Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Additional notes: Shortcuts WP:RSN WP:RS/N WP:V/N RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. Start a new discussion

Recently the question arose as to whether or not Designers & Dragons [1], a book on fantasy role-play games, is a WP:RS for (a) games and game companies, (b) WP:BLPs.

• Publisher: The book's publisher is Evil Hat, a fantasy game and t-shirt company located somewhere in the United States (no physical address is given on its website and I was unable to locate it via a reverse EIN search either). [2]
• Author: The book's author is Shannon Applecline. A bio purporting to be that of Applecline is here: [3].
• Reception: The book has been cited in about two-dozen master's degree theses and undergraduate term papers. [4] A check of JSTOR and Google News finds no scholarly journals or mainstream media which have reviewed it. It is cited once each in Empire of Imagination: Gary Gygax and the Birth of Dungeons & Dragons from Bloomsbury and Dragons in the Stacks: A Teen Librarian's GUide to Tabletop Role-Playing from ABC-CLIO.

Is this source RS for (a) games and game companies, (b) BLPs? Chetsford (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Undecided on "A", No on "B" - I'm undecided leaning towards "RS" for games and game companies. However, I don't believe this could surmount the high threshold required to source a BLP. Neither the publisher nor author have any non-fiction credits other than this book and the author has no known educational credentials, or wider journalistic / academic reputation, that would qualify him to conduct original historical or biographical research. I have been unable to find any physical presence for the publisher by which it could be held legally responsible for what it publishes, as it appears not to disclose its physical address and even a reverse EIN search turns up blank. With the exception of undergraduate papers and master theses (which are not, themselves, RS) instances of the book being cited by reliable sources are light and there's no examples of it being used to cite a biographical statement in a RS (only product descriptions). Chetsford (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the lack of information on the publisher, and low profile of the author, I would say the book is not a reliable source, period. - Donald Albury 02:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Donald Albury, for the reasons stated. Not reliable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being published by a game company I would suspect it fails the editorial control/reputation for fact checking and accuracy criteria. On the other hand several volumes have been published so that is enough to establish a reputation. On yet another hand, I see no evidence of other reliable sources making use of it, which is really the only proxy we have for its reputation and acceptance. Based on that I do not think it could be considered a reliable source for anything until we can get a better handle on its editorial control and fact checking. Jbh ^Talk 05:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Designers & Dragons is cited by many/all of the authoritative scholarly sources in the field (as WP:SECONDARY reminds us to check whether "the source has entered mainstream academic discourse"). Most recently, Designers & Dragons is cited extensively and with evident approbation in Role-Playing Game Studies: Transmedia Foundations, the new academic text, published by Routledge, which for now is the leading text in the field. I can produce earlier citations of Designers & Dragons, but SCHOLARSHIP seems to be easily met by its role in unquestionably reliable sources, and SCHOKARSHIP is, as I understand it, the "gold standard for both BIO and CORP sources. Newimpartial (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • What you say appears to be incorrect. It is listed in several chapter's bibliographies and as 'Further reading' but I see nothing directly cited to the work. Without that it is impossible to know what it was used for. So, yes, it was consulted but I see no indication in that work that it was used for historical information about gaming companies which is the matter at hand here.
            This paper used it for some historical information on D&D, TSR. Jbh ^Talk 12:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • The above statement appears to be misleading. The Routledge text employs chapter bibliographies rather than individual citations, based on its intended use in universities. Most of the chapter references are either primary sources or academic/theoretical sources. The repeated references to Designers & Dragons in the bibliographies give it pride of place as a secondary source in the field, as having "entered mainstream scholarly discourse". Newimpartial (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • That is an … erm … interesting … source analysis. I will however disagree. We can not infer anything other than several authors looked at the work. In particular there is no indication that the work was used for the history of game companies, which is what we are examining it for here, or is any way considered generally authoritative purpose by the academic community.
                My concern is that the publisher has no history of academic, or even non-fiction, publishing. Therefore I do not accept, without evidence, that the editorial standards they have for publishing games are adequate, particularly in terms of fact checking and accuracy, for an authoritative "academic" work.
                I just looked at the Amazon free sample of the work and it is no more than a narrative history. I see no citations for facts nor any indications that it is reliable beyond a single person's observations and musings. It is effectively an oral history – a good work but essentially a primary source. Jbh ^Talk 17:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes it is for A and B - and a note that the user who opposed has been trying to argue for mass deletion of pages that rely on it as a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given it is published by a games company, I would say no. There are issues if primary source and even SPS here. OK maybe they might be OK for historical information, about people or products that have no connection to the company. But outside that I would say they are not interdependent enough to be an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that each edition of Designers & Dragons is not RS for the publisher at the time, which is the one issue of independence. Also agreed that its relevance is for historical/factual information, not really for analysis.Newimpartial (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe it meets all three criteria. To clarify on the part of the publisher, there have been two editions of the book, published by two separate game publishers who I believe are fully independent from each other and are headquartered in different countries. The first edition of the book was published as a single volume in 2011 by British game company Mongoose Publishing. The second edition was greatly expanded and published in 2014 in four volumes by US game company Evil Hat Productions. The first edition consists of roughly 50-60 chapters, with each chapter consisting of a history of one game company that was known for producing role-playing games, including discussing the people who have been a part of that company, and games that the company is known for. The text is written as partial oral history and partial commentary on decisions made by the companies. The second edition expands on the information in the first edition by adding more than 20 additional chapters on other companies, and expanding on the information featured in most of the chapters from the first edition; most of the text is reproduced identically from the first edition. Shannon Appelcline himself has been a game designer/writer, and he currently runs RPGnet and publishes articles there - most of the information from the first edition of Designers & Dragons was and still is on RPGnet, written for fans of the website before Mongoose agreed to publish it as a book. I would say his design experience and research qualifies him as an expert in the field. The credits of the book list a few dozen industry professionals that he consulted for information to write the book with. Important individuals in the field are discussed in detail in the book, including in some cases talking somewhat about their earlier lives and schooling, personal lives, and careers before and after getting into the gaming field. BOZ (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appelcline does not cite his sources inline in the text, but at the end of the Mongoose edition, he provides a bibliography of sources "built from thousands of primary sources including interviews, design notes, reviews, news articles, press releases, catalogues, forum postings and other non-fiction articles. It was also built with the assistance of hundreds of readers, fact-checkers and scanners." He lists over 30 magazines and similar publications ("a solid collection of RPG magazines dating back through the ‘80s and ’90, before the age of the internet made it easy for publishers to get information out to fans"), more than a dozen non-fiction books about the industry ("Any number of RPG books was consulted, primarily for insight into that game or its publisher. The following non-fiction sources were also used. Secondary sources like the Role-Playing Bibles tended to be used for date confirmation and references to primary sources, not for analysis.") several web resources ("The web proved an invaluable resource, particularly for companies in existence from the late ‘90s onward [and] a few of the web sites that I visited multiple times over the course of the project") and he lists several dozen fact checkers, most of whom worked for one or more of the companies he wrote about ("Whenever I finished an article, I tried to get one or more people associated with the company in question to comment on it. In one or two cases where I did not have sufficient company feedback, I got some help from fans as well. These people helped to make this book considerably more accurate and informative thanks to both corrections and insight generously given. Some were kind enough to comment on multiple editions of these articles over the years."). BOZ (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which means his assertions are untraceable and uncheckable. The reliability of the source then comes down to, in my opinion, the reputation of the publisher, which for reasons I have previously mentioned, is inadequate. The deficiencies of documentation and publisher could be offset if the author had a reputation for, or training in historiography. He does not.

There is no doubt the author put great time and effort into his work but, for the reasons I have stated, I do not believe it meets the Wikipedia's standards to be considered a reliable source for company histories or BLP. Jbh ^Talk 19:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see instructions at the top. What article and what material is this being used to reference? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Only in death does duty end, sorry. It's used quite extensively in BLPs so I can't provide an exhaustive list, however, here are a few examples:

• M. Alexander Jurkat - used to cite entire article including professional licenses (attorney), bankruptcy, inspirations / favorite things, and employment history [5]
• John Harshman - used to cite educational credentials and place of residence [6]
• Fred Hicks - used to cite the entire article, including the BLP's employment history, employment status, favorite things, friendships, and inspirations. [7]
• Andria Hayday - used to cite date the BLP's employer terminated them [8]
• Jack Herman - used to cite most of article, including the BLP's legal disputes and details of his business contracts with other people [9]
• Shane Lacy Hensley - used to cite most of article, including place of birth, childhood hobbies, and detailed employment history
• Dale Henson - used to cite entire article [10]

Chetsford (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Not reliable for company histories nor for BLP per my arguments above. The publisher is not an established publisher of non-fiction works and therefore can not be assumed to have adequate editorial controls for fact checking and accuracy. What I have seen of the work (Amazon sample) it is written as an oral history and provides no backstop for facts presented beyond the assertion of its author. Jbh ^Talk 17:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Reliable for both Each of the four volumes provides a Bibliography citing the sources used. Many of the sources are, in turn, other publications such as magazines. There is also a fifth volume entitled "Designers & Dragons The Platinum Appendix" that also lists all the references used. For me, the books meet the criteria of a reliable source. The books have been published and are available to purchase in hard copy form, and they're available and stocked in book stores. In addition, the author is identified and the publisher identified. The books have been cited in academic sources and has been acknowledged in lots of other sources as a comprehensive history. For example, The Oxonian Review which has an editorial board.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HighKing (talk • contribs) 20:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC (UTC)
• Reliable for Games/Companies, unsure for BLP Designers and Dragons is extremely heavily used and referenced inside the RPG industry and generally hailed as the pre-eminent source for RPG histories. Shannon Appelcline is regarded as the premier historian of RPGs. The first edition was published by Mongoose Publishing and the second edition multi volume set was published by Evil Hat. Note that the author does not work for either of those companies, it was just the means of publishing. The work is generally referenced (not as specifically and heavily as Wikipedia but all sources are listed), but as for many communities the outside oversight is minor as it is for every smaller subject area. Most company information is heavily cross referenced to people who worked for those companies and additional third party sources about the companies. As for BLP I'd be a little more unsure but considering the number of people interviewed for the work and since Shannon used most major players in the industry, I'd say it's as reliable a source for BLPs of the prominent people in the RPG industry as any, but I'm open to an argument against it. Canterbury Tail talk 21:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition I would also like to add that since it covers all aspects of the tabletop RPG industry, it should NOT be used for notability determination, just fact checking and claim supports like any other text on an industry. The fact that a game is included in it doesn't make that game/company notable as it goes into details on a lot of obscure RPGs. Canterbury Tail talk 15:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Borderline, reliable for non-extraordinary claims about game companies but not for BLPs. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, the guideline governing the type of source it purports to be, since the publisher is not academic we ascertain reliability by citation patterns. As discussed above, it is cited only in sources that are themselves marginal—theses and tiny start-up journals—with the exception of the Routledge collection, which is edited by an associate professor and a PhD in Media Studies. In this, it's cited only a half-dozen times, albeit usually for substantial points of fact, and chapter 4, Tabletop Role-Playing Games, names it as one of two sources on which "the historical arc traced here draws in large measure upon". Balancing the fact that this is only one publication (and mostly one chapter) with the fact that precious little has been published in this field, I would cautiously say that this source seems reliable for unsurprising claims about its field, but that it hasn't been vetted widely or frequently enough to rely on it for BLP information. FourViolas (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on the description from HighKing, I'd have to say it counts as a RS for all purposes. That said, if there is an extraordinary claim I'd want a second independent source (though I feel that way about nearly all sources, some things like Nature or the WSJ I'd accept as a single source for all but the most outrageous of claims). Hobit (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Marginal at best, not suitable for BLPs or for establishing notability. The first edition was published by a game company, the second via Kickstarter. This appears to be an "in-universe", hobbyist work -- slightly better than self-published. Okay to use for non-controversial details once notability of the subjects is established via other means, but I don't see evidence of fact-checking or accuracy. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Reliable for both I'm not seeing any evidence that the source is erroneous. We have numerous BLPs for people like footballers and pornstars which are supported by weak sources and, in general, we commonly use books and newspapers as sources even though these often contain errors and bias. All I'm seeing here is a case of prejudice against the field. Andrew D. (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it should be noted that the primary Wikiproject for RPGs, Wikiproject Dungeons & Dragons, has determined it to be a reliable secondary source for their purposes. Not sure what that says. Canterbury Tail talk 11:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was added to the Resources list by User:JEB215 in 2015. The page was built by User:Drilnoth in 2008 using available sources at that time; Designers & Dragons and several other books were not written yet and so were added later. BOZ (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on Notability A couple of editors have commented that Designers & Dragons may be an independent, reliable source for article content but not for WP:N. I believe this line of thinking reflects a misunderstanding about what WP Notability is: per policy, it is not supposed to be a measure of the importance of a topic, or of its encyclopaedicity (which is covered by WP:NOT), but simply a question of whether there are adequate sources to treat a topic; if there are not enough sources, it is not notable, but if there are enough sources, it is. (There may be some deletionists who disagree with this criterion, but the policy and guidelines are actually pretty clear). Of course, not all sources topics require their own articles, and some are best dealt with in sections of longer articles, but these are questions of encyclopaedicity rather than Notability.

