Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

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

Additional notes:

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

Start a new discussion

Known issues section of Nexus 5

The known issues section of Nexus 5 was removed because none of the sources are considered valid. could an independent party check them one by one?

Electronic cigarette health claims

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Since both respondents do not have reliability issues with the statements and said this is a NPOV issue, and I agree, I am moving this to NPOVN. EllenCT (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Source 1 of 2 ("Hajek 2014")

Hajek, P; Etter, JF; Benowitz, N; Eissenberg, T; McRobbie, H (31 July 2014). "Electronic cigarettes: review of use, content, safety, effects on smokers and potential for harm and benefit" (PDF). Addiction (Abingdon, England). PMID 25078252.

Article

Electronic cigarette, with talk page discussion archived at [1]

Content statements (first two of four)

A. "Electronic cigarettes are likely to be much less harmful to smokers than cigarettes."

B. "Health care professionals should support smokers wishing to switch to electronic cigarettes and emphasise the importance of stopping using cigarettes and nicotine."

Source 2 of 2 ("Polosa 2013")

Polosa, Riccardo; Rodu, Brad; Caponnetto, Pasquale; Maglia, Marilena; Raciti, Cirino (2013), "A fresh look at tobacco harm reduction: the case for the electronic cigarette" (PDF), Harm Reduction Journal, 10 (10), doi:10.1186/1477-7517-10-19, PMID 24090432{{citation}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Article

Electronic cigarette, with talk page discussion archived at [2]

Content statements (last two of four)

C. "Smokers switching to electronic cigarettes find them helpful and will likely achieve large health gains."

D. "Even if they are effective for only a quarter of smokers, electronic cigarettes could save millions of lives over the next decade."

EllenCT (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that the objections to the material above were due to WP:WEIGHT and WP:ASSERT basis, and not due to a question of reliability, so a discussion about reliability is unlikely to solve the actual objection to the material. Yobol (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

So you agree that the sources are reliable and the statements fairly represent them, but you believe that WP:WEIGHT and the WP:ASSERT essay can somehow overrule the WP:NPOV pillar policy requirement that all points of view be represented, and the WP:LEAD guideline directive to summarize major controversies in article introductions? EllenCT (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

First, WP:WEIGHT and WP:ASSERT are part of WP:NPOV so your question makes no sense. Second, NPOV issues are not appropriate for discussion on RS/N. As this has been discussed already on the talk page, I will leave it to others if they want to waste their time further discussing it here. This will be my last comment about the topic here. Yobol (talk) 03:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yobol does not explain why WP:WEIGHT might apply, and I don't see anyone other than Yobol having raised WEIGHT and ASSERT issues. Claiming that WP:ASSERT applies implies that the statements are opinions instead of facts, which strongly suggests to me that this is a question of reliability of the sources and their support of the statements, appropriate for this noticeboard. EllenCT (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Both sources are review articles in journals. Nothing to really address here in terms of reliability sources, although it does look like caution is needed in separating fact summarized in the reviews from the opinions and conclusions made by the authors. As Yobol mentioned, seems like the current statements picked are a matter of weight and not really the purpose of this board. Especially since we're dealing with statements that all appear to be pro-e-cig (or really whenever you are saying something is a positive or negative) that's an obvious question for weight. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Times, Washington Post and Guardian Reliability regarding GamerGate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing because this appears to be a content dispute about interpretation of particular sources and not about the reliability of the sources per se. The three sources are considered widely reliable on a range of issues. User appears to be taking issue with one particular point which is better discussed on the talk pages of related articles. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

---

These sites, used as a reliable source in the Gamergate_controversy, claim or insinuate, in these articles

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/23/felicia-days-public-details-online-gamergate The Guardian Quote: The publication of Day’s details is being seen as further strengthening the criticism that Gamergate’s partcipants are pursuing an anti-woman agenda, None of you fucking #gamergate tools tried to dox me, even after I tore you a new one. I’m not even a tough target, he tweeted. Instead, you go after a woman who wrote why your movement concerns her.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/24/gamergate-targets-felicia-day-after-she-expresses-fear-of-being-targeted/ Washington Post Quote: Day was worried that if she spoke up about Gamergate, she would be viciously harassed by the same torch-bearing misogynists who have targeted feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian and developers Brianna Wu and Zoe Quinn. Well, she was right.

