Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458

Additional notes:

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

Crunchbase

I keep finding Crunchbase used as a ref in articles, especially about young companies, to source information about funding the company has raised. (Like, "In 2009 StartupZ raised $10M from MoneyBags Ventures") I checked the RSN archives and do not see that Crunchbase has been questioned before.

A wikilink to the description of Crunchbase in Wikipedia is above, and here is the site itself. (and here fwiw, is a quora question about it.)

As you can see at the site, anybody can register an account, and add or change data. At its about page, you can see that Crunchbase says that (as of the time I am looking at it) it has 299,000 contributors who have made 5.4 million edits. They also have 2,900 "Venture partners" who apparently are funders who add content about funding they do.

Crunchbase says they have paid staff that reviews everything. (See here).

However there appears to be an issue with regard to WP:USERGENERATED and it seems to me that we should not consider Crunchbase reliable.

Separately, even if the community says it is reliable to source content about funds raised, it seems to me Crunchbase should never be used in a Notability discussion, because a company can add its own information there and create the reference.

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't use Crunchbase to establish notability. APK whisper in my ear 11:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

thanks for that Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

However, it could be used to support certain facts when other sources are not available. I agree that you wouldn't base a notability argument solely on Crunchbase support. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Unclear why it should be considered reliable for anything per WP:USERGENERATED and no argument has been given why it should be. Jytdog (talk) 07:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

If it is acceptable to use Press Releases and SEC submissions, both of which are 'user generated', then why not this? In neither of these cases would the sources be used for notability. Yes, companies can lie in Press Releases and to the SEC just as easily as they can lie on Crunchbase. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources becoming unreliable by association?

We have often used reliable sources by certain authors, which have reviews that attest to their merit. But some editors have suggested that an author's works are now unreliable, because of their subsequent non-conventional "beliefs", eg:

• Isaac Newton studied the occult
• Einstein believed in the Pole shift hypothesis
• Nobel Laurate Brian Josephson apparently believes in homeopathy.
• Nobel Laurate Hannes Alfven promoted Plasma Cosmology
• Emeritus Prof. Henry Bauer who has some non-conventional beliefs in the association of HIV and Aids.

Do we (a) require sources that confirm that the original works are now unreliable, or (b) is this just the personal opinion of editors based on an Association fallacy? In other words, can editors over-ride existing reliable sources without requiring sources, despite WP:TALK#FACTS? --Iantresman (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see at the top of the page where it states, source, article & content are required. What is the source being disputed, what article is it being disputed at, what content is the source being challenged as reliable for? Sources may be reliable for some content and not others. So the above three things are required in order to give a satisfactory answer. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure a specific example is relevant to the scenario I described, but I'll give one anyway:

• Henry Bauer wrote Beyond Velikovsky: The History of a Public Controversy in 1984. The reviews on the publisher's website are all good, as are independent reviews, and the book is used as a reference on the page on Velikovsky at least half a dozen times. But, do Bauer's views on HIV and Aids mean that we can now retro-actively assert that this book is now unreliable, as is inferred by the comment on this AfD page, or do we need additional sources to confirm this? --Iantresman (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thats a different kettle of fish. Bauer's book would be a reliable source on Velikovsky by our standards. But his use of/endorsement of a journal would not necessarily indicate notability. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. So can we say as a general principle, that an authors unconventional views do not bring into question their previous works on a different subject? And if it was alleged, do we need sources? --Iantresman (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

To expand a bit on the above excellent answer, Brian David Josephson is a reliable source on superconductivity and quantum tunneling, but an unreliable source on homeopathy. Variety magazine is a reliable source for box office results, but unreliable on the topic of quantum tunneling. It is the same with other sources -- they are reliable in their field of expertise, probably unreliable in unrelated fields. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, reliability depends on context. A source can be reliable for one statement and yet unreliable for another. Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

In this case I dont think the Bauer's unconventional views on AIDS/HIV have any impact on his use of the Journal (which was being AFD'd) which was integral to the Velikovsky affair - on which he wrote a well received and critically acclaimed book. Velikovsky having zero relation to HIV/AIDS that I can tell. I would not necessarily put huge weight as to the Journal being notable because Bauer used it, it was a source for his book for him. But I wouldnt disregard his use of it either based on unrelated beliefs. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that something between 60% and 90% of threads on this noticeboard would not be opened if heir OPs understood that reliability depends on context. Perhaps we should make a rule where such threads are speedy-closed with this explanation, similar to how article content disputes are treated on ANI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I would like to think that I understand the importance of context, but when other editors question it, I have to come back for a third opinion. Unfortunately I believe that Wikipedia is quite poor in explaining many of its policies and guidelines. --Iantresman (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

By "Wikipedia", do you mean the volunteers on this noticeboard who don't want to make sweeping statements that in one or more contexts would be wrong, when they don't even know what you are talking about? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