So if Designers & Dragons is a reliable, independent source - which is certainly how the SCHOLARSHIP in the field treats it - then it is evidence of Notability based on the significance of the mention, same as any other RS. I do of course agree that no extraordinary claims should be based on the text in question, nor do I trust it's theoretical or analytical judgements very far, but it's factual accuracy is excellent. And the argument that boils down to "it covers so many games that none of them can be very important" simply runs contrary to what WP:N actually means; for example, the listing of very, very diagnoses in the DSM doesn't make any of them less Notable for WP. Newimpartial (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

which is certainly how the SCHOLARSHIP in the field treats it While I certainly understand the spirit of your perspective, I would dispute that there can be scholarship in a field that is not a scholarly field. This is not a comment on the value or import of role-playing games, however, I don't believe their design or manufacture is a scholarly field. Scholarship "within the field" might be a reasonable touchpoint for the academic disciplines, however, I don't see evidence that role-playing games is an academic discipline. This is not to say that any entertainment topic is un-scholarly. Film, for instance, is both a topic of entertainment and a topic of scholarship (the latter evidenced through the presence of indexed journals about film, a large number of university professorships studying film, and a general recognition of the viability of the field of film studies). However, I appreciate we may have to agree to disagree. Chetsford (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is that why you didn't include the new Routledge text in your "reception" section of the RSN notice: because of your OR decision that it was not in a scholarly field? You should inform Routledge, then, and you might want to tell the publishers of the game studies journals, as well. Newimpartial (talk)

the publishers of the game studies journals I'm not familiar with any scholarly journals about RPGs. This may be a personal failure on my part; could you cite some so I could better acquaint myself and consider modifying my !vote appropriately? Chetsford (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any journals that are confined to RPGs, but the RPG form is certainly discussed within the burgeoning scholarship on game studies (or Ludology) in general. Newimpartial (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could share some of those journals then? Chetsford (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious specialty journal for you to start with would be http://analoggamestudies.org . Newimpartial (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked SCOPUS and EBSCO and it doesn't appear to be indexed. Chetsford (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would explain why it didn't show up in the Google Scholar results. :) Newimpartial (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So this is not an indexed journal? To my original query of the latter evidenced through the presence of indexed journals did you have any examples of indexed journals? The question as to whether roleplaying games is an academic field comes down to several factors listed above, including are there scholarly journals? If there are, I'm hoping you can help us identify them. Keeping in mind that simply starting a website and calling it "journal" does not make it a scholarly journal in the spirit of WP:NJOURNAL. Chetsford (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't move goalposts. I was answering your direct question, "I'm not familiar with any scholarly journals about RPGs. This may be a personal failure on my part; could you cite some...?" I was not answering your oblique reference to indexed film journals, nor was I offering an opinion on the specifics of any journal's editorial process. (I trust that WP editors can read websites and make their own decisions about editorial oversight.) RPGs are included in the overall field or ludology, specifically in the less lucrative part of that field dealing with "analog games". I have no interest in proceeding any further down this rabbit hole, none of which explains your non-inclusion of the Routledge text in your filing here at RSN. Newimpartial (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Is roleplay gaming an academic discipline? Sorry, I assumed when I said "scholarly journals" it was evident, vis a vis my previous comment the latter evidenced through the presence of indexed journals, what it was I was looking for (i.e. not just any publication or website including the word "journal" in their name but scholarly journals). If I expressed myself imperfectly, I apologize. In any case, Analog Game Studies would objectively not meet our WP:NJOURNAL criteria since we have set-forth that "the only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journals are via bibliographic databases and citation indices". Therefore, IMO, on the basis of there being no scholarly journals on role-playing games, no or very few academics at accredited universities researching roleplaying games, no learned society dedicated to the topic of roleplaying games, and roleplaying games are not listed in the Classification of Instructional Programs [11] or the Joint Academic Coding System [12] I would maintain the position that roleplaying games are not an academic discipline. I appreciate we may have to agree to disagree. Chetsford (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding BLP sourcing: I should have made it clearer above, but when Appelcline lists his "fact-checkers", these were not just random people who happened to work at the company. Many of the people written about in the book – not anywhere near all, but many – were among the 120-or-so fact-checkers listed. My understanding of how the material for the book came to be is that Appelcline would write an article about one company and the games and people associated with it by reading interviews, news articles, non-fiction books about the industry, magazine articles, websites, etc, and compile the information together based on that, and send the article to one or more people who were significant to that company in some way for feedback and to act as a fact-checker. Let's say he were writing about "Happy Fun Time Games" which was started by John Smith; he would send the article to Smith and I imagine he might get a response something like: "I actually started HFTG in my basement in 1985 while I was at Blah University in Colorado with my friend Jim Johnson who was working as a lawyer in Tennessee at the time. He left the company in 1994 to go back to BlahBlah Law school, so I hired Robert Thompson to take his place after he was let go from Goofy Games, and he left in 2002 to go into photography in Georgia. Johnson sued us and won for licensing rights in 2003. I took time off from the company from 2004-2006 to play golf, and then I came back. Other than that, it looks like you got everything right, so great work!" He would then publish the article online, and after a while there were a few dozen such articles online, so Mongoose agreed to publish these articles as a book, and the editor in the credits is Charlotte Law, and that is how Designers & Dragons came to be. The question then is, since we have people approving of what was written about them and about people they know, does that make the source more or less reliable? I suppose some people will argue that no one knows you and your friends better than yourself, while other people will say that giving input that way just gives people the opportunity to lie about themselves and people they know, so me asking this may or may not put us closer to a consensus. BOZ (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  This thread is likely to be closed in the near future, and it may be difficult to determine the consensus here as so many differing opinions have been offerred. Wikipedia policy is determined partly by consensus discussion of what should and should not happen, and partly by practice of what does happen. Chetsford has put a lot of effort into arguing that while Designers & Dragons could possibly be used as a reliable source under the right circumstances, that a subject's inclusion in this book should not be taken as an indicator of notability, and he even tried for some reason to have it documented as such and as one of the perennial source discussions despite this being the first and only discussion of the source on a noticeboard that I am aware of. So as far as documenting practice, this noticeboard discussion came out of Chetsford nominating almost 20 tabletop gaming-related (mostly RPG, but not all) articles for AFD. Of those, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fantasy Imperium, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zen and the Art of Mayhem, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Cross (role-playing game) have been closed as delete, and as a few similar articles are also likely to be – but please note that none of them were sourced to Designers & Dragons (or sourced at all, for that matter). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who Roleplaying Game and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angus Abranson were both sourced to Designers & Dragons, and both were closed as Keep. Five more pending AFDs are also on articles sourced to Designers & Dragons, and from a look at each of them it seems likely to me at this point that they will all close as either Keep or Merge. Merge is not Delete, and does allow for some of the sourced content to be moved to another article. Since policy on Wikipedia reflects practice in part, I am urging whoever closes this discussion to not explicitly rule that Designers & Dragons does not contribute to notability. If you cannot find that it in fact does contribute to notability, then please leave it as an open question for now. BOZ (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above that there is no consensus it is RS, nor is there a consensus it is not insofar as BLPs are concerned. I would say there is probably a consensus it is RS for non-biographical facts. Just in point of clarification of my nominations regarding RPGs, I've nominated 19, of which 4 have been deleted, 4 kept, 2 merged, and 9 are either open or have had to be relisted. I'm not sure which involved Designers & Dragons. Chetsford (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I explained here already regarding which of your AFDs involved Designers & Dragons as a source, but if my explanation was not clear – three were closed as Keep, one as Merge, and three remain to be closed but are unlikely to be closed as delete unless there is a last-minute push in that direction. That is not enough evidence on its own to say that the book definitely does contribute to notability, but my point here is that it does show some practice-based evidence that it may contribute to notability, thus my request to the closer that the book should not be ruled as clearly a non-contributor to notability, and thus leaving that an open question at worst. The majority of your recent game-related AFDs do not involve this source, so I was not discussing them here, as this discussion is about just one source, and not about your success rate which you keep touting as some important metric. But since you brought it up, on your chart, lets just say that four of the seven "red" unsuccessful nomination results on the current version of the chart involved Designers & Dragons as a source, while none of the "green" successful nomination results involved said book as a source. So, let's just say that your success rate when it comes to articles sourced by this book is… underwhelming at best. BOZ (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it appears we agree that there is a consensus it's fine for articles about games and game companies and no consensus as to whether it is or is not RS for BLPs. Since the Keep/Delete decision in each AfD was not based solely on the status of Designers & Dragons but rather on an holistic evaluation of all the sources in the article, as well as arguments for the subject's inherent notability on the basis of various awards, this centralized discussion in which Designers & Dragons is the exclusive subject of analysis is probably a better judge of the community's opinion. In any case, I think discussions at RSN usually just fade away 9 times out of 10 rather than being formally closed. Best - Chetsford (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Just adding that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillfolk was closed as Keep as well, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cthulhu Britannica as merge. The three remaining AFDs involving Designers & Dragons as a source have been relisted, and as noted above, at this time look more likely to be Keep or Merge rather than delete. BOZ (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Just adding for the record that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cubicle 7 was closed as No consensus (delete 3; keep 10). BOZ (talk) 11:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Likewise, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic McDowall-Thomas was closed as no consensus. The last AFD in question was relisted for a second time earlier this week, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D6 Fantasy, with most respondents split between either Keep or Merge/redirect, and only the nominator and one other arguing to delete. So, to reiterate, with all the AFD results noted above going "merge" at worst, and most as keep or no consensus (aka, default keep), I will again dispute the notion that the community should consider Designers & Dragons to be not a RS or contribute to notability. It was not the only source in question on those articles, so it alone does not determine notability, but the failure to get a single delete result among the 7 articles that used this source tell me that the community does consider it enough of a RS that contributes to notability (along with other sources) that consensus could not be found to delete any of those 7 articles. BOZ (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D6 Fantasy was finally closed today as Keep. BOZ (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Most certainly reliable. No idea why this is not considered a reliable source. It is every bit as reliable as any other source compiled by a specialist historian of a subject. The fact its publisher is a games company is neither here nor there. Inclusion in it does not make a game, product, company or individual inherently notable, of course, but as a source for facts on the tabletop RPG industry it is certainly a reliable source. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Appears Reliable. I found this source popping up in some scholarly ghits and I've found no evidence of negative claims against it, so, at least for now, I have no reason to doubt its general reliability. Certainly it's an appropriate source for WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes for A and B. First referring to Evil Hat as "T-shirt company" is akin to calling Microsoft a "company that sells mice and keyboards". It is an attempt to weaken the status of a publisher. No one that has any familiarity with Evil Hat would call them a T-Shirt company. They sell books and games and happen to have branded t-shirts. Secondly, the scholarship of these books (there are now five) rests in the hands of the author, Shannon Appelcline who is also the editor-in-chief of RPGnet and historian for DriveThruRPG/RPGNow. While he has no page himself he is mentioned in over 900 Wikipedia pages. Third. The book was originally published by Mongoose Publishing and is based on his articles at RPGNet. Web Warlock (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes for both, with the caveat that it's a book about the history of RPGs, not about people's biographies outside RPGs. It's a respected series in multiple volumes. It's a genre piece, but so is, say, a book on history of Physics. BOZ seems to know quite a bit about it. --GRuban (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Closure requested at WP:ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the discussion is closed. (I am adding this because discussions frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.)

