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

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

What criteria are used to judge newspapers as being RS?

A thread above on the Daily Mail has led to discussions about RS much broader than that single newspaper. What criteria/rules of thumb should editors use to judge whether a newspaper is RS for the edit they wish to make?DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

If only we had a policy on reliable sources that editors could consult, and some sort of noticeboard where they could discuss the specific application of those rules to more difficult, specific, or nuanced questions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

ermmmm...is this sarcasm, perhaps?DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Does the publication have a reputation for fact checking, accuracy and editorial oversight? Is its reputation in the area of discussion for these particular facts? Which other sources are reporting these facts? Which other sources are reporting contradictory facts? Is the question a matter of WP:BLP? Is the question a matter of WP:MEDRES? How old is the publication? Are there newer sources that have more up to date analysis? Does it have a reputation for scandal and rumor mongoring? Is there a conflict of interest in this particular story that weighs against other criteria? When it makes mistakes, what corrective actions does it take? When it makes mistakes do other reliable sources cover the mistake? Are they covering it because it is a rare event or because mistakes are the stock in trade of the publication?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Which ones have this reputation, which ones don't. It feels a bit like we are asking everyone to reinvent the wheel each time. --ℕ ℱ 20:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks TRPoD. Now we have something we can work with. Do you think the country in which the newspaper is published is relevant - for example, might British newspapers be considered more RS for British matters?DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Locality could be a factor into expertise, which is one of many considerations when it comes to reliability. Locality can also be a source of bias, which does not affect reliability but can affect how an article should frame any claims. I've written an essay at Wikipedia:Applying Reliability Guidelines that goes into more detail. Rhoark (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Could the draft table below be used to summarize consensus on the "general" suitability of newspapers as RS compliant?

Newspaper	Country	Age (years)	Does the source have a good or bad reputation for -										Do other sources		Another column
			Checking facts	Accuracy	Editorial oversight	Reporting on this subject	Correcting its mistakes	Preferentially reporting scandal or rumours	Preferentially reporting rare events	Conflict of interest	9	10	Report contradictory facts	Report mistakes by the source	Category 1	Category 2
Daily Mail	UK	65	bad	bad	gooda	bad	good	bad	good	bad	?	?	Yes	Yes	?	?
Daily Express	UK	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.
Daily Telegraph	UK	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.
The Guardian	UK	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.
Notes here aThere is editorial oversight, but the editor is clearly biased against feminist issues

DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you are trying to find a formulaic approach to something that simply does not lend itself to formulas. Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Should I call a RfC for this?DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would be to anyone's benefit, including yours. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris I'm not sure I understand your point - why would calling an RfC not be to my benefit?DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris. I am close to calling an RfC on this but I would like to be aware of the possible consequences. So, I am repeating my question to you - why would calling an RfC not be to my benefit?DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the RS noticeboard. YOur post is actually a 'de-facto' RFC. Several people replied already. And going bureaucratic dose not change the fact that we cannot cast in stone what you want. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You ar forgetting the fact that a "source" has three components, each of which can be questioned independently: (publisher, author, text). If the reliability of a reference is questioned, this must be based on specific arguments. A policy cannot simply declare "LLanvabon Monday News" reliable to unconditionally trump any doubts. Yes, each WP:RS discussion is reinventing a wheel, because each time the wheel is different. Of course, we can reject triangular wheels right away, but even a quite round wheel may be wobbly. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment People seem to think there is a hidden agenda here - to set things in stone so that there is no point to this Noticeboard. There is no hidden agenda. What I am trying to achieve is some sort of general consensus which can be published as a reference guide so that editors can quickly see that a source might be challenged. Even if this is something like "Tabloid newspapers are generally considered as poor sources and better sources are almost always preferred". I don't understand the reluctance to do something like this.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@User:DrChrissy Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like you are trying to give individual newspapers a general "grade" without regard to the content and context of a particular reference in a specific article. I'm afraid such a contextless "carte blanche" grade is basically meaningless. To make statements like "The Anyburgh Daily Blah is hereby declared to be a Reliable Source, for any and all purposes and for all time" is an excercise in futility. Each individual reference is evaluated within its specific context. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I am actually more concerned about identifying non-RS. Some editors are already "carte blanche" dismissing sources by leaving edit summaries like "completely unacceptable particularly as a validation of other rumors. no no no no no", "the Daily Mail is a tabloid rarely suitable four [sic] sourcing but certainly not on an issue like this." and "Probably need something better than a HuffPo blog post for this." If these generalist concerns were available, especially to new editors, they would save editors much time and frustration, and lead to better sourced articles.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem with such proposed 'blacklists' is that they lead to arguments to the effect that anything not on the list can be used as a source for anything. That isn't the way it works, and we don't want to give credence to such simplistic thinking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

If they are identifying the Daily Mail as unreliable, they are most likely right. It is sometimes right, because even they can't be wrong all the time, but they are very frequently wrong, and deliberately so. Guy (Help!) 08:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

We really need a FAQ on this topic as it comes up again and again. The answer to "Is the Daily Mail as a reliable source?" is always "a reliable source for what"? I don't go out of my way to use it, and its hyperbole and ability to not worry about facts getting in the way of a good story is well known. [1] In that respect, it's actually worse than The Sun which at least is obviously a tabloid and makes no effort to pretend otherwise. However, it is the only British newspaper read more by women than men, and I am convinced it produces articles about fashion and shopping that are covered in more depth compared to other papers. In that respect, it is an important source when used with care to counteract our systemic bias. It is not surprising to me that a white, male 23-year old would find little of interest in the Mail. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It is exactly that sort of information that we need to encapsulate in something like "The Daily Mail is rarely considered to be a reliable source, however, it has a more acceptable reputation when reporting on womens' fashion and shopping".DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

No. That violates WP:BEANS. The salient fact is that the Daily Mail is usually only reliable on things that are not worth including in Wikipedia. And if we do use them as a source for some trivia, we are attracting clicks to adjacent content which is usually either grossly unreliable or simply creepy (the phrase "all grown up" for example is a hallmark of their obsessive sexualisation of very young women). Guy (Help!) 17:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Can we really "violate" what is just an essay?DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the point is that you shouldn't have hard and fast rules about whether 'x' is a reliable source, because somebody will use it in an argument in an edit war or AfD discussion : "Of course it's a reliable source, it's 'x'". Guy, if you look at my user page, you'll see I keep tabs on BLPs cited to the Sun, the Mail and the Daily Star, which incredibly (as I write this) appears as a citation in no less than 13 BLPs. Please help reduce the backlog. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I really do see the points that are being made here and I am listening. Maybe this is an issue more about editor's behaviour. I came to this issue because I wanted to write about the numbers of dogs eaten at an annual festival in China. I found several blogs which stated 10,000 (but obviously non-RS) and then found the Daily Mail article which also stated 10,000. So, I edited the entry only to be told that The Daily Mail was not a suitable source, So, I then researched further and found The Independent also reported 10,000. So where exactly did the Daily Mail gain such a poor reputation for reporting on the numbers of dogs killed at an annual festival in China? This is the context in which the source was used but I believe a much broader brush is being used in these decisions. I really don't care whether the Daily Mail or whatever newspaper is perceived in this way, but I do care that editors should be informed somewhere of how broad this brush is.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail didn't get a poor reputation for reporting on the number of dogs killed at an annual festival, if has a poor reputation on everything, especially anything relating to a regime which does not match its ideal (which is somewhat more libertarian than either Thatcher or Reagan). It probably didn't fact-check the number. The Indie might have, but also is quite likely not to have done. That kind of number has a tendency to be speculative and to originate with a group with an agenda. Guy (Help!) 08:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think a sort of report card, while not definitive, could be a valuable resource for editors. Rhoark (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I strongly agree this would be a valuable resource and I have never understood why it doesn't exist. While we should make clear that there is no definitive list and RSes are judged on a case-by-case basis, the specific questions "Does the publication have a reputation for fact checking, accuracy and editorial oversight?" can and should be answered in a table like this. It would be an especially valuable resource to people who just stumble on a paper they are unfamiliar with, which happens all the time. How are you supposed to know if the Weekly So-and-so has a reputation for fact checking? Well, maybe someone else knows. I don't think there's a reasonable objection to making public and accessible the community's consensus on how specific newspapers generally measure up in terms of these standards. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't exist because it would encourage a rules-based approach that lost sight of the actual content, so unreliable content could be supported because it's in a place that's usually reliable and vice-versa. It's not as if anybody will be unaware that 90% of what the Daily Mail writes is dross, after all. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure where you get your statistics from, but it would be interesting to know the demographics of the survey. Are 15-yr-olds aware of this reputation - especially the ones that are directed to edit on WP as a school exercise? How many US, Chinese, French (enter any non-UK country) citizens are aware of this reputation? We need to let them know.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, when I'm dealing with foreign papers, especially Indian ones, it's rarely clear what's dreck and what isn't. Even with American and British sources, there are simply so many different ones, and I never know how to find out if they fact check. Does the average person know that The Daily Beast is a quality paper? We see the Huffington Post cited all the time, and it's clear most people don't know anything about its editorial practices. What about The New York Post - it's a tabloid, but does that mean it doesn't fact-check? The answer is only obvious if you hang out at RSN. Again, there needs to be a disclaimer, and it needs to be made clear that consulting the table is not a substitute for judging whether the specific information cited is reliable in context, but information about the editorial practices of newspapers should not be kept secret. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is almost certainly canny enough to stay on the right side of libel laws, which in the UK are largely the privilege of the rich and powerful, it being very expensive to fight a libel case. To that extent they may be reliable, the problem with them (and even more other tabloids), is the simplistic coverage. I don't see how WP could have a 'star' rating, as others have said, the context matters. A generally reliable paper like the Grauniad, consciously prints comments which are not mainstream and which are not the papers own analysis, to that extent such pieces are the opinions of the writer ONLY, as I'm sure do other notable papers. The Daily Mail would be as good a place as any for the opinion of Citizen X if that is the claim we are trying to support.Pincrete (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

You are a year or so out of date. See Defamation Act, 2013. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Guy, you're quite right I was out of date (ex-pat!).Pincrete (talk) 11:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

User DrChrissy - Circulation is all that counts ... as far as I can see. The mentioned "reputation for fact checking, accuracy and editorial oversight" simply isn't obtainable by objective measure or readily findable, and List of newspapers in the United States by circulation is clear. When we also get into the deal of is it an editorial or a column or reprinting outside material or was there good fact check on this one or is it misstating reality -- I think a bit moot, since the publisher (List of newspapers in the United States by circulation) printed it, it then is factually a relatively large distributed item and functionally for reference citeable in sense of available to for long time. Just sayin that no RS is "right", they're just a RS and useful more for WP:UNDUE context. Markbassett (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

That interpretation of WP:RS is not correct—science does not count circulation to decide what works, and neither does this noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a great question, DrChrissy. I would like to expand this question to two parts. What makes a newspaper a reliable source for:

• sourcing a claim's truthiness
• establishing a claim's weight or importance?

I've been lambasted in the past for citing newspaper articles to include a report on a lawsuit against Monsanto, in which my critics said that a particular newspaper has a history of critical reporting against Monsanto. On the other hand, i think there are biases that most people don't see because they're like the water to the fish, such as that the Wall Street Journal has a strong pro-business and pro-capitalism bias, and therefore their reporting would lend more than due weight to anything that promotes this political agenda. But their brand has the appearance of gravity and establishment acceptance, so they're rarely questioned on that basis. I think there is a danger that the "establishment" positions get strongly biased because they are establishment. Establishment does not mean consensus, but rather that which favors the status quo power structure.

