discuss this like grown ups. Just complaining how the mean anti-Zionists wont let you use a source that each of the uninvolved editors agrees shouldnt be used for facts is both petty and dishonest. As Zero told you elsewhere, such attacks are beneath you. nableezy - 22:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
It is for the impartial judges here to decide whether or not there may be a suspected "strong anti-Israel bias" by some editors, and that by simply looking at the edit history of all contributing editors. If you mean that I have "pushed fringe political POVs" in a number of articles, I would care to know which articles you are referring to (although unrelated to our current discussion). Perhaps you mean on the Talk Page of Talk:List of military occupations#Discussion. Anyone reading there will see that my primary motive is to bring a more neutral point-of-view, and which accurately portrays both sides of the argument.Davidbena (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Primary source, based on the information presented. I would use it with caution if at all. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Primary source, based on the information presented it should be treated as a memoir and used with caution - if used at all. Montgomery and Churchill also wrote 'histories'. Pincrete (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
In WP:Primary sources we read: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation, etc." (END QUOTE). In our case, we have both Primary and Secondary sources. The Primary source is used here with caution, and the editor does not elaborate more than what is brought down in a reliable Secondary source. In compliance with the above comments on this thread, any emendation in future edits will incorporate the premise that, "According to Joseph Tabenkin," such-and-such happened, without elaborating further (except, of course, where the Secondary source elaborates). In this way, we avoid reaching our own private conclusions.Davidbena (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I've seen it is used in a number of articles about songs, for "Critical reception," for example. However, it is included on Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources because the ones that write the Forbes articles are paid contributors. Which is correct? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Most of the domain is just a glorified blog, and should be treated as any other self-published source. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Has to be assessed on an individual basis because of how Forbes is running their online magazine. Almost everything under the forbes/sites domain is written by 'contributors' who have minimal/no editorial oversight or input from Forbes. Once you are an approved contributor, its effectively a self-published blog. It can be used depending on the contributor, there are a number of journalists and experts with long experience in the field writing about their specialist subject. These are easily useable depending on context in line with self-published sources, but never for biographies of living people. There are also staff writers employed directly by Forbes, their content should be assessed in line with how we use other journalistic content. For the purposes of critical reception though, critical reception is by its nature an opinion-based issue. There are many many contributors of limited experience or qualifications publishing on forbes/sites. This can be seen often for the contributors who write about media, films, TV, games etc. They might have a journalism degree, but they have had no real past employment for a reputable publisher, no evidence why their opinion matters. If (as an example) Roger Ebert had spent the last 5 years of his life self-publishing film criticism on a blog, his opinion would have weight despite it being self-published. His long years of experience, broadcast history etc. If Bob Loudvoice with 1 year writing for obscure website publishes film criticism on forbes/sites (not an unusual occurance sadly) their opinion has little weight and would be WP:UNDUE. If you come across a forbes/sites used as a reference, and are unsure if its valid, post it here with the article and the content it is being used for. Only in death does duty end (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I'll only add that Forbes also offers what is essentially a pay-to-publish-on-Forbes model through its Forbes Council (see this article on how the scheme works in practice). This further reduces the credibility of whatever is found on the website. Abecedare (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This article from the Poynter Institute was mentioned in a past RSN discussion, and I'll bring it up again. In an interview, the chief product officer of said that stories written by contributors aren't vetted at all, but if a story gets popular, then an editor will "check it more carefully". He admitted that contributor stories aren't fact checked, and said, “The audience spots issues a lot. The audience is as much your editor now as an editor is your editor.” contributors are generally unreliable, especially for determining the notability of a subject. I have no opinion on staff articles, but note that the vast majority of citations used in articles nominated for deletion are written by contributors, not staff. — Newslinger talk 21:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Can't be used for facts, but does meet WP:RSOPINION, if and only if the writer is a recognized expert/important voice in the realm of music criticism. --Masem (t) 21:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Republic Standard

Deleet recently added (in this edit) content sourced to an article in the self-described conservative magazine Republic Standard ( to the article London Conference on Intelligence. I am not sure if the Republic Standard is a reliable source; in fact, I strongly suspect it isn't, based on the very strong white nationalist vibe I detected when I went to its homepage. But I want other editors to weigh in on its reliability or lack thereof. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 12:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Context matters. In this case, the source is reliable... as it is being cited as a primary source - to verify the fact that a specific person (a graduate student) wrote an article appearing in that paper, and that he wrote what we say he wrote. It is similar to citing “Mein Kamph” for a statement about something that Hitler wrote in “Mein Kamph”. The issue isn’t whether the publication is reliable in general, but whether the publication reliably verifies the content of the publication itself.
That said, there is a second issue here... should our article mention what the graduate student wrote (or not). That is a DUE WEIGHT issue, not a reliability issue. Blueboar (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd agree with Blueboar on both points. Republic Standard does not look like it would be reliable for very much - it seems to be essentially a sensationalist alt-right blog - but if its only being used to assert the fact that a Belgian student wrote something for it, then it's reliable. The opinions of a random student about a conference they attended do not seem to me to be notable however. Girth Summit (talk)

Question on self-published sources deemed reliable

If we have a self-published source that has been deemed reliable, are we required to put a self-published tag on it [self-published source] which states "this reference citation appears to be a self-published source". We already know it is so we are not questioning its status. The fear is that it will trigger the removal of the source by other editors.Patapsco913 (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Depends. In cases where we attribute the source that would seem to be overkill, but for a self-published book we might well. Guy (Help!) 17:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I've removed from seven articles references to, a site which for the most part plagiarises Wikipedia. Does it also warrant blacklisting? --Paul_012 (talk) 07:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

ITunes as a reliable vendor source

Hello, may I ask if the iTunes Store can be counted as a reliable source to verify song titles for discography purposes? I've heard from an editor that the data is apparently user generated, but looking at that site I see no way for a typical end-user to just log into the website to adjust the information, unlike Discogs. Looking at the reliable source guidelines over here which state that vendor sources can be used for an indefinite period for verifiability purposes until a better secondary source is found, I see no problem with using iTunes, or Beatport similarly. aNode (discuss) 02:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Books published Heally Gross (author) and if they qualify as a reliable source

Closing this per a request at WP:ANRFC by Davidbena: Consensus is that the books published by this author, being self-published by a non-expert, are not generally reliable sources. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:29, 5 August 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.

On 1 August 2018, fellow co-editor, User:Huldra, deleted vital sources from the article Operation Ha-Har, surmising that perhaps the author was an "unreliable source." See the three diffs here, here and here. The author and her works were discussed by me in a reply to Huldra, seen here (Talk:Operation_Ha-Har#Heally_Gross_(author)) on the Talk-Page of Operation Ha-Har. The author is Heally Gross, and the two sources cited by us are as follows:

  • Adullam: `veshavu banim ligevulam`, Jerusalem 2014 (Hebrew) [Hebrew title: עדולם: ושבו בנים לגבולם].
  • Adamah Ahuvah, Jerusalem 2013 (Hebrew) [Hebrew title: אדמה אהובה].

If there may be any questions about her qualifications as an author, I would cordially advise that an opinion be given by a Wikipedia Administrator who may live in Israel.Davidbena (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

You have again ignored advice at ANI: After reading "I found no academic credentials online" there are only two reasonable responses: post evidence of academic credentials, or say "I see what you mean, sorry for raising this". Johnuniq (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
There's little available in English. In Hebrew "Heally Gross" is "היאלי גרוס" (first name spelling is a highly non-standard one) - which should be useful for anyone checking this out. I'm at this point unsure - it would also depend on the publisher of the book(s), I haven't uncovered a bio of Gross yet - though she has written quite a bit and also lectures (e.g. at The Museum of the Jewish People at Beit Hatfutsot) - there is quite a web presence in Hebrew on "היאלי גרוס" - but I haven't managed to filter out all the speaking engagements and find something meaningful yet.Icewhiz (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, the Hebrew spelling really helps. I can find much more of her work on WorldCat now, but nothing to alleviate my concerns about her writing as a source. So while we still know really nothing about Gross's credentials, I also don't see that any of her entries in WorldCat have publishers' names attached. Some items have an author listed as the publisher, and others are said to have been published by "Israel". It's possible that whomever is uploading these entries to WorldCat is having a language difficulty and doesn't know what that field means, or it could be that everything actually is self-published. WorldCat shows that Gross's work is held in remarkably few libraries - the most distributed book, a work of fiction, is held by four - which is very unusual for academic work. Her work also isn't even listed for sale by either Steimatzky or Tzomet Sfarim, the largest book sellers in Israel. All of these things point to an amateur academic who self-publishes. If Davidbena or someone else can present evidence that Gross is a recognized expert, or that her work is from a reputable academic publisher, I have an open mind. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
The publisher for these two is "ישראלים" (translation - Israelis - which would explain the publisher "Israel" Someguy1221 has seen) - about page here (Hebrew). It seems this publisher mainly or exclusively publishes Gross's work - books here - though some have been commissioned/distributed by regional councils. The publisher would not confer reliability here. I will note that Gross might be considered an expert local historian (per what I do see on the web - she does seem to be respected by others) - but I'm undecided here (need to see an appropriate bio and 3rd party reference to her - I am seeing lots of speaking engagements which is an indication this might be the case, but... doesn't say it is the case).Icewhiz (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Per the publisher/herself - she has a BA and is a qualified tour guide. It seems the publisher/herself published 3 local histories (two of which are above) - though there might be more as she claims she did local histories on 20 settlements, a fiction book set in the Israeli Negev desert, and a history book about Dogs in warfare/Search and rescue dog throughout Zionist history.Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: On the talk page of the article in question, Davidbena states that he has Heally Gross's email address. Since Davidbena is also the editor pushing for the inclusion of this author who is borderline at best, I sense there is some sort of COI involved. Softlavender (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment 2: I agree with Icewhiz that the publisher(s) of the books in question is key. Why is the publisher(s) not listed? Also, why no page numbers? What are the IBSNs of the books? Softlavender (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Unreliable. Based on Someguy1221's research, Gross is an amateur self-published writer whose works are, basically, not held by libraries or booksellers. Softlavender (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • This seems to be Gross's self-publishing company: -- Softlavender (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I strongly urge editors here to not be hasty in labeling Heally Gross' books as irrelevant or not on par with academic standards for reliable sources. Her books are catalogued in the Hebrew University library (as you can see here), but if I might make this one observation, Heally Gross's seminal work, Adamah Ahuvah (translated as: "Beloved Land"), does indeed have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, as most of her quotes are taken from historical war records contained at the Yad Tabenkin (Tabenkin Memorial) in Ramat Ef'al. Their web-page (in Hebrew) is seen here. See also a list of their collections here: Tzur, Ze'ev (1980). "The Archive of the Kibbutz Hameuhad Movement at Yad Tabenkin". Cathedra: For the History of Eretz Israel and Its Yishuv. 14: 203–206. Retrieved 26 July 2018 – via JSTOR. (Registration required (help)).. Bear in mind that their field of expertise is in the History of the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel) and its "Yishuv", meaning, Jewish settlement during the Ottoman period and during the period of the British Mandate over Palestine. One of the criterion for identifying Reliable sources is that her material can be fact checked, per WP:QUESTIONED. User:Softlavender, without actually looking at this work, has taken a hard line. User:Icewhiz who has more knowledge about this important work has taken a more conciliatory approach.Davidbena (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
As for User:Softlavender's question about publisher, the books' inner cover lists the Publishing House as: "Israelim" - whose web-page is . Three of her books' publications (including Adamah Ahuvah) have been funded by the Mateh Yehuda Regional Council here, in Israel, and freely distributed among the Jewish collective farms and settlements in the Jerusalem / Adullam / Beit Lachish region.Davidbena (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
The "publisher", as Softlavender ALREADY pointed out, is Gross herself. The books are self-published. --Calton | Talk 11:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
That is not entirely correct, as Heally Gross' books were published (funded) in conjunction with the Mateh Yehuda Regional Council and distributed freely by them to the Jewish settlements. And even if you should say that the works are "self-published," according to WP:IS, "Material available from sources that are self-published, primary sources, or biased because of a conflict of interest can play a role in writing an article, but it must be possible to source the information that establishes the subject's real-world notability to independent, third-party sources. Reliance on independent sources ensures that an article can be written from a balanced, disinterested viewpoint rather than from the person's own viewpoint" (END QUOTE). Heally Gross' Adamah Ahuvah ("Beloved Land") definitely meets this criterion, where all her citations are supported by works treating on Israel's War of Independence, both in published works and in War memorial collections which she so deftly has researched. Again, I urge editors here to soberly consider the vital information that will be lost from Operation Ha-Har if the source material is removed.Davidbena (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Davidbena - you'd do well to either find a replacement source, or to establish Gross's credentials (though even if you do - we still would be dealing with self-published work by an expert local historian - which would not be a good source). The only reason I'm holding off from saying a flat no here is that I have an inkling she might have some recognition as a local historian - though even if she does - that would still be a very weak source. If you have the book - you could perhaps use it for citation mining - and cite the source Heally is citing instead of Heally herself. As for the information itself that is challenged in Ha-Har - it seems relevant and correct - however you do want to pass WP:V via a good source here.Icewhiz (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

David, a local government commissioning a work by a little known travel guide for a battle from 1948 in a war that is extensively covered in scholarly works is not a reliable source, full stop. WP:IS is an essay. WP:RS however is a content guideline. And what that says is Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable. That you can find this book in a library does not make it reliable. That it covers something that you find vitally important likewise does not make it reliable. If the material in question actually is important to note in an encyclopedia article then you should be able to find it covered in any of the literally hundreds of books published by a university press that deal with this war. nableezy - 17:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