  Cunard (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prelim tally

Since the above discussion is becoming more detailed than anticipated, for ease of overview (but not to replace or substitute for the above discussion as per WP:NOTAVOTE), I have created the following summary table of the position of individual editors as a GF attempt to represent an interpretation of their opinions. Please feel free to edit or modify it directly if I have misrepresented you (edit - or remove yourself entirely if you do not want your opinion presented in summary format or to add yourself if you're not represented but contributed above). Chetsford (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editor	Reliable for Games or Game Companies?	Reliable for BLPs?
Chetsford	Maybe	No
Jbhunley	No	No
Cullen328	No	No
Donald Albury	No	No
BOZ	Yes	Yes
Simonm223	Yes (non-extraordinary claims)	Yes
Newimpartial	Yes	Yes
HighKing	Yes	Yes
Slatersteven	No (except on rare occasions)	No (except on rare occasions)
Canterbury Tail	Yes (facts but not notability)	Maybe
FourViolas	Yes (non-extraordinary claims)	No
Hobit	Yes	Yes
K.e.coffman	Maybe (facts but not notability)	No
Andrew Davidson	Yes	Yes
Necrothesp	Yes	Yes
Reyk	Maybe (non-controversial facts, but not notability)	No
Praemonitus	Yes	Yes
Webwarlock	Yes	Yes
GRuban	Yes	Yes

Thanks - you might want to put a "ping" next to each of their names or something to give them a chance to make sure they agree with your interpretation. BOZ (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point - done. Chetsford (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine but I should note that I agree with FourViolas' qualification that it be used mostly for non-extraordinary claims. Simonm223 (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did in fact say no, I just accepted there might be rare occasions when it might have not been "not RS". But these do not outweigh my overall concerns about its neutrality and independence.Slatersteven (talk) 08:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven - I apologize and have amended accordingly. If I've still got it wrong, please feel free to edit it as you see fit. Sorry again. Chetsford (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continued !voting

• Krikey! Unreliable for anything, and hell no for BLPs. btw writing something about a company and sending it to a company founder, and taking his or her recollections as a "fact check" is about as amateur hour as it gets; doing that is called "PR' not "journalism" much less scholarly research. I imagine there will be decent scholarship done on this stuff one day. Jytdog (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC) (tweak formatting Jytdog (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]

• I wrote a critical review of a portion of this work which may be found here http://boggswood.blogspot.com/2011/11/designers-and-dragons-only-4995.html In my opinion the work is not wholly reliable, though certain sections dealing with later game development may be. DHBoggs (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC) DHBoggs[reply]

• "...on the basis of there being no scholarly journals on role-playing games..." The content is there, of course, with Games and Culture and Simulation & Gaming both publishing decent amounts of info on RPG's—and if anyone's curious what a true academic publication about RPG's looks like—you can bypass Designers and Dragons and look straight to Dungeons, Dragons and Digital Denizens (doi:10.5040/9781628927900)  spintendo  16:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• comment just a note that, in addition to contributing to the wrong section of the noticeboard, none of the last three comments actually contribute anything to the policy-based determination of whether Designers & Dragons is a RS, which is to be based on the editorial oversight of its various publications and not on whether its claims correspond to those documented elsewhere. WEIGHT should be given to its citation in the developing scholarly literature on RPGs, though it is not of course a scholarly work so [;[WP: SCHOLARSHIP]] does not apply.

Anyway, this whole thing should probably have been closed "no consensus" last week... Newimpartial (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DHBoggs, it seems likely that you found your way to this RSN discussion after I started this other thread regarding your addition of blogs and forums posts as citations for an article. I see that you posted a review of the book on your blog; per your comments here and on your user page you have an interest in archaeology and anthropology, but can you state what qualifications you have as a book reviewer, by which you can assert that your WP:SPS review of a 7-page portion of the book has any real relevance here? I am concerned about your ability to judge what sources are and are not reliable. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no universal pronouncement to be made. You've got to take into account whether a claim is contentious, self-serving, an invasion of privacy, or "likely to be challenged". In any of those circumstances, I'd be wary of this source. If none of those conditions apply though, it's not necessary to be extremely picky about things like the author's educational background as long as you're satisfying WP:V - ie, a reader can track down the claim and see what they think about it for themselves. Rhoark (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that statement sums up this discussion about as well as anything that could be said. I'm not sure why no one has closed this yet, considering anything meaningful that still needed to be said was done about a month ago. BOZ (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Generaly reliable This seems to be the type of source where great care has been taken to ensure accuracy, written by an expert in the field. The quantity of source material referenced would support further research should there be anything controversial, which has not AFAICS been suggested. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  

I know this has come up before, but I think this is also coupled with recent BLP questions regarding birth dates, so I will ping that page to this.

Famous Birthdays purportedly documents the birth dates and years of celebrities. They do not provide sources for these dates. Per #3 of their terms [13] "We don't warranty the accuracy or suitability of the information found on our platform for any particular purpose. We acknowledge that such information and materials could contain inaccuracies and we thus absolve ourselves of any liability for any such inaccuracies to the extent permitted by law."

To me, this clearly makes it not reliable, but it still keeps on coming up. The current situation I've seen it is for Shin Lim. I wrote much of this bio, and the sources I found (quality sources, that is) do not give his birth day, only his age. I do not know what the editor in this diff [14] has in relation to Lim, but the "does not want his birth date publicized" falls square in line with BLP, since I can't find a source that is reliable, I've never included it (only birth year-ish knowing his age). But with him in the news, we've got newer editors trying to source to Famous Birthdays, which is not helping.

So should Famous Birthdays be at all considered a RS? Since it offers no other content, I would also almost argue this should be a blacklisted site, assuming that we do not trust the birthdays given. (But you can certain say, if Celebrity X is claimed to be on this birthdate, can I find a better collaborating source for it...?) --Masem (t) 23:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearly non-RS. Unknown publisher. No information about, or reputation for, fact-checking. High-likelihood of being a circular source in at least some instances. Abecedare (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Might be reasonable to blacklist it. --Izno (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Prior RSN discussions about the source: 1,2, 3, 4; all with same consensus opinion. So I would be fine with adding it to the list of perennial sources. I was pleasantly surprised though that famousbirthdays.com is currently not linked from article-space although quite a few draft-articles seem to cite it. So I'll leave the judgment as to whether it is worth adding it to the spamlist to editors more familiar with the standards applied in that area. Abecedare (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Just want to throw a +1 here. When searching for a BLP DOB it is an unreliable site that pops up frequently. Blacklisting might be a good options to avoid future issues. PackMecEng (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been removing its use as a source and external link since early 2017. I'm not keeping count, but my impression is that it's added about once a day, mostly from inexperienced editors. I stopped removing it from drafts once it became common knowledge among draft reviewers that it is unreliable. I'd requested it be given to XLinkBot back in Feb 2017, and have been keeping notes there on what I've found. Using an insource search:like this makes it easy to find actual usage within articles. --Ronz (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's been added to XLinkBot. Documenting it at WP:RSP as well seems a good idea. --Ronz (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out, they actively solicit information on their own site: https://www.famousbirthdays.com/pending/ava-max.html --Ronz (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But that seems to beg anyone that can provide it, and as they do not seem to give credit to whomever finds it or the source, that still leaves it extremely unverifiable even if true. -Masem (t) 15:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just dealt with this website here. It was a red flag to me, and glad to find out it was justified to remove it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to remove this source whenever I see it, because it's frequently in conflict with other reliable sources and this leads to silly edit wars. Other times it's used as a sole source for a birthdate that's obviously incorrect, like a current teen actor born in 1974. In short, they have the opposite of a reputation for fact-checking, and as others have said they don't cite their own sources and allow user-submitted data. Considering its frequent misuse in BLPs I would support blacklisting. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support blacklisting. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly unreliable, almost certainly uses WP as a source, wittingly or otherwise. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Are The New York Times, Financial Times and similar sources reliable for describing an individual as a chess prodigy, or are chess-specific sources required?