As to the original question, i tend to have a profile of many news sources in my memory bank, and to update them as i learn more from experience with that news source. Some sources i just don't even go to, given their abysmal track record in regard to bias and distortion. Others, i take on a case-by-case basis. SageRad (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

That is disingenuous. The problem was is your advocacy, not just the sources you use for it. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Wat? JzG? People opposing the inclusion objected on the basis of the news sources being "crappy". That would not occur if it were reported in the WSJ or NYT or some other "establishement" news source, yet a news source that is named "AntiMedia" is not deemed worthy even though it's got an editorial board and the reporter who wrote the story about the lawsuit has authored 220 papers for that news source, and seems to be a genuine reporter on the job. So... there is definitely a power dynamic that involves establishment news sources being privileged, and also having a more establishment point of view, and therefore the establishment point of view gets de facto privileged here in Wikipedia, as well. Being "establishment" does not make a point of view more valid, but means that it's the point of view favored by the establishment, which means the people with the power in the status quo, and therefore it favors the maintenance of the status quo. This is a very strong bias that is built into society and it's mirrored and perhaps even amplified by Wikipedia. I think we should be aware of it. We should not be afraid to name it, describe it, and see what it is. Then we can decide whether to address it in some way, such as by not privileging establishment news sources above alternative news sources. We can judge based on quality of reporting, not based on point of view. We can cease to call every single alternative publication a "fringe" publication as that is a term that derides a publication solely for diverging from the establishment point of view. Judge based on quality, not on alliance with a sector of society. SageRad (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is certainly a reliable source. Like other newspapers they are sometimes wrong, but correct their errors. I think the main issue is weight. If something is only covered in the DM, then it is likely insignificant. Echo chamber stories for example may be reported there. For example an article might say, "According to the [right-wing] XYZ Foundation, [insert latest conspiracy theory here]." And the article would be accurate, XYZ Foundation actually said that. But there would be no reason for us to pick up on the story unless it hit mainstream media. The WSJ news reporting by the way does not have a pro-business, pro-capitalist bias, any more than other mainstream media, only the editorial page does. TFD (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It is of course not possible to give general formulae. But if the Daily Mail reports something on science, most probably the opposite is true. But often they are not even wrong. Kingsindian ♝♚ 01:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Kingsindian and The_Four_Deuces, i have noticed very bad, one could say counter-factual, reporting about climate change and fossil fuels issues from both the Daily Mail and the Wall Street Journal, and i mean reporting, not just editorial page. Here, in fact. is a report about the issue in regard to WSJ, based on a study recently published in the journal Public Understanding of Science. And, i continue to assert my claim that the WSJ -- both in the reporting and the editorials -- is pro-capitalist to an extent that is pretty much ideologically bound. It is a paper of the establishment in terms of socioeconomic class, and it cannot be expected to have the same perspective as a more populist news source. There are indeed perspectives embodied in different news sources, and it's not just the explicit opinions in the op-ed pages. SageRad (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not talking about "hot button" issues like climate change. The basic practice in many news media is simply to take a press release about some alleged study, often put out by a totally unqualified person, and report it as fact. There are many firms who specialize in hyping up such things, thus, you find every other day "X cures cancer" or "Y causes cancer", based on studies that show no such thing. The Daily Mail is worse in this respect because of it sensationalist tabloid structure, but many mainstream outlets are pretty bad as well. One good source about this matter is this. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

'

• In my opinion, asking whether a major news media source is reliable (or not) is the wrong question. The question that I think should be asked is: how much WEIGHT we should we give news reports? (and the answer to that will depend on specifics... context is always important.) Blueboar (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I would suggest "celebrity news and gossip" is almost invariably problematic for every single newspaper I can think of, and is worthy of the "weight" of a helium balloon at best. Any other claims should be weighed in accord with the strength and number of sources, not just saying "this is the only source, so it must be reliable, and I want this claim in the article" <g>. Lastly, if a source retracts an article as being libelous or inaccurate, then the cite linking to the original claim becomes extremely marginal at best. Retractions are generally done "for cause."

SageRad, thanks for pointing that out. I guess my view was outdated, as the WSJ pre-Murdoch was much more balanced. But that does not change my overall view. Certainly right-wing media will provide greater emphasis to certain views, but that does not affect whether or not their reporting is factual. Kingsindian, they do not report fringe theories as fact. They will say things such as "a recent study shows that x may prevent cancer." And of course the study, which was published in the academic press probably did say that. But WP:MEDRS guidelines would prevent us from using any newspaper as a source, and WEIGHT woiuld prevent us from using isolated studies. TFD (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Unfortunately, that is not correct. They say that "X may prevent cancer", when the study would be about something totally different and very narrow, like "if you inject rats with some particular ingredient from X it suppresses the gene Y which is linked to cancer in some obscure way" (I am handwaving here), and this is translated by a PR firm into "X prevents cancer". Examples are plenty on the site I linked. I am quite aware that WP:MEDRS exists, but I was talking about newspapers, like the Daily Mail, on science in general. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is editors who think headlines are the same as articles. Frequently, a full article in any newspaper gives the proper qualifying sense and detail (including the Daily Mail actual full articles) while the headline is written by ... a headline writer. The intent of that person is to hook a reader (e.g. the "hooks" given for clickbait sites). I rather think that using the "headline" for any claim is beyond iffy, but there are those who regard the headlines fondly <g>. Collect (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: I wish that were true. However, the body of the articles are often just as inaccurate, or as I mentioned earlier "not even wrong". The reason is that they are basically writing the press release put out by a PR firm. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Um -- I suggest you note that press releases are used by just about every major newspaper now - recall that staffing levels at newspapers in general are down more than 40% in less than a decade. Revenues for newspapers are down about 60% in the same general time period. For medical press releases see [2] back in 1998 - " Of the 1060 newspaper stories analyzed, 142 referred to journal articles; of these, 119 (84%) referred to articles mentioned in press releases and 23 (16%) referred to journal articles not mentioned in press releases (comparison of proportions, P=.03). Articles described first or second were referenced in more newspapers than articles described later in the press release (P=.01 by chi2 analysis." Yep - newspapers even back I 1998 relied very heavily on those press releases, an did not do too much work as journals not mentioned near the top of the release did nit get mentioned in articles.

[3] 2003 "Maryland.—In a breakthrough discovery that may change the face of scientific communication forever, a researcher has found that, although journalists rely on press releases to bring important discoveries to their attention, they do not write news stories about every press release they receive. Even more striking is the discovery that press releases from scientific journals sometimes present incomplete information about scientific findings.

“I’m shocked, just shocked”, said the author of the article, which appears in the current issue of Science Editor. “I never

would have guessed that journalists would have such blatant disregard for what they are told is news, and I never would have suspected that journals aren’t neurotically meticulous in their press releases.” ("fake" press release used for real article following)

(actual finding) Woloshin and Schwartz found that 23% of the press releases mentioned study limitations, and 65% quantified study results. (JAMA study)

In short - often the fault is in the press release sent out by the actual medial journal, and something an editor would not normally call back on. (read the full article - it also deals with specific newspapers)

[4] (covering the Guardian, Independent, Daily Mail, and Times) In 2008, researchers at the Cardiff School of Journalism, UK, discovered that 60 percent of the articles in British newspapers the Daily Mail, the Guardian, the Times, the Daily Telegraph and the Independent had been copied from wire reports and press announcements issued by various corporations, businesses and universities. Three out of four such stories had also gone to print without being fact-checked, a trend that seems widespread: in 2012, an audit sponsored by the European Observatory of Journalism found factual errors in approximately half of all news stories published in Switzerland, Italy and the United States

60% - and including the "elite" newspapers in the same group. [5] "Most newspaper articles (72%) were written by named journalists (the unnamed journalist category refers to labels such as ‘Daily Mail Reporter’) and in nearly a quarter of cases were there was no clear identification of who had written the story (as is often the case with Nibs). Only 1% of stories were directly attributable to PA or other wire services (see Table 2.4). At first glance, then, these data suggest that the newspapers give the impression that they depend on their own journalists rather than wires or other outside sources." then " Indeed, 30% of the stories in our press sample replicated wire service copy almost directly, and a further 19% were largely dependent on wire copy. In other words, nearly half of all press stories appeared to come wholly or mainly from wire services. " Even where a "journalist" gets a by-line.

DM gets a hit "So, for example, a story about the health risks of eating oily fish (‘Why oily fish might not be so good for your health after all’, Daily Mail Reporter, Daily Mail, March 24th 2006, p7) directly replicates facts and quotations taken from two Press Association stories, and another from the regional news wire Mercury." but not for being "inaccurate" but for copying inaccurate material from what Wikipedia would normally accept as a "reliable source."

"Despite the covert nature of much PR activity, we expected to find examples of PR playing an agenda-setting role. However, in many cases the influence of PR goes much further. We found that nearly one in five newspaper stories and 17% of

broadcast stories were verifiably derived mainly or wholly from PR material or activity (Table 2.6) – which suggests that the practice is rather more typical than John Lloyd’s critique suggests."

"For example, a Times story headlined ‘George Cross for Iraq War Hero’ (Michael Evans, The Times, 24th March 2006, p27) is an almost verbatim repetition of a press release issued by the Ministry of Defence. " also from The Times "An example of a print story that mainly consists of information from a single source of PR material is an article in The Times about a new league table of UK Heart Surgeons (‘Hand on heart, who is the best surgeon?’, Nigel Hawkes, The Times, 27th April 2006, p16). The article is almost wholly derived from a press release issued by the Healthcare Commission," uzw.

In short - even a decade or more ago, newspapers were dominated by press release material - and the situation is worse today by far (noting that US newspaper employment is down over 40% - and the number of actual newspaper journalists is down much more as the total "newsroom" count includes the "web editors.") Back in 1998 [6] " Like most news organizations, Business Week has no choice but to put its trust in the fairness and accuracy of its reporters, because neither money nor time allows for writers' work to be formally fact-checked. ", then "At the same time, newsmagazines are curtailing their fact-checking budgets and requiring their writers to verify those details once double-checked by others. And at many newspapers, those traditional sentinels of accuracy, editors and copy editors, are expected to focus more than ever on presentation of stories, less on their content." then " One more fact-checking caveat. Most researchers rarely trust newspaper clips. Not formally fact-checked before publication, say magazine staffers, they're just too prone to contain errors. "We're not going to trust that the New York Times has been fact-checked," says Forbes' Kroll. " Clear?

[7] from Forbes is fun to read - managing to note a newspaper which ran a headline "Amphibious Pitcher Makes Debut" But wait, there's more!

[8] The Times again " Karol Wojtyla was referred to in Saturday’s Credo column as “the first non-Catholic pope for 450 years”. This should, of course, have read “non-Italian”. We apologise for the error." In 2015 they should have caught it earlier. And delightfully The New York Times "An earlier version of this column misidentified the sea that God parted in the Book of Exodus. It is the Red Sea, not the Dead Sea." Although I suppose Lot parted the Dead Sea ...

What we have left? No newspaper is as assiduous in fact-checking as it was even 15 years ago. Even "elite" papers routinely use press releases without actually looking t the studies puffed. Silly proof-readers are no longer used at newspapers - they rely on automated spill chuckers. And thus the theoretical belief that "good newspapers always check facts" is gone with the wind. Sorry to burst everyone's bubble - but papers that used to have a dozen (low paid) fact checkers now generally have zero. Their old group of actual proofreaders - gone forever. One newspaper (?) [9] offers zero money for "volunteer proofreaders"! In 1909, New York City alone[10] had on the order of 1000 compositors and proofreaders. Many "working" proofreaders get well under $25K p.a. (bottom 10% get under $19K) In New York. A person at the proposed new minimum wage for fry cooks there will make over $30K p.a.

I trust the points are clear - so will leave with [11] [[The

New York Times]] got rid of all its remaining 125 Linotype operators and proofreaders (many did both due to cutbacks) - by 1990. In short - "elite" papers also run press releases. The main and substantiated difference is down to headline witing - and the job of the headline writer is the same as the "clickbait" writer - no more, no less. If anyone uses a newspaper article, note that the real journalist does not write the headlines. Until we have amphibious pitchers in baseball. Collect (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems like the Daily Mail is getting very specific ire because of it's right-wing position, as there are similar left-wing tabloid-oriented sites used as sources like The Huffington Post and Salon (website) (the latter seems to be even more provocative than DM). If we need further guidelines on tabloid-like sources, I don't see any specific reason to single out this publication. --Pudeo' 15:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Gerontology Research Group (GRG) tables

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

---

The reliability of GRG tables for articles on supercentenarians in project World's Oldest People has been discussed here several times in the past but none of the discussions have been closed with a reliability determination.[12][13][14][15] The articles are in need of work but before that can begin, we need to determine whether the GRG tables are reliable sources to support birth/death dates and age claims for articles on supercentenarians, particularly for the "List of" articles such as List of Belgian supercentenarians, List of oldest people by nation, List of supercentenarians from the United States, List of oldest living people, and List of supercentenarians who died in 2014.