My emphasis. The 'vicious harassment' attributed is based on the same as the Times and WP: a post who claims no affiliation.

http://time.com/3535619/felicia-day-writes-about-gamergate-gets-information-hacked/ Times Quote: Supernatural actress and avid gamer Felicia Day took to her Tumblr to talk about #GamerGate on Thursday and, perhaps unsurprisingly, was immediately harassed. Though #GamerGaters claim that they are

that the movement GamerGate is reponsible for harassing and doxxing her, something that the Gamergate article in Wikipedia reflects. However, they are based on a commentary (which one of the articles link: http://imgur.com/UAcmAg1) that do not claim affiliation to any movements, nor makes reference to a movement. At the very best this is rumor mongering and at worst it's straight dishonest, and spreading lies isn't the characteristic of reliable sources. --Zakkarum (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not a forum. If you wish to ask whether Wikipedia contributors consider a particular source is reliable for a particular statement, do so, providing all the necessary details. Otherwise, find somewhere else (off Wikipedia) to express your personal opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

But I just did that. The evidence, the quotes the news used, and everything that is asked is right there. I posted this here to find out whether Wikipedia contributors consider a particular source is reliable for this topic. The quotes they use and the source they claim did everything. --Zakkarum (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

You have not stated what specific text the sources were being cited for. Instead you made a vague statement about article content and then went on to accuse well-established and reputable news providers of 'rumor mongering' and 'spreading lies'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The whole point of reliable sources is that they have publishing standards and editorial oversight. Do you really believe that The Guardian, Time, and the Washington Post didn't do due dillegence on stories they released? Parabolist (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I did specify the quotes. I will make it more clear now. And yes, Parabolist. They all point to one comment, and the comment doesn't reflect what they say. You can check it yourself. --Zakkarum (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope. I asked what specific text in the Wikipedia article the sources were being cited for. You have not told us this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you are asking for the quotes the sources gave. Well, as I said, it's used as source 47, 48 and 49 in the article. One unsourced claim is also implied that it relates to the article but only Day was singled out for harassment. and o the draft it's sourced on the same comment. The other quote is After actress and gamer Felicia Day made a blog post noting her concerns over GamerGate and how she has avoided discussing it due to fear of the backlash, her address was posted in the comments section. which is under the article Further harassment and threats, which implies (and the sources outright say too) was made by GamerGate. --Zakkarum (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Maybe you should consider that if all of these incredibly experienced and reliable news organizations came to the same conclusion about a topic, that they might actually be right? This is the second topic about Gamergate on this page and they both are media conspiracy nonsense. Parabolist (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Your question is confusing... are you asking if the three articles linked are RS? If so, of course they are. You don't get much more reliable news than those sources. But we seem to be saying they are somehow reliable in this one instance for some reason I cannot quite glean. If that is the case, please briefly explain further. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Parabolist:I'm not saying these entire media outlets are wrong, but that in this topic, regarding the image they are using, it is. The comment they use as a primary source doesn't not imply any affiliation yet it is used as proof. How is that reliable? Did you even check the stuff? If so, care to explain how the comment they used lead to GamerGate? We are here to discuss the reliability of sources, not to attend your conspiracy theories that if everyone reposts the same hoax, it's the truth. --Zakkarum (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I'm questioning their reliability in this issue, since the three articles base off a comment that declared no affiliation, yet the sources put one affiliation. Attributing something to someone that doesn't exist isn't quite reliable. --Zakkarum (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Zakkarum:- Sources do not exist in a vacuum. Everything has context. I HAVE looked at the stories here, and I have seen Day's original post. It is extremely obvious to see the connection. Journalists are not wikipedians, they're capable of making conclusions based on research and evidence, that's the entire point of secondary sources. Parabolist (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Zakkarum, neither the sources cited nor our article state that anything was 'made by GamerGate', if only for the very good reason that 'GamerGate' isn't a person, and nor is it an organisation with a defined membership - there is no such thing as a 'GamerGate affiliation'. The sources state the facts - that Day made a blog commentary on the issue, and promptly had her address posted. I don't see any reason why Wikipedia should refrain from suggesting that the two events were self-evidently connected, any more than anyone else would. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump:The sources do claim that. It's even on the title. gamergate-targets-felicia-day-after-she-expresses-fear-of-being-targeted. That's the washington Post. The guardians says The publication of Day’s details is being seen as further strengthening the criticism that Gamergate’s partcipants are pursuing an anti-woman agenda The Times quote is also there, and they use twitter quotes who claim the same thing. So they say the harassment was made by gamergate, and it's used in the wiki article to prove that point. Felicia Day also didn't say she was harassed or doxxed, even though the three journals say she was. The article uses the sources as an example of "other harassment and doxxing". When you use that in the article, not only the source showed it was unreliable, but putting the source under the "Further harassment and threats" section of an article about GamerGate implies what? That this is a harassment linked to gamergate, even though that link doesn't exist. --Zakkarum (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

BDSM enthusiasts' websites as RS's for BDSM page?

Hi, folks.

I deleted some long-unsourced material from BDSM page. The material had been tagged for 2 months or more, but no RS's came forth. (There remains still more unsourced and tagged material.) User:RobinHood70 wants to restore the deleted material, using as sources amateur websites maintained by BDSM enthusiasts, and acknowledging that "I take it as a given that some sources will be less than ideal for the simple reason that BDSM is not often covered in mainstream non-fiction literature."[3]

The sites User:RobinHood70 proposes as sources are:

• http://www.xeromag.com the author of which describes himself here.
• http://www.evilmonk.org the author of which describes himself here.

Although I am sympathetic to the problem, my own view is that WP is not a fan cite and that if the material does not receive coverage by RS's, then the material does not belong in an encyclopedia. That is, we don't lower are standards to justify material; we have a standard and include the material that meets it.