The background is that the description of Peter Thiel as a chess prodigy, which was sourced to the NYT and FT, was removed with the reasoning it was "used only by nonchessplaying journalists", and later described as "sloppy journalism". Here are the NYT and FT references. The description is also made by The Times, CNBC, NBC News, New York Magazine, Sydney Morning Herald, Business Insider, though this does not change the question. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• My general sense is that any chess title less than Grandmaster (chess) is generally not meaningful. He can say he was a "chess prodigy" if he wants. I wouldn't include it in Wikipedia's voice; the CNBC profile in particular is clearly only parroting Thiel's own claims. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong venue. The question is not whether the above are considered reliable sources, it's whether we should parrot some description just because it's in the NYT, even when it is demonstrably incorrect. After all, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Chess players rarely describe other players as "prodigies", since only a tiny number (Capablanca, Fischer and Reshevsky come to mind) have had any outstanding achievements as children. Thiel is not one of them. And omitting incorrect information is not WP:OR. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is it demonstrably incorrect? I'm not aware of any strict definition of prodigy. Maybe the issue is just that it's imprecise and unencyclopedic to use such a term, I don't know. Our article says "Chess prodigies are children who can beat experienced adult players and even Masters at chess." i.e. pretty low bar. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "prodigy" needs to be included in the list of WP:PEACOCK words. It is an imprecise term which tends to get thrown around far too readily for any kid who knows how to play the violin or push chess pieces. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Titles below GM are meaningful, we have lots of articles on individuals notable solely as chess players who are not GMs. But "chess prodigy" is not a formal title (I also do not think Thiel has described himself as such, where have you read that it is a self-description?), it is just a description. The question is what type of sources are required to describe someone as a chess prodigy? Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The word "prodigy" is generally unencyclopaedic at anything less than a century's distance. Mozart was a prodigy, the kid your local paper calls a prodigy because he can play Mozart, not so much. Guy (Help!) 15:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree that we shouldn't describe someone as a prodigy in Wikipedia's voice - it's too subjective and peacocky. There are other ways that you could describe someone that would be meaningful, e.g. 'professional chess player', or 'winner of the blah Chess Tournament', but 'prodigy' doesn't add anything. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• To me, "prodigy" suggests a child who is doing something that usually only adults can do. Excelling in the field of junior players is not such a trait. Newspapers are not reliable sources for technical terms; the sources given are using the term as puffery rather than an objective description. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Like I recently stated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Prodigy, "child prodigy" is a legitimate term and it seems more objective to me than "genius." Are we never to note that a child is considered a prodigy, or that a child or adult is considered a genius? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see no issue with stating "chess prodigy" if WP:Reliable sources do. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliable sources" by people who know nothing about chess. Thiel is not exceptional, just a pretty good player. Anyone who knows chess can confirm this. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FIDE rating of 2199 is better than "pretty good", as anyone who knows chess can confirm. :/ 🝨⚬ʍP (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Reborn I think you may have leaped hastily here. No is saying the term is illegitimate. No one is saying we can't use it. Our biographies on Paul Morphy, José Raúl Capablanca, Samuel Reshevsky all describe them as "chess prodigies", and I would definitely oppose removing the term from those articles. The concern is that "prodigy" is being used in a comparatively frivolous manner here. A child who competes against other children is normally not considered a "prodigy". Alsee (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that I leaped hastily. More here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia reflects what is in reliable sources. If they describe them as such, then its appropriate. If they don't, it's not. If there is no question of the reliability of the sources used, then it's an editorial inclusion issue for the article talk page. If editors are complaining RS shouldn't be used because they are 'using the word wrong' or 'don't know about chess' without providing any references to back up their arguments, those are opinions lacking evidence and hold very little weight. Personally I'm with Jzg on the use of the word prodigy, but this doesn't appear to be an RS issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of whether this is an "RS issue" or not, I'd suggest that sources with field-expertise are "more" reliable for some things. The apparent absence of chess-related sources considering this to qualify as chess prodigy seems significant, when such sources do recognize many individuals as chess prodigies. Alsee (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The appropriate thing to do here, IMO, is not parrot the claim that he was a prodigy, but look up his rating on FIDE. He is listed at 2199, but has not played a rated game since at least 2001, which is as far back as the online records go. 2200 is the threshold for Candidate Master — impressive, but still well below GM level (~2500). In other words, he would have been among the strongest amateur players in the USA at some point, good enough to play in semi-pro leagues such as the 4NCL, and could have competed in international tournaments. I recommend citing the FIDE listing and saying something like, "Theil was once among the strongest amateur chess players in the USA, achieving a FIDE rating of 2199." Although this probably understates his ability somewhat as he likely had a higher rating than 2199 at some point.🝨⚬ʍP (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of USCF tournaments are not FIDE rated because they don't comply with FIDE regulations, at least for classical games, with respect to time controls, number of games played per day etc. This was even more so in the 80s and 90s when Thiel was active. Thiel's FIDE rating first appeared in the July 2003 list, based on a total of 10 games, and hasn't moved since. It's a fairly meaningless figure really. More useful are the USCF online records , which go back to 1992 when Thiel was 24. They provide no evidence of any exceptional ability, just one ordinary USCF master among many. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• he likely had a higher rating than 2199 at some point. His peak USCF rating is either 2342 or 2337, though he possibly could have reached a higher rating before 1992 that is not listed. USCF and FIDE ratings are not the same, but he would likely have been higher rated than 2199 if he set a FIDE rating at the time he recorded his peak USCF rating. A 1996 conversion table states 2340 USCF would be equivalent to 2295 FIDE. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the fact that he was rated is already something given his age. I think that we should not take prodigy as some form of certification but a description, indicating ability and not accumulated ratings. Whether he won or joined less tournaments is irrelevant because it has no bearing or did not diminish his talent. Perhaps Feldman and Morelock could be of help here when they defined prodigy as a child, who, at a very young age, performs at a level of an adult professional in some cognitively demanding field.^[1]

Consensus - just because it's in the New York Times doesn't mean we have to parrot it if specialist sources disagree. Is that a reasonable interpretation? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An academic report called “Labour, Antisemitism and the News – A disinformation paradigm“ has been published by the Media Reform Coalition in conjunction with Birkbeck College University of London. I fear the MSM will refuse to publish criticism of itself, thereby eliminating all 'qualifying' secondary sources of information on the report. Could we reference this as a primary source, being an academic study with the University of London's logo on the report, or make an exception for alternative media as a secondary source who have already covered this report Andromedean (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no indication that it's published in a journal. Any professor can write a screed on his or her pet topic (and many do). So it's WP:SPS. The question is then one of due weight: why are this professor's views on the media important enough to be included? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Generally agree, it looks like an SPS, it may or may not pass undue. But that is a different issue. At this time no RS have picked up on it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point though. The paper has just 'proven' the Wikipedia list of main Reliable Sources are not reliable, in this subject area at least! (Andromedean (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]

No, it hasn't. Don't be ridiculous. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do get the point, it has not "proven" anything, it makes a claim (on by the way I think is very very valid). But it still has to pass the policy test. I can hardly start to say "but this means we cannot uses these this "expert" says THEY ARE WRONG", whilst denying (and I have) to others. Either we accept RS policy or we do not. We cannot modify it as and when the whim takes us.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

not when the whim takes us. However, if we believe there's evidence of systematic bias in a subject area by the MSM why can't we question them being reliable sources in this restricted area under there are no rules rule? I really think there has been a serious breach in reporting standards here, perhaps the greatest since the Iraq war. (Andromedean (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]

This is a separate issue to whether or not the paper is an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

if we believe there's evidence of systematic bias in a subject area by the MSM... Then we lack the competence to evaluate reliable sources. The notion that all or even most "mainstream" media is united in an attempt to publish propaganda of a specific socio-political viewpoint is a conspiracy theory and utterly ignorant and illogical. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying my accusation of systematic bias is a trope at an organised conspiracy? I claim nothing more than this statement in the report. "We use the concept of disinformation to denote systematic reporting failures that broadly privileged a particular agenda and narrative" However, I agree with Slatersteven that we are drifting off the issue of the suitability of this report for inclusion in the main article. (Andromedean (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]

You are saying my accusation of systematic bias is a trope at an organised conspiracy? No, for two reason: first, that doesn't make grammatical sense, and I generally don't say things that don't make grammatical sense. Second, because what I was saying is that unqualified statements about the "MSM" being unreliable are ignorant and illogical conspiracy theories. If you would like me to point out how that belief is ignorant and illogical, I will do so, but I'm not planning on going into it without being asked to because I try to avoid posting unnecessary walls of text. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)That paper is quite literally about one particular issue and there are lots of non-"mainstream media" methods of publication for scholarly writing, which would qualify this paper as an unambiguous RS. I would also note that this paper does, in fact, meet the requirements of being written by "...an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". So it's usable as a source right now. But only on this particular issue and most likely only attributed, but that would need to have a discussion first, IMHO. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As somebody who's pretty strongly aware of the context surrounding this question I agree with MPants at work Simonm223 (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The main author has a major (self-declared) conflict of interest: "He is an active member of the Labour Party and the associated group Jewish Voice for Labour" (his piece is about anti-Semitism in the Labour Party). In combination with it being self-published, this weakens any case for treating it as an RS. EddieHugh (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We need to determine the reception the article has in reliable secondary sources. These would typically be academic articles and textbooks. I do not think there is any absence of academic writing about media bias. Manufacturing Consent for example. Note that most media bias is typically shown by their choice of stories and emphasis rather than fabrication of facts, so that they are reliable sources. TFD (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Although it could possibly be cited for the opinions of the author (who seems to be a recognized expert in the field), it might be better to do some more digging for papers published in peer-reviewed journals on the same topic with regards to media coverage of that scandal. For example, a quick search turned up this - Overland and Seymour obviously have a clear perspective, but it's still a peer-reviewed journal, so it's a good source to use for that perspective, probably with in-line citations. Also try this one. More generally, though, our purpose here is not to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I think that this topic has has more coverage than you suspect, but when there is genuinely no coverage, we can't just say "oh, the mainstream media is suppressing it" and accept stuff that otherwise fails WP:RS. Ultimately, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's purpose is to reflect what people would get by summarizing mainstream reliable sources and to give them a broad overview based on that - not to correct the record. --Aquillion (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Wikipedia's purpose was to reflect what people would get by summarizing reliable sources, not mainstream reliable sources. For example a peer reviewed publication isn't mainstream but it's certainly reliable. That brings us back to what is reliable. There seems to be no objective systematic attempt on Wikipedia to take account of the reliability of sources. Certain types of source are simply assumed to be reliable or unreliable by tradition or on faith, despite independent assessments being available from fact checkers.

The failures in objective reporting of anti-semitism by the BBC or the Guardian doesn't make them inherently unreliable on other subjects, but it does question their ability to report reliably on this issue. We have to seriously consider if they have an editorial line of assuming guilt of anyone accused of anti-semitism, and siding with the accuser, in a misreading of the 'MacPherson principle'.

It has now been disclosed that independent sites were also assessed by the Media Reform Coalition. The author states the MSMs failed output on the antisemitism issue was:

"almost indistinguishable from the far right media such as Breitbart or Order-Order....By contrast, “leftist” independent media are “often unfairly and lazily lumped together with” alt-right outlets by media keen to portray them as equivalents.... that while leftist sites such as SKWAWKBOX, Canary and Evolve Politics may also have an imbalance of sources, it’s in a way that is entirely in line with their explicit editorial position of providing a corrective to the distortions of mainstream coverage. But in terms of inaccuracies and the kinds of reporting failures that we broadly categorised as misleading, we found next to none of that in the left-wing independent publications. --Andromedean (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't report it.We only include what is reported by WP:RS and not your version of WP:TRUTH --Shrike (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• As far as I can see this falls under Self published source and is not a Reliable Source.
  Independent of the RS question, and as someone with little interest or knowledge in UK politics, the arguments analysis and evidence presented in the paper are asinine. Let's say someone preforms a similar analysis of US coverage of white supremacist marches. They find that the news coverage contains 6.3 times as many statements or commentators critical of the white supremacists than in support of them, and that many pieces contain zero commentators defending the white supremacists. The paper-author then reason that because there wasn't exactly 50% coverage in support of each side, that is evidence of improper bias in coverage. They then self-publish that analysis, because no reputable journal would accept or peer review it. And after self publishing it, it receives exactly zero coverage in "MainStreamMedia". Someone then comes on Wikipedia saying our policies are broken, the paper proves the MSM is biased. The question was How do we report academic criticism of the Mainstream Media (MSM) if MSM refuses to cover it? The answer is.... we don't. We do not debate truth on Wikipedia. Trying to debate truth here doesn't work. We summarize what Reliable Sources say. If Reliable Sources are biased against White Supremacists or anyone else, then we will accurately summarize that bias. If Reliable Sources all say the moon is made of green cheese, then Wikipedia will accurately summarize the sources saying that.
  If the paper is peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal, or if it gets significant coverage in "MSM", then it might be usable. Alsee (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That issue amongst others may have been addressed in this response published today.