That is not entirely correct, as Heally Gross' books were published (funded) in conjunction with the Mateh Yehuda Regional Council and distributed freely by them...
No, it is ENTIRELY correct: where Gross got the money to self-publish her books is irrelevant to their being self-published. They're self-published. --Calton | Talk 10:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Icewhiz, thanks. I just received a reply on my e-mail from Heally Gross and she has acknowledged to me that she does indeed have a University degree in the "History of the people of Israel." Anyone wishing to contact her personally may do so at the following e-mail address: [email protected] . With that said, it is the humble view of this editor that there ought to be a mechanism in place which keeps editors from making POV-based disruptive edits to historical texts, without first discussing the matter in the article's Talk-Page. My familiarity with User:Huldra goes back to January 2015, where we have interacted on various levels, in topics relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If for any reason, may God forbid, that this vital information is deleted from the Operation Ha-Har article, it will be a grave loss for western audiences seeking to better understand the events of that war, but not a great loss for Israeli audiences. I implore editors here to be more circumspect in their decision with respect to this author, Heally Gross, and her contributions to our overall knowledge. By the way, I do have Heally's books, which I purchased from her at 100 Israeli shekels apiece.Davidbena (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
A BA degree would not establish credentials here.Icewhiz (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
She did not say to me which degree she holds in her area of expertise. If you'd like, you can write her and ask her. If worse comes to worst, I will take your advice and use her works for citation mining - and cite the source Heally is citing instead of Heally herself. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Are you not listening, Davidbena? No one—at the disruptive ANI you initiated or the article talk page—has considered Huldra’s edit disruptive. The fact the only “evidence” you have to legitimize Gross’s reliability is an e-mail spells out a huge conflict-of-interest. Find a better source that is appropriate for the encyclopedia—as several editors have advised you to do.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Obviously, they have not worked as closely with User:Huldra as I have. I can avouch that I know her better than they do, and I have seen a clear tendency for POV editing. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
(ec) Healy's contact info is freely available on the web - that's not an indication of COI - editors may mail sources/subjects. David - if you have the book and it has citations - use the citations in the book (assuming they are good RS).Icewhiz (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Davidbena, you have at various times said that I am a Palestinian Arab, or that I am married to an Arab, that a person with a Bachelor degree has more academic credentials than me...none of which is true. So yeah, you know me soooo well.</throws up her arms in despair>
And gives: descr: heally gross. (Thanks, User:Softlavender!)
And as Nableezy said above: there are countless sources for the 1948 war (I think I have more than a dozen books about it myself, even though the war is outside my main area of interest (which is pre 1948 history)), there is no way Heally Gross can be considered WP:RS.
As for me being disruptive, yeah, for Davidbena I am....just a week ago, I removed another of his sources, namely Joseph Tabenkin (see the top of this page): an IDF commander in the 1948 war, and later an engineer. And I promise I will keep being "disruptive", and keep removing non WP:RS material, Huldra (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
What a man becomes after his military career shouldn't matter to us. One does not need a PhD to write about his experiences or travels. As for your willingness to be "disruptive," using your own words, well I guess we'll just have to keep-up these dispute resolutions until something is resolved. By the way, I never said that you were married to an Arab, but only surmised that "perhaps" you may be.Davidbena (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Christ, Davidbena why did you even “surmise” Huldra was/is married to an Arab? Why was it any of your business? The only way this will be “resolved” if you continue making frivolous drama board threads is with a block or t-ban—for you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
May God forbid. There is nothing wrong with being married to an Arab, and, indeed, I made that clear to her in that post. I was only concerned then, as I am now, about User:Huldra's POV-based editing.Davidbena (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Wow. How do people in the P-I area tolerate this level of nonsense? It can only be Davidbena's breathtaking naivety that make people look the other way. However this level of cluelessness is not sustainable in such a sensitive topic and a TBAN is the least that should be applied. Johnuniq (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Well, editors in the P-I area (that is; the not so pro-Israeli editors) have mostly developed a very thick skin. See the death/rape-threaths on my user-page, amusing names, etc. Davidbena's preconceptions about me is a very small irritant in comparison. I am actually 1000 times more worried about his preconceptions about Palestinian history... We met on Talk:Bayt Nattif back in 2015 (he had expanded the article, leaving out all history between 12 CE and 1948 CE), and at that time he said he knew "absolutely nothing about" about Arab/Palestinian history. I have actually been quite impressed with the way he looks up sources...(Even when I feel I have to batter facts into him...). Though.....lately he has used several absolutely awful sources on some of the most controversial articles in the P-I area...sigh. Heally Gross isn't the last one. We seem to become regulars at this board.....a damn waste of time, IMO, Huldra (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Based on what is above and what I can find myself, Heally Gross is someone with a BA degree who qualified as a tour guide and now publishes books through a family publishing company. All of which indicates that she should not be used as a source. Zerotalk 23:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Although I do not know the extent of Heally Gross' education, only that she has a University degree in the "History of the people of Israel," can someone here please tell me why a book published by an author carrying at least a Bachelor of Arts degree, and which book deals in her specific area of university studies, is an unreliable source?Davidbena (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Because David, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that when it can uses scholarship for its sources. And scholarship means works published by peer reviewed journals and books published by university presses, often times by people who as their profession are academics working at the most prestigious universities on the planet. Not some tour guide around Jerusalem. You are seemingly oblivious to the utter and complete lack of self-awareness you demonstrate when you complain of POV-editing, but that really is a topic for another forum. But your comments about Huldra are both misinformed and misplaced in this forum. nableezy - 04:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Please excuse my ignorance, but I do think my question was legitimate. No reason to resort to ad hominem attacks on a person who is trying to do his utmost best here.Davidbena (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
To elaborate slightly on what nableezy has said, Wikipedia in areas like science and history, reports what the academic consensus states. This is established by using high quality reliable sources. The best sources are tertiary sources which by their nature report the existing academic consensus. Secondary sources are next, these generally need to be published in peer-reviewed journals and even then, things like how often they are cited elsewhere is significant on establishing a source's reliablity. In the case of books, the publisher's experience and reputation in the subject area as well as that of the author are important in establishing credibility and, of course, how often and by whom the book is cited. Primary sources, which includes self published books, can only be used in very limited circumstances. If the book is by an acknowledged expert in the field, then it may be used with care, but that hardly includes the writings of the holder of an undergraduate degree, no matter what the subject of that degree. - Nick Thorne talk 06:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
David... having a BA degree is not considered enough to make someone an expert in their subject area. Most of your fellow Wikipedia editors have BAs or BSs (and many have MAs or MSs)... we certainly don’t consider ourselves to be experts. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Question: User:Icewhiz, and User:Nick Thorne, in Heally Gross' book, Adamah Ahuvah (2013), there is a section where she interviews an elderly Arab woman from a certain region affected by the 1948 Arab Israeli War and who remembers fleeing from her village as a young lady. In the interview, she recounts events from that troubling period. Can Heally Gross' book be used to cite excerpts from her interview with this elderly Arab woman? If not, how does this differ from citing an interview from a newspaper, or an interview from the web-page (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
As there is no publisher, there is an issue of lack of editorial oversight/vetting - which would not be an issue for a reputable newspaper, reputable publisher or Gross herself at an established publisher. (So what is lacking is someone looking over the author's shoulder and verifying lack of fabrication - though such verification is never foolproof). Such an interview would be PRIMARY. As for - interviews there would probably fail on the same grounds (and maybe a few more) Gross fails on - but I have not looked into it - you would have to bring something specific (if Palestine Remembered is quoting another source - that's different from their own content for instance).Icewhiz (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz puts it well (Gosh, I agree with Icewhiz(!)). AFAIK, not a single interview from the pal.rem site is used on Wikipedia. I would compare Gross with the many hundreds of so-called ”village books” written about the Palestinian villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus; again, I have never cited directly from them (For two good reasons, other than that they are not RS: I don't have a copy of any of them...and in any case they are virtually all in Arabic, which I don't read). However, an academic did a study based on these village books, and published a book about them on Stanford University Press (the book co-won the Albert Hourani Book Award). In this book she sometimes quotes from interviews etc with villagers, if so: then that can be included, see eg Bayt Thul. Likewise, if, in the future, someone did an academic study of the interviews at the pal.rem site (not inconceivable...); again, that could be included. Huldra (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's sincere and constructive advice here, on this thread. Can I please ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close this discussion on Wikipedia? I believe that it has fully run its course. Thanks.Davidbena (talk) 05:11, 5 August 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.

Does historical fiction establish notability?


Estela Sáenz de Méndez (1 January 1982). María de las Islas: novela histórica. Editorial Latinoamericana.

Silvia Plager; Elsa Fraga Vidal (1 March 2012). Malvinas, la ilusión y la pérdida: Luis Vernet y María Sáez, una historia de amor. Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial Argentina. ISBN 978-950-07-3809-5.

The above two works are works of historical fiction and refer to an individual María Sáez de Vernet, who was the spouse of Luis Vernet. David Eppstein is arguing that mention in fictional novels establishes notability.

Personally this doesn't gel with my interpretation of WP:RS but bringing it here for a second opinion and inviting David to explain his logic. WCMemail 00:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

WCM has been badgering participants in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/María Sáez de Vernet discussion at my talk page, at User talk:John Cummings, and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red, no doubt among others. I have already explained at two of those places why I think that despite being unusable as reliable sources (the only possible concern of relevance at this noticeboard) these books help contribute to the notability of the subject. Taking the dispute here smacks of forum shopping to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Are they a historical figure? Are they clearly identified as a historical figure, not a fictional invention in those texts? If so, then Dumas might have something to say.
Also, despite WP:NOTINHERITED, are they presented as notable as themselves, or as part of a notable married partnership? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Its worth noting that in the original article before I edited it contains the quote:
Is actually sourced from:

Estela Sáenz de Méndez (1 January 1982). María de las Islas: novela histórica. Editorial Latinoamericana.

But apparently when I try and engage with editors to explain this, this is badgering. In answer to the question, the person involved is only known really as the spouse of Luis Vernet. Her diary has been used in some narratives as part of Argentine claims over the Falkland Islands but this is unrelated to the individual. Malvinan as a word didn't exist in 1829, its a modern invention since 1947. WCMemail 00:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Removing inappropriate material is not badgering. Starting an AfD because the article had some material that needed removing may be a bad idea, but it is also not badgering. But going to a bunch of different AfDs from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Article alerts and plastering big warnings across the AfD that they had an automated project alert on them, when this is standard practice for most WikiProjects and AfDs, merely because some project participants started participating in a project-related AfD, starts to rise to the level of badgering. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Its interesting that shortly after my AFD was listed, 10 people from that project turned up voting keep. Since I did that on other AFD, there has not been a re-occurrence. Thats not badgering. It would be appreciate if you would stop the bad faith accusations, I'm getting rather irritated. WCMemail 14:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • My 2 cents - Generally coverage in historical fiction does not establish notability of the historical figure - though it might establish notability for the fictional figure (just as other fictional figures are notable) and in some cases may be an indication that the figure is likely to be notable - however, one must note that sometimes historical fiction / alternate history takes very minor historical figures that nearly nothing is known about - and develops them purposefully (so as not to alter, in the novel, well known historical facts while providing room for the author's plot) into full fledged characters (in which case the fictional character might be notable, but this literary fabrication does not make the historical figure notable).Icewhiz (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
    • "Generally coverage in historical fiction does not establish notability of the historical figure" My view is the opposite on this subject. If a historical figure has not attracted the attention of historical fiction writers, he/she is probably not significant enough to have an article. Many historical figures owe much of their fame to being regularly featured in historical fiction for the last two or three centuries. Dimadick (talk) 09:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I would say is, as Dimadick says if someone had not noted them they would not appear. But by the same token it might just be they had an interesting name, or the writer just picked a name that he did not know was real. Thus I have to lean towards no they do not in and off themselves confer notability, but that may well indicate that there are other sources that could.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Look at Titus Pullo (Rome character) and Lucius Vorenus (Rome character) as examples (in this case we do have an article - Vorenus and Pullo). In some cases - fiction writers purposefully choose the main hero, or heros for plot arcs, based off of a figure that might only have a brief mention (e.g. one-liner - even briefer than this example) in historical documents - the fiction writing doing this so that their plot does not conflict with established history (so all plot elements that are not historically established are on fictional characters or semi-fictional characters about which nothing is known beyond their brief mention). In some cases - there can even be serial use of the fictional character.Icewhiz (talk) 09:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • A work of fiction in which previously obscure historical character plays a role can establish notability. Provided that the work of historical fiction is notable, and that publication of the work of fiction and the character's role in it generates secondary coverage. Note for example Angelica Hamilton, who has an article supported by coverage of her life generated by a recent work of historical fiction Hamilton (musical).E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I would say that appearing as a character in a work of fiction can supplement a historical person's notability... but it does not establish or create that notability. That said, the fictional character that is based upon that person may become notable on its own (as a fictional character). Blueboar (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I generally agree with the sentiments that the 'historical fiction' does not create notability, but it might draw attention to non-fiction sources that existed before the fictional creation (in which case there was a probability of 'Notablity' before the fiction) and/or the fiction may cause non-fiction sources to then publish on the historical person (in which case the 'Notability' arises or enhances after the fiction). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I would definitely default that the existence of historical fiction about a person/topic doesn't mean that person/topic is notable; instead, we should hope that a good piece of historical fiction will lead to more coverage of the historical person/topic. For example, Adrian Cronauer would likely never have been notable if Good Morning, Vietnam wasn't a critically praised film that led into people looking into his life. --Masem (t) 16:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Is TechCrunch a reliable source?

Specifically, should an article written by TechCrunch staff (not contributors) be considered a reliable source when assessing a subject's notability?

