Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 187

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 180←Archive 185Archive 186Archive 187Archive 188Archive 189Archive 190

Is Wikidata a 'reliable source' ?

Wikidata (http://www.wikidata.org/) data is used in biographies and elsewhere (see Category:Templates using data from Wikidata for a complete list). It is my contention that wikidata is not a reliable source. My contention rests on two planks, either of which is enough to show wikidata is unreliable: (a) it's a publicly-editable wiki with no apparent quality control process (b) it has a history of bulk-incorporating and retaining unreliable data.

(a) Wikidata is a wiki; but rather than being text-centric, it's data-centric, containing typed fields in a manner comparable to a relational database or linked data rather than textual data comparable to a traditional encyclopaedia. Most of the data in wikidata is harvested from various languages wikipedias' and from other datasets, but data can also be edited by hand. I am unaware of any process for checking manual edits. Every fact in wikipedia can be associated with a reference, but many facts (maybe most, I'm not sure of stats) are not backed up by a reference. Where references are present, most of them are to the various language wikipedias (which are not reliable sources, as per en.wiki's definition), the reference (if any) used by the language wikipedia is not recorded, nor is the article / article version in which the reference might be (think William Shakespeare vs Sexuality of William Shakespeare), just the language of the wikipedia. That's like citing 'Encyclopaedia Britannica 1913' without page number or article name; just useless.

(b) One of Wikidata's most used datasets is a dataset called VIAF. VIAF is used by wikidata as a reference for the 'sex or gender' field many thousands of times (these being created semi-automatically). The VIAF field for sex is widely acknowledged to have had it's reliability poisoned (my blogpost on why http://opensourceexile.blogspot.co.nz/2014/07/adrian-pohl-wrote-some-excellent.html ). To this day, Wikidata appears to have no mechanism for attempting to alert users, including language wikipedias, to this unreliability (or removing the unreliable data).

'Answers to strawman arguments

  1. Wikidata is a WMF project. No WMF projects are considered reliable sources, except for the activities of the projects themselves.
  2. Wikidata is doing what it's designed to do. If Wikidata is doing what it's designed to do, then the flaws are in the design as well as the implementation.
  3. Which Wikidata entries are wrong? We'll fix them! This is a defence that attempts to shift the responsibility for reliability from wikidata onto en.wiki editors; it's categorically not our responsibility and highlights the fact that wikidata doesn't have internal mechanisms for finding and correcting errors.
  4. Data from wikidata is basic facts, nothing that can be controversial. Manipulation of even the basic biographical data (parent / child links, dates of birth or identity) can be used to imply sexual impropriety and/or other crimes.
  5. Everything is sourced. Everything might have been sourced, when wikidata was sync'd with whichever wikipedia the data was obtained from, but we appear to have no way of knowing. To the best of my knowledge the synchronisation process does not check for the sourcing of facts.

Potentially interested parties include @Pigsonthewing, Maximilianklein, and Docu:. I will shortly post a note to Wikidata notifying them of this discussion. Please be aware that Wikidata is a cross-language project; interested parties may not have English as a first language. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I would say it's up to the design of your templates!

    You should design your templates to only accept statements that either are so simple, that you normally do not need sources (coordinates can normally be confirmed on any map for example), or is supported by good references. If the reference is "imported from:Minangkabau Wikipedia", then it is not a good source, and the template should not support the import of such statements from Wikidata.

    I, today, on Wikidata compare the information added by both bots and manual users with databases. I can confirm that both bots and carbon-bases users do a lot of mistakes. Often, they (both the botowners and manual users) add statements in subjects they are not at all familiar with. But this is true in any wiki, even here at enwp. -- 78.73.94.165 (talk) 09:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Could you please point me to a template (any template) that's designed in such a way that the data being drawn from wikidata has an accompanying <ref>...</ref> (or similar) identifying the reliable source that data is sourced from? Stuartyeates (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikidata is indeed a wmf project. As long as Wikipedia use this datas, they are also responsible for the accuracy of the datas ! And it is not a strawman, it is a feature ! I'll explain : Wikidata is unique in the Wikipedia ecosystem : it's a monolingual project whose datas are potentially used by many many other project, in different languages. This means that the responsability of data accuracy is shared beetween every Wikipedia (and more) contributors, so many more than just the enwiki community (which is already huge, but many people don't speak english). Wikidata's items, properties and policies are translated in a lot of languages.

    Assuming Wikidata is a choice every Wikipedia can make, and Imho SHOULD make.

    Some answers to your concerns :

    • there is efforts to build infoboxes with edit features that redirects to Wikidata instead of Wikipedia wikisource of articles. One correction will benefits every Wikipedia projects that made the choice to use Wikidata, so even english Wikipedia when a user who don't speak english adds datas or his wikipedia
    • Infoboxes can be coded to highlight unsourced statements in Wikidata, or to only show data that are provided with a source. This should encourage users to primarily add their datas to Wikidata instead of just on their WIkipedia, and to add source for this.
    • Changes on Wikidata item of an article shows on your watchlist if there is a change (there is an option in your preferences) ! so it's as easy to watch Wikidata as to watch your favorite topic's article.
    • On conclusion, wikidata is a tool to help us collaborate, and everyone will benefit to use it. I hope there is no question left :) (but if there is, please ask). TomT0m (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Could you please point me to the discussion where we (as the en.wiki editor community) came to a consensus that this was a responsibility we wanted? Or is this an attempt to foist this responsibility on us without consensus? Stuartyeates (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I want to strongly disagree to the claim above about fixing errors: "it's categorically not our responsibility and highlights the fact that wikidata doesn't have internal mechanisms for finding and correcting errors." As it is in all Wikimediaprojects, it is not the reponsibility of the Wikimedia Foundation to fix errors. There is nobody else out there than the users that make the errors and the users that fix it. So the users are responsible for errors and the users are responsible to fix problems. So there is no devine power in this universe to fix this problem except the users. On the other hand there are several internal mechanisms for finding and correcting errors. First of all is datatype. WD can link certain claims only to certain datatypes. So you can not enter "motherfucker" instead of a persons name. Strings can be defined and limited to certain characters or can be limited in the numbers of the characters. The next thing is to search for constraint violations. Values of a claim can be defined in a certain way and bots will check if the values meet the requirements. So the bot might find the problem and the user can see the problem and fix it. There might be some more things you are not aware of. WD has structured data, so it can be compared to many authority control databases by bots. So there can be bots to find errors. There is no way to make a bot to fix the birthdays within Wikipedia articles, but you can do it with Wikidata. In fact with Wikidata we have the possibility to do a consistency check between the different language versions and I found lots of inconsistencies to fix, so WD helps in findig and elimination errors in the Wikipedias. Next thing is mentioned allready: WD is multilingual (not monolingual), so users of all languages can contribute and benefit. So if a French user corrects a birthday on WD, it will not only help the frwiki, but also all other languages. The same with sources. This is a way to use Chinese or Japanese sources for the English Wikipedia without knowing any of these languages. There is also a way to handle several contradicting sources or outdated values. And believe me or not, Viaf or GND use Wikidata to fix some of their own problems too. So WD is not the source of the problem, but part of the solution to reduce errors in Wikipedia.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • WikiData is not a reliable source because it is a wiki. Current policy about citing wikis in the English Wikipedia indicates, for example, that I could not use the "John F. Kennedy" if I was editing the "Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis" and needed a source for the date of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis's first marriage. Allowing WikiData as a source would be a major policy change and would require a well-advertised discussion at the Verifiability policy talk page. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    If you can provide a source to Wikipedia, you can also use it for Wikidata. There is no rule that requires to have different sources for the two articles. Everything in articles is as reliable as the cited sources, the same with Wikidata. So you might use the source you have in Wikipedia also on Wikidata and reuse this information for another article. It´s just one thing to remember: Wikipedia had more than ten years for development, Wikidata started about two years ago and sources were not enabled in the beginning, the same as articles were unsourced and without annotations in the beginning and lots of them are still today. There is a lot of work to do in sourcing, but it has to be done only once and for all languages at the same time, this makes the use of sources very effektive. The development of WD is in several steps: 1. Creating items and provide the links to the projecs. 2. Add labels, descriptions and aliases in every language. 3. Creating properties and use it on the items. 4. Find sources to prove the values of the properties. 5. Use values of WD in articles for infoboxes and templates. None of the steps is completed. So you must do all five steps when you want to take step 5. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Stuartyeates Your vision of Wikidata is not correct: if most of statements are not sourced and the large remaining part is sourced only with a language Wikipedia, some statements are sourced with all usual reference data of books, article, websites,... So the question is not to define is wikidata is reliable or not but if the data available on WD have some reference or not. You can do the same referencing work on WD that on WP: we have some structure to build sources like d:Help:Sources. The only selection to do is to filter the data display in WP according to the fact that the data have some reference on WD. And by using lua you can directly create the reference display on WP using data from articles of books. For example look at this WD item for a scientific article or this one for a book. Using that information you can create references in WD (look at d:Q556 under atomic number property to see the use of another item as reference) and in WP. WD is neutral from sources point of view: some statements have sources some not. So the objective is not to know if WD can be source, the objective is to be able to extract the reference data from WD and to display them in WP. Snipre (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Stuartyeates: It's code, one modification of the biography template will benefit all biographies. It is not a rock solid argument, just a circonstantial one. Ask the usual template coders suspects to work on this. Actually I don't know about infobox code architecture here but if it is done well it will be little more than modifying the codebase commons to all templates. Apart from that it's no harder to check for a valid reliable source on enwiki than directly on Wikidata. TomT0m (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @TomT0m: My expectation is that none of the templates do the check described, because whenever I've checked wikidata doesn't have the sources to check against. As for 'it's code, it can be fixed' type arguments, they only hold weight before those templates get put in BLPs. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Stuartyeates: I don't know what to answer at that point. You just point on negative points and seem reluctant to change, not really cooperative. Are you opposed to Wikidata use at all or will you change your mind if those points are improved ? If it's the second option, you are at the wrong page to talk about this, go to templates enwiki projects. Wikidata has nethertheless a lot of efforts and is moving fast. It would be a shame to close that door. TomT0m (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm a little puzzled by this discussion. Wikidata is not intended to be a "reliable source" (a source defined as one from which we can source statements that are made in an article to reliably, because they are known for fact checking, etc.). It is a place where you can store those statements which need to be sourced (as well as those statement's reliable sources). In other words, I would never expect to see a URL containing the text "wikidata.org" inside a <ref>...</ref>. I would expect to see it as part of the visible text of an infobox for which a source is provided. --Izno (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I also don't really understand the gist of this discussion. Of course Wikidata isn't a reliable source. Who's claiming that it is? That doesn't mean that we should never use data from it though. Wikidata claims can have their own references to actual reliable sources. Templates that use Wikidata should either import such references or allow you to specify your own. Kaldari (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Agreeing with Kaldari above. Maximilianklein (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
      • At the moment most wikidata statements do not have quality references. In the future they will. Any wikipedian who is interested in WMF projects having better sources is welcome to come and help. By the same token most of Wikipedia (the less visited articles) does not yet have good sources and this includes most of the existing infoboxes and nearly all the category assignments. Wikidata may be worse at the moment but it is catching up. At some point in the future I hope that any wikipedian interested in references to support information in a (wikidata based) infobox will be able to add those references to wikidata by just clicking on the infobox. There is also an idea to use wikidata info to help fill out source templates on wikipedia - if the details of a book or scientific paper are entered once they don't have to be entered again - though you will have to enter the chapter, verse, page and quotation info specific to the new reference. Smarter people than I will, no doubt think of other ways we can use info from and contribute info to Wikidata. We are only just beginning and the information is already good enough to use for some things. It is probably good enough now to be used for infoboxes in the 200 smallest wikipedias. As the quality of the info improves it can be used for more things. There are probably thousands of wikidata items today (out of millions of wikidata items) which have references good enough to be reliably used for infoboxes on english wikipedia. Next year there will be more. filceolaire (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

My reading of the above that the consensus is:

  1. that wikidata is not in itself a reliable source
  2. that facts sourced via wikidata need to have a reliable source accessed via a <ref/>s (or equivalent)
  3. wikidata has minted identifiers for reliable sources (and continues to do so)

What worries me is;

  1. to meet it's cross-wiki goals, wikidata needs a consensus of what a reliable source is for each of the language wikis and I see no attempt to achieve that consensus. The consensus needs to be reached prior to the building of most of the infrastructure, or risk the already-built technology driving the definition of 'reliable source' rather than the wikis. I'm particularly worried that a primarily Western / European group of editors may end up forcing their conceptualisation of a reliable source onto, for example, primarily oral cultures and their wikipedias. I may be missing this it the discussion is in language(s) I don't speak. It may surprise some western editors that some encyclopedia such as Te Ara, the national encyclopedia of New Zealand, no longer meets the strict western definition of an encyclopedia due conscious decisions around what counts as a suitable source, and it's likely that mi.wiki will follow their lead.
  2. as pointed out above, a wikidata entry for the reliable source is not enough, what is needed is a fully fledged bibliography system, but I see no attempt to achieve that. en.wiki has the {{cite}} infrastructure with many variants and dozens of fields, I can't imagine that a wikidata version can be less-complex given that it has to generate similar references and deal with both internationalisation/localisation issues as well as varying definitions of reliable source.

To the editors who thought that this noticeboard was not the correct place to discuss this: this is absolutely the correct noticeboard to discuss the reliability (or otherwise) of a source used in hundreds of thousands of articles in this wiki. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources in China

Today I've noticed the deletion of Popup Chinese last year - as a foreigner living in China I know that this website hosts the highest-profile English language news discussion podcast in China. It was deleted as "some of the sources are either self-published or weak on reliability" and "the sources are not particularly notable. Some of the sources are not particularly independent either" "The sources given in the article are either self published blogs, or commercially attached to Popup Chinese thus lacking independence" and ". What's left is a collection of blog posts as references"

These are the English language news sources in China:

  • 1. State-run English-language media - of generally poor quality, cut-down versions of national propoganda.
  • 2. Overseas Chinese media - generally pushing an agenda, no more reliable than state sources
  • 3. English-language blogs - much more reliable, often well-produced, well-researched and much more professional, but not acceptable as sources because "blogs" and 'self-published"
  • 4. Mainstream western media - only interested in the larger stories or ones they have a particular angle on.

Does anyone else see the problem here? The rules that work well enough for media in the US do not work in other countries. I recall a very famous Romanian singer having her page deleted for similar reasons. "blog" and "self-published" are simple phrases which hide a huge amount of diffence, and relying on these to assess how reliable a source is simply does not work in some countries. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bienfuxia: Do remember the name of the Romanian singer by any chance?
Celia - https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celia - 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@Bienfuxia: Thank you! I haven't yet seen the deletion discussion, but I can imagine that Romanian newspapers should have articles about her. These articles should be online since she was born in 1984. If the deletion discussion never considered the articles and these articles are uncovered, a new article can be written about her using these sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Sure, but - do we have a Romanian-reading Wiki editor with an interest in pop culture who has access to newspaper databases and fully understands sourcing rules? The answer seems to be "no". 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
1. Remember biased sources are allowed as reliable sources. Please review Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources. This means that No. 2 are allowed, and No. 1 in many cases may also be allowed. (as long as they follow proper editorial procedures, biased sources are allowed)
2. If needed Wikipedians can do another sweep for sources on these topics. If reliable sources are found, a new article may be created without prior discussion unless sensitive BLP matters are involved.
WhisperToMe (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
My point here is that numbers 1 and 2 are sources which are actually unreliable IRL, but number 3 is reliable IRL. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Are they unreliable in terms of editorial control/fact checking, or is this stated simply on the basis of being biased/opinionated? People deem sources unreliable because of the former, not the latter. If you know of cases of the former, it may be good to bring up examples of poor fact checking in specific publications to get them marked as unreliable. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Mainly editorial control/fact checking, though breadth of coverage is also an issue. However, getting publications marked as 'unreliable' will only reduce the number of viable sources, which will make the problem worse if anything. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikileaks source?

Article: Yōichi Masuzoe

Source: "ASO ELECTED PM; CABINET PICKS AIMED AT SOLIDIFYING LEADERSHIP". US Department of State. Retrieved 25 December 2013. "His book on welfare issues, his political commentary, and frequent television appearances have given him wide name recognition. Masuzoe is married without children. His second wife, Satsuki Katayama, is a first-term member of the LDP Lower House representing Shizuoka seventh district. Masuzoe's hobbies include horseback riding, golf, and skiing; he has a black belt in judo. He speaks excellent English and French, having been a visiting fellow at the University of Paris and the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, and was an engaging interlocutor during the May 2008 G8 Labor and Employment Ministers' Meeting."

Source cited three times in article, once for apparently non-controversial list of his hobbies, but also for the statements Prior to entering politics, he became well known in Japan as a television commentator on political issues. and He is conversationally fluent in English and French.

I don't think the quotation provided is adequate for "conversationally fluent in French" (an obvious implication being that he cannot read or write French accurately, and no mention of English) when it actually says he "speaks excellent English and French". It also says he was known for his book on welfare issues, his political commentary, and his television appearances, which is not the same as "he became well known in Japan as a television commentator on political issues".

I would rewrite the problematic sentences based on what the source actually says, but I'm not sure about the source itself since I've never used Wikileaks and all the references to it I have heard in secondary media imply that the current source might be a self-published source.

Opinions?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The text is correct that he was a political commentator. And you are correct that the wording of the source doesn't exactly support that. So I'd say the answer is to find a better source. That should be easy as it's common knowledge. Likewise with the fluency in English and French. The hobbies might take more searching, but in general wikileaks is not a RS because it's a confidential cable with no vetting that we know of. Published sources are better. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Rape stats help

The Rape in India article has some questionable sources:

In the lead ref #5: Niti Central [1]

In the lead ref #7: Messy Matters [2]

Regarding ref #8, I feel quite confident that this is taken out of a larger context and would be best not included. Thoughts on that?

Thanks for the help - you guys are great and I appreciate the work you do. Gandydancer (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Ref #5 seems like RS as it has an editor. Ref #7 is a blog and not RS. The source in ref #8 is a reliable source and can be verified here. I agree though that it is mischaracterized on the article though. Those are official statistic and don't necessarily reflect actual rates of crime. That needs to be discussed on the article's talk page though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Neither NitiCentral, nor Messy matters are appropriate sources for the article. As mentioned above, the latter is a personal blog; and the former is an opinion column in a even otherwise borderline (and highly POV) source. Note the disclaimer at the bottom:

Opinions expressed in this article are the author's personal opinions. Information, facts or opinions shared by the Author do not reflect the views of Niti Central and Niti Central is not responsible or liable for the same. The Author is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.