There are several tables on the GRG site and the ones most commonly used as sources on Wikipedia are Table E (verified or validated supercentenarians), Table EE (supercentenarians pending validation), and Table I (verified supercentenarians organized by death date). There are also tables listing deaths in each year that are used as sources here. I can't find the validation process on the grg.org site but I think it involves the supercentenarian (or their next of kin) providing three pieces of documentation with the person's birth date which are then researched and validated by GRG researchers. My understanding is that claims may be pending validation because either they not have provided the three pieces of documentation or the documentation has been provided but has not yet been researched or validated. I don't know how much verification goes into verifying death dates.

GRG researchers consider all GRG tables to be reliable but I'm not sure whether they are. I think Table E is probably a reliable source for birth/death dates and age because entries have been fact-checked, whereas Table EE is probably not a reliable source for the same because the entries aren't fully fact-checked and there's no way to know how far along in the process they are. I'm also concerned that the tables are constantly updated and previous versions are not available so it isn't always possible to verify that a name appeared in a previous version of a table, but I don't know whether that affects reliability.

Apologies for the length of this post, and thank you for your help. Ca2james (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

No institution is perfect, and we have no insight into the exact ins-and-outs of how every fact printed by the GRG was obtained and checked-- any more than you do for the Washington Post. But the same is true of everything printed in any "reliable source." If you don't like the GRG as a source of reliable age-of-death information, what in the world would you replace it with? The major newspapers use GRG. Robert Young, who has done the fact-checking for GRG since 1999, is also the current Senior Consultant for Gerontology for Guinness World Records since 2005, so that's where THEY get their info also. So who are you going to use, if not Young? I challenge anybody who disagrees to carefully read the GRG process, which is the background here: [16] That process is described in Young's chapter in the peer reviewed Springer publication H. Maier et al. (eds.), Supercentenarians, Demographic Research Monographs, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-11520-2_15, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010. SBHarris 00:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting a link to the verification procedure. Do news organisations use GRG tables or other information from the GRG? If they use tables, which ones do they use? Note that news organisations referring to the GRG does not automatically make the GRG tables reliable according to Wikipedia guidelines. If uninvolved editors determine that some number of the GRG tables are not reliable sources, and a replacement reliable source cannot be found, the content currently supported by those GRG tables would have to be removed. But let's not get ahead of ourselves: first we need to know what uninvolved editors think about whether these tables are WP:RS. Ca2james (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Just going to point out: The GRG has several thousand citations in Google News at the moment. Do a quick search for articles on supercentenarians such as Susannah Mushatt Jones, Sakari Momoi, Jeralean Talley, etc., and you will see that most articles reference the GRG (i.e. "according to the Gerontology Research Group"). This, this, and this are but a few examples. The GRG is the scientific organisation which does the initial work to verify people's ages. Why the debate about whether it is reliable or not is still going on I don't know.

Regarding the debate about which tables are reliable: If a list article includes pending cases, and the pending cases table is cited, what's the issue? Unverified claims are listed at List of oldest living people with news articles cited. Should they not be included? As long as it's made clear that they are not verified, what's the problem? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The debate is going on because a reliable source on Wikipedia may be different than what the news considers to be reliable. Moreover, news articles are referring to the GRG, not its tables, and we're looking at the reliability of its tables here. That the GRG is considered an authority (although holding up the Daily Mail as proof of that somewhat undermines your point) does not mean that the tables the GRG generates are reliable sources according to Wikipedia. And again, if a table is found not reliable for birth/death date and age information, it can't be used as a source. If other supporting reliable sources don't exist, then that information must excluded. I wish someone other than WP:WOP members would comment on this issue; please could an uninvolved editor comment? Ca2james (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've unarchived this section as we really need some help on this issue. Please, could editors comment on whether the GRG tables - specifically, Table E (where entries are fact-checked by the GRG) and Table EE (where entries are not completely fact-checked) - are reliable sources for birth/death dates in articles on supercentenarians? Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The major problem I have with this entire area is that it is dominated by cranks. Their assessment of evidence comes with a baggage of belief in things that were largely abandoned by the reality-based community decades ago. It reads like a Robert Heinlein novel (and not one of his better ones, either). Guy (Help!) 10:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. Guy, would you mind clarifying which part of the GRG or its tables reads like a Robert Heinlein novel? Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Please does anyone have insight into the question of whether GRG tables E and EE are reliable sources for birth/death dates of supercentenarians in "List of" articles on them? Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• I wouldn't consider them to be reliable to the standards need for BLP. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Er, why not? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• It's time to end this discussion. Newspapers,journalists from all around the world: American, Brazilian, European etc.; all consider the GRG as the reliable source. Not to mention scientific circles...

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/wauwatosa-woman-among-oldest-in-the-us-at-112-b99544087z1-318543041.html

http://ndonline.com.br/joinville/noticias/273114-jaraguaense-alida-grubba-tem-112-anos-e-foi-reconhecida-como-a-pessoa-mais-idosa-do-brasil.html

http://wtkr.com/2015/07/24/virginias-oldest-resident-dies-at-age-112/ "Lela Burden was the 8th oldest person in the United States and the 35th oldest in the world, according to the Gerontology Research Group, a recognized authority on supercentenarians,[...]" Waenceslaus (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you, Stuartyeates. I'd appreciate opinions from other editors on whether the GRG tables (particularly E and EE) are reliable sources for birth/death dates for supercentenarians on Wikipedia. I realize that this is a difficult question so any insight is appreciated. Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

He gave NO REASON for his opinion. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

On their own? No. They have a vested interest in promoting agecruft. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

What the hell does that mean? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Cruft usually means that something is overly detailed and unnecessarily complex so agecruft in this case would mean too many unnecessary supercentenarian articles. GRG supporters seem to think that the information in the tables should be included in encyclopaedia articles because the tables exist and the GRG thinks the tables are important; moreover, the GRG seems to think that no other sourcing is required because the GRG considers itself to be a reliable source. A similar situation would be using the PAPA - the recognized governing body for its own tables and information - circuit standings tables to develop a series of articles on pinball player rankings. Those articles would be pinballcruft. Ca2james (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

No, no, no. Firstly, the GRG is a non-profit scientific organisation. The only thing that is being "promoted" is education of the general public about how long people really live. But this can only be achieved if emphasis is placed on AGE VERIFICATION. What you don't seem to understand or appreciate is that the GRG verifies the ages of supercentenarians. I mean there couldn't possible be a more reliable source for birth and death dates than an organisation which aims to determine the true age of a longevity claimant. GRG "supporters" only want accurate and reliable information to be included in Wikipedia. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Just like there couldn't be a more reliable source for pinball standings on PAPA-sanctioned events than PAPA. We wouldn't include articles for which only PAPA is being primarily referenced, or used to highlight entries on articles because that's treating Wikipedia as a webhost which it is not.

I do understand that the GRG tracks supercentenarians and verifies age and that they're seen as an authority on the subject. I need you and other GRG supporters to understand that those facts don't give the GRG a free pass to write whatever articles you all want using only or primarily GRG tables as a source (especially table ee). Ca2james (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• More opinions from uninvolved editors are welcome; or, if someone uninvolved wants to formally close this with a decision, that would be fine, too. Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi folks. This is S. Jay Olshansky, Ph.D., professor of public health at the University of Illinois at Chicago -- my expertise is on aging and longevity, and my colleague Dr. Bruce Carnes and I are responsible for having contributed to the development of the modern field of biodemography. I have known the researchers at the Gerontology Research Group since their origins, and I knew Dr. Coles very well. His reputation was/is as a meticulous scientist who was a well established researcher in the field. He conducted more autopsies on centenarians than anyone else on the planet and is/was an internationally recognized expert on aging science -- his reputation is impeccable. It was a terrible loss when he passed away, but some of his work is ongoing by those involved with the GRG. The folks at the GRG involved with verifying the ages of centenarians and super-centenarians are extremely careful in their assessments, and they are recognized by scientists in the field as having provided the most reliable list of verified long-lived people in the world. There is a reason why the media turns their attention to them whenever the oldest person in the world dies -- they maintain the only international database on supercentenarians and near supers in the world that can be trusted to be accurate. I'm happy to provide more details, but for those of us who have been working in the field for more than a quarter of a century, and we've seen just about every ridiculous claim there is, there is something quite refreshing about the trust that can be placed in the people at the GRG to just get it right. I would encourage those at Wikipedia to trust the GRG, and I also encourage people making comments to sign their names. Sjayo (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjayo (talk • contribs) 18:03, 4 August 2015‎(UTC)

I am sorry but the representation you make based on your personal authority is worth absolutely nothing in WP. Part of that (but only part) is because your claim that you are Jay Olshansky is worth nothing. (see Essjay controversy for part of the reason why that is) And you should sign your own name. Jytdog (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting story on Essjay controversy. I signed in under my name, sjayo, so I don't know any other way to verify who I am. I'm happy to include any evidence required for personal verification.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjayo (talk • contribs) 18:32, 4 August 2015‎ (UTC)

And this is why Wikipedia has such an awful reputation. We're trying to determine if the GRG is a reliable source. So far, we've had a couple of people just say "no" or make some accusations about the GRG trying to "promote agecruft", and one who is an expert in the subject and has put forward a well reasoned argument. Wikipedia logic says that every opinion should be given equal weight, but common sense says otherwise. Smh. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Ollie231213 if you are so sloppy that you accept the word of some random person on the internet who says "I am the Great Garbanzo and I declare this source to be faaaabulous" then you do not understand Wikipedia nor even what semi-rigorous scholarship is. (No insult intended to Sjayo - it is just that for important decisions like this, claims based on personal authority are really meaningless as we could get all kinds of crappy sources deemed reliable based on people showing up here making claims just like that - WP cannot work that way) Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess I'm not quite sure exactly how Wikipedia operates. You've asked for advice on whether the tables produced by the GRG are reliable. They are. The people most able to make this determination are not Wikipedia editors with no expertise in aging science; it would be scientists with a long history and track record of working in the very field for which you are seeking advice. If someone doesn't believe that I have expertise in this area, they need only go to my website: sjayolshansky.com and look at my vita. There's plenty of third party affirmation there as well. I've even published on the prospects of becoming a centenarian -- the very topic of this discussion (Olshansky, Carnes, Hayflick, 2012; Journal of Gerontology: Biological Sciences "Can human biology allow most of us to become centenarians?" doi:10.1093/gerona/gls142). If Wikipedia operates based on the opinions of people with no expertise in the very area for which they are seeking advice, over the very scientists working in the area of interest, then Wikipedia actually has far less value than I thought. Sjayo (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Sjayo You should should have stopped writing after the first sentence. No one asked you in particular about the reliability of the source. The OP asked the community. The community considers the question in light of WP:VERIFY and WP:RS and the community's traditions of interpreting that policy and guideline. We don't just make up reasons out of thin air here - there is a foundation of policies and guidelines by which WP operates. Academics often have a hard time wrapping their heads around that when they first come to Wikipedia. There is rigor here - it is just not based on personal authority. Nobody is anybody here. Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• My take. The NYT cites GRG quite often, with attribution (NYT search string doesn't work here, you can do it yourself) as does the WSJ (see here) for people's verified ages. So it seems to me that Table E, used with attribution, would be a reliable source for WP content that hews closely to whatever is in that table. Table EE is just unverified applications so is worth nothing. Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• My view is that verified GRG data can be treated as information from a reliable source that is worth including. When we have other reliable sources that disagree with the GRG, (that's rare from what I can tell), we should include it anyways and not delete it just because the GRG disagrees. If the GRG hasn't verified a listing, I say we should remove it entirely (because there's zero reliable sources for it). The problems tend towards the two later situations, not the first. I really hate how every list has colored (inappropriate under MOS:COLOR) lines for those where the GRG hasn't verified it but fixing that just leads to fights and edit warring with WP:SPAs. We need an RFC on the unverified listings, one that doesn't delve into a series of arguments about whether the GRG itself is reliable (which isn't really in dispute) because there's nothing gained if we're just existing as a way to host the GRG's data for it (which is what Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians and Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians/Incomplete cases becomes at times). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

We could do an RfC onunverified listings but because they're based on table EE, I thought it would be useful to first know whether or not the broader community considers it a reliable source. Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

In my view there is no reason to consider Table EE reliable - it says it is not verified by them so there are no grounds that I can see to consider it reliable. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes that's my view as well but I defer to members of the community who are more experienced than I am. Thank you both for your considered opinion. Ca2james (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

comment It appears that GRG is a very reliable source, and this argument is more about notability. 78.144.214.250 (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Parts of it, not all. Table EE is not reliable; Table E appears to be. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Any other opinions? Or would someone like to assess consensus and close this? Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Statement by the board of the AAAS

In 2012, the board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science put out a statement on the genetically modified food. We are working on developing a statement about the relative safety of currently marketed food from GMOs. This is a bit complicated, as the content and its full sourcing are each under development and this is one source among several being proposed for use

The currently proposed content and the source are as follows. Other sources are being brought as well - the question here is just whether this one source - the AAAS board statement - is reliable for this, or if we should not give a lot of authority to it. Not looking for definitive affirmation of the content at this point - just what weight we should give this source. I hope that makes sense. The statement of the scientific consensus appears in several articles; the current discussion is on the talk page of Genetically modified food.