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BTCJam, the company has coverage from two potentially reliable sources: a chapter in a Springer Science+Business Media publication (reliable), and a TechCrunch staff article (disputed). The TechCrunch article is more than a passing mention, but does simple reporting without significant analysis. The author is a TechCrunch editor. How would you evaluate this source? — Newslinger talk 22:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean for the purpose of AfD voting, or for the purpose of sourcing content? For the purpose of sourcing content it should be fine; it's focused on the tech industry and has editorial control. For the purpose of AfD? It likely doesn't meet the standards of WP:CORPDEPTH. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
It meets the standards of WP:V but fails the requirements of WP:N and more specifically WP:ORGIND. It stopped being seriously considered for notability purposes in AfDs around mid-to-late 2016. Like most trade press, the stories are dependent primarily on sourcing from the company itself, and there is little to no editorial control beyond making sure they aren’t printing patent lies (and then it’s more through using qualifiers than actual fact checking.) RSN isn’t the place to determine whether or not something meets the requirements of WP:N and WP:NCORP: that is AfD, and the community consensus on TechCrunch as a source for notability purposes has been pretty consistent for a few years now. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable, that staff-composed news articles in trade press, without a specified person by-line, in particular those that are raw fact pieces with little to no analytical content, would not count toward notability in the Corp Depth analysis. This would apply to quite a lot of content which is on the cusp of churnalism, a term I became acquainted with only recently. I might make a note in WP:CORPDEPTH if there is not already a comparable note there (need to look at it again to check). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I should have been more clear here. The article names a TechCrunch editor in the byline, instead of using a generic "TechCrunch staff" tag. However, while the article does give an overview of the company, it looks like little to no investigative research was done. — Newslinger talk 17:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, generally speaking TechCrunch is a reliable source. Yes, it's a valid source that can be used (in conjunction to other sources) to establish that the topic meets WP:GNG since it's an entire article (i.e. significant coverage) by a reliable source independent of its topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
TechCrunch, like most trade press, is not intellectually independent of the topic, and thus fails WP:ORGIND, which is the standard here. Byline or not doesn’t matter. This has been the consistent finding in AfDs for ages. The direct quote from WP:NCORP is: there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability as businesses frequently make use of these publications to increase their visibility.TonyBallioni (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


I noticed this discussion from 2012 when looking for verification of another source and wanted to open a new discussion. PopCrush is a subsidiary of Townsquare Media, which operates about 320 radio stations in the United States. The previous argument against certifying PopCrush as a reliable source was that editors could not find any evidence of editorial oversight. While I can't cite such, per say, I know as someone that spent 15+ years working in the radio industry that Townsquare heavily vets their employees in all divisions these days and has a significant online / interactive management team that would have oversight of PopCrush. StrikerforceTalk 18:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


The CarbonBrief website states on their about page, "In 2018, Carbon Brief was “highly commended” for its investigative journalism by the Royal Statistical Society. In 2017, Carbon Brief won the “Best Specialist Site for Journalism” category at the prestigious Online Media Awards." The question for RS comes up involving this edit, with reasoning, "replace non-RS blog from advocacy group with tag CN", by editor NewsAndEventsGuy. Since the source seems to be based on empirical data, and often cited in the mainstream media, ie. here (qz), here (ecowatch), here (Washington Post), here (NYT), and also fetched by GoogleNews, it appears as a reliable source to me. prokaryotes (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

So what do third party sources say about this?Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
The Royal Statistical Society did give them a 'high commendation' this year, although it was for specific piece of journalism rather than a blanket approval of the site. Having said that, their editorial board looks highly competent, composed of experience journalists and academics at well-respected institutions. They are clearly not just a blog, I think they'd be reliable for this. Girth Summit (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
An article in The Drum, noted, "Carbon Brief’s model is high quality science journalism". prokaryotes (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
A 2013 NYT article refers to, "a British climate and energy news blog". prokaryotes (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
CarbonBrief. prokaryotes (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
PNNL cites CB as, "a U.K.-based climate and energy journalism website". prokaryotes (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Seems pukka then.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Note that WP:Blogs as sources is a failed policy proposal. To review applicable policy.... CarbonBrief is an RS when talking about themself or we are saying they said something. (See WP:ABOUTSELF). Otherwise it may or may not be an RS for article content of general topics. The relevant policy there is WP:BLOGS which says in relevant part
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[8]Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.
Yes, we could continue gathering evidence and debating if the expert threshold is met in this case. BUT.... (A) as the text of the rule urges, its better to not ask eds to take time for that when there are other straightforward reliable secondary sources that say the same thing. (B) Even if a small group of eds agree today that it is RS, I've often seen new people appear at articles and start deleting self published sources and they will not know about this discussion. For longterm maintenence using WP:BLOGS when there are "normal" sources is dumb. (C) The OP and I are both regulars on the climate pages, a topic area where article text of this sort (2018 N hemisphere heat wave 5x more likely due to global warming) will be greeted by skeptics as an exceptional claim. This is another reason its extra-dumb to try to work through the expert-Blog exception rule instead of just using normal sources - doing so might promote the expert blog site, but invites future conflict and drama. Use the normal sources, and the purposes of WP:ARBCC in preventing drama are best supported.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, the cited rule is met "produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", since Zeke Hausfather has published several studies in reliable third-party publications. In regards to your concerns of the edit about the heat wave, their article is based on this cited study by the World Weather Attribution consortium, hence your argument that it is self-published is void. prokaryotes (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Published studies of CB editor Robert McSweeney also establishes RS per your cited rule. prokaryotes (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Bottomline: CarbonBrief is a website such as Skeptical Science, or RealClimate, but with a more professional journalism scope. prokaryotes (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Reliable for factual analysis, no real opinion on any opinion or colour pieces but this is not especially controversial - if anyone really objects they can WP:ATT it. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Winning an award should matter, but gets ignored for other cases (see the Daily Mail RfC for example). Being cited by the Washington Post could matter, but this wasn't the paper it was the paper's "Capital Weather Gang" blog. Being mentioned at PNNL doesn't matter because it was about CarbonBrief interviewing their staff member -- would they in such circumstances be likely to say it's nothing? As for the suggestion that and are "mainstream media", opinions might differ. Evidence that the organization (or blog if one accepts the NYT term) has a "reputation for fact-checking" appears to be lacking. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay more mainstream sources then, Forbes, BBC, The Guardian, HuffPost. prokaryotes (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Snopes, AlterNet, The Guardian prokaryotes (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Media Matters prokaryotes (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
In those sources Daisy Dunne who works for Carbon Brief refers to Carbon Brief, "contributors" to Forbes and HuffPost (both of which have had hundreds|thousands of paid|unpaid contributors) refer to Carbon Brief, and supposedly this is "more mainstream sources" to go along with the earlier claim that and are mainstream sources. As before, opinions may differ. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Alright, the use of this study is still problematic, but that's a subject for article talk. But just for a hint... the text to be supported says the northern Europe heat wave is up to 5x more likely due to global warming. The study says only 2x in Nederlands and for scandinavia it was increased but they could not quantify by how much. So with the full context in mind, the talking point "up to five times more likely" across all of N Europe is problematic. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC) PS In my edit sum just now i think I stupidly said "close". I meant I withdraw objection to reliability in this instance. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

We have to sort this out now, also because the Wikipedia search gives over 3000 results when searching for CarbonBrief. prokaryotes (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── FYI, I did a rewrite at the source of the dispute using normal reliable secondary sources plus a link to the original "preliminary study". This avoided the "Up to five times more likely" EVERYWHERE (though the study didn't say that) problem created by the rhetorical headline at Carbon Brief. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, but there isn't really a dispute, this section serves to establish CB as a RS. The confusion about twice or five times, is because the study refers to factors and ratios. prokaryotes (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Just to be clear, its a case by case basis and as the policy says, if the info you want to support is really important there will be quality mainstream secondary sources without having to resort to expert-advocate blogs. Staying away from them also lessens the appearance of editorial POV too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
CB publishes clear, data-driven science explainers, interviews, analysis and factchecks, not exactly classic advocating. CB provides quality content and expertise, therefore mainstream media often cites them. On the contrary you have often articles published by news editors who are not experts on a topic, which can result in confusing coverage. Hence, why we currently witness such a rise of factcheck sites. prokaryotes (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
In their own words, they advocate for understanding of the science of climate change and policy response. This isn't a judgmental statement, just something to bear in mind when evaluating the best sources when this comes up again. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay, and thanks for pointing this out. prokaryotes (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

website Resilience

The website "Resilience" looks like an environmentalist blog to me. What do others think? It's referenced a lot at article Doomer NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

It belongs to Post Carbon Institute, and its aim is to promote transition from fossil fuels. The articles I read do not seem to be of any academic value. It is hardly a reliable source. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Goat Canyon Trestle#Inaccuracies

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Goat Canyon Trestle#Inaccuracies. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Affinity magazine

  • Source:
  • Article: Melanie Faye

It doesn't seem like Affinity Magazine has been mentioned on RS noticeboard before. Does this count as a reliable/significant source? Would like feedback before I vote on the AfD. originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 01:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Originalmess The website belongs to Affinity Magazine, a “by teens, for teens, always controversial” site. Reading this, I doubt it is a reliable source. It seems to be an online platform where teens write articles. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Oof! Thanks! originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 02:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The Monthly

I am requiring independent editor's opinions please on whether this subjective 'essay' [1] from the The Monthly which is on the international List of political magazines is a reliable source to be used in The Australian which is one of the largest mainstream newspapers in Australia. Specifically my question is in relation to this edit [2] placed within the 'Editorial and opinion pages' section of the article. It seems to also give undue weight to this essay writer's subjective opinion and swamp the other sources within that section. If the source is used I am also questioning the undue weight of the long quote that has been included. I would like to resolve the dispute at Talk:The Australian under the title "Questionable source" as quickly as possible through consensus and have not reverted the bold edit that was made.Merphee (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

As is so common, Merphee is forum shopping because he is not getting his way on the Talk page of an article. And I would like to see evidence that The Australian "is one of the largest mainstream newspapers in Australia". I'm not sure why he has to resolve the dispute as quickly as possible either. I regard getting our encyclopaedia right as more important that speed. I think it's also worth noting that Merphee has not advised anyone at the Talk page in question about this thread, and that he was the subject of a recent thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, which unfortunately got derailed and was never resolved. HiLo48 (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I didn't realise you had posted here already Merphee, you may want to check my suggestion on the talk page of The Australian. Curdle (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Again HiLo48 please stop the personal attacks, you've been blocked for a month in the past for personal attacks and belittling. So give it a rest will you. Curdle the discussion we were having at Talk:The Australian sat there for a week before I decided to post here to get some independent opinions so it was hardly out of the blue. As soon as I did you immediately commented on talk. Anyway I've replied to you on Talk:The Australian, thanks for your input. However I posted here to get other independent eyes on the edit HiLo48 made. I'm sure we can come to a consensus and I'll look at a couple of other sources and possible wording you suggested tomorrow. In the meantime I'd appreciate others actually having a look at the source I'm talking about and the edit itself including the undue weight issue I've raised in that section of the article. The edit outweighs all of the other sources is my point.Merphee (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 
Something you might also want to consider is the author of the piece, Margaret Simons. She is currently Associate Professor of Media Studies at Monash University, so is as an academic well versed on the subject (indeed is listed at Melbourne University as an expert here. One of her "essays" for the Monthly won a Walkley award for Journalism in 2015. She has written several books, including co writing a previous (liberal/conservative) Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser's, memoirs. As for the undue weight, I addressed that on the talk page of the Australian (suggesting we drop the long quote you have a problem with), so won't go into it here. Curdle (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Curdle I agree your suggestion to drop the long quote, that's what I meant by undue weight and the extreme quote drowning out other reliable sources that had been in that section of the article for a long time. I also suggest we wait for other uninvolved editors to give their opinion before we change anything and we can develop consensus. No rush. Some reasonable comments like this one [3] and this comment [4] both from uninvolved editors also support the point I was trying to make and was why I chose to post here.Merphee (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Merphee, can you please provide evidence in the form of references to reliable sources that support your claim that The Monthly is a "far left wing magazine" so extreme that it cannot be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia? Do you have evidence that it is a Marxist-Leninist publication advocating armed revolution, or an anarchist publication fomenting violence? Does it publish outlandish conspiracy theories devoid of evidence? Have professional journalists routinely described it as a purveyor of lies? More specifically, is the assessment by Margaret Simons obviously wrong, or is it in line with how other reliable sources assess the political orientation of The Australian? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
@Cullen328: I can't see anywhere on this page where Merphee asserts that The Monthly is a far left wing magazine or a Marxist-Leninist publication advocating armed revolution or an anarchist publication fomenting violence or a publisher of outlandish conspiracy theories devoid of evidence; or any of the other categorisations included in your comment. Reliability is not transitive - Unreliable sources do not become reliable through (occasional) agreement with reliable sources. The question is not whether the author is correct, but whether the content is verified by a reliable source. And that reliability comes down to a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
There is a current discussion on Talk:The Australian about this and an attempt to reach consensus. It is the long quote selected from the 'essay' that is my issue and I've explained it, and as neutrally as I can. It is about undue weight given to Margaret Simon's viewpoint in relation to the other perspectives in that section of the article. The quote selected from the essay makes The Australian look like some radical far right wing extremist publication, which it is obviously not.Merphee (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
If this is a question of WP:Weight, rather than the reliability of the source, then surely this isn't the right forum for this conversation. If there is a discussion going on at the talk page, that's the right place for a content dispute about due weight. The author is an academic in the relevant field at a respected university, and there's nothing obviously dodgy about the magazine - I can't see any reason to question reliability. Girth Summit (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • There are reasonable questions as regards the source. Firstly that it is WP:PRIMARY for the article content that it is/was used to support; it is the criticism itself, not an independent documentation of that criticism, and should, per that policy, be used with caution. That is is WP:BIASED, and should be used with attribution. And whether the source is reliable for fact, or reliable for opinion. At initial inspection, I would vouch the latter; that The Monthly is a publication of opinion, not of fact; and that it should be used with attribution. As comparison, I would assert the same for The Spectator. As for the questions of WP:WEIGHT, phrasing, jurisdictions et al, for mine, as WP:NPOV applies to all content, it can inform anywhere that content is discussed (cf. WP:NOTBURO). - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^
Thanks to everyone for commenting. Consensus was reached and the original edit was changed. The Monthly was one of three sources used for the revised edit.Merphee (talk) 05:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Digital Spy's reliability in general

Hello everyone. I'm sorry, but I feel that I have to pester you a bit about Digital Spy's reliability as a source in general. I have gone through the archives but did not feel I got a clear and definitive consensus about the reliability of this source. Looking at their website and what they put out, they look like a trashy pile of garbage that should not be used as a source for anything never mind an encyclopedia. However, that is just my personal feeling as someone who rarely watches TV. Digital Spy has been inflicted on several Wiki articles, and I would like some assistance from the community as to the reliability of this phenomenon called Digital Spy. Is DS reliable for anything other than itself? If yes, what? Thanks. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Part of the Hearst UK Entertainment Network? Doesn't obviously say unreliable to me. --tronvillain (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Psychology Today piece?

Source: [5] - On things impacting IQ, secularity and religiosity

Article: Religiosity and intelligence

Content: Diff : [6]

Background on the source: I wanted to get other opinions on this. The source at hand is blog entry by an expert in IQ and religion research named Nigel Barber (some examples of his expertise in this area: [7], [8], [9], [10]). The publisher is Psychology Today, a mainstream printed and online periodical like Scientific American that transfers scientific research to lay people by experts, scholars, professionals and etc. In its history, Psychology Today was owned and operated by the American Psychological Association [11] at one point too. Furthermore, it is controlled by experts [12] and it even has contributions by the American Psychological Association’s Division 15 [13].