"we don’t categorise or count quoted sources from opinion pieces other than the authors themselves. But we do examine them for accuracy in keeping with conventional editorial codes of conduct."--Andromedean (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The long and short of it is that you can't. It's a common criticism of Wikipedia, but that's just the way things are right now. This was debated in depth during the Gamergate controversy a few years back. You can check out the 60 pages of talk page archives if you want. Databased (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• This is objectively not a self-published source. The publisher is the "Media Reform Coalition" which as an entity is independent of the text's authors and able to exercise authority on whether or not to publish those authors under its institutional name. The questions you should be asking are whether it's neutral or due to use this, which is likely not the case. Rhoark (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Rhoark you apparently didn't read the first sentence of the introduction which says "The Media Reform Coalition has conducted in-depth research on the controversy surrounding antisemitism in the Labour Party, focusing on media coverage of the crisis during the summer of 2018." Hm. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That does not seem to have any bearing on the question. Organizations often publish the research of their members. Consider cases like RAND Corp, SPLC, Council on Foreign Relations, etc. That is not self-publishing because someone besides the author of the content has authority over whether to lend the organization's name and platform. Rhoark (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can embrace "alternative facts" all you like. This is the same as Greenpeace or the Heritage Foundation publishing something. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we should wait until other scholars review or cite the report. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gibb Songs appears to be a self-published Bee Gees fan website by Joseph Brennan, an IT worker by day, who it seems to me, by Wikipedia standards, would most likely not be considered "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". It's cited dozens if not hundreds of times in a multitude of Bee Gees Wikipedia articles. Although the website is impressively extensive, appears to be well-researched, and its removal would have a large impact on the articles, it looks to me like a textbook case of WP:SPS. WP:BLPSPS also applies in the case of Barry Gibb. Brennan is credited with "assistance", but not as an author, in The Bee Gees: Tales of the Brothers Gibb (Omnibus Press ISBN 978-1780387406). The website is cited in The Bee Gees: The Biography, which acknowledges him with:

"Thanks to Joe Brennan for his indispensable online archive, Gibb Songs: www.columbia.edu/~brennan/beegees. Everyone who listens to the Bee Gees owes Joe for his accuracy, completeness, ceaseless effort and generosity."

I wasn't able to find any other citations of the website by reliable sources. Brennan doesn't appear to have any work published by an established publisher.

Brennan gives this statement about Gibb Songs:

"This is not an ‘official’ page authorized by them or their record company, and I have no special access to them. The information presented here is the best I could come up with from my research, and the opinions are mine. Some of the statements made are my best guess based on uncertain evidence."

He gives a list of sources, books as well as many personal contacts and unpublished correspondence. The pages themselves don't contain any sort of inline citations or footnotes. It also mentions the "Words email list", a "forum for fans to discuss the Gibb brothers and their music in endless detail. To a considerable degree my opinions and choice of emphasis here were influenced by the many discussions Chris has made possible through the list."

Typical statements sourced to the site include, from the Barry Gibb article:

"The band later changed its name to Bee Gees. In 1959, the brothers began singing between races at the Redcliffe Speedway to earn money. Their vocal talent brought them to the attention of Bill Gates, a radio deejay. Gates was also interested in Gibb's original material including "Let Me Love You" and "(Underneath the) Starlight of Love". After hearing those songs, Gates asked Gibb for more original material. Gibb quit school in September 1961 and the Gibbs moved to Surfers Paradise. The brothers spent the summers of 1961 and 1962 performing at hotels and clubs in the Gold Coast area. By September 1962, Gibb managed to audition songs to Col Joye. The Gibb family moved in Sydney at the start of 1963.

Around the same time, the Bee Gees were signed to Festival but they were assigned to Leedon. Their first single, "The Battle of the Blue and the Grey" was written by Gibb. All of the Bee Gees' singles from 1963 to 1966 were written by Gibb. Between 1963 and 1966, Gibb's songs were recorded by numerous Australian recording artists including Trevor Gordon, Noeleen Batley, Anne Shelton, April Byron, Ronnie Burns and Lori Balmer."

--all sourced to Gibb Songs : 1946-1962 and Gibb Songs :1966

Further very large sections of the article, including information about song production, chart performance, as well as extensive biographical information, are sourced to (and sometimes closely paraphrased from) the website. Numerous other Bee Gees articles do the same.

Thoughts? --IamNotU (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The site is hosted by Columbia University, which may imply that it has some level of "academic legitimacy", or not, depending on what the university allows and disallows on its web server. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand, he works as a technologist in the IT department at Columbia, and they allow him to put his hobby pages in his personal directory. His main page says "I work on email systems. But this is where I get away from all that." Some of his pages also have this disclaimer:

Joe Brennan             Columbia University in the City of New York
brennan@columbia.edu    ("affiliation shown for identification only")
http://www.cc.columbia.edu/~brennan/

--IamNotU (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like it fails Reliable Source standards and ideally they should all be replaced with better sources. Those refs could be removed without adding a new source.... if anyone wants to challenge it. The info itself would then be unsourced, and would also be eligible for removal.... if anyone has a good faith challenge to it. However given your description as "impressively extensive, appears to be well-researched, and its removal would have a large impact on the articles", sometimes the best option is benign neglect. No one is required any specific edit, and you could always decide that it would be more productive to spend your time doing different edits. Alsee (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alsee: thanks for your reply, that's pretty much what I'm thinking. I'm not really interested in spending time on it personally or removing citatons en masse. I had just noticed it being a self-published source and used very extensively, so I thought I should point it out. Well, this section will be here if someone wants to challenge existing use of it or know if it's ok to use it in the future. I'd say it should definitely be avoided, and other published biographies be cited instead. --IamNotU (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's an ongoing effort to stick "devil's triangle" in the Threesome article related to the Kavanaugh hearings.[15] One source is a cheesy listicle in Cosmopolitan (unreliable.) The other is the New York Times (good) but the article only states it was used by one group of friends at one HS (Kavanaugh's.) That's fine for the kavanaugh article but here it implies general usage which the Times does not state. I won't be reverting again but someone should keep an eye on it. 199.127.56.123 (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Cosmo is borderline reliable in this instance. Here's a VICE article from 2012.[16] The term used is "devil's three-way" or "devil's threesome" (MMF) as opposed to "angel's" (FFM)... though I suppose if you are a woman who likes three-ways, maybe it's the opposite? Yetishawl (talk) 05:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Context matters: While Cosmo would be only borderline RS for a topic outside of its pop-culture wheelhouse, it can be considered RS for pop culture. A pop-culture article (especially in an established mainstream culture publication such as Cosmo) can be regarded as a reliable source for pop-culture references (as user Galobtter also pointed out). As low-brow as the cited Cosmo piece may be, it actually does serve as evidence of vernacular usage of the term in question, so the user Raquel Baranow was not wrong to post it, and that user's edit did not merit undoing on RS grounds. Moreover, the combination of the cited NYT piece (especially because that piece was itself a fact-checking article) and the cited Cosmo piece indicate that the usage of the term indicated in those articles (which were five years apart) is not isolated. That should be enough to let Raquel Baranow's edits and citations stand even in a more "serious" WP article, so surely those citations more than satisfy RS criteria for such a topic as the meaning of sexual slang terminology (for which weightier academic references might prove difficult to find, though you're welcome to try; and I think here the burden would be on you to do so). Jadev18 (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Threesome article uses another Cosmopolitan reference. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Jadev18 for pointing at this discussion. With Cosmo being of dubious reliability, and the NYT piece speaking only to the specific context of Kavanaugh's high school, I would hope that we can find a more reliable source for including this in the article. The fact that Cosmo is cited elsewhere in the article isn't particularly useful, IMHO. This term is particularly hot-button right now and should require extraordinary sourcing before we put it in Wikipedia's voice. I feel that we should be extremely cautious before having Wikipedia appear to take a stance in a political dispute. Waggie (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The term is only significant because of the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination. If at some point it finds its way into that article then we could consider including "a term used in the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination." TFD (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jadev18 is correct about the Cosmo article. For this purpose, it's a RS. So we now have two RS, 2013 and 2015, documenting the meaning as a MMF sexual threesome.

• Frank, Cosmo (December 12, 2013). "12 Things Guys Really Think About Threesomes". Cosmopolitan. Retrieved September 30, 2018.
• Arden, Isabelle (2015). Devil's Triangle: an MMF bisexual menage thriller (Kindle). ASIN B00WJ27DJS. Retrieved September 30, 2018.

This should be good enough to use.

As for the Kavanaugh hoax/alternative fact/cover story....it does not qualify in any sense to document the alleged "drinking game".

Kavanaugh's definition appears to be a creative alternative fact and the first known mention (as a drinking game) in history, as far as we know, immediately followed by mention here from a Congressional IP. It's all more than a bit suspicious. We base content here on RS, and we don't dignify insignificant hoaxes like this (or whatever other term you'd call this occurrence) by mentioning them here. If this doesn't die down, and enough RS point out the hoax as an "alternative fact" (falsehood), subsequently followed by an attempt to misuse Wikipedia to provide a cover story for it, then we might end up with Devil's Triangle (hoax) or Devil's Triangle (cover story), where Kavanaugh and the IP source can be immortalized. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is really an RSN issue. The appropriate policy is WP:Undue weight. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. We don't include random slang terms in an encyclopedia article just because it gets very informal passing mention in RS. Alsee (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I can’t speak to the “threesome” definition... but I can (anecdotally) speak to the drinking game definition. I was in college back in the 80’s... and we did indeed play a variation of “quarters” with three glasses. At my university we called it “Bermuda Triangle” (or just “Bermuda”). Note that “Devil’s Triangle” is an alternative name for the Bermuda Triangle. Just saying. Blueboar (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several people have researched this and found zero references to this as a drinking game. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well... all I can say is that I definitely played it (or something like it) back in my college years. It isn’t a hoax. Now, obviously we would need a source before we could mention it in an article such as Drinking game... my only point was to say that Kavanaugh didn’t make it up. Blueboar (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can attest that it's terribly hard to find sources for party games in general. Daß Wölf 01:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this really isn't a RSN question - we're simply not a repository for slang use by college fraternity in the 80s - it's quite possible "all of the above" (and then some) is correct. And it is also more than probable that there were multiple other regional slang terms for both - Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary - we aren't a repository for slang terms. If this jargon debate somehow becomes significant to Kavanaugh's confirmation - it should stay there and not percolate into Threesome, Drinking Game, or anywhere else. Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliable, yes - but not DUE on account of WP:ONEWAY (no pun intended) Rhoark (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• lifezette.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

See this story. It seems pretty clear that Lifezette is not a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Extremely partisan, "pro-life" (until you're born), partially religious, unreliable source. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Never heard of it before, but half of our article is devoted to fake news incidents/accusations. Bin it. Daß Wölf 01:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No result here. Lifezette is looking rather questionable, however the question here failed to follow RSN posting instructions. RSN questions should indicate what article and content are at issue, so we can determine whether the source is reliable for that information in that context. If you are seeking some kind of blanket-ban against the source, that requires a well publicized RFC and much deeper consideration and consensus. Alsee (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a result. Two comments that back my hunch, indicating that removals are unlikely to be challenged. I know how to get a source deprecated, see WP:BREITBART. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Garbage source. Has all the hallmarks of a fringe right-wing site: Seth Rich conspiracy theories, climate change denial, massive numbers of undocumented immigrants voting in US elections... Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Not a reliable source. It is owned by Laura Ingram who has been one of Fox News' worst mouthpieces. I have no doubt that she is pushing through a lot of the controversy on this site. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 22:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Not a reliable source for statements of fact. No reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Per WP:Identifying reliable sources Source reliability falls on a spectrum: highly reliable sources, clearly unreliable sources, and many in the middle. Are they highly reliable, no. But I see no reason why they are a clearly unrelaible source either (to prove that to me, you would need evidence of them having published a story they knew to include false factual information or failed to correct such information after its inaccuracy was made known to them). Also per WP:SOURCES The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: * The piece of work itself (the article, book) *The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) *The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. For most factual unexceptional claims, I expect that they would be reliable. I would not expect them to be reliable for exceptional factual claims. They have an editorial board lead by Maureen Mackey (previously managing editor of The Fiscal Times). They posted a story concerning a conspiracy theory about Clinton, but issued a correction saying it was in jest. They posed a story about a connection between voting machines and Soros, but that story was also published by Fox News (are they the next target?). -Obsidi (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• ...but that story was also published by Fox News

You write that as if you thought that was an endorsement. It wouldn't be, even if that story was also published by CNN or Mother Jones. --Calton | Talk 12:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The facts they wrote about, were accurate, I suggest you read the story [17]. Smartmatic did post a flowchart claiming to be providing voting machines to 16 states. Smartmatic Chairman does sit on the board of Soros’ Open Society Foundations. The story does say that Smartmatic is not on a list of firms that provide federally-certified election systems to states. You want to make a claim that they are not factually accurate, what about the story is not factually accurate? -Obsidi (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is some discussion about the reliability of some sources at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Hews, which may hav an impact on the result of the AfD (and if kept on the article itself).

