Noticeboards Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. See the dashboard for an expanded listing. General Administrators main incidents Bot owners Bureaucrats Closure Education main incidents Importing pages Main Page errors Open proxies OTRS Oversight User permissions Articles and content Biographies of living persons Copyrights questions on media problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Reliable sources Resource requests Spam blacklist whitelist Titleblacklist Translation Page handling History merges Mergers Moves Protection XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion User conduct Long-term abuse Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring & 3RR Sanctions Personal sanctions General sanctions New pages patrollers Paid editing Sockpuppets Usernames Vandalism Other Arbitration Committee noticeboard requests enforcement Edit filters Mediation New contributors Teahouse Questions Editor assistance Help desk Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump ideas policy proposals technical miscellaneous Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.
Before posting, please be sure to include the following information, if available: Shortcuts: WP:RSN WP:RS/N WP:V/N Source. The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example: [http://www.website.com/webpage.html]. Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: [[Article name]]. Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y".
While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.
Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability.
If you are looking for a copy of a specific source, please ask at the resource exchange board.
The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Identifying reliable sources. The policy that most directly relates is: Verifiability. If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board. If your question is about undue weight, or other neutral point of view issues please use the NPOV noticeboard.	Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206

Source does not include Mike Singletary[edit]

[1]

Warren Sapp

At the time of his retirement, Sapp was one of only six defensive players in NFL history to make the Pro Bowl, be named Defensive Player of the Year and win a Super Bowl or pre-Super-Bowl NFL title. The others are Mean Joe Greene, Jack Lambert, Lester Hayes, Lawrence Taylor, Bob Sanders, Reggie White, Ed Reed, Ray Lewis and Sapp's former teammate, Derrick Brooks.

Primary vs. Third-party source conflict: Team (Iggy Azalea song)[edit]

"Team" is a new single released by Iggy Azalea. According to the writing credits on Tidal where the single was released: 12 writers wrote the song (See here for a third-party source). However, Azalea herself has said on Twitter that this is not accurate, specifically referring to the Wikipedia article of the song (See her tweet here). According to her, only 7 writers were involved.

It is likely that the 5 people she claims did not write the song, did not write the song's lyrics. But they have been credited as writers for other reasons which Azalea has most likely overlooked; 3 of them are credited for the sample of "Back that Azz Up" the song uses, while the other two are producers most likely credited for composing a melody (this is common practice in pop music). My view is that that I highly doubt her record label would release the single accompanied by incorrect writing credits. She has most likely overlooked that the writers of "Back that Azz Up" are credited because "Team" samples the song, and the other two producers most likely credited as composers of a melody not a lyric.

In such a situation which is the best source to use?

I can see this potentially causing an edit war at the article page especially with Azalea's tweet referring to it. Instagram Camera (talk)

Is Open University Press selfpub?[edit]

Open University Press's website says, "McGraw-Hill Createâ„¢ allows you to create customized eBooks and print books to support your teaching. Create the ultimate book for your course by selecting chapters from different OpenUP books and adding your own notes to create a book that fits perfectly to your module outline." If you follow the link that says, What is McGraw-Hill create?, it says, "You can even select third-party content like readings, articles, cases, videos, and more... Combine content from multiple sources access multiple disciplines and even integrate your own content such as a syllabus, class notes, or exercises... Include readings, cases, or assignments to use in conjunction with textbook chapters... Add your syllabus or lecture notes to the textbook... Join the text and the student study guide together in one text."

A couple of books cited on Body psychotherapy were published through Open University Press. Several of the other sources, such as Röhricht, cite the books published via Open UP. I'm pretty sure the original source is WP:SELFPUB but I couldn't find previous discussions about it on wikipedia or really anywhere else before. Thanks, PermStrump(talk) 00:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not well versed in WP:RS policy, but IMO this is on par with blogs of experts in some area and these e-books must be treated as such. If an author is a recognized expert, there is no reason to assume she/he peddles bullshit in the area of their expertise. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It's more complicated than it looks. Rearranging chapters from a regular textbook, or including a newspaper article between those chapters, doesn't make the contents self-published (although it creates a nightmare for citations, due to page numbering problems). But we'd have to be careful to distinguish between the regular contents (=chapters and other stuff that are published elsewhere, in non-customized books) and "your own content", which should be treated the same as a webpage the instructor posted for the class. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Open University Press, despite its name, has no link to the Open University. In the absence of any indication that the contents of books it hosts are subject to editorial oversight, it would be treated as SPS. Where the book contains what is purported to be content published elsewhere, there can be no confidence that the source material has been accurately transferred. Open University Press is a printing service and its books are WP:SELFPUB.Martinlc (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking a bit further it appears that at the time the books were published Open University Press was a conventional imprint of McGraw Hill Education, and as a minimum would therefore have some editorial oversight, although the extent to which content would be peer reviewed by subject specialists is unclear. If there is evidence that the books were reviewed in RS then they may be usable.Martinlc (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