The Deviant Behavior reference seems fine in itself, although it would be better to cite the United Nations survey of crime report itself (I assume it is available online somewhere), since the latter is likely to provide more details and context. (Also second the points made by EvergreeFir in that regard) Abecedare (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Good catch on that niti site caveat. Not rs. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The Raben Group - Are they able to use their website as main source

Help requested on this page which is currently advertising for a lobbying company - They are whitewashing facts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Raben_Group Richie1921 (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggest posting instead to WP:NPOVN or even WP:COIN. Also, as of right now the page is protected and can only be edited by administrators, which might help mitigate the problem you're seeing. TheBlueCanoe 02:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
we are working on it. new user is running all over the place instead of working slowly/calmly. we'll get there. Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Two items from GoFossilFree.org at Fossil fuel divestment

Whaddya'll think of these two items from GoFossilFree.org as RS? (I'm asking the RS question, not the NPOV question.)

  • EXAMPLE 1
"By September 2014, 837 institutions and individuals had committed to divest over $50 billion."
Sourced to "Rapid increase in institutions pulling money out of fossil fuels"
  • EXAMPLE 2
"==Economic risks of divestment from fossil fuels==
In 2013 the Aperio Group calculated using a multi-factor model that there is a 0.0002% theoretical return penalty in divesting from fossil fuel companies in the [[Russell 3000 Index]] stating: "the portfolio does become riskier, but by such a trivial amount that the impact is statistically irrelevant" (Patrick Geddes, Chief Investment Officer, Aperio Group)" That's the entire section under this heading, so far.
This is sourced to "Do the Investment Math: Building a Carbon-Free Portfolio", a paper from that Aperio Group that is posted at the GoFossilFree.Org website

Thanks for thoughts. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

GoFossilFree.org is an advocacy site, it's not a WP:RS. The Aperio Group document might be a WP:RS, but if it is, it's not apparent from this context. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, which I have stated before, the reliability of a paper depends on the reliability of the original author. It doesn't matter where a copy of the paper is hosted, unless there is reason to think that it's not a true copy. In this case, the best URL for the Aperio Group paper is the Aperio Group website. Unfortunately that paper has been updated and the current version doesn't contain the quoted statement. But the 2013 version of the paper did, and it was in the Wayback Machine. So I changed the URL from GoFossilFree.org to www.aperiogroup.com, via the Wayback Machine.
I did the same thing for the IEA report quoted in Rolling Stone. The Rolling Stone summary was accurate but it didn't cite the report so it couldn't be verified. So I located the report, found the page, and changed the URL to the IEA website instead of the Rolling Stone article.
As for the divestment totals report, that should also link to the original report, if possible. But the reliability of the report isn't affected because a copy is hosted at GoFossilFree.org. The copy is as reliable as the original was. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Stuartyeates says that GoFossilFree is not reliable because it is an advocacy site. I disagree with that position, because I think that advocacy publishes can be excellent sources for biased positions and information which should be included in Wikipedia. NPOV means including all positions, not judging sources for neutrality or bias.
That said, GoFossilFree is not a reliable source because it makes no claim for integrity in publishing. It has no editorial process, does not name authors, makes no attempt to tie the research it presents with any research publications, and otherwise seeks to be sensation and removed from other publication in its sector. It would be appropriate to cite advocacy organizations in that sector but this one is low quality due to its neither making a claim of expertise nor tying its publication to other expertise. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of whether GoFossilFree is an RS, the article did not cite GoFossilFree. It cited someone else. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Subsequent to my opening post, you made the wise bold edit to change Example 2's url from a paper hosted by GoFossilFree to the paper's original source, Asperio. Good idea, and that took care of Example 2. However, what about Example 1? That was and still is attributed to GoFossilFree, no? If you changed that too, please be more precise by using DIFFs. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
No, I hadn't done that, but I have now, so for these particular facts we can discuss the reliability of the original Arabella and Aperio papers instead of being distracted by the agenda of GoFossilFree, which cited the papers. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah-ha! I had not realized, until now, that Example 1 was from anyone other than GoFossilFree. Thanks for pointing that out. I agree the article should point to the original sources. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Tercer Sector magazine

Was wondering if this magazine would be a reliable source: http://issuu.com/tercersector/docs/pdf_final_rts_92— Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.189.141.42 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to tell since you can't physically see and look through the magazine, but it does look quite professional. However, a reliable source according to Wiki policy has three characteristics: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. As long as you can accurately identify all three of these things, then the magazine should be a reliable source. For more information, you can look to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources or WP: reliable. Cheers Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 03:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Mario Gregorio as a recognized authority on Nostradamus.

There appears to have been a series of long-running disputes on the Nostradamus page over the use of a page set up by someone called Mario Gregorio as a source; as far as I can tell, Mario Gregorio edited the article extensively early on, which may have contributed to the issue. The source being cited in particular is his webpage. WARNING: The page currently reports as infected with malware for me, although I gather it isn't for everyone. I won't hyperlink it for that reason, but the page is propheties.it; from what I saw of it when my antivirus allowed it to load before, it looked like a Tripod-style affair. An editor on the talk page insists that Mario Gregorio is a recognized authority on Nostradamus; as far as I can tell, he only has one publication on the topic to his name, which I think was published through a vanity press (although it's hard to be certain since it's all in Italian.) Anyway, since this dispute appears to have plagued that page for a while, could someone take a look (through some sort of sandbox, I guess, in case the source really is infected), look up Mario Gregorio, and weigh in themselves on his suitability as a source? I'll grant that the individual things on the page cited to this source do not, on the face of it, seem to be particularly controversial (mostly minor factual details on Nostradamus' life), but I still don't feel that his page is usable as a source, even assuming he cleans up the reports of malware infection. --Aquillion (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Certainly not a reliable authority on Nostradamus, and in fact qualifies as a fringe-source. Didn't find him referenced by any reliable source on the subject (ie article or book by an academic or published bya mainstream publisher) either on jstor, or on Google Books. Worldcat lists only one book by the author, which is held by only 1 library, and the title is: Nostradamus predise l'attentato di New York ! : Quale sarà il prossimo evento ? ("Nostradamus predicted the attack in New York! : What will be the next event?") Abecedare (talk) 06:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Socialism and Democracy

Is Socialism and Democracy reliable? It doesn't seem to be academic.Xx236 (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Xx236: Hard to say without any context. Could you look at the "Before posting..." section at the top of this page and give us the article, a link to the Socialism and Democracy source, and the exact statement that is being supported? – Margin1522 (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The specyfic article is apparently idiotic, so I don't think that discussing it would be useful. I'm interested in Socialism and Democracy in general, Google doesn't give much informations. The journal has impact factor 0.00 https://www.researchgate.net/journal/0885-4300_Socialism_and_Democracy.Xx236 (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Publisher: City University of New York. Research Group on Socialism and Democracy, Taylor & Francis (Routledge), wow! Xx236 (talk) 11:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not my particular area, but to me it looks like a specialised but reliable journal. CUNY is a serious university and Routledge is an academic publisher. The journal website is http://sdonline.org/ and the T&F/Routledge page is http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csad20#.VRlWxhCUcp8 --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I have been confused by the two pages, now I can see it's one journal. Xx236 (talk) 07:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

San Francisco Weekly

I had a question regarding San Francisco Weekly. Is this considered a reliable source when discussing birth names? Thank you. Marcos12 (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Depends on the coverage and the context you're using it for. Is it a birth notice? a death notice? news content? etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually it's neither. I wanted to use this article [3] as a reference in the entry for Violet Blue. Marcos12 (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
That seems reliable to me. Note that it doesn't give a birth name, only a partisan claim as to what a birth name might be, make sure you present it as such. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Marcos12 (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and made the edit. [4] Could someone please let me know if it is indeed acceptable? Marcos12 (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Well that certainly didn't last long. My edit was summarily removed and redacted. Not only that, but I was admonished by one of the Supervisors. San Francisco Weekly is an acceptable source, but not for BLP. Chastened, I will refrain from editing for the near future. Marcos12 (talk) 03:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The SF Weekly is likely to be a reliable source, but just because something is published in a reliable source doesn't mean we are required to include it. Inclusion or exclusion of given material is subject to editorial discussion, consensus and discretion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

San Francisco Weekly is a leading alternative newspaper, much like how the San Diego Reader is. So yes, it is reliable. Questions about WP:WEIGHT, which the above editor appears to be suggesting, is not for this noticeboard. If that is a question take it to the article's talk page where the source maybe used, or to WP:NPOV/N.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Side issue but I think we should avoid implying that any source is simply reliable or unreliable in any absolute way. Notability issues aside, nearly every published source could be useful for something. And no source would be reliable for every subject. Context is important always in these discussions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Article submission for Q-Collection Comic Book Preservation Project

Hello, I'm currently writing an article about the Q-Collection Comic Book Preservation Project and I've had some issues with the reliability of my sources so an editor advised me to come here.

Sources:

Article: Draft:Q-Collection

Statements: The Boston Globe link delivers the method that John Sindall is using "Over the last decade, Sindall has worked on developing a better preservation method. After some trial and error, he settled on a laminating process that uses five-millimeter, UV-resistant Mylar. He removes the individual pages from the bound comic books with a cutting machine made in Germany, and then laminates them with the Mylar. The laminate melts right into the fibers of the comic, sealing the pages, while also keeping them supple enough to be flipped, just like an untreated comic.

Michael Hill on his website Doctor Comics informs us about the contents of the binders "In addition to the comics the collection contains associated artifacts such as trading cards, bubble gum wrappers, photographs, ads, membership cards etc. These too, will be subject to the preservation process.

The Superman Home Page link gives some information about the contents "Each Information Page includes publication details, information on the series/particular issue/specific copy, below that info is extensive information on the series itself and below that is information on a primary character that appears in the comic book.

The French websites give various information about the genesis of the project, the comics in the collection and the contents of the binders but can I use them?

Finally, can one source be used in order to support different statements in the article?

CyrilG4 (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The Boston Globe blog you used indicates that it is not edited by the Globe staff. Thd at makes it a WP:Self-published source, which are often not reliable. (But may be in some cases.) Additionally, Doctor Comics is a self-published source. I'm not sure about the Superman Homepage, since it has editorial staff but I don't know what its process is for the kind of article you cited. (I can't comment on the French sources.) Of the ones you list, I think Doctor Comics is the most credible: the SPS policy notes that "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." This seems applicable to author Michael Hill.
As for whether one source can be used to support different statements, certainly. If a source is comprehensive enough, it could be used to support an entire article--in which case the article would be improved by adding more sources and alternate points of view, but there would be no problem with the inclusion of the content itself. Knight of Truth (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
The Brainiac disclaimer seems to be misleading; the column is a regular Boston Globe feature, and Kevin Hartnett is its regular author. [5][6][7] I would consider it fully reliable for your article. --GRuban (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Foreign Policy magazine

Primarily asking on behalf of another editor... Is a Foreign Policy article such as this reliable in making assessments of the media's role during 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, i.e., statements such as "Never in the history of Latin America had the media played quite so prominent a role in facilitating the overthrow of a democratically elected government"?  Mbinebri  talk ← 21:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a problem, providing you WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV - Cwobeel (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Foreign Policy, is a reliable source. Usage of the source is best left for discussion on the talk page of the intended article or WP:NPOV/N.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely, Foreign Policy is a highly reliable source for world politics. Simonm223 (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Just as User:Cwobeel says, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, FP has a POV, like pretty much all journals in this field, but it is a highly reliable source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Sales in Argentine

I found the sales for Spice Girls first CD in Argentine, the source is "Para Ti" Magazine, from "Televisa Editorial", i know it's an important magazine in that country.

https://www.google.cl/search?tbm=bks&q=spice+girls+140.000&gws_rd=ssl#tbm=bks&q=spice+girls+doble+platino

Is a reliable source? Coolcoolmen16 (talk) 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The link goes to a search results page. Do you have a link to the source?- MrX 10:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It's only a preview view. here! but a i think is still reliable. Coolcoolmen16 (talk) 3 April 2015 (UTC)

horrorsociety.com

Is horrorsociety.com a reliable source? http://www.horrorsociety.com/2014/02/05/born-on-this-day-in-horror-history-february-5/ is given as the source for Jamie Brewer's date of birth. I contacted the site and received a reply: "Im pretty sure the writer of that column gets most of the dates from IMDB." IMDb is WP:USERGENERATED. They have various other sections such as news, reviews and interviews that may or may not be reliable, but can we agree that this site is definitely not reliable for dates of birth? --Geniac (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's reliable. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree - it is a republication of trivia and does not promise any fact checking or editorial process. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd say that Horror Society is alright for film reviews, but for news stories that require fact-checking, I wouldn't really trust them. So, in this case, no. We should not use republished data from the IMDb. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Website for altitudes

An editor, User:79.116.73.16, has made numerous edits to articles on buildings (examples: Château de Culan diffs, Château de Jully diffs) adding the sentence "XXXXXXXX is situated at an elevation of YYY meters". This is always added, not always appropriately, at the end of the first paragraph. The source is always given as the website elevationmap.net and it clear that User:79.116.73.16 has used that site personally to find altitudes. (Original research?) The website works by asking visitors to enter a location; it then brings up a map and shows the location with lat/long and altitude. How reliable a source is this? My doubt arises because the edits that User:79.116.73.16 has made have been dubious to say the least:

1. On some occasions (s)he has simply got the wrong location (even the wrong country). (e.g. website location a place in Germany for a French castle)
2. The pinpoint has not been the actual building concerned. (e.g. Château de Jully road: not the building)
3. The pinpoint has been the roof of the building.
4. An altitude has been given for a village that the article says has altitude ranging over several hundred metres. (209m for Eguisheim which ranges 191–764 m)
5. Despite what the website says, a different altitude has been entered in the article. (e.g. 262 for 264)
6. Some figures directly contradict others in the text of the articles, often significantly.

Now, some of these edits may just be sloppy editing, but there are sufficient discrepancies to cause concern. I had reverted some edits with the note "Inaccurate use of website and/or not in agreement with what the site actually says". However, it appears that masses more such edits can be expected. Emeraude (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Just from the cuff, credible maps should be considered RS. Example, Fram Strait. Any of us can look at a map and see it is off the coast of Greenland. We should be able to say so with citation to the map, rather than citing someone else's statement after that someone else looked at the map. The only difference here is that the statements include altitude but that doesn't change the basic equation, because some maps document altitude, e.g., topographic maps. Assuming the website is otherwise credible, I don't see this as an RS problem. Whether the edits are well done article improvements made for the purpose of improving the project is another question. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I take your point, but my concern is that so many errors have been made that the website may be at fault (as well as the quality of the edits based on its use). I've been unable to find anything to suggest the site uses any reliable method of returning altitudes, or not. And, of course, it's not in itself a map that actually shows altitude. Emeraude (talk) 13:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
If the site has no reputation at all, much less a good one, then the following text from WP:Identifying reliable sources seems to apply - Beware of sources which sound reliable but don't have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. Absent evidence of credibility, I'd say err on the side of caution with "not RS". What do others say? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
UPDATE I now have greater confidence in my opinion "not RS". There is nothing to identify the owner/operator and the entire T&C reads "TERMS OF USE - Informations [sic] presented here are purely informative. We will not be held responsible for any direct or indirect damages." That's the entire T&C, typo and all, and as I mentioned, there's no owner/operator identified, nothing that says where they get their data, nothing about oversight or quality control. Definitely not RS, in my view. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Larry Derfner at '972 magazine. Can the magazine be used for opinions?

An IP removed text from the article Pallywood

The text was sourced to +972 Magazine, the grounds for removal was that the source did not contain the the matter attributed to it. False edit summary.

I restored it and added an additional source from the same writer.

Larry Derfner was a columnist and feature writer for the Jerusalem Post, an Israeli correspondant for the U.S. News and World Report. He has written for the Sunday Times of London, and other newspapers like The Nation, Salon Tablet, The Forward etc.

I was reverted by User:Plot Spoiler His edit summary reads.’ Not WP:RS. Blog..’

At RSN this magazine has been discussed here and here for example. Precedent suggests that it can be used, for opinions, not facts.

In my edit, a fact was not being stated, an opinion that the word ‘Pallywood’ is an ethnic slur, containing a conspiracy theory POV was being referenced, to Derfner.

This looks fair to me. Automatic exclusion on sight without contextual evaluation, is not good practice. Comments only from independent, I/P neutral wikipedians would be appreciatedNishidani (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not familiar with any of this (not the term, or the authors, or the sources), but just looking at it in a general way would it be acceptable to specifically attribute to the author by name rather than saying slightly more strongly that the name is commonly understood this way? I am asking this in a purely practical way, because ending a discussion like this with a compromise is sometimes a "quick fix".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Of course. My point was, that was the obvious solution for both editors. They chose simply to erase the text, the first on false grounds, the second on spurious grounds, when the easy way out is (a) drop a note on the talk page (b) suggest, after checking around, a compromise.Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Not reliable: The author of http://972mag.com/whats-an-ashkenazi-leftist-to-do/104706/ the source] is listed under the "Voices" section, which is a term usually used to identify op-eds. This is consistent with the tone of the source, which is very opinionated. The magazine description[8] also does not give me confidence. I think saying a source is reliable for the opinions of the source is a frequently used and poor rationale to support using non-RS'. Every source is reliable for the opinion of the author and if that argumentation were sufficient, any source could be used. But it is not. CorporateM (Talk) 19:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Extending User:CorporateM's point. Nishdani's desire was to insert the opinion of a non-notable writer from a blog. But the opinion in quesiton, that Pallywood is an "ethnic slur", is itself non notable. As far as I can find, Derferner wrote a blog post in November 2014 promoting his opinion, but the idea of calling Pallywood an "ethnic slur" has not been taken up by others. (google: Pallywood + "ethnic slur" and you get a teeny-tiny flurry of echos of Derfner the month the post ran. The +972 tweet garnered a piddling 8 retweets.) Bloggers float lots of neologisms, coinages, and ideas that do not go viral. This one appears to be limited to Derfner. Inserting it in the article just because some blogger wrote it is POV pushing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand it has a record for investigative journalism of a kind ignored by the major newspapers. One example.