No, that it not what I mean. --Iantresman (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Iantresman (in the general sense) that Wikipedia policies are problematic. There is necessarily a degree of subjectivity involved, but that's not the half of it. Disputes are supposed to be resolved by consensus, but I have not seen this in my personal experience. It is really a matter of persistence vs. ability to convince the other person that you have some level of authority. It is more about chutzpah than anything else. Of course things work out when people are actually reasonable (which includes recognizing IAR), but we live in a world where people have agendas or simply unreasonable positions. If Wikipedia is supposed to demonstrate the viability of crowdsourcing, it also demonstrates that self-moderation of crowdsourcing (i.e. the crowd moderating itself) is problematic. Fabrickator (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Your conclusion does not appear to be supported by your premise. I have never seen anyone who actually follows Wikipedia policies fail to resolve their dispute by consensus, and thus cannot agree that the policies are "problematic". Yes we have plenty of situations where neither side follows our policies and guidelines, but that's not the fault of the policies. if even one person does follow them, the dispute gets resolved by consensus (with a closed RfC to show what the consensus actually is if necessary) and everyone accepts it (with An ANI case leading to blocks to make them accept the consensus if necessary). The system really does work. BTW, I wrote up some advice at WP:1AM that might help some editors who are engaged in disputes. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I won't try analyzing whether the problems are the fault of the editors or the fault of the policy. Perhaps your observation is a result of there being two sets of editors who rarely come in contact with each other. One set is those among whom the rules are all followed, disagreements are worked out as people come to understand either other's points of view, or it is alternatively brought to arbitration through an Rfc and other editors who are really qualified to understand the issues reach an official consensus. The other set of editors is unfamiliar with policies and they just war with each other until one gives up in frustration or out of fear of the consequences of continuing to argue. To me, the bottom line should be whether, as a system, Wikipedia works. If any editor can post "bad content" and the bad content remains indefinitely, it's a system that's failed. Or if one editor can be intimidated by another editor, without regard to how Wikipedia policy would apply, that's nevertheless a failure of Wikipedia. In my attempts to get third parties involved, either there was virtually no response or the response was simply nonsense. As an example, when a judicial opinion was proffered as a reliable source, it was proposed that, instead of using the judicial opinion, a textbook covering that case (presuming one were available) would be the proper secondary source. But this is a rather pointless observation, never mind that legal textbooks are not readily available to the Wikipedia editor, it's not really the purview of legal textbooks to cover every opinion of every state appellate court. Seriously, a hundred Wikipedia editors, each spending 5 minutes analyzing the situation, would easily arrive at the wrong consensus... a handful of editors actually spending 30 minutes each would have a better chance of coming up with the right answer. But as it stands, the result is a page that can be expected to confuse the average reader. Fabrickator (talk) 04:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Guy, that is not my experience. I make a point of providing sources, and yet I find many editors who will not, can not, or won't provide them themselves to support their points of view. I have been criticised for asking for sources, and topic banned. I think discussions could be reduced 95% if every point put forward was supported by a source. And then there is basic civility which many editors seem to be able to flout with impunity. I've even had Admins support uncivil comments from other editors. In my opinion, it is unacceptable that Wikipedia does not take verbal harassment more seriously, as it appears to be a passive endorsement of bullies and uncritical dialogue that wastes other editors' time. --Iantresman (talk) 14:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Your description of why you were topic banned bears no resemblance to the actual reasons for the ban.[1] --Guy Macon (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

That's quite possible. It doesn't make my perspective wrong. See here. --Iantresman (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It most certainly does not make your perspective wrong. It just invalidates the example you chose to demonstrate to problem. You may very well be correct. What would prove you to be correct would be an example or two of someone who refrained from disruptive behavior, followed our policies, used our dispute resolution process, and yet failed to arrive at a state where the article ended up in a state that dis not conform to the consensus as demonstrated by a closed RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The main deteriminant of reliablity is the publisher, not the author. Academic journals for example have reputations and review articles they publish. Their authors are therefore constrained by the requirement to state facts honestly, and to use rational methodologies and arguments. There are no similar constraints to what they post to their facebook pages. In some cases, there can be a wide gulf between papers an academic submits to reputable journals and what he writes about without those constraints, for example with climate scientists who challenge global warming in popular media but not in academic papers. Also, for their writings to be reliable, they must be experts in the field. Newton was not an expert in alchemy, because it is a pseudoscience, not a recognized science. It is best to avoid these types of sources except in exceptional circumstances. TFD (talk) 06:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

To expand a bit on this, there are questions as they relate to WP:FRIND as to what constitutes a truly "independent" source. This is also seen in WP:Independent sources, for example. To determine notability, it is worthwhile to look for independent sources which attest to the importance of a particular subject. That is the sense in which Bauer's book on Velikovsky is being promoted (as a notability test, not a reliability test).

To be clear, I, the AfD nominator for the journals that are being obliquely referred to here, have no objection whatsoever about using Bauer's book as a reliable source in the appropriate context anywhere in Wikipedia. But I strongly object to the use of his book as an indicator of independent notability for a fringe journal. This is due to Bauer's advocacy of fringe journals and pseudoscience. He is attracted to these subjects as a matter of POV against the mainstream scientific community. This is a perfectly fine perspective to take and it is somewhat prominently described in his Wikipedia biography, for example, but Wikipedia needs to make decisions about notability of articles that are not tied to fringe perspectives because to do otherwise would cause us to be unable to adhere to WP:NPOV. jps (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

At the very least, it would be helpful to provide links to (a) which of Bauer's book you are referring to so that everyone can assess it better (b) The fringe journals you are referring to (c) the pseudoscience you are referring to. From my point of view, it is crucial also to provide a source that link the pseudoscience to the concerns you have about Bauer's book, otherwise it appears as it if is just your opinion, and conclusions only you have made. For my part I have already said that I have looked at reviews of Bauer's book, and they all appear positive (even if I may not agree with them all myself), and of course I am happy to provide them.

This is the big question, can an editor's opinion out-weight published sources. Or is it just WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? --Iantresman (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the journals in question are fairly obvious from a brief perusal of your or my edit history over the last two days. Kronos: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Synthesis and Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered) are both defunct Velikovskian pseudoscience publications. The Journal of Scientific Exploration is a pseudoscience journal that was edited by Bauer. For some reason, you still seem to be in this mode of not really understanding the basic point that I wrote: the reliability of Bauer's book is not anything anyone is arguing against. jps (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

There you go, I did not realise that the "Bauer's advocacy of fringe journals" was referring to the two up for the AfD, as I never knew he advocated for them in any way. So that brings us to the suggestion that because Bauer's associated with other fringe subjects, that makes him unreliable to comment on all fringe subjects. I have only the reviews of his book, which do not seem to think so. --Iantresman (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The advocacy is referring to the JSE. The point that Bauer advocates for pseudoscience only reinforces my point that using his work as a notability test is suspect as relying solely on Bauer to describe an obscure journal runs afoul of WP:FRIND. This really has nothing to do with whether the descriptions he offers of said journals are "reliable" or not. jps (talk) 11:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

AWDNews

AWDnews is in the headlines for running a fake news story which nearly started a nuclear war between pakistan and israel. I think that may disqualify them as a reliable source. i found 3 usages of them on WP ([2], [3], [4]), and i removed them as they were NOT critical, but i would love to see them blacklisted. this site says they are unreliable. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Note: The dispute is in the news at e.g. [5], [6], [7]. Original article and Tweets are cited by the NYT article. It Is Me Here (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

They're currently running a story claiming the CIA was involved in the recent crash. The claims appear to be sourced to the notorious conspiracy theorist website whatdoesitmean.com. So I would say that this is not a reliable source for anything but its own views. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

expo.se

The Swedish expo.se for reliably and neutrally determining the exact ideology of the nationalist Party of the Danes as being Nazism (which is a disputed matter)?