The exact statements being restored are:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BDSM&diff=635567721&oldid=635560808
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BDSM&diff=635560808&oldid=635349778

(Other material being restored properly sourced there is no issue with.)

Thanks for any input.
— James Cantor (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Whether it's BDSM, model trains, or container gardening, sources for non-BLP hobby articles just need a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. WP:SPS can be used from recognized experts who have been published by reliable third-party publications, but not purely self-styled experts. I'm sure there are "amateurs" that have strong reputations with a history of being published, but I don't see that demonstrated with these two on first glance. I wouldn't necessarily start blanking sections, as these seem like very general claims that seem like they could be sourced from books on the subject. The topic is salacious, but it's also a topic that's been extensively written about at all levels of academic or editorial seriousness.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Elaqueate has hit on the very problem that the page faces. What's common knowledge and/or wide practice within the BDSM community is hard to find reliable sources for. Simple things, like what constitutes a "top", "bottom" or "switch" are easy to find unofficial sources for, and with a little more work, it's not too hard to find official sources that at least mention what they are in passing. But then you get into the harder ones. Words like "play party" that are everyday terms within the community are almost impossible to find official sources for. That doesn't mean they're unverifiable, just that you have to accept that the definitions given on hundreds, if not thousands, of non-WP:RS-compliant BDSM sites are, in fact, the definitions that everyone in the community uses. The same things goes for a lot of the descriptions of the various related activities. Who, outside of the community itself, actually ever mentions the use of negotiation and contracts within a BDSM context, for example? That doesn't mean it's not true or verifiable, but finding a secondary source will be difficult, at best.

As for topic experts, the only one that I've cited so far, Jay Wiseman, is a well-known BDSM writer with several books to his name. I'll be the first to acknowledge that what I'm citing is blog-like, but it does have a good discussion of negotiation from a recognized expert in the field.

James obviously wants to help the article, and I agree with several of his edits, but within half an hour, he removed roughly 1/6 of the existing article based solely on the fact that it was uncited. This left a lot of gaps or misleading presentations of the information. My aim is to restore the relevant and useful information with at least some kind of citation, but as discussed above, that's not easy. I'd be grateful for any suggestions on how to proceed here. – RobinHood70 ^talk 02:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Take another look at WP:SPS. If someone's been published by reliable third-party publications, then they can often be considered a reliable source in their other, self-published works, including blogs. There needs to be some rough consensus, but blogs written by experts (as evidenced by a clear history of being published by third-party RS) are used as sources throughout Wikipedia. There has been much written about BDSM, so it shouldn't be that hard; just show that any expert has been taken seriously and published by other RS. Also, give Google scholar a look. Don't worry overmuch about removals as long as there's still a collaborative atmosphere; the article will probably emerge stronger with more direct sourcing to people who are more clearly considered experts.__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Elaqueate is correct. SPSs by legit experts (such as RS book authors) are generally good as RS's. Are those website authors also book authors? I read each of the bio's they put on their websites, and although they mention the essays they have on their own websites, neither mentions writing any books or other RS's. It is indeed true that I deleted a substantial portion of the BDSM page...but said another way, a substantial amount of the page was unsourced and long tagged as such. (I have not, however, thus far deleted any of the portions that were sourced to the above websites. I deleted only entirely unsourced passages.) Is there anything that suggests the cited websites count as SPS's?— James Cantor (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

A small side note that's not really about RS: Without prejudice to anyone, I'd caution against taking material out solely because a sentence is without a citation. We're only supposed to remove material if it's unsourced as well as somehow likely to be challenged. If the sentences look like they could be considered fairly accurate and easily verifiable from sourced material on a related Wikipedia page, then it can be left in while discussed (since this is not a BLP). The next sentence is a good example that doesn't necessarily require an additional inline citation: The term sadomasochism is derived from the words sadism and masochism (see Etymology). __ E L A Q U E A T E 03:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, there's nothing that suggests that the entire sites constitute SPS sites. The glossary, I chose because it looked reasonably accurate without any...let's go with "unexpected"...images appearing on the page. I fully acknowledge that it does not meet reliable source criteria, but as I said, what does? If there are other BDSM glossaries or terminology dictionaries out there that do, I'd very much rather use them for the terms that need them. Which leads my to my next point: I question whether most of these definitions need to be sourced at all. If all BDSM glossaries we can find agree on the general definition of something, do we really need to cite it? I'm not talking about those statements that could reasonably be challenged, just the sections that define what something is in the generally understood way. After all, even if we do cite that the sky is blue, we don't normally cite the definition of "sky" or "blue".

As far as the Jay Wiseman material goes, I have no idea who the author of the site as a whole is, nor do I believe that that's especially relevant unless there's some reason to think that the author is deliberately misquoting Mr. Wiseman. This seems unlikely given that I was able to find the same material on two other blogs, though of course, there's always the possibility that one or all of them are copying from the others.