• "The scientific consensus holds that eating currently marketed GM food poses no greater health risk than does eating conventional food."

References

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC) (added relevant article, per request below Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)) (note - added ref to actual board statement Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC))

• initial comment: For those who don't know it, the AAAS is the most important non-governmental scientific society in the US and the publisher of Science, one of the most important scientific journals in the world. This statement - this source - is being questioned as just being a mouthpiece of Monsanto, or as the statement of an "advocacy group" on par with say ENSSER (external link), a small group of scientists who advocate for the view that GM food is dangerous. In my view, the AAAS source is very authoritative and we can use it to support the proposed content. It is also useful because it summarizes what other major scientific bodies say. Jytdog (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I broadly agree but I have a question: Was this statement produced solely by the board of directors or was it an item put to a vote by the entire membership or a representative body of the organization? I honestly don't even know if AAAS produces material - ethical guidelines, policy statements, etc. - that are purported to represent the entire organization or at least a broad consensus of its members but if so then it would carry even more weight. ElKevbo (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Where is it for? - need to see the article context to determine if it's WP:RS for it. Otherwise all I can say is that this would be better described as citing a 'community' statement, not a 'consensus' statement, as it's showing Board of Directors speaking rather than showing a process of reaching decision. (In particular it is not showing a process of jointly arriving at this which included the scientists who advocate for the view that GM food is dangerous.) I also echo that Board of Directors position is not the same as Members vote count -- AMA having more pointed examples of such dichotomy. Markbassett (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

It was a statement produced by the board. There was a subsequent Pew Survey of AAAS scientist members found that 88% of them agreed.Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog (insert) wrong and wrong - cite is to a press release by an author paraphrasing an AAAS board advocating a legislation move, which in part stated what European science says. AAAS board statement is useful as 'community' and 'position', but should then be cited directly. PEW survey is useful as 'majority' view of scientists but not 'consensus' much less 'scientific consensus'. To get a label of 'scientific consensus' then the actual science papers out of Europe might do or might not -- but 'PR guys thinking' is inappropriate and so is 'majority in opinion poll'. Markbassett (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

As was pointed out several times in the RfC that preceded this, the PEW survey, "Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society," released three years after the AAAS statement, is a general interest comparison of opinions of the US adult population to those of US scientists (the sample, from all disciplines, including astronomers, social scientists, computer scientists, etc,^{Appendix B: About the AAAS Scientists Survey} was taken from AAAS members). A variety of questions were posed on "a range of science, engineering and technology issues." The scientists were not a group with collective expertise in biotechnology, let alone GM food specifically. A claim of scientific consensus in an area of genetic engineering does not follow from this source. --Tsavage (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It is a statement from a few members of the Board in an anti-GMO labeling position paper. So if it is used, this should be made clear. Wording such as Tsavage suggested would be good: "in a statement opposing mandatory GMO labeling, the AAS concluded..." We just had an extensive RfC about this and other sources, please see Tsavage's breakdown of the AAAS source and why it cannot be considered independent (see third comment down - numbered points).

There are further problems with the paper, however. GRIST does a fabulous job so I won't attempt reproduce their work here, you can read it. Two points I will highlight: in their position paper, the AAAS misrepresents the WHO, which doesn't actually claim eating GM foods is safe, but rather, GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods. GRIST also notes that the AAAS misrepresents the EU study as well. Michael Hansen is quoted in GRIST as saying "If you actually look at the “study” it’s just a review of all the EU-funded biotech work for a ten year period. Most of the studies were about developing test methodologies to use in investigating genetic engineering (GE), not GE safety studies themselves. In fact, only three of the studies could be considered GE feeding trials and they all did find effects."

WP:MEDRS is required for statements concerning human health, and this source doesn't meet that standard. It is not a scientific paper, is not peer reviewed, is not neutral. As Groupuscule noted in the RfC, "A press release from the American Association for the Advancement of Science—with exactly two footnotes!—does not begin to fulfill the requirements for a reliable source in this case." petrarchan47คุก 17:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• AAAS is one of the most prestigious scientific institutions in the US, and is certainly a reliable source for contextual discussion of whether there is a consensus on a scientific issue. That a survey of AAAS members found 88% of members in agreement appears to be icing on that cake. Yobol (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a statement made by the board with the weight of the AAAS. The claims of lack of independence have the same root as recent manoeuvring by the Senate to exclude credentialled scientists but allow those funded by industry. This is science: the best-informed scientists will of course have worked in the field, that is how it works. You have raised the same baseless objection before, and had the same response. In second-guessing the AAAS you are engaging in textbook synthesis, and if you carry on in this vein I think you will see yourself topic-banned in short order. Guy (Help!) 20:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should be willing to give significant weight to this statement, and we should give short shrift to objections of the sort raised above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about accidental reversion of your last edit. Fat fingers on smartphone. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not a statement by any scientists, it is not peer reviewed, is not presenting any new science, and is not presented as a neutral view but rather admittedly in favor of anti-GMO labeling to promote that goal. The AAAS would be good to hear from, and likely wouldn't literally misrepresent the WHO in their statement as the members of the board have done. I am sure a MEDRS compliant, non-advocacy statement can be found to use instead of this. But again, if it is used, there should be clear indication of the nature of the statement, and the problems contained should be noted as well. Why not just stick with science and leave advocacy out? petrarchan47คุก 17:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The board of the AAAS is the elected representative board of the largest association of scientists in the USA. This is an official statement with the full authority of the Society. That is how it works. I understand that some people dislike the idea of GMOs but the AAAS board have no dog in the fight, they are not engaged in the motivated reasoning that dominates anti-GMO rhetoric, they are stating the facts as they read them from the science. Guy (Help!) 16:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• consensus here seems clear. The source is reliable for WP content about the scientific consensus on GM food. Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Where on earth did you get that idea? Is this MEDRS? We just had a well attended RfC on this and other sources where there was no consensus that the claim of scientific consensus on GMO food safety was supported by any/all of your sources. A handful of editors here has not in fact trumped the monthlong discussion held by upwards of 30 people. I can't believe you're serious. We need to have another formal RfC on this source alone, and invite everyone to weigh in just as we did before. However, the introduction to the AAAS paper in this thread is in my mind quite disingenuous by omitting the facts behind this position paper. Let's not make that omission again if an RfC is opened. I hope that in general, editors are more interested in properly representing sources (especially when it comes to human health) than expressing a certain POV. petrarchan47คุก 01:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"consensus here seems clear". What??? I find it troubling that such a determination would come from someone who has wielded such extraordinary editing control over the GMO articles. The disagreement over the AAAS statement here and in this RfC (where a non-involved admin. (RockMagnetist) found no consensus for action or with regard to reliability of the sources) demonstrates there is no consensus that the AAAS statement is WP:RS. My objections and others by numerous other editors to the AAAS statement can all be found there, but I am happy to reassert them here if they are difficult to find. Petrarchan47 and Tsavage have already asserted a good portion of those problems. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't wield "control" - I have helped forge a science-based consensus that has lasted a few years now. That's all. Yes there are a bunch of GMO-activists being especially vocal and voluble at the GM Food talk page; this is true. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• MEDRS and SCIRS are clear that we pull content of this sort from respected academic organizations in the field. The insistence that content like this comes only from review articles, must be peer-reviewed, etc. is somewhat odd considering review articles usually don't take the time to spell out consensus in such specific words. You usually find statements of consensus from organizations like this instead. There shouldn't be any question that this source is reliable for the content outside of those trying to consistently push against the scientific consensus statement. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You appear to consider a statement on policy from the BoD as synonymous with the organization itself. Is that correct? petrarchan47คุก 01:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The cite seems to have a few issues in question

• This TALK is quoting the PR release written by Ginger Pinholster ... his/her PR writing is not the words of AAAS Board
• The written at Ginger or at the board statement does not support the article content; content is taking liberties.
• The AAAS board statement is a position on legislation; as indirect part of that it characterizes European and WHO data
• The AAAS board supports article wording of 'community' not 'consensus'

I'll suggest no this is not RS for the article. TTFN Markbassett (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Whooey. So you didn't click through the link in the press release to the actual board statement. My apologies for not pushing that ref through all the way. I've added the extra link in the ref. And for you, the actual board statement is here. Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog That is what made it clear to me this cite is Ginger Pinholster's writing and not the item to cite as AAAS board position. If they want to do that, then the cite should BE the AAAS Board documnet, not Ginger Pinholster's writing about it. WP Article is paraphrasing a PR release about AAAS Board characterizing European research annnnd Ginger is just not good cite practice nor RS for 'scientific consensus'. Markbassett (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

So, still no comment on the actual source - nobody else here had a hard time getting to the board statement. Your stance is clear. Jytdog (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing about a "scientific consensus" in this anti-GMO labeling position paper. Are you extrapolating for our readers? petrarchan47คุก 01:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

There are only two opposers, one of whom responded to the press release instead of the actual statement. everybody else is thumbs up. Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Despite the confusing framing of this RSN question, we cannot give blanket qualification of a source as "high quality" or "reliable" for any and everything it says, obviously, the specific content it is intended to verify must be considered. The primary objection to this source for the proposed statement of scientific consensus in Wikipedia's voice, is that the source content is not equivalent to the consensus statement. There are two parts.

First, the consensus:

AAAS source: "The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion"

article paraphrase: "The scientific consensus holds"

Is this sufficient for restatement as "scientific consensus"? The AAAS release clearly wishes to convey that there is widespread, if not unanimous, agreement. Is their non-specific, all-inclusive list - "and every other respected organization" - sufficient? Or, is the WHO, AMA, NAS and BRS, specifically mentioned, sufficient when taken alone?

This is also where the nature of the document should be considered for independence. It is a one-page public position paper vigorously supporting no GMO labeling (to the point of stating that labeling supporters are motivated by "the desire to gain competitive advantage by legislating attachment of a label meant to alarm"), which suggests that, at the very least, the wording be closely examined.

Second, and most important, the safety statement:

AAAS source: "consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques"

article paraphrase: "eating currently marketed GM food poses no greater health risk than does eating conventional food."

The AAAS release gives the impression of, but does not actually make, a broad claim of safety for all GM food. It has carefully reworded a finding that is widely supported, that genetic engineering is not inherently a riskier method of food modification than conventional breeding. In fact, it is the AAAS restatement of an EU report comment to that effect, which it has quoted in the sentence immediately prior: "biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies."^{full AAAS statement}. In other words, if you create a food by GE, and the same food by conventional breeding methods, the GE method will not have introduced additional risk, the products would be same, as would the risk. This is all that is stated, not that "currently available GM food is no riskier."