There are several issues to consider. Expo.se is pretending to be a neutral research organization. Expo Foundation was established by the far-leftist author Stieg Larsson. He was the Expo magazine's co-founder and editor-in-chief until his death. Former "chief-of-research" Tobias Hübinette was an AFA member, anarcho-syndicalist and convicted criminal. One member of this Expo organization stated that "Marxism is science and a doctrine of ideas." Expo's stated goals are to research intolerance, racism and right-wing extremism. Expo is created and managed by known far left figures and solely critizing certain right wing elements.

Does that qualify as a reliable source for ensuring an NPOV documentation of the Party of the Danes being a Nazi party? --ContraVentum (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

For more info about Expo, and this discussion (which made Contraventum blocked today), see Party of the Danes#Swedish sources, where some users are stating that "all sources from Sweden are bad sources". This is so the once that are looking into this matter sees that is is not really about just Expo, but about all the countrys sources as being "leftist". Adville (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Expo are highly respected in Sweden and are endorced by all political parties from the left to the right of the Swedish Riksdag (except for the Sweden democrats, which believes Expo are bias and leftist/communist, the same goes for what they lable as PCM/Old media/MSM), and has been used as experts by the gorverment, universities, and refered to by law enforcement agencies and used as a source by the mass media. Expos Foundation Board consists of the Social Democrats, Liberals and Moderates (the main conservative party of Sweden). It is hard to call Expo leftist, and when it is done it says more about the political affiliations of the person that makes the claim than it does about Expo.

In short, Expo are heavily disliked by the far-right of Sweden (and Scandinavia), but accepted and respected by mainstream conservatives. Dnm (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

"endorsed by all political parties except SD" is an outright lie. How comes it the when dealing with immigration issues that Expo always take a leftist pro-immigration stance? They are much closer to being an activist organization than "scientific research". When liberal politician Jasenko Selimovic criticized press coverage of issues related to the asylum immigration, he was accused by Expo of playing into the hands of "right-wing extremists". When the Moderates proposed a ban on organized begging, Expo accused them of "playing with fire" and indirectly inciting to violence against beggars. You can also read stories like the EU-Turkey migrant deal "being kind of an act of violence". Expo has been sponsored by George Soros' Open Society Foundation with 25.000 dollars. Why on earth does a "neutral scientific research organization" have a political program? This is activism, not research. --175.103.38.30 (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Nothing of what I wrote is a lie. Expo has the support of every political party in the Swedish parliament except for the Sweden Democrats. That is a fact. And Expo is not controlled by Soros. This are all just attempts at GbA. In a sense, Expo is the Swedish equivalent to SPLC, and both are strongly disliked by the extreme right (which of course is natural). Dnm (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Let me quote former chief-of-research Tobias Hübinette: Feeling or thinking that the white race is inferior in all possible ways is natural, bearing in mind it's history and current actions. Let the western lands [Western world] of the white race collapse in blood and suffering. Long live the multicultural, race-mixed, classless ecological society. Long live the anarchy. So you have had an extremist to run this organization critizing "right-wing extremism" "neutrally and reliably", that's a very interesting "scientific organization". As shown by my examples, Expo is meddling with their unwarranted opinions in the immigration debate when classic right-wing Liberals and Moderates do not take a stance on immigration issues, that fit into their perspective - this is activism, and not being "neutral research organization". --175.103.38.30 (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, whether **some** parties (the difference being traditionally pro- or anti-immigration) is using Expo is a red herring. WP is not the Swedish government, and Expo's use by certain parties does not disprove that they're activists in disguise of doing scientific research. --175.103.38.30 (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

All exept one with roots in the Swedish neonazism are using expo as experts (Sweden democrats), do you call that "some". You have given your point of view, while we in the discussions have given sources. Let other users look at this instead to see (as they already did in the article party of the Danes and blocked some users and showed more sources saying the same as expo. Adville (talk) 07:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Neo-nazi roots ≠ being neo-Nazi, that's a guilt by association argument. SD today is the Swedish counterpart to the Danish People's Party, that has no neo-Nazi origins, but origins in a protest party led by an anarcho-capitalist. And today DPP is socioeconomically centrist like SD. Also, I'm not just "giving my point of view", I'm stating facts that counters the narrative of Expo being about "neutral research". It's a fact that their chief-of-research was an anti-white bigot and a violent criminal. How can you trust them doing neutral research about racism, when the organization was run by a man beating up a boy for saying "Look! A Chinese person" and (quote) stating that: All white people, no matter their gender and social class, are racists per definition? It's a fact that they're doing pro-immmigration activism, and they turn against the right-wing parties, that you claim support Expo, when their politicians are expressing a critical stance to mass immigration and its subsequent issues. Such things should make you question the credibility of their judgment of what they claim to be researching. --175.103.38.30 (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Please let others write. It is as usual not "the more uou write the more right you are", but sources that counts. Adville (talk) 10:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree with first part. Second part = ??? --175.103.38.30 (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Shinola (shoe polish)

The Shinola shoe polish brand is connected in the USA with a saying, "You don't know shit from Shinola." Like any popular saying, this one has appeared in a variety of media. At Shinola (shoe polish) there is an "in popular culture" consisting mostly, but not entirely, of such examples.

The standards for sourcing popular culture examples have been discussed in an RfC. That RfC determined that both accuracy and cultural significance are relevant when sourcing IPC examples, and secondary sources are preferred to establish the latter. These conclusions were incorporated into the Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content essay. I have attempted to remove examples from the Shinola article in accordance with the sourcing standards established in those documents. 7&6=thirteen (talk · contribs) has indiscriminately reverted my changes, accused me of edit warring, and insisted on de novo discussion of the same question that was discussed in the RfC. This user has also added more examples cited only to primary sources or sources of questionable reliability, such as this YouTube channel that has no particular editorial transparency.

