Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 272

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

semanticscholar.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

This website is sort of a repository for PDFs of academic journal articles (example). A bunch of Wikipedia articles, when citing an academic source, link to PDFs stored there. While certainly convenient to our readers, I wondered how this squares with WP:COPYVIOEL since pretty much all of these journal articles are behind a paywall on the publisher's website (original source for the example above). I replaced links to PDFs on the website on one page, but before continuing I wanted to double-check whether this is necessary. --bender235 (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Semantic Scholar's website footer (accessible from any page, including the home page) provides a list ofSources for their data. As Semantic Scholar is a high-profile site that has not been involved in any legal controversies (as far as I can see), I don't think there is any cause for concern about whether its content is properly licensed. Google Scholar also indexes documents hosted by Semantic Scholar, with no DMCA claims in sight. I wouldn't bother changing Semantic Scholar links to other hosts. — Newslinger talk 06:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think this "see no evil" approach is valid. We should determine for ourselves whether there might be a copyright issue here, not just hope that the absence of visible legal trouble means that they are in the clear. For instance, CourseHero appears to be in business despite having a business model centered around encouraging students to upload course notes and exams in frequent violation of wishes of the copyright owners (faculty members and universities); I would not ever link to them from here. And certainly there exist sites that scrape the web for pdfs and republish them, links to whom look likely to be COPYVIOEL and need to be checked manually in each case rather than blindly accepted; zotero and citeseerx come to mind. That said, I don't have much specific experience with Semantic Scholar. And if the site lists the provenance of an individual pdf, then as long as for each link a human editor verifies that the pdf was either uploaded by its original author or made freely available by its publisher, I think it should be ok. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Semantic Scholar's FAQs state:

• If I understand how Semantic Scholar works, they don't host PDFs if they are not allowed to. Certainly, articles that are behind a paywall for me do not have any pdfs on Semantic Scholar, even if the link actually has a .pdf in it. Papers that I only have access to through my library also don't have pdfs on Semantic Scholar, so it wouldn't appear to be detecting my library subscription. However, the listings on Semantic Scholar include links to websites that do host the pdfs of paywalled articles. So I guess that means, if Semantic Scholar has a pdf, it is probably freely available somewhere else; and if Semantic Scholar does not have a pdf, the pdfs it links to might be copyright violations. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• As with other similar sites such as CiteSeerX, we can't say "all these links are copyvio" or "all these links are okay". Some of them will be valid preprints/postprints/OA publications, others will be posted in contravention of the publisher's rules around such things. They should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

"others will be posted in contravention of the publisher's rules around such things". Is there an example, or intuition? -- GreenC 16:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted lots of examples from citeseerx (not Semantic Scholar), but it would take some effort to dig up those specific edits. Usually they involve papers put on the web either as part of reading lists for courses (by an instructor of a course who is not an author of the papers), or as part of personal libraries of researchers (presumably for the personal use of that researcher, but put on the web for whatever reason). There's an argument that those specific uses are legal under fair use, but that argument goes away when the papers are copied to other web-scraper sites, and here on Wikipedia we have higher standards for fair use than mere legality. Fortunately citeseerx says where it found the pdf, so we can distinguish the good ones from the bad and don't have to just get rid of them all. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• SemanticScholar is a reputable service by an established institution, whose legality is not under question. It's also known that it has explicit copyright licenses from publishers for its usages. There is no legal issue in linking their records and PDFs, although in general it's not the best link target in the academic world because its hashes are hardly permanent identifiers, so the links may break in the future. Nemo 18:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I know that PhD dissertations may be acceptable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, but I'm always hesitant to use them. I think my plan here is solid, but I'd really like a second opinion of what I'd like to do.

I'd like to incorporate information from chapters 3-5 of this dissertation by Christopher Clement into the History of Tobago article. The dissertation comes from the University of Florida, which has a well-respected programme in Caribbean archaeology.

Pages 6-7 of the dissertation outline the overall layout. Chapters 3-5 are historical, and synthesise a mixture of primary sources. The later chapters of the dissertation (6-8) cover Clements field work in Tobago, and have been published elsewhere, in a peer-reviewed journal. I'm not proposing to use those chapters of the dissertation as a source. But I do think that 3-5 are a useful overview of the history of Tobago that I can't really find elsewhere.

Does this reasonable? Guettarda (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I would say PhD dissertations (and even Master's theses) are well within the realm of reliable sources since they receive some form of peer review from the supervising professor(s). I would prefer to cite the published work that spun out of a dissertation, since it is usually more widely available, but in general I see no concern citing a dissertation directly. --bender235 (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I've seen some Master's theses that should never have led to a degree. I'd only use one if it had been cited several times in reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 20:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The typical answer is "yes, a doctoral dissertation is a reliable source if it originated in a reputable (e.g., accredited) university and was subject to normal academic processes of scrutiny by a group of experts (e.g., a dissertation committee) but that doesn't answer any questions about due weight (i.e., it can be cited but should it be cited?)." In other words, even if the document is reliable we still have a situation where the information is only available in one document that has not been widely published and read so perhaps it's not something that should be included in an encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: Sorry if I wasn't clearer - this is why I'm interested in using these three chapters from Clement as a source: I'd rather have an expert weight the sources and create a framework. The majority of the sources are published - primary sources are mainly used for numerical information - and I could track down a lot of them, got to the relevant section, and find the information. But then it would be a question of why I picked the sources I did, and my answer would be "because Clement did". And I would be reading them through the lens of his work, but I wouldn't be admitting it. So it strikes me as better scholarship to cite him when I'm citing him. Guettarda (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

streetlist.co.uk seems like a typical WP:UGC with no sign of editorial oversight. From their about page, it seems that it is maintained by an unknown individual. So, is it considered a reliable source? BTW, it is cited around 13 times on this project. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• In what context is it cited? Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
• NitinMlk, I think the purpose of this noticeboard might not be clear. This isn't the place to ask whether a website is reliable for whatever pages are used in any and all articles. It's the place to ask whether a specific page is reliable for a specific statement, in a specific Wikipedia article. You can ask something like
  'This page on Streetlist.com says "Shop Street is located within the county of Norfolk which is in the Eastern region of the UK. 91.18 miles North East from the centre of London, 14.03 miles West from the centre of Norwich, 41.33 miles North from the centre of Ipswich and 46.68 miles North East from the centre of Cambridge." Is that a reliable source for saying "Whinburgh and Westfield civil parish is located approximately 91 miles North East of central London, 14 miles West of central Norwich, 41 miles North of central Ipswich and 47 miles North East of central Cambridge" in Whinburgh and Westfield#Geography?'
  As for the website in question, it appears to be an automated and rather indiscriminate list of the distances between all towns and the nearby major cities. I suspect that the answer about whether it can be used is that nobody will actually object to that use (because any source, even a bot-generated indiscriminate list, is helpful in cases of number-changing vandalism), unless someone has a reason to believe that it's factually wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing and Blueboar: thanks for the comments. I didn't mention the context, as the source in question doesn't seem to meet any reliability criteria. I mean there is no editorial oversight, and the author is unknown, let alone knowing about their credentials. Also, it seems to be not cited by any reliable source for any information. This is a typical example of user-generated content. So, shouldn't it be unreliable for any type of information? BTW, 'number-changing vandalism' won't arise if we won't allow entry of unsourced or poorly sourced 'numbers' in the first place. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. It may well be true that you're not aware of the site meeting any particular guidance about what typically indicates a reliable source (e.g., the list at WP:NOTGOODSOURCE), but for something this minor, a weak source can still be good enough.

Of course, if you want to replace it with a truly excellent source, then you're free to do that. But Wikipedia isn't generally well-served by removing mediocre sources to uncontested information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

What tells you that this is even a "mediocre source"? These are unverified details listed by some unknown person on the net, but you somehow still think that Wikipedia is well-served with it. Anyway, I would appreciate comments of other users regarding these sort of 'sources'. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

This draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alcides_S._%22Bull%22_Benini Has three citations. None of which are a publication, but all apparently reliable. An effort is being made to find published sources

There might be a question of his notability because of the questionability of the sources, however Bull Benini survived the Bataan Death March, Japanese Hell ships, went on to "found" Combat Control, which is today folded into Special Tactics Squadrons, of which the 24th STS has produced a Medal of Honor (TSgt John A. Chapman a Combat Controller), and played and are playing vital roles in the Global War on Terrorism,especially in Afghanistan. http://www.cctmemorial.com/Brothers/B/Benini_A/Benini_A.html, https://goefoundation.org/eagles/benini-alcide-s/, http://www.ccshf.org/ccshf-admin/cmsgt-alcide-bull-benini/ ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldperson (talk • contribs) 20:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

They do not look like reliable sources to me, but then I don't frequently review articles on military personnel. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Walter GörlitzThank you. Military Personnel are a different "species" from "scientific/medical" personnel. With the exception of some major act or event, like earning a Medal of Honor or shooting down X number of enemy planes there is no literature, such as you find with say biologists and archaelogists, other than "internal" literature and references like say "Airman" magazine or "Gathering of Eagles". For instance there was a major push/campaign from within Special Tactics to award John A. Chapman the Medal of Honor. Something not noted in RS, until it happened In many disciplines the contributions of significant individuals are recognized in the literature (RS), but not so in the case of military personnel. If Bull Benini was just another Combat Controller, he would not have been worthy of an article. He wasn't. He was the first stepping stone, that led to the creation of a special tactics unit which was essential and instrumental in the opening shot and continued ops of the WOT. as well as RVN and a number of unheralded or noted like Operation Desert Eagle (Iranian Hostage Rescue)No Room for Error https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/24295/no-room-for-error-by-col-john-t-carney-and-benjamin-f-schemmer/9780345453358/, not that I agree with the WOT, of that I am conflictedOldperson (talk)

Nairaland (nairaland.com) is a Nigerian Internet forum that is currently being cited in 180 articles  , frequently in biographies of living persons. As a self-published source that publishes user-generated content, Nairaland should be not be used on Wikipedia in nearly all cases.

Ammarpad requested blacklisting of the Nairaland domain at WP:SBL § Nigerian gossip forum, but was asked to continue the discussion here. Should Nairaland be added to the spam blacklist? — Newslinger talk 08:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Internet forums with minimal user control such as Nairaland should NEVER be cited on Wikipedia. Except in Seun Osewa and Nairaland articles, where they may provide some valuable real-time primary information. HandsomeBoy (talk) 09:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that WP:ABOUTSELF still applies in rare cases. If blacklisted, uses of Nairaland that are covered under WP:ABOUTSELF can be added to the spam whitelist. — Newslinger talk 09:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Support blacklisting it, the only way we can keep people from adding it. --Doug Weller talk 14:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I was going to say we shouldn't blacklist as a first step, but that's an alarming number of cites to an internet forum, and at a quick glance none of them remotely approach WP:RS except the tiny number of WP:ABOUTSELF cites on articles about Nairaland itself. Support blacklisting, since it seems like someone is determined to spam it everywhere. --Aquillion (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• defensereview.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I'm seeing articles by David Crane on defensereview.com tagged as self-published. Since he owns the site, that seems reaosnable, but is it a RS? Example article: Atchisson Assault Shotgun. Guy (Help!) 19:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• Hmmm... certainly more than “just another personal website”. It is at least attempting to be legit journalism (albeit on a limited topic). But does it meet our standards? I think the answer to that is dependent on its reputation... ie whether it (or the author) is mentioned by other sources. Blueboar (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable. Defense Review's About Us page shows that it is a blog with only one author (the CEO, David Crane), which makes it a self-published source. Crane is not a subject-matter expert. I'm not seeing the site's articles being used by other reliable sources in a prominent way, although their photos (also published on Instagram) are used in quite a few sites with attribution. — Newslinger talk 11:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• globalresearch.ca: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

This website is run by conspiracy theorist Michel Chossudovsky. It's been discussed here since at least 2007, with consensus that it's unreliable. I'm about to add it to my nuke-on-sight list. There are about 160 references to this webshite right now. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. The 10 quotes from citations in the Michel Chossudovsky article that I listed in the May discussion still apply. The opinions of Chossudovsky and the Centre for Research on Globalization (RSP entry) are undue in nearly all cases; the exception is in articles that directly cover fringe and conspiracy theories, in which it's still preferred to cite reliable sources that mention these opinions. — Newslinger talk 21:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I would agree... UNDUE except for attributed ABOUTSELF use in the Michel Chossudovsky bio article itself. Blueboar (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Blacklist. I support adding this site to the spam blacklist. Uses under WP:ABOUTSELF can be whitelisted when needed, and these occurrences should be rare. — Newslinger talk 18:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

  Requested blacklisting at WP:SBL § globalresearch.ca. — Newslinger talk 11:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

  The globalresearch.ca domain has been added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, as well as the associated domains globalresearch.org  and mondialisation.ca  . — Newslinger talk 04:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• Unreliable Maybe used only as WP:PRIMARY when its WP:DUE together with secondary WP:RS --Shrike (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• In blacklist zone. At most possible for WP:ABOUTSELF, and even then this has issues. Icewhiz (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• Blacklist as exemptions are possible but in today's climate the use of such sites by new editors is going to grow. --Doug Weller talk 14:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I was looking at articles tagged with self-published sources. Articles on military hardware and guns are a goldmine of unreliable self-published websites.

Among others, I found links to liveleak.com (we should have that on the "fuck no" list), globalsecurity.org (comedy gold) and reloadbench.com, which is full of malware so I just blacklisted it. Anyone looking for an amusing half hour, trawl the transclusions of template:self-published inline. [1] for example. This is going to be a long job. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Needs to be removed ASAP. --bender235 (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Some of these sources are sufficient when making literal factual statements such as this weapon exists, with a link to a liveleak video demonstrating the weapon exists and what it looks like. GreenC 16:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but the Wikipedia standard for an article is a much higher threshold than mere existence. I exist. I do not, in any way, merit a Wikipedia article about my life. Similarly, merely because a weapon exists does not mean that there can or should be a Wikipedia article about it. Proof of mere existence is basically worthless if there are not also sources that establish the need for an article about that weapon, and most importantly sources that establish the need for an article also prove that the weapon exists. The sources you note are basically worthless for use in Wikipedia. if all they do is prove existence, you can't build an article using only those sources, and if better source do exist, you don't need your shitty sources at all. --Jayron32 01:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Did anyone notice if any of those articles went through AfC or NPP, or were they included by auto approved editors? I’m of the mind such an issue should be nipped at the bud if that’s where the issues begin. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

streetcheck.co.uk is operated by a software company, but it doesn't seem to have any editorial oversight. So, is it considered a reliable source? BTW, it is cited around 30 times on this project. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• In what context is is cited? Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Blueboar, it is cited for the notability claims as well as for the basic facts at Agar Street, Leicester, and that's where I first noticed it. Can it be considered a reliable source for claims likeAgar Street ... is one of very few streets that still have a Cobbled road? - NitinMlk (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

most of the uses are either documenting that a street exists in a particular UK postcode and census region, based on openstreetmaps, or reprinting demographic data from the 2011 UK census or other UK official sources.. The source of the data is found at their datasource page. The citations should really go to the original source, but I think using this data distributor to access it is acceptable, and can be specified in the cite template. (the one area I thought might have potential coi, the broadband data, is also from an official UK source DGG ( talk ) 15:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, DGG. This site does seem to be sourcing/attributing their data from/to reliable sources. It may also be taking a proper care of fact-checking, as it is managed by a registered company. So it seems fine for basic, non-controversial details. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem: Kennel Club Books, a publishing company that was a somewhat proficient publisher from 2003 to 2005 (per the graph at the link) but was out of business by 2012. I have been unable to confirm or deny if they were a self-publishing source for aspiring authors ^{categorized under Publishing Consultants 20:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)} . The authors they solicited and/or approved for publication may or may not have been dog experts/professionals. The book I'm questioning is The Bully Breeds which is about 6 different dog breeds: American Pit Bull, American Staffordshire Terrier, Boston Terrier, Bull Terrier, Miniature Bull Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, all of which are recognized by the AKC. The book is authored by David Harris. Goodreads states: The Bully Breeds is an insider's account of life with a bully, highlighting the characteristics, abilities and accomplishments of these breeds. About the author: David A. Harris is a professional acoustical engineer specializing in architectural and environmental acoustics, product development, and building material research. In the book, Harris included 2 paragraphs (passing mention) about an obscure, unverifiable breed of dog called the Catahoula bulldog. He describes the dog as a crossbreed of the American Bulldog and Catahoula Leopard Dog but all of the published information is anecdotal. He also mentions the Animal Research Foundation (ARF) (long defunct) which appears to have existed as a private for-profit registry founded/owned by an individual. The dogs that were registered by ARF were crossbred dogs that the long-established reputable breed registries would not recognize because they failed the qualifications necessary to be added as purebreds. According to anecdotal reports, ARF was supposed to have been keeping records of the dogs they "registered", but again - it is information based on anecdotal reports. See this Rip-off report, and this wordpress article - there is very little information available about ARF as the key people who supposedly kept records died many years ago.