WP:RS/AC is abundantly clear on the requirements for a statement of academic consensus in Wikipedia's voice. Regardless of how prestigious the AAAS may be, THIS document does not appear to support the desired consensus statement. --Tsavage (talk) 02:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

That reading is almost as bad as the press release reading; in this case, it is the most wikilawyering reading of policy and the source possible. If citing the most important scientific and medical bodies in the world doesn't add up to "consensus" I don't know what does. And the hair-splitting emphasis on the difference between "no riskier than" and "no greater risk than" is especially ... silly. And likewise, I am not saying "this source alone" - I specifically said I was not doing that in the opening. Again, your response reads directly against the grain of the clear intention. Jytdog (talk) 04:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The source does not say what you want it to about GM food safety. Whether it supports a consensus statement for what it does say is secondary.

"I am not saying "this source alone" - I specifically said I was not doing that in the opening." Say what you like, this is not the Provisionally reliable sources noticeboard. Either the source supports the content, or it doesn't. If you need to combine more than one source for a statement of scientific consensus, then it is synthesis (particularly per WP:RS/AC).

There are many other ways to present the information in this and the 17 other sources you've lined up, so it's not a matter of obscuring information, it is you insisting on this one "scientific consensus" phrasing, without a proper source. --Tsavage (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Not what I am doing. I am just taking baby steps. And for the bazillionth time, you are very welcome to propose some content and sourcing on this issue for discussion, which you have never done. No one has any idea what you will support. I am curious - I would like to read a proposal from you instead of another wall-of-text saying "no" to something Jytdog (talk) 07:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what the baby step is here (or why this is here), since you once again broke away from an ongoing discussion at the article Talk page that couldn't be more detailed and incremental, to open this RSN discussion, just as you broke away from a previous discussion to start an RfC involving over 30 editors, all essentially based around this AAAS source as the strongest of 18 sources. Creating alternate wording was suggested by the RfC closer, discussed before and after that close, and I have supported versions. Please stop trying to turn the discussion to me, I'm only following your argument. --Tsavage (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You have proposed nothing. it would be useful to finally getting consensus if you would do. Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog and Tsavage - this is the wrong place for that discussion, this is RSN thread on whether this one specific cite is RS, not the place for discussing article content proposals. Markbassett (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. (But don't include me with Jytdog, he should remain on point and not editorialize about other editors, who are expected not to respond.) --Tsavage (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

As the position paper for one of the most respected bodies in science, it should certainly be given a lot of weight. I am not sure why this is on WP:RSN. I suggest that it not be used by itself, but it be used together with review articles directly discussing GMOs. Kingsindian ♝♚ 05:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It is here because people have strong feelings about GMOs and we need reasoned, community discussion. Yes, sometimes to affirm that the sky is blue. Jytdog (talk) 07:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

No. This is another assumption of bad faith. People like myself have objected for numerous legitimate WP:PAG grounds. If you are motivated by feelings you can say so, but I have seen none of the editors saying they are basing their opposition to AAAS on their feelings, so please stop assuming bad faith and focus on content, not the motivation of editors. David Tornheim (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

claiming that AAAS is equivalent to ENNSER is not a rational statement based on PAG. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Kingsindian The cite is to Ginger Pinholster's PR release about the AAAS board position on legislation, so ... it isn't the actual AAAS board words, nor the actual AAAS body. Not to fault Ginger, just being clear that the cite has mischaracterized the source. A PR release is different from the Board position, and a Board position stated for legislation is different than a Body consensus. RSN gets similar debates over whether HYPost is RS for x and whether it was an opinion piece or editorial comes up. Markbassett (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Markbassett: I am not sure what your point is. The statement says at the bottom: "Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors on 20 October 2012". How is this "not the AAAS board's words"? Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: -- You are not looking at what was actually proposed as the cite. What is cited ends with a link "Read the full statement by the AAAS Board of Directors on labeling of genetically modified foods." The actual AAAS Board statement is two clicks further. What you are looking at sounds like the actual board statement. What is cited is not. Ginger's press release is close, but not quite it and the question (in part) WAS whether the press release is the the right source. Markbassett (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Good grief. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Markbassett: I have no idea what you're talking about, sorry. The quote that is cited in the original question posed at WP:RSN comes from the full statement. That is good enough for me. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Why are folks so badly not wanting to cite the actual AAAS Board statement ? The point being that RSN was asked (in part) if the press release was the right thing to cite and that it chose to embed a quote from AAAS Board item two clicks away is just adding to the oddity, it does not change the content of the press release or somehow make a oddformed cite better. Markbassett (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Mark you are putting an enormous amount of energy into something silly. For all these years, folks have clicked through to the actual statement. I have gone ahead and added the link to the actual board statement above, and updated the citations in all the articles as well. You are raising a nonissue. And no the point of the RSN was never about whether the press release was anything - it was always about the board statement. Jytdog (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Markbassett's concerns are certainly valid. I suggest this back and forth about what source Jytdog actually meant be resolved by opening a new section/question for this NB using the correct source (rather than a press release about the source intended) and making sure to follow the proposed rules of this noticeboard which include stating what article language is proposed to be supported by that source, which Tsavage correctly noted was absent from the original post here. Then refer back to this section for those who may have missed it. Starting down below seems to make things more complicated for new readers, than starting afresh and stating what is actually meant than expecting us to figure it out from the mess that is here. David Tornheim (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

<od> Jytdog Then why not just cite the actual statement ????

• "The scientific community position is that eating food from GM crops poses no greater health risk."

References

I'm open to something like that, sure. Would be better to finish the comparative - "...no greater health risk than foods from conventional crops" ... but sure. I am not married to the "consensus" word. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

As I stated immediately above, I strongly prefer that an entirely new post/section be created on this noticeboard than the confusing situation of having the original flawed source and lack of intended language coming first. I would prefer we start de novo, but refer back to this discussion. David Tornheim (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I second that: resetting with a straightforward new question that presents article content and supporting source, with no conditionals, would be more usable for RSN (and more respectful of uninvolved editors' time and energy, mine, for one). Why reset?

• Changing the source and what it supports during discussion hopelessly confuses the discussion - see just above.
• This is not the place to discuss content development (as is the case throughout).
• This is not the place to establish the authority of a source independent of a concrete content statement: "Not looking for definitive affirmation of the content at this point - just what weight we should give this source.").

Evidence or weight based on authority alone - "because They say so" - is almost worthless in evidence-based considerations, verify the content first. --Tsavage (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Now your dog is eating its tail. Just logically, what organization is better situated to describe the status of the scientific thinking on X than the AAAS? Yes, authority matters there. And please know that per MEDRS (and even RS) statements by major medical and scientific bodies is indeed authoritative within WP. Your arguments are getting weirder and wierder. Jytdog (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Can someone clear this up for us - is a statement made in opposition to GMO labeling by the BoD synonymous with a MEDRS-compliant source, in this case, as a statement by the AAAS itself? (I am requesting that involved editors not repeat their arguments once again, I'm interested to hear from someone who hasn't weighed in on this particular source - perhaps Sarah SV?) petrarchan47คุก 00:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why this is still going on, and I don't know whether I am "involved" whatever that means (I gave my opinion at WP:RSN but have nothing to do with the article). Yes, per WP:RS/AC this source is acceptable as a statement of the AAAS itself. It is natural that the BoD for AAAS will make a statement like this. This is how official statements are made. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

CJAD Radio

Is CJAD Radio a reliable source? I cannot find any information about editorial oversight on their website. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please present your question in the recommended format, in general this noticeboard doesn't do yes/no on a source not knowing what exact webpage (the Radio website has hundreds, including a blog section, weather forecasts etc.) the info for inclusion in the encyclopedia is derived from, what article it is to be included in, and what content derived from the source your question is about. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Is CJAD Radio (specifically this article) a reliable source for discussing the attempts prevent Roosh V from giving a speech in Montreal? The source contain a few controversial, potentially libelous, statements about Roosh V. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Le Devoir, a newspaper with editorial oversight ([17]), writes about the same ([18]), as does the tabloid Journal de Montreal ([19]) – for this info I couldn't make a distinction between the independent newpaper (Le Devoir) and the tabloid (Journal de Montreal), so couldn't say whether the radio station reporting is rather akin to serious journalism or to tabloidism. For playing safe I'd source the info to Le Devoir in Wikipedia, but don't see a problem to add a ref to the radio station page for those who don't read French. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! I'll wait a day before reporting back to Roosh V in case anyone else wants to chime in. Thanks for finding the ledevoir source. Much appreciated. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd still like to hear if people think the source reliable at all. Again, I see no editorial oversight. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this particular citation is fine - it's a local news-and-talk radio station, so while I would be cautious about using any of their talk radio shows/sources to establish or reference facts, I see no reason why their news content shouldn't be treated the same way as any other broadcaster. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Probably you misunderstood: "any other broadcaster" is neither by definition reliable, nor by definition unreliable. "Any other broadcaster" is by definition a source of unknown reliability. So there's nothing in your comment that shows the radio station as either reliable or unreliable. All what's left is an "I like" without even attempting to give a WP:RS or WP:V-founded argumentation.

The nature of this noticeboard is to try determine reliability of sources (in context) based on the parameters which by the applicable guidance are deemed suitable for such determination. "Being a broadcaster" is not among the parameters that says anything about reliability. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey @Francis Schonken: give me some credit - I do understand the purpose of this noticeboard and WP:RS. What I meant to write above was "any other reliable broadcaster." I confess, I kind of assumed that the reliability of CJAD's news coverage was self-evident - but my opinion there might be colored by the fact that I live in Montreal and have more than a passing familiarity with the station. Anyways: the station is owned by Bell Media, the same parent company that owns other, unquestionably reliable news sources in Canada like the Globe and Mail and CTV. It's a member of the Canadian Broadcasting Standards Council, and complies with its various codes for journalistic ethics, including its accuracy and neutrality in news requirements. It has won awards from the Radio and Television News Association of Canada (which also has it’s own code for accuracy and fairness in reporting) for its news coverage in the past. In my personal experience, some of their talk show hosts have a political bent, but their news coverage is much the same as what you'd get from CTV. Then, there’s the fact that there’s really not much difference between the report we’re discussing here and how the CBC (Canada's national public broadcaster) covered the same story. So unless anyone can present evidence of clear bias in CJAD's news coverage, I see no reason why this would not be a reliable source. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed that the Toronto Star has the same story now, we can probably just cite that instead and avoid the need to debate this further. As far as I can tell, it verifies pretty much everything the CJAD story was being cited for, and more. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Tx, I had refrained from answering EvergreenFir's general question "...if people think the source reliable at all", while thoroughly unfamiliar with CJAD (never was in Canada, leave alone ever having heard of the radio station). Such general question is difficult to answer when all one can do is comparing hundreds of webpages in the hope of finding some clues.

With Fyddlestix' additions I should think there's no reason to qualify CJAD as generally unreliable.

As for the content of the Roosh V article, I think my suggestions here (and at BLPN) prove to be workable: when not sure whether material of a particular source can be used, look for other sources with the same content: if the information is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia there are bound to be other sources whose reliablity can be assumed that carry the same information.