Unlike the majority of Israeli newspapers, whose coverage of events in the West Bank is supplied largely by reporters based in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, a number of +972’s contributors are either frequent participants in joint Israeli-Palestinian demonstrations behind the Green Line or are close with the activists who coordinate such protests. In September, for example, a clash broke out between residents and demonstrators outside the settlement of Anatot, not far from Jerusalem. Ynet, the website of Israel’s leading newspaper, Yediot Aharonot, reported that three people were lightly injured after settlers and leftists hurled rocks at each other. Shortly thereafter, Mairav Zonszein, a +972 contributor with deep ties to grassroots civil-rights organizations, provided a far more detailed account, revealing that the number of injured was 23 and that the violence was far from a two-way street: Eyewitness accounts, photographs, and videos all supplied evidence that laid the responsibility for the violence squarely with the settlers. The rest of the Israeli media soon followed suit, correcting the story.

In your reading, such material, unless reported by Ynet or Haaretz etc., can't be mentioned (though the English editions of those newspapers often leave out much of what the Israeli Hebrew press writes, material mentioned by +972..
I don't use these sources frequently, but they do document, with photos, videos and direct field reportage, things that never appear in the mainstream press, and the writers are professional Israeli journalists.
The article uses many sources that are far inferior, not touched by the revert-warrior because they coincide, I guess, with his POV. I.e.SecondDraft, Mackenzie Institute,Michelle Malkin's blog, Melanie Phillips's blog, UPJF, Canada Free Press etc. The point is, why are we to agonize over a journalist of Derfner's range of professional experience and argue he is not quotable because he writes also for +972 magazine, which has far better investigative credentials and professionalism.Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Something to consider, which underscores the highly partisan if not fringe nature of Larry Derfner -- he was fired from his position at The Jerusalem Post in 2011 "after he penned a controversial blog post justifying terrorist attacks against Israelis"[9]. That's why he's at a highly partisan outfit like +972 Mag, which is quite open about its activist role. One has to wonder why Nishidani wouldn't mention this quite relevant information. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I note that you8 trawl the I/P area to remove anything that fails WP:RS in a strict reading, if it is identifiable not centre-right. Thus you automatically remove +972, Counterpunch, Mondoweiss. In those edits you never touch the kind of poorly sourced trash articles from sites like the above. That is why your judgement is flawed. It is unilateral POV removal, leaving the page intact of equally questionable sources for the other POV you probably approve of.Nishidani (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
But coming back to how to handle such a case on Wikipedia, if this writer is controversial we can still quote his sources with attribution? At first sight it seems to be a simple point about a word meaning anyway.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Plot Spoiler, no one is fired from office in Israel for calling on the mass killing of Palestinians to liberate the country from "terror" (don't ask me for quotes: I have a list of scores of prominent people justifying indiscriminate killing of children, mothers, etc., by such people, from rabbis to academics and politicians. Anyone can get that off the net). That Derfner's judgement was seriously wrong (though read the whole context) on this is obvious, as it is obvious that the whole substance of the Pallywood thesis, repeatedly asserted by authoritative Israeli figures, is absurd. In the ridiculous article here, suggesting that any filmed incident of arbitrary killing of Palestinians by the IDF is almost invariably "staged", a form of theatre developed by terrorists to manipulate public opinion, many Israeli politicians insist on this, in the face of repeated demonstrations to the contrary, and Derfner, on this, is detailed, analytical, moderate and reliable. See

@E.M.Gregory: - does this mean that Derfner should be treated with caution depending on the content? I, for one, am utterly underwhelmed by any reasoning that he is unreliable because he was fired from a mainstream Israeli journal for presenting opposing views. On the contrary, I believe that this enhances his NPOV value. I conclude this also because writing for a "partisan website" is by no means an exclusive criterion for Wiki. In fact, departing from the mainstream view (or employment) provides a possible foil to swamping by mainstream media commercial interests and political persuations, as per WP:BIASED - "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Seems a perfect fit and foil to me. In addition, I presume that, by your critique of Defner, you do not propose to paint the entire +972 website with the same brush. I find +972 to be a valuable website because it gives me access to (translated) Hebrew articles which I might not otherwise identify, let alone be able to read, and the fact that their writers are touted for "getting their hands dirty" and not writing from 5th-floor offices.

Some editors who have responded on this page have made a reputation for themselves by making deletions based on simple one-liners such as "Not WP:RS". They target the websites mentioned above - Counterpunch, Mondoweiss and +972. All of these have been shown to have value in reaching NPOV combinations of contrasting views. In fact, such "one-liners" transparently expose the editors own glaring non-neutral POV. Yet we see the same stale one-liners time and again. Nishidani (talk · contribs) has eloquently explained the Wiki process of contrasting opposing POVs time and again, and not obliterating those that an editor does no want to see, but seemingly to little effect. If Drefner contributes positively to such a process, then by Wiki definition, it is valuable. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Can I have some input from other editors whose 'votes' and 'judgements' are not reflections of a predictable POV one way or another?Nishidani (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Addressing the facts of Derfner's career. He worked for US News & World Report, then he worked for Jerusalem Post. After the firing, he did not return to work for a "regular" paper (although Israel has both local and international media representing ever shade of the political spectrum) Instead he publishes on an avowedly activist, one-subject, thinly funded website. And even there, he doesn't file regularly, as paid journalists (columnists and beat reporters alike) do. Moreover, kis stories are often not "reported" pieces, but reflective and opinion pieces in which he quarrels [10] with fellow posters of + 972. [11] He looks to be a chap who used to be a working journalist, and is now reduced to expressing himself on an underfunded, partisan website.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
So he is a partisan journalist? That is not so unusual, and does not normally mean we can not use them on Wikipedia?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
He certainly was a journalist. Since losing his job, he appears neither to have gotten another journalism job nor to be selling stories to publications who have an editorial process in which works goes through editing and fact-checking (at major publications). He writes as a political activist with other political activist writers on +972, a group blog that neither edits nor pays its writers. I suppose we might put it in a category with, for example The Volokh Conspiracy and am persuaded, in fact, that +772 should, like Volokh, be categorized as in Category:Political blogs political blogs, and removed form categories: Magazines established in 2010, Online magazines, and Israeli news websites since it does not appear to meet standards (editing, pay) that magazines do. Group political blogs can be very influential, Volokh and +972 certainly are. But they are not journalism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

As an opinion piece it can be used to verify the opinions of the author, but not as statements of fact. If used WP:WEIGHT and WP:ATTRIBUTE should be considered, but that is not the purpose of this noticeboard.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Agree with User:RightCowLeftCoast, obviously bloggers can be quoted for their own opinions. Just pointing out that [The Nation] here [[12] makes it very clear that while +972 dubs itself magazine, it is , in fact a group blog - editors check articles only for typos and legal liability, there is neither editorial assignment of articles, nor is there editorial oversight for tone, contents or accuracy, no fact-checkers, simply post-at-will by a union of bloggers, which now includes Derfner.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
My point about him being a partisan journalist (and such a person will always tend to write for partisan media) is that we have ways of handling such sources on Wikipedia. Most commonly, we simply use attribution, so as to avoid talking with Wikipedia's voice when we report such opinions. For better or worse, Wikipedia allows articles about controversial current affairs topics, where partisan opinions often are cited, and so given that fact we do at least need to make sure we do not filter out only one type of partisan and not their opponents.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC).
Certainly, but we are dealing here with Derfner, a non-notable writer, making a defamatory and original assertion on a blog: (that Pallywood (a portmanteau coined some years ago to describe/allege Palestinian fabrication of visuals for the press) is an "ethnic slur". This, to my knowledge is a new thought. That is, calling a news film clip "Pallywood" is certainly intended as pointed criticism of Palestinian PR activity. But that is not the same as "ethnic slur". If this usage gets widely discussed, it will be better to cite articles from RS that discuss the idea that "Pallywood" is an "ethnic slur". By allowing it to be cited, even as Derfner's opinion, Wikipedia allows itself to be used as a megaphone by a non-notable blogger. I assume that the reason that Wikipedia had strict limitations on the citing of blogs is that without these rules we open Wikipedia up to use by partisan activists. All that an activist would have to do is start a blog. Write stuff on it. And add that stuff to Wikipedia citing the blog.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
In the case of +972 Magazine, a group of primarily non-notable, partisan bloggers put together a group blog and cleverly named it a Magazine. Wikipedia editors, presumably acting in good faith and believing that it is a magazine, have been citing it on fact. But it is a blog, publishing facts on the sole authority of individual partisan activists. Like any blogger, these activists may indeed have the facts straight. Or they may not. But it remains a blog and should not be cited on Wikipedia to establish facts.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Just trying to understand the positions here, are you saying that the word is a slur, but not an ethnic slur? If the debate is only about whether an ethnic group is being singled out for slurring at least we can home in on that. (But the Pally stands for Palestinian I suppose.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I see the term Pallywood as political criticism, part of the Israeli-Arab contest for hearts and minds. The term is used to criticize a real or alleged tactic used (or allegedly used) by Palestinian activists. I cannot find that anyone except Derfner calls it an "ethnic slur" (I googled it). Surely there is a distinction between criticism of a Palestinian tactic and ethnic slur.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that, even without waiting for this thread to close or a clear consensus to develop, E.M.Gregory is going through articles, systematically removing citations to +972 Mag. This is tendentious and disruptive behaviour, from which s/he should desist unless and until it is agreed or ruled that the magazine is not a reliable source and should not be cited. RolandR (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly. I typed +972 into the function to search previous RS boards, and found previous discussions in which +972 is characterized as a blog and not a reliable source for facts. My understanding is that that is the purpose of this board. If a source is unreliable, the information sourced to it ought to be removed, or sourced eleewhere, or tagged as in in need of proper sourcing. Unless such policies are followed, Wikipedia incentivizes activists to create "magazines".E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
972 may have been characterised by some in these discussions as a blog; it was also characterised by others as a reliable source. There has certainly been no consensus or ruling about this, and you are simply cherry-picking the comments with which you agree. Please point, if you can, to any decision regarding 972 as a source. And if you cannot, please cease your disruptive removal of all citations to this source. RolandR (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

'I relied on Archive 171 (section +972 Magazine - interview with former Israeli attorney general Michael Ben-Yair)E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

  • More to the point, articles The Nation, Tablet Magazine and the About page of +772 itself are unanimous in describing +972 Magazine as a group blog, with editorial review extending only to typos and legal liability, not to anything else. It is a bloggers cooperative, not a Online magazine as defined by Wikipedia. Blogs are not treated as WP:RS.?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I object to the accusation that I engaged in disruptive behavior. Notice that at Bil'in I left the (plausible) text intact and merely replaced the unreliable source with a "fact" tag. Althogh not familiar with this issue until recently, when I discovered the "search" feature for this noticeboard, I read the previous discussions and understood them to have reached consensus. This was in tune with a consensus with which I was already familiar that blogs are not cited as reliable sources. A look at my edits will show that I first assumed that +972 was a partisan magazine, i.e. a partisan but edited and reliable source. But as I continued to look into +972, I began to edit the misleading Wikipedia page as it then existed (misleading because it seemed to be about a magazine), I edited it according to the two actual magazines that I was able to discover that have discussed +972 in any depth, The Nation, and Tablet Magazine. Having discovered that it is merely a blog, I admit to feeling mildly duped by these bloggers who style themselves "magazine". Putting out a real magazine is hard work. I did indeed seek, then tag or remove material from several articles sourced to +972. All of this may not have been done perfectly, but I assure you that it was all done in good faith.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The article that I can find on The Tablet does not describe +972 as a blog, but as a magazine; indeed, the very subtitle of the article is "The leftist Israeli magazine +972 wants to sound the alarm on a Jewish state it believes is destroying itself".[13] RolandR (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The Tablet article reads: "All the magazine’s bloggers have complete freedom to write whenever and whatever they want. The magazine has a top editor, but the bloggers can fire him or her if they please. And whoever comes on board does so gratis."[14]. The Nation goes into greater detail. Also the +972 "About" section. no one gets paid. no one gets edited. Editor has no control over content (beyond checking for typos and "discussing" possible legal liability issues with writer/bloggers. A blog, not a magazine for purposes of WP:RS. User:RolandR, I'm only guessing here, but is it possible that you assumed that it is a magazine, because it calles itself: magazine? I know I was. If so, you had reason to overract. And have reason to be ticked. I know that I was ticked to discover that something that calls itself "magazine" is, in fact, a blog.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
What E.M. Gregory is doing is automatically removing +972 citations without even looking at the source (which often has in-article links that allow one to independently authenticate the information given). He is not removbing blogs. He leaves in pro-Israeli blogs (all this is shown on the relevant talk pages). In other words, he is campaigning against a source he thinks gives a 'pro-Palestinian' slant, not defending a principle (WP:RS), and is indifferent to WP:NPOV.
Can we now stop transforming this into a personal war, and desist so that independent non I/P obsessed editors may review the gist, and tell us if +972 magazine may be used (please check the journalists' curriculums, which show notable work on mainstream newspapers in Israel) and if Derfner can be cited attributively via that source (His astute remarks on the media hype over a putative murder when a work accident occurred helped to delete an article conjured out of nothing other than hysteria Murder of Netanel Arami. perhaps that is why he is disliked.Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the hierarchical structure of +972 to be irrelevant here, or rather the model that should be thought of is that of the Kibbutz. This a uniquely Israeli model, (and one of its enduring triumphs, but that's my POV). Its structures, economic concepts are uniquely Israeli, and +972 seems to echo that tradition. Therefore I would not simplistically argue it is a mere blog based on its economic or hierarchical values. There are many Kibbutzim that produce world class software and other products. Should we dismiss their products just because the mode of production does not match more traditional models? Of course not. I would venture to suggest this is a Kibbutz-like model producing investigative journalism, by it's own lights. I think it's product is valid. And I am a Zionist, if that is relevant at all, so just giving my core POV. Irondome (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
who'da thunk of that? An original insight, indeed. I don't think anyone argues sources like +972 magazine are, however, intrinsically RS. They are borderline and need to be evaluated case by case. The argument is about being flexible when, as often you have a rigorous RS exclusion principle clashing with WP:NPOV, which in this area means that, often, to cover what the mainstream ignores, one looks at the work of investigative journalists, and the best are Israelis, because their collective-run websites do provide us goyim with broader and deeper materials on occasion about what readers of the Hebrew press read. One should evaluate inclusion article by article. I don't trouble to read through 90% of what I see listed on Mondoweiss, +972 or Counterpunch, and I think wiki shouldn't include them a priori either. It's the trenchant 10% baby I dislike seeing thrown out with the barfwater, on fundamentalist aut/in RS (ratshit)logic. I noted yesterday that a man of great distinction, now dropped in a kind word about the contributors to +972 magazine, as representative of a younger Zionist world of opinion. See Chibli Mallat's Philosophy of Nonviolence: Revolution, Constitutionalism, and Justice Beyond the Middle East, Oxford University Press, 2015, p.97 Nishidani (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
+972 is not WP:NEWSBLOG because its bloggers are not subject to "full editorial control". Nor does it fall under the category of WP:USERGENERATED that makes an exception of "established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications" these are non-notable bloggers, political activists, and activist writers. Even Derfner, who set this off, is not blue-linked and appears to have no credentials beyond the fact that he was once a working journalist. I am writing this in response to a parallel discussion on talk page of Bil'in, in an effort to centralize this discussion and settle this recurring (see previous discussions on this board) issue.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Um, that isnt what WP:RS says. It says Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. What needs to be examined is whether or not the writer of the piece is sufficiently reliable for the statement. Now when +972 publishes a PhD student it can be discounted. But Derfner? Cmon now. Yes, he wrote something that the Jerusalem Post did not like. But I see no evidence that something he writes and that +972 publishes is de facto unreliable. Whether or not somebody is blue-linked isnt a factor in this discussion. Derfner has written for the Jerusalem Post, Forward Magazine, US News and World Report and the Sunday Times. Working on this specific topic. It may just be me, but that seems to be an established expert whose work has been published by third-party reliable publications. nableezy - 22:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
He's an established activist, partisan pundit -- not expert. Big difference. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Just so.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
But this is not a reason to not use a source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Back to the question of using +972 Magazine as a source. It is being widely cited for facts in WP articles and I am under attack for removing it from some of those articles. Can we agree that it is blog, and should be treated like other blogs, i.e., as not a newspaper, (as it is now used in multiple articles)?E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Established activist? He's been published, as both a reporter and columnist, by several highly reputable sources. And no, E.M.Gregory, it is not simply a question of =972 magazine, a sources reliability depends on more than if it is just a blog. In this specific example, the source is Derfner published by +972. Derfner's qualifications meet the requirements of WP:RS for what he is cited for. Context matters, or at leas it is supposed to. nableezy - 03:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTINHERITED the fact that Derfner once worked for edited, mainstream publications does not confer status on him now. His present status is as a non-notable blogger. I say non-notable because we are not talking about Robert Fisk. A blog does not confer authority on articles it publishes the way a newspaper can. Ergo Derfner is not a RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
What I keep seeing is that the reason for not wanting to use this source is that he is an activist, not mainstream. But Wikipedia frequently cites activists, so we can put that aside. Secondly, if there are concerns about notability and weight that is not for this noticeboard. Thirdly, what would be relevant on this noticeboard, if there are concerns about the quality of the sources, then I think it is quite justifiable for editors to see this as problematic IF (as it seems) the proposal tends to bias towards removing activists from only one side in a public debate. That legitimate concern does not seem to be addressed above at all, as if it can be ignored?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Andrew Lancaster this has been an interminable discussion, just want to make certain that you and other editors are aware that this +972 is a group blog, not an online magazine.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
No one seems to be denying it is a website, and not the highest standard of publication. To repeat what people seem to be concerned about: if we are using many such "lesser" publications of a similar quality, and then an editor deletes reference to only those which are on one side of a public controversy, that would be a problem. That is how I am reading it, and I do not see you responding to that aspect.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Is Derfner an expert? I think not, others think yes, USA Today recently described him as a "left wing political analyst"[15]. Where I have a problem is with the question of how to source him when he posts on +972. Writing something like: "Larry Derfner said..." and sourcing it to something called +972 Magazine is likely to give the reader the impression that +972 is a magazine. It certainly gave me that impression. If an opinion from someone like Derfner is deemed significant enough to add to a page, we don't want to mislead the reader into assuming that +972 is a magazine when it is a group blog. Here's my proposal:E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Proposal If something Derfner or another blogger writes on +972 is cited for the writer's opinions, the citation should read: "In a post on the group blog +972 Magazine, Larry Derfner wrote..."