Questions

1. Is the book The Bully Breeds (a) a RS, (b) a questionable source or (c) unreliable source in the context of its brief mention of Catahoula bulldogs on pg 78?
2. Is it a RS for the purpose of establishing notability to justify a standalone article about the Catahoula bulldog?
3. Is it a RS to justify inclusion of any of the material published about Catahoula bulldogs? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Probably reliable. I am deeply suspicious of the Kennel Club, their breed standards are responsible for an overwhelming burden of suffering among dogs. But there's no real dissent from the view that they are generally recognised as the authority on dog breeds. Sorry. As to establishing notability, go with WP:GNG. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

My apologies if my set-up and questions were confusing, but you lost me, Guy. The publishing company, Kennel Club Books, was never affiliated with the The Kennel Club dog registry in the UK, if that's what you were thinking. The dog subject of this discussion is an unregistered, unverifiable American crossbreed dog (mongrel) and the book, written for pet enthusiasts by a pet enthusiast, includes only 2 paragraphs of anecdotal information about it. There may not be more than 20 of them in existence, if that. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure that Kennel Club is a registered trademark. Guy (Help!) 15:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Positive. NJ publisher. Also this archive. Registered TMs only cover the style of presentation, not the actual words, which cannot be trademarked. A company named Kennel Club Books in the US is not the same as The Kennel Club - the former being a book publisher, the latter being a breed registry. It appears Kennel Club Books solicited authors and shared revenue with them if the authors agreed to list the books on their respective websites or something along that line. What I haven't had is the time necessary to confirm whether or not they simply offered a service to self-published authors or actually published books financially independent of the author. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding further support: Ridker said BowTie will handle distribution of Kennel Club books to special markets, but that the book trade will continue to be served by Client Distribution Services.[2], [3] I read somewhere (forgot to bookmark) that Kennel Club Books shared revenue with their clients who distributed their books on their own websites. It's difficult to know what they were doing without seeing the contract. Regardless, they were not publishers in the sense of Elsevier, Science Direct, MacMillan, Taylor & Francis, etc. Also, this article in the Detroit Lakes Tribune is verifiably accurate and informative. I believe it speaks to the debate among editors regarding dog breeds needing to be registered with a notable, long-established breed registry in order to be included in WP. I think not, and agree with what you said above JzG: As to estabishing notability, go with WP:GNG. The problems arise when the reliability of the cited sources are questionable, and why I'm here now. The internet is inundated with unreliable sources all claiming to be dog experts and/or dog registries, such as Dog Breed Info, UCA, Puppy Find, and on and on. As a member of WP:WikiProject Dogs, I've proposed something along the line of WP:MEDRS (but nowhere near as strict) and invite other editors to join Project Dogs and help us reach a consensus in that regard. One could liken it to finding reliable sources for health articles; i.e., reputable journals and not predatory journals, reputable medical institutions not internet sites that promote quackery; the latter of which in the dog world would be puppy mill sites, and non-notable breed registries, (so-called designer & rare breeds sold for big profits) that just take your money in exchange for a worthless piece of paper. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a thing called passing-off. You can't just use the same name as a commercial organisation without penalty. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

JzG/Guy, please clarify your statement. If you're referring to this version of Passing off, and implying a "you get what you deserve" attitude for using "kennel club" in a company's name, then I implore you to find any rendition where "kennel club" is a trademark (registered or otherwise, in any country) and forward an argument where someone would possibly misidentify a "club" with a "publisher". See also International (Nice) Classification of Goods and Services which limits trademarks; "The idea behind this system is to specify and limit the extension of the intellectual property right by determining which goods or services are covered by the mark, and to unify classification systems around the world." [4] Normal Op (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, here is the affiliate marketing contract from Kennel Club Books' website [5] and their FAQ [6]. Affiliate marketing has been a common method of monetizing any website or blog for over two decades. It looks like the Kennel Club Books marketing program was open to all websites and was not limited to just their authors. Normal Op (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

There are many, many instances where a company doing business in the same area as an established brand has been forced to change its name because it is seen as too close - even to the extent of not being allowed to use your own name. You appear to be essentially a single purpose account with strong hints of a conflict of interest. Atsme is nice, try working with her instead of banging heads. From my personal experience I can say that this may take a while, and may be frustrating, but the end result will probably be worth it. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Trademarks are a marketing asset and apply only in the same area of business, such as your example where both men were marketing legal services. The intent is to limit consumer confusion about which company they're dealing with. If George Sink, Jr had opened an accounting firm, he could have freely used his own name to market it. Though many states in the USA require law firms to use the names of the principal lawyers in their business name, this is not so in South Carolina where that case is. [7] In this case, the judge only temporarily enjoined Jr until arbitration could take place. "While Sink Jr. is not barred from practicing law under his own name, he must do more to differentiate himself between him and (his father) in advertising for legal services." There is no such confusion between a book publisher (Kennel Club Books) and a dog breed registry such as American Kennel Club, United Kennel Club, or Kennel Club (UK). Normal Op (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Probably RS because the two guilty by association arguments used to discredit the book and its author as a reliable source, are inaccurate. Basic researching efforts turn up the following information. (1) The ARF issue was first covered here [8] though I now have even more information available than I posted back then. (2) The Kennel Club Books (KCB) issue is thus: KCB was not a vanity publisher nor a revenue share operation (the basic accusation); instead they used reputable authors, planned a complete series of books, and ran an affiliate marketing program. According to Open Library, the publisher Kennel Club Books has 312 works published between 1984 and 2012.[9] Taking a random selection of one of the books is the author Richard G. Beauchamp. His book Solving the Mysteries of Breed Type was published with KCB in 2008, and previously by Doral Publishing in 2002 [10]. Amazon.com shows a dozen or more titles by the same author [11], covering 18 dog breeds and 4 dog topic books, published by numerous publishers including For Dummies, B.E.S. Publishing, CompanionHouse Books, Barron's Educational Series (renamed B.E.S. Publishing), and others. According to their own website, "Kennel Club Books was formed for the purpose of specializing in the publication of pet books, ... retained the services of individuals who have extensive experience specifically in the writing, editing, and designing of pet books" and planned to publish an entire series of 377 titles on breeds [12]. They were releasing six books per month [13], and offered an Affiliate marketing program to market the books [14]. That is hardly an environment for an aspiring author to seek [self-]publication, and KCB was definitely not a vanity press operation. The fact that BowTie Press, which acquired KCB in 2004, publishes "20% of books from first-time authors" does not mean that this particular book was written by an aspiring author and falls under Wikipedia's self-publishing category, only that it might (20%). My inclination when faced with fallacies is to reject the proposition. Normal Op (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Disclosure: For the sake of transparency, I point readers to the debate going on over on the Deletion Review board [15] which is directly related to why this book is here on this board. Normal Op (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Definitely reliable source: I obtained scans of the front and back dust jacket end flaps of the book (which can be seen here [16]) and it turns out the author is a breed historian, AKC breed judge, university professor and author of two prior books. The contributing author is William Secord, "recognized expert on 19th-century dog painting, author of three books on the subject." This is far from the accusations of "aspiring author" with Bully Breeds his "self published" book. And this certainly doesn't paint a picture of the publisher as some fly-by-night operation (see AfD for publisher [17], AfD for the publisher's parent company [18], and RSN for the book [19]). From the left flap, "... the six bull-and-terrier dogs that are the focus of this Kennel Club Classic edition. With eye-popping photographs and the spot-on narrative provided by world-renowned author, judge and bull breed historian Dr. David Harris." From the right flap, "Dr. David Harris ... owned, bred and exhibited Bull Terriers since 1970," is "a recognized authority on the history and development of the bull-and-terriers ... is an avid canine chronicler. His two books on the breed--Full Circle: A History of the Coloured Bull Terrier (1989) and Bull Terriers Today (1998)--are viewed as classics within the fancy. He also has written numerous articles for bulletins and magazines around the world." A dog judge for 25 years, approved by the American Kennel Club (AKC) to judge most of the terrier breeds, he has judged in Australia, New Zealand, Europe, UK, South Africa, South America, Canada and the United States. He was president and chairperson of the Bull Terrier Club of America, and vice president and AKC delegate for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of America. He is a professor on the faculty at a university. If there's any doubt how qualified an AKC judge needs to be, see these requirements (12+ years in the industry, plus, plus, and more plus). [20] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Normal Op (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The claims of a self published work’s dust jacket should not be used to determine that work’s notability, if a reputable publisher had picked the book then yes. I am no fan of the work of kennel clubs and even less of the dog show world, but since that is listed as one of the author’s qualifications it is interesting to note that the AKC’s judge search engine does not list a David Harris [21], the only D Harris on the KC’s books is a judge of Dobermanns [22], and the ANKC [23], the CKC [24] and the NZKC [25] have no one of that name on their books. Cavalryman (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC).

@Cavalryman: The author is not on the AKC website as a current dog show judge BECAUSE HE IS DEAD!!!!!!! Dr. David O. Harris passed away in 2013. From the memorium on his employer's website, [26] "David's passion was breeding and judging dog shows, and he earned a worldwide reputation for his work and his books on the subject. His books include The Bully Breeds (Kennel Club Classics) in 2008; Bull Terriers Today in 1998 and 2002, and Full Circle: A History of the Colored Bull Terrier (1990). He was a long-time member of the Mile High Bull Terrier Club." Normal Op (talk) 11:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• Not quite (edit conflict) Normal Op - context matters. This (scrolling version) of the book shows -0- citations, so the book is written from the author's POV as a financially involved breeder/exhibitor/judge of Bull Terriers. The book itself is about 6 bulldog breeds (none of which is the Catahoula bulldog). The cover flap basically tells us that Harris also introduces readers to a dozen or so new bully breeds that were developing back in 2008. The Catahoula bulldog segment was all of 2 paragraphs out of 190+ pages which is not significant coverage to pass GNG, and worse yet, the information is based on anecdotal material that is unverifiable. Cattle rancher Tom Stodghill was the original breeder experimenting with the crossbreed, and wrote an article about the dogs in his livestock magazine but I haven't found much more than that. He also founded the ARF registry which no longer exists, and neither do any of the records he and/or his family supposedly kept. There is no editorial integrity anywhere that I can tell. WP:SIGCOV states: "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: Animal Research Foundation (ARF) is no longer in existence because Tom Stodghill and his wife DIED in 1989, and his son in law Al Walker who took it over DIED in 2013. They were both old men. AND THEY ARE BOTH DEAD!!!!!!! [27] You need to take a good hard look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and how it applies here. You are talking about a book on the subject of dogs, not a submission to a medical journal that needs peer reviewing. You are simply UNWILLING to recognize Dr. Harris' reputation and expertise and are just WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Normal Op (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• FYI The Kennel Club appears to be no longer enforced as a trademark, anywhere, which makes sense as the name is simply a description of the type of business it is. That doesn't mean people can pretend to be affiliated with them, but it does mean that the phrase's appearance in a business name implies nothing. Anyway, looks like this publisher got sold to another company, "Bowtie Inc, New jersey" which I can't find out anything about, but I guess then the reliability may rest on who wrote and edited the book. The first editor appears to have published a bunch of breed books through notable breeding-book publishers... does that make it reliable? Iono, this whole field is weird. But hopefully the info is useful to someone. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Someguy - what editors should also be on the lookout for are sites and books that align with BBB's concerns as well as concerns I've listed here regarding the use of WP to support an advocacy. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Not RS, self published dog fan literature which describes a number of so called dog “breeds” that are crossbreds bred by sometimes only one or two breeders. Whilst it may be interesting to some, it should not be used to establish notability of these dogs which are no more more than a breeder’s trademark for their own particular cross. Cavalryman (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC).

• Reliable enough. Close thread as such already.

There is some awfully shoddy fact-checking being perpetrated above. Let me add that:

UNM's obit on Dr. David O. Harris (d. 2013) says he had "worldwide reputation" as a writer on the subject of dogs.[28] He has indeed served as AKC sanctioned judge for terrier group in Santa Fe, which is the locale of his day job.[29]

"Kennel Club Books" is by all appearance not a vanity press (ditto above). American Kennel Club itself has published its history from.[30] It became an imprint of "BowTie Inc.",[31] (ditto above), which used to publish Dog Fancy magazine.--Kiyoweap (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I asked 1-2-3 questions; #1 had an a-b-c choice. The subject of the discussion is the Catahoula bulldog, not the Terrier group of dogs recognized by the AKC or any other reputable, long-established breed registry. The research conducted by Normal Op provided more info about the book and Harris as an author/breeder/exhibitor/judge of the Terrier group of dogs, and that is good information to know. What has not been discussed is “context” and the fact that no one can be an expert about a breed of dog that does not exist and/or cannot be verified beyond anecdotal reports. Two paragraphs based on unreferenced, unverifiable anecdotal information in a 190+ page book fails GNG. The book confirms the fact that in 2008, the Catahoula bulldog was mentioned with other potential breeds in development, which substantiates nothing. This is 2019, and to date, nothing confirms the existence of an official verifiable breed of dog called the Catahoula bulldog. Juxtaposing Kennel Club Books with an AKC book lends no credibility to the existence of a fictitious breed. Based on relevant WP:PAGs and the information provided in this discussion, the context of what was published in the book “The Bully Breeds” makes it not a RS for verifying the existence of the Catahoula bulldog as described, much less as a purebred official dog breed that we can include in this encyclopedia as such. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

You keep shifting the goalposts. Catahoula Bulldog has had publishing mentions for d-e-c-a-d-e-s. You refuse to hear that. Every next goalpost position has been met or exceeded, and you keep moving them anyway. Normal Op (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I have moved nothing - read my initial post and please review GNG, N, V, RS and NPOV. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: Your questions have been asked and answered. In review:

1. Yes, the book is a reliable source.
2. The answer is already covered by GNG and need not be rehashed on RSN.
3. Considering the expertise of the author, I would feel confident in using the book to make a mention about the topic. Since the book isn't currently being used as a citation in the article, there's nothing specific to evaluate.