The book "Spoils Won in the Day of Battle" by Francis Hews dates to 1798 or thereabouts, and has been reprinted in 1972. That 1972 reprint contains more information about the writer, other reprints, and so on. It was printed by "E. J. Woodcraft" from Biggleswade. That this version exists is verifiable (see here or some secondhand bookshops online), but can this version be considered a reliable source for any other information (e.g. that this book has been "Reprinted in part as Zion's Casket, 1852, as Zion's Witness in 1967-69"), in the absence of reliable sources supporting this information?

And while we are at it, is Experimental Religion a reliable source?

Any input (including but not limited to !votes) is welcome at the AfD! Fram (talk) 06:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't the book be reliable? It's a 1972 reprinting of a 1798 book with the addition of some notes on the author. Here's the page of notes that I photographed specially for you Fram. I can put up more photos as required. None of the versions appear to be available online as far as I can see or we could substitute those versions to some extent. Now I look at that page again, I think it is likely that Zion's Casket and Zion's Witness are journals rather than alternative titles (British Library have The Spiritual Magazine and Zion's Casket) but that only makes the subject more notable as it means it was published in multiple media and in the case of Zion's Witness in serial form. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are not here to discuss notability, that's what the AfD is for (although it isn't really clear why an unverifiable magazine reprint would be more or less evidence of notability than an unverifiable book reprint). About reliability; why wouldn't the reprinted book be reliable? Because we have no indication whatsoever that the author of these additional notes, the additional information, is an authority on anything (history, publications, whatever). Unless you can provide any information showing that the publisher is well-respected, known as a source of reliable information, or that the person who wrote these notes is known as such, all we have is a probably self-published book by someone getting his information from who-knows-where, and where that information isn't verified. A source can be perfectly accurate but still not be a reliable source according to enwiki rules, and in that case should not be used in articles (or AfDs). That's a basic rule of RS, and I'm rather surprised that this needs to be explained. Fram (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not all sources are absolutely clear cut. Where they are not it falls on us to use our judgement to work out whether the source is probably reliable. What we have here is a properly published book, produced in Bedfordshire about a Bedfordshire preacher, inevitably a niche publication I agree, that consists 99% of a reprinting of a 1798 text. To that has been added one page of basic facts, the accuracy of much of which is confirmed by other sources (dates, publications, places preached etc), a map (not used in the article) and photographs (not used in the article). Which part of this source do you dispute the accuracy of? Philafrenzy (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But this one is absolutely clear cut. We have nothing that points to it being a reliable source. It's a self-published source (a publisher with only one book to its name?), with information written by someone (E. J. Woodcraft presumably, unless you have another name) with nothing else on his CV. That he is from the same region as the original author may explain his interest, but adds again nothing to his reliability. Please try to understand that lack of reliability does not necessarily mean lack of accuracy. But what we may judge is this: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."(emphasis mine) That reputation is not made by you or me checking some things and finding them to be correct: that reputation must come from other sources. A book which is with some regularity used as a source by other researchers (and not to dismiss it completely) is a book which has such a reputation. Here we have a book which is not referenced once, by a publisher / author who isn't referenced once. Hence, it is the most basic example of an unreliable source as defined by enwiki. Your strawman arguments of "Which part of this source do you dispute the accuracy of" are irrelevant and tiring. Fram (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, additional material tacked onto an old manuscript by a self-published source doesn't somehow become reliable. If someone wants to cite the original manuscript they can do that, or there seems to be a Gage ECCO reprint. If the accuracy of the "basic facts" added is confirmed by other sources... use those sources instead. --tronvillain (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who published the reprint (or indeed the original)?Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The original looks to be self-published by the author (via a professional printer of course), but it's hard to be certain of this for that period. The reprint is 99% certain a self-published effort with extremely little impact. The magazine reprints inbetween are so far only mentioned in the self published reprint, and have not been directly verified, nor have they been mentioned by any reliable source. Fram (talk) 06:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "self-published" has little meaning in 1798 as the distinction between printer and publisher had hardly emerged then. By way of background, it's listed in British Autobiographies: An Annotated Bibliography and there is a mention of the publisher/printer (Smith?) in Factotum magazine (the original) in 1982 in the context of Bedfordshire printers. There was a 1981 reprint of the 1972 reprint which is held by the British Library meaning they have three different printings of the book. It's also listed in Vol. 2 of A Baptist Bibliography (Kingsgate Press, 1922). Philafrenzy (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon Rest is largely based on this [18] document from NPS. Obviously it's better to use other sources as well, but is there any reason not to see this document as a generally reliable source on the history of this house? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not from the NPS, it's the form certified by "Herbert Hayes" (I think), the Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, with the Tennessee Historical Commission when that body applied for National Register of Historic Places status for Falcon Rest. It's not clear who exactly filled the form out - I'm guessing it's staff from the TN Historical Commission but ... that's unclear. The NPS is only hosting the primary document. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In plain English, it is published by the National Park Service. The scanned and publushed version happens to omit required Section 11 which gives author(s) names and affiliations, but a full copy of the form can be obtained by request to the NPS (see wp:NRHPHELP about where to email). I would regard it as a wp:RS generally. It was in fact reviewed by state and national staff and was accepted as valid by state staff and by NPS. The state and national staffs do question submissions and do insist upon revisions sometimes, and I believe they also do reject inadequate work. It is wp:primary with respect to observations on current condition of house and other direct observations by its author(s). It is secondary or tertiary with respect to stuff from sources it cites. —Doncram (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I arrived here from note posted about this at wt:NRHP. --Doncram (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that it is "published" by the NPS - and there is no reason, whatsoever, to think the NPS put it out the there (published) because it thought the paper was wrong. I also agree that it is not generally "primary", see below. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very much a primary source, and no I doubt this can be seen as an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources need to be used with care. It appears to be solid for showing it has been certified as a historic place. As for the history listed filled in on the form, that is merely the work of the random individual who filled out the form. That history only has a very weak indication of reliability in that the form as a whole was accepted. There's no assurance that all of the claims were checked, or that any errors in the history would have been corrected. It definitely can't be used for extraordinary or controversial claims. However it looks like there's no controversy at the article, and no objections? If absolutely no one objects and everything looks proper and consistent with all other available information, it's not prohibited to use a weak source for uncontested basic information. Preferably you could phrase it something like "According to the Historic Places registration application.....". Then your text would be factual even if the history on the form is wrong. Alsee (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable advice. --Doncram (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RS for most claims about the property (if there is controversy that matters, then spell out the controversy). Prepared by someone with knowledge using primary and secondary information, and peer-reviewed at least twice by state and national. It's not "primary", generally, primary would be 'I was at the place in 1920, and this is what happened . . .' It is secondary, generally, 'I have read documentation/interviewed others (primary), and this is what that research tells us and the conclusions I have drawn (secondary)' (See, WP:PRIMARY)--Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explication of that, User:Alanscottwalker, I have not known to present it that way, I guess it can be summarized that NRHP docs are "primarily secondary" then. :) --Doncram (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to generally agree with you both here. I do not know the rigor with which the national and state check the application, but my feeling is that because these docs are prepared by experts and reviewed by experts, they are more secondary than primary. I wish that the reviewers would write their own summary when they are done, so we know what they feel confident is fact.

Statements such as "It is interesting to note that the foundation under the front bay wall, though carved to look like individual stones, is actually one huge boulder." or that the house is "gracious" is a primary observation. But other text such as "The house became a hospital in the 1940s." is secondary. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think I would analyse those statements that way, although it's a minor quibble, because there is nothing wrong with primary information, per se, and the dividing line is only seldom critical. If something like the first statement were by the builder of the wall, it would be more in the nature of primary, but an observer reviewing the wall later is different, the wall is an artifact (the artifact and/or the documents of its building in that case is/are the primary source), conclusions/opinions (eg. 'gracious') drawn from examining the artifact are more in the nature of secondary (see, eg. archaeology, or architectural history). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanscottwalker: That's a good point, especially since those judgments come from an expert in the field. I believe I agree, which may be why those who approve the registration feel no obligation to rewrite the data on the application, because the analysis is already done by the person who submitted the application. The reviewers find the text as submitted (or revised) as reliable, like a book, journal article, or other periodical, and that approval is like having it published?