I request opinions at the article talk page on the appropriateness of my edits and 7&6=thirteen's edits with respect to the RfC, as well as general Wikipedia norms on reliable sourcing and the removal/preservation of non-biographical material that has questionable sourcing. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing makes sense. Take a look at the article.

The deletions don'e.

Admins have reverted these edits by 24.7.14.87 and page protected the page from 24.7.14.87|him. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source for the text?

I'm currently in the midst of a discussion on Talk:Tel Dan Stele (extending to other related articles, ie Merneptah Stele) involving sources. I attempted to add a source for the phrase "The Tel Dan stele is one of four known contemporary inscriptions containing the name of Israel, the others being the Merneptah Stele, the Mesha Stele, and the Kurkh Monolith." The source was as follows: At first, another editor on the page said the source contradicted the existing source. When it was pointed out that it doesn't, the editor then cursed me out and said the source was "irrelevant". The editor's objections are puzzling to me, claiming that "The Assyrian royal annals, along with the Mesha and Dan inscriptions, show a thriving northern state called Israël" is "irrelevant" because "the only reference to the name Israel is referring to a combination of three sources at the same time", which even as a semantic argument seems to not make sense. We already know for a fact that the first three documents listed (along with the fourth) all independently mention Israel, and the other editor knows that as well, so it's unclear why that argument is being made. To me, these are clearly reliable sources that support the text, but I'm hoping to get a third opinion. (Please note that "Shalmaneser III of Assyria"/"Assyrian royal annals" = Kurkh Monoliths) Drsmoo (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Yes this is a good source for the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

New York Daily News unreliable?

(Please note: readers will need to google the article in question. The Daily News blocks linkage to its articles, and I don't know how to circumvent it) It's been alleged that the New York Daily News is not a reliable source, because it is a tabloid—specifically that "Soccer Rat! The inside story of how Chuck Blazer, ex-U.S. soccer executive and FIFA bigwig, became a confidential informant for the FBI," from 1 November 2014 can't be used as a source for Chuck Blazer. The specific fact in question is how Blazer 'flipped.' I contend that the News's reporting is reliable, despite its over the top style. There's strong documentation, including official documents. The NYTimes saw fit to quote the Daily News account of the encounter verbatim. Comments please. Tapered (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

why would it not be a reliable source? It is reliable, in my opinion.🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 23:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

[8]? Because "over the top style" seems to be another way of writing "will exaggerate the facts for a better story". We want to be very careful about getting the facts correct in controversial issues about living people. Something like just how he became a confidential informant for the FBI seems like it could be very controversial. I would avoid relying solely on the New York Daily News for it. --GRuban (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

"Over the top" would seem to refer to style, not substance. Is yours a warranted assumption? Can you back it with instances when the NYDN exaggerated or fabricated facts? If not, I'd describe it as "label and dismiss."

I invite you and other readers (and I wish I'd put this in the main post above) to read [9] and take note that some of the best coverage of the OJ Trial was done by the National Enquirer. Tapered (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

If the NY Times is writing articles about the topic, use that, as that is a known entity. NY Daily News is, as GRuban states, far more borderline. GiantSnowman 08:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's take a look at the front page of today's http://www.nydailynews.com/

• Sisters known for sexy Instagram posts arrested for allegedly exorting Nigerian billionaire
• Man convicted in death of single mom from Colorado who led double life as paid escort
• Jennifer Lopez posted a photo of herself in Drake's arms, Dec. 28, 2016.SEE THE PHOTOS
• Parents enraged after defective Hatchimals ruin Christmas
• John Kerry calls two-state solution only path to peace in Israel, defends Obama stance on U.N. resolution
• GoFundMe created to ‘protect Betty White from 2016’ following Carrie Fisher's death
• Apple manager stabbed to death on Christmas Eve, husband arrested
• Shocking footage from former NFL player Ray McDonald’s domestic violence case released
• North Carolina home intruder gets beaten by firewood-wielding resident
• Suspect in deadly Brooklyn stabbing over soccer game found in North Carolina

One item - Kerry - that would be found generally newsworthy. The rest is "if it bleeds, it leads". This is the front page of classic tabloid journalism paper, "a style of journalism that emphasizes sensational crime stories, gossip columns about celebrities and sports stars, junk food news and astrology". We have it all, the crime stories, the celebrities, the sports stars, and the "sensationalized, personalized, and homogenized inconsequential trivia". The only thing missing is the astrology. Your comparison to the National Enquirer seems apt. WP:BLPSOURCES clearly states, "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." Fortunately Chuck Blazer seems to have no shortage of more reliable sources: BBC, Bloomberg, The Independent, Daily Telegraph, Sports Illustrated. If you can, stick to more like those. --GRuban (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Fortunately, the article in question is of the same ilk as the Kerry article, not a bleeding lead. Filling a post with bullet points is a rhetorical flourish, not a tool of reasoned discussion. It's quite a bit like tabloid journalism, designed to appeal, and persuade, the viscera. Tapered (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The Daily News is no longer the only source for the information, and IMLTHO since it scooped the non-tabloids with its well-sourced and accurate reporting, it ought to be the source of record.Tapered (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It is a reliable source. While Wikipedia articles should not read like tabloids, there is no guideline not to use them, provided they have a reputation for fact-checking and employ professional journalists. The story btw about the sisters is about two Toronto women and was carried in the Toronto Star and Toronto's National Post and other major media in Canada. The reason broadsheets in the U.S. did not carry it is that their readers are not interested, not that the story is bogus. However, we are supposed to use the best sources available and generally ignore information that has not been widely covered, so normally there would be no reason to use the Daily News. TFD (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• One thing that does need to be mentioned... while the actual reporting in the Daily News is accurate and fact checked (and thus reliable)... we can not say the same for its headlines. Take for example what was reported on October 30th, 1975... the day before (on Oct. 29), President Ford had given a speech saying that he would deny federal assistance to spare New York City from bankruptcy. The paper's responce to this speech was probably the most famous front page headline in Daily News history: "Ford to City: Drop Dead".

The problem is that Ford never used the words "Drop Dead" in the speech. The headline is essentially an editorial comment about Ford's speech. However... as sensationalized as the headline may have been... the report that follows this headline accurately discusses what occurred... reporting faithfully on what President Ford actually said in his speech.