Perhaps take further questions to the article's Talk page, or start a new question/discussion on RSN to cover further questions not already asked and answered. — Normal Op (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The nom's side's attempt to impugn this author's reputation has failed. They should have researched more carefully before taking this anti-stand. It's pretty much the end of line of discussion for this board. Conclusion is that this book is a useable RS book for dog topic articles.

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is whether an RS book is insufficient for some high-expertise point in an article, and that should be taken up on the article's talk, or taken up eventually at RfC or whatever. Sorry to sound redundant, this is just how I'd written it up before seeing previous post.--Kiyoweap (talk) 03:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Les reines de France au temps des Valois, Volume 1, Simone Bertière.

Can this be considered a reliable source? --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Betière is a writer of serious popular non fiction, not an academic (the closest comparison is I think Alison Weir). However, Worldcat shows this particular book is held by many major academic libraries [32], and Google books shows it is occasionally cited for general statements by academic publications. But everything about this period in both England and France has had hotly contested interpretations for centuries, and I would not rely on any single source--not even for what might appear to be plain facts, and certainly not for anecdotes or quotations. DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok.--Kansas Bear (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I have been asked to add references to a list of comic book titles before it can be published, and I would like to know if I can use an online comic book store, such as mycomicshop.com, as a reliable secondary source. I would strictly be using this source to confirm that the title exists, and for no other information. Going by the WP:AFFILIATE policy, it sounds like this should be allowed, but I would just like to confirm with someone before I get started on the work of adding the references. Thank you. Wilkinswontkins (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Is the The Grayzone (https://thegrayzone.com) reliable? Max Blumenthal, Anya Parampil and Benjamin Norton and other editors have participated in the highly politicized Foro de São Paulo in Caracas 2019. Benjamin Norton has even expressed “and long live socialism,” in response to Nicolás Maduro "Long live peace". WaPo describes it as a "far-left media outlet".[33] It does not seem very reliable for Venezuelan news, is The Grayzone even reliable on any subject?--MaoGo (talk) 09:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

insert boilerplate about political bias ≠ unreliable here I would say that they are less than reliable. In this 2019 article (written by Blumenthal and Norton), they describe the Trotskyist International Socialist Organization asan avowedly anti-communist organization and insinuate that the ISO's logo of a raised fist, a symbol historically associated with anticapitalist movements (as well as others), was somehow connected to Otpor, a Serbian protest organization which the Grayzone describes as beingUS government funded. Moreover, the claim that Otpor was funded by the US government is supported with a link to another Grayzone article which does not include that claim, but instead states that the members of Otpor went on to form Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies (true) which is funded through the National Endowment for Democracy (citation needed). Our article on CANVAS claims that CANVAS does not receive funding from governments and that most of the funding comes from the organization's founder, citing Mother Jones and Foreign Policy. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

You are correct that position in the political orientation and reliability are two separate things. That's because facts and opinions are different things. Facts are either true or false. Since the Mother Jones article was written in 2010, Wikileaks has released CIA documents that confirm U.S. government funding of otpor and CANVAS. And Trotskyists are frequently described as anti-Communist because they opposed the Soviet Union and other Communist states as well as official Communist parties. TFD (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Setting Otpor's funding aside, the attempt to link the ISO to Otpor on the basis that they both had logos with fists in them is a stretch. I guess Grayzone stops short of fully asserting that claim, but it seems more than a little misleading to me. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The Grayzone article says the ISO "chose a clenched fist - one eerily similar to the symbol used by the US government funded Serbian activist group Otpor." The raised fists are similar. It doesn't say it was copied. I think the connection the article makes is that groups that had helped bring down Communism in Eastern Europe were invited to the ISO conference. I don't think there is anything factually wrong with that statement. While you may disagree with the author about whether or not they should have been invited, that's a matter of weight, not reliability. TFD (talk) 07:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I find this type of discussion moot since there are few cases where we would use it. Its website says, "The Grayzone is an independent news website dedicated to original investigative journalism and analysis on politics and empire." There are very few instances where Wikipedia articles should use original investigative journalism or analysis. Both generally fail weight, while analysis usually also fails rs. TFD (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Recently an editor inserted information on Donald Barr which uses Milne News as a source.

There are many online news sources with which I lack familiarity, but on a cursory look at their published content, it appears to me Milne might not meet the standard for RS. Does anyone have any history with this source? Is my impression incorrect? BusterD (talk) 04:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. According to their about page, Milne News (milnenews.com) is the project of a person named Steve Milne. I'm not sure who this particular Steve Milne is, but he's not any of the people listed in Stephen Milne (disambiguation). Milne News is not used by other reliable sources. The site claims to have"team of Journalists, analysts and contributors", but it does not name any of them. None of the articles on the site list their authors. Milne News also has a tendency to promote conspiracy theories, including George Soros conspiracy theories in "Radical Leftwing Groups Linked to Soros Are Being Transported In To Protest This Week’s Kavanaugh Hearings", as well as "The collusion between the FBI and Mainstream Media that everyone stopped talking about", which claims that"The bottom line is the mainstream media colluded with agents and executives at every level of the FBI to try to affect the results of the 2016 presidential election." — Newslinger talk 04:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The existence of such a letter is not under dispute. It is mentioned with due detail in the California Archives website:

For those who are familiar with Farsi the content of the letter shown in the image exactly matches with what is noted in the California archives website. It thus boils down to whether we can rely on sources such as Radio Koocheh or Hamneshin-e-Bahar who posted the image of the letter online. To begin with both the above mentioned sources are not accessible inside Iran. The existing Iranian government censors these websites (along with many others) because of these websites' criticisms toward itself. So there is no way one can claim the two mentioned sources have a dog in this fight. Secondly, Radiokoocheh is a US based Radio/News website founded by a journalist, named Ardavan Rouzbeh, whose work is cited by BBC here. No need to mention that Rouzbeh, himself was banned by the Iranian government from journalism activities and had to leave the country. Am I right thinking, given that the content of the letter is a verified fact, it is safe to rely on Radio Koochech for the image of the letter?--178.252.149.137 (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Even if the microfilm archives aren't yet available online, can we not just contact the Hoover Institution and ask them either for a scan of the document in question, or to verify that the document is identical? If need be the Hoover Institution is slap-bang in the middle of Palo Alto; it's not as if we're short of editors in the Bay Area and there must be someone who would be prepared to go have a look. ‑ Iridescent 07:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you even ask. WP:OR. Britmax (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The issue here is more WP:UNDUE use of a WP:PRIMARY source from several decades ago - not discussed by secondary sources. More a NPOV/n issue than RS/n.Icewhiz (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Is The Intercept a reliable source? I used this reference article—which was co-published with the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting—in the 2019 Brazil wildfires article in this paragraph. The editor who removed it said on the talk page that The Intercept was not a reliable source for scientific statements.

Thanks.Oceanflynn (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Factual claims from a news organization are generally reliable, but for specialist topics they are rarely the best source. See WP:NEWSORG. In this kind of context reporters are usually paraphrasing scholarly work, and it would be better to have the real thing. I would encourage the other editor to find a better source and revise appropriately, instead of just removing the text. Kim Post (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm inclined to trust them on this kind of story, not so much on politics - they have a bit of a patchy record there IMO. Guy (Help!) 15:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I would concur with Kim Post's assessment for usage in this context: usable but not preferred for scientific claims. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• The Intercept practices "adversarial journalism" - which generally means very strong POV reporting on most topics they cover (and from their stance on other issues, I'd be inclined to guess they don't like Bolsonaro much). For most topics they are quite WP:BIASED to being with. For scientific claims - far from the best sources. Icewhiz (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• It's a reliable source. As WP:BIAS points out, bias and reliability are two separate things. Wikipedia articles must by NPOV, while sources must be RS. In fact all reporting is biased, since media must choose which stories to cover and what aspects to highlight. So while cable news may decide to spend hours on what Trump means when he says he is "the chosen one," another source may find the fact that the Amazon may destroyed to be a more important story. TFD (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable in this context. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable. The Intercept's long-form journalism tends to be of high quality, and "Rainforest on Fire" is no exception. Another example of their investigative reporting is their 2016 series "Code of Silence", which documented corruption within the Chicago Police Department that led to a $2 million settlement for two whistleblowers, whose experiences were described in great detail. The Intercept's editorial policies state that they"strive to hold the powerful accountable with truthful and aggressive reporting". The policies"recognize that writers have a point of view", but also list procedures for soliciting responses from subjects, attributing sources, correcting errors, and publishing updates. Biased, but generally reliable for news topics. — Newslinger talk 00:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

  Not usable for the"exhales a fifth of the oxygen" quote. I see that the"exhales a fifth of the oxygen" claim was the subject of a fact check by other news sources in the last few days. Since even news agencies Associated Press (RSP entry) and Reuters (RSP entry) (both of whose articles are republished by many publications) made the same claim, I'm concluding that the mistake is part of the systemic issue of news sources being less rigorous than academic sources for this type of scientific claim. The Intercept is still generally reliable for news topics, within the limitations of a news source. — Newslinger talk 03:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable. Yes their articles generally have a distinct viewpoint, however the accuracy of their reports I dont think have been questioned by anyone. When used for an opinion attribute, but for facts should be fine. nableezy - 01:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• just to add a note: this claim that the Amazon produces 20% of the earth's oxygen has been disproven by scienists, but unfortunately, particularly after French president Macron tweeted that factor, many major news sources are running that as fact. This is the type of thing that SCIRS should be covering, whereas the measure of how much forest was lost is far less of a scientific measure, particularly since thats numbers clearly published by INPE. --Masem (t) 21:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • To support this claim: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/why-amazon-doesnt-produce-20-percent-worlds-oxygen/ Not liking the linking in the quote above either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• Not preferable for science They are not a peer-reviewed scholarly journal nor a science-specific publication. I would definitely put The Intercept below those alternatives. Glenn Greenwald, its founder, is also a known Russia Today (Russian state-sanctioned media, aka Russian propaganda) journalist, hence we should beware of its bias. —Partytemple (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree that news sources are not preferable for science. However, I can't find any evidence of Glenn Greenwald working as a journalist for RT (Russia Today) (RSP entry). Greenwald appeared on a one-time panel discussion on fake news that was hosted by RT in Moscow, and some of his opinions were criticized, but I don't see any involvement of Greenwald with RT beyond that one panel discussion. — Newslinger talk 04:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe he doesn't openly work for RT, but everything he argues is in favor of Russia and sounds a lot like Russian propaganda. He frequently appears on right-wing (sometimes even far-right) talk shows to regurgitate apologies for Russia, and he does it on his Twitter account, too. —Partytemple (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I was passing by in search of my old post when with one glimpse of an eye I saw this, and.... I couldn't help noticing this "(m)aybe he doesn't openly work for RT, but..." he does one way or another, works for RT after all; you can't be serious in claiming that Glenn Greenwald is now in cahoots with "right-wing and even far-right" just to take opportunity to whitewash Russia and a chance to take a shot on everyone else who take anti-Russia stance, or whoever !?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Santasa99. It's hard for me to take this comment at face value without accompanying evidence. — Newslinger talk 17:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Gaël Duval's piece in Hacker Noon, "Leaving Apple & Google: How is /e/ actually Google-free?" is being used to cite the following statement in the /e/ (operating system) article:

In March 2019, Duval wrote, "I’m very pleased that some security and privacy experts are starting to have a close look at /e/, and are challenging what we are doing," and thanked InfoSec Handbook experts for their review, which concluded, “While /e/ looks promising, it isn’t Google-free by now.”

Since Duval is the developer of /e/, this can be considered a primary source. However, there is also the question of how much weight to assign to the Hacker Noon piece, since it has not been mentioned in other reliable sources. The piece refers to the InfoSec Handbook piece "/e/ – privacy-enabled Android ROM, or Evil Corp?", which is not directly cited in the /e/ (operating system) article.

Hacker Noon (hackernoon.com) was formerly a Medium (RSP entry) publication on its own domain name, before it transitioned to its own platform (on the same domain) earlier this year. Hacker Noon does not have staff writers: all of its articles are contributed. Their about page states that their contributors are unpaid.

InfoSec Handbook (infosec-handbook.eu) is"a growing community of European information security professionals and privacy activists who like to share their knowledge for free". They have an about us page.

Are Hacker Noon and InfoSec Handbook reliable sources for the /e/ (operating system) article? — Newslinger talk 03:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree with hacker noon being an acceptable source, though in general it's still hard to decide. however, I strongly oppose infosec habdbook, since in general their authors are not greatly recognised. Oldosfan (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Re: "Leaving Apple & Google: How is /e/ actually Google-free?"

In addition to being publicised and discussed in /e/'s own blog and forums, the same article has been published a few places. Two more are:

https://medium.com/hackernoon/leaving-apple-google-how-is-e-actually-google-free-1ba24e29efb9

https://www.indidea.org/gael/blog/leaving-apple-google-how-is-e-actually-google-free/

The article received some attention at reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/degoogle/comments/clj3qp/leaving_apple_google_how_is_e_actually_googlefree/

In addition, at indidea, and at medium.com, Duval published the following supplement comment, referring to /e/'s tracking of the issues in their GitLab:

"Gaël Duval April 29, 2019

All those points have been converted to issues in our GitLab: https://gitlab.e.foundation/search?group_id=&project_id=&repository_ref=&scope=issues&search=Infosec+Handbook+Review "

This shows a large amount of importance given to the issues raised, and to the expertise of the people publishing the criticisms (InfoSec Handbook).

I support giving significant weight to the criticisms addressed in the articles (and tracked in the Gitlab).

Re: InfoSec Handbook as a reliable source.

Search engine test: Startpage Search for criticism of /e/ foundation or eelo sometimes show "/e/ – privacy-enabled Android ROM, or Evil Corp?" by InfoSec Handbook as Number 1 result. Search for /e/ foundation or eelo shows InfoSec Handbook articles among the top.

It is recognized as expert by Duval and /e/ foundation staff who are tracking and working on the issues raised (only half are closed so far).

In their about page, the wide range of activities described illustrate expertise in the subjects. The stated credentials, backgrounds and experiences are impressive.

The site is non-profit and self-funded (i.e. independent).

Privacytools.io has an open, deliberative process for determining whether to endorse software as privacy-respecting tools. In deciding NOT to endorce /e/ (yet), weight was given to issues raised at InfoSec Handbook:

https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/864

I support InfoSec Handbook as a reliable source. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

When evaluating the reliability of a source, we don't consider coverage from self-published sources. WP:UBO allows for the consideration of"high-quality reliable sources", and all of the above falls short. If Duval responds to a non-notable group blog in his own blog post, and neither blog is covered by a secondary reliable source, then it is likely that both blog posts should be excluded as undue weight. Also, we don't consider results from search engines (including Startpage) as a factor in determining whether a source is reliable. WP:V states,"Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and with the lack of reliable independent secondary source coverage of these publications, I'm not seeing much of a reputation here for either Hacker Noon or InfoSec Handbook. — Newslinger talk 22:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

A mistake has been made in posting both issues here. As stated near the top of this page, "If your question is about undue weight or other neutral point of view issues, please use the NPOV noticeboard." The first issue raised is really about NPOV and weight of interpretation of the blog article that was published at Hacker Noon, at Medium and at Indidea. There is little question that the article is a primary source - a blog article by Duval, e's founder, about e and the issues raised by InfoSec Handbook, and no editorial control of the postings occurred at Hacker Noon, Medium or Indidea. Thus, this is the wrong place to consider that issue.