As I said, there's no doubt that these are not ideal sources—far from it—but at least they're some kind of sources that support the definitions used and the other information on the page. I tend to believe that it's better to have poorly sourced material that's easily verifiable with a web search, or by logging onto any of the various BDSM-friendly websites and chatting with someone knowledgeable, than to have missing information that could lead the reader to the wrong conclusion about what BDSM is about because all unsourced or poorly sourced information is removed. Poor sources can be improved over time whereas information that's missing entirely is not going to be obvious to a less knowledgeable reader.

Having said all that, I'll check Google scholar tomorrow and see what I can dig up there. In the past, I've had poor luck with finding things like this there, but perhaps things have changed. – RobinHood70 ^talk 04:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

discussions.apple.com

Just want to confirm that opinions on the discussions.apple.com website would not constitute a reliable source. I know this is a simple one, and is realistically cut and dry WP:USERGENERATED but an IP user insists it's reliable. The subject item is https://discussions.apple.com/docs/DOC-3036 and is related to MacKeeper.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

confirmed. not a reliable source Blueboar (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Is Blueboar an admin, meaning is he in a position to give a definitive opinion?

Should we all add IMO to our sigs? Anyway, confirmed (IMnon-adminO). "Find and share solutions with Apple users around the world" means it's the same as any wiki. User Klaus1, the author, appears to be a (well informed) user rather than an official agent of Apple/Apple Support Communities. Bromley86 (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Angelfire usage at Ludovico Arroyo Bañas

At the article Ludovico Arroyo Bañas, there are several usages of a source from Angelfire, which I believe falls under WP:SPS. The source is as follows: http://www.angelfire.com/pq/telecommunications/ . It appears to have a bibliography, but no in-line citations. Please provide opinions.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It is self published and, given the surnames and apparent relative ages, there's a chance there's only one author, with the other being a younger relative that mainly helped with the webpage. Inline citations aren't an issue, as long as we can get happy that it's reliable. That's the sticking point though, 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. I haven't been able to find anything else by Oquindo that would establish reliability.

I did find mention of it on a news site, for what that's worth. "A surprisingly comprehensive history of the Philippine telecommunications industry", (The Philippine Star).[4] Tangential mention here, "Federico Oquindo wrote".[5] So news organisations in the Philippines seem to treat it as reliable (not that that works for us).

I'm not sure that there's a single suitable source in that whole article. Next time you're in the Philippines you might be able to verify the veracity of the docs stored, so they're fine as primary sources. However, as Briarfallen stated, that doesn't make LAB notable. Bromley86 (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the bio on angelfire is less than reliable... I note, however, that the angelfire bio contains a bibliography, which lists several reliable sources. I would suggest that those reliable sources be reviewed... as it is likely that they can be used to support at least some of the information currently cited to the angelfire bio. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of indiegogo campaigns as a source for the existence of themselves

I have been repeatedly trying to update the wiki Matt Taylor (scientist) to mention the existence of an IndieGogo campaign relating to him. As evidence that this campaign exists, I have cited it as a reference. The edit keeps being deleted on the pretext that IndieGogo is not a "reliable source", and the evidence should come at second hand from, say, a newspaper website. This is obviously absurd. What more reliable source could there be for the existence of an IndieGogo fundraising campaign than the thing itself? How can providing the primary source for an assertion be seen as unreliable? Specifically I am trying to quote the rationale stated by the campaign organiser for starting the campaign. The evidence for this is on the campaign page, and nowhere else. If the actual, primary evidence for it is regarded as "unreliable", then that is tantamount to saying that this information can never be placed on wikipedia. But why shouldn't it be?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.66.228 (talk • contribs)

Sources should ideally be independent secondary sources, to establish that the topic actually matters. IndieGogo is (at best) a self-published primary source. A mainstream news article about the IndieGogo campaign (but not press-release or advertisement disguised as an article) is a more reliable sources because it demonstrates that anyone besides Matt Taylor and his supporters has really noticed or cared about it. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a deeply questionable stance to take for all sorts of reasons - pehaps primarily the assumption that something only matters once the mainstream media have noticed it and decided to talk about it - although in this particular case an independent secondary source (Yahoo news) has noticed it and mentioned it in a report. My point, though, was about the absurdity of the idea that the existence of something (in this case a crowdfund campaign) cannot be reliably attested by primary reference to that thing, which was the pretext for removing my edit. The discussion now seems to have moved on from there, but I still think it should be noted in all future such cases that primary sources are allowed on wikipedia: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" - and that there is a common sense clause in the policy. It must therefore be regarded as in compliance with policy on sources to prove an assertion that an IndieGogo campaign exists by providing a link to that campaign in the references as a primary source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.66.228 (talk • contribs)

That opens the doors to Wikipedia being hijacked by zealots and advertisers.

Zealots: Religious texts are primary sources, and if we allow citation of primary sources it opens the door to different sects arguing that their interpretation is the only correct one. Relying on academic secondary sources allows the articles to stick to what scholars have found to be historically common or noteworthy interpretations. There are also a number of new religious movements or schisms of older religions that like to pretend they're much larger or older than they really are. Then there are Conspiracy theorists, who regularly make claims about primary sources that are "obvious" to them. The easiest way to stop that is to say "if it's truly obvious, there will be a secondary or tertiary source documenting it."