So if a movie is reviewed on Rogert Ebert's site by a film expert, then that review counts as secondary source? But on IMDB, where the data is user generated and may not have been reviewed by film experts, we reject it. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Published', would be the act of putting it on its website, in effect, saying 'look world'. One could reasonably contend that the approvals documented are primary evidence of approval, but that seems a minor quibble, we would, based on that still say it was listed, and done so, because of this information. Perhaps, as you note, that would be in some ways similar to professional editors who pass-on a movie review or book to be published. Here, of course, the review and approval is required by laws and regulations, not so for the news/book editor. (But in general, I would say treating it like a book or a newspaper article on the subject, makes good sense). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful explanations. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minor quibble yes, but I agree with this thinking. If I read "Falcon Rest is a gracious house with an interesting foundation under the front bay wall" in a WP-article I would have an urge to change it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that's fine: tone, weight, our presentation (eg. in line attribution) are issues that it is useful to often separate from reliable source inquiry, and from primary/secondary/tertiary. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies, this helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More RS There are also these pages hosted by NPS which combine some photos, the approve application mentioned above, and the typed "meta data", which I found from National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Warren_County,_Tennessee. (I see that link is also in the article.) I believe this "meta data" may be more secondary than the application. There is also a picture of this historical marker. The marker is is good RS, but I don't know if hmdb's data is (I'm guessing not). --David Tornheim (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naming Problem Also, based on the sources I checked, I believe the proper name of the article based on the historic structure should be the "Clay Faulkner House" the notable building rather than "Falcon Rest" (the business in the building). Discussion here: Falcon_Rest#Rename_to_Charles_Faulkner_House --David Tornheim (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had some of these same concerns when I worked on Eliphalet Ferris House and Joseph Ferris House, also edited by Rich Farmbrough and Doncram. It would be nice to have an essay or guidelines for use of documents likes these regarding registered landmarks, structures, sites, etc. I would expect the kind of question above is recurring. I know it is for someone like me who likes to work on articles on historic sites. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RS are very hard to pin down. The prohibition on primary sources is really orthoganal to this, though the question raised above "primary for what?" is echoed as "reliable for what?" Essentially this is as much a question of experience and knowledge, understanding as best we can the skills, motivations and shortcomings of the authors and editors. There are plenty of examples of normally rock solid RS being unreliable, and we can imagine these issues applying in this case. But primae facie, I would consider this source pretty reliable for the reasons given above.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• United States Senate election in Montana, 2018 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article contains lists of endorsements per candidate, virtually all of which are primary-sourced, often to ideological groups. It seems to me that in order for us to record an endorsement of a candidate, we'd need a reliable independent secondary source to establish the significance of that endorsement - often the press releases that accompany these things are self-serving, and in many case the objective significance of the endorsing group is open to serious question. Guy (Help!) 13:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently in a dispute with another editor regarding the Marvel Rising: Secret Warriors film. I'm attempting to add credited roles from the film, using the credits themselves as a source including the timestamp at which they appear. The other editor contends that this is an insufficient source per WP:FILMCAST. However, I see nothing in the guidelines that says a primary source is insufficient in this particular instance. Could we get a ruling on this? -- 68.32.218.140 (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is inefficient since FILMCAST expressly tell us to limit the list to the main cast, just saying that any actor/character in the film's credit is eligible is false. Thus I have general found that it should be limited to outside RS. Spshu (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per FILMCAST: "it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources, blue links (in some cases), etc." All of the roles you removed were listed in order of billing in the credits, were speaking roles, were named characters, and nearly all had blue links to their own articles. The only arguable point is whether the credits are sufficient sourcing for themselves, and based on past discussions on this very noticeboard, they do based on the fact that they are a primary source and one which requires no further interpretation beyond what is presented, as per WP:PRIMARY. -- 68.32.218.140 (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as ReliableSourceNoticeboard goes, yes credits are a Reliable Source that actor X played role Y. However it is sill possible for Reliably Sourced content to be excluded due to other policies and guidelines such as Indiscriminate and Due weight. Taking a glance at the editing dispute, one of the removals was the listing for Captain America. I would guess(?) that was probably a major role, and it seems dubious why anyone would dispute that listing. I didn't look at the other disputed entries and I have no opinions. So my answer is (1) Don't frivolously challenge major roles, and (2) where good faith objections exist it might be necessary to find some source establishing that the specific entry warrants inclusion here. Alsee (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The question has arisen as to whether "Bioethics in a Cultural Context" can be viewed as a RS because it has been demonstrated that it is in error. A editor has used Barry to try to prove that John Paul II used the term "culture of life" for the first time in a speech in Denver in 1994. However, rather than 1994 as Barry claims, the speech was actually given in 1993. This suggests a failure within the Barry source for basic fact-checking, and suggests the book as a whole cannot be relied upon.

• Publisher: Cengage Learning
• Author: Vincent Barry
• Title: Bioethics in a Cultural Context
• Date of publication:2011

Can Barry be used in the article Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus#First usage of Culture of Life? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contaldo80 (talk • contribs) 18:13, October 2, 2018 (UTC)

---

The existence of a single error doesn't seem to establish a source as unreliable in general. --tronvillain (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful - thanks for the clarification. Is it reasonable, however, in light of this error to ask for editors to provide further material from the source to check that no other serious editors have been made? Thanks in anticipation. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's reasonable to request a quotation from a source if someone apparently has access to it. --tronvillain (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tronvillain. BrianCUA has access to that source as they are the editor that referenced it. I have asked for that fuller quotation but have yet to receive it. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in the article is the source being used to source the year of the speech, which was off by a single digit. It was only used in that context on talk to rebut the questioner's WP:OR. In the article, the source is being used to back up another fact. --BrianCUA (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you rebutted my perceived error with an error of your own? Contaldo80 (talk) 23:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's the other fact that this backs up? --tronvillain (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The history is that the article said the term originated with John Paul II in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae. I (wrongly I admit) tidied up the section and said that the "term was first used by JPII in EV". BrianCua subsequently found that JPII had used the term in Denver and in an attempt to correct my initial mistake cited the Barry source that said JPII had used the term earlier than EV in Denver in 2994. Of course it was 1993. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If any article is actually citing the 1993/1994 date in any article and there are conflicting sources, editors should obviously chose to use an agreed-correct source over a clearly-mistaken source. The fact that an otherwise-reliable source is shown to contain a mistake is not sufficient to discredit it entirely. Our standard is "generally and reasonably reliable", not "absolute perfection". If you want to dispute specific article content sourced to this book, then please follow the RSN posting instructions. You're supposed to identify the article, the source being used, and the content at issue. Then we can evaluate whether that-source is reliable for that-content in that-context. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary support, routine/uncontroversial claims only need lightweight support. A source may be highly reliable for some kinds of claims while unreliable for other claims. The book is surely reliable for it's own publication date, but almost certainly not reliable if it make extraordinary claims about the laws of physics. Alsee (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds sensible. I was hoping that BrianCua could reassure that the Barry source is otherwise reliable but providing a fuller quote where he deals with the issue of "culture of life". I agree absolute perfection is not achievable, but some certainty that getting a year wrong is not the only thing Barry has done would be nice. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is http://www.israeldefense.co.il is a RS?

Someone wants to use it for a statement on the West Bank article, see this.

I also see it used on several articles about the Israeli war in Lebanon, see here, but I cannot see it discussed at WP:RS/N earlier, so we should have a thorough discussion of the site, Huldra (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of http://www.israeldefense.co.il as a reference in this instance was only to demonstrate an example of the synonymous usage of two terms in Hebrew in the Hebrew-speaking world/media, not for any other sort of factual claim. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This site should be discussed beyond that issue, as it is used as a source on the war in Lebanon. (And also, if it is not a RS, should it be used as an example of anything?) Huldra (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous examples of pages like TRT News, Al Masdar News and so on that are used to present claims of events if that is clarified, I would argue that the usage of terms should also be considered to be valid information drawn from these sites, especially if complemented from other sites with differing political viewpoints, which was the case in my example. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a defense magazine, with editorial controls. Icewhiz (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I will further note that the author of the piece in question,[19], has a doctorate, lectures in political science at a university, and publishes in the relevant field. Icewhiz (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I would suggest that such a source has such a clear POV that any statement from it should definitely not be in Wikipedia's voice, and, where possible, it should be avoided as an RS. In limited circumstances, and for uncontroversial statements, it might be OK. Being an academic doesn't mean that you're automatically a WP:RS, as we've been explaining in Parapsychology today.Simonm223 (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm unable to read Hebrew, I can't speak to this specific reference fully, but it seems to A) be supporting an extant reference that was accepted, and B) seems to be expressing only what an Israeli opinion on naming of a piece of contested land is. Which means, meh, unless there's a context I'm missing here, I'd say this specific instance doesn't look too problematic, but I would hesitate to give anything resembling a blanket RS statement to the source, especially absent supporting sources. Simonm223 (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the source is describing the Hebrew etymology of post 1967 territory and how terminlogy shifted from one term to another - the entire piece is on usage in Hebrew and by Israeli sources. The proposed use on Wiki is limited to terminology in Hebrew.Icewhiz (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the source being used to support any specific claim of ownership over the contested territory or only as a reference for what Israel calls the place? Simonm223 (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's being used in the lead where it lists the names of the West Bank in Arabic and Hebrew, with two different names provided in Hebrew. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I guess my last question would be, is it a potentially contested or controversial naming likely to run afoul of WP:NPOV notwithstanding the source? If no, I'm inclined to say leave it. If yes, is the other source supporting it? If yes, then again, I'd say leave it because it's not really doing any harm and there's no point in another edit war in the IP article set. If, however it's the sole source for a controversial statement I'm inclined to suggest removal unless a supporting, more neutral, source exists. Simonm223 (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is far from the sole source - it is one of many. This particular source has the advantage of being written by a qualified academic and discussing etymology at length (the entire piece is on the etymological evolution). Sources on common Israeli Hebrew usage tend to be in Israeli Hebrew. Icewhiz (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its reliable for etymology and usage in Israel --Shrike (talk) 06:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would not object to its use in this specific and limited context as per my previous statements regarding non-controversial usage. Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should we be wary of using certain peer-reviewed studies as RS?

Recent investigative work has suggested that some peer-reviewed journals in the humanities, including Gender studies and Sociology, are publishing work which has no academic merit. The so-called 'Grievance Studies" scandal is covered here in the Wall Street Journal https://www.wsj.com/articles/fake-news-comes-to-academia-1538520950 and by academics in Quillette see https://quillette.com/2018/10/01/the-grievance-studies-scandal-five-academics-respond/

The journals affected include Affilia, which a published a 3000 word excerpt of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, rewritten in the language of Intersectionality theory and Hypatia. Keith Johnston (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quillette is neither a reliable source nor a peer reviewed journal. wumbolo ^^^ 19:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is funny, a bunch of friends of mine and I have been laughing at that ridiculous "grievance studies" scandal on Facebook completely separate from Wikipedia all day. It's just silly Conservative posturing about the evils of Postmodernism. Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223: Which one of James M. Lindsay, secular liberal humanist Helen Pluckrose, and New Atheism philosopher Peter Boghossian, is a "silly Conservative posturing about the evils of Postmodernism"? wumbolo ^^^ 20:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, because no atheist conservatives call themselves "secular liberals." It's a tempest in a tea-pot and poor scholarship. It's barely worthy of notice except as a momentary diversion to laugh at three people trying to drum up attention for an imaginary problem. I mean, if we were being fully fair about the sciences here, pretty much every psychology article would be part of WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE but let's be honest. Academics angsting about imperfections in academia is a central feature of the discipline.Simonm223 (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay and Boghossian have form. Remember, these are the guys who used a social sciences bullshit generator to write an article which they then hawked to a number of journals, where it was rejected, they then paid to have it published in a pay-for-play journal and claimed this as "evidence" that the social sciences literature is publishing bullshit. Alan Sokal they are not. This time, they have proved... that most of their bullshit got rejected. Again. Guy (Help!) 20:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) What Sokal himself makes of it is irrelevant. wumbolo ^^^ 20:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If four hoaxes out of twenty submitted are published, that's a pretty serious problem. That's far worse than what we have on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia), and I thought that Wikipedia was the absolute worst at identifying hoaxes. wumbolo ^^^ 20:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just that a journal claims to be peer-reviewed does not guarantee that its contents are true. Fake articles, hoax articles and nonsense are published in academic journals all the time. There is absolutely no reason to single out the humanities here, given that physics had the Bogdanov affair and the Schön scandal. The peer-reviewed mathematics journal Nonlinear Analysis published a purported solution for Hilbert's sixteenth problem in 2003 that no serious peer reviewer could have possibly accepted while awake. There is also stuff like Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. Academic publishing is full of problematic practices right now, and the existence of hoax articles in journals says absolutely nothing about the validity of certain fields of study. —Kusma (t·c) 19:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want objective analysis of the journals involved. Last time they used publication in pay-for-play journals as "proof" that an entire field is fraudulent. They have done other things that show them to be social injustice warriors. We have many reasons to distrust their work here. Guy (Help!) 20:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them were not pay-for-play. wumbolo ^^^ 20:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything here that can't be solved by applying good judgement and existing policies. Peer-reviewed research findings are WP:PRIMARY - so, yes, we should be wary of citing them haphazardly regardless of whether the topic is gender studies or physics. Review articles are usually better than new research to get a sense of what is important, and generalist journals are generally higher quality and more notable than specialty journals. When in doubt, check the journal impact factor and the number of citations, and avoid relying too heavily in a single source. Nblund ^talk 20:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Journal quality should always be taken into account. The problem of predatory journals is well known by now. This latest affair is distinct from past hoaxes in that it very specifically targeted journals that are not predatory (at least not in the usual sense of having a profit motive.) I don't think it reveals anything that's a basis to exclude any journals from Wikipedia. It is however a further indication that these kinds of journals, which exist primarily to advance a local political consensus, should not be used to exclude other POVs that conflict with that "scholarly consensus". That has for many years been a very fruitful tactic for editors whose views align with those of these "grievance studies" type of journals. Rhoark (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No and no. "These kinds of journals" were the only kind that they examined, there's no reason to suspect that concerted academic fraud is only possible in the humanities. There's also nothing here suggests that "scholarly consensus" (which is usually determined by multiple citations and review articles) is inherently suspect. Nblund ^talk 18:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources were all primary sources in the relevant literature, which we should not be using much anyway, and only with great caution when we do. Happily none of them were reviews. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute between me and @Dr.K.: concerning the aforementioned book. You can access the discussion Talk:EOKA#Preventing "David French's POV". I will provide you with my reasoning why I think D.French is reliable, I will try to debunk some of Dr.K.'s arguments that have been presented in the discussion and I will let Dr.K. make his case why D.French is not a reliable source.