Re: InfoSec Handbook as a reliable source. The point of the search engine test (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Search_engine_test) was to show there is relatively little coverage of the whole /e/ topic, and InfoSec Handbook is one of fewer in depth analysts. Duval, the primary primary source for the article found InfoSec Handbook to be credible or reliable enough to consider in detail. Clearly they are independent, secondary, and published. To me they seem accurate and unbiased. As a new site (2017 or 2018) without advertising, we will need to use some judgment. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Determining the reliability of a source is a prerequisite to determining how much weight it should be assigned in an article. A non-independent post in a reliable blog would be assigned more weight than a non-independent post in an unreliable blog. From the comments here so far, it looks like most editors believe that Hacker Noon does not have the editorial controls to be considered a reliable source. We can handle the weight issue on the article talk page, but feel free to escalate to WP:NPOVN to get more feedback.

The search engine test is an inappropriate replacement for our verifiability policy, which I've quoted above. When the /e/ (operating system) article has coverage in reliable sources such as Linux Journal, ZDNet (RSP entry), TechRepublic, Le Monde informatique, and The Register (RSP entry) already cited in the article, it shouldn't be difficult to add content based on those secondary sources and minimize content based on primary sources.

Has the InfoSec Handbook blog ever been covered by a reliable source? Without a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, it should be considered a self-published source, which is generally unreliable. — Newslinger talk 17:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The same conclusion reached for Medium in WP:RSP would also apply to hackernoon.com and to indidea.org (Duval's personal blog). Therefore, it is (again) a question of how much weight to place on the self-published, uncontroversial, self-descriptions.

"Medium is a blog hosting service. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Medium should never be used as a secondary source for living persons."

Duval describes infosec-handbook.eu as experts. No one has raised any controversy regarding the accuracy of their work and conclusions regarding /e/. What they say is not controversial or exceptional claims. Half of the 12 issues being tracked in e's gitlab are still open. This is a good start on a record of fact checking and accuracy, at least on this topic.

https://gitlab.e.foundation/search?group_id=&project_id=&repository_ref=&scope=issues&search=Infosec+Handbook+Review

So few secondary sources cover /e/ as it is, that the request for deletion included accusations of using meat puppets. Also, the article was created by someone with close ties to /e/, Manoj: community leader. Yes, some articles have appeared, but most of them are based on interviews of Duval or regurgitating pieces of his blog articles.

It would be great if other secondary sources had covered one of the very few other secondary sources that cover /e/, but that's asking too much in this case. In this case, on this topic, the two articles Infosec-handbook.eu has published appear to be reliable and accurate. We should be able to give this some weight in the article, as it was given a lot of weight by the subject founder and staff, even if we call this a "generally unreliable" source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion//e/_mobile_operating_system

https://e.foundation/about-e/#people -- Yae4 (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

HackerNoon is a group blog, and a substantially crypto/blockchain blog at that. Perhaps it has interesting OR that looks useful for some articles, but it's a primary source at best - David Gerard (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I have opened a new RfC at Talk:Paul_Stamets#RfC_about_description_of_Paul_Stamets_in_the_lede, where input would be helpful. Part of the issue is whether the sources provided are sufficient or insufficient to establish use of the term 'mycologist' for describing Stamets.Dialectric (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/08/15/tehran-admits-strength-of-irans-democratic-resistance/

Can this be a reliable source for this statement -"This widespread endorsement of regime change prompted Khamenei to acknowledge the organizational role of the MEK and the “resistance units” operating throughout Iranian society."

This is in People's Mujahedin of Iran.

Barca (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• I feel like I've been seeing these types of sources quite a bit more recently. They're like...microbrewery journalism, not quite a news organization, not quite a blog, but not abundantly unlike a blog. Their contributors seem to have a pretty decent resume, at least in taking their word for it. I don't get super warm-and-fuzzy over a source that labels climate science as "warmists" [34]. And there is a definite "the lady doth protest too much" vibe. They're not mainstream media. They're really not the mainstream media. And in case you forget, they're going to remind you every five minutes how much they're not the mainstream media. That's all more than a touch ironic, since, going back to their self-description, their qualifications for telling you about the big mean MSM is...(wait for it)...they have a background working in major news outlets. That comes off a lot like the journalism equivalent of Take This Job and Shove It. To hell with your editorial oversight. I'll start my own website (with blackjack and hookers).

I'm inclined to say that in any case where a journalism microbrewery is making an exceptional claim not otherwise covered in other sources, then we should probably err on the side of good healthy skepticism. GMG^talk 11:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• No per GMG; esp. that there's a hell lot of high-quality-scholarship covering these areas. ∯WBG^converse 13:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'd also note that this piece is written by Giulio Terzi, former Italian diplomat. There's probably no serious debate that he is a world class expert on international relations, but he's also one of the higher-ups in the political advocacy group United Against Nuclear Iran, and it shows. The article doesn't even try to hide the fact that it is written as a piece of pro-US/anti-Iran advocacy ("if the world pays attention" to the "clear opportunity" and the "correctness of the American strategy"). So we probably don't want to be using this guy in particular as a source for any information that speaks against the current Iranian government. Speaking against the current Iranian government is kindof his job nowadays. GMG^talk 15:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

A recent IP edit of United States anti-abortion movement (see [35]) cites a source from the journal "SAGE Open Medicine" (see [36]) supporting a claim about the supposed unreliability of research on abortion and the alleged mental health risks from abortion that seems to conflict with the scientific consensus. Is the cited source MEDRS, or should the edits be reverted? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 00:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll start by noting that author David Reardon is an anti-abortion activist, and his expertise is in Electrical Engineering, not medicine. Despite this, he is very well published in this field, but then he also went and got a fake PhD in biomedical ethics from a diploma mill. So that may cause this to be rejected as RS, (certainly as MEDRS), but I think the review is remarkably fair. I mean, this is a very long review with over 200 references and many finer points, but overall he's drawing a few very uncontroversial conclusions: A) There is a significant correlation between abortion (both having had one and seeking one) and mental health issues; B) Not all women who have post-abortion mental health issues had previously been diagnosed with mental health issues; C) To some extent these issues can be predicted; and D) There is no ethical experiment that could test whether carrying a baby to term is better for a mother's mental health than abortion, either generally or in specific risk groups. In sort of 'principle of embarrassment'-type-admission that might imply reliability, this review also cites "exposure to anti-abortion picketers" as the most common risk factor predicting post-abortion mental health issues("most common" here != strongest correlation, btw). The most controversial statement I can find is the suggestion that there is a publication bias in favor of theories and findings supporting pro-life viewpoints on the part of both editors and reviewers as well as authors themselves. Specifically he points to the fact that some abortion-related data is gathered and theoretically available but never published, which I have noticed myself in the past and attributed to some people just not wanting to touch it with a ten foot pole. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Someguy1221, that's very helpful. What you say seems to support reverting the edit (but I'll wait to see if other editors comment on the source), since the issue is whether or not the source is reliable, not whether or not its content seems reasonable. We wouldn't accept an edit sourced to a blog even if we thought it was a well-written blog. I agree with your point that the author takes care to write in a reasonable-sounding style, avoiding obviously biased statements. However, points (a) and (b) of his abstract have a definite spin: "(a) abortion is consistently associated with elevated rates of mental illness compared to women without a history of abortion; (b) the abortion experience directly contributes to mental health problems for at least some women." His point (a) mixes correlation and causality, since "consistently associated with" can be read as suggesting causality. Obviously, there must be a correlation if for no other reason than that many of the factors that cause women to seek an abortion relate to difficulties and instabilities in their lives (abusive partner, partner who abandoned them, financial hardship, etc.). Presumably these sources of stress are statistically less common among women without a history of abortion. Point (b) has really no content, since "for at least some women" could be said about almost any claim; there are over 3 billion women in the world. In any case, I don't think we need to discuss the content of Reardon's article if other editors agree with you that the source is not MEDRS. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 11:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that there is essentially agreement on the facts but a massive difference in focus, and this is explicitly Reardon's bugaboo. Other sources will describe the exact same inherent limitations in the field of abortion study, but will not dwell interminably on the unknowable fraction of women who would have been better off giving birth. So at first I was thinking about RS or not RS, (again, definitely not MEDRS), but I think even if you accepted this as RS, which is a bit shaky, it also presents a due weight issue. This review is essentially a review of reviews, and Reardon admits that he is harping on something that other authors do not, and that other authors frequently don't mention at all even though they had the opportunity. So while discussing the inherent limitations of existing research on abortion and mental health is quite relevant (either generally or, as in this article, as it relates to the anti-abortion movement), doing it from Reardon's perspective is not. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Is this discussion a good example of how WP:MEDRS is applied or used in practice? If so, it's very disturbing. The discussion doesn't seem to apply any principles related to reliability and has cited very little evidence but has instead been a personal, subjective analysis of the conclusions of the paper instead of an analysis of the editorial process that is the hallmark of a typical WP:RS analysis. More bluntly, I've read very little in the preceding discussion about reliability which should be the focus of the discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

That analysis begins and ends with "anti-abortion advocate whose own website boasts of his fake PhD". Someguy1221 (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

agree with Someguy 1221--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I would like to site as source the articles of incorporation of a Delaware company. These records are by law filed with the registrar of corporations, and in principle subject to mandatory provision to anyone who request by the freedom of information act. However, they are not available for on-line search. How can I satisfy Wikipedia’s verifiable source rule? Thank you for help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyinhanoi (talk • contribs) 00:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

So, a Wikipedia source need not be online to be acceptable or serve as verification. That being said, Articles of Incorporation are most definitely a primary source, and so should be used with caution. Most of the time we would want a secondary source to interpret them for us. If it's something very basic and obvious, say, state of incorporation, then I don't see a major problem. Something akin to self-published sources. I would say proceed with caution. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Per Dumuzid, the use of a primary source like an article of incorporation is fine; such legal documents are perfectly reliable, so long as all you want to do is directly state exactly what that document says, and no more. So, if you're trying to establish that a particular entity was incorporated on a particular date in a particular jurisdiction, such a document is perfectly acceptable. What you could not do is literally anything else with that source; you can provide no interpretation of what that information means, and you can also not establish notability in a Wikipedia sense using such documents. They are reliable and fine to use, so long as you don't stretch their usefulness beyond what they actually state. --Jayron32 01:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources do not need to be online. Notability however should be considered. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• The Division of Corporations of the Secretary of State of Delaware maintains an Entity Search website that provides all of the details that would be on the articles of incorporation. However, the website is designed in a way that does not allow you to link directly to the company's entry.

  I recommend using the {{Cite web}} template with the Entity Search website as the url (https://icis.corp.delaware.gov/Ecorp/EntitySearch/NameSearch.aspx) and the company's File Number as the id. For example, here's how I would cite Google LLC:

{{Cite web
| url       = https://icis.corp.delaware.gov/eCorp/EntitySearch/NameSearch.aspx
| title     = Division of Corporations - Filing
| website   = General Information Name Search
| publisher = [[Secretary of State of Delaware]]
| id        = [https://icis.corp.delaware.gov/Ecorp/FieldDesc.aspx#FILE%20NUMBER File Number] 3582691
}}

• Relevant link: WP:SOURCEACCESS. Sources don't necessarily have to be online, freely or even publicly accessible. Of course as mentioned, this particular source (not print-only, paywalled etc. sources in general) is primary and doesn't count for notability (aka if the company should have its own WP article or be mentioned in some WP list). Daß Wölf 11:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• I want to emphasize that articles of incorporation should be used with great caution. They are easily misunderstood by laymen. For example, articles of incorporation are not really a good source to show that a company was incorporated on a particular date in a particular jurisdiction, because the company may have been incorporated earlier elsewhere and then reincorporated in the state in question. That said, they still can be a valuable source if correctly used. John M Baker (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

SANDRP (South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People) runs a "blog site" where various environmental concerns are reported. They process humongous amounts of data available from various public and private sources to produce useful analyses. Here is a sample article on the power generation performance of various hydroelectric projects on the Chenab river (a key river shared between India and Pakistan through the Indus Waters Treaty). And here is a somewhat more controversial article that says "This means the project envisages sediment flushing by drawdown ... This is clearly not allowed under PCA [Permanent Court of Arbitration] order cited above on Indus Treaty."

Are we allowed to use facts and information available from the site cautiously, attributing it where necessary? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Are any of http://gimn1567.ru/ , http://elib.biblioatom.ru/ , http://www.famhist.ru/ , and http://www.peoples.ru/ reliable sources, particularly for biographical information? They're Russian sites, and I can't evaluate them. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

My thoughts:

• gimn1567 appears to be the website for a highschool. It thus may be reliable for uncontroversial claims about the school or people affiliated with it, but should be treated like a primary source.

• elib.biblioatom.ru is an online library supported by the Kurchatov Institute, and is thus likely a useful repository of sources, but is unlikely to itself be a source. They state that their goal isthe collection, systematization and provision of free network access of various documents and publications, sometimes unique and inaccessible, reflecting the creation and development of the nuclear industry, nuclear weapons and nuclear energy [in the USSR and Russian Federation]. The historical nature of some of the texts hosted on the site should be taken into account when evaluating their reliability for a given claim.

• famhist.ru doesn't list clear editorial policies or attribution for articles. It also has an attached forum, which doesn't appear to have had much use for the last several years (and many of the posts on there are spambots), so I would guess that any editorial oversight that it may have had at some point is likely gone by now. That having been said, most articles on the site list sources, which may themselves be reliable or otherwise useful.

• the "about us" page for peoples.ru failed to open for me (maybe someone else will have better luck [37]), and the links from authors of individual posts were similarly broken, so their editorial process remains unclear. Their content appears to be a mix of tabloid-style coverage and nostalgic biographies, which casts further doubt on their reliability. I wasn't able to find any instances of Russian sources citing their coverage, although several Russian websites credit them for photos. Most of their biographies seem to be about well-known subjects, so I'm having a hard time thinking of a case where citing this source would be desirable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

My two cents:

• Gimn1567: per Rosguill
• I think the documents hosted there can mostly (or entirely) be considered primary sources, which would make them usable for certain kinds of information. However, other than individual documents they also have works published by the government. This would also make them primary sources, but in some possible contexts they could also be secondary sources written and edited by experts, thus reliable. As Rosguill said, each document should be examined separately.
• Famhist: Often they not only cite sources, but the actual articles on the site are direct excerpts from other sources, especially books. Some/many of those could be WP:RS. The site itself looks like a small (and dead) project that is not in itself reliable.
• Peoples.ru: appears to be a mix of articles written by frequent contributors (a la TimesofIsrael Blog) and paid articles. Not WP:RS. Here they offer anyone willing to part with 8,000 rubles to place their own biography (i.e. written by the submitter). Curiously, such self-written bios could be considered primary sources useful in some contexts, but this just needs pointing out.

Hope that helped. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Iamsnag12 (talk · contribs), an eight-year-old account with less than 100 edits, has repeatedly added the same non-reliable source to multiple articles. The first four times on 14 August: [38] [39] [40][41]

Upon removal as a non-RS, user promptly readded without discussion on 15 August: [42][43][44][45].