US Airways magazine[edit]

This source is a copyright violation scan of US Airways magazine. It says, about getting the "real" cheesesteak experience, "You must wait in a long line, along walls tiled with autographed headshots of celebrities, and have a surly staff serve you." It then mentions Jim's Steaks. Is this a reliable source for saying specifically about Jim's, "Jim's has been frequented by celebrities. Headshots, photos, and autographs of celebrities that have dined at the restaurant can be seen on the wall."

1) Is US Airways magazine a reliable source?

2) Should we link to the scan?

3) Does the source support the material? - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Given that my answer to 3) is "no", then the other questions are irrelevant. "Walls [are] tiled with autographed headshots of celebrities" could just as easily mean "the manager bought some decorations on eBay", so it can't be used to say "these autographed headshots are from people who actually ate here". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd also answer "no" to the first two questions: in-flight magazines from airlines tend to be promotional, and not a reliable source of information on their subjects, and links to copyright violations are not permitted by the policy WP:LINKVIO. Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• No to all 3 questions for the reasons given by Nick and WhatamIdoing. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

No to all three questions as well. If the source does not support the material, then the other questions are irrelevant. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 15:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

History vs Hollywood[edit]

I couldn't find a previous discussion on this site [2]. Specifically, it's being used to source a year of birth and birthplace for the BLP of Frank Dux, a controversial figure with a history of fabrication. Most things about him are self-published. This site is third party, but I question the reliability of it. Opinions? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The site itself gives no indication of where its material comes from, so we are left with the question of whether or not they have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. I can find nothing to support them there either. Their apparent parent company "CTF Media" also doesn't turn up anything useful.

The burden of proof is on anyone who wants to use the source.

This is a WP:BLP.

All of that says, to me, that the source is not reliable for this. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This is just a heuristic, but in my experience any source that contains biographical information about Frank Dux (or Ashida Kim) and isn't devoted to trashing his name and debunking his claims is going to be incredibly unreliable. That being said, I could see this site one day becoming reliable, given its subject matter. But right now? No. This site has no reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I think I'd steer clear of this one. Anything giving credence to his claims not being total fabrication we can bet is unreliable. 172.58.224.235 (talk) 06:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Powerbase.info[edit]

http://powerbase.info/index.php/Mark_Kennedy:_A_chronology_of_his_activities [3] appears to be a Wiki - used for:

"Powerbase", a wiki-based website run by free-lance journalists, started logging accounts of Mark Kennedy's infiltration activities, restricting itself to the political aspects in 2011. The aim was to establish a chronology of his activities.[20] In 2015 this was integrated into more general research into undercover police activity, covering a number of other people accused of being "police spies". This research is being added to the Powerbase Wiki by the Undercover Reserach Group.[21] Kennedy is one of several now-exposed undercover police profiled in the book Undercover: The True Story of Britain's Secret Police (2013). A planned television drama series is based on the story of the undercover officers.[22]"

As well as a number of other Wikipedia articles.

Is it a reliable source for the claims attributed to it and to claims made about it on http://spannerfilms.net/undercovers (which does not appear, on its face, to meet WP:RS either)

I fear I mistrust Wikis - especially ones which do not use "reliable sources" for claims, but rely on facts provided by involved persons (?). Note the subject appears to be a living person. Collect (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. With no visible authorship, fact-checking, or editorial oversight. Looks like a libel bomb waiting for a home. I don't see that WP policy would allow it. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

To use it we'd need so much caution it might not be worthit. People should know a source on Wikipedia is good, or at least one they can't have been faulted for trusting. If this source turns out to be wrong about something, we'd be the sheep for trusting it, it seems. 172.58.224.235 (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Blown for Good, Inc.[edit]