  • It think that this source is a reliable source because Nigel Barber certainly has experience in the field of intelligence research and even religion. I also think that the source is reliable because it was published by an organization that is not self-published, has a pretty good historical reputation, provides some degree of fact checking and oversight on what it publishes, is handled by experts in the fields. I think that this source by Nigel Barber falls under WP:NEWSORG and also WP:NEWSBLOG.
I did attribution to the author since it is his view, per the guidelines in WP:NEWSBLOG.
So would it be ok for use in wikipedia? Rewording? Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Psychology today is a site along the lines of sciencedaily - a solid example of science churnalism. Just look at the name of the blog that publishe the article "The Human Beast", and the article title "The Real Reason Atheists Have Higher IQs". It is just 1 step away from "doctors hate him!" or "one quick trick", or "number 7 will shock you". Petergstrom (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • It looks like a reliable source to me. It's an article on a website operating under the masthead of a popular-science magazine written by a PHD on his area of specialty. Simonm223 (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Since the article is used as a source for an opinion rather than a source for facts, then the relevant consideration is weight. Instead of just saying this is what Dr. Barber said, you need to explain the degree to which this opinion is held. You need secondary sources for that. Generally it is best to avoid this type of source since are written for a general audience. However, the list of articles he provides is a good starting point. TFD (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • This source is a reliable source for the context being requested and the article at hand. For sure the source is not a self published blog or by a non expert so it is good there. The source looks to be by an expert on the matter and the publisher does do some degree of oversight on its content to keep its respectability as a mainstream science publication in print and online. The context is important here. The attribution to Nigel Barber makes it appropriate for use on wikipedia since it is the opinion of the expert, per WP:NEWSBLOG. Also for such things, WP:RS does mention "editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author..." Not all cases qualify and attribution is key since it places weight on who said it. This case looks straight forward, however.desmay (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
See the reason I like it for a RS here is because the author is specifically pointing out the difficulty of creating a causal link due to the presence of so many correlative factors. A scientist working in publication on popular science explaining the difficulty of establishing causality seems not only reliable but also to the benefit of the article in general from a WP:NPOV perspective.Simonm223 (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
There are reliable sources that explain the difference between causation and correlation. Do his own peer reviewed sources that he cites in this article really not make the same distinctions/claims he makes here? They would be much better sources for the article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
The WikiProject Psychology link says it is not a policy but an essay for advice. Even there it certainly notes that there are exceptions too with blogs, depending on the level of expertise of the author. The "popular press" link also says the same thing in that "high-quality popular press" (it mentions New Scientist and Scientific American as examples) can be good sources for background and context of the issues involved. That is the point of the source to expand on things that are known to correlate with IQ, in context of claims of IQ and religiosity. It all depends on who says it, a general writer or an expert on the matter that can provide context for the issues involved.
I think that rewording, to something more compact and condensed would solve any issues. For instance, something like "According to biopsychologist Nigel Barber, some of the variance in national IQ and religiosity in Lynn et al's study are explainable by various social, environmental, and wealth conditions among countries." Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Psychology Today has lots and lots of blogs and historically speaking they have, um, varied in quality (classic eg). So while they may technically qualify as newsblogs, I wouldn't recommend them as sources for the relevant scientific discipline except for the most anodyne, non-controversial claims. And setting aside WP:RS for the moment, if you can't find a proper secondary source (ideally a review article or textbook) for the claim in a blog entry, it is likely undue for most wikipedia articles.
As for the particular blog entry: the author is clearly just thinking aloud and making plausible hand-wavy arguments here, which is perfectly fine for the medium he chose, but that does not make it a good source for us (eg, the sentence "I doubt that religion causes stupidity if only because some of the most brilliant people of history, such as Isaac Newton, were highly religious like most of their contemporaries", won't survive any scientific review process). Fwiw, his thoughts and speculation are reasonable and if you find better sources making similar points, include them in the article. If not, leave them out per WP:RS/WP:DUE.
In short, I'm with User:Rhododendrites on this. Abecedare (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the viewpoint in that blog is, like, the standard one. There are many recent studies on this subject and even reviews on it. I'm sure something relevant can be gotten from one of those. Some of them are already cited in the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Paul Rassinier

This is one that I wanted to post before using for obvious reasons. I know there are certain things Paul Rassinier should definitely not be used for - anything about the gas chambers and anything about the genocidal intent of the Nazis. But can we use him as an attributed primary source for other things like:

To cap their misery, for weeks there had not been an ounce of bread in the camp, and they had had to make do with supplies from the storage pits: plain soup of rutabaga, a quart sometimes half a quart, and small potatoes, in the evening, after a long, hard day of work. Nothing to eat. Everything else vanished before this menace.

I wanted to check before adding this to the Rutabaga article, which already has some unsourced discussion about the importance of Rutabaga (Steckrüben) as a famine food in wartime Germany and also in the camps (discussed by both Rassinier and Werner Weinberg). Seraphim System (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Crayola crayon colors

There is currently an RfC at Talk:History of Crayola crayons regarding whether or not History of Crayola crayons should include a list of Hex/RGB/HSV color values for each crayon. Part of the question involves the verifiability of these values: Newer colors are sourced to while older colors are sourced to "Color values estimated using swatch of original crayon." Do these sources meet Wikipedia's verifiability requirements? Note that the same sources are also used at List of Crayola crayon colors. –dlthewave 02:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

As has been stated repeatedly in this debate, crayons are a reliable primary source for their own attributes, such as their size, appearance, and the color of their wax, in the same way that a book or a painting or a statue is a primary source for its objectively verifiable qualities. Illustrations representing those colors are entitled to the presumption that they accurately represent the thing depicted, unless there's some evidence that they do not. Anyone can look at a swatch of a crayon color and compare it with the illustration to verify whether the hue, saturation, and value are reasonably described by the illustration. To use Wikipedia's language on the subject, any educated person with access to the source—in this case a crayon, a swatch of wax from the crayon, or a faithful reproduction of such a swatch—is able to verify the color without specialist knowledge, simply by visual comparison. However, any reader can easily determine the attributes of a swatch of color using common and abundant apps or desk accessories to sample swatches depicted on-line. Such tools require no specialized knowledge, and vary only to the extent that slight variations due to the thickness and natural variability of the wax and manner of digitizing the swatch make them approximate; but so long as this limitation is clearly stated in giving an approximate value, there should be nothing wrong with giving a value approximating the color, and indicating what the values of the color used to illustrate it are. RGB, HSV, and hexadecimal color codes are nothing more than three ways to depict the same colors, each of which has its own use and value to readers, and all of which are determinable through routine calculation—which by definition is not original research. They are precise mathematical equivalents of one another, and listing them separately makes the color tables sortable.
Beyond all of this, however, I think it worth noting that there seems to be a concerted campaign to expunge topics related to Crayola and Crayola crayons from Wikipedia. On July 22, six articles related to these topics were nominated for deletion, chiefly on the grounds that lists of, discussion of, and depictions of Crayola crayons and related topics were either "fancruft" and thus not notable, or fell afoul of WP:NOTCATALOG. When these arguments were rebuffed, the deletionists began to argue that none of the sources were reliable, and that most or all of the colors should be eliminated as original research. Three of the six articles have been deleted, and two of the remaining ones are the subject of lengthy debates that would, if the arguments of the deletionists carry the day, be reduced to little more than stubs. The arguments have been carried over from AfD to article talk pages to here; and every time the debate reaches a standstill a new "survey" or discussion topic is added with the same goal: eliminating as much data as possible, not because any of it has ever been disputed by the people seeking to remove it, but because the sources and methods of illustrating the colors can all be excluded, even though they seem to be perfectly reliable. Nobody has yet argued that you can't tell what color a crayon is by coloring with it, or that the swatches made from crayons don't accurately depict them, or that the research done by the expert on the topic (an external source, quoted and documented by published third-party sources) is in any way inaccurate, or that Crayola's own nominal colors as depicted on their web site don't accurately represent the colors of their crayons. In other words, neither the accuracy of the sources, nor the reasons for believing them to be accurate, nor the accuracy of the illustrations depicting the colors, nor the accuracy of the color codes describing those colors has ever been disputed, yet they're all on the verge of being swept out of Wikipedia en masse, despite the apparent ease with which all of the information can be verified by "any educated person with access to the source", without any evidence—or even the allegation—that the information or the sources from which it's drawn are inaccurate. P Aculeius (talk) 04:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I think that "no" is an accurate response to everything you just wrote. Guessing the precise coordinates of a color from a photograph is going to be influenced by everything that went into that photograph, and the process of scanning it to digital if it started as something else. It's absolutely original research. You can state with confidence what the color is in a specific digital image, but that's it. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Colour disclaimers are a common feature of websites: wool, paint, blinds. It's easy enough to use tools like Pixie to find out the coordinates of a colour, but colour disclaimers by manufacturers point out that computer monitors, photographs etc can vary considerably and do not always guarantee that what you see is what you get. The values given for the Crayola crayons have been added in good faith, but they are a form of WP:OR unless they come from Crayola directly.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
An illustration created for Wikipedia is entitled to the presumption that it accurately represents the thing depicted, unless there's some evidence that it doesn't. The fact that it's impossible to guarantee a 100% match between additive and subtractive colors doesn't change the fact that it's possible to illustrate one with another, the same way that a digital photograph of a solid painting can still be an accurate illustration. Otherwise, we'd need to delete every photo of a painting on Wikipedia, or include a disclaimer about the colors! But speaking of disclaimers, if you read the articles in question, you'll see that the distinction between additive and subtractive colors has been clearly stated, together with other factors that could preclude stating that the illustrative swatches are perfect matches, ever since the present tables were designed some three years ago. The problem was known, anticipated, and accounted for at the time. The same issue didn't preclude Crayola from creating its own digital swatches to illustrate around a hundred of its colors on its "exploring color" page; those swatches seem to be definitive as far as 1, the "official" digital equivalents of the colors they represent, and 2, the fact that digital equivalents of Crayola crayon colors can be established.
I'll also note that while monitor settings can affect how individual readers perceive values such as "#FF0000", they don't affect the objective attributes of the color, how it's displayed by a web browser or what RGB/HSV/Hexadecimal values it's measured at. Those will stay the same no matter what brightness setting a monitor has. I'd also note that even monitors are designed to show as consistent an image and color palette as possible, with the only setting regularly changed being brightness, and that usually within a limited range. So while it's possible for the appearance of crayon wax to be affected by thickness, lighting, paper, digitization, or simply natural variation of the wax (although presumably the quality control process in manufacture is meant to minimize this), an illustration of the color can only go so far wrong. As long as the inherent variability and impossibility of one exact color being "definitive" is clearly stated by the article, an image that reasonably approximates the color produced can be used to illustrate it, and can still be verified—or refuted—by anyone simply by comparing the illustration with a swatch of the actual crayon, without falling afoul of Wikipedia's policy on original research. P Aculeius (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
WP:OR applies only to Wikipedia itself. Research presented by a reliable external source other than Crayola itself would presumably be acceptable. If this material was published on itself, there probably wouldn't be a problem given that Ed Welter seems to have been acknowledged as an expert on the subject. --tronvillain (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The RGB/HSV/Hexadecimal codes represent the digital swatches used to illustrate the crayon colors, and thus are self-proving. The real question is whether the illustrations fairly represent the approximate color of the crayons, something that anyone can verify by comparing them against swatches of the original crayons. Mr. Welter's article depicts nearly all of the colors no longer produced by Crayola, and anyone can compare the colors depicted with those used to illustrate the colors in question on Wikipedia. I believe that comports with Wikipedia's standards for verifiability. P Aculeius (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Here comes the science

It is impossible to match subtractive colors with additive colors. If Crayola says that a particular RGB additive color is a close match to the particular subtractive color of a crayon, we can include that information, but it really needs at least a footnote explaining that it is impossible to match subtractive colors with additive colors. There are a lot more subtleties to this; see Color. Color model, Color space and Gamut.

Related question: what is the source for the RGB values shown in Pantone#Color of the Year? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Related: User talk:Guy Macon#Impossible colors: --Guy Macon (talk) 05:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Har’el: Palmach brigade in Jerusalem, Zvi Dror (ed. Nathan Shoḥam), Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishers: Benei Barak 2005,

Does Har’el: Palmach brigade in Jerusalem, Zvi Dror (ed. Nathan Shoḥam), Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishers: Benei Barak 2005, qualify as a RS on the 1948 Arab–Israeli War?

It is used extensively in the article on one operation, namely Operation Ha-Har.

Since it is in Hebrew, I cannot read it, but I cannot find any relevant academic qualifications when I google Nathan Shoḥam or Zvi Dror. To me it looks like an unscholarly account of the Palmach. Comments? Huldra (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Reviewd here. Ok publisher. Probably OK for biographical info and basic details (e.g, that such and such was published, such a command was given, etc.). It is not a military history.Icewhiz (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
What are the academic qualifications of Zvi Dror and Nathan Shoḥam? Huldra (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
this is the author, hewiki. The author is an established non-acadmic military historian, with multiple titles. This book specifically is biographical, not a military history.Icewhiz (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
So in other words, not a RS on Operation Ha-Har. Agree? Huldra (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
No, I do not agree. This is a reputable publisher, and an award winning military historian. The book itself is a collective biography. It should be OK for bio details and basic info.Icewhiz (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Totally disagree, for an article like Operation Ha-Har. "Award winning military historian" is not the same as an academic. After all, this is a field with a zillion academic sources. But again, lets hear what other editors say, Huldra (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually academic sources are not so easy to find for all military operations - which is quite evident at Ha-Har at the moment - which outside of the very short lede does not use a single academic source. If you had 3-4 INDEPTH high quality academic sources covering the same detail than it would be easier to advocate replacement. Quality wise, the book by Zvika Dror is better than a modern secondary piece in a reputable newspaper. It is not as good as an academic source. I am a supporter of WP:HISTRS, however it is not policy yet and it too would not totally preclude non-academic sources which can be useful too.Icewhiz (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
We regularly use non-academic sources in ARBPIA area.For example articles from Haaretz. --Shrike (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Shrike, but only for contemporary articles, not for historical articles unless for example Haaretz is hosting a historian like Benny Morris or Tom Segev. The source can't be used unless the relevant information is cited from a reliable secondary or tertiary source written by a competent academic historian.Nishidani (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
The Publishing house has a web-site here.Davidbena (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Avi Shemmi (Schmidt), Friends Speak About Jimmy (5th edition), HaKibbutz HaMeuhad: Tel Aviv 1958, p. 200 [Hebrew title: חברים מספרים על ג'ימי] (Yad Tabenkin Archives, Testimony of Danny Agmon, 16-12/52/194)


Avi Shemmi (Schmidt), Friends Speak About Jimmy (5th edition), HaKibbutz HaMeuhad: Tel Aviv 1958, p. 200 [Hebrew title: חברים מספרים על ג'ימי] (Yad Tabenkin Archives, Testimony of Danny Agmon, 16-12/52/194)

a RS on the on the 1948 Arab–Israeli War?

It is used in the article on one operation, namely Operation Ha-Har.