User was reported to ANI and alerted to discretionary sanctions [46], and on 20 August, the material was removed from the four pages by admin User:JzG as a non-RS. [47][48][49][50]

On 31 August, the user re-added the same source for a ninth and tenth time. Also posted to ANI. Feoffer (talk) 07:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement? --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

IMDb is mentioned under WP:UGC. So it is not a RS? IMDb is used on many WP articles - articles on movies, TV series, etc. I have also used IMDb as a source on an article I have created. Should I remove it? Puduḫepa 20:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Puduḫepa Please see WP:RS/IMDB and Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb. IMDb is a WP:USERGENERATED site whose fact checking is spotty at best and non-existent in certain situations. You should do your best to replace it as a reference in any article (yours or other editors) when you can. It can be used as an external link though. MarnetteD|Talk 20:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

MarnetteD, thank you for the links. I didn't know that it wasn't a RS. Puduḫepa 21:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome Puduḫepa. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD|Talk 22:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Anybody have the link handy to our collection of free public historical newspaper archives? I swear I've used this a dozen times before, but I don't remember where it's at. GMG^talk 10:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Shared Resources or Wikipedia:Free English newspaper sources? Also the outdated article, List of digital library projects. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Gee fizz. Yes Wikipedia:Free English newspaper sources was the page I was looking for. Thanks Someguy1221. GMG^talk 00:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I have been directed here by a user from Teahouse as I approached the platform for help regarding understanding Wikipedia's policy for using any video as a reference in an article. The context and required information is as following: B. M. Kutty is an article created by me few days back. In the article besides other news sources I have used a video hosted by YouTube as reference. When I nominated the article for DYK the reviewer asked me to not use the video as a reference because according to the user YouTube videos are generally not considered reliable. I understand that anyone can publish his/her work on YouTube including original research and why some people might not find YouTube as a reliable source but this is NOT about YouTube. The concerned video is uploaded by the official channel of The Print which in my opinion is a reliable news source and the video is authored by Shekhar Gupta, a renowned journalist and recipient of Indian's third highest civilian award. I am very new to Wikipedia and might not understand its policies like other experienced editors but I found nowhere where it says a video hosted by YouTube can't be used as a reference. Whether that video is a reliable or not can be a moot point but blanket ban on videos must not be a policy, IMHO. Regards. --Deepak G Goswami (talk) 10:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I assume the video in question is - this. It is on The Print's official channel, by Shekhar Gupta. This is The print's about page. While generally we don't use random YouTube videos - when they are pieces republished/promoted on YouTube by reputable outlets - then what matters is the outlet. In this case - evaluating The Print - which on the face of it may be a RS (it is however fairly new - launched 2017), but I am unfamiliar with it specifically so I won't go beyond may.Icewhiz (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Also - I see, from the YouTube channel, this (or something related) was published in print - [51] in India Today. If you can use India Today (or if there is a print version on The Print) - that's often preferred over video (text is easier and faster to verify). Icewhiz (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Icewhiz for sharing your insight. The issue is resolved now.--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Is Social Justice (journal), a peer reviewed academic journal focused on social justice issues a reliable source on the status of democracy in Venezuela, and possible democratic backsliding there? There's a debate regarding this here- Talk:Democratic_backsliding#Low-quality_sources_used_to_rebut_DB_in_Venezuelahere, with some editors claiming that because it a "Marxist journal", it is fringe. Here come the Suns (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

This is very clearly a Marxist source. On issues relating to Marxism and socialism it might be a decent source for providing viewpoints, but as a skewed, biases sourced it is utterly unreliable as a source for statements of fact, as evidenced by the defense of Venezuela. Toa Nidhiki05 16:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this is what the dispute on that page is about: There are countless peer-reviewed articles in top journals and book presses that describe Venezuela as a state that is suffering from Democratic backsliding. There are editors on the Democratic backsliding who are trying to portray these peer-reviewed sources as "critics of Venezuela", and who instead are adding one article from a Marxist journal to give readers the appearance that there is an active dispute in the academic community as to whether Venezuela is suffering from Democratic backsliding (i.e. "critics say A, others say B"). This is a question of WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. Even if the Marxist journal that OP is asking about is a RS (which I don't think it is), one dissident source shouldn't be used to give readers a false impression that academics are hotly contesting this subject. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why people are arguing with this IP editor; it's an obvious sock of Claíomh Solais. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• ...and the IP sock is now blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 270 § thetruthaboutguns.com

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 259 § thetruthaboutguns.com

I'm still finding references to this site tagged as {{sps}}. There was a reading of "rough consensus" of "meh" before, but I am still seeing statements on the site, linked to the articles we're citing, like "NASCAR, home to a huge percentage of Hillary Clinton’s basket of deplorables, wants to ban ads featuring America’s favorite rifle? That would be like banning ads for motor oil or beer", which is clear polemic. Reliability? this, featured on the main page today, seems like a random "readers' guns" submission. And then there's "Sandy Hook Elementary School Massacre: The Mainstream Media Cover-Up Continues from 2017. "aiding and abetting the enemies of the Second Amendment is one thing. Downplaying and/or ignoring vital information about the Sandy Hook spree killing is another." I also find Gun Confiscation for Dummies: ‘Red Flag’ Laws Are Gorified SWAT-ing" disturbing: in what way is removing guns from [https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2019/08/an-ex-marine-said-hed-slaughter-antifa-the-fbi-using-oregons-new-red-flag-law-took-his-guns-away.html peple threatening to go on a shooting spree similar to [[2017 Wichita swatting |actually getting people gunned down]]? "Even The Obama Administration Knew That Banning Bump Fire Stocks Was Illegal", "The greatest gun salesman in the history of the world has let it be known that he’s a fan of the Parkland students and their efforts to reduce and restrict Americans’ Second Amendment rights".

So, not Alex Jones but certainly Daily Caller levels of paranoid. And the comments. Oh, dear, the comments :-( Unashamedly a gun advocacy, anti-gun-control site "I recently threatenedpromised to publish pro-gun control content on this site. Readers ready to man The Walls of the City oppose the idea. Why give the enemy aid and comfort? Suffice it to say, TTAG is no more a false flag operation than Bar Refaeli is . . . well . . . you know. I simply believe in the Bob Hoskins philosophy. The more we know about gun control advocates’ thinking [sic] the more we’re able to lure fence sitters: Americans who don’t have the info or critical thinking skills to deconstruct disarmament deception—no matter how illogical.[52] - so firmly nailed to the minority view in America that all gun control is bad. Which is fine, if that's your bag, but Wikipedia isn't for advocacy. I don't have much to do with gun politics articles (I'm English, the entire thing looks bonkers to anyone who isn't American), but this site looks to me to be in the same category as Occupy, Daily Caller and others who publish some valid material but with such a clear agenda that we should be avoiding use here. An "uncontroversial" fact doesn't isolate a source that self-identifies as "The People of the Gun" from being controversial. Especially when they are arguing that "false flag" / ANTIFA conspiracy theories should be given more prominence by YouTube. I really don't think we need this site to tell us things like the cartridge weight of a specific gun. In fact, from the outside, it looks as if some WP:COATRACKing has been going on over the years. I don't think we can ignore the sidebars when deciding if a site is usable or not. Guy (Help!) 07:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, I think that the website is actually thetruthaboutguns.com (not .org). I had a look at this website and it does not look like a blue chip source. As its name suggests, it seems that its main purpose is to defend gun ownership from criticism. This is fine, but there are better secondary sources elsewhere.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the domain spot. Sorry, was typing not copying, having difficulty with foxedit right now. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Guy, are you forum shopping? This is the third time this year you have brought up this topic. If you are going to discuss it again why aren't you pinging previously involved editors or editors at the page where current local consensus doesn't support your removal? Prior discussions here [[53]] and here [[54]] Springee (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

No. The results to date have not been definitive, with very few people involved. The site's editorial is horrific, the quesiotn is whether we turn a blind eye to that in order to provide sources for trivia about guns. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

What evidence do you have other than your opinion? In the recent article talk page you simply ignored local consensus that the source was reliable for the claims in question and removed it a second time. When asked why you ignored local consensus your reply was the sort of thing no admin should ever be willing to accept. You in so many words argued that the locals weren't qualified to judge ([55]] /s/consensus/agreement of like minded editors/). No where do you say that the material was wrong or that the authors don't have sufficient knowledge to make such claims. This seems to be a troubling quest of yours to remove a source that you don't like for what ever reason regardless of the facts at hand. Springee (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Local consensus does not override a larger consensus. The first discussion reached a straightforward consensus to not use this source for statements of fact, so removing or replacing it in such usages is appropriate, and restoring it is inappropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The first discussion, to my reading, reached a clear consensus that this blog shouldn't be used for statements of fact. The reason it keeps coming up is because some editors are refusing to accept that consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Beyond the fact that the last discussion was completed one month plus a day ago, let's consider the arguments this time. As was mentioned in the first discussion, the site isn't a self published source. It does have an editorial staff. The Sandyhook article that Guy linked to is very clear that they are not part of the "it was staged" crowd. Instead they are critical of the media for only focusing on the guns and not other aspects of the shooter that they say the should have been red flags. My feeling is they are implying that the media etc are only concentrating on the guns vs other things that might have helped prevent the crime. I'm not going to claim the logic is correct but the feeling that the media and politicians quickly turn to "guns" as a cause vs other issues that lead to (a) crime is something that is mentioned a lot in media that reports on the views of gun rights. Thus, the article (with no claim as to it's quality) is hardly reporting something controversial despite what the name suggests. The article on Red Flag Laws seems in line with other sources and their concerns on the subject. [[56]], [[57]]. It's not clear why you linked to their discussion of bump fire laws and the last one well, that's clearly their version of irony. Are these neutral, highly reliable articles? No. However, as was mentioned in the first RSN discussion there are examples of mainstream media calling on the editors of TTAG to provide the "pro-gun" opinion on a topic.

Now let's look at the recent example Guy is trying to remove from the AR-15 style rifle page [[58]]. This links to an article describing the technical differences between a semi-auto AR-15 and the military's M-16/M-4 rifle. So it includes discussions of the parts that are changed and aren't inter-operable. This is the sort of very technical details that can be reliably sourced to subject matter experts. For better or worse, at this point we are dealing with a specialty topic and the range of online sources drops considerably. However, consider what WP:RS says.The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. Here we are looking to subject matter experts to tell the readers the difference between the the two mechanisms. We aren't asking their opinion on the media's coverage of firearms and a related crime. Guy thinks even examples such as this should be removed. Previous discussions didn't gain a consensus that the site was unreliable for reviews/technical details of firearms. I assume that, and a local consensus against Guy's (repeated) removal of a useful, technical citation at the AR-15 page. Springee (talk) 10:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I sort agree that most stuff can be assessed on a case by case basis, but in this specific case, it does seem like they are probably a questionable source for drawing out the distinctions between military and civilian rifles. I don't see much evidence that they have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy (are they cited by others as expert sources?) At best it seems like it should be treated as a questionable source for non-controversial claims that should be traded out when something more reliable is available. Nblund ^talk 17:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

But why? There is a second source linked in the AR-15 article. It's basically a technical manual. It appears to support the same claims but in a FAR less readable form. Are you suggesting this source either omitted a difference or identified one that isn't really true? Springee (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Because questions like "how different is an AR-15 from an M16?" or "how easy is it to convert an AR-15 to a fully automatic weapon?" are both somewhat contested issues in the gun control debate. I'm not saying they got it wrong, but they probably shouldn't be used in contentious areas because they don't really have a reputation for expertise, as far as I can tell. Nblund ^talk 21:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

That would be a fair point if the Wikipedia article were trying to make the claim that it was "hard" or the differences were "big" or "small". It isn't. It's only being used to say what the significant differences are. Since you claim they don't have a reputation for expertise, where would you personally suggest looking to verify that one way or the other? How would you suggest proving such a POV? Springee (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think its really possible to prove a lack of a reputation, but I don't see evidence of WP:USEBYOTHERS for expertise on the mechanics of firearms. As you mentioned above, they're sometimes quoted in the press for a "pro-gun" viewpoint, or for opinions on the internal politics of the gun rights movement, but I don't see them being treated like an expert source on the mechanics of firearms. I could see a pragmatic argument for using them in a pinch, but are you really saying you would be comfortable using them as the primary source for anything beyond the most basic claims? Nblund ^talk 16:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• The previous two discussions (here and here) both seem to conclude that this is a poor-quality, unreliable source—there seems to be a consensus to that effect. The source pretty clearly lacks a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy, and is not used by reputable third-party sources—or if it is, no one has presented evidence to that effect. Moreover, the site has targeted, doxxed, and harassed its political opponents. This isn't a good source for a serious encyclopedia, and that should be obvious as a matter of basic editorial competence. Especially in an area subject to discretionary sanctions, editors should be trying to go the extra mile to find and use good sources, not bending over backward to justify the use of poor ones. MastCell ^Talk 18:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

That is not an accurate summary and you have made claims with no proof. The first discussion had a consensus that the source was not reliable for non-technical discussions. There was no consensus it was unreliable for technical details about firearms themselves. The second discussion basically ended with almost no input once it was pointed out that this was just the same discussion we had a few months back, absent actually pinging those involved. Your comment about discrestionary sanctions is rather off topic here. If the question were about laws related to firearms I would agree. However, in this case the question is, "what are the mechanical differences between the semi-auto AR-15 and the select fire M-16?" I have yet to see anyone offer any evidence that the site isn't accurate for these claims. Consensus on the article page was FOR inclusion rather than against. This media checking site lists it as right leaning and fact oriented [[59]]

While we found this well sourced to mostly credible information and institutions, it is very apparent that the aim is to only present info that favors guns and rejects gun control. Although the information is evidence based, it is misleading because they only choose to present one side of this story. We rate this source factual in reporting, but right biased based on its rejection of gun control and somewhat cherry picked information. (D. Van Zandt 7/16/2017) That doesn't sound like something that says don't trust for technical content about the operation of firearms. Springee (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

MediaBiasFactCheck is itself a pretty unreliable source (see, for example, its entry at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources), so citing it here heightens, rather than mitigates, my concerns about poor editorial judgement. And in any case, even that snippet seems to underscore the highly dubious quality of this source. I guess I don't understand why you're expending so much energy arguing technicalities and loopholes to use a source that is universally recognized as poor-quality. If a technical detail about firearms is important and relevant, then you should be able to find it covered in better sources. If this is the only source you can find, then consider the possibility that the item in question may not be notable or encyclopedic. MastCell ^Talk 19:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Is it the best source? No but it has been mentioned as a bias checking site by several RSs. Furthermore, why should we disregard it in favor of a few claims here? You claim the site is "universally" poor yet provide no evidence. I (and others in the original RSN) provided evidence that the work of the site has been cited by others. Your final point is not valid. The technical differences between the semi-auto and select fire rifles can be found in print books but those are rarely available in online searches. The differences are often cited by experts on blogs or forums but those don't pass RS muster. The real problem is this is a smaller scope topic and we simply don't have as many easy to access sourcing options. Springee (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The arguments you're making are literally in direct contradiction to this site's fundamental sourcing policies. You argue that we need to use this poor-quality website because higher-quality sources "are rarely available in online searches". Our core site policies say: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access."