The book Blown for Good is self-published by "Blown for Good, Inc." See the publication page. As such, it is a self-published book. How much credibility should Wikipedia grant it? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Articles about books rely on whether the sources writing about the book meet WP:RS. If the book is intrinsically "not notable" then the proper course is to go to AfD. If the book is notable, the fact it is "self-published" does not make it unworthy of an article. So - is the book noted in outside reliable sources? That is what you need to ask. BTW, it is OR to look up the publisher and make a big deal that a book is self-published -- what counts is whether it meets notability as a book. The Book of Mormon is "self-published" as is Science and Health - yet both are "notable" even though "self-published". Collect (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Credibility is different from notability. The Last Unicorn is notable, but not credible. How credible is Blown for Good? Next? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLPSELFPUB says it's alright for some statements about the author. Uncontroversial, non-promotional biographical details would be alright. WP:BLPSPS explicitly says it's unacceptable for statements about other people, so it definitely couldn't be used to make statements about Scientology or Scientologists. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid your view isn't entirely accurate. I agree that making statements about Scientologists would be excluded by WP:BLPSPS. However, Scientology is not a person (obviously) and is not covered by BLPSPS. Given that the author is a former Scientologist, it's entirely legitimate for him to report his own personal experience of Scientology and of places he's seen first-hand, and for us to report that, as long as we're clear about attributing it. Prioryman (talk) 09:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Prioryman: This is the discussion you missed. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd say it's good in the absence of serious challenge to any of its claims. But of someone does, we should remove that claim. 172.58.224.235 (talk) 06:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That is not the way Wikipedia works. No one has mounted a "serious challenge" to hundreds of thousands of works of fiction, but that does not require us to treat them as all true in the absence of a "serious challenge". But in this case, Headley tried to prove his story in court, and he failed miserably. The Church apparently mounted an "serious challenge" to his major premises and Headley lost by a landslide. The court of appeals found "overwhelming evidence" that the Headleys were happy in the Sea Org, they did not have to escape because they lived off base, they had many opportunities to leave, and that there was no major coercion or threats to keep them.^[1][2] Since those are the major premises of the book, it looks like a dead duck.

• Did you know that Blown for Good is self-published? As noted by others above, WP:BLPSPS applies.Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

What information about an indentifiable living person is the Blown for Good book being used to source? Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

As noted by me above, BLPSPS only applies to material about identifiable living persons. It doesn't apply to descriptions of places. You can't (ab)use it to justify your attempt to delete his description of the place where he worked, as you did here, and court cases have no relevance to descriptions of (for instance) the furnishings of a house or the cleanliness of a lake. Prioryman (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Headley's unflattering statements about Miscavige that were reproduced uncritically in some of the WP , here for example. If you want to have a civil discussion, do not accuse me of "wanting to abuse" wp policy. Headley does not qualify for non-BLP either. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Headley's memoirs were proved unreliable by the court case. Why do you want to use him as a source? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Are the New York Times, etc. reliable sources for information they do not give?[edit]

Our article states: "Dalessandro's Steaks & Hoagies is a cheesesteak eatery that was founded in 1960 on Wendover St in Roxborough." For reasons that I can only ascribe to WP:BOMBARDMENT, this NYT article, the local CBS affiliate and this from The Daily Meal are cited.

This is the lede sentence in the article. (Yes, I know the MOS says we generally do not cite sources in the lede.)

The NYT article tells a brief story about the author eating there with his father. The only real "claim" in the sentence is that it was founded in 1960, which is stated further on in the article, without a source. The closest the NYT source gets is that the author's dad ate there "in the early '60s". CBS says this it's been there for "a very long time". "The Daily Meal" has nothing to say about the date.

Two questions: 1) Are any of these sources reliable for the claim that it was founded in 1960? 2) Is there any reason to cite these sources in the lede? - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The answer to the question in the section heading is "no", obviously. The website for the business says it was founded in 1960. The New York Times reference does not, strictly speaking, verify the 1960 date but at least it verifies that it is not completely wrong. So, that might be of some slight value. The other sources are of no value, at least with regards to this specific claim. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Per NYT and SPS website: "The restaurant website says it was founded in 1960" is what could be used. One of the cases where an SPS may actually be used, as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I've added the official site as a source for the date, in the body of the article. Any reason to keep these three non-source sources in the lede sentence? - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: There are a number of independent sources that confirm the founding date of 1960:

• http://www.thetowndish.com/2014/01/15/roxboroughs-dalessandros-named-visitphillys-top-10-authentic-philly-cheesesteaks-roster/
• https://books.google.com/books?id=t9TRCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA50
• http://www.myphillyalive.com/blog/dalessandros-steaks-hoagies/
• http://patch.com/pennsylvania/roxborough/dalessandros-lives-up-to-its-reputation
• [4]
• https://books.google.com/books?id=-OJwqEwNfP4C&pg=PA119
• http://www.smallbusinessdb.com/dalessandros-steaks-hoagies-philadelphia-pa-19128.htm

-- Softlavender (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Barony_of_Blackhall#Barons_of_Blackhall_since_1395[edit]

That whole section is sourced to "The Stewarts of Blackhall and Ardgowan," J.L. Olar BA, Journal of Ancient and Medieval Studies: The Octavian Society, 1997–2000. You can see the back issue indexed here; housed by this group that describes itself as "amateur and professional scholars who focus in the fields of chivalry, genealogy, heraldry, history before 1700, and royalty & nobility"