As for Roosh V's alleged anti-semitism (the topic of the BLPN thread I closed), I don't see this having been picked up in mainstream media like what has been said in those media about his attitude towards women. All in all the latter seems to be the main thrust of the criticism, with the anti-semitism related criticism, despite extended discussion in the blogosphere, thus far apparently lacking the notability and reliable source coverage to warrant its inclusion in Wikipedia. But maybe others would be more successful in tracking useable sources on that? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Users citing their own thesis

Are users allowed to cite their own thesis? Two people seem to be promoting their own research by opening accounts just for the purpose of performing drive-by edits in Myopia. Motion sickness is also affected. I'm questioning this matter because one of the users has a history of referencing some research presented on Blogger, possibly for the purpose of increasing search rankings. Latios (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

See WP:SELFCITE Jytdog (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

As above, and WP:PRIMARY. Citing your own thesis is a whole world of No. Guy (Help!) 17:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a template to cite thesis at WP:CITET or Template:Cite thesis. I'm not finding guidance on when to do so, but DeFacto seems that using a thesis is rarely done, and it is done either as part of a biographical mention of that persons thesis or as a source about a language. Markbassett (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

A thesis is rarely if ever a reliable source aside from a BLP type mention as a primary source. It does undergo peer-review by the advisory committee of the student, but the decision as to what goes into the finished thesis/dissertation typically rests in the hands of the advisor who is not independent. Such works aren't considered part of the scientific literature until publication, especially in medical topics, so I would just remove the reference to it. At a glance, I'm not seeing the specific edits citing it though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Gamma ray burst clustering claims

We have two articles based on claimed detection of an unexpected spatial clustering in gamma ray burst locations. The sourcing goes back entirely to claims by one research group. The article Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall is entirely based on a set of papers by Horvath et al., plus press release style coverage, and Giant GRB Ring is based on a single article in MNRAS by the same group. The papers have few or no citations, and it's not at all clear that the proposed structures are likely to exist in reality. In the absence of solid secondary sources to show that we should believe the papers, should these articles exist? --Amble (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I can see that one article is a definite candidate for the bitbucket, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant GRB Ring. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Those seem reputable professional journals to cite for the topic so seem RS in general. Perhaps you should try working the article TALK over the level of certainty that the article wording uses. Markbassett (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources shouldn't be used to present controversial information. An article built entirely on primary sources shouldn't exist at all. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

msn & ibtimes

Are these two sources meet the RS criteria to be used here? Thanks Mhhossein (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Ali Khamenei". Canada Business Online. MSN Money. 21 October 2011. Retrieved 4 May 2014.
• Gohsh, Palash (3 May 2013). "Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei… A Multi-Billionaire And BMW Car Dealer?". International Business Times. Retrieved 4 May 2014.

The International Business Times URL is good, but the MSN link is a bad URL and when I search there it leads to here. Markbassett (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The Ibtimes has been determined to be a reliable source in the past - and is used in a number of articles. As I read it, the article does not make the claim as such but attributes the claim of wealth to the "Iran Channel" (possibly National Council of Resistance of Iran?) which does not meet WP:RS . Collect (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The IBtimes article is merely reporting on a scandal in Iran based on some interviews to the Fararu news website. The Daily Telegraph article linked there is talking about the same thing. This is not generally a WP:RS for the information in the article. Though, it is hard to find accurate estimates in these matters generally. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

WaPo Style Blog for BLP statement

Is an article on WaPo's Style Blog considered a reliable source for the following statement on Roosh V?

In 2014, The Washington Post named Roosh the "most-hated man on the Internet", writing: "Valizadeh owns the website ReturnofKings.com, which bans 'women and homosexuals' from commenting. Recent articles include the charming '5 Reasons to Date a Girl With an Eating Disorder,' 'Don’t Work for a Female Boss' and 'Biology Says People on Welfare Should Die.'" EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:BLP, "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." I don't know if the WashPo's "Style Blog" is under the newspaper's "full editorial control," but Dewey is a reporter for the WashPo and is described as their "digital culture critic." At least you would need to attribute.

Note that the post states that Hunter Moore, and not Roosh V, has been named the "most hated man on the internet;" Roosh V is named as a candidate. I think that if others here believed the material should be kept, it should also be rephrased: "Washington Post digital culture critic Caitlin Dewey named Roosh V alongside other writers considered misogynist for their internet posts, noting his recent articles “5 Reasons to Date a Girl With an Eating Disorder,” “Don’t Work for a Female Boss” and “Biology Says People on Welfare Should Die.”" Roosh V's own oeuvre seems to speak well enough for his… unfortunate political and social views. -Darouet (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Opinions must be cited as opinions and ascribed to the specific person or group holding the opinion. That said, it is a matter of consensus as to whether that opinion is sufficiently notable for inclusion in any article subject to WP:BLP. "Misogynist", AFAICT, is an "opinion" and not a statement of fact per se. Collect (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Caitlin Dewey is a "digital culture critic" and thus absolutely an "opinion writer" ... as such her opinions do not get "fact checked" in any event. Collect (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I should also point out that the columnist is associated with "GamerGate" and should likely be used with some caution per ArbCom decisions thereon, noting that all edits regarding that topic fall under discretionary sanctions, and noting the especially strong statements from that decision regarding WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Journalistic hyperbole is not worth mentioning, no matter where it appeared. – Smyth\^talk 19:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: There are a lot of unlikable people who might have wikipedia articles, and it's important to exercise particular restraint and conservative (not in the left-right sense) judgement when adding or reviewing content for them. I see that you here added the controversial content you asked about on this page. Contrary to Collect's comment you didn't attribute the opinion to Dewey, and contrary to my suggestion, you also didn't correct the text to note that the blog post actually named someone else the most hated man on the internet.

Lastly, per Smyth's comment, ask yourself what this really adds to the Roosh V article. This isn't a technical description of the man's views, rather a subjective assessment of how hated he is. I don't see it as helpful, and this is a BLP. If anything, naming the articles he penned is more useful to readers, since this is a factual and not a subjective issue, and gives readers the opportunity to assess his writings on their own. -Darouet (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Statewide opinion polling for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016

I had a question about how WP:Reliable sources applies to the map. Is a poll reliable enough to use on a map if it was taken one or two days before the most recent poll? Is the most recent poll the only poll that can be considered reliable and the only one that should be used when coloring a state? Is it WP:OR to conclude that the most recent poll taken in a state isn't the only reliable source and that polls taken a day or two before are also reliable? At what point does a poll become outdated and unreliable when compared to polls that are more recent? Btw, this issue is also being discussed at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Prcc27 (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be a reliability issue so much as it could be a WP:NOTNEWS issue. Actual results after a primary would be fine, but I'd be considered about recentism if someone is trying to document polls like this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Tributes.com

1. Source. http://www.tributes.com/, specifically http://www.tributes.com/obituary/show/Louie-Steven-Witt-101899572
2. Article. Umbrella Man (JFK assassination)
3. Content. Referring to Louie Steven Witt: "Witt died on November 17, 2014."

Looking for additional opinions. I believe this to be one of those sources that is likely accurate, but still unreliable for our purposes. I found a related discussion in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 129#Tributes.com. Thanks! - Location (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, there doesn't seem to be anything identifying the Louie Steven Witt in the tributes.com obituary with the person of the same name in the Umbrella Man article, which makes the question as to whether tributes.com is a reliable source a moot point. We can't simply assume that it is the same person. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I just did some original research and found a primary source document that links the same name to the same DOB, so my assumption is that it is the same person. Not sure that factoid is warranted in the article anyway. - Location (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Digital Fix

I'm interested in using this film review [20] from a website called The Digital Fix, in the article By the Bluest of Seas. The website has already been discussed once before on the noticeboard (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 123#The Digital Fix), although in that case, only a tentative decision was made. The website was deemed reliable for the specific piece of information that was being cited, largely due to the Terms and Conditions [21] giving a sense of professionalism. However, since those are only applicable to the site's message board, it was taken as conjecture that similarly high standards are applied to the site's articles. Something was also said about the website's editor being "listed in other media capacities when searched for (in google)", though I'm not really sure what was meant by that.

Not discussed was this page [22], which is arguably more relevant. Here, the The Digital Fix describes itself as a "hobbiest site that only just covers the bills" and cannot pay its writers. However, it also specifies that freelance work is, on rare occasions, financially compensated. The website appears to have editorial positions, and its film reviewers are granted access to press screenings.

I'd love to be able to use this review as a source, as it's one of the only ones online for By the Bluest of Seas and is actually quite a bit more in depth than those linked to by Rotten Tomatoes. But I'm on the fence as to whether it meets reliability criteria. If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|Jpcase}} to your message, and signing it. --Jpcase (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@MichaelQSchmidt: FYI. - Location (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Location: - Who's MichaelQSchmidt? --Jpcase (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• To Jpcase & Location: The question is asking for eyes on an authored review in a non-contentious site that has editorial oversight. The discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 123#The Digital Fix is convincing. Use it. . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Primary source, but is it acceptable to discuss basic information on a band?

This http://bonavox.nl/2015/08/heavy-metal-band-mad-max-from-germany-still-going-on-strong has been removed several times. This is the most recent. I'm trying to use it to support the band's date, nothing else. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It would help if the other guy would explain why he thinks the information in that interview is wrong. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Based on the editor's revert comments, the editor, who I believe is female, not male, believes that, as one summary puts it, "reference points to an interview, which is an advertisement. It contains wrong and incomplete information." The article's history has more examples. The issue is that only the start date of 1982 was being referenced. Oddly, the new source, which has been confirmed as user-edited and not a RS, states they started in 1981 and so does not support the content. However, if the band released music before 1982, then the answer seems obvious for that fact. Now, we just need a RS to support. The problem is, the band is barely notable and I was researching it as part of WP:BEFORE as I was preparing to nominate for deletion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The classic Verifability not truth argument. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Misused quote?

I hope a chose an appropriate noticeboard for this message. My concern is that source no. 12 from Greater Romania#Ideology is not correcly cited (the phrase is not about "The Romanian ideology"). The quote exists in the source text [23], but I think it is misued (it does not refer to the ideology of Greater Romania, as a general concept).

The article is not a frequently edited one, so I think that there are big chances to clarify this aspect here than on the article talk page. 79.117.135.199 (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the article misused the source cited. The article line joined parts of two sentences and improperly confused the line about the early sipritual diversity. The "cocktail of ancient post-colonial apprehension, of apocalyptic fears and recent historical vulnerabilities together with traditionalist arrogance and youthful, snobbish or revengeful provocation" seems what the source was saying about diversity. The "typical example of ethnocentric nationalism" is a separate remark about one particular author, so that part is not appropriate. Markbassett (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Markbassett. The source says that mixture (rendered as "cocktail" in the article, which seems okay to me) was "the main ingredient in concocting the diverse variants of nationalist discourses". So the source would support saying the cocktail gave rise to nationalist discourses, or something to similar effect. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. I thought the same, but I did not feel confortable to make an unilateral text removal. 86.127.5.62 (talk) 08:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. The idea of Greater Romania owes its existence to a nationalistic ideology. We somehow need to describe this phenomena. So, in fact, Kesslers's opinion about Romanian (ethnocentric) nationalism is not misused at all. Anyway, who is this IP? I am just hoping that my suspicion is incorrect.... Fakirbakir (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid that what you are doing is original research. I can't find in Kessler's text the phrase "ethnocentric nationalism" from your new version of the article.

I'd like to ask User:Dailycare, User:Markbassett and User:Fakirbakir to continue the discussion and gain a consensus at Talk:Greater_Romania#Misused_quote_from_Kessler. 86.126.63.196 (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

"The fatal mixture of ancient post-colonial apprehension, of apocalyptic fears and recent historical vulnerabilities, together with traditionalist arrogance and youthful, snobbish or revengeful provocation was the main ingredient in concocting the diverse variants of nationalist discourses. Their local sources remained unchanged since the early decades of the 20th century. A classical example of xenophobic nationalism, of the European reactionary sort, with all its pathos and pseudo-scientific pretensions, is furnished in the selection from A. C. Cuza’s writings. Nonetheless, until late in the 20th century, the same mixture was promoted by the last remnants of the interwar generation; an example is provided in the selection from the influential oral foreman Ţuţea, whose apothegms of the genre “any great intelligence is bound to oscillate between philosophy and theology” made epoch as late as the early 1990s." (Kessler) [24] Fakirbakir (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

So A. C. Cuza is described as xenophobic nationalist. I don't understand how is this related to the concept of "Greater Romania". 86.126.63.196 (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

No, Kessler says that through Cuza's writings we are able to better understand the Romanian "psyche".Fakirbakir (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm generally concerned when I see so much quoting going on that a particular point of view is being represented rather than an encyclopedic tone. The source says what it says, but it does seem to rather engage in some hyperbole. That coupled with being what looks like an opinion piece in a magazine doesn't quite seem to meet the level of academic reliability I'd be looking for to present the ideas found in the current content in the article, even as a quote.