You argue that we need to use this website because the topic is obscure and there are no better sources. Our core site policies caution against exactly that mindset: "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources." I've given up hoping that editors—even long-tenured ones—are familiar with these basics, but these discussions can't be conducted in complete ignorance of site policy. MastCell ^Talk 01:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should reject a firearms book because it's difficult to access. I'm saying we can't access it thus we can't cite it. Consider this, if 5 years back I read in a book about these differences but I no longer have access to that book, how can I cite them? What I can do is cite another source that provides the same information even though it's not as reliable overall. Let's go back to one of the core parts of RS. It specifically says context matters. In this context we shouldn't need an Oxford PhD saying the differences are X. The quality of the source needs to be proportional to the nature of the claim. That is what we have here. I'm not ignoring policy, I'm asking that we follow it. Springee (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean, you "no longer have access" to the higher-quality source? You can a) buy a copy on Amazon, b) get a copy for free from your local library, c) if your library doesn't have it, ask your librarian to obtain a copy via interlibrary loan, d) ask around to see if anyone else has a copy, e) ask someone else to get a copy from their local library, f) if out-of-print, find a second-hand copy for sale on the Internet... and so on. I've done all of the above. Good editors do these things all the time, instead of trying to water down the site's sourcing requirements. What's the name of the book? MastCell ^Talk 02:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall the exact title of the book. To be honest why does it matter. I see no reason why I need to try to find a book I once read to find a reference when an available reference has the same information. Let's turn the question around, why are you so interested in getting a perfectly reasonable and readable technical comparison declared unreliable. Look at the article and tell us what is wrong with it. It's interesting that those who are involved in the technical aspects of the article find the source acceptable for the information presented. Those who are concerned about unrelated aspects of the source and aren't generally active in the subject say it isn't reliable. Springee (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

So you'll spend hours writing dozens of posts badgering us to lower the bar for this poor-quality source, but you literally won't bother to spend 5 minutes remembering the name of a better source? OK. It's pretty simple: Wikipedia is meant to be a serious reference work. No serious reference work would cite thetruthaboutguns.com as a source of factual information. When you do so, it harms the credibility of this site, in a small but real way. MastCell ^Talk 00:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, how do you know how long it would take me to find the old source? Sorry. In the mean time you will spend how much time making claims about the source but not actually showing any evidence. I've shown a media bias rating site that said pretty much what I and other editors familiar with the subject have said, strong POV but also presents factual details. You have presented nothing. You also have ignored policy. WP:RS says, "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." A site about firearms including a number of firearms reviews and a site/author cited by others. You have basically said, "I don't like them". Springee (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The second discussion clearly and unequivocally found that this source should not be used for statements of fact, fullstop. (I summarized it this way at the end, noting that only two editors in the massive discussion thought it could be used for statements of fact, and no one objected.) If you disagree, we need a proper RFC immediately, because that discussion, to my eyes, was very clear and reached a straightforward "do not use for statements of fact" conclusion. --Aquillion (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Guy is quoting articles that have no relevance to the actual discussion at hand, and ignoring the fact that we are interested expressly in the technical claims put forward in TTAG -- if one wants to seriously refute the reliability of TTAG in this regard then he would have to find technical claims which are characteristically false. It has already been established that TTAG is not reliable for political and gun-control related information, nobody is contesting that. What we are contesting is the claim that it is unreliable for technical claims and gun-related facts. TTAG has a large number of contributors, and so not all articles should be held in the same regard as some will be political and some will be technical. Specifically, as Springee has said, the question which has sparked this debate is "how do you differentiate a select-fire compatible lower from a semi-automatic lower?" Currently, having searched extensively, other sources which support the cited answer to this query are technical manuals, or otherwise are too laden with detail to be readily parseable by the average reader, and the claim itself is somewhat obscured. They should be included, as they are, to lend further support to the claim, but the subject-matter expert cited in the TTAG article we're using for this claim is reliable for this information, and the article has expressed the cited claim in a much more direct manner. In summary, I think that selective usage of a source like TTAG is acceptable so long as the boundaries are clearly established. Zortwort (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

As a neutral observer here, I think this all hinges on whether the author qualifies as a “subject matter expert”. So... what are the author’s subject specific credentials? Blueboar (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Here are reviews of Leghorn's firearms introduction book [[60]]. Here is a book published by Oxford University Press which cites Leghorn's book several times [[61]] Here is a news article about an unsafe pistol which cites Leghorn [[62]] Leghorn commenting in an NBC story about Dick Sporting Goods [[63]] and a CBS story [[64]]. This NBC article cites both Leghorn and another TTAG article [[65]] and again here [[66]]. Outdoorhub quotes Leghorn here [[67]]. Newsmax as an expert on the history of Sig Sauer [[68]]. The Week on the subject of 5 famous firearms [[69]]. SFGate regarding a carry permit holder [[70]]. Defense Review (clearly a firearms new site) discussing a gun and linking to Leghorn's opinions by name [[71]]. So we have news sites that refer to his opinions on policy related issues in their stories about a range of firearms topics. We also have several sites that refer to his opinions on the subject of firearms reviews/technical details/problems. Springee (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• So a polemic source, whose factual accuracy is dubious, but written by someone who appears to be treated as an expert (but who has no formal qualifications)? So this is a bit like citing Pharyngula (blog), if PZ wasn't an actual expert, and his polemic was factually incorrect, instead of just opinionated and sarcastic? So it's a source that's two (significant) steps down from Pharyngula? Nah, not an RS. Guettarda (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that the source is factually incorrect regarding any technical matters? As for formal qualifications, the author was a DHS contractor [[72]] and has been cited as an expert by RS’s both as a representative gun rights opinion/POV as well as for technical knowledge. Springee (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

DHS contractor isn't a formal qualification, it's a job title that puts you somewhere below "full time DHS employee", nor is the fact that he's cited by a few sources. We don't even count an undergrad degree as a "formal qualification" in a field. (I'm not saying that formal qualifications are the only kind of expertise, or even count as evidence of expertise sufficient for us to use as a source, but it's a starting point.) Being hired by an agency whose hiring practices are a mess certainly doesn't count for a whole lot.

As for "cited as an expert", the links you provide have him cited "as an expert". Most cite him as someone who writes for a "popular" blog. Some of those links are duplicates (e.g., the first two) and one of them is just pictures of him posed as if he were shooting a gun.

As for your specification that he only needs to be correct ontechnical matters - that's not our requirement. The fact that his blog is a dubious source for factual matters of any kind makes it a dubious source. "We trust him on x, but not y" isn't a thing. Guettarda (talk) 12:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Note that "not a reliable source" doesn't mean "inaccurate". There are plenty of people I'd trust whose blogs I wouldn't consider an RS. Guettarda (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Remember that WP:RS says context matters. If the question were something controversial then I think your concerns would be valid. The fact in question isn't controversial (at least I assume we all agree this isn't) so our RS standards allow lower quality sourcing. Also, you appear to be coming from the POV that this is "his blog". It isn't. It's a site that has both news and blog type contributions as well as an editorial staff. That was covered when Guy brought the topic up a few months back. Springee (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Not RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be good to ping the editors who were on the fence last time and let them help decide. PackMecEng (not pinged here) was clearly in support for technical aspects last time. Blueboar, commented above so far appears on the fence. Ronz, and feminist seemed like fence sitters last time. If they feel the site isn't accurate for pure technical content then I will acquiesce. Springee (talk) 12:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Not a RS We don't need some random advocacy group's webpage to capture American pro-gun apologia. There are plenty of better sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

This isn't at all a valid reason. RS specifically says that a source doesn't have to be neutral to be reliable. It also says context matters. Consider the claim in question. The claim is that a select fire receiver would have an extra hole drilled for the auto sear which is not part of the semi-auto rifle. Are we really going to claim that someone who writes about and reviews firearms isn't qualified to make such a non-controversial claim? Since you claim there are better sources for this fact please show them. Springee (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Those sorts of anodyne review-type things are either going to be mentioned in more reliable sources or are not WP:DUE mention. Anything from this source is effectively fruit of a poison tree. They're clearly an individual's advocacy website. As such they're effectively a blog. Or do you think we should use Scary Mommy for Krispy Kreme? Probably not. Simonm223 (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Kind of circular reasoning there. You don't like them so you assume they aren't reliable then say if mainstream media doesn't cover the topic it can't be notable. However, the whole point of something like Wikipedia is we can capture knowledge that isn't always making it into mainstream publications. It also ignores that mainstream sources have quoted TTAG and it's various editors (it's not just one writer) for both opinion and factual content. Springee (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not circular at all. Rather it's very straightforward. Product reviews in review blogs are not WP:RS compliant. This is especially significant because review blogs rarely disclose their financial relationships with the companies for which they review. This page is either a private advocacy group (and thus WP:FRINGE) or it's a review blog, depending on the content in question. Neither of those are reliable. If information captured in that non-reliable source is not available elsewhere, it's not WP:DUE inclusion. Just because you think the information is useful is neither here nor there. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• meh - context matters. Should they be used for Sandy Hook? Anything about the gun debate in the US? No - but not so much for RS reasons - but more since they are simply UNDUE (and presenting, mostly, their advocacy opinions). However - is a gun review on "MG Arms Ultra-Light Rifle in .416 Taylor" reliable for details on this particular gun model? Probably yes. Icewhiz (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• Not an RS Clearly WP:FRINGE, a cursory glance indicates a lack proper editorial oversight, it's a blog and it's full of unhinged conspiracy theory type stuff. Bacondrum (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Any actual evidence to support your opinion? Springee (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Not an RS "The NRA wasted no time rebuking the megacorporation for selling out to the gun grabbers." Why would an encyclopedia even entertain the idea of using a site like this as RS? O3000 (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

How does a negative opinion about the NRA negative their reliability with respect to technical details which is the question at hand? You are addressing if they are reliable for general comments which was already settled. Springee (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not what they said -- it's how they said it. It simply doesn't look like RS. It looks like a strong opinion. O3000 (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I would agree, as mentioned earlier, if we were citing them for say a statement that says the differences make illegal conversions difficult or in context of the law. However, the claim is straight forward. I can find other sources that say the same thing but they blogs and don't have an editorial board. When Guy listed this topic earlier in the year several editors noted things like reviews of firearms. So would you consider this review to be unusable in context of an article about the pistol (assume for argument the subject passes NOTE) [[73]]? Springee (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC

• not an RS (Note I only have intermittent internet access at the mo, so not point in trying to engage with me), as far as I can tell just another hobbies blog from someone who is not an acknowledged expert (and no being acknowledged on other blogs is enough). I said this about car hobby blogs and I see no reason why gun hobby blogs are any different. If its important RS would have mentioned it, if they do not it is no important.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a good parallel example. Consider the world of amateur racing, SCCA and the like. Where does one find a wide range of information on things like the Swift DB-1 racecar. The DB-1 was a ground changer in Formula Ford and had many long term impacts on the sport. However, there aren't a huge range of sources yet I don't think readers would protest if the DB-1 section of the Swift Engineering article was enhanced. That gets back to WP:RS. It doesn't say we can't use lower quality sources. It says the quality of the source and the claim need to be aligned. Springee (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Poor source It should not be used for anything that could be considered controversial in any way, and if disputed should be removed or replaced. It should not be used for BLP info, or anything else where a high-quality reference is needed or expected. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• Not a RS. No sign of reliable editorial oversight; editors appear to be enthusiasts rather than experts. One of the three editors is anonymous, never a good sign. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• Not a RS. It's essentially a group blog, with no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy, run by a group of random enthusiasts of no particular renown and with no particularly exceptional professional expertise; I'm not seeing anything we could reasonably cite them for. Even uncontroversial technical details about guns ought to be easily-cited elsewhere, and given that this blog clearly has an intense political bias (coupled with lacking any of the things that would make them a good WP:BIASED source, like a reputation or expertise to make their political opinions noteworthy, or the reputation for fact-checking to make them trustworthy despite their bias), it's reasonable to be skeptical about technical things that are only mentioned here, either in terms of accuracy or in terms of noteworthiness. Also, by my reading both previous discussions found that it shouldn't be used for statements of fact - the fact that it keeps coming up here (implying that people keep using it for statements of fact despite, by my reading, repeated discussions concluding that they shouldn't) suggests that we might need an WP:RFC and an entry in WP:RS/P to settle the issue more thoroughly. --Aquillion (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

You claim it's essentially a group blog but you have no evidence other than your opinion. Perhaps the reason why other editors are using it for statements of fact is because they actually are familiar with the subject. Did you try pining editors who've added the content and ask them? I actually did present outside sources that quoted both the site and the specific author. I presented a rating site that supported the technical aspects. You have basically said "you don't like it" but do you have enough subject matter knowledge to know? You claim the editors and writers have no renown etc but what evidence do you have? I'm not asking if you are familiar with sources opposed to gun rights, but are you actually familiar with the technical topic? I mean I could show up and claim a vegan food website and its editors aren't reliable because I've never heard of them. Then again, that isn't a topic I know or understand so that shouldn't be a surprise. Anyway, out of respect for the process I've already said I'm not going to restore the material since there simply isn't editor support for that. You aren't saying anything new so lets move on. Springee (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this an argument of "truthiness"? My question is are those other editors reliable sources, if not, your argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT not Aquillion's. As an extension of WP:ONUS: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. I don't have a horse in the race, but your logic is flawed and I'm concerned with your argumentative approach with those who disagree with your claim. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not an argument of thruthiness rather an argument of who's opinion are we using. Most of the editors have presented no evidence or the evidence is "their views on guns are fringe so we can't trust them for non-controversial facts". Their view on firearms policies are probably rather mainstream among firearms owners and people concerned with gun rights. However, that is a minority of the population at large. Regrettably this is a topic where politics is mixed into things in so many ways. Consider if the BMW M39 article cited TFLcars.com for the rather uncontroversial claim that the M5 had different side mirrors vs the lesser versions of the M39. Would we be here? Is anyone going to run around removing non-controversial claims from articles if they cite TFLcars? TTAG is a similar site. When this topic was discussed early in the year a search of TTAG citations found that almost all were for mundane details that weren't controversial. Yet, some editors felt they MUST be removed.

I get that my approach has been to challenge a number of the claims here. Some of that is perhaps due to the frustrating, and against WP:CONSENSUS way Guy removed the citation from the article in the first place. The citation and associated claim were simply removed rather than replaced with a {cn} tag [[74]]. Mind you this was stable text added in December of last year [[75]]. Once Guy was reverted the first time they should have moved to the talk page. I opened a discussion on Aug 22, Guy said nothing. Consensus was 3:1 for inclusion. Only after pinging did Guy even add to the discussion and that was little more than to dismiss the talk page consensus. Finally, Guy opened this discussion here without notifying the talk page. All around that was very poor behavior on the part of an admin who should know better. Dlthewave likes to point to a firearms related RfC that notes that talk page consensus matters [[76]]. Well talk page consensus was the source was reasonable for the claim. Guy's arguments here are basically to label the cite fringe, primarily based on the view that the gun rights position is a minority thus those who support it must by default be fringe. When I presented examples of others citing the author and the TTAG in general they were dismissed yet no counter evidence was offered. Same with the media fact check cite I presented. It was dismissed but no alternatives were suggested. So yes, I'm frustrated that Guy violated CONSENSUS and BRD in removing the link in the first place, something an admin shouldn't be doing. I'm frustrated that many here are not arguing with evidence but with their gut feeling regarding the site. Several editors have made it clear the politics of the site, rather than any deficiency in technical competence, is the problem they see. RS says biased sources are OK and context matters. These things are supposed to be based on the merit of the arguments rather than numbers yet here we are. Little evidence presented by any detractors but the numbers will rule the day (even though article consensus supports inclusion). Springee (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Non RS: an WP:SPS source with no reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. If the material it covers is relevant for the encyclopedia, better sources would surely be available that cover same. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not self-published though, it's published by Wide Open Media Group LLC. --Pudeo (talk) 08:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Springee and MastCell, I don't see why further discussion is needed here. This source has been discussed to death considering its caliber (no pun intended). feminist (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Springee and MastCell are not in agreement with eachother, not sure I understand what your opinion is here. Zortwort (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Not a RS: No sign of fact-checking or established reputation; the only apparent difference between TTAG and a "group blog" is that it is published on a full-fledged website instead of a blogging platform.

