Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 187

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reliable sources | Noticeboard
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 06:29, 8 April 2015 (Archiving 3 discussion(s) from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_187&oldid=655464307"