Advertisers: "Our (website/product/fundraiser) exists!" Suddenly, Wikipedia becomes the new Craigslist. The easiest way to stop that is to say "anything advertised is only noteworthy if there is outside and independent observation."

It is hardly questionable. Your purposed policy will not be noted any time in the future, as the current policies work just fine for those who aren't trying to spam the site. If you have a Yahoo news article, try citing that. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Except I wasn't talking about any of those irrelevant things you just dragged in, I was arguing specifically that where a claim that an IndieGogo campaign exists is made, providing the link to it as a reference is an entirely reasonable way of verifying the claim, and this really ought to be acknowledged as not being in contravention of any policy on sources. The common sense policy is for the birds, it seems.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.66.228 (talk • contribs)

But those supposedly "irrelevant" things are the very reason why we cannot rely on primary sources, and the advertising issue is the core of why we do not allow the IndieGogo campaign to be cited to demonstrate that it's noteworthy. Existing is not simply enough to merit inclusion on this site, or else we'd become Facebook. We're not a collection of random information, we're an encyclopedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Aren't you shifting the goalposts again there? I wasn't citing it to demonstrate that it was noteworthy, I was citing it to prove it exists. The noteworthiness is a separate issue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.66.228 (talk • contribs)

Hardly shifting the goalposts, merely pointing out that you're not aiming for the proper goalpost. At no point have I said that proving something exists is enough, I have consistently said that what matters is outside and independent observation and documentation. All of my posts in this thread have specifically argued against including something just because it exists, and if you didn't catch that you must not be paying any attention. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

No, you are not listening to me. I agree that not everything is necessarily worthy of mention in this encyclopedia. Wikipedia comes to decisions on whether things are worthy of writing about in a vague, mutual way. I'm not seeking to change that, but it is separate from how assertions are validated in articles. Assuming that the existence of this campaign were adjudged noteworthy, how else could or should it and its aims be attested other than by reference to it? I am pointing out a specific instance of where your policies are not working sufficiently well, for someone who is not trying to "spam the site" (unless you are using a very creative and individual definition of "spam"). In discussion with someone else I encountered the view that "it's... unreliable because it's a primary source". What that says about the way wikipedia sources information is really quite worrying. It is obviously in everyone's interests that common sense should be applied in such cases. I'm surprised that this point has encountered such bloody-minded resistance. And I wish you would stop assuming bad faith about me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.66.228 (talk • contribs)

When you said "I still think it should be noted in all future such cases that primary sources are allowed on wikipedia..." -- common sense would call that 'trying to change things.' Your only actions on the site have been to try and add a link so someone can get money: in effect advertising the campaign. Common sense says that you're spamming.

The examples I've given above explain why it would be worrying if we relied on primary sources.

I have not moved the goalposts, you have been kicking the ball shorter and shorter. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

This exchange appears to be fruitless since you're not prepared to engage in an open spirit, and also since the discussion on the relevant article has (I hope) moved on to the more material questions of noteworthiness and the neutrality of my edit (which I have tried to address with a suggested new wording; and I am happy to acknowledge that I support the campaign, but there is no valid reason why that should preclude me from writing about it, and it has no bearing whatsoever on its noteworthiness). But I find your attitude to this perplexing and not at all reassuring.

Association football club size

http://www.kicker.de/news/fussball/bundesliga/startseite/616467/artikel_bayern-mitglieder-feiern-abwesenden-hoeness.html was used to support the statement that FC Bayern Munich has "over 251,000 members" and therefore is considered "the biggest club in the world". First some background. Not all football clubs have memberships. So some clubs may have more supporters, or rank higher on Forbes' list of most successful sports franchises. This is only about members. Second, one fan of a club that doesn't keep accurate records, Portuguese club Benfica, has taken offence to the change. He claims that UEFA doesn't support that statement, but doesn't offer any proof from the organization. He claims that Guiness World Records doesn't support it, but again, no support. I believe that even if they offered contradicting claims, it doesn't nullify the new RS and their claims may need to be updated. Also, even if they contradict, it's not incorrect to use the source unless it's not reliable. We add additional statements with the countering claims. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It's FIFA, not UEFA (my mistake). Do you have proof that the club doesn't keep accurate records? Benfica will recount the number of members in 2015 (source). I don't claim FIFA doesn't support the statement, I claim that Bayern itself is not neutral to say they have more members. I have a reliable and neutral source which compares many clubs and shows that Benfica is the biggest club by membership: http://www.fifa.com/mm//Document/AF-Magazine/FIFAWeekly/02/27/86/02/LowRes_eng_Woche07_2014_Neutral.PDF page 29. SLBedit (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that source.