I would question the reliability of any source, regardless of political leaning, that publishes things like YouTube Burying Las Vegas Conspiracy Theory Search Results. We do expect a certain level of fact-checking even for opinion pieces, and the fact that the editors would greenlight this sort of conspiracy-mongering is a red flag that casts a shadow over the entire operation. As others have pointed out, the onus is on those supporting the use of a source to demonstrate its reliability. –dlthewave ☎ 16:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you have evidence to the contrary? The site has a correction policy and a place to submit corrections.[[77]] Your are misrepresenting the Youtube related article you are citing which appears to be based largely on a WSJ article (cited in the link). Do you have evidence that they consider the attack a false flag event or just that they were concerned about the impact to gun rights videos and youtube? Springee (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Probably not I don't see evidence that they are relied on by other sources for offering much beyond simple statements of opinion. The website appears to be run by enthusiasts and it accepts user submissions. The LLC that owns the site offers advertisers "integrated content" (e.g. ads that look like regular posts), and they've launched whole websites with corporate "partners". There's no indication that TTAG has any sort of editorial independence: stuff like this ad, published under the editor's byline, suggests that they probably don't have any real separation from their advertisers. I'm hesitant to outright say that sources can never be used, but I have a hard time envisioning a scenario where something would be WP:DUE for inclusion but sourceable only to this site. Nblund ^talk 17:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Yours is a reasonable view of the subject. I get that people would be worried about opinions or commentary based on their claims. However, in the case of the material Guy removed the subject of the subsection is the mechanical differences between a semi-auto AR-15 operating mechanism and that in the select fire M16. Thus any mechanical differences are DUE for inclusion in that section. A number of sources cover the differences but most are gun smith Blogs or videos that literally show the parts side by side. I guess we could cite one of those sources with the view that the author is a subject matter expert. The claim isn't controversial in the least and is about as dry and factual as one gets. The TTAG is low on the RS list but it does have an editorial board, it does have a stated correction policy [[78]], it has been cited by others. That doesn't set a high bar but context matters and the claim shouldn't need a high bar. Springee (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

"Thus any mechanical differences are DUE for inclusion in that section." That's not how WP:DUE works. Due weight is based on coverage in reliable sources; if it's hard to find reliable sourcing, it's probably not DUE. –dlthewave ☎ 23:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

So you are claiming that difference is false? Sorry, we need to be realistic here. Certainly talk page consensus supported inclusion. Didn’t you argue that talk page consensus should matter? Springee (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

He's not saying it's false; he's saying it's not notable, because high-quality sources don't seem to cover it. That's what due weight means. And please consider easing up on badgering everyone who holds a different viewpoint than you do; you are well into bludgeoning territory at this point. MastCell ^Talk 00:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The article "Preserving a culture under attack," The Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa, Canada, 4 Oct. 2003, page C3, profiles a local author and states that he has received the Raja Rao Award, which the article describes as "a prestigious honor". Is this a reliable source for the proposition that this award is in fact a prestigious honor? Article is not an editorial, afaict. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC) @Arxiloxos, A Sniper, and The Four Deuces: Opinions, since you've dealt with this source before? Hyperbolick (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Not reliable. It is the author stating that the honour was prestigious. I would also question it if it read "honor" rather than "honour" as I would expect them to use Canadian English. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

They are not quoting the author, they are describing him. Don't recall offhand how they spelled honor. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

It is not reliable, per Context matters: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable." The source is only reliable for information about the local author being profiled. This problem is usually a result of cherry-picking of sources to find one that supports an edit one wants to make. The correct approach is to use sources directly about the topic and report what they say.

Canadian news media mostly used "or" endings, but began to switch in the 1990s. I don't know when or if the Ottawa Citizen made the transition. Ironically "or" was the original Canadian spelling, but they began to adopt British spellings for some words following the War of 1812.

TFD (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a request for comment on the verifiability of statements in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article. If you are interested, please participate at Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act § RfC: Recent additions. — Newslinger talk 05:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Parental alienation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This caught my eye because it makes a bunch of what look like medical claims without any WP:MEDRS-compliant sources to back them up.

1. There appear to be several editors editing the page who pretty much edit nothing else.
2. There is a large motivation to insert bias into the article by those who are currently accusing others of PA or being accused of same.
3. The lead says things like "It is a distinctive form of psychological abuse and family violence" and only way down in the history do you discover that Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders considered and rejected PA as a diagnosis.
4. Some of the sources are pretty clearly advocacy books pushing a particular POV instead of scientific papers on a psychological topic.
5. The article really seems to cover only one of the following possibilities:
   • Evil parent unfairly alienates child against good parent.
   • Good parent alienates child against evil parent, and rightly so.
   • No actual alienation, but one parent falsely accuses the other of alienation.
   • Both parents are evil and both are alienating the child against the other parent.

I can think of two possible solutions:

1. Rewrite the article so that it is about a legal argument instead of being about a medical diagnosis
2. Treat is as a medical article and insist that the sources comply with WP:MEDRS.

Any advice on how to deal with this would be most appreciated. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• In my humble POV, if it is in the MERDS territory, then remove all content not sourced by MEDRS-compliant sources. In case of legal argument, demand high quality sources and mercilessly remove all content sourced by mere advocacy books. And be prepared for quite nasty "content dispute"... Looking at the respective talkpage, there are epic battles even over minor details. Pavlor (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• This sounds like a topic with both medical and legal aspects; don't choose one or the other. WP:MEDRS applies to medical claims and the medical consensus should be stated, but it might still be appropriate to discuss significant fringe views (in accord with due weight). For legal claims, reliable sources would include books from reputable publishers and law review articles, with influential opinions used as primary sources. It might be appropriate to quote an advocacy book to illustrate its own position, but the article or section should not be based on such sources. Kim Post (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

This probably doesn't need much discussion, but just for the record in case anyone searches archives here in the future, Isaac Mozeson is not a reliable source for linguistics or etymology. Details at Talk:False_cognate#Unreliable sources (permalink). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

It appears he has a never-used user account (IsaacMozeson (talk · contribs)). --Calton | Talk 14:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi my Concern is that i saw this news portal [79] and wanted to know weather this is a reliable source Jhummu ^Shiv-o-Hum! 18:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

No. It's a portal, so anything it republishes will have a better original source linked from it. That source may, or may not be, reliable – but it's preferable to the recycled version. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I just tell that reliable sources for science journals. In some cases, science journal articles including Nature, Scientific American, and Science. magazines should be verified, when it is reliable or not. --TaleofTalisman (talk) 06:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

As peer-reviewed journals, Nature and Science set the standard in WP:RS. Scientific American meets RS as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Is there a specific issue you would like to discuss? Someguy1221 (talk) 06:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Is the following sources enough to confirm the verification of this material?

Material:According to the report of Kayhan, in October 1981 when the MEK set fire to a bus in Shiraz, 15 passengers included2 child and a 17-year- old girl had been burnt to death.

Sources: Islamic Revolution Document Center's website, this one, page 13 (it was provided by user:Pajz in wp:RX), Iranian news agency as well as I have the archived version of Kayhan newspaper belongs to the report of burning of bus to email to every one who wants.Saff V. (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Well, this newspaper is a mouthpiece of the Iranian regime, so its reliability is dubious. Isn´t there other (foreign, non-Iranian) source writing about the same story? Pavlor (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pavlor: they (this one, this one, page 13) don't belong to Iran, it was written "Original from: Indiana University".Am I wrong?Saff V. (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Indiana University (eg. its library) is a source of the original physical copy of this "journal" used for scan, not its publisher. Looking at the previews, source you propose looks like a pure propaganda garbage, certainly not suitable as a RS. Pavlor (talk) 12:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

You shouldn't use news media, which is the best source for what happened today, for events that happened decades ago. Their expertise is in current events, not historical events. TFD (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I can't figure out if this source is reliable. It was recently used on the People's Mujahedin of Iran article to add contentious material. Thanks for the feedback as always. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria are you talking about the Jamestown Foundation as a whole or just that one article? ~mitch~ (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Just that one article. It just doesn't look right to me, so thought I'd ask for some feedback here. Thanks :-) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The Jamestown Foundation has a fairly good reputation, so I would lean towards “reliable”. Of course, even the best sources can get specifics wrong. Do other reliable sources contradict? Blueboar (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I see this as in the same league as opinion pieces in news media, hence reliability depends on the writer, rather than the publisher. In this case I don't see that as being established. In any case, partisan think tanks like this are poor sources, because they often are selective in the facts they report since they begin with a conclusions then assemble facts to support them, while ignoring facts that don't. Peer-reviewed sources are better, because they are more likely to catch glaring omissions. TFD (talk) 03:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Blueboar: and @The Four Deuces: Doesn't it needed to provide the material of the People's Mujahedin of Iran article linked to this source?Saff V. (talk) 06:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Usable. The source has been effectively republished by a government agency, and is reliable if fully cited and attributed. We do not label sources as "partisan think tanks" unless we have a reliable source doing that labeling. Labeling sources is not a reasonable function for Wikipedia unless we have outside sources doing that labeling which have not been labeled themselves . Simple. I find sources, in fact, calling that foundation "non-partisan." https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-jamestown-foundation/ https://jamestown.org/program/jamestown-welcomes-new-board-members-michael-carpenter-scott-robins-and-michael-vickers/ etc. Unless having people associated with Joe Biden is horridly right-wing, of course. Collect (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

We did have a conversation a while back about Think Tanks and their varied reliabilities. Some feedback we had:

• "According to criteria established by the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program of the University of Pennsylvania, the Brookings Instiution is ranked in their 2017 report as the #1 think-tank in the world,... and the Jamestown Foundation is not listed." - Beyond My Ken.
• "Any think tank which perfoms its own creative thinking or research and then publishes it will be a primary source for its own views".- Andy Dingly.
• "I would agree that they are reliable for what they think, not for it being a fact". - TDF.
• "I would avoid them. The problem is not that their facts are wrong, but that many are selective in what they report." - Slatersteven.
• "reliability does not require non-partisanship. While we (the editors of WP) need to be non-partisan (neutral), our sources do not. To maintain our own neutrality, we must present the various non-neutral views on a topic, giving them DUE weight according to the prominence and predominance of the viewpoint." - Blueboar.
• "I would say that they're generally not WP:RS for the things people want to cite them for. Normally, anything a think-tank publishes directly is going to fall under WP:SELFPUBLISH; a very small number of high-profile think tanks may have the reputation that would let us use them, but even then, I'd consider them WP:PRIMARY sources for their own views and would generally try to avoid using them for anything controversial." - Aquillon.

The People's Mujahedin of Iran is indeed a controversial subject, and this Think Tank source is being used to include controversial statements. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

As you have mentioned earlier on this post, we are discussing "Just that one article"; not the Jamestown Foundation. let alone judging Think Tanks as a whole.--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The disputed edit is ""According to Chris Zambelis senior middle east analyst of Jamestown Foundation, MEK's use of tactics such as mortar barrages and ambushes in busy areas have often resulted in civilian casualties." That's awkward phrasing since the claim is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact. It happens to be true, so mentioning the source in text is wrong. The full sentence in the source says: "The group has never been known to target civilians directly, though its use of tactics such as mortar barrages and ambushes in busy areas have often resulted in civilian casualties." It seems therefore that the remarks are taken out of context. MEK has killed civilians as collateral damage. That's a fact. Different observers may find that to be acceptable or unacceptable. After all, civilians are killed in most wars and revolutions. You need a source that explains the general opinion of their actions, which this source does not do. TFD (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Is the following sources enough to confirm the verification of the material?

• Also, Operation Aftab was carried out by Army of the Mojahedin Khalq Organization in the western part of the country on 1988.source and another source

Thanks! Saff V. (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

To make clearer, Saff V. is requesting to know if Iranrights.org and opinion piece at theglobpost.com are enough to support the claim that "Operation Aftab was carried out by Army of the Mojahedin Khalq Organization in 1988". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I remember seeing some place (I don't remember where) that, if you add a phrase or paragraph from an external source that is in a foreign language and you translate that phrase using your own words, you add something like "translated by user". Not sure exactly of the wording, but I do remember seeing something like that. In any case, would it be appropriate to say "Translated by (here inserted name of user who did the translation, for example Maragm). Many thanks, --Maragm (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Maragm I don't recall any guideline or policy matching what you describe. In general we don't put usernames into articles. I would just note in the edit summary that you (or whoever) preformed the translation. While someone could challenge the accuracy of your translation, I think that's pretty rare. Alsee (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It also would violate OR, it may be how you translated it but it may not be how someone else might. Translations should be made by third party sources, not users.Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

(I originally posted this comment to the Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard, which was not the place I intended.)

The refs are to TechTarget.com, to ChannelBuzz.ca, and to BlockAndFiles.com articles. Cris Mellor, the author of the BlocksAndFiles.com article, is also an editor for The Register, which is a Situation Publication sister website.

I would think the answer to this question would be an obvious "yes". Even primary-source refs are OK for an article about a business given the caution that "The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities." In this case the ref'd articles start with a PR announcement of the merger of Retrospect Inc. and StorCentric. However all three articles includes direct quotes and paraphrases of the two CEOs' remarks about those same basic company facts, as well as the CEOs' reasoning behind the merger. The BlocksAndFiles.com article includes analysis by Chris Mellor of where the merged companies would fit into the industry, which one would expect in a secondary-source ref.

However Guy doesn't think so. He deleted the entire fourth paragraph of the former History section of the Retrospect (software) article because for the entire article “There is clear consensus on ANI and elsewhere that the level of detail here is excessive, the content promotional, and the sources lack intellectual independence”.

I'll discuss Guy's claim of "consensus" for the entire article in another section on this page. However IMHO it's clear that any "consensus" should not be used as an excuse for the deletion of a paragraph about the merger using the above three references. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOP. Your relentless insistence on puffing out this article, your sole focus of editing for a significant part of your limited wiki-life, is disruptive. Find third party sources that are intellectually independent of the company. If you can't find such sources, accept that the factoid is not significant and omit it. Guy (help!) 10:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The page on which I started this section was not the page I intended; I've now made that even clearer in the bolded part of my section-starting parenthesized first sentence. There was no forum-shopping involved; I just made a mistake, Guy, which is something you seem to have a problem admitting to.

I wouldn't call the Retrospect-StorCentric merger "a true but brief or trivial item of news or information". AFAICT as an outsider, a number of long-time Retrospect Inc. employees lost whatever ownership stake they paid for in 2011. I consider Chris Mellor "intellectually independent of the company". The merger was only announced on 25 June 2019. Pending longer-term analytic reviews, here is a fourth technology review expressing an immediate reaction to the merger.