This is really the crux of the issue here: When determining the reliability of a "tabloid" news source, we need to look beyond the sensationalized (and unreliable) headlines that the paper may use to attract readers. We need to look at whether it has a reputation for factual accuracy in the reporting that follows those headlines. The Daily News has a fairly good reputation. Blueboar (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm reading the Daily News article in question. Here are some quotes:

• "The News, based on interviews and a review of previously unreported documents, found"
• "sources told The News"
• "“We cannot confirm, deny or comment on any such case,” said a spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office"
• "The investigation, according to sources,"
• "Those no doubt shaken by Blazer’s choice to cooperate with investigators include"
• "an associate of the soccer big-wig would later say."
• "Documents reviewed exclusively by The News"
• "According to one source, the feds also held racketeering charges over Blazer’s head, claims possibly built on financial irregularities"
• "But another person familiar with Blazer’s behavior suggested"
• "said a source."

So, in short, it's OK to base a Wikipedia article about highly controversial actions of a living person, on the report of a tabloid newspaper that is based on speculation ("no doubt", "possibly") and unnamed sources that no other newspaper will confirm? Surely this is against the principles of WP:BLP. --GRuban (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

You're referring, again, the style of tabloid journalism, not the substance. Plus, the NYT and other non-tabloids quote unnamed sources also—with more 'class,' perhaps. Further, there is no controversy about Blazer's criminality—the NYT ran several articles in 2015, describing Blazer's criminal activities (The Daily News scooped them by breaking a great deal of the story in the article in question). And again, the NYT quoted the section of the Daily News article most crucial to this entire discussion verbatim, with attribution, in one of its articles on Blazer. Tapered (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Sati

An RfC has been initiated in the talk page of the Sati article. The sources being used for some of the disputed material form an important component of the dispute. Please comment on the article talk page if this topic interests you. Soham321 (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Well the issue interests me and I may well have edited the article before, and I contributed to WP:HISTRS which is unfortunately still an essay. The problem is that there is far too much verbiage in the RFC. Why not propose a source here and we will comment on whether/how it could be used in the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

medicaldaily.com

Is medicaldaily.com a reliable source?

Benjamin (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be. It has professional writers and an editorial staff and is owned by IBT Media, who also own the International Business Times and Newsweek. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Colin Heaton's biography of Hans-Joachim Marseille

The source in question is Heaton, Colin; Lewis, Anne-Marie (2012). The Star of Africa: The Story of Hans Marseille, the Rogue Luftwaffe Ace. London, UK: Zenith Press. ISBN 978-0-7603-4393-7.

It is used several times for lengthy paragraphs in Hans-Joachim Marseille#Marseille and Nazism to make the case that Marseille was "openly anti-Nazi". I have argued at Talk:Hans-Joachim Marseille#Evidence for Marseille's "anti-Nazi" stand that these passages in Heaton's bio are almost exclusively based upon personal reminiscences by former comrades and Nazi persona like Karl Wolff, Artur Axmann, Hans Baur and Leni Riefenstahl, which are renowned for being talkative about the Nazi era and being apologetic at that. Their stories are not supported by other sources, but in fact appear to be very unlikely, if not impossible. Heaton's gives dates which contradict themselves and commits obvious errors. The stories he relates about Corporal Mathew Letulu [sic!], i.e. Mathew P. Letuku, contradict much better documented secondary literature. Apart from interviews, possibly conducted by himself, which is difficult to tell given the rudimentary nature of the footnotes, Heaton relies almost exclusively on two biographies, one by military pulp writer Franz Kurowski, the other a "tribute" by some Robert Tate. Based upon this evidence Heaton draws far reaching conclusions, namely that "Marseille was perhaps the most openly anti-Nazi warrior in the Third Reich." (p. 4) Given its focus upon oral evidence, collected somewhat 40 (?) years after the events, its poor editing and obvious errors, I consider that biography to be an unreliable source that should not be used excessively (and it is used for many more dubious claims) in a GA in the English Wikipedia, because it is misleading.--Assayer (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that this source is very weak for an article on a Nazi era figure. I wouldn't have a problem with it being mentioned as "some biographies say", i.e. carefully attributed. It seems to be overused at the moment. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be usable only as evidence for what unreliable sources say, and I'd use it only when it is explicitly described as unreliable. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Nothing but opinions from an agenda-driven Wikipedia editor. Assayer wants Heaton off Wikipedia. He has failed to show Heaton unreliable. Those are the facts that matter.

I am also concerned with the comments from Itsmejudith. What do you know about the literature of aerial warfare in World War II? And how could you say that about a book you've never read?

I'd encourage people to have a look at the talk page of Hans-Joachim Marseille - where the complainant makes accusation and assertion with no evidence. Dapi89 (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Nehru

An RfC has been initiated on the talk page of Jawaharlal Nehru. Please vote on it if the topic is of interest to you. Soham321 (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I need some advice about references in Draft:Ramzi_Maqdisi

Hello, I am currently dealing with an article I wrote and it was AfD I think too soon. Since then, I tried to do what the nominator asked me to do in order to improve the article and avoid to delete it. I provided new reliable references because this was the matter for the deletion and I found them via FACTIVA DOW JONES. Most of the references provided from newspaper such New York Times, La Vanguardia, Agencia EFE, St. Petersburg Time, and so, but when I resubmitted the draft I got a message from the user who declined the draft first telling that the sources are not good enough for "our"policies. Here you can find some of the sources because I totally disagree with this argument with Draft:Ramzi_Maqdisi.