Since it is in Hebrew, I cannot read it, but I cannot find any relevant academic qualifications for Avi Shemmi (Schmidt), Huldra (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Please follow the guideline of this board.What information its used to source?--Shrike (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Several items in the Operation Ha-Har article, do you want me to list them all? Huldra (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Reliable for attributed witness stmts. See hewiki on editor, and "חברים_מספרים_על_ג'ימי"hewiki on book, Father edited it, various friends wrote down their testimony. Reputable publisher and well known book (multiple edition). So definitely reliable for primary stmts by fighters/commanders who penned chapters or segments. Not a secondary source.Icewhiz (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
So in other words, not a RS on the article Operation Ha-Har. Agree? Huldra (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
No, I do not agree. RS policy does not work that way. This would be a reliable source for an attributed statement to someone. It would not be a RS for most other stuff - we should not use this unattributed.Icewhiz (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I do not agree that a primary, nonacademic source can be quoted in an article like Operation Ha-Har, even with attribution (unless, of course, it has been quoted by an academic source). But lets hear what other people have to say. Huldra (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
We generally do not use PRIMARY sources (which by definition are not academic analysis). However that is not so much a RS question. This source could be used for an attributed quote and little else - same as Glubb. Some of the writers in this book are more relevant to Ha-Har than Glubb - however both should be used apringly and attributed - if at all.Icewhiz (talk) 04:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I will note that the article at present also uses a book by John Bagot Glubb, A Soldier with the Arabs, as a source - which is probably only OK for Glubbb's views.Icewhiz (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
John Bagot Glubb is "slightly" more known than "Jimmy and his friends." But I agree, Glubb, if used, should be used with attribution, Huldra (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd really want to know specifically what it is being used for, but I'd think generally no. So I'll admit I haven't read the book, but based on the article section on it, the book is compiled from interviews, correspondence, and Jimmy's personal writings? So basically the whole thing is primary sources. I don't see why it would be used except in an article on ג'ימי שמי himself. I mean, even if an academic publisher had printed and published a pile of soldiers' letters, that doesn't make them reliable sources. Articles are supposed to be based on the secondary analysis of experts, after all. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Primary sources can be still user in the article per WP:PRIMARY

Its reliable source for the testimonies --Shrike (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

  • At the moment is used in combination with another book to stitch a story together (this book about playing the sound of machine guns, and another book about the effect that noise had). This is an obvious SYNTH violation. Zerotalk 14:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually, two sources speak about the very same thing. One is a Secondary source, while the other (that which is in parentheses) is a Primary source.Davidbena (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

References to songs, images, how-tos and similar on YouTube, Vimeo, a Web page and similar

The above noted content does not represent or substantiate an opinion, fact, but represents itself.

I recently added to a page on Raoul Wallenberg SONGS section 5 songs about Raoul Wallenberg. Wallenberg[1], There is a man [2], Raoul we thank you[3], The Rescuers[4] and Louise and Marie[5] which I feel merit this. I don't know if the songs are referred to in any external document. The songs were removed with a revert since they are not independently referenced.

This presents a general problem since these days much quality content is posted on-lime without reviews or endorsement by "reliable sources". In fact, aside from science and similar journals these days the concept of reliable sources is questionable. For example CNN and FoxNews often (mostly?) offer point-of view vs. purely fact based content. Same for the major newspapers.

The problem of valuable content possibly not independently reviewed etc. extends also to science, technology and similar on-line content. I recently saw two excellent explanations about "Quaternions" involving 3 distinct imaginary numbers i, j and k which have important applications in physics. [6] and [7]. I have no idea who the first presenter is or if his presentation is referenced anywhere. Still, based on understanding the math and common sense I'd surely want to use the video as a reference in an article on the topic. The second reference is by a very bright postdoctoral physics student at Cambridge U. I don't know if her presentation is reviewed anywhere, but would certainly assume she is worth quoting on a Wikipedia page solely because of the quality of the presentation and the fact that she was accepted to be at Cambridge.

Would appreciate guidance on this matter Emesz (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^
  7. ^

is reliable?

On the article Daniel Doheny, a article was being used to give his birthdate and age. However, two other sources at the same article contradict him being born in 1997: one from a well-known daily Vancouver newspaper, The Vancouver Sun, which lists him as having graduated from a Vancouver-area high school in 2008 and another from a local theatre program, Bard on the Beach, which lists him as in college in 2013.

As a result, I edited his age here. It is sometimes being reverted to the 1997 date based on the source, so I'd like opinions as to their reliability on this kind of information (actor birthdates). —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Your edit is wrong. The source you have given doesn't say he graduated from high school at 18, so we can't put that. You can however use that as a source in the article for claims that it actually makes. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Is Punk Globe a reliable source?

It has its own Wikipedia article, sure, but it's pretty stubby and not well-sourced. From the looks of it, the article also appears to have been created in January 2008 by a user who has a clear undisclosed conflict of interest with the magazine. From all my searches, the magazine has been cited a small number of times, and links to the site are found throughout the project, but no discussion appears to have occurred yet about the reliability of Punk Globe (front page, index). Is it? What about when establishing notability, particularly in within music?

The website and magazine has existed for decades (and clearly shows it!); it has a dedicated staff of writers, editors, photographers, and others; all content appears to be controlled and filtered by that staff (i.e., no user-generated content); and it is still regularly updated (with the exception of its blast-from-the-past 20th-century website style). I have no clue about the credentials of these staff members or whether they are even paid. I can see how this might be passable, if only for interviews, but vaguely comparable sources appear to have failed in the past. Thoughts? —Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 23:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that a self-described Fanzine can be viewed as a "reliable source." Collect (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Usable with caveats. It's definitely a cut above the everyday "fanzine" put together by somebody in their basement. I'd say it's OK for basic info like band X released single Y, or band A played at venue B on date C, or direct quotes from musicians about their music. But it shouldn't be used controversial biographical information or other sensitive purposes. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes but so is my dog. He gets peer reviewed. On point, I would say reliable for interviews etc and non controversial material. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania

  • Source Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania by Barbara West Google Books link
  • Article Rouran Khaganate
  • Content ...was the name of a state established by proto-Mongols, from the late 4th century until the middle 6th century.citation
  • My concern is the author (Barbara West) is a social anthropologist:
    • "West, who holds a Ph.D. in social anthropology, defines a people based on shared language, ethnicity, nationality, tribe, or religion. Ancient peoples may also be classified by archaeological complex (shared material culture)."[14]
  • So does her book pass as a reliable source for history and language-related topics? --Wario-Man (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Note: It is an encyclopedia, and Barbara West is merely the editor. Question for Wario-Man: Do you have any reason to doubt the accuracy of that encyclopedia entry, regardless of who wrote it? Softlavender (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Note 2: Nothing on page 687 of that text mentions a Khaganate or any kind of state. It is only about the Rouran people. So it seems like you would need a different source to cite that there was an actual Khaganate and when precisely it existed. Did proto-Mongols even have Khaganates? There's no mention of that in the Khaganate article. Softlavender (talk) 07:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Unless there a good reason to doubt the name or content i'd consider that encylopedia not an optimal but a sufficient source in general, but you can probably find better ones. If Khanate/Khaganate is not explicitly mentioned, then of course the encyclopedia is only good for the name Rouran. However a quick look at google books quickly yields other (scholarly) sources using the name (see [15], [16]). So the name if fine and you could use any of those 2 sources (or others) to source the full name.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The use of khagan as a title is also supported in the body by the Rousset cite. - (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

THEM Anime Reviews reliability

Upon revisiting Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_65#THEM_reliability, T.H.E.M. Anime Reviews seem to have been used in some books and editorials. However, the website is currently run by hobbyists with no notable credentials and longevity is not a factor in websites used as valid sources. It also originated as a student-run organization from Arizona State University. Carlos Ross is one of the only known notable members who has appeared in press segments but he is no longer affiliated with the website. Perhaps at the time of review, this could be considered a valid source, but not by today's standards, especially when more industry-related resources are available. (Basically, the notable alumni of T.H.E.M. Anime Reviews seem to be valid sources, but the website itself should not be.) Please advise on this. lullabying (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Are they still being referenced by other sources? It seems that they qualified as an actual reliable source some years ago, but things change as personnel change. If secondary reliable sources still quote THEM nowadays, I'd say it's still OK. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
If the status of the website did change then it wouldn't effect the anime that was reviewed by the former staff. The status would be changed to "situational" in which reviews from the website up to x date would be considered usable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this point. I think it'd be best if we specify up to which date and personnel reviews from them should be allowed. lullabying (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Formalizing the addition of the Washington Post to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources

I know that the Washington Post is reliable and frequently used on Wikipedia and wish to add it to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources. Can I go ahead and add it, or do I need to start an RfC here to satisfy the discussion requirement? --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Go for it. That's what everybody's been doing so far. GMGtalk 19:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

This site clearly fails RS, as it is a fan wiki. If there any way of running a bot to remove it, and then blacklisting it to prevent it being used again? GiantSnowman 15:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean like WP:BLACKLIST? -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC) P.S.: Please ping me in your reply. Thank you.
That's the one, thank you! GiantSnowman 07:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Is The Globe Newspaper Zambia A Reliable Source ?

The Globe Newspaper(Zambian) Publishes both Hard copy newspapers and their online edition, i need your input on accessing whether it can be considered a reliable source on wikipedia see Regards

Some context is necessary here I think. The article appears to be recounting a feud between two musicians and the subsequent apology one made to the other. Is this source being used at an article referring to one of the involved parties?Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Simonm223 Yes, i was considering using it on the article Mic Diggy and also as WP:MUSICBIO criteria 11 Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. is it can be the strongest claim to notability (and also MUSICBIO criteria 2, though there's no currently accepted chart for Zambia). The article was deleted before i could access this. (talk) 06:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

If you are trying to establish notability for a musician, and you haven't previously brought this to talk at the article or it's associated WP:AFC or WP:AFD I'd suggest that'd be a good place to start. I can't find enough information on the Globe Newspaper Zambia to confidently comment on whether it's a reliable source, but I'd say that, assuming you've not already done so and been shot down WP:BOLD would apply here.Simonm223 (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Simonm223 one of the AFD active participants advised, i cite this reference, and see how the community reacts, and the AFD admin also thinks this is probably a reliable source. He didn't exactly reverse the deletion and i am not an admin so i can't. What would be the best step? recreating the article or ? (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

If there is an AFD, you'd post that you Oppose deletion on the grounds of notability in a media source and provide the link. Then participants in the AFD can discuss whether they believe it imparts sufficient reliability to warrant retention of the article in question. But even if the source is reliable it might still not be sufficient to demonstrate notability per issues like WP:BLP1E. Again, I don't really know the situation that led you to the Reliable Sources noticeboard. However, the RSN can't override a consensus decision on an AFD discussion; if this is subject to a concluded AFD proceeding and the page was deleted, and if you believe you now have sources to demonstrate reliability you might consider WP:AFC and making your case there. If there's a current AFD in progress I'd suggest you pitch the source there and see if it floats.Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
ETA I followed your IP address back to the concluded AFD. It's done. The page is deleted. If you believe there should be a page for this artist, I'd suggest taking the source to WP:AFC as per my previous discussion, as well, and this is important, as providing a link to the closed AFD so that people can see the discussion there too. If there's consensus at WP:AFC that the new sources warrant inclusion then a new page could be created. Simonm223 (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Simonm223 Thank you very much that was useful information. (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Is "The Space Gamer" a peer-reviewed journal?

In a recent AFD an editor suggested The Space Gamer, an early 80s magazine on fantasy games like Dungeons & Dragons, was a peer-reviewed journal. On the basis of it not having a process of double-blind review, being indexed, or being sponsored by an academic publisher, I don't believe it is. However, out of a preponderance of caution, was wondering if others could offer some input on this question. If there's a consensus that The Space Gamer is a scholarly journal, and I have misinterpreted it, I would like to amend my !vote in the aforementioned AFD. Chetsford (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Topical RS, not scholarly' - my impression is that it was a semi-normal magazine, and would be reasonable RS within it's topic field. But it seems in the category of a general magazine, like Time, or The Atlantic, or Popular Mechanics rather than an academic journal or the journal of a society. I believe they had editorial oversight and did print corrections, so could be a RS if the context is something they covered. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • RS for games, not an academic journal (even if it had a peer review process - one would need to look at the identity of the reviewers). For Wiki notability - a review there would definitely be significant for establishing notability (assuming independence of the product from the magazine - which in most cases was the case).Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
No it is not a peer reviewed journal, but then neither is the Times. But is did have some editorial policy and staff. So it would be RES for gaming.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

This satisfies me; thank you Slatersteven, Markbassett, and Icewhiz! Chetsford (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Is an image upload site a reliable source?

This is being claimed to be a reliable source for adding an entry to List of oldest living people. It is merely an uploaded image from another, unnamed, source. As such there is no way of assessing the reliability of the original source. Given the nature of the image there appears to be no straightforward way of even translating what is shown. Does such a source pass WP:RS? I would say not, as we have no way of verifying if this is real, false, altered or whatever.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

No definitely not a reliable source.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I find it hard to imagine a worse source than that image. I know it was provided simply as a convenience link, but @TFBCT1: needs to include a proper citation if he wants to even discuss that report. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
No, I don't want to discuss the issue any further. Even my point is lost here. Which was that in the past we have accepted information on these Prefecture reports as valid sources on the longevity pages in that Japan has provided credible Prefecture reports on their oldest residents for over 110 years. So the information presented is likely accurate, however it has now been pounded into my head that 'said information' cannot be used if downloaded as an image from an unknown party to a website. Message received.TFBCT1 (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Which of the sources on this google book result considered reliable?

[17]. Looking for references for Ultra high-net-worth individual.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

You should start by simply looking at who the publisher is for each book. Looking at the first page of results, there are several books from Wiley, one from Harvard University Press, and one from Springer. All of those would probably be presumed reliable for most purposes absent evidence to the contrary. Others might be reliable, at least for finding significant opinions, depending on who the authors are. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Aside: The hyphenation in the article title needs to be fixed. Either Ultra-high net worth individual or Ultra-high net-worth individual (see sources, google ngram etc for which is more prevalent). Ditto for High-net-worth individual. Abecedare (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Library of Congress Name Authority File

Is this sufficient for the birth year of a BLP? Eg this page? Doug Weller talk 12:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

That LoC page indicates VIAF 100653927 as one of its sources. The VIAF 100653927 page indicates Wikidata as one of its sources. So (alas the downside of becoming a more widely accepted source by reputable organisations) the LoC page on Manuel da Silva Rosa can not be used as a source for anything, per WP:CIRCULAR.
However: a viable solution can be found on that person's Wikidata page (i.e. Manuel da Silva Rosa (Q10324599)). On that Wikidata page GND 142124524 is given as reference for the person's birth date. The WP:CIRCULAR policy recommends to *not* use the page of one of the WMF projects as a reference, but to use the source it presents (if it is reliable: GND is) as source for the English Wikipedia article directly. So, using GND 142124524 as a reference for the person's birth date should normally be unproblematic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually that page indicates this as the source. See images, author bio. Confirms birth year. I would just use that book (authored by the subject) as a source for the date rather than messing around with un-user friendly database entries. AFAIK, when it lists 'exact matching data' it means other databases with the same data, not that the data (from those databases) has been used to populate that entry at the Library of Congress. Usually whats used to populate it is listed under 'sources' (which leads to the above book). Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
    Well, that's a WP:SPS then: depends on what you want to use it for, e.g. as a WP:ABOUTSELF source it doesn't prove "notability". GND, as a secondary source (or: arguably a tertiary source) is generally less problematic in various contexts. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For the purposes of birth year its fine. Its an author bio in a book they wrote. I wouldnt use it on anyting about Columbus for reasons too long to go into here, but for basic (non-puffery) biographical info about the author its ok. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Source can't be accessed from the EU

I'm dubious about the content @Wesley Craig: recently removed and @NZFC: restored at Proud Boys,[18][19] but I'm not in a position to really discuss it, since I got this when I attempted to access the source, the Wisconsin Gazette: "451: Unavailable due to legal reasons. We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time. For any issues, contact [email protected] or call 414-961-3240." First time I've been stopped by GDPR. I can read the big American newspapers with no trouble, indeed I've got a digital subscription to a couple of them. But maybe shutting out EU will be the next big thing? Anyway, I'm posting here mainly to see if anybody has a comment on the GDPR tripwire, but a comment on the source I can't see would also be welcome. Bishonen | talk 09:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC).