1. It is from July. The new one is from November.
2. That source indicates that Benfica has 235,000. The new source indicates that Bayern has 251,000, which is more

In short, is the kicker.de reliable? Can it be used to support the statement that the club is now the largest in the world? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz said this to me on a discussion: "Don't bother posting another word here". SLBedit (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that was only part of what I wrote. The exact phrase was: "In other words, if you can't find a reliable source that states that your club has more than 251,000 members your old sources are no longer relevant and I'm done talking with you. Seriously. Don't bother posting another word here unless it's a RS that supports that claim." Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Is "Speaking of Science" at the Washington Post a WP:NEWSBLOG?

I am currently in a dispute with another editor (who seems to have walked away from the discussion) over whether the quote from Rachel Feltman in the "Shirt controversy" section of the Matt Taylor article is from a newsblog at The Washington Post or from The Washington Post itself. I maintain that the text "Rachel Feltman runs The Post's Speaking of Science blog." at the end of the Washington Post article clearly identifies that Speaking of Science is a newsblog and not the Washington Post itself. The other editor responded here that the format of the URL indicates that it is not a blog, but part of The Washington Post's news reporting.

It is obvious that we have a disagreement and I am bringing the issue here to get someone else to look at it, since no one else has commented in the discussion. The discussion is at the article talk page 70.133.154.32 (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It's listed as a blog on the Washington Post website here. ElKevbo (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece. "Newsblog" means the newspaper is hosting an opinion writer, and it can generally be used the same as another opinion piece published by the paper. WP:NEWSBLOG means that you treat newsblogs as slightly more reliable than non-newsblogs (regular blogs), but that you attribute the statements to the opinion writer, still connected to the paper somehow. "Newsblogs" offer viewpoints from a more reliable source; it doesn't mean they should not be used in an article. It's the same substantive type of opinion piece as the "Daily Telegraph" opinion piece that's used just after it... [6] __ E L A Q U E A T E 03:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Basically, a Washington Post newsblog is not somehow less reliable for informed opinion than a Guardian "Commentisfree" opinion piece, or a Daily Telegraph editorial opinion piece. If you're using those in that article, then this piece is at least as acceptable.__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

But nor is it somehow more reliable, and all of the other opinions cited in the article are simply attributed to individuals. The Feltman quote is, at least partially, attributed to The Washington Post, and the justification for that attribution that had been given when I challenged it was "Speaking of Science is not a WP:NEWSBLOG — it is specifically a part of The Washington Post's regular news coverage and is reported and edited as such" which is what brought me here to ask if it is a newsblog. How we use opinion pieces is also important. None of the other sources are being used to support a one-word quote like the one in which she described as "sexist" just prior to the long quote from Feltman's piece. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 05:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The discussion here pointed the way to an "olive branch" solution that seems to have worked. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

EMDR - "Other Applications"

Hello, If I am correctly understanding, this noticeboard serves to check the authenticity of a particular source used in an Wikipedia article. The source in question is: Brown KW, McGoldrick T, Buchanan R (1997). "Body dysmorphic disorder: Seven cases treated with eye movement desensitization and reprocessing". Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy 25 (02): 203–207. The reference is being used in its entirety simply to demonstrate one of a number of psychological conditions other than Post-traumatic Stress Disorder under investigation with EMDR therapy. Thank You Saturn Explorer (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

If you're questioning whether the cited source even exists at all, the resource exchange board is probably what you want. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The context is use in the Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing article, so I suspect this is more a question of whether this is a proper source for the way it will be used. To judge that, we need to see an example of how it will be used. Saturn Explorer, please provide the content you'd like to add using this as a source. Just place it in this thread and we can then judge if it is a proper way to use the source. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you BullRangifer. Here is the usage of the aforementioned reference. As you can see, reference #32 was tagged: "Although controlled research has concentrated on the application of EMDR to PTSD, a number of studies have investigated EMDR therapy’s efficacy with other disorders, such as borderline personality disorder,[28] anxiety disorders,[29][verification needed] somatic disorders such as phantom limb pain,[30][31] body dysmorphic disorder,[32][verification needed] depression[33] and psychosis.[34]Although controlled research has concentrated on the application of EMDR to PTSD, a number of studies have investigated EMDR therapy’s efficacy with other disorders, such as borderline personality disorder,[28] anxiety disorders,[29][verification needed] somatic disorders such as phantom limb pain,[30][31] body dysmorphic disorder,[32][verification needed] depression[33] and psychosis."[34]Saturn Explorer (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I just noticed that reference #29 has very recently been tagged as well: Gauvreau P, Bouchard S (2008). "Preliminary evidence for the efficacy of EMDR in treating generalized anxiety disorder". Journal of EMDR Practice and Research 2 (1): 26–40. doi:10.1891/1933-3196.2.1.26. Thanks you, again.Saturn Explorer (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You are likely running into conflict with our WP:MEDRS guideline. Our sourcing demands for biomedical claims in any article are even stricter than for other types of information. The result is that we demand better sources for such information in our articles than even scientific and medical journals do for their articles! That's a pretty high standard, and is likely part of the explanation for why most MDs now use Wikipedia articles before medical textbooks.