Ramzi Maqdisi (Arabic: رمزي مقدسي‎‎; born 1980; Jerusalem) is a Palestinian filmmaker and film and theater actor known for Solomon's Stone,[1] Omar,[2] [3]The Attack[4][5][6][7][8] and Love, Theft and Other Entanglements.[9][10]

References

Please, I need to know if the new references provided are reliable, and if they don't, please tell what kind of sources are really good enough. I'm asking for help to improve the draft through the sources. Thank you very much in advance for assisting me. Parauleira (talk) 09:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

These sources seem OK. An official website of a film festival is reliable for whether a film was in that festival. A magazine like Variety is a typical reliable source for a film-related article. The references are not presented well. You need to lose the block capitals most or all of the long quotes. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Foxflash publicity website

An IP editor is adding content to this article citing the source "FoxFlash publicity" (this is the website), but the content can only be verified by logging into the website and only if you have press credentials (if you work in the film/TV industry). I'm wondering if this is acceptable as a source? Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Being behind a login screen doesn't disqualify a source in and of itself. Else we wouldn't be able to cite the majority of scientific papers. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

edit It took me a minute to find it, but WP:RSC addresses this question. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC invite

Hello, I invite anyone to participate in this RfC regarding the Airlines and destinations tables in airport articles. These tables show which airlines fly to an airport, as well as the cities they fly to from the airport. They exist on the perhaps hundreds of airport articles on Wikipedia, so I would like to establish proper consensus on this issue. One possible issue with these tables has to do with how they are referenced. Regards. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 21:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

VIPFAQ.com

I recently came across this website, and while looking it up here to check for information about it, I found it used as a source on several pages, like Scarlett Montanaro and Dave Rosin. Allowing this as a source doesn't seem like a good idea. The bios seem to be taken from old versions of Wikipedia articles and other sites, including other wikis, and it has a lot of weird stuff, like letting users vote on what they think a celebrity's sexuality is and allowing users to set their net worth. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

What a load of rubbish that site is. obviously never reliable. Thanks for helping in the cleanup. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Bangladeshi Entertainment (www.bdalltime.com)

Is [10] a reliable source for the following paragraph from Syed Shahid (singer)?

Syed Shaidul Islam (Template:Lang-bn) was born in Chittagong. He was raised in the port city of Chittagong where he learned lesson of music and playing harmonium from Soumyo Didi. But none of his family members liked music so he practiced to sing secretly. Shahid got his first recognition in singing when he was a student of Al Khan High School. At that time he won the first prize in inter district 'Nazrul' song competition. Afterwords he learned music from 'Shilpokola Academy' when he was a student of Chittagong City College. Singer Syed Shahid formed a music band named 'Lohitto' when he was a graduate student in the department of Economics of Chittagong University. Therefore he came in Dhaka. In 2004 he formed the band Doorbin with Sabbir and Noyon.

The affirmative view is held by Nayeem Hossain, the editor using this as a source and as evidence of notability. On their talk page they give the trenchant, policy-based, explanation of their reasoning: "Yes. www.bdalltime.com is a reliable source."

My own evaluation is that the website (also styled as Bangladeshi Entertainment) has none of the characteristics of a reliable source. It has no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, is not commonly quoted by reliable sources, and tends heavily toward promotional opinion and rumor. The site's About Us starts with "Hi readers & visitors! I am Dhorbin Islam the founder, CEO & author of Bangladeshi Entertainment blog." --Worldbruce (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The website has no indication of reliability, and the reasons identified above firmly show that it isn't reliable. Neutrality^talk 03:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Is poderopedia a reliable source?

Can someone who speaks Spanish please check out poderopedia and let me know if it is a reliable source? I would err on the side of 'no', but just want to double-check. I'd like to translate this and they seem to have his bio, but I may not be able to cite it. Otherwise we may need to find obituaries from 1991, but in Spanish, in published in the Chilean press (not easy to find!). Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope... user edited sites like that are not considered reliable. I do see that the poderopedia article cites what look to be newspaper articles... those might be reliable (and may contain the information you are looking for). Blueboar (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Is Murray Rothbard/LewRockwell.com an RS about New York politicians?

At the Geraldine Ferraro article there is currently a dispute about whether this piece by Murray Rothbard and published by LewRockwell.com can be considered a reliable source for characterizations of Ferraro and Elizabeth Holtzman, two New York politicians who got into a bitter Democratic Party primary battle in 1992. I say no, while the other editor, @JoshDonaldson20:, implicitly says yes by adding this material three times into the article (in the most recent case, leaving out one use of the Rothbard piece but still reinserting the other).

My case for "no" is that Rothbard is a highly opinionated writer, LewRockwell.com is a highly opinionated political site that often verges into conspiracy theories, and the article in question is obviously highly non-neutral, as can be seen from its opening: "Joy oh joy! Hosanna! It would be difficult to pick, out of an all-too-jammed field, the most repellent politician in American life, but surely Elizabeth Holtzman would run anyone a very close race for that honor. Tough, dour, butch, pencil-thin, and ultra-left, Liz Holtzman has been plaguing New Yorkers, and Americans in general, for many years." And it goes on from there. To me this isn't even close to being an RS, but I seem to be unable to convince the other editor of this, whom I have pinged in this post.

What say the folks here? Wasted Time R (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be this is not about RS, but bias. Sorry but being biased does not mean they are not RS. As long as they have a reputation for fact checking and editorial control they are RS. So do they?Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, no. LewRockwell.com certainly does not have a reputation for fact-checking or editorial independence, and as our article on it notes, it instead has a reputation for publishing utter nonsense such as AIDS denialism and the autism vaccine fraud. This means at best it is usable as a source for the opinion of the writer involved, and that would only be relevant if the opinion of the writer here is relevant to the article or otherwise particularly notable. That would need to be determined by a consensus on the talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not usable. NorthBySouthBaranof is correct on all points. It's invariably unreliable and can't be used for statements of fact. As for use of statements of opinion, the source is so marginal/fringe that as a matter of weight/noteworthiness it would be exceptionally rare that this website would be citable. Neutrality^talk 18:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Concur. In no sense is LewRockwell reliable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Tweet as a reliable source

According to the Wikipedia, tweets are most of the time not reliable unless WP:TWITTER or WP:SPS. However, there is a discussion going on the Street Fighter V talk page. It's about an organization called "Evo". One of the co-founder tweets about the number of registrants on his own tournament on his own Twitter account. I'm pretty sure that this is not reliable because nobody can actually verify whether this is true nor is the tweet an official statement from the organization "Evo" itself. But a game magazine called "Polygon" which is usually reliable (but certainly not always) wrote a small article about this using the tweet as a source. Now, even though they have editorial staff, I'm pretty sure that they haven't verified the statement themselves nor did they wrote anything about verifying it in the article itself. Polygon assumes that the tweet is true, which is already something that is not accepted by the rules that Wikipedia has. Note: At the bottom of the article, Polygon literally states: "SOURCE: Joey Cuellar on Twitter". So my question: Isn't it obvious that any article that solely uses a tweet (without verification) as a source can be considered unreliable?