Had this happen a lot with certain newspapers in the USA. But no I would say not being able to access it is not a valid reason for exclusion, just ask them to post a quote on the talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I've had this happen a lot. Perhaps the only good thing that could possibly happen here with Bloody Brexit is that we could abandon the effing stupid eurolaws about data and shit and allow Search results to be honest, or as honest as a giganticorporation can manage, and Merkian newspapers not allowing people in the mother country to read their news. sigh. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


I didn't have problem accessing it and from my glance it looks like a legitimate source. The article is one on Proud Boys as a whole and one of the parts of the article was this "The Proud Boys also have a “no wanks” policy urging members to avoid masturbation and pornography to motivate them to get “off the couch” and meet women." which matches what is in the article. However since reading the about us on the page, I'm not sure if it is reliable or not so happy for others with more knowledge to advise.NZFC(talk) 09:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
the GDPR tripwire or similarly paywalls as such are no reason for the exclusion of sources or to doubt them. There is are requirement on sources to be online or accessible for free. However if you have reason to distrust the content, authenticity or proper use of a source, you cannot access yourself, then you can ask other involved editors for details or copy or ask at WP:RX. If you don't want to pursue the issue yourself, simply post a message on the article's discussion page and leave it other editors to pick it up eventually.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
While they have this on their About us page "The Wisconsin Gazette is Milwaukee’s most honored alternative publication. Our mission is to: help build a strong, informed community; promote social equality and justice; support immigration and electoral reform; expose government secrets and call out political corruption; celebrate and support the arts; and foster appreciation and respect for the state’s extraordinary natural resources.". They do have managing editors, editor in chief etc and a circulation of 29,500 copies, distributed every other week. NZFC(talk) 09:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Not sure why are you telling me this. I didn't assess Wisconsin Gazette myself, I just pointed out what to do in GDPR and paywall cases (and that they as such of have no bearing the reliability assessment of a source). Btw. the mission statement is mostly meaningless for assessing reliability.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry Kmhkmh, was trying to discuss like a talk page and just go after the next person, wasn't really directed at you but more at this whole conversation. Thanks for your note about the mission statement too. NZFC(talk) 13:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Several people seem to get from my post that I want to exclude the source, or that I think it's untrue that it says what it's supposed to say. Not at all. I've no reason to doubt the reliability of the Wisconsin Gazette, or to doubt that its article says what is claimed. I just wanted to see for myself whether or not the text of it gives a good reason for including the content in our article. Like, whether it makes the content appear WP:DUE — you know, to evaluate how the source is being used. @Wumbolo: Thank you, but you're not speaking my language. Imagine that you're explaining it to your mum. Bishonen | talk 11:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC).
A source which can easily be accessed using a free proxy (which you can easily find on Google) should not be treated any differently from other sources. It's not dead, rather it's in a "coma" - when (and if) the website becomes GDPR-compliant, the link will become freely accessible again. wumbolo ^^^ 11:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The Wisconsin Gazette isn't the actual source. The story is a reprint of a piece originally done by Wisconsin Public Radio, an affiliate of NPR. This bumps reliability up by a notch or three. Here's the original. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, I have updated on the page to the original source as per your link. NZFC(talk) 13:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Last time I checked you couldn't access the LATImes or the Chicago Tribune, two major US newspapers. I use a VPN but man does it slow down my PC! Doug Weller talk 14:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Bishonen: You may be able to access the same Proud Boys article at the WisconsinWatch, The Capital Times, or the Wisconsin Public Radio website. Given the article's provenance (it also won an award from the Milwaukee Press Club), I don't think there is much concern about its reliability, although due-weight issues may exist about the particular content. Abecedare (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I see now that User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris had already provided the WPR link. A small clarification: the story is not original to WPR or any of the other "publishers". It is produced by Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, which is a (high-quality) non-profit, investigative journalism outfit that prouces such investivative pieces but instead/in-addition to publishing on its own niche website, offers them to its affiliated partners that have a broader reach. See ProPublica, which follows the same model at a national scale. Abecedare (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Subject of an article critiquing his bio on YouTube as a source

This has to be the strangest sourcing I've seen and I'd like some additional opinions on it: Recently an editor added this youtube video as a source for a date of birth where the subject of the article (Dan Avidan) appears to critique the Wikipedia page about him. That's got to be the weirdest WP:SPS source I've run across. Do folks feel that this is a reliable source as used here? Toddst1 (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we can say it is RS for his saying it is wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, as this is a verified account (tick mark next to GameGrumps, and Dan Avidan is one of the duo in GameGrumps). Per WP:ABOUTSELF the subject may be used for info such as DOB (assuming it's in there in the 13 minutes(4 parts - 79 minutes in all - listening to it). Actually a great way to correct one's Wikipedia's article while providing a RS for the article. Kudos to the article subject.Icewhiz (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • To a limited degree, yes. Simple facts that make no claims about third parties might be judged reliable. Date of birth can be cited to self-published sources, for example. If the subject makes exceptional claims, obviously that's not going in the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • What Ninja said. The 'limited degree' when it comes to age\DOB is that people in media routinely lie about their age (usually to appear younger or just to obfuscate it). If there is no contradictory information, it can be used as a self published primary source. How was the birthday sourced previously? Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • There was no birthday in the article previously. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Then there is no issue. Altho why he would want his birthday in the article is beyond me. But as a SPS from what is clearly the subject, and with no contradictory info, it's fine. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with the above, though my main reason for commenting is to say that, generally, YouTube videos from reliable sources in which the article subject comments on their Wikipedia article are excellent sources for the subjects on themselves. In principle, they are even better than text sources insofar as verifiability goes given how nigh impossible it is to fake a voice or video of the subject. Back in June 2018, I added one such source to confirm and expand Samuel L. Jackson's biography. There's actually an entire video series by GQ called "Actually Me" in which celebrities "go undercover" in various websites to comment on information about them, including Wikipedia. From the couple I've watched (I intend to watch all the ones involving Wikipedia and use them as sources, eventually), the series is courteous enough to not actually submit the vandalism on Wikipedia that they show in the video, despite simulating pressing the "Publish changes" button, which can be confirmed by checking the contribution and page histories of the accounts and pages shown in the videos.
    Frankly, YouTube sources are underused. Usually, they are poorer in quality and more difficult to verify than text sources, but reliable YouTube sources do exist and can be great sources for those willing to take the time to watch the video, note the timestamps, and transcribe the statements. When it comes to sources like the latter and the Avidan video, they are basically standard autobiographic sources—for YouTube-published interviews, standard interviews. So long as they pass the usual sourcing and verifiability criteria, the fact that they are in videographic form does not matter much. {{Cite AV media}} exists for a reason, after all. With that said, great find! —Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 08:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Disagree that we should use Youtube more. Ugh. This is a scholarly project, not part of the blogosphere. Jytdog (talk) 02:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
      I much prefer " scholarly" sources over YouTube videos any day, and I hope that one is found anytime I (or anyone else) ever consider using YouTube as a source. If there is simply no better source and the YouTube source passes all pertinent policy and guidelines criteria, however, then I think using it to help further Wikipedia's purpose is better than excluding it. Sometimes, some information is only available—or at least accessible—through YouTube, such as certain interviews with reputable secondary sources which would be uncontroversial if in text form. When that is no longer the case and a better source is found, I definitely encourage replacement.
      With that said, I disagree that Wikipedia is " a scholarly project" except in the broadest of definitions. Most of us are not scholars, some of us don't even have secondary school diplomas, and few of us believe Wikipedia is a reliable source. We may summarize scholarly sources, and write in a desert-dry scholarly tone, but this project seems generally in the "popular (as in the masses) non-specialist" part of society, the same part that comprises our readership. But perhaps I misunderstood you.
      Regardless, I think we can both agree that YouTube sources rarely percolate into even questionable source status and that, in general, the answer to "Is this YouTube source reliable?" is a very probable "no in most to any contexts". It takes a very competent and experienced editor who is familiar with the rules to know whether a YouTube source is acceptable and when to use it, and even then it is difficult and unclear (as evinced by this discussion, started by one of the top 500 most prolific editors). For anyone who is new to Wikipedia and its sourcing rules, YouTube as a source should be avoided until that changes. —Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 03:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Like any WP:BLPSPS, ok for simple, uncontroversial facts. Beyond that, no and hell no. What a nightmare this would open up if we forgot that basic classification.Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

List of Reliable Sources

I have a few links about a topic which is quite interesting and revolutionary. There are about 5 media houses who described about the event and the topic. I just want to know if the following media houses qualify for reliability. Also all these sources are from a particular week. Will I need more sources from different dates. Kindly help.


  • — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 07:14, August 17, 2018 (UTC)
I would say they are RS, but I wonder why there are no more recent ones.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Depends upon what you plan to use them for. The Hindu and Times Now are generally considered reliable for basic facts but keep in mind that these two articles are fluff pieces, clearly based on press-releases ("Vikram’s team claims the product is considered the most impressive VR Cricket experience..."), and should therefore be handled with care. Pix8 is essentially a repository for company press releases and not an independent reliable source. Abecedare (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Is a document from Wikileaks reliable?

The link is Master Pilot Scablist.

It has been used to support a claim that a pilot flew during a strike as a scab, in Charles Donald Albury.

He chose a career as a commercial airline pilot for the now defunct Eastern Airlines,<ref name=lat/> and flew during their 1989 strike. <ref>{{cite web|title=US MASTER PILOT SCABLIST|url=|publisher=Wikileaks|accessdate=26 October 2016}}</ref>

Some derogatory material that was cited from the link has been removed. The current statement cited to the link seems neutral.

I have a conflict of interest, as the subject of the article was my first cousin, once removed. - Donald Albury 16:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I would say not, Wikileaks does not (as far as I know) make any attempt to verify what it posts.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it would be reliable. There's no mechanism by which we (or a trusted third party such as a generally reliable news outlet) could verify that the leaked document has not been altered before being passed to wikileaks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I think documents that have been discussed by high-quality press sources like the Guardian can be included as references to the primary source if the article is cited as well. But I agree somewhat with above comments and think the use should be attributed. If no news outlets have picked it up, then I think we can't use it for the reasons already stated by editors above. Seraphim System (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Irrespective of who is hosting the document, the "US Master Pilot Scablist" with unknown compilers and editorial process ("For any corrections/additions/updates PLEASE email [email protected]!") is itself a non-RS source for wikipedia purposes. Abecedare (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your resonses. I will link this discussion to the article's talk page, but will let someone else deal with the article due to my conflict of interest. - Donald Albury 16:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikileaks documents can be reliable if they originate from a reliable source. In this case, however, there is no attributed author or publisher to assess reliability or verify content. From a WP:WEIGHT perspective, the statement about the strike should not be included unless it has been covered by secondary sources. –dlthewave 16:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Reality TV World (

AMERICA'S GOT TALENT 3 (Reality TV World) was manufactured to use as a source in Indiggo. Compared to America's Got Talent (season 3), which it acknowledged at the bottom, it ends abruptly in the middle of a table, very shortly after making the quote it supports, 'the audience were booing at Indiggo and Morgan called them "the worst dancers and the worst singers in the entire competition,"' as footnote [69].

It was placed on March 3, 2014 with the erroneous edit summary “Restoring valid, reliable independent sources that were deleted / replaced with irrelevant sources in the previous editing warring” That edit also changed a source to a different commentary by the same author (Victor Balta) and publisher, but didn’t change the date. The latter commentary supported the quote.

In the “cast” tab one of the three judges is omitted and a second is repeated. I’ve removed the source on the basis it relies on Wikipedia. The purpose of this notice is to alert editors of a problem with Reality TV World, which indicates that its editorial oversight is weak.. Vyeh (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Online resource published by the Stanford Research Into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising (SRITA) research group

The source describes itself here:

TL;DR: The SRITA research group has, since 2006, maintained an online database of nicotine advertising images, with the images organised by theme and the themes discussed, sometimes with references to specific images. This database has been extensively cited in major newspapers, government reports, and peer-reviewed medical journals, and has also toured as two museum exhibits. They don't seem to have named this extensive online resource, which is a tad awkward.

I would like to use it in Nicotine marketing and Marketing of electronic cigarettes as a source for statements about nicotine advertising methods and their history. It seems to me that citing the ads themselves for this would be undesirable, as they would be primary sources. Even if I'm just saying that marketing claim X has been made, I'd rather cite SRITA's publication, and what they said about the ad(s).