You keep hammering away at this word blog as though that makes it verboten to use as a source. WP:RS explicitly rejects that. Next, WP:NOTINHERITED is about notability, not reliability, and I cant even begin to understand what inherited reliability would mean. On notability, though this not the forum for it, notability is a policy about the existence of articles, not the content therein. nableezy - 14:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Where, precisely, do you see this WP:USERGENERATED blog as a WP:RS? Notability is certainly not inherited from the fact that one of the bloggers previously worked for a newspaper.Even WP:NEWSBLOGs are to be used only "with caution", but +972 is not a newsblog because it is not operated by a "newspapers, magazines, and other news organization." Nor it this a case of a notable expert running a blog. Where do you see WP:RS endorsing blogs as RS?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Im fairly certain Ive quoted it several times, and again notability has nothing to do with this. But here, again, the quote from WP:RS: Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Get it this time? Because you keep confusing several things, notability has nothing to do with expertise, Derfner is a reliable source on the basis of his having been published by several reliable third-party publications. nableezy - 19:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I would have thought the notability concern in Wikipedia applied also to content within articles? Due weight and all that. But anyway, yes attribution, and making sure we report a range of views (better than none at all) would seem a normal compromise on an issue like this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. It does seem like a way to close this discussion on a note of compromise.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I dont think so, my reading of WP:N is that it determines whether a topic should have its own article. Within an article NPOV (which WEIGHT is under) and RS with WP:V are the operative guidelines/policies. Regarding weight, whether or not a person is notable doesnt really have anything to do with it, its how much weight reliable sources give a view that should determine how much that view is given in an article. So, for example, Pamela Geller, obviously notable, doesnt get the same weight as some random scholar writing in the magazine Foreign Affairs. nableezy - 16:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Given this statement, Nableezy, I am puzzled to understand why you are working so hard to put Derfner's view that Pallywood is an ethnic slur. I could see it if the term got some coverage in reliable sources, it would be appropriate to link to the article where Derfner coined the idea. However, his 2014 article on this idea got virtually zero traction, not even on twitter. Putting it into the Pallywood article would be pretty heavy POV pushing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Wait, what? My point is that Derfner is himself a reliable source, the rest of your comment doesnt make any sense to me. nableezy - 19:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I confused Nableezy with Nishdani, sorry... But I simply don't see what makes Derfner notable. The region teems with writers, and when I look Derfner up, I don't find profiles, just a small dust up about his being fired. No one hired him when he was fired. Not The Guardian, not Haaretz, not that great-journalist-hiring-maching Al Jazeera, not even one of the region's many NGOs (the PR branches of which regularly hire out-of-work journalists) If he's so notable, why doesn't he have a job? Or regular freelance gigs? To me, he looks like an activist writer who used to be a working journalist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
He still kept writing for liberal Zionist papers (The Nation, The Forward etc.) after he was fired, itself controversial, from the Jerusalem Post. Being fired (Norman Finkelstein) is sometimes a badge of honour in this area. If of course you are a plagiarizing hack with outrageous opinions, and mainstream newspaper cut all connections with you, as with Giulio Meotti, you get rehired immediately. Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Derfner wrote exactly 1 article for The Nation. in 2012. [16] His is simply not a notable journalistic career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Contrafactual. Put Larry Derfner+The Nation into google books and you get 3,790 sources, the first 20 I checked are almost all academic books citing his journalism for numerous news outlets. Were Derfner 'not notable', why do so many scholarly works cite his articles?Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
This is deeply ironic. Derfner's detailed articles on the Muhammad al-Durrah incident incident over the years persuaded me, against my initial opinion, that there were good reasons to doubt that Israel was definitely responsible. The death of Durrah gave rise to the word 'Pallywood' which is flung at every video that captures Palestinians being gunned down by the IDF. It struck me from the beginning as injurious to normal human sentiments, to dismiss a possible case of manslaughter or homicide so frequently as some staged piece of propaganda by "Pallies". It implies the bereaved are fakers: family, kith and kin and communities are all in on a piece of Leni Riefenstahl cheap hype. Derfner who spent years on this case defending the IDF, after a decade woke up one day, and twigged that the term had monstrous connotations (noted by many readers like myself, I expect). He wrote his impression down, that it was an "ethnic slur". If you key in exactly that, Derfner's opinion won't catch you evidence of resonance. If (which is what competent researchers do) you know your topic, you will recall that people like J. Kutzik share, with different words, Derfner's slowly dawning impression. I.e.

'Cohen’s claim that the footage was part of a “Pallywood” conspiracy due to Nawarah’s having caught himself is profoundly disturbing to me, not in the ignorance it evinces about how people should appear after being shot but in its continuation of the idea that Palestinians are inherently liars.'(Jordan Kutzik, What Nazi Shootings Tell Me About West Bank Killings The Forward May 23, 2014)

The case you mention shows, on examination, Derfner is not a predictable journalist, can defend a Zionist perspective, and takes pains by sedulous examination of and reflection on sources, to contradict the drift of opinion or prejudice in his own 'camp'. Everyday I read mainstream journalists who lack these qualities, all of whom are RS because they write for the 'mainstream' press.Nishidani (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
This discussion about the relevance or otherwise of Derfner should not be allowed to obscure the fact that E.M. Gregory has been systematically removing citations to +972 from many articles. We should not conduct a debate about content on this page, but only about whether +972 is automatically precluded, as E.M.Gregory seems to be arguing, or whether it is in principle permissible, in which case the precise use in any article should be conducted on that article's talk page, not here. RolandR (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
+972 is a blog. Blogs are not WP:RS reliable sources. Therefore facts cannot be sourced to +972.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Again, that is not what WP:RS says. It specifically allows for the use of blogs or other self-published sources where the writer is an established expert in the field. I for the life of me cannot understand why you keep saying something while linking to something that directly refutes your argument. nableezy - 19:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Surely that guideline refers to bloggers like John D. Hawks, or group blogs like Cosmic Variance, not to a group of non-notable, self-avowed political activists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Activists can be experts in the field, and Derfner qualifies based on on his being published in this field by several third-party reliable sources. And again, notability has absolutely nothing to do with reliability. Not. One. Thing. nableezy - 05:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Have you noted that you are insisting on a rule fundamentalism, while breaking a rule, i.e., not to act preemptively while a discussion is underway, as you did in the four instances where I had to revert you?
  • reverted because E.M Gregory replaced a +972 source with a citation needed tag. The ‘fact’ was immediately verifiable in any number of other sources. It took me 5 second to corroborate the veracity of the report.
  • Reverted because E.M. Gregory removes +972 when the article in question provides the Hebrew text forming the basis for what the journalist, a former chief night editor of Haaretz, wrote. The same information was reported in the Jerusalem Post, which any editor could have confirmed.
  • reverted because E. M. Gregory took out +972 when the technical remarks in that magazine are consonant with what other sources, readily available, state.
  • Reverted because Gregory did not read the source. Derfner includes in his piece a direct link to Danny Ayalon’s Facebook page, where Ayalon says exactly what Derfner write he said.
It is pretty clear from this that you do not actually read the sources. You saw the magazine name and just wiped either the source, or the content from the source, without regard to the fact that, in each case, the contended reliability could be independently confirmed by either googling, or by reading the sources cited inside the articles. That is POV-pushing, using RS as a pretext.Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I am indeed upholding a rule. The rule is that blogs are not WP:RS for facts, for quote, for interviews. The reason I am sticking to my guns here is that I see WP users citing +972 Magazine as though it was an Online magazine when it is, in fact, a blog. When called on this errant practice, editors who share +972's ideology aggressively and doggedly attack, and attack and attack. It is wearying. I suspect that that is the point. Looking at previous RS noticeboard discussions of +972, one finds that editors making the obvious and valid argument that this blog is not a WP:RS, eventually tire of repeating themselves. And in the next debate, on one page or another where +972 has been used as though it was a RS, partisan editors attack the editor who attempts to take it down, arguing that previous RS noticeboard discussions of whether +972 is a reliable source were inconclusive. (see Talk:Bil'in). It is time to end the strategy of endless arguing that has kept this unreliable blog in use as though it was a reliable source by agreeing that a group blog put out by non-notable writers is not a WP:RS, even if it is called +972 Magazine.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Nowhere in WP:RS does it give such a rule. Nowhere. You can keep repeating it, but it isnt true, and try as you might repeating it will not make it true. nableezy - 05:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
E.M.Gregory. You ignored the point. You are not 'upholding' a rule. You are insisting on an inflexibly austere reading of a rule - arguing uncollegially that there is no doubt on your reading of it, while breaking another. (2) You are, following Plot Spoiler's example, mechanically searching wiki for all pages where this 'virus' can be detected and, without looking at the content, simply erasing its presence, and you do so without reading the page to see if other blogs are present or not. Thus you removed +972 magazine from a page on which there was another blog, an IDF blog (with a dead link).The Israeli army blog was untouched, while the critical 'blog' was deleted, meaning your principle is not hostility to blogs on principle, but antipathy to blogs whose quality of information you dislike. So your practice has nothing to do with WP:RS. It has everything to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT and POV pushing via unilateral deletion of sources regarding one POV. Plot Spoiler excels in this, and you have joined him.Nishidani (talk) 07:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the examples of the approach to editing which Nishidani describes E.M. Gregory, it does seem questionable. Deleting all mention of sources without looking at them for example can make it difficult to find better sources, and that should be an aim we all share. There are templates which request a better source for example. For this reason deleting all mention of a source would not be something we do for a source which is just a bit weak or partisan. (From what I understand of this case, this source often contains information which can be easily sourced from better known publications.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
The rational compromise suggested here is as follows.
  • Programmatic elision of borderline sources, without looking at the content, checking articles, and seeing case by case what is at stake, is not best practice.
  • As Andrew says, we have a tag template that can be used to call for a better source, more consonant with a stricter reading of WP:RS, and option that should be exercised to draw editors' attention to the issue.
  • The talk page should be used. Mechanical drive-by excisions are acceptable with IP vandalism, etc., but not appropriate where the line-call is evidently not simple.
  • Editors should apply policy neutrally. If their WP:RS reading suggests a blog should be removed, WP:NPOV demands that an editor, applying this practice, should glance at all the sourcing, and tag all 'blogs' on the same page as requiring better sourcing. The usual answer to requests they do so is Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, as did User:Plot Spoiler in this revert of my revert, disowning the argument, without reading the policy link ('In Wikipedia discussions, editors point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular type of content, article or policy. These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid.'). That is not an argument. If anything, removing at sight one 'blog' (web magazine) while not troubling to apply the same principle across the same page smacks of programmatic POV-pushing aimed at damaging one side, while ignoring the other's equally tenuous documentation. WP:NPOV obliges us, to the contrary, to be consistent, and to subscribe to a neutral application of the rules, which is not the case here.Nishidani (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It is not correct to site a blog on facts with a simple link that makes it look as though a reliable source was being cited. REmermber, this blog styles itself"magazine" and editors have been citing it frequently on fact. In an unusual case where an editor feels justified in citing a fact or quotatio to a blog, it should also be cited to the reliable source (in whatever language) and wording added (translation provided by the blog +972 Magazine) so that readers know the source. I return to my proposal:
  • Proposal If something Derfner or another blogger writes on +972 is cited for the writer's opinions, the citation should read: "In a post on the group blog +972 Magazine, Larry Derfner wrote..."
It depends. In this example jhe was wrongly reverted, for the simple reason that the article linked to Danny Ayalon's webpage. It is obvious that if a secondary source like this provides the reader, via links, with the evidence he is paraphrasing, the source and Derfner's reliability is independently verifiable. In such cases, attribution is stupid.Nishidani (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
'Larry Derfner, writing for +972 magazine, wrote..'
But you have raised a far larger principle here, and that ought to be addressed, not just Derfner. Mairav Zonszein writes for +972, her voice is considered notable the New York Times op ed columns. Like many others, she is described as a 'blogger', but that does not mean we are dealing with an airhead on a personal blog site trotting out personal opinions for the curriculum suggests competence and peer respect. A large number of sources Salon (magazine) Tablet (magazine)), Fox News are frequently cited here, and no one objects. Several other notable news outlets The Algemeiner, The Forward etc. are frequently cited for their web-based blogs, not from their printed copies. Look at numerous articles (Binjamin Netanyahu) and you will find an unquestioned use as a source for facts Arutz Sheva, a settler organ whose record is disreputable. Checking, indeed, we cite without angst from many web-articles, that are not printed. The same goes for Fox News. This is a serious problem because increasingly the web is replacing print, mainstream newspapers increasingly load information or articles on websites that are not included in print versions, a transition not adequately covered in our guidelines. The objection being raised is exclusively on a website magazine identified with journalists critical of Israel, as is the case with Mondoweiss, and with one writer on that website. The fact is, extreme standards are demanded of material sympathetic to, or covering, the Palestinian side, whereas no such strict requirement is demanded on sources regarding Israel.Nishidani (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I draw the line where Wikipedia draws the line, with the distinction between online magazine, (edited) and blog (not edited). Arguing notability for a non-academic blog open to utterly non notable people, and on which some journalists also post, seems a steep task to me. As I have said repeatedly, to me, Derfner looks like a guy who was a working journalist, but has not had regular employment for some while now, was never notable (most working journalists are not notable) and is not notable now. You are free to argue otherwise, But I doubt that many editors beyond the tight circle circle of Wikipedia's Palestinian activists will want to open the door for blogs of this aggressively partisan, politically fringe sort to be considered notable on such grounds.11:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC).
'I draw the line where Wikipedia draws the line.' Untrue. I showed that you don't remove pro-Israeli blogs from the pages where you elided this blog. You don't draw lines, you redraw the map of bias by a selective implementation of policy against one POV.Nishidani (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Don't be silly. 'Palestinian activists'? All that simple caricature works out as it that you are an 'Israeli activist', like several others. Next some Brazilian will be at me for being a Barasana activist, a mainland Chinese will call me a Tibetan activist or some Byzantine avatar an Khazar activist. There is an obligation on I/P editors to cover both sides, not only injuries to Israelis, and the 'clique' you mention works on Palestinian issues because very few of the other side's editors touch them except to write in details of terrorism. I've only seen you editing Palestinian articles to highlight one incident of a soldier being killed by a rock, and another page on rock-throwing.
As you your restatement of policy. Yes, you've said that a 100 times, and I fail to see the point of repeating yourself when many experienced editors are telling you the guidelines must be interpreted, and that your interpretation as exclusive, is not the last word.Nishidani (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Jay Is Games/jayisgames.com

There's a few indie horror games I'm considering writing an article for, but before I get started I wanted to know if Jay Is Games can be considered a usable (not a fantastic one, but usable) source for anything indie VG-related. I can't look directly at the site right now because of work firewalls blocking it, but as far as I can tell it might be kind of a Newgrounds-style site where games are hosted and reviews are strictly user-based and have no editorial process... but one detail I'm not certain of is the possibility that they actually have "legit" reviews written by a more official sort of news team or in-house reviewer base, and that they might hold some water wrt small indie games that don't have much larger press coverage aside from skillions of screeching Let's Players on Youtube.

So-- could JIG be considered in any way reliable in this specific context (coverage of small indie horror titles)? BlusterBlasterkablooie! 14:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It's been discussed a few times—summary of first three discussions and fourth discussion—by WPVG with the result that JIG is considered a situational source at WP:VG/RS: casual game reviews by Jay Bibby are reliable, everything else is unreliable. As you said, most reviewers are anonymous users, there doesn't appear to be any editorial control, and they can write about virtually anything so those articles are generally disregarded in VG-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, thanks-- I didn't know there was a specific VG/RS board to bring up RS questions, and I would have checked the archives. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 15:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
@Woodroar: Why aren't the reviews by Dora Breckinridge considered reliable? She's the official Chief Editor of the site and manages most of its content and what reviews by other writers get posted. She also runs the official Twitter account. SilverserenC 20:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Those discussions happened in 2011 and the earliest contribution I can see from her is 2012, so I think she must have been hired or joined later. Her articles are also non-anonymous, which makes me wonder if there are other more-or-less qualified writers to consider as well. I don't know much about the site or Dora Breckinridge myself, just that there were previous discussions to point to. If you (or anyone) feels that she or others should be added to the list, a post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources would be helpful so we can get WP:VG/S updated as well. Woodroar (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I think all the official people that work for Jay Is Games have photos attached to their articles. That's as far as I can tell at least. I'll go start a VG/S discussion on it. SilverserenC 23:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Center for Security Policy

I was wondering if I could provide information from this article in a neutral manner on the Venezuela Information Office (VIO) article from the Center for Security Policy. There may be some biased wording but I just want to focus on how to neutrally provide information. Such information may include how the VIO may have encouraged readers to join or start Bolivarian Circles and helped provide trips to Venezuela.--ZiaLater (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The WP:RS question is whether the CSP known to provide false information. This the first thing to be checked. As for biased wording, it is ubiquitous in political discourse. IMO you can safely provide factual information by replacing non-neutral words with neutral ones. On the other hand, if you want to add an opinion from CSP into our article, it must be exact, so it may be advisable use direct quotes on non-neutral text "as is" and the attribution; otherwise some other wikipedian will unknowingly apply WP:NPOV and thus distort the opinion. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what is the line between providing false information and merely using biased wording, re: a sentence like "Hugo Chavez has managed to transform an emerging democracy and promising regional ally of the United States into an authoritarian state that is enemy to the Free World"? The CSP is obviously a notable source, but the piece in question seems very "attack piece"-ish.  Mbinebri  talk ← 19:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, for starters, you have to judge what is fact and what is opinion. Second, you can never rely on a single source in such murky matters. IMO this sentence is clearly an opinion piece, the only reliable parts are "regional ally" and "authoritarian". But they may be easily cited from more neutral sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
CSP and Frank Gaffney, Jr. may be cited with care and attribution for their own opinions (mainly, if other reliable sources have cited them in that context), but should not be treated as reliable sources for factual information. See SPCL's write-up on Gaffney and CSP reputation over the last 10+ years. Abecedare (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. I wasn't seeking to add more opinion to the article since there is already conflicts over the "Reception" section. I'll change any non-neutral wording to a more neutral setting. If I attribute it saying things such as "According to CSP, the VIO encouraged...", would that be ok?--ZiaLater (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

academia.edu

A wikipedian I am in dispute with stated "we have accepted plenty of other papers published at academia.edu". Please help me to judge whether an artcle published at academia.edu may be considered a reliable source based solely on the fact of publication there. AFAIU, anybody can publish anything there without restrictions. And while we are at this, can someone express an extra opinion of our disagreement in the Talk:FTC_v._Balls_of_Kryptonite#Adam_Assahli. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. The fact that someone uploaded the paper to academia.edu has no bearing. We need to figure out whether the paper itself is a suitable source. Has it been otherwise published in a book or a journal? Is the author a recognised figure in his/her field?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Lots of people re-post articles that have been published elsewhere. Some post work in progress. Others post short original papers or essays. I suggest that we treat these like blog posts. Notability depends on the reputation of the scholar who wrote posted them.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily blog posts, but self-published sources in general. Agree: it depends on the paper individually. Personally I've uploaded my own peer-reviewed journal articles (reliable enough) and talks presented at conferences (probably not worth citing). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree with the opinions above: the reliability of an article posted on academia.edu should be judged based on if and where it has been originally published, with the academic.edu copy serving merely as a convenience link.
As for the particular article being discussed. It was penned by a recent law school graduate as part of his school-work, and does not appear to be published (or even submitted) to any law journal; nor is it a formal thesis that would at least be internally reviewed and approved by a thesis committee. The author does to have any other peer-reviewed publication either. Given all that, it is not usable as a source on wikipedia, although we are of course free to consult it to find references that may be usable. Abecedare (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Academia.edu doesn't actually "publish" anything, at least not in the sense that "publishing" means active participation such as editorial control. So the fact that a paper has been made available through academia.edu means nothing. Another reason not to use academia.edu is there have been concerns about copyright infringement for material distributed there. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the comment that Academia.edu does not "publish" anything but only gives access, at best, to articles published elsewhere. So a reference should give the original publication data to read something like "The Transmogrification of Academic Drivel Into Scholarship," Journal of Academic Drivel 13.1 (2001), available at Academia.edu (link) (Access date).
Copyright is clearly a problem, but many, if not most, publishers allow an author to post proofs of their own work, which I have done, but this cannot be taken for granted.ch (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

cinechicken.com

I'd like to get some input about whether or not cinechicken.com could be considered a reliable source. I encountered this site at Lingaa in these edits which was supporting the statement "Lingaa got mixed to positive reviews" among other data. The site appears to be a RottenTomatoes.com copycat, acting as a motion picture review aggregator for the Bollywood film industry.