Link of Polygon article: http://www.polygon.com/2016/7/1/12080396/evo-2016-breaks-records-total-number-players Link of Tweet: https://twitter.com/MrWiz/status/748775258828578817 2A02:A03F:2C36:2A00:98BD:A5BF:A747:2881 (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Polygon (website) has a consensus for being reliable on the WikiProject level per WP:VG/S. They cited a verified Twitter account who works for the company. Joey Cuella is one of the company's founders. So we've got a reliable source that itself cited a company founder about the company about one of their events. I fail to see anything wrong here. Sergecross73 msg me 21:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be quoted instead of stating it as a fact? The tweet is talking about the organization "Evo". If Wikipedia takes every tweet of every employer of a company as a fact, then it's impossible to form an accurate factual article.2A02:A03F:2C36:2A00:98BD:A5BF:A747:2881 (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

On what grounds would you challenge a company statistic from a company co-founder covered by a reliable third party source? There's no reason to doubt anything here. Sergecross73 msg me 22:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Look, nobody knows if that's the real amount of registrants. A co-founder can write whatever he wants about his company as long as it's positive for the company itself. Yes, it's covered by Polygon, but they don't have the verification that Wikipedia needs. Polygon simply reasoned like this: "The tweet is from a co-founder of Evo. So it's probably true.". That's the only verification it did. The author did not said anything about other verifications. But that verification is not valid by Wikipedia.

Actually the verification that wikipedia needs is that the information is covered by a reliable source. In this case the source would be Polygon. In rare circumstances we might look at where they get their information, as it came from someone who would be expected to know said information (its perfectly reasonable for Evo themselves and the co-founder to actually know that), the information is non-controversial and trivial, per Sergecross there is really no issue here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

So if a reliable source writes an article based on a tweet of an employer of company X. Then we can just put that on Wikipedia (as a fact) without additional verification. Did I get that right? 2A02:A03F:2C36:2A00:98BD:A5BF:A747:2881 (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The information is purely an internal statistic so the *only* people who would be expected to know how many people registered for SF at Evo would be Evo themselves. If your argument that the co-founder of a company/organisation is not reliable enough for that companies internal stats, well you need to go read the sourcing policies/guidelines again. What needs to be assessed if a source is reliable is 'Where does it come from?' and 'Is it reliable for this information?' The source is Polygon - considered a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, they got their information from the co-founder of the event. The information itself is info you would expect the co-founder to have access to. There is no issue here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

So yes, like I said. Anything that a reliable source (like Polygon) says or writes about can be considered a fact on Wikipedia ? Also, you said that the *only* people that would know how many people registered for SFV would be EVO themselves. Then, how can Polygon fact-check that statement of the co-founder? I'm really not trying to be nitpicky, really. It's just a bit confusing. 2A02:A03F:2C36:2A00:98BD:A5BF:A747:2881 (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

No not like you said. Sources are considered individually for the information they are being used for. You are trying to be nit-picky and have had a clear answer from multiple people for *this* case. Unless you have some actual *credible* reason why the source should be disregarded there is no issue here. 'The co-founder of Evo wouldnt know that information' is not a credible argument. 'I cant prove Polygon have done due diligence' is not a credible argument. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow, you are not very friendly for newcomers, huh. The argument is that the co-founder can say whatever he wants. But fine, I agree to disagree since I don't want to waste my time with someone who is not willing to explain why my argument is not valid. No wonder Wikipedia has a shortage of editors. 2A02:A03F:2C36:2A00:98BD:A5BF:A747:2881 (talk) 00:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

This IP has been causing long-term disruption at an article related to this, and has been completely incompetent in understanding what is and is not a reliable source on Wikipedia, so don't expect to convince them. I do appreciate having an outsider telling him he's wrong though, so I'm not the only "bad guy" who has to tell him "no" all the time. Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 02:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

International Business Times as a reliable source?

There is an ongoing dispute at RF resonant cavity thruster (EMdrive) about the IBtimes, and whether they are a reliable source. In the section we have a peer reviewed primary source, and secondary sources by the International Business Times, Sciencealert, and Next Big Future. There is also a secondary source by the Daily Mail, but I don't really think they are a RS, and not necessary anyway, as we have other, better secondary sources. This is the section in dispute:

Scientists in Finland have proposed a possible explanation of this phenomenon involving the propagation of microwave photons leaking from the closed metal cavity and thereby producing an exhaust momentum, satisfying the classical action-reaction principle. This explanation relies on the wave-particle duality of electromagnetic radiation, postulating that the stochastic phases of the microwaves will (with some probability) result in destructive interference between microwaves which cancels their electromagnetic fields but allows continued propagation of the microwave photon pairs, generating net thrust consistent with the impulse-momentum theorem depending on the asymmetric shape of the cavity.

Others, particularly Rolf H Nelson, Guy and TenOfAllTrades have called the above sourcing into question, saying that we should use 'editorial judgement' with regards to removing the material as not reliable. Rolf in particular has been extremely adamant about the IBTimes not being a reliable source, going as far as to remove the material on 7 different occasions (reverted by myself and several others). This is despite the fact that it is used widely throughout the rest of the RF resonant cavity thruster article and in at least one other related example a story that the IBTimes was picked up widely and reported by others (notably by Popular Science) who seem to regard the IBTimes as a reliable source, even with regards to the EMdrive.

As we do not seem to be getting very far in resolving the issue on the talk page, I would like some discussion here on whether the view that this material should be removed is justified. Or whether this is a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.

Pinging involved editors not already mentioned above. Musashi miyamoto, Zedshort, mfb, Tokamac, Sparkyscience.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Briefly, and Insertcleverphrasehere's misleading and deceptive summary notwithstanding, we have a low-impact primary publication (the AIP Advances paper, in a journal with an impact factor of 1.4) that has managed to generate a very small number (three, it appears) bits of clickbait, in outlets that are known for problematic content.