We don't normally allow "preliminary" or "inconclusive" sources. Why? Experience has taught scientists that 95% (a guestimate) of all research ends up not panning out, even though it started with preliminary "positive" results. That's why we don't trust research until it has been confirmed by multiple, independent, researchers who also publish their results. If that process confirms the results, then things really start to happen. It becomes exciting. Such results start to influence policies and guidelines, and that's when we too, here at Wikipedia, start allowing those results to be used as sources.

That's why we prefer reviews of multiple research projects published in high profile, reputable journals, and the Journal of EMDR Practice and Research is a junk journal, akin to chiropractic's Journal of Vertebral Subluxation Research. The starting premise for both journals is pseudoscientific. They are in house journals, preaching to the choir. They don't have any credibility in the wider scientific and medical communities. EMDR researchers need to publish their research in major, high impact, journals.

We don't want our articles cluttered with the 95% speculative and temporary results. Any editor can engage in original research and synthesis violations by cherry picking the results they like out of those 95%, and we don't allow that practice. It only encourages pushers of fringe POV to load long lists of junk results into articles. The homeopathy article is a place where such attempts happen all the time. The talk page history and archives are loaded with hundreds of such sources which we don't allow in the article.

So, be careful about sourcing. Follow the MEDRS guideline, and when in doubt, you can float your ideas here. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. Thank you BullRangifer.Saturn Explorer (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I should say this makes sense from the perspective of matured scientific publishing and from a perspective that seeks to both inform and protect the public from misunderstanding or even inadvertently misleadking implications. This is the venerable perspective of Wikipedia and the whole reason for your comments. However, I would refrain from blanket labeling JEMDR as "junk science." JEMDR has many serious contributors and it is peer reviewed. True, it does not react the level of excellence of a JAMA or Nature, etc., but it's intent extends beyond self-promotion. I rather think of JEMDR as a laboratory for a variety of contributors and contributions exploring a serious subject of both science and healing art, shich has already shown very significant effectiveness, at a relativel early phase of that subject.Saturn Explorer (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

"Editor Reviews" and affiliate marketing (on CNET)

We're currently discussing Yet Another Cleaner and its pending deletion and the only so-called reliable source we have mentioning this (IMO Rogue) software is an "Editor's Review" by CNET Staff. [7] Unfortunately, I can't agree that this would constitute a reliable source because of the fact that the article contains affiliate links, meaning that for every purchase this article promotes, CNET makes a commission.

Examples: "Get Winzip Standard" [8], "MS Office for $139.99" [9], "Upgrade to YAC Anti-Malware Premium for only $20.00" [10]

These are all clearly affiliate links which earn CNET financial reward for virtually any software it praises. I find it hard to believe that these would be considered good things to cite, let alone being the deciding factor on why obscure software should have its own article on WP. Opinions? - JakobusVP (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Newspapers, magazines, TV shows, etc. take advertising money from companies they sometimes cover. For example, the "Wheels" section of the local paper is full of ads for cars. That's how the section is financially justifiable. That doesn't mean the reviews can't be reliable sources, your piped link notwithstanding. Reputable media companies have a wall between content and advertising. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

NealN is right. CNET is generally a respected source. If it's notable, it gets to have an article. I don't know if that's the case here, but CNET would be a good source. If the software is still too obscure to be noticed in multiple RS, then it can wait. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

JacobusVP, the case you seem to be making for the unreliability of CNET is that they've been corrupted by what they're paid to review a product. But unless you know for sure that some reviewers aren't paid for doing so, according to you all reviewers of software must be judged as unreliable on similar grounds of corruptibility.

What if anything do you see as distinguishing CNET from other reviewers of software, that would would make CNET any less reliable than those other reviewers? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 08:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Online dictionaries

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/New%20World?s=t

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/new%20world

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/new-world?q=New+World

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/the-new-world#the-new-world_1

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/New-World?q=New+World

Another editor has accused these sources of being unreliable in the context of the New World article. Are they?

Thanks! --Whattheheyhey (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that, as far as I know, you're correct in your assertion that the New World refers to the Americas, those are all reliable. Bromley86 (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

They are all WP:TERTIARY: good to get a general sense from a general summary, but shouldn't be heavily relied on for content in place of better secondary reliable sources. These definitions are simplified summaries that may not reflect what is found in more substantive and authoritative sources. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. Looking at WP:TERTIARY I think the usage was appropriate. --Whattheheyhey (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The article currently outlines how the term changed over time, evolving in scope and nuance, and that it didn't have a single universal set meaning. A dictionary definition is not going to reflect the level of historical detail attempted in that article. We have to use better sources and not build articles about history and sociology out of dictionary entries, __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Wholehearted agreement with ELAQUEATE above. Dictionaries provide a good snapshot definition of a term, but in most cases, with perhaps exceptions for the Oxford English Dictionary and a few others, that's all they do. On articles like this, where the definition of the term has changed over time, other sources are probably preferable. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not being more specific. The issue at hand was a question of current usage. Another user wanted to add Australia to the New World, refused to provide any source, and instead demanded that I find sources stating that New World means the Americas. When I did, the user claimed the sources were "unreliable." --Whattheheyhey (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. In that event, it probably would not be unreasonable to use these sources as at least a current snapshot of the definition of the term, and it would seem to be incumbent on that other editor to meet WP:BURDEN requirements and provide good sources which specifically support his alternate definition and, apparently, alternate criteria for inclusion. John Carter (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Newspaper sources

These sources [11] [12] are actually reliable for claiming Pakistan's victory during the Battle of Chawinda?