I'm in a debate about whether this is a reliable source. Should I consider the SRITA publication a reliable source, for statements about individual ads or campaigns? For generalizations made by them about ads (for instance, that X advertising method was common in the fifties, or that Y-type ads were published in outdoor magazines, or Z was done with a particular purpose, like producing a certain impression or effect)? HLHJ (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a collection of WP:primary sources and a perfectly fine one. That means, however, that if you are going to use them, you cannot interpret or comment on them....unless there is actually commentary there that I missed, that you can summarize in a given article... Jytdog (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Jytdog. There is commentary on some pages, although it is not immediately obvious. For instance, the right panel of this page begins: "Tobacco companies have been advertising their particular brands as mild since the first half of the 20th century..." and goes on to discuss the history of this marketing method, up until it was banned in the United States in 2010. The source is rather US-centric. HLHJ (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I would consider SRITA a reliable source for the purpose of describing which marketing terms and advertising strategies the tobacco industry was using at different periods of time. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Someguy1221. Could it be cited on the effects of marketing strategies? For instance, could one cite commentary in this section and this section to say that children were/are placed in ads to suggest that the product is harmless, and appeal to women? Could one cite this section's commentary for the misconceptions caused by using the term "natural"? HLHJ (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
In my view the commentaries are RS for marketing strategies. A couple of notes -- the commentary about health-risk marketing is OK for the marketing strategies, but that page makes statements about health risks as well, and you will not succeed in getting consensus for content about health risks cited to this source. You will need MEDRS sources for such content. I say that generally, but if you are not aware, please do be aware that there are DS on e-cigs as our pages on ecigs are contentious, and health claims sourced to non-MEDRS sources get shot down quickly on those pages. Jytdog (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
There are plenty of good medical sources on nicotine use; detailed sources on nicotine promotion are actually harder to find. I would definitely never use this as a MEDRS, but thanks for the warning.
The most controversial thing I've tried to do with it was source an illustration. I cited other RS saying that nicotine marketing strategies included: offering unwilling smokers alternatives to quitting, associating non-use with social exclusion, and identifying use with rebelling, choice, and freedom, and control. Then I used an ad containing the text "WHY QUIT? SWITCH TO BLU/blu is the smart choice for smokers wanting a change. Take back your freedom to smoke... Nobody likes a quitter, so make the switch today". In the caption, I wrote that part X of the ad illustrated cited strategy Y (being pretty sure that this was enough discussion to establish fair use). I thought that these were "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source" (WP:PRIMARY). But I was told I needed a secondary source saying that this particular ad illustrated these particular strategies, and that my sources about marketing strategies had to be specific to the product and even the product brand. I think that identifying the image content is generally not something that needs, or gets, a citation. Is there some reason why an image from this source would be an exception? Would I need to cite the source in the caption to confirm that the file is a real ad, or could I leave that to the image metadata? HLHJ (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Truth in Advertising (organization)

I am involved in a debate about whether Truth in Advertising (TINA) articles are reliable sources. At issue is whether TINA is unreliable due to bias, or a primary source.

Truth in Advertising's website, which publishes their articles, is

TINA could be cited in Nicotine marketing and Marketing of electronic cigarettes. Several TINA articles were cited in this old version of the e-cigarettes article. Generalizing, they were investigative journalism articles on e-cigarette marketing practices, cited to support statements that these practices existed. I can give more details, but for brevity, here are the cited articles: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

One of the articles triggered a FDA investigation; another, fines for false advertising. TINA is frequently briefly quoted as a source in reliable sources (see, and they seem to have staff journalists and an editorial staff. They seem to do consumer advocacy and investigative journalism. They do not seem to have bylines, but attribute articles to the organisation, like The Economist does. HLHJ (talk) 04:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

What is their editorial policy?Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I can't see a posted editorial policy. There is this in the FAQ:

Will take down a post if the company gets rid of the deceptive advertising? No. As a general matter, never takes down an article or post. But we will always consider updating an article to let consumers know what the company has done since the original post was published. So if you’ve got an update, please let us know.

I could e-mail them and ask. Should I? HLHJ (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source for the claim that Alex Jones has had old links with a group of Iranian hardliners?


--Guy Macon (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering that when I saw it added.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
It just got reverted.[26]
Iranian hardliners using some of Jones' conspiracy theories for their own end is plausible, and if there is a reliable source for that, would be an interesting addition to the article. Jones having ties with Iran? Not plausible. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I removed the edit before I saw this. One source is a paper linked with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Another is linked to the Iranian gov’t. Another is an Alex Jones video. I don’t think these are usable sources for rather dramatic claims. O3000 (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
And I was just re-reverted. O3000 (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
We need good secondary WP:RS to make such claims especially in WP:BLP --Shrike (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Clearly not. Even setting reliability and bias of Iranian news-sources aside, three of them don't even mention Alex Jones, while the fourth is supposedly a clip featuring Jones from the 911 conspiracy documentary We were there hosted on a generic video-hosting site (afaict the documentarians just used one of his pre-existing recordings on the subject). The "old links with a group of Iranian hardliners" bit is not supported by any the cited sources. That is just made up out of whole cloth by the editor. Too lazy to list all the policies the edit flouts Abecedare (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Content is not adequately supported by the mentioned sources. BLP or not, source is not reliable. Excelse (talk) 06:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Sputnik (news agency)

Seems to be used in a lot of articles[27] although the article itself says "According to The New York Times, Sputnik engages in bias and disinformation,[4] and has widely been described as a Russian propaganda outlet." Doug Weller talk 14:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

It's absolutely not a reliable source. It's Breitbart-level. Actually, the outlet is so bad that it actually hired a Breitbart "reporter" who was let go from Breitbart for having been too much of an embarrassment for Breitbart.[28] Sputnik should be scrubbed from all pages where it's used as a secondary source for facts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
It may be usable for utterly mundane facts such as "there was a thunderstorm last night in xyz oblast." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd say there's a good argument Breitbart is actually a better source that Sputnik or the equally poor quality Russia Today. At least some of Bb's unreliability can be attributed to simply being bad at their jobs as an organization. The unreliability of Sputnik and RT is the result of them actually being quite good at their jobs. It's just that their job is unfortunately the spread of state propaganda and/or intentional misinformation. GMGtalk 14:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
While it's safe to say that I have a slightly divergent view of what constitutes a reliable media source from the American average, I'd 100% concur that Sputnik is not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
ETA - I would disagree with GreenMeansGo (talk · contribs) that Breitbard its more reliable than Sputnik. I think we have, with both outlets, hit the floor of lowest possible reliability without being an actual work of fiction. A distinction they share with Fox News, and the Daily Mail. Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Meh. It's a bit of "What would you prefer? Rotten meat or poisoned food?" They'll both kill ya. GMGtalk 15:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Just sticking in the usual caveat to all of this... Sputnik (like any news source), is reliable for verifying statements about what sputnik itself has said. ie, if we state "On June 23, 2018 the news outlet Sputnick reported that XYZ occurred" then it is appropriate to cite the sputnick article where sputnick acutally said XYZ occurred. That sputnick reported that XYZ occurred is verifiable, even if XYZ didn't actually occur. HOWEVER... That leaves open the question of whether we should mention the fact that sputnick reported it. That is a question for WP:NPOV (and specifically WP:UNDUE). Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
    Eh... So much of what they put out is so damn near gaslighting, at least when it comes to international relations, it should probably not be used at all if it can be avoided. They're the type to publish some counter narrative ... any counter narrative to any reality that isn't favorable to Russia, just so there is some narrative out there to cast doubt. GMGtalk 15:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah, I'd be very concerned about WP:DUE in circumstances where somebody was inserting a Sputnik quote. Why does it matter what this known purveyor of misinformation thinks? Simonm223 (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Sputnik is perfectly reliable for what Putin wants you to think, Russian state positions (e.g. if you want to get the run-down on how a Ukranian SU-25 shot down MH370, or a Ukranian buk shot down MH370 - per the various Russians alternative narratives (complete with air traffic control skits, etc.) - it's got all the nitty gritty details packaged nicely in English). Might be OK for sports, weather, and culture (ignoring identities of those related to the regime appearing with an alias). In other words - OK for the mundane non-political / non-Russia aggrandizing news, for anything political - reliable only for the regime's position.Icewhiz (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Entertainment-related sources

Hello! I've listed below a few sources and I will like to know whether are these reliable. I am intending to include these achievements into this page. The last source is written in Japanese, but you can use WP:KO/RS as a guideline; I do not see much difference between Korean and Japanese sources. Personally, I feel that most of these sources are reliable (i.e., written by professional writers at established websites), but I need to confirm because I am adding information into a WP:ECP page.

Thank you! Requiem II (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ "EXO thrills fans with 30 songs at KL concert". July 9, 2018.
  2. ^ "Ticketing for EXO PLANET #4 in Singapore starts Jan 28". Jan 22, 2018.
  3. ^ "엑소, 콘서트 팬가족석 '0.4초'만 매진..28일 가온K팝어워드도 출연". Jan 21, 2015.
  4. ^ "EXO、単独コンサートのチケットが1.47秒で完売に". April 17, 2014.

Is the Wizards of the Coast website / other pubs RS for uncontroversial information about its authors/employees/itself?

The query in the subject line is in reference to a discussion I started here on the R.A. Salvatore article. Our article claims there is an "R.A. Salvatore Library" at Fitchburg State University, which is a somewhat incredible claim sourced to his publisher, the game company Wizards of the Coast. And, on further examination this claim has become widely propagated across the internet, is included in publisher notes of his books on, and is even printed within the bio page of at least six of his own books (e.g. [29], [30], etc.). Yet, when a Google News search is done there is no mention of the phrase "Salvatore Library" on any RS. Further, the phrase "Salvatore Library" (or any logical variation of it) appears nowhere on the domain (As I said at the Talk page, I suspect there might be an R.A. Salvatore collection at FSU [IOW, a shelf in the special collections division] - which is fairly normal for alumnae of any notability to have at their home institution - but that Wizards of the Coast has puffed this into the claim that, not just a wing but indeed an entire library has been named after Bob Salvatore!)
Is the Wizards of the Coast website or things published by Wizards of the Coast, therefore, reliable even for uncontroversial/routine biographical information about its own authors and employees or itself? Chetsford (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

They have a "Robert A. Salvatore Collection" comprised of 137 containers donated by him mentioned here [31] that resides in the Library (which is named after someone else). So yes, it looks like someone has exaggerated a bit, or someone just doesnt know what a collection is. It doesn't make the Wizards of the Coast fact checking look very accurate Curdle (talk) 10:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
At least the Wizards don't seem to have taken the incorrect information from us. In 2008 the article had perfectly correct info, albeit unreferenced, then by 2009, someone had changed the donation date to 2000 (should be 1997). It wasnt changed from "collection" to "library" and the date changed back to 1997 until May 2013 when the ref was added from the Wizards page which was archived in 2009.Curdle (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
If Fitchburg themselves don't claim to have a library by that name, I fail to see how a mention of such an establishment by a company unconnected to it could be considered reliable. Me thinks that Wizards is fibbing here, or at least exaggerating. Someone having a library named after them at a university should be easy to locate, but since it's not they don't. Canterbury Tail talk 11:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I would say this is a prefect example of why SPS are not reliable about themselves.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
As a professional archivist, I'd just like to point out that describing a book collection, even quite a small one, donated by someone as the "Foo Library" is neither inaccurate nor uncommon, even if it's held within another library. In this instance it's apparently an archive collection so Wizards are using incorrect terminology, but I suspect that's an honest mistake (and not at all an uncommon one, as many people assume it's the correct name for an archive collection) and not some overblown and inaccurate claim they're making. They're neither archivists nor librarians. I think we can cut them some slack here. After all, many far worse errors creep onto organisations' websites even about themselves, yet we usually (and mostly rightly) accept these as reliable. Wearing my military historian hat, for example, I'd have to tell you that the webmasters employed by many of the world's armed forces don't know what the hell they're talking about! You have to remember that many of the people who maintain organisational websites are experts in web design and not in the subject of the website. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
The source on the website (which I included on the talk page) refers to it as the Salvatore collection, not the Salvatore library. I'm not commenting one way or the other if this collection is notable. It does seem a little bit WP:PEACOCK but it also seems a little bit harmless; but we should not use the WotC source in this context when the library source supersedes it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Correct they are neither archivists nor librarians, they are business men who look for any opportunity for free promotion. And fake accademia is one such tool "The Bert Terrible professional worrier fine art collection" (six capi demonti figures and a picture of a tennis player scratching her arse).Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
How is that the same as an archive collection of 137 boxes of papers? That's a fair-sized collection, you know. Most archive collections are no large than a handful of boxes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not commenting one way or the other on notability. But the WotC source is contradicted on nomenclature by the university source. Since it's the university's collection we should, at minimum, adhere to the university source. And it demonstrates that the WotC source has a reliability problem here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
OK "1555 boxes of old tat and a picture of some dogs playing cards", better? dopes this in any way change the substantive point? Donate some old toot, get a library to name "the Bert Terrible educational collection of ephemeral culturrana" and get a bit of free publicity. As I said this is why any business is unreliable for claims about itself or its staff. They thought they had a collection at a library, and the library thought otherwise.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  • There's a certain corner of my reading room that might well be called the Salvatore library, but I'm afraid it has no exclusive works...
FWIW, I'm seen collections described as "libraries" before. So if we can confirm that he donated some material to his alma mater and they kept it, that's enough to consider the claim supported, though I would change "library" to "collection" to avoid the confusion many people unfamiliar with archival practices might experiences at learning that the "library" consists entirely of a shelf or two within a building named after an entirely different person. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
OR ALERT!!!! I know that back in the 80's the British library had the largest collection of porn in the world. However it was never on public display or even for reading on site. It was in the cellars. It had been a bequest to them, and they had a policy of never throwing away bequests. But it was also not in their catalog as part of any collection, it was just dumped in the cellar. For all we know this may be the same, the library gets boxes of old tat and dump it in a storeroom.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Considering the university lists it on their website as one of their collections with a a good sized paragraph of commentary on it I don't think that's an apropos comparison. However I would support MPants at work in the suggestion that, at the very least, it should be called a collection rather than a library, and should use the university source rather than WotC. Simonm223 (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
The issue is not its existence, but using Wizkids as a source. The libray call it a collection (not a library), thus the wizkids claim is not substantiated. Anyone can donate crap to libraries (and claim they have done so), and they do all the time, but we need a better source then the donater (or their employers) for such a claim.14:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talkcontribs)
I don't think we're actually disagreeing here at all. Simonm223 (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Is the use of a word in a Glasgow newspaper an RS to show that the word is used in Glasgow?

I'm involved in a discussion about whether this and this constitute reliable sources to support the assertion that the word 'Weegie' is being embraced by Glasgow residents as a term of self-reference. (There is another source, but this has been criticised since the author is an American and a non-expert.) Both sources are Glasgow publications, written for a Glasgow audience, and both actually use the word in the manner described in our article. I agree with the assertion, (I am from Glasgow, and I use the word, as do others I know), but it does kind of feel like WP:SYNTH to infer from these articles that the word is indeed used in this way - I'd appreciate others' viewpoints. Girth Summit (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

  • That definitely sounds like OR to me: the article is being used as evidence for a claim about the historical evolution of the term's usage which the article does not itself contain. I can easily imagine a qualified author citing the article in a book as evidence for the claim, perhaps contrasting it to past mentions of the term in comparable publications, but that's really not our job.
Searching for recent sources discussing "the term 'weegie'" finds some supporting the claim that the term is (increasingly) used as a self-description [32] [33] and others only making reference to its (sometimes) pejorative connotations [34] [35] [36], providing further reason not to rely on primary sources to settle this. FourViolas (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks - I agree with your assessment. I'll read through those references and think about what we can say, given the sources available. Girth Summit (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Is a blogpost a reliable source?

On July 2, WP:INVOLVED administrator USER:Doug Weller posted a long addition to the Bat Creek Inscription page, relying as its source entirely on a WP:RS/SPS self-published blogpost by Jason Colavito, at [37]. Weller’s addition to the page is at [38].