Their aggregation methodology isn't quite clear. There is a vague explanation of it here. Per their description, the above assertion "mixed to positive" wouldn't be accurate, the determination for this film falls in "white chicken" or "average" range. The site appears to have opened in 2012.

One thing that is very important to note, is that the Bollywood film industry is very cutthroat and there is corruption abundant, with deliberate inaccuracies in box office data (inflated to make film A look better, and deflated to make film B look worse), paid POV editing and promotional sockpuppetry at Wikipedia, questionable reviewers, questionable sites, etc. The Times of India once discontinued their box office column because of the corruption. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Also encountered at Dolly Ki Doli in this edit, since reverted. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The review sites which are in the aggregations appear to include some very good quality sources. See: The Times of India, NDTV, Hindustan Times & Bollywood Hungama. Links to the aggregated reviews are also included, providing verifiability. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
True, they are providing a good service as they link to the actual reviews. Some are high quality and some not so much, but I have at least heard of most of the links. Seems if the link does not provide a star rating, then this site does not provide a number, just a chicken color. Silly, but it's not that bad really. BollyJeff | talk 12:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
This website has been added to a fair number of films over the past couple of days by the same editor, PallaviSave. They are always adding it to the beginning of the Reception section, giving it prominence over any other aggregate site. The editing is poor as they don't work it into the section, just slammed it in the beginning. The style looks like they are either affiliated with the site or being paid to add the links. On the site itself, a brief explanation is available for their methodology. The chicken colors offer only 3 levels and when "Excellent", their top rating, starts at 61%, I've got issues. Per their information, that means any film that averages 3.5 stars would be rated as excellent. To me, that's just puffery. If there weren't other decent aggregator sites available I would consider this site but there are much, much better options available. EDIT: I've left a note for the editor adding these links pointing to this discussion. Ravensfire (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, 61% is considered a positive review by both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Speaking of Metacritic, they call any film that reaches 81% "universal acclaim", which is absolute nonsense. So, it's not exactly unheard of for an aggregator to use over-the-top, promotional language. I agree that this should be discouraged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@Bollyjeff:, @Ryk72: The links they are providing are decent links. The question I have is more about their methodology. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic use a some sort of proprietary calculation to evaluate certain reviews and assign a score. I don't think this is as clear cut as "five stars = 100%, 2 stars = 40%", but it might be if you trust this blogger. Using the page for Badlapur as an example, they appear to tally all the percentages (not the blank "—" values) then divide by the number of scores (again, excluding blank values) I did notice that some some reviews don't use either a star or numerical rating system. This article doesn't have a star rating (the stars at the top are for rating the article itself) yet the film is given a 60% rating. There's also a major issue with the site: When I've tried to search for a movie, the site diverts me to Facebook and tries to get me to let it access my Facebook account, rather than producing a page with information on it. That is problematic. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, it is pretty weak, @Ravensfire:, what are the much better options for Bollywood films? Between rotten and meta there are zero reviews for Badlapur. BollyJeff | talk 15:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Crap. That makes this a bit harder then, doesn't it? Metacritic and RT are probably the gold standard, but they're very US-centric. If this is the best option available, then it's worth considering, especially if the reviews it uses are more India based. I know PallaviSave created a draft article for CineChicken that was rejected (and rightly so!). If we've got other aggregator options available for a movie, I think those probably should be considered first given some of the issues Cyphoidbomb noted above. If this is used, I think just the rating percent should be used in the article. Ravensfire (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
There used to be Review Gang, but they are said to be "on a break" and are referring to Wogma. Let's see if they look any better than cinechicken. BollyJeff | talk 18:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's interesting recent input, If I were to start an Indian review aggregator website like Rotten Tomatoes, in what areas primarily would I have to make investments?, from Stephen Wang, a co-founder of Rotten Tomatoes, and Rubail Birwadker, co-founder of a new (Sep 2014) site that claims to be a quality Bollywood aggregator, Sahi Nahi. (FYI, I have no expertise in Bollywood or film in general other than as a fairly avid Hollywood consumer; I am interested in how sources get vetted on Wikipedia!) --Tsavage (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be an very close copy of RT. It determines up or down votes based on reviews, and then shows a percentage of ups. Like Tsavage, I am no expert on determining the reliability, but I am here to learn. BollyJeff | talk 16:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Clicking around the Sahi Nahi chart and looking at a Times of India list of latest releases, it seems they're still current, although their last blog post is dated Dec 2014. If they seem usable, should we send an email of support, "Keep on doing what you do, Wikipedia needs an RS Bollywood aggregator!" or is that something we...don't do? :) --Tsavage (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

No site for the Bollywood film industry has yet established itself as having a reputation for aggregating an appropriate range of meaningful reviews and formulating an appropriate weighting mechanism of those reviews to be used in the manner of Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes. certainly not cinechicken. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

What name for the round ball?

  1. Source: The Real Reason We Call It 'Soccer' Is All England's Fault
  2. Article: Football (word) - National usage - Australia
  3. Exact wording: Australia-wide, soccer is commonly used to describe association football

I have highlighted the inadequacy of this source in discussion, but some have it in their hearts.

  • The source is the Australian version of an online business magazine: Business Insider. From our article: Business Insider is an American business and technology news website. How is a business news website a good source for sports?
  • The article is from the Australian site, and has been modified for Australia by adding "and Australia" whenever America is mentioned. The URL contains the article's original title, "Why Americans call it soccer", and the article mentions football codes "crossing the Atlantic", which is not a reliable way to reach Australia. The original article is here and the minimal modifications are easily seen. How is this American article relevant to Australia?
  • It doesn't purport to be any sort of overview of Australian (or American, for that matter) football sports; its thrust is explaining how "association football" came to be shortened to "soccer".
  • Why is this American business article being used at all? Why are there no better sources? The answer is that there are none. Soccer ceased to be the preferred name for the game in Australia in 2004 when Soccer Australia changed to Football Federation Australia. National news outlets such as The Australian newspaper and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation use Football as their name, alongside other football codes such as NRL and AFL. Finding a good current source that says the common usage in Australia is "soccer" is not possible, because it is untrue and has been for several years.

Is "Business Insider" - in this instance - a reliable source for Australian sports nomenclature? --Pete (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This is somewhat disingenuous, Pete has been involved in a long running content dispute with a number of other editors on the opposing side to change the word used to describe soccer in Australia. What he does not say above is that his latest attempt was backed up by using a blog as a source. Please do not buy into this here, he is trying to game the system. - Nick Thorne talk 22:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Forgive me, I'm out of date, but is the Australian National team still called "the Socceroos"? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 23:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Nick, but no. I'm looking for comment on this specific source, as advised on the discussion page. If you have something to contribute about it, rather than me, that would be helpful. Cheers. --Peter

Neuromuscular scientist's blog as an RS on religious practices - Reiki as pseudoscience

Reiki is a form of popular religious practice founded by a Buddhist monk. A blog post by neuromuscular scientist Steven Novella, a member of the skeptical movement, has described it as a "pseudoscience". He posted this on his blog, which is called sciencebasedmedicine.org. A number of editors on the Reiki page have decided that Novella's blog post means that reiki is "now considered to be a form of pseudoscience". Is this a correct use of sources? Shii (tock) 13:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No. We need a good academic source to back up such a claim, not a self-published blog. -A1candidate 13:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Steven Novella is a published expert[17] on neurophysiology, so he can be cited for his opinions related to neurophysiology. That can include the opinion that Reiki is pseudoscience. However, the opinion should be directly attributed to him, not given in the passive voice as the opinion of unspecified people. Rhoark (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
That's sensible. I personally think this claim belongs further down in the article, where spurious medical claims related to reiki are discussed. I don't think it belongs in the lede, especially when reiki was not intended to be scientific in its original form. Shii (tock) 15:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is a "spiritual practice". However, it is widely used as alternative medicine. A few sources to consider:

  • Trends in Molecular Medicine says reiki is "pseudoscientific" and "faith healing". Research on reiki and similar "merely lend them legitimacy and take money away from more deserving projects" because in clinical trials reiki has "already been proved to have no benefits whatsoever".[18]
  • The National Council Against Health Fraud says, "There is no evidence that clinical Reiki's effects are due to anything other than suggestion, or that they are superior to massage or any other healing ritual. Reiki's metaphysical beliefs may be in conflict with an individual patient's religious beliefs. Full disclosure of the belief system should precede its use in any setting. An investigation of proponent literature casts serious doubt as to whether Reiki practitioners can be trusted with such full disclosure. Reiki literature presents misinformation as fact, and instructs practitioners on how to skirt the law in order to protect themselves from regulation and accountability."[19]
  • Edzard Ernst says reiki "defies scientific measurement and is biologically implausible. These circumstances render Reiki one of the least plausible therapies in the tool kit of alternative medicine."[20]
  • David Gorski says reiki is "highly implausible...pseudoscience", "dubious" and "quackery". Reiki is "as close to impossible from basic science considerations alone as you can imagine."[21]

As for "reiki was not intended to be scientific in its original form", organic farming (in its original form) was pretty much a religious practice. The common usage of "organic farming", however, has nothing to do with those beginnings (or, of course, the original meaning of "organic"). Reiki, whatever its original form, is now most widely known as "a healing technique".[22] - SummerPhD (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