If we're just neutrally describing the ideology over time (not good or bad neutral, but WP:NPOV), I'd be looking for a source that just lays out what the "post-colonial apprehension", "historical vulnerabilities", etc. actually were about rather than flowery non-descriptive language like "traditionalist arrogance and youthful, snobbish or revengeful provocation". I'd say raise the bar and find a better source if someone wants to include these general ideas. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Kessler is a philosopher, his style is out of question. If my understanding is correct a better source needed tag will be enough? Fakirbakir (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I generally prefer better source tags for when there is content in Wikipedia's voice that could be sourced better. We're dealing with quotes in this case, so that wouldn't really work. I'd say it's better just to delete the content and start from scratch with a better source if one comes up. For something as mundane as the ideals of a country/region, there should be a strong enough source out there that quotes aren't needed at all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Are {{dubious }} and {{opinion }} tags appropriate for these quotes by reliable sources?

I'm referring to Kingdom of Sine and this edit. Dennis Galvan seems to be clearly a reliable source, see[25], as is the late Étienne Van de Walle[26]. There's old background to this tagging but I don't think we need to stray from the issue here. Doug Weller (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious reason to tag this as dubious, nor has the person who made the edit provided any, except his opinion. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I really don't know this subject area at all, but as an independent editor, the text is certainly verifiable and the sources appear to be reliable. The tags appear to have been added in a somewhat "aggressive" way and disrupt the article. The tags should be removed and discussion started on the Talk page regarding the material.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Journals of university faculties

It's being claimed at Gregorian calendar by a notorious troll (check Special:Contributions/JoeSperrazza for verification) that these journals are not reliable sources because they are "collections of self - published sources". I fail to see how content published by reputable universities all of which has been peer - reviewed by an editorial board can fall within this category. This is trolling as far as I can see, but I'd be glad for other editors' comments before I denounce it as such. 78.146.213.18 (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

You haven't even made any contributions other than this post. Try discussing it on the article talk page, preferably without calling other editors trolls.- MrX 18:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

There's an editor at the article talk page (I won't call him a troll) who stifles discussion on this topic [27]. My purpose in posting here was to make contact with sane human beings who don't have their own twisted agenda. 78.146.213.18 (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's the apparent talk page conversation [28] and edit. While not a journal in technical terms, university vetted publications for basic information tend to be considered very reliable and useful. I'm not sure if that's the case or not here. Is there an online version so we can view the source? I really can't judge reliability at all just seeing a bare reference without information on how to track down the source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

You can browse issues of the journal at [29]. 78.146.213.18 (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

an apparently undergrad student publication with no peer review. not reliable - self-published crap. "Advice to authors We welcome contributions to M500 on virtually anything related to mathematics and at any level from trivia to serious research. Please send material for publication to the Editor, above. We prefer an informal style and we usually edit articles for clarity and mathematical presentation." If you have to reach to a source like that to get content into WP, the content probably is not worth including. Articles are meant to contain "accepted knowledge" that has some encyclopedic value. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you looked at a sample issue? They are full of mathematical equations carefully worked through. The editorial board peer - reviews the content so no mistake is going to slip through. If it did then there are hundreds of degree qualified mathematicians reading who will notice and report back. This system seems to give far more reliability than the normal one where papers are sent to one peer reviewer who says yea or nay. 78.146.213.18 (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree that this isn't reliable, mostly because it is self published in-house by students. Also, WP:NOTMANUAL is helpful here. We aren't obligated to show how to do things here. It might be a a fun source for examples, but that's not what we can really use here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not following the argument. The essence of self - publishing is no editorial control. The journal uses the University's publishing facility with it's permission. It has been running for 42 years and has been under the control of an editorial board for all that time. It publishes everything from trivia to advanced theories. Material is sourced in the usual way. Many journals have a letters, news or comments section and that does not disqualify them as reliable sources. If the presence of recreational mathematics is a disqualifier, then Jan Meeus' More mathematical morsels would not be a reliable source, but we quote it all the time. The criterion is "Are the facts checked?" and they are, rigorously. Of the editorial board, Eddie Kent has served for forty years, Jeremy Humphries for 38 years and the Editor, Tony Forbes, for eighteen. You can view his publishing credentials at [30], [31], and statistics.

Here is a sample of the recreational content:

Issue 196.5 - Three more friends

I have three friends, Alan, Bert and Curt. I write an integer greater than zero on the forehead of each of them and I tell them that one of the numbers is the sum of the other two. They take it in turns in alphabetical order to attempt to deduce their own number. The conversation goes as follows:

Alan: "I cannot deduce my number."

Bert: "I cannot deduce my number."

Curt: "I cannot deduce my number."

Alan: "My number is 50."

What are Bert and Curt's numbers?

If we can't cover such material then most problem - solving articles such as Birthday paradox will have to go. 78.146.213.18 (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The sole objection here is that the content is "self - published by students". However, with an editorial board consisting of three distinguished authors with a combined 96 years in post this clearly is not the case.

Unless anyone has further comments I think we can close this on the basis that the journal is a highly reliable source. 78.146.213.18 (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The issue here isn't whether the material can be covered... but which sources should be used to support the material. Problems such as Birthday paradox are discussed in lots of reliable sources. If a specific source is deemed unreliable (or at least questionable), it shouldn't be too difficult to find another source that is deemed solidly reliable. 12:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

A student published journal is not an RS. Find another source for what you want to include in the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think the problem here is not so much the reliability of the source as the reliability of the material. A student (presumbly) devised a formula for calculating the number of days in the month. A computer obviously cannot recite "Thirty days hath September ..." but it can crunch the algorithm. I would have thought that provided the average Wikipedia reader can work through the calculation and verify that it comes up with the right answer our sourcing requirements are met. 78.146.213.18 (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

steamlocomotive.com

The site steamlocomotive.com has now been added three times to the articles Puffing Billy (locomotive) and Stephenson's Rocket. "This site is run by a staff of one part-time person (me). I enjoy steam locomotives and collect information about them. This web site is how I choose to make this information available. " The site has no substantive content, merely a list of surviving examples. http://www.steamlocomotive.com/lists/searchdb.php?country=UK

Does this site meet RS? Do we need this site? Steam locomotives are hardly short on sources! We can very obviously do so much better than this, for detail and for robust authorship. The two additions are [32] merely duplicating an existing ref and adding nothing. Also for Rocket, [33] "It was also the first successful steam locomotive to run on 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) standard gauge track." which is a dubious statement on two (somewhat technical aspects). Although arguably correct on one, it's highly misleading to non-expert readers: it's just wrong, and a common misapprehension we have to guard against, to see Stephenson's Rocket as "the first" steam locomotive in almost any way. It was better in some ways (read the article), but it wasn't the first.

Neither of these additions represent an improvement, one is worse as it's now misleading and the source isn't RS for anything.

Raised at User_talk:Jackdude101#Steamlocomotive.com, but the only response was to add them again. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that this same website has been used countless times by many different individuals on several other railway-related Wikipedia articles. Search for "Steamlocomotive.com" on Wikipedia to see for yourself. Previously, the website was primarily focused on steam locomotives in North America and Australia, but has very recently expanded to include New Zealand, Ireland, and the UK. To my knowledge, this is the first time that this website has been used as a reference for articles about steam locomotives outside North America and Australia, but previously being unknown to people who monitor these articles does not disqualify it as a valid source. Jackdude101 (Talk) 21:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like spam to me. The site is plastered with ads William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call "spam" (I use an ad blocker so I haven't seen them anyway), but I'm still not seeing RS.

It's possible that this site is better on US locos (which I know little of) than it is on UK locos. For UK stuff, the content is thin and dubious. Mostly simply so thin there's nothing there. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks like spam to me (https://www.flickr.com/photos/belette/20497684505/in/datetaken/) but non-RS will do William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any ads either, but it definitely looks not WP:RS. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a reliable source to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I see no ads as well. It probably depends on your browser. Using Google Chrome, there are no ads anywhere. Jackdude101 (Talk) 23:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• 5RR is not the way to proceed on this. Please stop. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Proposed for blacklisting at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• One of the ways to gauge the validity of a source is whether it's ever been mentioned in respected publications. Steamlocomotive.com has been mentioned in the Casper Star-Tribune, the largest printed newspaper in Wyoming, here: [34]. It's also been mentioned in the The Ann Arbor News in Michigan here: [35]. Jackdude101 (Talk) 00:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Mentions in passing by local news media do little to indicate reliability. If the website was being cited by sources with recognised authority on the subject being covered, it would be a different matter. We don't cite hobbyist's personal websites without very good grounds - and a couple of minor links aren't sufficient. Not RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

How about Wired (magazine)? They used it as a source, also: [36]. Jackdude101 (Talk) 01:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Do US editors consider it to be RS? Despite the accusations of "British bias" at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#steamlocomotive.com, could the situation here be that a US-RS site is overreaching itself when it goes outside the US? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you implying that websites are not "qualified" to cover things related to Britain if they are based in the US? Because that's exactly what it sounds like. Jackdude101 (Talk) 01:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm claiming that this particular site has failed to do a good job of it, up to the standard required for RS. And please stop accusing anyone who disagrees with you of bias. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The Register as a reliable source for quotations

User:Ibt2010 has cut a couple of Register references on the Faceparty article on the grounds that the Reg is a "tech tabloid" and WP:42 says "not tabloids". Archive threads on the Register as a source seems to come down to whether it's printing opinion or fact, and whether it's covering a subject within the tech industry. Since the sources here (1, 2) are both quoting what the Faceparty website said in public statements to its users, and the Wikipedia article isn't doing anything beyond quoting those quotes, this seems okay to me, but I'd appreciate an informed second opinion. --McGeddon (talk) 08:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Utter crap. Restore el Reg. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

If you can confirm the quote using any source (a primary source , even a blog that quoted it first) I would say keep it, but if the quote is only found in The Register, they may very well have fabricated it as they have fabricated so many other things. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Faceparty's statement about banning over-36-year-olds can be confirmed by archive.org.

I haven't been able to confirm their threat to shut down the site - it's a two-paragraph quote in the Register backed up by a linked screenshot ("We've also saved a copy here for when the admins get back from the zoo") rather than an offhand "person said X". I don't know how trusted the Register should be for that. --McGeddon (talk) 10:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Guy's take on this, but I would also add that Wikipedia:42 is a brief summary of common approaches to notability intended as a teaching tool for new editors who might find Wikipedia:Notability somewhat overwhelming. Wikipedia:42 therefore has absolutely no standing in discussions as to what sources are reliable or what content belongs in articles whose notability is not in question (as in this case). Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is of course the appropriate guideline. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Why not just cite to the archive? Or cite both? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It's off-topic for RSN, but a quick look at the article made me curious about the obviously staged publicity image: File:Peterandreandjordanfplg.jpg. The file info says the shot is from July 2004 and is the "Own work" of User:Ibt2010. I don't see any official release, so is the claim that a general member of the public just happened to snap that at an optimum position and time? Johnuniq (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The uploader may have an undisclosed COI here. They have stated on their talk page that they are a ex-member of the site who has "interviewed its staff, been to their offices (to do so) and went to two of their events". Looking closer, an IP editor whose edits broadly correspond with those of Ibt2010 said on their talk page last month that they worked for IBT, a company who "provides management services to Faceparty" and which was formed in 2010, suggesting that User:Ibt2010 may have some connection to IBT, and that the image actually originates from this management company. --McGeddon (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Beatport

Is Beatport reliable for genre tag? In the Recess (song) article. 115.164.83.139 (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Industry newsletter

Is this primary source reliable for the following statement in the article Carnism?

An article in the beef industry publication Drovers Cattle Network criticized the use of the term, saying it implied that eating animal foods was a "psychological sickness".

See discussion at Talk:Carnism#Drovers Cattle Network. FourViolas (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

John Earl Haynes on the Venona Cables

This issue arises out of this post at BLPN. Sorry for the long post, this is a complex issue involving multiple articles.

We have a list article here which lists individuals mentioned in the Venona Cables - basically people who are suspected or have been alleged (with some evidence) to have spied for the Soviets during and after WWII. The list article and many of the articles which are linked from it seem to have been based on the work of historian John Early Haynes: Specifically, this book (co-authored with Harvey Klehr) and this website.