I have discussed the issues at length at Talk:Bat_Creek_inscription#Changes_of_2_July_2018. Rather than participating there, Weller has announced over at WP:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Talk:Bat_Creek_inscription that he has withdrawn himself from the discussion on the relevant Talk page.

So my question for RSN is, does this self-published blogpost constitutes a RS? If not, I will institute a Edit Request to remove it, since, having published four articles on the subject, I am considered a connected author and am not supposed to be making substantial edits.

As I indicated on the Talk page, I would have no objection to including Colavito's blogpost under External Links, as the criteria are much lower for ELs than for Sources. HuMcCulloch (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Although I hope that others also evaluate the situation, I was one of the participants in the discussion at the article's talk page. While blogs are not generally considered reliable (WP:SPS), blog posts of notable people in a field may occasionally be. It's also a question of circumstances: WP:PARITY appears to apply there in order to refute a fringe opinion. The particular post also appears to be uncontroversial. —PaleoNeonate – 04:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing, before you posted. Colavito is not a typical academic, but he's a notable debunker of pseudoarchaeology. Since his blog is challenging an assertion about archaeology from an economist, I agree that PARITY applies. The point being cited to him is sufficiently minor and uncontroversial this should not be a problem. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
My understanding of WP:PARITY is that a normally non-RS such as a blogpost could be used to rebut a position that has somehow gained prominence despite having being presented in a similar non-RS. However, the blogpost in question is rebutting a peer-reviewed article (by myself) in a scholarly specialized journal, namely Tennessee Anthropologist, 1988, pp. 79-123. That article has already been rebutted in three different peer-reviewed scholarly articles that are already cited on this page. User Jyldog complains on the Talk page that the article already has too many primary and secondary sources. So should it also include this self-published original research, which shouldn't count as a source at all? As I have already indicated, placing Colavito's blogpost under External Links with a mention that it relates to the word divider issue would allow interested readers to find it, without cluttering up an already lengthy article. HuMcCulloch (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Colavito is an expert (even if not by degree) in debunking pseudoarcheology, established in the field (has been writing on the subject since at least 2005), whose work has been published in third-party reliable sources (Huffington Post, Skeptic magazine). Per WP:SPS, that is sufficient. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

It should be noted that User:Doug Weller has asked for help with the Talk:Bat_Creek_inscription#Changes_of_2_July_2018 discussion over on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Talk:Bat_Creek_inscription, not once but twice, on 4 August and again on 14 August. While such solicitation of editors who may share one's POV is not per se contrary to the Wikipedia WP:Canvassing policy, it is generally regarded as good practice to leave a note at the relevant discussion that such a call for reinforcements has been made. Weller has posted no such notice over at Talk:Bat_Creek_inscription. I suspect that many, if not all, of the editors who have commented here have done so in answer to Weller's call for help, by following the link I left at Talk:Bat_Creek_inscription#Changes_of_2_July_2018 to this discussion. Is this the case? HuMcCulloch (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

There's too much deja vu for me to want to get involved more if I can avoid it. I said what I had to say at Talk:Bat Creek inscription. Hu and I have a long history of debate on the Usenet group sci.archaeology and he knows where I stand. His site is mentioned a number of times on Wikipedia[39] and I don't think I've complained (although I might have forgotten if I have). I didn't even get involved when another editor got upset over his being the major contributor to this article. Only when Hu tried to remove a rival author, one who although well known for his blog has written and edited books published by main stream publishers did I decided I'd had enough. Doug Weller talk 18:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Generally speaking I would say Colavito's blog, as a self-published expert source, is a reliable and valuable source on pseudoarchaeology. Unfortunately, it's often difficult to find sceptical reviews of these types of claims in peer-reviewed/academic literature. In this case there are also traditionally-published sources available (already cited in the article), but that's no reason to exclude Colavito's post if it includes useful information that can't be found elsewhere. And Doug was careful to indicate that the material he added was Colavito's opinion; he didn't present it as settled fact. – Joe (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC) (summoned here from WT:ARCHAEO, to head off any claims of WP:CANVASsing, although bringing others' attentions to discussions is exactly why noticeboards like this exist...)

What I'm hearing here so far is that SPS blogposts are OK, so long as they agree with one's POV. HuMcCulloch (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

HG101 possibly "laundering" unsourced Japanese Wikipedia info?

Hardcore Gaming 101 was already previously discussed, with ruling that only Kurt Kalata's articles can be considered reliable. However, I am alarmed by a post on 4chan's retro games board (someone will call me out on taking 4chan seriously...) alleging that HG101's articles may have took unsourced information from Japanese Wikipedia as a source of research. Pages citing HG101, therefore, can have such unverified information from Japanese Wikipedia back into English Wikipedia.

Because the way this issue happens, this will require a cross-check involving Japanese Wikipedia too, so if possible, please let them know also. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 08:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

There have been some additional discussions about the website; those can be seen at WP:VG/S#hg101. --Izno (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn’t be alarmed unless it’s been a repeated issue. It happens to some of the biggest entertainment websites sometines, but that doesn’t mean she should automatically write off their years of good content with it. We should just flag that writer as unusable or something. Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Depends if it can be confirmed as systemic. I'm more willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater in such situations because the whole point of editorial reliability is having a system of integrity (editorial fact-checking, journalistic ethics, etc.) that prevents this sort of thing. Publications guard this type of stuff with their life if they want to be deserving of blanket trust. czar 17:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Do we even have verification of their initial instance of it though? I only skimmed the first 10-20 posts, and it was just looked like a vague allusion to it happening followed by a dog pile of “HG101 sux” type comments so I started to lose interest. Do they eventually get to some examples or something? Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
An anon there admitted he fed HG101 (and a YTer) an false information about an easter egg in Time Gal's HG101 article, but he said that came from a sprite editing website, not Japanese Wikipedia. 11:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)FMecha (to talk|to see log)
That’s not “verification”, that’s another vague anecdote from 4chan. Sergecross73 msg me 16:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Now that even 4chan considers this is issue is overblown... 17:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)FMecha (to talk|to see log)

The source for this is a 4chan thread, and it's entirely all speculation. Scanning the thread, they don't actually cite anything as proof. As for HG101, it's a decent source. They do have oversight, and fact checking. Kurt reviews all the articles, and they do fact checking and error correction. If errors are found, they're reported either on the forums, or by contacting Kurt directly.

As for Wikipedia copying, I recently found what looks like the BBC copying info from Wikipedia in regards to the famous 1969 Saigon execution. See: Talk:Nguyễn_Ngọc_Loan#BBC_source. BBC is considered a "gold standard" source, but it looks like they were just copying WP info. Wikipedia being used as a source is a major problem with any post Wikipedia source, and something that should be guarded against. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Reliable sources get their information from Wikipedia all the time. Not sure if this is really an issue. JOEBRO64 14:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Per WP:CIRCULAR, it technically would be an issue if it was frequently and heavily being used as their only source. But here, all we have is an unconfirmed anecdote from a messageboard. No evidence of it happening at all, let alone consistently or heavily. Sergecross73 msg me 16:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I am pretty convinced that this is not a reliable source. It seems to be a repository of user-submitted stories. Quotes from its front page which also demonstrate that they're not independent: If you have had any type of experience with Aliens or UFO's it's very important that you report that data Here so we can archive and investigate it and make it readily available to anyone who wishes to know the truth., Since the dawn of time itself we have been visited by UFO's and Aliens. The reason I post here is that I would like other editors to also assess it, so I have an RSN entry to point at when removing references to it in existing articles (it was very convenient when doing cleanup work related to Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 01:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, this is an easy one. You can take your pick of WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:RS/SPS, or WP:USERG. You can even take advantage of our special offer -- get all three for the price of one (but only on days ending in "Y"). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Clearly not RS. This is nothing more than a self-published collection of UFO stories. –dlthewave 03:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
(sarcasm) Of course it's reliable! In what alternate universe would it not be reliable?(/sarcasm) Actually, I can see using it to say, not that aliens exist, but that on x date Person Y claimed to have seen a UFO, but it was just a weather balloon. Even then though, if the incident rises to the level of being notable I'd expect it to be reported in a better source, one that is more than a repository for user-generated content. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 04:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • A repository for user generated content - that sums it up pretty well. I can't see anything on the website to say that there are any kind of editorial staff, it's just an anonymous blog giving a platform for user's submitted stories. Reliable for absolutely nothing at all. Girth Summit (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks all for the input, —PaleoNeonate – 10:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I haven't seen this source earlier. User generated content is certainly not reliable including opinion pieces in obvious reliable sources. Excelse (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Just one more chiming in - clearly violates WP:USERG. Sergecross73 msg me 16:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Entertainment Weekly and David Duke

In regard to this edit on David Duke, is Entertainment Weekly a reliable source in the context of non-entertainment infromation? Further, according to this comment by the editor on my talk page, this was the result of an interview with Duke. Is Entertainment Weekly to be trusted to vet the material in the interbiew by researching it, or, as an entetainment-oriented publication, are they likely to simply be passing along what they're told? If not, then the information is, for all intents and purposes, from a primary source, Duke himself, and needs to be handled properly, at the very least labelled as "According to Duke...".

Thoughts? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I doubt they checked but then I was not aware that RS required that interviews be vetted for accuracy. Now there might be an argument for attribution "David Duke said in an interview" as (in essence) a primary source.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
We know from the Daily Mail that a source can falsify interviews, so we better be assured that the source is an RS if we're using interview material. For this purpose, I have never seen any reason to question what EW puts out - they're not like TMZ and tend to exert the appropriate editorial control, so I would think it is okay to consider them as acceptable to source the interview. That said, I'm not 100% sure if this makes it the best source for a factual statement related to Duke because I think we're talking information that is second- or third-hand from the matter.
Also I'm a bit confused by wording at the source article being used here for the specific diff: Stallworth says he and Duke went beyond the film. “We talked about issues about Trump. He said, ‘Trump’s not racist.’ I said, ‘Yeah he is.’ He said, ‘Trump is just promoting white culture and heritage.’ I said there’s no such thing as white culture and heritage, it’s a myth. He cited the fact he’s of Germanic and Scandinavian descent, and that’s the culture that built America. The "He" of "He cited..." is not clear if that is Duke or Trump. If it is Duke, then it would better to find the cites that Duke actually asserted this rather than this interview.
So the tl;dr, EW is normally reliable, but for this information there should be better sources based on its context. --Masem (t) 14:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
True, the Daily Myth does alter interviews, but then they are also not an RS (and that is one reason why). But unless a source has a reputation for this sort of thing (and thus would not be an RS anyway) I am not sure that it we can reject a source on the grounds it does not check interview claims (altering them is a different issue). As to it not being clear, seems pretty clear to me "he" means trump, he means the bloke being interviewed, one is clearly quoting the interviewee, the other is a reference to him.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
If we source something from X, we are saying that X is an RS and can be trusted, and that requires that they have a reputation for checking their facts. I see no reason that the facts (or "facts") in an interview would be any different. If they're just passing along what Duke says, then we should be clear that these are claims made by Duke, and have not been verified by the source. My feeling is that an entertainment news outlet is used to regurgitating press releases sent to them by artists' representatives, whicb is why I'm loathe to accept it as a reliable source in a political context. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
(ec) I guess I meant to say that if we deem a work to be an RS, an interview from that RS can assume to be reliable as to the statements made by the interviewers. In otherwords, EW is generally an RS when it comes to speaking to Hollywood personalities (this is one of their major functions, to get behind-the-scenes details), and so we can assume that EW is reliably repeating what Stallworth told them.
I do agree that on a first reading the "he" is meant to be Duke, but again, when you read it like that, Stallworth has claimed that Duke has self-cited elsewhere of his heritage. It would be better to pull those sources for the claim, than the second-hand info through Stallworth (unless he wrote the proverbial biographical book on David Duke, which I don't think he has). --Masem (t) 17:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
If this is only the primary source discusses it, we should not include it. If other sources have it, reflect it as they do. Guy (Help!) 17:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Unreliable: a movie review in EW is not a reliable source as to the genealogy of Duke. In any case, his exact "European" background is excessive intricate detail for the article, unless reliable sources address this directly to establish WP:WEIGHT. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Normally, I would say that we could use this source, no questions asked (if EW is a generally reliable source, which I think it is). but in this case I'm hesitant. There's no one thing that makes it unreliable, but there's a couple of things that make me suspect that it's not a reliable claim.
    • One's ancestry is generally not a very contentious claim, and it seems unlikely to me that EW would have vetted this claim, despite having implicitly endorsed it by publishing it.
    • Given Duke's views on race, he has a vested interest in his own ancestry, and the claim that he's German and Scandinavian is (from his perspective) an unduly self-serving claim.
So I'm honestly not sure. I would say to keep it out, just to be safe. Honestly, unless we find out he's 2% African and 12% Jewish, his ancestry is not going to be particularly pertinent information to the article, anyways. The reader will simply assume he's of Western European ancestry, and they would most likely be correct in that assumption. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Captain Marvel (film) and That Hashtag Show

I was wondering if a certain article from That Hashtag Show regarding the upcoming film Captain Marvel could be considered reliable - [40]. The main points of contention are:

  • Specifying the roles of two actors whose involvement in the film can be verified via other sources (Mckenna Grace and Ben Mendelsohn)
  • Confirming the involvement of two other actors (Kenneth Mitchell and Ana Ayora), only one of whom has their role specified

Other sources typically considered reliable have picked up this report ([41], [42], [43]), although I am aware this in itself does not make the report reliable per WP:FRUIT.

This information has been added to the article before only to later be removed. The reverts describe the source as unreliable in the edit summary - [44], [45]. I can not find any other discussion regarding this source's reliability on the article's talk page, the talk pages of the relevant editors, and this noticeboard's archives. Without that discussion, I'm not sure if the opinions of the two editors can be considered a consensus.

While my instincts would be to agree with those editors, I'm having trouble finding a more concrete reason to consider the source unreliable. If anyone could help me find a reason to consider it such, or point me in the direction of a conversation about it that I've overlooked, that would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance,
- LoveWaffle (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:List of states with limited recognition#New source for adding Donetsk to the list

The following source was located while discussing the addition of another source to the List of states with limited recognition article: [46]. Although it is clear that the article is representing a non-neutral POV and has a lot of bias, it is a WP:NEWSORG and is listing factual information in the form of a quotation. It is acceptable to consider this quote as being reliable fact or not? This is important as the acceptance of the declaration of independence by the quote is being questioned. - Wiz9999 (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: the quote from the article I am referring to is the following: "Upon the results of the referendum held on May 11, 2014 and based on the sovereignty declaration of the Donetsk People's Republic, we, people of the Donetsk People's Republic, declare that from now on the Donetsk People's Republic is a sovereign state". - Wiz9999 (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it should be considered unusable if properly attributed. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 246"; 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