As I understand the application of WP:FRINGE, the source should be fine. As with most discussions of this nature, editors bring up the subjects of original intent and history, but to use such arguments to censor information related to Reiki's scientific basis violates far too many of our core policies and goals. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You've now cited two different articles by Novella -- a blog post and a journal article. You've also twice cited David Gorski, an oncologist who is simply outspoken on the subject of pseudoscience and an advocate in this regard. You should quit relying on these POV citations, and focus on Edzard Ernst, an actual expert in alternative medicine, and the National Council Against Health Fraud. I would agree with mentioning "pseudoscience" somewhere in the lede if proper citations are provided and not blog posts. Shii (tock) 18:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The blog post is in the article and the subject of your complaint. A peer-reviewed journal article is a suitable alternative. I cite Gorski separately from the journal article as he was speaking independently. I see Lübeck in the article (among others) cited from more than one source (sources we have dates but not titles for). Yes, Gorski is a medical doctor; is that a problem? Lübeck, untainted by a medical degree, apparently gets his reliability from angels and living close to a "famous power spot".[23] Scientific studies of his various spiritual powers are available at his site. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, in my annoyance I overlooked the fact that the journal article does seem to be peer-reviewed and agreeable. Shii (tock) 19:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The blog is a poor source. Not only are blogs rarely peer-reviewed, WP:SELFPUB says we should not use self-published sources about third-parties. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter. Since reiki is obviously utter bollocks (mystic energy can flow through the hands and can be used for medical purposes ... riiiiiiight) any old source will do for the lightweight claim it's pseudoscience. Only more exceptional claims would require more exceptional sourcing. The "spinning plate" image from WP:RS illustrates the principle nicely:
Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim.
Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
No, just because something is wrong, doesn't make it pseudoscience. And no, we don't just get to ignore our rules about reliable sources just because we feel like it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The image and caption are from WP:RS – these are our guidelines: read and learn. We are a reality-based project and these commonplace facts can have commonplace sourcing, or stronger if you wish (no harm in that). WP:Lunatic charlatans don't get passage in Wikipedia articles. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
You are barking up the wrong tree. No one on this noticeboard would ever go to a Reiki practitioner. The question is not whether it makes sense, it's whether the label "pseudoscience" applies. I do not regularly pray, but that doesn't mean I think prayer is "pseudoscience". For claims like this a RS is needed and not just "any old source". Shii (tock) 19:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I think we're off on sidetrack here. We have a peer reviewed journal (among others) directly call reiki a pseudoscience. Whether or not a weaker source would suffice is immaterial to this discussion. Given that the OP agrees this is an acceptable source and no one else seems to be saying the label is inappropriate, I think we're done here. Objections? (Incidentally, I don't think reiki is "wrong". The proper term is "not even wrong".) - SummerPhD (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
We have a peer reviewed journal (among others) directly call reiki a pseudoscience.
I have access to the full text of that journal, and it doesn't appear to say that. Perhaps you may wish to quote the relevant section that I missed. -A1candidate 20:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
This article [24] quotes them as calling it pseudoscience. This [25] says it's widely considered pseudoscience. Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology characterises it as pseudoscience. This [26] also includes it along with homeopathy as an example of pseudoscience, quoting Gorski and thus establishing that Gorski is not just some random blogger but considered an expert in the field of pseudoscience. Are we done here yet? Guy (Help!) 23:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. I do not have my full access at the moment and I don't see a free text of it. I may have pulled the quotes from a press release or article about the article. Though i don't recall seeing this article (and don't typically use the Daily Mail for anything), it does seem to have everything I attributed to the journal article. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The lede currently says, "Used as a medical treatment, reiki confers no benefit:[9] the American Cancer Society,[10] Cancer Research UK,[11] and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine[12] have found no clinical or scientific evidence supporting claims that Reiki is effective in the treatment of any illness." I think that covers it. Most/all of the skeptic sources raised here are valid for the relevant article section, but putting the pseudoscience label in the first sentence is WP:HOWEVER. These are matters of weight, though. RS questions have been answered. Rhoark (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
a clarification in the lead sentence that the pseudoscience attribution is related to the medical / health/ energy claims. again, the lead sentence clarifies what it is notable for and that is the pseudoscientific energy claims.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Shii, Gorski and Novella are both medically qualified, Gorski is a published research scientist, so is Ernst, and all three are prominent and widely recognised authorities on fraudulent alternative health practices. Wikipedia is not an "integrative encyclopaedia", freely mixing fact and nonsense. Reiki is an alternative medicine therapy, and it is promoted with the same kind of pseudoscientific gobbledegook as homeopathy, therapeutic touch and numerous other refuted therapies. To frame it as a religious practice in order to obscure this, is a violation of WP:NPOV, because that is not how it is sold by its practitioners. Also, Gorski and Novella's opinion is not self-published, it's in a peer-reviewed journal: [27] and we even have a source establishing its significance: [28]. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • To my eyes, the source might be minimally acceptable for the information it provides. However, I can and did find a few better ones rather easily on Google searching for the words pseudoscience and reiki. There is a good question whether the word should be included in the lead. That, I acknowledge, I am less sure of, and to an extent question, along the lines of Shii above. That would probably better be handled at the NPOVN. I guess the questions for that board would be whether the benefits claimed by reiki are of what might be called a "scientific" nature and whether it might be being effectively misused as a science, maybe like a theoretical case of a defrocked priest offering exorcisms for psychological benefits. John Carter (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • reliable Novella and Gorski are each widely recognized experts on quackery and pseudoscience. Per SPS :"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" - Quackwatch is a reliable source on these matters. Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC) (added 'reliable" at front Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC))
  • Not a reliable source: I don't believe a self-published blog from a neuroscienctist should be used in the Lead to define the subject. My understanding of expert sources is that merely being an academic and publishing works is not enough. Their work itself has to be the subject of significant discussion in other sources. Its actual application is much narrower than how it tends to be used to rationalize poor sources. However @SummerPhD: has already provided plenty of much better sources to replace it with and there's no reason to use weaker sources. CorporateM (Talk) 03:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
We don't need the blog in the lede, we have the peer-reviewed article by the same author. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
CorporateM pardon me, but did you read my post right above yours? Novella and Gorski are both well-known in the field of skepticism - they are experts in pseudoscience. please check out their WP articles and of course the sources cited there. POV-pushers of alt-med quackery hate HATE HATE when Novella/Gorski are cited and constantly try to make the argument their expertise is limited to neurology/neurosci for Novella and cancer for Gorski; its just distortion. thx. Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Nobody hates them. They are respecatable scientists who are free to publish any of their arguments in a review article which we could then cite, or they could post it on their blogs and be ignored. -A1candidate 15:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog, this is really unnecessary personalization and battleground mentality. I urge you to trim the snide comments about other editors and focus on the content issue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
i didn't say that anybody hates Novella or Gorski. i said that PoVPoAMQs hate when they are cited. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. Totally unnecessary, totally inappropriate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Unreliable. I'm no expert in WP:MEDRS matters, but my understanding is that WP:UGC's expert exception doesn't apply to medical claims (which are specifically addressed by a different section of WP:RS). Per WP:MEDRS, the broad and unqualified claim that reiki is pseudoscience should probably require a literature review. I also I think the rule that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources applies here. Despite the very reasonable skepticism over its efficacy, reiki is quite widespread and is offered by many hospitals. WaPo: "Reiki is now viewed by many as an effective, accepted alternative practice in mainstream America, where at least 1.2 million adults have tried the energy healing therapy." (source: [29]) The suggestions in this discussion such as "no one on this noticeboard would ever go to a reiki practitioner" are made in sheet ignorance. And derogatory comments (such as those dismissing reiki as "obviously utter bollocks") should be made more sensitively. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    Nonsense. MEDRS only applies to medical claims. FRINGE applies in this case. --Ronz (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    WP:MEDRS gives "specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article, including alternative medicine." -A1candidate 22:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense back at ya. :-) This is a medical claim, is it not? I agree that FRINGE trumps MEDRS, but to get into FRINGE-land there has to be a consensus in the medical community that reiki is pseudoscience. I'm pretty confident there's no such consensus. This falls pretty squarely in the "questionable science" bucket. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
As DrFleischman says, since reiki is not a medical procedure, but a delusional quack treatment, WP:FRINGE is the correct reference, not WP:MEDRS. You won't get reliable medical sources expending much effort on something that has no remotely plausible mechanism of action and no credible evidence base. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
MEDRS would be necessary to say that Reiki is not pseudoscience. A MEDRS is not needed to say that magical claims are pseudoscience. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Ian.thomson, the expert in the magic and medicine, has dubbed reiki magic, not medicine. I guess that settles it. Not to mention that this has nothing to do with the reliability of the source in question. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I haven't put words in your mouth, so it's not only dishonest but rude to do the same for me. I don't need to be an expert in medicine, I just have to see that there are no MEDRSs that describe Reiki as medicine, but there are sources describing it as the usual Vitalist Energy medicine magical pseudoscience. If we need a MEDRS to say that something has no medical value, we would need a MEDRS to describe Russian roulette as potentially lethal. The "MEDRS needed to say pseudoscience" argument demonstrates at best a major misunderstanding of NPOV, if not outright tendentious editing (not you, but I'm getting ready to name other names). Ian.thomson (talk) 06:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
If you can't find a reliable medical review article to back up a dubious claim about a treatment that is an "accepted alternative practice" for more than a million people (according to DrFleischman's source in the Washington Post), then it simply means that the claim is false and you should not use a self-published blog to support it. -A1candidate 13:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Huh? What claim is false and why? If I understand you correctly, you believe that because a treatment is widely used, that somehow means that it is not quackery? --Ronz (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I think what A1 is saying is that you need particularly reliable sourcing for the claim that a widely used treatment is quackery. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
On the note of needing a literature review, WP:PARITY applies here. For fringe topics, they typically don't get coverage in mainstream literature because they typically just get ignored. If we want to specifically use the term "scientific consensus", that usually requires literature reviews, but there are other variations to demonstrate an idea is fringe, quackery, psuedoscience, etc. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
This makes no sense at all. WP:PARITY has no bearing on the reliability of any particular source. It only comes into play when comparing two conflicting and otherwise reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
??? "In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal." Novella and Gorski are the most reliable sources out there for FRINGE stuff. That sentence is what validates their use in these contexts. Jytdog (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
So true. I had missed that, and my apology to Kingofaces43. Regardless, I still fail to understanding the basis for how we're in fringe theory-land as opposed questionable theory-land. I see an awful lot of "duh it's so obvious" comments, which makes me wonder if much of the skepticism I see here is little more than blind faith. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Are there MEDRSs describing Reiki as scientifically valid medicine? Ian.thomson (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
First, does Reiki at all make a claim to be medicine? To the best of my knowledge, they only talk about healing which is definitely not the same as "treating", as any cultural anthropologist will explain. They are not the only ones to "heal" - for example, clinical psychology also talks about healing. Yet, medical practitiones are usually not authoritative with respect to psychology, so I don't understand why they should be considered authority on healing or other "para" type things? Moreover, among doctors, you will find ones who support "alternative therapies" and those who oppose them, and both these categories do publish in peer-reviewed journals. Why should we take a medical doctor as an authority on Reiki, that fails my understanding. IMHO, it is sufficient to mention that medicine did not find any clinical evidence that Reiki could help in any medical condition (except perhaps for a well-recognised placebo effect which should always be kept in mind when writing about alternative trerapies). kashmiri TALK 17:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
^@Kashmiri:: Exactly. This same issue comes up on the other post on this noticeboard, where someone says that Reiki is "medicine". It has nothing to do with Western Medicine. David Tornheim (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm no expert in this area, but my understanding is that some people claim reiki to be an effective medical treatment while others see it more as a spiritual practice. There is certainly a debate out there about whether it's an effective medical treatment, and to that extent the question of whether it should be labeled a pseudoscience is an important one. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
there is no legitimate debate about it, as an effective treatment for anything. there are "lunatic charlatans" who claim it is effective for treating diseases or conditions, and the scientific communtity, which says "Baloney". that's not a debate. with regard to its use for pleasure or spiritual development, science has nothing to say and "pseudoscience" doesn't apply. if our article talks only about pleasure and spiritual uses, all the talk of pseudoscience could and should come out. (this is where our articles self-destruct. if people who like these techniques would limit themselves to just describing uses in traditional medicine, or uses for pleasure or spiritual growth, and not keep trying to say that they actually contribute to health or treat disease - in other words, if they would stay clear of making claims about health that are testable with the scientific method - then things could be lovely.) Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@DrFleischman: I see it this way: Some people swear by treating cancer with carrot juice. There is no clinical evidence, for whatever reasons. But should we then go to carrot article and quickly label eating carrots as pseudoscience? I am no expert, either, but I see a lot of people using Reiki simply as a relaxation technique (which is absolutely valid in light of contemporary psychology). Moreover, medical scientists tend to be cautious in formulating their conclusions (see here: doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2008.01729.x) and I see no reason why us Wikipedia editors should not follow this example. I've seen that a few editors here feel that Wikipedia should bring enlightenment to the dark masses, not noticing that science has evolved since 1960s and the former black-white categorisation of medical theories and treatments is now giving way to postmodernist approaches. kashmiri TALK 23:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree. In that way the article as currently written is not neutral. But that goes way beyond this particular discussion, which is about the reliability of a particular source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
hell no. mainstream science is not post-modernist. there are critical theory people who like to talk about that kind of handwavy junk, and alt-med POV-pushers love to try to relativize science, but that is not mainstream, realworld, science. 15:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, "realworld" science! Makes me laugh. Only last month I witnessed two acclaimed medical researchers arguing whether muscle tissue is affected in a particular medical condition or not. I guess your view is that one of them must have been a pseudo-scientist, no? Because only one can be true in your view, no? Try to understand that science, especially medical science, is not about truths cast in stone but about constant research, constant quest, and there is nothing relativist about it. Pity that neophytes memorise scientific discoveries but forget to display the same humility to the current state of knowledge as actual scientists. kashmiri TALK 18:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

oh blech. scientists in the life sciences are absolutely crawling around in the dark trying to figure stuff out. nobody sane would ever deny that. but going so far as to deploy that, and the real scientific debates that arise, to justify some po-mo radical relativism, is either ignorance or willful bullshitting (speech intended to persuade with regard for truth)... or most likely, a combination of them. the scientific method is all based on a realist model - there are actual facts out there, that we can discover. it is not just a wash of discourses embedded in power structures. phooey Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

  • unreliable -- self-published blog, by self-proclaimed "expert" from "fringe" movement Scientific skepticism* is no better than a self-published blog from self-proclaimed "expert" in Reiki. (* "fringe"--based on the definition I see applied on this notice board to very popular things like Reiki.) David Tornheim (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
WP:PARITY applies - Reiki is a WP:FRINGE claim; it "departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field." The particular fields are science and medicine. Reiki claims to tap invisible, undetectable, unlimited energy and apply it is some unknown way to treat any and all ailments, without regard to time and space. These claims, if true, would allow a reiki practitioner today to "treat" Abraham Lincoln's gunshot wound in the 19th century. This is a significant departure from testable (a.k.a. "scientific") claims. How "popular" the woo is has no bearing on the question. Please review Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Identifying_fringe_theories. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
This may be a bit of a straw man argument. Some people claim reiki has these sorts of magical powers, some don't. Some people say reiki is a spiritual practice, some people say it's just comforting, and some people say it may have some limited medical benefit. What I'm saying is you have to look at the specific claim. To say reiki is categorically fringe is going too far. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
^Exactly.David Tornheim (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, there are two basic questions involved here. One, is reiki pseudoscientific. So far as I can tell, yes, it is both somewhat inherently pseudoscientific, as its claims are more or less for physical improvement of some sort. The second question is harder. To what extent are all traditional Chinese medicine practices pretty much the same thing, including other possible "variants" on what might broadly be called qigong-type practices, and to what extent WEIGHT would be involved in how prominently to display the word pseudoscience in every article related to qi related therapies and/or TCM, both of which are themselves, so far as I can tell, counted as being fairly universally pseudoscientific. I have a feeling that question would probably better be handled at NPOVN for questions of WEIGHT and/or maybe an RfC specifically related to reiki or one about the amount of prominence or weight to give the word "pseudoscience" or some variation thereon in these specific articles relative to other roughly synonymous terms like TCM. John Carter (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • this has gone way off topic and become forum-y. to the extent that advocates for reiki make claims that it improves health by manipulating qi, those claims are pseudoscience. the source is valid for content about that. with regard to other uses of reiki (spiritual, relaxation, etc), those are not making claims about the physical world and science/pseudoscience is not relevant, and the source is not useful. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Reliable, per users SummerPhD, Jytdog and others. 2.27.78.13 (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Reliable as an expert source, so long as the statements are directly attributed to the author. I agree that it doesn't need to go in the lede though, there are plenty of other higher quality sources pointing out reiki as pseudoscience that can be used in the lede instead. As for those people in this discussion trying to claim reiki isn't pseudoscience, I see them as nothing more than fringe POV pushers that really should not be allowed to edit this topic area. SilverserenC 00:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Publishers at reiki

In the process of cleaning out numerous self-published books at reiki, I have found several publishers that I cannot find anything about. Several of them are used by authors whose other works I had removed as self-published. They are being used to explain details of a fringe practice, the history of the practice, etc. As some of the claims are quite extraordinary, I don't want to have claims attributed to all reiki believers if the claims are actually limited to "some" believers.

Any information/opinions on the RS status of Lotus Press, New Leaf Distribution Company, Headway and Ulysses Press would be appreciated. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that Reiki is "Fringe"? According to this site there are 1 Million Practitioners. I have seen it in many cities. It is offered in universities and there are numerous organizations including international organizations, which list practitioners in every state in the U.S.David Tornheim (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
To clarify: I should have said WP:FRINGE. "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support." Reiki energy is unlimited and is not limited by time or space. Science does not recognize anything in any way resembling this. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
The publishers may be mainstream - that does not however necessarily make content regarding fringe medical practice reliable - see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Reiki is not a Western Medical Practice. It is an Eastern Healing Practice--originating in Japan. (see: here). Neither is Yoga a Western Medical Practice. David Tornheim (talk) 09:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
How exactly is that statement even supposed to be remotely relevant? Wikipedia does not apply different standards regarding sourcing depending on geography, or on the labels used by practitioners. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
You are judging the practice using the eyes of Western Medicine. The two system are totally different. See [30], [31], [32], [33]. I'm not sure why you call Reiki "fringe"--it is quite popular. Does Wikipedia advocate labeling the entirety of Eastern culture, thought, healing and medicine "fringe"? That's a scary prospect. David Tornheim (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I am making no such judgement - I am pointing out that Wikipedia does not apply differing standards regarding sourcing depending on the origins of medically-related practice. Feel free to propose that the policy be changed if you wish (not here though - the appropriate place would probably be Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) considering the significance of the proposal) but meanwhile, I ask that you refrain from giving misleading statements regarding existing policy on this noticeboard. 11:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Please don't accuse me of making misleading statements regarding existing policy. I did not make a statement about Wikipedia policy; I asked you a question, because of the slippery slope nature of your contention that an Eastern healing practice like Reiki is WP:Fringe.David Tornheim (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
This isn't western medicine vs eastern medicine, this is scientific medicine versus magic. The western equivalent of Reiki is not medical science, it's stuff along the lines of Radionics or Orgone "therapy." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Oxford's "Headway" is not a publisher of reiki books, it is an English course (take a closer look at your link). I am not talking about B&N or Random House, I am asking whether there is significant, meaningful evidence that these publishers meet our policy. I do not see any indication of this. (How popular they are is immaterial. Comic book publishers are quite popular, but don't expect Wikipedia to cite them any time soon for evidence that there is an alien living in NYC who flies around fighting super villains, while passing himself off as a reporter.) - SummerPhD (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
^You said, "I am not talking about B&N or Random House". I know that, but I am using it for comparison. Would you use the same standard of dismissing both B&N, Random House and most of the other major publishers completely as "unreliable" since they publish self-help books, religious awakening books, etc., that include claims that have not been scientific tested and sound pretty far fetched? If not, I don't see how you can dismiss the publishers in question here for publishing works that are equally unscientific in nature. These are not works of fiction like comic books. As I said below, if the sources make claims about either health or science that are testable, one could put them in quotes and put them adjacent to Western medical experts take on the practice. That would be NPOV. Entirely eliminating anything said by Reiki Masters about Reiki because they are not scientists or medical doctors or self-proclaimed "skeptics" is absurd. If the book is written by a Reiki Master (possibly even if it is self-published), it is likely reliable for describing Reiki, unless that Master is minority or WP:Fringe within the Reiki community of experts. That a Reiki Master's writing is published by these various presses is not a prima facie showing that the work in question is unreliable any more than if it was published by B&N, Random House or any of the other major publishers in the U.S. IMHO. David Tornheim (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
"...one could put them in quotes and put them adjacent to Western medical experts take on the practice. That would be NPOV." - No, that'd be WP:GEVAL. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
You are essentially saying that every source is reliable, unless we can prove it isn't. How do we know an author is a "fringe" reiki source or not a "legitimate" Reiki Master? Because they disagree with other reiki sources? Well, now those sources disagree with other reiki sources. Lotus Press does not say, "Reiki practitioners believe reiki energy is unlimited." Their books say, "Reiki energy is unlimited." They are, at best, primary sources for what their authors say. I would love to find academic sources discussing reiki objectively. If you can find some, that would be great. Lotus Press is not such a source. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Everything I have read indicates that Reiki is not a scientific process. That a source is alt med, new age, self-help or spiritual does not make it unreliable, unless it is with regards to scientific claims or testable health claims (assuming the publisher has made no effort to fact check). It is more like psychotherapy or Freud's theories. One can say for example, "Practitioners claim Practice Q solves ailments X, Y and Z, but western scientists have found no evidence for such claims." That is an NPOV that DESCRIBES what the practice claims and what scientist or Western med. has to say about it. But to only put the West's view claiming that all of Reiki is WP:Fringe is terribly biased.David Tornheim (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Reiki makes scientifically testable claims regarding healing, and yet there are no WP:MEDRSs supporting it. It claims to be the "The miraculous medicine for all diseases," and has no scientific studies demonstrating this. It claims to be able to treat respiratory disorders, digestive disorders, circulatory disorders, anemia, nephritis, and even Typhoid fever. It is not just a spiritual belief, there are scientifically testable claims about it. Also, a spiritual belief is not automatic immunity to being disproven by science. Young Earth Creationism, Flat Earth, and Geocentrism are both spiritual beliefs and scientific frauds.
It is either complete ignorance or dishonesty (intellectual or commercial) to claim that Reiki does not make scientifically testable claims, and doubly so to pretend that such claims lack proof. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
^You said, "It claims to be the 'The miraculous medicine for all diseases'". Please cite an RS that says that from someone who actually is an expert in Reiki, not someone whose only goal is to discredit Reiki. Continuing you said: "It is not just a spiritual belief, there are scientifically testable claims about it. Also, a spiritual belief is not automatic immunity to being disproven by science. Young Earth Creationism, Flat Earth, and Geocentrism are both spiritual beliefs and scientific frauds." On this part I *do* agree and that is when it is appropriate to for scientific NPOV comments about it its effectiveness in treating specific ailments. About the spiritual aspects, including an energy, no. The energy aspect is more complicated but it is not like E-M waves or those other bizarre sites you listed from I believe Americans. The energy from Reiki is from Eastern Medicine and has a long tradition. I am no expert, but my understanding is that it is more like an "aura" or a "feeling" or an "emotion", or a non-quantifiable entity like "consciousness" or "life" that we experience but are not able to put into a formula like Maxwell's equations. That Qi is not a basic particle or energy (such as heat, E-M, kenetic, potential, etc.) or collection of both does not mean it does not exist. People know that emotions like laughter, fear, anger, etc. are contagious, but there is no physical particle or energy called fear that travels from one person to the next. That is the best way to understand Qi energy.David Tornheim (talk) 04:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Mikao Usui (the founder of Reiki) said that it was a form of medicine, as can be seen in the Reiki article, cited from a pro-Reiki source. The "energy" of Reiki is just another form of Vitalism, which is discredited by modern science. If it is not scientifically testable or measurable, it is not energy, which is physical. Scientifically, emotions and consciousness are a combination of synaptic impulses, hormones, and similar chemicals; while life is a complex interaction of chemicals -- and while they can involve energy (in the sense of electro-magnetic energy, kinetic energy, thermal energy, and so on), they are not energies in themselves. Emotion spreads through perception, "shared" emotions arise independently, they do not flow from one person to another via some magic force. Auras are regarded as pseudoscience as well. You clearly are not an expert on science or magic (despite being an advocate for the latter). Qi is rejected by modern science as yet another form of Vitalism. It is fine to claim that just because something can exist beyond the material, natural, or scientifically world, but to make scientifically testable claims based off of those beliefs goes outside the boundaries of non-overlapping magisteria into pseudoscience. No scientific evidence has been presented for the existence of Qi, and the burden of proof lies with those who claim it exists if they are going to make scientific claims about it.
Vitalism is also rooted in "long traditions" in Western medicine -- that doesn't mean that it's scientific medicine. In fact, it opens it to being out of date and rooted in magic. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: The continued assertion that Reiki is WP:Fringe is quite problematic. In another RS post above, a user admits that they believe no one here would even consider going to a Reiki practitioner to find out what it is about. This does not exactly sound like an open-minded crowd willing to look to experts in the FIELD of Reiki, but who instead have an a priori bias against Reiki, having decided without any real investigation that Reiki is a worthless practice and that anyone who advocates it can not be an expert in it and that only those who criticize it should have a voice about it, finding those people and then replacing the Reiki experts' voices with those of the critics they have found who share their POV instead. The other RS post even goes so far as to advocate use of a self-published blog from a skeptic! If this is indeed the plan, that is a very serious problem for NPOV -and- choice of RS.David Tornheim (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The continued push for the idea that magical energy healing with no scientific backing and no WP:MEDRSs supporting it is not pseudoscience is a bigger problem. The citation to reiki.org about 1 million practitioners is a Argumentum ad populum from vested interest, pure and simple. That you cited it suggests a concerning a priori bias in favor of Reiki.
In "favor" of Reiki? What does that mean? I am neither for nor against Reiki. I am neither for nor against Western Medicine either. I want you be honest about what Reiki is using the descriptions of the experts in the field rather than people whose only goal is to dismiss it a priori as pseudo-science without any real effort to understand what it is actually about. It's a bit like saying that things in the Bible didn't actually happen exactly as described in Genesis and scientifically could not occur--e.g. Creation--and hence the entire Bible is pseudo-science and no Christians should comment on it because they are WP:Fringe and unreliable reporters and only scientists should comment on what in the Bible. Or that praying to God (a being that cannot be proven to exist) is pseudo-science. Many Christians (I am not one) understand that the events in Genesis and timeline of 4,000 years does not match scientific evidence, but that doesn't mean that the mythology of the Book of Genesis is completely worthless. For one, it's a much better written story than the Big Bang is, even if the Big Bang is more scientifically accurate, it doesn't mean the Genesis story has no truth and is nothing but pseudo-science. Ask any Scholar of Literature and they will tell you there is much truth in stories that has nothing to do with science. As Mythology, one might even argue that Genesis is compatible with the Big Bang Theory. Many Christians know that Genesis is not science and are not threatened by the Big Bang Theory. This is what you are doing with Reiki, trying to make it like science. It is more like the Book of Genesis. Scholars in Christian studies should explain what their religion is about, not scientists who think it is all bogus and magic. That's what you all are doing with Reiki.David Tornheim (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
That you just accept the Reiki website's claims wholesale and argue against anything that doesn't accept it as true makes it really hard to believe you're not a covert advocate. If you weren't for or against Reiki, you'd see that they make scientifically testable claims, ask for evidence for such claims, and not try to excuse their lack of evidence with more magical hogwash. I'm still not seeing any WP:MEDRSs from you.
If we're going to draw comparisons between Reiki and interpreting Genesis, Creation science is a closer analogy: using spiritual beliefs as a shield for pseudoscience. We do not allow Young Earth Creationists to explain their scientific claims, we get scientists to explain their dismissal. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Until valid WP:MEDRSs are presented that discuss Reiki as a valid medical practice, it is pseudoscience and falls under WP:FRINGE. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Reiki claims there is an invisible, undetectable energy. It is unlimited. It can treat ANY condition. It can treat anyone, anywhere at any point in time FROM any location and FROM any point in time. If I don't respond to this thread quickly enough, assume I (in the United States) am busy treating people with malaria in Africa who died 200 years ago. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
SummerPhd says: "Reiki claims there is an invisible, undetectable energy. It is unlimited. It is unlimited. It can treat ANY condition. It can treat anyone, anywhere at any point in time FROM any location and FROM any point in time." You keep saying this. Do you have an RS that says that? Or are you getting this from some skeptic who does not know what they are talking about? I should point out there are many particles and waves both in both Classical and Quantum Physics that have equally bizarre properties that are not understood. Consider the Neutrino originally was considered to have neither mass nor energy, but spin: How could such a thing even exist? Gravity as a "force" is particularly difficult to deal with, even though the formulas for its use are easy enough to describe, Physicists can not explain what it is. They have postulated the existence of Gravitons, but no one has ever seen such a thing. Is that pseudo-science or dealing with something one does not fully understand? David Tornheim (talk) 04:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
"Ellyard, Lawrence (2004). Reiki Healer: A Complete Guide to the Path and Practice of Reiki. Dorset, England: Lotus Press" p. 110 and 115 - Pro-Reiki source claiming that Reiki can heal across time and space. Please present WP:MEDRSs that support Reiki instead of repeating the same argument from ignorance ad nauseum and spouting more pseudoscience. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I "got this" absurd claim from the very sources we are discussing. That is why we are discussing them.
Reliable sources do not support the new trend of explaining fringe claims by throwing the word "quantum" into the mix.
It is interesting, however, that you both target the claim as coming from "some skeptic who does not know what they are talking about" and then turn around and defend the claim. We are here to talk about the sources. I see no indication of any kind that these sources 1) are independent of the reiki practitioners making the claims and 2) "have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy". Instead, I see a publisher used exclusively by new age-y practitioners making unsupported claims about their new age-y practices. We are looking for independent reliable sources about reiki, not merely people writing what they believe to be true about reiki. We have such sources for gravity, neutrino and quantum physics. Unless such sources can be found for reiki, much of the article is going away. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: circular logic -- To establish that Reiki is WP:Fringe, you use a quote from a book by Lotus Press about Reiki. But because Reiki and other things Lotus Press publishes are deemed WP:Fringe, the publisher is deemed unreliable. Hence, books by Lotus Press cannot be used to establish that Reiki is WP:Fringe.David Tornheim (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Strawman argument. You challenged me for a pro-Reiki source that says that Reiki practitioners consider their dealings to be medical. I provided a quote from Reiki's founder. That alone does not make them fringe. What does make them fringe is the medical claims combined with a lack of WP:MEDRSs supporting those claims. That means that we cannot use the source in the article, but it does not mean that it cannot be used in this discussion to establish the nature of Reiki according to its own founder. Your attempt to turn it into circular logic is just sticking your head in the sand -- Reiki claims to be medical, no medical sources back it up, ergo it is pseudoscience.
Until you present WP:MEDRSs that support Reiki (instead of superstitious babble), there is no such thing as a pro-Reiki that is also a non-fringe source. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Flag of Ryukyu