I expect TidBITS.com will come out with a new review of Retrospect that will cover the merger, shortly after Retrospect 16.5—featuring a Web-based Management Console that has real two-way functionality—is released around the end of this week. The upgraded Web-based Management Console should erase much of the UI distinction between Retrospect Windows and Retrospect Mac, so I will no longer need most of the primary-source cites that have been the only way of explaining that distinction. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

At this point you are a disruptive WP:SPA functionally indistinguishable from a spammer. Guy (help!) 21:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

If anyone looks at my latest 500 contributions, they will find that "at this point" only extends back to 26 August 2019—which is when I started responding to the criticism of the Retrospect (software) refs by Guy. Before that I was working on mostly on the Backup article, which had been IMHO messed up starting in late May 2019 by User:Pi314m. I did not write most of that 7-screen-page article, but in the fall of 2017 I added a 2-screen-page section onto its end. In a Talk:Backup RFC discussion, it was agreed that it would be best if I split that section off into a separate article to discourage Pi314 from making the ignorant "internal merges" that had messed up Backup. Pi314m had also done an un-discussed destructive external merge-in of Continuous Data Protection, so after an unsuccessful ANI I re-established that article. I think that recent history establishes that I am not "functionally indistinguishable from a spammer" except in being "disruptive" to Guy's so-far-unjustified version of the Wikipedia rules. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I think main issue here was inclusion of too many trivial facts in the article and overlall ad-like article structure (not judging sources used yet). I recommend only mention most important features and critical reception, there is certainy no need to have an 30K+ article for such kind of software. Pavlor (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's the last version of the article before Guy got his hands on it. It was less than 2 screen pages exclusive of Notes and References. The Notes and especially References are what make the disk space used by the article, and its overall length, so large. I used the commented pages= parameter or pseudo-page-number at= parameter extensively in the four primary-source references and the Kissell 2007 reference (they're books with 170-670 paper pages, release-numbered notes, or a collection of named articles), and put an extensive quote into the Mitchell 2019 reference because it validates so many features. All three features sections were intensively slimmed-down under JohnInDC's direction in the fall of 2017; at the same time the first two features sections were extensively linked to other related articles at Scope_creep's insistence. All three (deleted by Guy) features sections of the article took up about 0.8 screen pages, whereas the equivalent sections in the Backup Exec and NetBackup articles take up 2 screen pages and 1 screen page to mention mostly-equivalent features. Most of the (deleted) "trivial facts" in the History section concerned the existence of and reason for the difference between the package's Windows and Macintosh UI, which is anything but trivial but will probably be only a memory after the 16.5 release at the end of this week. My and the two other backup application articles do have ad-like structures; what else do you expect in articles about application software packages? DovidBenAvraham (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

It is obvious we (myself and Guy) don´t share your opinion. Less is more in this case, or in other words: The secret of being a bore is to tell everything. We should select only important facts/features etc. and ignore trivial ones. Having 3 (!!!) sections for features (Small-group features, Enterprise client-server features, Editions and Add-Ons) is certainly - to put it mildly - undue. Trimming the article was definitely an improvement. Pavlor (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

But Guy left no "important facts/features etc." in the Retrospect (software) article. All that he left, aside from a 7-screen-line lead, is a History section that omits the fact that Retrospect Inc. was merged into StorCentric nearly 3 months ago. Guy deleted that fact because he characterized all the websites that carried that news as PR blogs. He thus ignored this WP policy for primary sources that for "An article about a business ... it will be acceptable for some simple, objective descriptions of the organization including annual revenue, number of staff, physical location of headquarters, and status as a parent or subsidiary organization to another." Why does the repetition of that status in PR blog articles disqualify the merger news from mention on Wikipedia, especially since those articles quote statements from the CEOs of Retrospect Inc. and StorCentric confirming the merger?

After the History section of the article, Guy deleted—I hope temporarily—all the 0.8 screen-pages mentioning Retrospect features. He did that because 14 out of the 100 cites in the entire article are of four user-manual primary sources, and—when I refused to immediately delete those 14 cites—Guy wrote on his personal Talk page "The onus is firmly on you to demonstrate that any challenged information is significant, and the only way to do that is to show it has been covered by independent sources. Not Tidbits reprinting a press release, not the user manual, but independent sources. You must now demonstrate competence to edit within the rules that everyone else but you seems to understand." He then essentially declared that every cite in the 3 features sections of the article is "challenged", by deleting those sections. BTW TidBITS is not a PR blog, and has been publishing Macintosh-related books (spun-off to a Contributing Editor author in 2017) as well as articles since 1990.

There's a historical reason for my having 3 sections for features in the article. In the fall of 2017, other editors—led by JohnInDC and Score_creep—insisted that I cut the article down to 2 screen-pages. In order to do that I deleted every mention of an enterprise client-server backup feature, and moved those mentions—adding references to equivalent features in competing applications—to a new section at the end of the Backup article. After several months, JohnInDC reluctantly agreed that I could add 13 screen lines of links to those features. As for the 11-screen-line section listing Retrospect's extra-cost Editions and Add-Ons, I had to argue with JohnInDC about whether I could explain Editions and list each Add-On. As I pointed in my 13:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC) comment, the Backup Exec article takes 2 screen pages to mention what are essentially the same features and Add-Ons as are in Retrospect, and the NetBackup article takes 1 screen page to mention features and Add-Ons that I cover in 0.8 screen pages. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Guy also eliminated an IMHO non-boring story from the old History section. The story was there in the text and references; here it is again, a bit more spelled-out: EMC bough Dantz Development Corp. in 2004, when Retrospect had 90% of the Mac backup market and equal sales in the Windows backup market. EMC's refined first release of Retrospect Windows in 2006 added performance features needed by SMBs. The shutdown of EMC's Insignia division in 2007, after Apple introduced Time Machine, led to Retrospect being briefly "end-of-lifed". Then Retrospect programmers, some of them rehired, were given a brief chance to upgrade Retrospect Mac with Retrospect Windows' performance features and a new GUI. Their rushed release was "premature" (rather than "botched" as Guy would have it). After that the programmers tried to add the same type of GUI to Retrospect Windows, but found that security settings added to Windows Vista and Server 2008 made it impossible to use Retrospect Mac's design approach. Thus Retrospect has since been marketed in separate Mac and Windows variants, with the same underlying code but the Windows variant retaining the old (klunky) GUI. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm a bit uncertain as to the reliability of this source in the article Online gaming in China, which was written after the publication of this (of which I'm uncertain as to its reliability either). Is a Chinese speaker able to help me with this? I can't decide if its simply out of date information or potentially dubious / unverifiable.

Related discussion here.

Interestingly the wiki article was cited here. --[E.3][chat2][me] 12:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The first source is a WP:PRIMARY source; and I'm a bit dubious about the host so I'd leave it out. The second is fine. And anecdotally, China has been pretty hardcore about combating what it perceives as addictive video gaming behaviours at least as far back as 2015, so it allso passes the sniff-test. Simonm223 (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks --[E.3][chat2][me] 12:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I haven't done much on that specific article but I have done work on Video gaming in China which may have better sources for claims in that. --Masem (t) 14:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Your input is welcome at Talk:America (toilet). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I see this as a POV problem, because the sources are very good.

My OR is that it's plated, but I don't think we have sources to state it in Wikipedia's voice. Maybe a footnote. Definitely worth investigating. --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The article 2019–20 Indian Super League season has been continuously been vandalsied by providing materials without without reference and citation by few new users, like Durhum12321, Hasan Ronaldo, Lord Joki as you can visit the article history here and can check recent edits. I have asked several times to these users whenever they provide these unsourced materials to provide reference at the talk page of the article, but was in vain, not a single official source being produced. I have also warned these users multiple times, but of no use. Recently one user named Joel David 99 when asked for his recent edits and warned for disruptive editing and vandalism, the user used personal abuse and was blocked. Similar trend can be seen with the other users to. They are continuously adding one name who is banned from playing, other players name which are not officially annouced but known from several websites and blog. What is the best process to follow to risolve these issue so that these users should not continue such irresponsible editing. Dey subrata (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Not an RSN issue. Take to page protection instead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• Rajavi and the MEK supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and opposed the Afghan mujahedin struggling against it.

• Iran experts Flynt Leverett wrote:

The above has just been added to the People's Mujahedin of Iran article (a controversial subject). Can someone please share their thoughts on whether the sources are reliable enough for inclusion? Thanks all. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Consortium News is of course unreliable, and tends to WP:FRINGE. The Guardian's op-eds (in the "Comment is Free" section) probably can't be used for statements of fact, but could be used for statements of opinion, usually with attribution (due weight considerations would of course have to be met). Neutrality^talk 16:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• No. All blogs. Guy (help!) 17:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Meforum reliable per WP:BIASED there are editorial board and also its seem the author Michael Rubin seems to have expertise on the topic --Shrike (talk)
  • WP:BIASED allows sources that would otherwise be reliable to remain reliable despite having a bias; it does not say that we can use an otherwise-unusable source like this because it is biased. They have no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy, and were founded by a WP:FRINGE figure in order to republish fringe things from similarly nutty places. The idea that they could ever be reliable for statements of fact is patiently absurd (I don't think they're even usable for opinion due to the obscurity combined with the fringe opinions, but rando think tanks with no reputation don't automatically become WP:RSes just because they list editors. Anyone with the money can set up a think tank to argue any position they want; using them as an RS for statements of fact - especially for controversial topics like the Middle East - requires that they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which this one lacks, especially if they're going to do things like repost stuff from Frontpage Mag.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
• I doubt Meforum is reliable, but the post in question is from reprinted from Frontpage Mag, which has a very poor track record and is run by an anti-Muslim extremist. I agree that Consortium News is fringe. Greenwald's op-ed in The Guardian may be reliable for statements attributed to Greenwald, but probably not for contested claims of fact. Nblund ^talk 19:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Context matters. I would not use news media for events that occured years ago or for reporting expert opinion. Imagine you were a professor lecturing on the assassination of Caesar in 44 B.C. Would you use a newspaper for your source or would you consult a history book? Now the newspaper is probably right, but it would be harder to explain getting the facts wrong than if you used a history book. TFD (talk) 03:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• None of these are reliable for statements of fact, and in particular meforum or Consortium News should be removed on sight in any place where they're used to cite controversial claims. The Guardian's op-eds are often usable for opinion, with an in-line citation (since it's noteworthy to be published there.) Consortium News is a personal webpage and can't be used for anything. Meforum is the personal webpage of a think tank with no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy, created by a WP:FRINGE figure to advance his position, and seems to repost articles from similar fringe outsets, so it similarly cannot be used for anything. Reliability is contextual, but the last two in particular should never be cited for statements of fact under any circumstances, and generally aren't any use for statements of opinion (since they add no weight to anything published there due to the lack of a reputation and the extremely WP:FRINGE nature of their views.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• meforum tends to post material that is aligned with a pro-Israeli position especially Middle East Quarterly articles by favored contributors such as Efraim Karsh. Use with care.Selfstudier (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• meforum is not a reliable as publisher for statements of fact, but that doesn't meet that content sourced to it is subject to blanket removal, which Aquillion seems to be pursuing. Some of the material published there is written by published experts in the field, so we need to check the reputation of the author to establish reliability or lack thereof. Eperoton (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I've come across galaxylollywood and somethinghaute several times this week and both seem dubious at best to me, particularly galaxy as I can't find any "About" or their policy on editorial oversight. I'm inclined to say at the very least galaxylollywood is just a success story on how to refspam and has been used as a result of others seeing it but isn't reliable. I also do not believe that somethinghaute is reliable in general as it's basically one person's blog, though I don't think that is a case of spam. Praxidicae (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks like Galaxylollywood is a group blog ( https://galaxylollywood.com/about/ ).

Somethinghaute is similar, though Aamna Haider Isani might be considered an expert. It's difficult to tell. --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Is https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/suicide a reliable source to be used at the suicide article? It appears to be very reliable. If it is reliable should we not say what that reliable source says or can editors just paraphrase in a way that is not at all accurate to what the reliable source says. Currently in the opening paragraph of the article it says "Some suicides are impulsive acts due to stress, such as from financial difficulties, troubles with relationships, or bullying" However the reliable source specifically says "relationship break-up" Relationship break-up is something quite distinct from an argument within a relationship for example. It is when an intimate relationship has ended. I tried to include relationship break-up, true to the source but this was overturned with no proper explanation based on the rules for editors at Wikipedia. Please provide some direction. Thank you so much. Patriciamoorehead (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the source because although it meets rs, it is tertiary. In other words, the authors have summarized information in published reliable secondary sources. The problem with this type of source is that it provides no cites for where the information was obtained. One of the things I like about Wikipedia articles is that I can trace claims to secondary sources and from there to primary sources and look on Google scholar for more recent studies that reference the earlier secondary sources. It is also helpful to editors because they can determine where earlier sources have been superseded by more recent ones. It also helps when there is conflict over differing facts from different sources. TFD (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Lambda Alpha is the international honors society for students of anthropology and the national headquarters publishes a journal, eg[80] which is used as a source here.Hambiliya. We seem to use it a lot.[81] What do people think? Doug Weller talk 19:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I would consider it reliable because it was edited by an academic. The author of the source mentioned was herself an academic when the paper was published (1981) and the following year became a lecturer in anthropology.[82] My only concern would be the age of the publication - information in the article could be dated. TFD (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The actual title of the journal is Lambda Alpha Journal of Man, and the general link for it is [[83]]. It sems to have ceased after 2011. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The quality varies. The "academic" is sometimes an undergraduate. But as TFD says, sometimes the author will be a reliable authority --it needs to be checked each time. I suspect it's mainly used because it will show up for things with little other internet presence.--its use for the Hambily article is totally unnecessary as its just a mention, but it does no harm. More interesting is the use in the article Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. The paper linked to is a paper jointly authored by a student and their professor [84] --the professor B.K. Swartz, Jr. is a reliable authority. Unfortunately, the statement purported to be supported does not appear in the reference--it is an unstated inferences from the 7 species discussed that there were no others. It might well be found in some other of Schwartz's works. The use in WP is an example of out typical careless referencing. I have not examined anhy of the other uses. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces and DGG: so lack of peer review isn't an issue? The website DGG points to says "The journal is made possible through the efforts of the Journal editorial staff residing at the founding chapter, Alpha of Kansas". I also worry about the age of both sources as both are over 30 years old. Doug Weller talk 15:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

While peer review would be preferable, editorial oversight by an expert would make it as reliable as articles and books by journalists, which meet rs. Having said that, editors should always use the best sources available, which would be peer-reviewed articles or academic books. And as I said above, the age could be an issue. TFD (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

That was the way I was thinking also. DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It depends on the subject - I wouldn't use journalists as a source for genetics or quantum physics, and I wouldn't use them for archaeology either except perhaps in very rare instances. Doug Weller talk 18:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I would not either usually. We should always use the best sources. The problem is that rs is so broad. I would use CNN if a previously undiscovered ancient city had been found today, but would not use it for the discovery of Troy.

I remember several years ago there were news reports that a particle had been shown to travel faster than light. For anyone with any familiarity with physics, there was almost 100% certainty there was an error in measurement. Yet the story had to be reported and the challenge to competent editors was to use news reports to accurately reflect what scientists said.

TFD (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)