Until the introduction of these sources, the result parameter was referred as "Stalemate" due to the UN mandated ceasefire.[13],[14], [15] But I really doubt if other two[16] [17] are reliable enough for claiming the results, since they are outdated and they cannot overlap the sources that are dated and have enough expertise in the field. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

They are reliable sources. As to whether they're suitable or not, that's a different question that also needs to be applied to the other cites currently in use. I.e. [3] is the diary of an Indian minister, which might not give a balanced view; even then, the language it uses (lack of initiative of Indian commanders, Pakistanis reinforcing strong defences) indicates that the Pakistanis may have been achiving their aims in a defensive battle. A quick read of 138-9 of [4] makes me think it's fairly pro-Indian in its language (not least, it frequently refers to the Pakistani side as the enemy). Even then, those pages indicate, to me anyway, that India did not achieve it's aims in the battle of Chawinda. Therefore, they lost. And [5] has a single sentence on it; there must be more authoritative sources than that. Bromley86 (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bromley86: I know that each of them are reliable sources and the tone may differ, I had mentioned those 3(google books source) just for suggesting that how "Stalemate" was result. I have just edited by main comment, and clarified that I was actually asking about the 2 sources that I had mentioned from start. Are they reliable enough for claiming "victory" for Pakistan? Since they are based on what a Military commander had told. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The second source you mention (from nla.gov.au) is borderline. That would support that Pakistan has claimed victory "Pakistan troops were reported confident today of scoring a major victory..." I did some brief google searches, hoping I'd find something from the US Army War College or a similar organization that would be a strong review of the battle. I didn't see anything like that, but I found several analysis articles that seemed to be from the Pakistan perspective. The difficult part on saying victory one way or the other is the UN ceasefire which essentially ended the battle. Ravensfire (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: Since it is not providing any evidence of the victory, and it has only based its view on the statement that was made by a commander from start, "Pakistani commander at Sialkot claimed", it is reliable enough for claiming Pakistani victory? Especially when the author is unknown and it has only reprinted what a Pakistan' military men said, including his claim of 150 - 200 tank losses, not supported by any other sources. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Librarian as source for history at Madoc

Some time ago one Ellen Pugh was added to Madoc. At the time I wrote "In a rather odd footnote, an editor writes " Ellen Pugh career: Western Reserve University (now Case Western Reserve University), Cleveland, OH, cataloger, 1943-45; Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, cataloger, 1945-47; Cincinnati Public Library, Cincinnati, OH, branch librarian, 1955-58; University of Nebraska, Lincoln, order librarian, 1958-63; University of Oregon, Eugene, cataloger, 1963-65; University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, cataloger, 1965-68; Washington State University, Pullman, serials librarian, 1969-" - she was also described as a Welsh historian, although she obviously isn't. She was a librarian with evidently no training in history. Emory & Henry College emeritus professor of history Eugene L. Rasor said of her that she "speculated about Prince Madoc but not convincingly". I can't see any way that she can be a reliable source for anything historical. Dougweller (talk) 11:59 am, 15 April 2013, Monday (1 year, 7 months, 18 days ago) (UTC+1)"

She was removed and has now been replaced, and another editor on the talk page considers her sufficiently "credentialed". She is used as a source for "" A Flemish writer called Willem, in around 1250 to 1255, identifies himself in his poem Van den Vos Reinaerde as "Willem die Madocke maecte" (Willem, the author of Madoc, a/k/a "Willem the Minstrel". She isn't qualified in this field and shouldn't be used as a source, but since 2 editors disagree it seems, I've brought it here. Note that this is a fringe article. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I honestly can't see any basis for saying that a serials librarian, whose job is to basically maintain newspapers, journals, etc., at a library, is necessarily a reliable source for material relating to a 13-century Flemish poet. John Carter (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see her as a reliable source for anything controversial, but the statement itself is surely uncontroversial. Of course that also means it can be easily sourced elsewhere. As it happens, I created the article on "Willem die Madocke maecte". As a source for that particular fact, I used André De Vries, Flanders: A Cultural History, Oxford University Press, New York, 2007, p.100. Paul B (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Having looked at the edit [18], the editor in question seems to be adding Pugh to cite the assertion that Willem is also known as "Willem the Minstrel". I never came across this designation when I was looking up material for the Willem die Madocke maecte article, and in any case it seems to have no relevance to the Madoc article at all, just adding pointless verbiage unrelated to the topic. I strongly suspect that the useless information that Willem was also known as "Willem the Minstrel" is being added soley to justify the inclusion of the Pugh source in the citations. Paul B (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)