There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#RfC: Flag of Ryukyu concerning the Ryukyuan national flag. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 00:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Articles on Julius von Schlosser, Charles de Tolnay etc.

One specific user constantly adds superfluous tags to the articles on Julius von Schlosser, Charles de Tolnay and similar articles (see [34], [35], [36], [37]), questioning reliable sources such as the Burlington Magazine and the Dictionary of Art Historians. Who can explain to him that these are reliable sources? Wikiwiserick (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Was "soccer" used to describe the gme of association football?

  1. Source: The drive for 'football' to be king in Australia
  2. Article: Football (word) - National usage - Australia
  3. Exact wording: Australia-wide, soccer was commonly used to describe association football

To understand the dispute one first has to understand that different areas of Australia are predominately interested in different types of football, in alphabetical order: Association Football, Australian Rules Football, Rugby Football (League), Rugby Football (Union). The question is what does an unqualified use of "Football" mean Australia wide, and how it ought to be represented in Wikipedia. This issue raises strong feeling among some advocates of Association Football in Australia, the governing body of the Association code is discouraging the use of the word "soccer" in favour of "football".

The discussion hinges around a change in a word in the article Football (word) from "is" to "was" by User:Skyring (Pete)(my emphasis of "is" and "was"):diff

Australia-wide, soccer is commonly used to describe association football[1][2], with this usage going back more than a century[3], with football gaining traction since Soccer Australia was renamed Football Federation Australia in 2005[4]

  1. ^ http://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-americans-call-it-soccer-2014-6
  2. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20110312183404/http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/football/
  3. ^ http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/24752752
  4. ^ http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2013/may/28/football-soccer-debate-in-australia

Australia-wide, soccer was commonly used to describe association football[1][2], with this usage going back more than a century[3], with football gaining traction since Soccer Australia was renamed Football Federation Australia in 2005[4]

  1. ^ http://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-americans-call-it-soccer-2014-6
  2. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20110312183404/http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/football/
  3. ^ http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/24752752
  4. ^ http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2013/may/28/football-soccer-debate-in-australia

Currently User:Skyring (Pete) is arguing on the talk page section Talk:Football_(word)#Sourcing_for_Australia that http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2013/may/28/football-soccer-debate-in-australia supports that change. To date he is the only one who does draw that inference from the Guardian sports blog. Does anyone here agree with him? -- PBS (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, PBS, but we're discussing the source noted in this the previous section and whether it is a reliable one for the wording. You haven't addressed this, preferring to talk of other things. Your concern has been addressed at the talk page, but that's okay, we can talk about any source here. Just got to get the format straight, as noted at the beginning of the page. --Pete (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

IS THIS A RELIABLE SOUCE

is this a reliable source as it is on google books? https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LPsvytmN3mUC&pg=PA149&dq=chamar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YcjlVICdBoaM7Abs34Eo&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=chamar&f=false Kingchamar (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

As is made entirely clear at the top of this page, we do not make blanket assertions as to the general reliability of sources - we need to know what specific text a source is being cited for, in which article. I would however suggest that a book over a hundred years old [38] is unlikely to be seen as a reliable source for anything significant. And no, the fact that Google Books lists it has no bearing on reliability whatsoever - it merely indicates that the book exists... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
It looks like a useful historical reference text, if you are using it as a source for an arcane word in Chamar (I presume). What is the article you wish to use it as a reference for, and what exact text? Read the wording at tbe top of the page in te light blue box, please. --Pete (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Andy. Also note that the book by Horace Arthur Rose was originally published in 1911 (full copy here) and contemporary scholarship looks at such colonial-era writings on, and reification of, the caste system with great suspicion, to put it mildly. I believe User: Sitush may have an essay explaining the details (or, at least should have one given the number of times he has to explain all this.) Abecedare (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
We do not use Rose. He was primarily a British Raj administrator, with no formal relevant training in anthropology, history etc other than some background info picked up during his training as a civil servant. As with all the other Raj "ethnographers", his purpose in documenting was official and based on the Raj desire to control, which happened to coincide with the Brahmin desire. Since these administrators rarely spoke the local languages, they actually used the Brahmins as interpreters etc and didn't question what they were told. In addition, the Raj guys were enamoured of scientific racism when trying to identify and classify people.

We've been through all of the above reasons and more in numerous past discussions, as Abecedare indicates. As a simple rule, if a reliable modern source mentions Rose in context then we can cite that modern source. That rarely happens, which is as good an indicator as any that Rose is not to be relied upon. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Podcast and WP:ABOUTSELF

The article is about Burnie Burns, a filmmaker. Burns runs his own podcast (here) wherein he mentions his middle name around minute 32. Multiple users have tried to add the middle name to the article over the past days; all such edits have been reverted. Is it acceptable to include his middle name in the lede (which would then read Burnie <middlename> Burns) based only on this citation? I've looked online and there are no other reliable websites indicating his middle name, so it's this podcast or nothing. Thanks, wia (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that video/podcast is a reliable sources for his middle name (index 0:33:22). See WP:CITE#Film,_TV,_or_video_recordings and Template:Cite podcast for information about citing the source. Bear in mind that just because something is reliably sourced, doesn't mean that it should be included in an article. You still have to gain consensus.- MrX 10:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
OH ugh--then would this also apply to adding served in the US National Guard at the Harvey Levin article? I was actually banned there before for undoing a deletion of another editor's work-(being accused of being that editor's sp I think?)....because Levin had only mentioned on his tv-show that he was a former Guardsman. That STILL bugs me every time that I hear a real-life reference to the fact. ChangalangaIP (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources used in the GamerGate Article

Yes, I know. GamerGate ... But I think since this controversy already made Wikipedia look bad (ArbCom drama) we should insure that the article quality actually improves. And one massive problem standing in the way is the amount of factually wrong statements that are sourced but provably wrong and every argument regarding the truth is dismissed with a handwaving of WP:RS. My opinion is that the reliability of sources should be judged individually whenever possible.

There are many examples and I will start with only one. I don't want to waste anybody's time.

Source: http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/10/gamergate-should-stop-lying-to-itself.html

I will list what statement the source supports on the GamerGate article as well as if/why the statements are false/inacurate:

  • "Quinn's detractors falsely alleged that the relationship had induced Grayson to publish a favorable review of the game"

The accusation wasn't even that there was a review. But in any case: "Nathan Grayson has, provably, written twice about Zoe Quinn’s Depression Quest in a favorable manner without disclosure at both Kotaku, on March 31st, 2014, and Rock, Paper, Shotgun on January 8th, 2014. It was proven that Grayson and Quinn were close together since January 10th, 2014 and had at least known each other since June, 2012. Grayson was also thanked in the credits of Depression Quest." Source. To quote from the Rock, Paper, Shotgun article: "Anyway, standouts: powerful Twine darling Depression Quest, surrealist Thief usurper Tangiers, and sidescrolling epic Treasure Adventure World." (article about 50 games greenlit).

  • "Gamergate has been described as involving anti-feminist ideologies. Some supporters have denied this label, but acknowledge that there are misogynistic voices within it."

The according piece from Jesse Singal's article is supported by "proof". If you read the proof, it becomes quite clear that Jesse Singal misrepresented his source, in other words it is a lie (by accident?): The author of the "proof" only describes himself as antifeminist, but not GamerGate itself.

  • "Many Gamergate supporters contend that their actions are driven by a concern for ethics in videogame journalism, arguing that the close relationships between journalists and developers are evidence of an unethical conspiracy among reviewers to focus on progressive social issues."

I don't object to that, although the wording "unethical conspiracy" can be seen as judgemental and should be avoided. Another question would be what is to be considered a conspiracy. There were in fact ethical mishaps uncovered by GamerGate and several platforms changed their ethical guidelines - but this is going to far for this discussion.

  • "Because of its anonymous membership, lack of organization and leaderless nature, sources widely differ as to the goals or mission of Gamergate. With no single person or group able to speak for the Gamergate, defining it has been difficult."

  • "Singal was critical of the movement's lack of organization and leadership commenting on their "refus[al] to appoint a leader or write up a platform"."

No objection here (but relevance?).

  • "Jesse Singal, writing for New York based on a post he made to Reddit, stated that he had spoken to several Gamergate supporters to try to understand their concerns, but found conflicting ideals and incoherent messages. Singal observed that despite being told by supporters that Gamergate was not about misogyny, he saw Gamergate supporters making a constant series of attacks on Quinn, Sarkeesian, and other women."

The actual observation taken from Singal's article:

"When I visited KIA on Sunday, for example — again, the subreddit I was explicitly instructed to visit if I wanted to see the real Gamergate — three of the top six posts were about the indie developer Brianna Wu (a subject of harassment and threats), the feminist commentator Anita Sarkeesian (ditto), or the “social-justice warriors” (SJWs) that Gamergaters love to ridicule for polluting gaming with their "radical" ideas. Keep in mind that merely mentioning Wu or Sarkeesian or Quinn to many Gamergaters lights a white-hot fury in them — This is not about them, they will insist, ad nauseam, to the point that the more clever of their lot have started referring to them not by name but by the label "Literally Who" (or LW) 1, 2, and 3 (as in "I literally have no idea who that is")."

Singal just states that there are discussions about these women, but nothing remotely like "constant series of attacks".

To summarize: Not only contains the source inaccurate and false information, but these false informations are reprinted on Wikipedia but also is the source itself misrepresented (last point).