First, who is David French?: Emeritus Professor of History Dept of History Faculty of S&HS] at University College of London. Please have a look at his publications and achievement (prizes he won ie Templer Medal (2005) Medal Society for Army Historical Research).

Reviews of his book: According to google scholar French book is cited 27 times. (One can read that his other overlapping book The British way in counter-insurgency, 1945-1967 (2011) has 190 citations). Among those 27 citations, there are some reviews. I present a sample.

• Robbins, S. (2017) says s David French has produced a very readable and lucid account which offers an excellent analysis of the origins, course, and consequences of the British counter-insurgency campaign on Cyprus. It is well researched, exploiting the available primary sources skilfully, and providing a thoughtprovoking evaluation of the motives and actions of the participants involved in the insurgency and counter-insurgency on Cyprus during the second half of the 1950s. It is likely to be the standard volume for scholars and researchers interested in this particular subject for the foreseeable future.Robbins, S. (2017) Book Review: Fighting EOKA: The British Counter-Insurgency Campaign on Cyprus, 1955–1959. David FrenchFrenchDavid, Fighting EOKA: The British Counter-Insurgency Campaign on Cyprus, 1955–1959. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2015; xi + 334pp. 9780198729341, $110 (hbk). War in History, 24(2), 250–251. doi:10.1177/0968344516686518i

• Dr Andrekos Varnava says Fighting EOKA is an engaging and, thankfully, not overly long read. In my view, it hits the spot. Some people may not like it, but French calls a spade a spade, and for this, as a Cypriot (who had one side of his family ‘serve’ in EOKA, including a cousin of my mother’s as an Area Commander’, and the other side of my family be prominent, at least locally, AKEL supporters), I am pleased and relieved, and as a historian I am thankful that he has done such a thorough job that I am not tempted to take to the archives on this subject.Dr Andrekos Varnava, review of Fighting EOKA: The British Counter-Insurgency Campaign on Cyprus, 1955-1959, (review no. 1901) DOI: 10.14296/RiH/2014/1901 Date accessed: 4 October, 2018

• Thomas M. writes: David French offers answers in what will surely endure as the authoritative account of the Cyprus ‘Emergency’. His book title, pithy as it is, sells him rather short because Fighting EOKA is not confined to analysis of British security force practices. It also delves deeply into the workings of their opponents: the National Organization of Greek Fighters (Ethniki Organosis Kyprion Agoniston – EOKA) and, latterly, the Turkish Resistance Organization (Türk Mukavermet Teşkilati – TMT). The result is a gripping investigation of a fast-moving but ultimately exasperating conflict. An ‘investigation’ for two reasons: one is that the book’s findings rest substantially on recent releases from the FCO ‘migrated archive’ of security-related colonial files; the other is that French, a scrupulous empiricist, applies the skills of the foren"Thomas, M. (2016). Fighting EOKA: the British counter-insurgency campaign on Cyprus, 1955–1959. Intelligence and National Security, 31(7), 1057–1058. doi:10.1080/02684527.2015.1125209

Dr.K.'s argument is that French "David French's POV against EOKA is simply monumental. His main thesis is that EOKA are comparable to jihadists in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here he is doing a comparative analysis of suicide bombers with EOKA tactics. This is anachronistic, revisionist POV.". Actually, none of the reviewers mentioned anything about jihadists, nor Dr.K. provided evidence for it. Neither did they mention anything about relativist, anarchronistic POV. So these views are not really based on solid ground. Dr.K seems to think that because of French claims that the guerillas were terrorist, that means he is POV. But A lot of scholars have the same opinion (see ref number 29 which cites 7 RS in current version). This should be presented in the article, along with the heroics aspects of the struggle.

David French is an excelent scholar whose book I intend to use even more in the article. I will try to avoid using adjectives relating to negative nuances (terrorist) or positives ones (freedom fighters) as much as I can without distorting any source. But French can not be excluded as a scholar not his books. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 08:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems RS to me, but would (given the nature of the statement) need attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The initial statement by the OP is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. First, this is not a personal dispute between me and the OP. There are other editors involved in this dispute, regarding the claims made in this book which anachronistically compare modern-day jihadists with EOKA fighters. Please see this link, where French is doing a comparative analysis of suicide bombers with EOKA tactics, and also compares them to jihadists in Iraq and Ahghanistan. This is anachronistic, revisionist POV by this author, which, to my knowledge, has no academic currency or acceptance. I am not disputing that EOKA is viewed by some academics as a terrorist organisation. What I am disputing is French's assertion, and subsequent analysis, that are based on the thesis that Hellenism and its components, including the Orthodox religion, are similar to jihadist ideology. This is WP:FRINGE material. Dr. K. 12:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still Dr.K. did not provide peer reviewed articles making claims about anachronism or POV. Meanwhile, let's read WP:FRINGENOT: "WP:FRINGE is most often abused in political and social articles where better policies such as WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE are appropriate. Citing WP:FRINGE in discussions and edit summaries is often done by POV pushers in an attempt to demonize viewpoints which contradict their own. Opponents to reliable sources will often argue that their opponents reliable sources are FRINGE because they spread false information or have a viewpoint which is not mainstream" and WP:FRINGE has nothing to do with politics or opinions. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should 411Mania.com be regarded as a reliable source? I searched the archive, and this site has only come up once, but there was no response on its reliability. Their "about us" page explicitly says they have no paid staff and that all "contributors" are independent bloggers. This seems to imply that they have no editorial staff or policy, making their claims questionable. I'd like to hear some other opinions on this. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the above is true (I fond nothing to say it is not) no it is not an RS, it is "just another Blogger".Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, I agree. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editor PackMecEng is edit-warring to remove content from The Daily Wire about the publication's false stories about climate change, claiming that the website climatefeedback.org can't be used as a source. Climatefeedback.org is a website run by recognized experts on climate change and is basically just a collection of assessments of news stories by recognized experts on climate change. This is the content in question that the editor believes should be deleted in full (click the links below to see how the website basically works):

• The Daily Wire has published a number of articles doubting that climate change is occurring and that humans contribute to climate change. Experts have described the articles as inaccurate and misleading.^[2][3][4]

So, are we allowed to cite climate scientists on Wikipedia? Or are climate scientists "unreliable", as the editor PackMecEng suggests? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Climatefeedback.org has been cited favorably recently by sources such as Deutsche Welle,[22] Columbia Journalism Review[23], Axios[24], and the Guardian which referred to climatefeedback.org as "a highly respected and influential resource"[25]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are a relatively recent blog which has only existed for a few years now. Not enough time to build up a reputation of reliability as an organization. That said, many of people posting there are experts in their field, and they personally have the reliability. As such they could fall under Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Exceptions and be reliable. It would depend on exactly who the individual expert is. -Obsidi (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Feedback has a very high rating for factual reliability, the Daily Wire, only obtains a mixed rating on Media Bias fact check. I notice publications rated as mixed on media bia fact check are often considered inappropriate sources on Wikipedia. In this particular subject the Daily Wire would be highly inappropriate since

The Daily Wire is owned by Forward Publishing LLC. Forward Publishing is owned and managed by the billionaire Wilks Bothers who made their money through the fossil fuel industry with their company Frac Tech. The Wilks brothers are also a part of the extreme Christian right who interpret the bible literally. The website is funded through a subscription and advertising model. --Andromedean (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP doesn't determine what a reliable source is based on what mediabiasfactcheck says. Nor does it matter who owns them or where they got their money or what their subscription model is. Please just go read WP:Identifying reliable sources and make a policy based argument. -Obsidi (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Media Bias FactCheck is not a RS. It's run by a random dude, has an absurd methodology and changes ratings when random users complain. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on The Daily Wire talk, there's a reliable source for it being a reliable source, and along with Snoogansnoogans links above, there's a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" + editorial control + their summaries are based on comments from experts in the relevant field, showing reliability (interestingly enough, their community standards are inspired by "The Wikipedia’s five pillars (and references therein)") Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All I see is a description of them in that link, including where they are funded, but no claim of reliability. -Obsidi (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a list of "resources can stake reasonable - though not irrefutable - claims as either reliable fact-checking sources or as reliable evaluators of the credibility of other information pages" Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see what your referring to now. That source and the guardian article are the only two that seem relevant so far, in my opinion. -Obsidi (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• From what I see they would qualify under WP:USERG. Which goes along the disclaimers at the bottom of their articles Our reviews are crowdsourced directly from a community of scientists with relevant expertise.[26] Notable for their opinion perhaps but not a RS for statements of fact. Most info I can find are a long those lines as well as their original Indiegogo campaign to get started.[27] PackMecEng (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC) Also side note, the section heading you choose is at best misleading to the subject. PackMecEng (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their "community of scientist with relevant expertise" statement is excessively modest -- these folks include many of the very very top people in the field. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see they would qualify under WP:USERG. If you can't sign up and write an article, then they're not user generated. They might be blogs (meaning WP:SPS), but given the authorship, that shouldn't matter. The authors are reliable sources, hence it doesn't much matter what the details of publishing are.

However, even the details of publication become entirely irrelevant when one considers that 5 RSes have described it as an RS, meaning we shouldn't even consider it a blog. It has a reputation for fact checking. As far as I'm concerned, everything I've seen here strongly suggests that this is an impeccably reliable source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is they have been around about 2 years now? I am not sure that is long enough to establish a track record of being a RS, I have also not seen anything that hints at actual editorial oversight. Granted I am sure they are very smart people and I have no reason to suspect what they write is wrong. RS listed above speak to that fact, but that alone is not enough. However the question is should their statements be attributed to them, as in "According to Climate Feedback X" rather than in Wikipedia's voice as statements of fact on it's own. It is not if they are correct in their assessments or not. Also here is their signup page if you want to become a reviewer there, if you wanted to write for them. PackMecEng (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, they have established criteria for vetting the qualifications of their contributors. I understand reliable sources do that sort of thing. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is what you saw from an online signup sheet? Wow just wow. PackMecEng (talk) 04:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A new user, @Michaelnelson123123:, has added references to FamilySearch for the birth/death dates of various 19th century Mormon figures (such as Brigham Young). Normally, I would revert this and explain that geneology sites are discouraged for this type of data when other sources are available; relying on published secondary sources is preferred to using primary census data.

However, FamilySearch is owned by the LDS Church, which complicates things. It may be more likely to be reliable than other sites for this information. Is this an acceptable and reliable reference here? power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say its reliable, and even more so when the original documents are cited there. It's certainly better than no reference, which is what is left if you remove it. I'd suggest leaving it in unless/until you find a better reference. - Nunh-huh 00:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]