For some of the people on the list, this is not that big a problem; many of them were Soviet spies and there is lots of additional documentation to back that up. For others, however, it is not so simple. See Margietta Voge and Rebecca Getzoff, for example. The problem here is that the person's presence on the list article is only referenced to Haynes' personal, unpublished website, and that in many of the articles linked (like Voge and Getzoff's), the only citation is to Haynes and Klehr's book - which I do not believe is a reliable source for the assertions being made in these articles. Take the article on Voge as an example:

The only source for the assertion that Margietta Voge "worked for the KGB San Francisco office" is Haynes and Klehr's book, which does suggest that she did. The relevant passage is: "Voge, Marietta: née Jirku (see Stidsberg, Augustina). An asset of the San Fancisco KGB. Cover name Daughter." Some might look at that, see that the book is published by Yale Uni Press, and say "case closed, she's a spy!" But we're in a pickle here, and it is nowhere near that simple. Here's why:

• The quoted text appears only in the appendix of the book, not in the body of text. Specifically, it appears in Appendix A, which the authors describe as a "list of 349 names [which] includes US citizens, noncitizen immigrants, and permanent residents of the United States who had a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence that is confirmed in the Venona traffic." Note that it says "covert relationship," and no more.
• The book has been very poorly reviewed. Here are some excerpts from academic reviews of the book in the two most reliable American history journals, the JAH and AHR:

"Haynes and Klehr's abject partisanship, however, often leads them to make sweeping, uncorroborated assertions that are not confirmed by the Venona cables."

"This penchant to indict also leads Haynes and Klehr to characterize any contact with Soviet agents and the information that Soviet agents reported to Moscow as 'espionage.' yet the majority of the reported information did not compromise US security interests, including 'analyses and commentary,' reports on the plans of foreign (non-US) officials, simple political intelligence and the monitoring of Trotskyites and Russian emigrées."

"They might have taken into account the tendency of any intelligence officer to exaggerate, for political purposes, the number and importance of agents they are controlling. They might have considered the gray area between serving a foreign power as a 'spy' and informally discussing issues with an ally."

"The book is perhaps most troubling when returning to old charges against bogeymen of the anticommunists. The evidence that Harry Dexter White was an agent for Soviet Intelligence is inconclusive, and the allegations against others such as the White House aide Laughlin Currie are on even shakier ground. (Factual errors in the case of the former Office of Strategic service aide Duncan Lee have been challenged by Lee's family...)"

References

Given that, is being listed in the appendix to Haynes and Klehr's book a good enough source to say that someone worked with the Soviets/was a Soviet spy? Is Haynes' site a good enough source to justify listing someone on the list article when no other source can corroborate it? Personally I would argue the answer is no in both cases; that we should nuke any reference to alleged espionage that is based only on Haynes and Klehr's appendix (if they are discussed in the body of the book, or in other sources it's a different story obviously), and AFD articles where that is the person's only potential claim to notability, like Rebecca Getzoff. But this is a complex issue so I am asking for consensus here before making any changes. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been looking further, it appears some of the articles that are listed in the list article are also copyvio - most or all of the content on some of them is copy-pasted from Haynes and Klehr's book. There is going to be a ton of cleanup to do here even if we end up keeping such articles. I've (just) started a list of articles with problems in my sandbox if anyone wants to take a gander. Fyddlestix (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree with your proposal that any claims/articles sourced solely to the appendix of Haynes and Klehr's work be removed. Thanks for the time you're putting into this. General Ization ^Talk 11:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the NSA site contains the translated lists of agents, and are regarded as a reliable source in academic circles (cired many dozens of times, in fact). We could say "according to the Venona project" but the fact is that the NSA sources are reliable per WP:RS, and books published by the Yale University Press are generally accorded RS status as well. Saying "I don't like a source which is absolutely reliable" is a poor basis d=for removing it from any Wikipedia article. Further, that the current use of the Venona documents is now widely accepted - the use of "book reviews" from 2001 and earlier is not supportable here, a lot has been written since. [37], [38] and related documents meet WP:RS. [39], [40] as nauseam. [41] and so on. Note from the NSA site "The translations of messages of Soviet intelligence in Stockholm are particularly rich for their variety and volume: more than 450 messages of the three Soviet services, KGB, GRU, and Naval GRU. Sweden, neutral during World War II, gave the Soviets a valuable listening post concerning German military activities in Norway, Denmark, Finland, and the Baltic. Note the great attention to transborder operations: debriefing refugees from Norway and sending Norwegians back to Norway." "• Discussion of important KGB agent and Swedish Communist, covername KLARA, “who is completely devoted to us.”" Sorry - the evidence is clear and in reliable sources. Collect (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: Can you check your links? Some of them won't load for me. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC) You also seem to have misunderstood what I'm asking here - I'm not arguing that Haynes or the cables aren't reliable sources for some information - I'm asking if simply being mentioned once or twice in the cables is enough to have an article on an otherwise non-notable person, or to implicate them in espionage when other historians (writing in the authoritative journals for the field) have called Haynes out for doing that, and suggested that his use of the source is flawed. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hate to have to duplicate stuff but here it is:

Not just from YUP in 2000, but from the NSA "Discussion of important KGB agent and Swedish Communist, covername KLARA, “who is completely devoted to us." Vassiliev notebooks ”"DAUGHTER [DOCH'] (cover name in Venona): Marietta Voge. Venona San Francisco KGB, 24, 29, 39, 46, 57, 84; Venona Special Studies, 99." , "DOCH and DOCH' [DAUGHTER] (cover name in Venona): Marietta Voge. Venona San Francisco KGB, 23–24, 29, 38–39, 46, 57, 83–84; Venona Special Studies, 99.", "Voge, Mariette: Soviet intelligence source/agent. Wife of Noel Voge, née Jirku, daugher of Augustina Striksberg/KLARA. Cover name in Venona: DAUGHTER [DOCH'] and KLARA’s daughter. As Voge: As DAUGHTER [DOCH']; Venona San Francisco KGB, 23–24, 29, 38–39, 46, 57, 83–84; Venona Special Studies, 99. As KLARA’s daughter, 45–46.", " CLARA [KLARA] (cover name in Venona): Augustina Stridsberg or a reference to the town of Santa Clara. Venona San Francisco KGB, 83–84." "KLARA [CLARA] (cover name in Venona): Augustina Stridsberg. Venona New York KGB 1944, 141; Venona San Francisco KGB, 23–24, 38–39, 45–46, 57, 83–84 (unclear if a reference to KLARA or to the town of Santa Clara); Venona Special Studies, 36, 103." These notebooks were only available well after 2001, by the way, and make massive PDF files if you really want to make sure the indices are accurate. The Wilson Center is part of the Smithsonian. I suggest this is not "once or twice" mentions in point of fact. Collect (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Reviews are slightly malused above: Theoharis is known primarily for doubting that Vassiliev even had notebooks or that he had access at all to any data from the KGB, and that the US code-breaking was due to use of repeated use of pads intended for single use, and not by any cryptologic efforts by the US.. Her also suggested Haynes avoided mentioning an exculpatory item about Alger Hiss, although Theoharis did not seem to find that item in any sources himself.[42]. Better to look at current works McCarthyism and the Second Red Scare Landon R. Y. Storrs; OUP, Jul 2015.

The tenor of debate shifted again when the end of the Cold War made available new evidence from Soviet archives and U.S. intelligence sources such as the VENONA decrypts. That evidence indicated that scholars had underestimated the success of Soviet espionage in the United States as well as the extent of Soviet control over the American Communist Party. Alger Hiss, contrary to what most liberals had believed, and contrary to what he maintained until his death in 1996, was almost certainly guilty of espionage. A few hundred other Americans were secret Communist Party members and shared information with Soviet agents, chiefly during World War II.34 Some historians interpreted the new evidence to put anticommunism in a more sympathetic light and to criticize scholarship on the positive achievements of American Communists.

Professor Scott Lucas states that Harry Dexter White and Lauchlin Currie were named on inconclusive evidence in the book. Cambridge University Press in 2004 saw no problem with the allegations about Currie and White. I find no basis for using him to assess facts brought out after he wrote in the first place (the Vassiliev corroborating material). Collect (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC) .

Chicago Monitor

Chicago Monitor is "a website associated with the Chicago chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations"[43] and a front site for CAIR in Chicago, per FrontPage Magazine [44]. The assistant editor at Chicago Monitor is the Communications Coordinator at Cair-Chicago. Having the above in mind, does this source meet RS criteria for adding such a viewpoint in Quds Day aiming to approach NPOV? Mhhossein (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Using Law Firm Website Articles as Source

Hi, I am new here and working on a draft in my Sandbox on an article about Panama Real Estate which will be the first one for Wikipedia. My question is about using Panama law firms websites where they explain Panama real estate laws to the public. I looked at the archives here and outside of a lawyer's blog where an unknown author posted a blog couldn't be used as a reliable source; I couldn't find past discussions on point.

Here are the text and citations I intend to use:

Many islands, beachfront properties, and special tourism zones real estate such as in Portobelo and Bocas del Toro are owned by the government, which grants rights to possess for specific years. [96] Pardini Law Firm, “Purchasing Property in Panama”, http://www.pardinilaw.com/news.php?newsid=49&p=1&catid=23

Panama’s Ministry of Economy & Finance accepts applications for concessions and will perform an Environmental impact assessment of the property if it is more than one hectare, and will do a Feasibility study for any commercial activities intended for the property. [98] Beth Anne Gray, Panama Attorney, “Application for Concession from the Government”, http://www.lawyers-abogados.net/en/Services/Panama-real-estate-transactions.htm

Real Estate Trusts In 2010, Panama created a new law allowing for Real Estate Trusts, which are based on the U.S. Real estate investment trust (REIT) and made changes to the tax laws in 2014 allowing investors to avoid paying a [[Capital Gains Tax] while the Trust avoids paying income taxes. Small investors can join other investors in forming a Real Estate Trust to purchase real estate to develop and lease. [99] Marielena García Maritano, Morgan & Morgan Panama Law Firm, “Real Estate Trusts in Panama: A New Frontier”, April 23, 2015 https://www.morimor.com/real-estate-trusts-in-panama-the-new-frontier/

Panama banks can issue a "Promise to Pay Letter" to sellers assuring that full payment will be made after the seller files the title deed with the Public Registry. [111] ^Rigoberto Coronado, Mossack Fonseca Panama Law Firm, “Guideline on Purchasing Property in Panama”, November 26, 2013 http://www.mossfon.com/news/mossack-fonseca-provides-guidelines-purchasing-property-panama/

There is a Panama law reducing mortgage interest rates for first time homebuyers by 2% off the market rate and in 2012, a new law increased the maximum value of a qualifying home to $120,000. This law applies to foreigners who are legal residents and first time homebuyers in Panama. [112] Panama Offshore Legal Services, “Panama Preferential Interest Rate for Foreigners”, 2012, http://www.panama-offshore-services.com/panama%e2%80%99s_preferential_interest_rate_law.htm

Lease/Purchase Option Panama laws recognize the right for renters to enter into a Lease with Option to Purchase Contract with their property owners. This is called a Lease With Purchase Option which has benefits including allowing the renter to know the property before purchasing, having partial rental payments used as purchase deposits, and the contract can be registered with the Public Registry which will prevent the owner from selling to other people. [119] Eduardo Achurra M., Pardini & Asociados, “Lease Purchase Contracts”, Pardini Law Firm, http://www.pardinilaw.com/news.php?newsid=202&p=1&catid=23

NOTE: As you can see I am using 6 different Panama law firms who are the leading real estate law firms in Panama. I was not able to find any other reliable sources for these topics.

Please let me know if these can be acceptable reliable sources.

Steven Rich in Panama (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

No - as a general rule "law firms" are considered commercial enterprises, and just about unusable as "reliable sources". They may, however, give you places to use which do meet the Wikipedia policies. Doesn't the government of Panama itself have a web site covering the usual real estate laws? Collect (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

crimeflare.com

http://www.crimeflare.com/carders.html is or has been used on CloudFlare and Rescator used to cite "The site uses CloudFlare." and "The service protected various carding sites such ashas been used by Rescator." The source does not seem to be reliable for anything on Wikipedia.Jadeslair (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Strong endorsement from Brian Krebs here. But the only one. I don't mind if it's not used Deku-shrub (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)