I propose to declare this source unreliable and encourage all interested Wikipedians to check the reliability of other sources as well. Citogenitor[talk needed] 15:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Your "fact checking" does not counter the YEARS AND YEARS of reputation for scrupulous fact checking by that organization. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Logical fallacy: Appeal to tradition (Once considered reliable, always reliable). Sorry, this doesn't work. Challenging the status quo and old ideas is the fundament of progress. If we don't question the reliability of sources regularly nothing will improve in that department. And I don't ask to dismiss NY magazine (or whatever the publisher is called), I don't ask to dismiss everything Singal has written. I ask to dismiss this particular article. If a source supports claims with contradictory statements it can't be considered reliable.Citogenitor[talk needed] 17:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
No, it is quite literally policy. We accept as reliable sources those sources which have proven over the years to be reliable sources and gained a reputation for their fact checking accuracy and editorial oversight. this source has established such a reputation and your personal "fact checking" does nothing to alter that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so let's talk policy: Per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources I think we can agree that the article in question falls in the category WP:NEWSORG; we have to distinguish between news agencies (Reuters, Associated Press, AFP, DPA, etc.) on the one hand and magazines, news papers, etc. that rely on the news agencies on the other hand. I think the article in question is not published by a news agency and not based on a fact checked report of a news agency (their tool of trade is in fact fact-checking). Let's take a look at what WP:NEWSORG actually says:
  1. "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact" It is crystal clear that the article in question falls in this category, so without further justification this article (and almost every other source on the GamerGate page) can't be used as source for facts but merely to mention the opinion of the author.
  2. "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." I don't think Singal is some kind of specialist or recognized expert, if there is even such a thing if it comes to online movements.
  3. "If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact." I don't think Singal is some kind of authority (feds, government, etc.). So again DO NOT REPRESENT IT AS FACT.
  4. Next point is about using scholarly and other high-quality sources over news reports. Doesn't match in our case, but I even argue that the article is extremely low-quality, but this doesn't matter here. Next:
  5. "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value" I'd argue that in the light that the content in of said article is questionable this matter is borderline reporting of rumors but I think you will deny that - doesn't matter anyways. Count it as mismatch.
  6. "Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as a source for their work" Doesn't match (at least Wikipedia is not cited in said article).
  7. "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis." Here you go. If news stories are reliable should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. I think this is what I am doing here! And so far there are only arguments against reliability besides your "But regulations!".
  8. "Some stories are republished or passed along by multiple news organizations." I have no idea if this is republished, but a lot of sources in the GamerGate page look like republishing of the same stuff over and over. So a lot of those sources should possibly be removed.
  9. "News organizations are not required to publish their editorial policy or editorial board online. Many major newspapers do not publish their editorial policies." Quick search didn't show up some editorial policy. So we don't even know what their policy is. Possibly no fact checking whatsoever? We don't know.
  10. "One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections" Do we have publications of corrections for NYmag? Further, the article states that it was adapted from a post on reddit; I'm sure there were some people who pointed out some errors in his views. But I shouldn't do WP:OR, so I can't say for sure.
All in all: 5 points for Gryffindor - err, 5/10 points say either don't use it or attribute to author or discuss reliability. 3/10 points could be applicable that would say the article is not reliable, but we could argue about these points being applicable. And 2/10 points don't even apply at all. So your regulations state quite the opposite of what you want me to believe. It is up to you to prove that this article is reliable and regulations say that the party that argues for reliability has to bring arguments. And I don't want to read again definitions disguised as arguments and logical short circuits of the "I define this source as reliable; therefore it is reliable"-kind. If you can't do that this source should be dismissed immediately. So long. [Edit: some typos] Citogenitor[talk needed] 17:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure you understand. Republishing stories from a news agency doesn't make a source reliable, and news agencies themselves are not the only reliable sources. I could start my own newspaper today, exclusively republishing from Reuters and the AP and still not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" for many years, if ever. Sources can—and do—perform their own research and writing and perhaps gain this reputation on their own. Often, they will still republish agency articles simply to fill pages—especially for non-local stories—but this is by no means a requirement. New York magazine is generally considered reliable because they've published factual journalism for decades, are widely cited and republished by other reliable sources, they do in fact issue corrections, and so on. Jesse Singal is a staff writer for New York magazine, and before that wrote for the Boston Globe and Newsweek, both reliable sources. Most reliable sources will also clearly mark their editorial and opinion content as such, to differentiate it from factual journalism and republished stories. This article in particular makes no mention of it being an editorial or opinion piece, but is rather based on research performed by the author or the source. (Some sources have staff researchers.) So every indication we have is that this piece is considered factual journalism written by a staff author and published by a reliable source. Woodroar (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure you understand. I have never written that republishing from news agencies makes a source reliable. "Generally considered reliable" doesn't mean always reliable. And reputation doesn't mean everything. And again, I don't want to remove the NYmag from the imaginary list of RS (does such a list exist somewhere?), I challenge that this particular article is not reliable and I have given arguments. You only bring the argument that the magazine is generally considered reliable but not the article. And it is expressly stated that reliability should be assessed case-by-case and not for outlets but for articles. Show me some policy or list or whatever on Wikipedia that says that everything certain outlets print should be accepted as facts and I will stop arguing. But until then I stand by my arguments. I mean Rolling Stones Magazine is - I'm sure - considered a reliable source, and still they have published some rape hoax story - "research" done by the staff with years of experience and reputation of reliability. A lot of other people have taken it at face value even though it was fabricated. Further you say that "most reliable sources [...] clearly mark their editorial and opinion content as such"; does the NYmag do that? Are they doing it always? Is there an editorial policy that I could check? And even if, it wouldn't matter because the WP policy I quoted also covers "analysis" and not only editorial and opinion pieces. Citogenitor[talk needed] 13:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Your Rolling Stone example is a good one. Their factual journalism is widely considered reliable by other media. Obviously, everyone makes mistakes now and then, and a single discredited article—even one that causes an uproar—rarely leads to a permanent loss of the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that we require. Rather, it's uproar after uproar that makes other media—and, by extension, us—distrust a source. But here's the important part: that Rolling Stone article is considered discredited and unreliable to us because other reliable sources consider it so. No amount of fact-checking or investigation or assembling a timeline based on other sources on our parts, by you or me, will discredit an article. In other words, it doesn't matter if you think an author misrepresented a source or disagree with how they characterize attacks or feel they don't understand the arguments put forth by Gamergate supporters. WP:V (especially WP:SOURCE) and WP:RS require that we look at a lot of factors, but it all has to come from somewhere, and that nearly always comes back to what other trusted media say. Reuters has a great reputation because their articles are widely republished, even though there have been some controversies, and so we generally consider their articles reliable. If two otherwise reliable sources disagree, then we attribute both viewpoints, as long as there aren't extreme weighting issues. But if many reliable sources consider an article to be debunked, then that that article isn't considered reliable. On the other hand, if an otherwise reliable magazine publishes an article by a well-regarded author and we have no correction or retraction or disagreement or comment from other reliable sources or indication that the publisher considers it an editorial/opinion piece, then we can cite that article for factual statements. Woodroar (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Again, we argue about different things. I do not want to challenge the reliability status of NYmag as a whole. I can understand that stories from that publisher are in general accepted as reliable (but in general does not mean always). I am discussing solely this one article and I think that the rule from WP:NEWSORG "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis." does apply. See comment below. (I even only challenge that this article is used for statements of "facts" and have argued that at the most it can used to display the authors opinion) 131.188.48.165 (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you have any reliable sources indicating that this specific article is questionable or an opinion piece? Woodroar (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
This is just WP:POINT. NYMag is an RS. If you want to correct them, write to their editors. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Seriously WP:POINT? I was sent here to this noticeboard to discuss the reliability of this article by TRPoD (I think, maybe someone else). Now you come here to tell me to just go away. Am I allowed to discuss here or not? I'm not disrupting anything at the GamerGate (talk) page. And I don't intend to. This is why I followed the advice to take it to this noticeboard. Can we please just discuss the topic and not point fingers and try to discredit each other? I start with a simple question: Does this rule "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis." per WP:NEWSORG apply? Yes or no? Citogenitor[talk needed] 13:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
There is a difference between "discussing" and understanding how Policies apply and "repeating your same - 'I dont think its reliable because of my research' i will keep making the same claims even when I have been told over and over that that is not how Wikipedia determines reliable sources. " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if this helps to frame the discussion in terms of more relevant community norms, but there is an old policy debate relevant to this noticeboard about what to do when we suspect a normally reliable publication contains a mistake. This is something which happens a lot of course, and such situations have sometimes led to silly editing and silly controversy. This has been discussed a lot, and the short answer is that we do not have to include material from any source, no matter how reliable it generally is. We can simply choose not to reproduce a sentence that for example includes an apparent typing error (something we can often identify doubts about by comparison to other sources, or to named primary sources that were supposed to be the origin). The only problem this can bring of course is that removal of selected sources is also an excellent way to try to bias what we report. So debate about such cases often revolves around there is any pattern of deliberate filtering in order to achieve a biased reporting in Wikipedia. For example, someone demanding that we stop using a source entirely because of a spelling mistake in one sentence would not be very convincing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: Yes! Finally some excellent information. Is there some link/archive of such a discussion you can provide? And @TheRedPenOfDoom: You sure, you don't describe your behaviour? You seem to bring always the same stone-walling answer. But that's besides the point. I brought up several rules from WP:IRS, especially the one that says that reliability should be assessed for a story case-by-case, and I am asking if this rule can be applied. A simple Yes or No would suffice. But instead you just ignore that and fall back to just "No. It's reliable because it's reliable". I find this not very helpful. And in light of the comment directly above I see enough reason to warrant an assessment of the reliability of the mentioned article; this I have already done in detail above, assessing it as unreliable. And since I highly doubt that the GamerGate article will fall apart without it there won't be any bias injected by its removal. Edit: Per FAQ on WT:IRS

Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"?

No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual. So @TheRedPenOfDoom: your argument that this article is reliable because New York Magazine is considered an RS is invalid.Citogenitor[talk needed] 17:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I have never asserted that a source is always reliable. However, your assertion that its decades long history of reliability should be tossed out because you are a more expert researcher is a non starter. And your endless repetition of that sole point is tendentious editing.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This report has no merit. Anything can be argued, but Wikipeida is not a debating society where every new editor can wear down policies by using blogjob.com to counter nymag.com. The nymag source is used six times in the article—three for strong claims, one for a sky-is-blue statement, and two for attributed comments. The three strong claims each have five other references, so any original research about this particular nymag source is irrelevant. Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@Citogenitor I do not think my description can be read as taking a side in this case. I was trying to give a framework for how to make this discussion relevant to Wikipedia norms. See my last three sentences. There are obvious concerns you need to address, and you do not seem to be convincing people about those.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@Andrew Lancaster: I am aware of that, and I think that I addressed that part in stating that the article doesn't seem to be essential to the GamerGate article on Wikipedia, so no injection of bias by removing it. See also the comment above yours: Some statements can also be supported by other sources. @TheRedPenOfDoom: Are you trying to intentionally misunderstand me? I never stated that I want to throw out New York Magazine's reputation for reliability. I indeed think that it is generally a reliable source. Just not this article. Now if you and @Johnuniq: don't want to consider a blogjob article because it's on blogjob despite having a lot of links to primary, secondary and tertiary sources, that's ok. But I am not ok with you attacking my argument by inserting that my Wikipedia-age or competence at reading sources makes my standpoint less valid (If you can't attack the argument attack the person, right?). So please stop that.
Now, if we disregard that blogjob thing, although I think it shows clearly problematic inaccuracies in the article, let's look at one of the other points. We can agree that this article is not automatically reliable although being published by nymag says that it is by high probability. We can agree that we need to look at the context to assess reliability. So context is for example the link present in the article that contradicts the article. To put it in simple terms: "Article says A and look here is proof for A. Proof says B." And all this just from reading the article and reading the content of the link provided by the article. No Google search, no original research on my part. Nothing. Still contradictory content which suggests that the author didn't look very careful at the evidence at hand and thus contradicted themselves. Therefore unreliable. So please, answer to this assessment and not to my Wikipedia-age or with some general assertion. Thank you. Citogenitor[talk needed] 10:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Any chance that other quality secondary publications might have covered this subject also? I am not taking a position but I can see that if you can search for that, you can avoid the difficult task of reassuring concerned editors that this is not original research and/or POV pushing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@Citogenitor: The source has a well established reputation for reliability - it is one of the sources that is default reliable unless proven otherwise. The only "proof otherwise" for this article is your research - that is a non starter. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure from the above what the exact issue is with the article. But if the concern is with the quote "Quinn's detractors falsely alleged that the relationship had induced Grayson to publish a favorable review of the game", that is also supported by the academic pieces now emerging. For example, Shaw A, Cessa S (2015) "A Conspiracy of Fishes, or, How We Learned to Stop Worrying About #GamerGate and Embrace Hegemonic Masculinity" in Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59:12, discussed the accusations, and they was raised as a point of concern (although not discussed) in Heron, M; Belford, P; Goker, A (2014) "Sexism in the Circuitry: Female Participation in Male-Dominated Popular Computer Culture" in Computers and Society - Special Issue on Women in Computing, 44:4. - Bilby (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@TheRedPenOfDoom and Bilby: Please read what I actually wrote. I'll state it again: I am ok with disregarding that stuff what Bilby mentioned because I didn't do much research, only linked a blogjob piece and it seems to me to be a problem of how "review" is defined. So please disregard this part.
The two main points I find the most objectionable is that first the article in question is misrepresented on the GamerGate wikipage:

Singal observed that despite being told by supporters that Gamergate was not about misogyny, he saw Gamergate supporters making a constant series of attacks on Quinn, Sarkeesian, and other women.

There is no mention of "constant series of attacks", quoting from the article:

"When I visited KIA on Sunday, for example — again, the subreddit I was explicitly instructed to visit if I wanted to see the real Gamergate — three of the top six posts were about the indie developer Brianna Wu (a subject of harassment and threats), the feminist commentator Anita Sarkeesian (ditto), or the “social-justice warriors” (SJWs) that Gamergaters love to ridicule for polluting gaming with their "radical" ideas. Keep in mind that merely mentioning Wu or Sarkeesian or Quinn to many Gamergaters lights a white-hot fury in them — This is not about them, they will insist, ad nauseam, to the point that the more clever of their lot have started referring to them not by name but by the label "Literally Who" (or LW) 1, 2, and 3 (as in "I literally have no idea who that is")."

"constant series of attacks" is an interpretation by Wikipedia editors.
The second point is actually regarding the reliability. I will again repeat myself and only use the article and its content and no other sources: Singal describes GamerGate as antifeminist and provides this link as "proof". Unfortunately that link has died since I began this discussion. Here is an archive link although the comment of blogs author answering to Singal's article in which he even says that he was misrepresented by Singal is unfortunately not contained in this archive. The problem is that Singal misrepresents this "proof" of his in stating something completely different, which makes the article look like this: "Article says A and look here is proof for A. Proof says B.". Since the link to that blog was contained in the article it is content of the article and thus we have a contradiction/misrepresentation/nonsense. No matter how this mistake happened it makes this article (which is an adaption of an reddit post) not look reliable. And especially this statement shouldn't be supported by this article on Wikipedia. But since the link is already rotten I don't see much hope in this case anymore because checking archive will look too much like OR. So your strategy of stonewalling and playing for time seemed to work quite well for you. Thank you for your time anyways. Citogenitor[talk needed] 10:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Once a post goes through the editorial review of a reliable source for their reprinting, it is no longer merely a self published post. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Singal" They were extremely open about this. A day or so later, another gamergater, @Smilomaniac, asked me to read a blog post he’d written about his involvement in the movement in which he explicitly IDs as anti-feminist, and notes that while some people claim otherwise, he thinks GG is an anti-feminist movement"
Smilomaniac [39] "Anti-Feminism GamerGaters have broadly been accused of being misogynistic as well as a number of other things, but while a number of people say that feminism has nothing to do with this, I firmly believe it does. I am anti-feminist and freely admit that, not because I’m against women’s rights or opportunities, but because “feminism”, much like GamerGate, has become too nebulous and mixed up with people of completely seperate ideas of what “feminism” is or isn’t. While a number of vocal people also paint themselves as anti-feminist, such as the youtuber Sargon of Akkad, you can easily rely on “us” to be very much pro womens rights. When feminism comes into the gaming community and starts having massive influence on what gets written in gaming journalism as well as design in game development (such as Anita Sarkeesian being an advisor on Mirror’s Edge 2), then this goes beyond a good cause or a fight for women’s rights, into the realm of thought policing. To put this very simply, there is no sense in game developers or journalists focusing on “feminism” . ... While that change is happening though, the assault done through accusatory articles and damning rhetoric/narrative is extremely offensive to a lot of us. "] He then continues to rant about a living person: "This person drives a hard feminist line that leaves no room for debate, conversation or exploration of any possible middle ground, but she has the ear of journalism and gets to say her peace without a counter argument. This is obviously very one sided and should leave no doubt as to why she is practically a villain in all of this." and then further "As for the feminist and SJW opposition, people will continually stand against this hyper politically correct rhetoric that has very little deserved space in our community, because this is a hobby, not a political platform. It is simply not representative of the interests of the community" so i am not sure really where you think there is any let alone major discrepancy between Smilomaniac words and Singals representation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for finally engaging in the discussion. The discrepancy lies in the statement that Singal is quoted for on Wikipedia: That GamerGate is inherently anti-feminist. Singal supports this claim by saying that supposedly @Smilomaniac "[...] thinks GG is an anti-feminist movement". @Smilomaniac never said that. Quite the opposite. They say that they and some other people in GamerGate identify themselves as anti-feminist but that's it. What they say is that in their opinion GamerGate has something to do with feminism and that they think that GamerGaters don't like its influence "because this is a hobby, not a political platform.". This is the argument brought for not wanting feminist influence. So @Smilomaniac thinks that GamerGaters don't like political ideologies injected into gaming. So what? That is anti-feminist? No, that would be misrepresentation. They went out of their way to explicitly describe only some people as anti-feminist. It is impossible to interpret this as a indication, let alone proof for GamerGate being anti-feminist. (Edit: wasn't logged in) Citogenitor[talk needed] 11:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Adventure Time Forum

Source: AdventureTimeForum.com and the related articles within

Article: All articles on Adventure Time

Content: The Adventure Time Forum, linked above, is an journal created by Tim Hwang, Imgur’s Head of Special Initiatives, and Darby Smith, assistant managing editor for Grist. It features articles about the television show Adventure Time, all written by various noted internet critics such as American Review’s Jonathan Bradley and AV Club writer Eric Thurm. Here is a news article on the creation of the journal. Reliability seems pretty straightforward here, but I wanted to get it officially noted here at RSN just in case someone challenges it in the future. SilverserenC 20:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Uhhh... this looks like some self-published fansite to me. If I saw this added in an article, I'd probably revert it as unreliable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC) edit: Poking around a bit more, maybe that's a bit harsh, but I still don't like the idea of it being called an "academic journal". Where's the peer review? It looks like some (possibly high profile) enthusiasts started a fansite, wrote a few essays, and called it an academic journal. Isn't imgur an image host? I dunno. Maybe everyone else will say it's reliable, but I don't really like the idea of people putting up "academic journals" with no evidence of peer review. It fills me with suspicion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: It is published by two well known journalists and all the articles in it are written by established internet writers. Rather than requiring peer review, think of it as news articles made by established reliable writers. SilverserenC 02:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with User:NinjaRobotPirate that this is essentially a fansite started by a a few high-profile individuals. Calling it a "journal" is to my eyes, obviously a tongue-in-cheek choice meant to indicate, "we are going to treat a subject others think of as frivolous with (mock) seriousness", and wikipedia is no more obliged to treat it as an academic journal as it should treat Science Magazine as a conventional magazine. That is not to say that it cannot be used as a source. It's a minor grade above self-published and some of the authors may be regarded as expert enough in the field of television-reviews to be quotable. As WP:RS says, "Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim." So use it (with care), but please don't confuse it (or The Journal of Venture Studies) with recognized academic journals just because it calls itself one. Abecedare (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Abecedare: I didn't mean for it to be treated as a journal in the first place anyways. I just viewed it as an expert source made by journalists that write in the field of television topics. As reliable as it would be for these articles to be published on a site like AV Club or any equivalent internet/culture news site. Which aren't what I would call "light-weight" sources for this kind of topic, as they are exactly the kind of sources needed for things like television shows. SilverserenC 00:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not unfiltered UGC. It appears reliable in proportion to the seriousness of the subject. Rhoark (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_187&oldid=1142578342"