If Insertcleverphrasehere were genuinely interested in true secondary sourcing, he would be waiting for proper, independent confirmation and commentary by genuine experts in peer-reviewed, high-quality secondary articles in respected scientific journals—not whichever bloggers could be duped into writing a high-hype headlines. (Given how badly Insertcleverphrasehere was suckered by the incredibly fraudulent Energy Catalyzer, you'd think he'd be a little more cautious this time around....) Recruiting IBTimes, ScienceAlert, or NextBigFuture as secondary sources for scientific claims lies somewhere between desperate and just sad. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll briefly respond to the few things you've actually said that have to do with WP policy. While it wasn't published in Nature or Science, an IF of 1.4 is not a low impact factor, it is middling, and anyway, the validity of using impact factor to judge the merit of academic work is debated widely (nothing in WP policy required a high impact factor to my knowledge). Also, while peer reviewed secondary sources are of course preferred, I don't believe there is anything in WP policy that requires anything of the sort. Generally secondary sources are required to have editorial oversight, and come from reliable sources, which the IBTimes and Sciencealert both seem to easily satisfy (I have doubts about NBF but it is there).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

WP doesn't have a fixed rule concerning impact factors, but that doesn't mean every primary source is equal. Extraordinary claims (like a contradiction to special relativity) in mediocre journals are highly questionable.

I didn't notice any editorial oversight of IBtimes or Sciencealert in terms of physics. They seem to write about anything that could have a connection to the EM-drive. And while it is not the same topic: Every time sciencealert writes an article about particle physics, you can be sure that there are multiple errors in it. If they get things wrong in a field where "ask an expert" is easy to do, I don't expect a better quality in the topic discussed here. --mfb (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

All other hypotheses in this article (perhaps except the measurement errors) are equally, if not more controversial - however, that does not matter, because Wikipedia users should not assess validity of peer-reviewed papers. If you were to remove this hypothesis then you would also have to remove all other hypotheses. Why would you want to remove the whole hypotheses section from the article? What would be the point of doing that? All what Wikipedia editors have to do is to establish WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS, and not debate about scientific issues. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

AIP Advances has a better IF (2015/2016 Impact Factor : 1.444) than the Journal of Propulsion and Power where the notable NASA paper was published about the EmDrive (2015/2016 Impact Factor : 1.134), and in the past the difference was even greater. Most of scientific journals in which most of papers are published have similar IFs to those journals. This is a reputable peer-reviewed journal with good IF, published by a notable organization the American Institute of Physics, which publishes also many other reputable journals. There is nothing untoward about this journal. All hypotheses in this article (except perhaps measurements errors) are controversial. So why would anyone challenge this one and not the other ones? There is no difference between the position of this hypothesis and all the others. All of them have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals with decent IFs and subsequently debated in popular press. This is not up to Wikipedia eitors to decide which one is correct one and which one is not. Wikipedia editors have no qualification for that, unless they published a rebuttal in a scientific peer-reviewed paper - but even then the hypothesis should not be deleted, but merely an information about the rebuttal paper added. However, no such rebuttal paper has been published in this case. Personal opinion of anybody about the validity of the paper's theoretical musings is very unimportant to establishing WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. All Wikipedia polices have been met. Rather this seems to be a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, which is not a reason for the deletion of the section. This hypothesis is as 'valid' and as sourced as any other hypotheses presented in that article. So there are no reasons to remove this hypothesis - if you would decide to remove this hypothesis then all other hypotheses in that article would have to be removed as well, because they are all equal in a sense that they all have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals with decent IFs, and all have been published in decent secondary sources. Why would anyone want to remove the whole Hypotheses section from the article? What would be the point of doing that? Who would benefit from that? Certainly not Wikpedia and not Wikipedia users.
WP:PRIMARY says "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense". So having secondary sources is not always obligatory, but nevertheless there are several secondary sources in this case, so IMHO there is no issue at all. I do not see a reason why deny Wikipedia users access to all peer-reviewed papers publishing hypotheses trying to explain how this invention works. It would be helpful not only to general public, but also to those research scientists who just heard about EmDrive and who just become interested in this topic, they are likely to read first the article in Wikipedia about EmDrive and in particular the Hypotheses section, which would help them to figure out what already has been done and whether they would be able to contribute. It would also help them finding scientific sources, because they are available in the Hypotheses section. So removing from the article any of the hypotheses without a good reason would be detrimental to Wikipedia, Wikipedia users, and in fact detrimental to progress in science.
Also please note that this article in not about a new theory, but about a new invention, so all those scientific papers about hypotheses how the invention works should not be treated in the same way as papers about a new theory entered as a separate article in Wikipedia.

Rolf H Nelson was disruptively blanking multiple times the whole sections not only of the 'Photon Leakage' section, but also 'Tests in space' section, again claiming witout any valid, relevant arguments, that IBTimes is allegedly not a reliable source. IBTimes report was based on the Chinese government Science and Technology Daily report. Also there was added as a source a report from china.com, which reprinted China Daily report, but that source was removed two times by JzG editor without any explanation why he/she removed that source. Subsequently multiple other sources reported very widely from there quoting IBTimes, so apparently all these other reliable sources considered the IBTimes to be a RS, so why wouldn't we? IBTimes reported also about all other hypotheses presented in other subsections of the Hypotheses section. IBTimes has been awarded many times for their journalism. IBTimes has not been the only secondary source. So even if IBTimes is excluded there is still no reason to remove those sections, which Rolf H Nelson has been repeatedly removing against the earlier reached consensus, and whose disruptive edits were reverted multiple times (about a dozen) by 4 different editors (Tokamac, Sparkyscience, Insertcleverphrasehere, Musashi miyamoto).
IMHO it was Rolf H Nelson who should have started RS, because it was he who disagreed with the consensus previously reached. Yet, despite the repeated many time advice from many editors that he should start RS or DR, instead of talking, he started editing war. He alone was blanking multiple times the whole sections of the article without good reasons and against the existing consensus.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• In a general sense, I believe IB Times is a reliable source, but I've only used them for technology related articles - usually non-controversial stuff like video game previews. I have no idea if they're an authority on whatever all of this is about - which is difficult to ascertain between the massive long responses and arguing... Sergecross73 msg me 05:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)