Thoughts on whether or not, this is a reliable source for Barony_of_Blackhall#Barons_of_Blackhall_since_1395? -- Jytdog (talk) 06:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

My attention was drawn to this article by this ANI thread, and I have a sense that folks who commented there smelling a fake article were on to something... Jytdog (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Your noticeboard link looks to be incorrect - it just lead me to the main ani page 172.58.224.235 (talk) 06:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes it has been archived. Fixed above, without redaction just to save messiness. Thanks for pointing that out. No one has commented here so I am going to remove the section based on the source being unreliable; we may end up back here if that is contested. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The Green Papers[edit]

This source [5], is currently being used on the political status for the 2016 United States Election. A number of editors though have questioned how reliable it is Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016#Delegate count as the delegate count differs from major sources like NYT/CNN/AP. So my question is should this source even be used? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd give it the snip if most sources disagree, unless it provides a good argument somewhere for why it has the true count - in which case we'd still cite both of the number. But I'd say we go with the count CNN, The New York Times, etc. report. 172.58.224.235 (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• The Green Papers have had a long history of being very accurate & comprehensive in their coverage of U.S. electoral results. Guy1890 (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Are scientists reliable sources for the philosophy of science, or do we need to cite philosophers?[edit]

Currently, there is disagreement on the argument from authority page over whether Carl Sagan's book can be cited. The page quotes his book The Demon-Haunted World saying "One of the great commandments of science is, 'Mistrust arguments from authority.'...Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else". It also cites a biology education journal that discusses an example of an appeal to authority that lead the scientific community into error, and concludes "we did not follow the scientific paradigm when we put our trust in an authority". However these were removed and disputed by an editor because the "Cited sources are not logicians, thus not reliable sources on the subject of this article". I contend that since these are sources that're about the method of science that address arguments from authority, they are reliable sources for how much weight these sorts of argument carry in science specifically.

So, are these reliable sources for the article? FL or Atlanta (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This page has a very long running argument evidently. I tried to help it out earlier. I will say (and this is not to be taken that I'm siding or not siding with any side on the page overall) that scientists are reliable sources as far as logical fallacies in science go. I have difficulty imagining someone suggesting we cannot cite scientists on science and not be trying to push a point of view. It sounds like one side might not like what scientists typically say about this so they wish to exclude them. As WP:RELIABLE says, "all majority and significant minority views" should be expressed - emphasis in original! So it is not a matter of "exclude this group, this group disagrees" but we let the reader know "this group says this and that group that". TheLogician112 (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Carl Sagan was an "expert in the field" regarding that specific topic - therefore his opinion, sourced and cited as opinion, is notable. The facts cited in the WP:RS journal can be cited as facts, and do not need to be treated as opinion. Usage in any article is, of course, subject to reasoned consensus, but there is no blatant defect in them that I can see. Collect (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It shouldn't even be controversial that reliable sources talking about these sorts of arguments in science are good sources for how these arguments should be viewed in science. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Are scientists reliable sources on the philosophy of science? No. Reliable sources on the philosophy of science are philosophers of science, their peer-reviewed publications, etc. They are the people who have received extensive training on the philosophy of science, familiarize themselves with the relevant literature on philosophy of science, subject their work to scrutiny from other experts on philosophy of science, etc. Scientists usually do not do these things, because they work in different fields; that is why practically every work of philosophy of science is written by a philosopher of science and not by a scientist. It's hardly unusual to think that the reliable sources in a given field of study are the people who work in that field professionally. Lord Mondegreen (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Both sources are talking about the philosophy of science, discussing how we should know things in science so this is a non-issue. Saying scientists needs philosophers to tell them how to do their job and that we should only listen to professional philosophers when it comes to this is absurd - you're advocating for philosopher kings who lord over scientists on the subject of science despite not even being scientists themselves. FL or Atlanta (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, since you agree that these sources are talking about the philosophy of science, I don't know in what way you could think it a "non-issue" for me to say that the relevant authorities on philosophy of science are philosophers of science.

I have not said that "scientists need[] philosophers to to tell them how to do their job," or any of the other ridiculous and hyperbolic things which you attribute to me.

How about approaching this discussion as a discussion, rather than as an opportunity to grandstand about philosopher kings and the like? Lord Mondegreen (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I was saying its a non-issue precisely because these sources are talking about the philosophy of science. So since they're reliable sources, they're reliable for claims about the philosophy of science.

And that is precisely what you are saying. If we can't cite scientists for how science should work, only philosophers, is that not saying we need philosophers to to tell us how science should work? FL or Atlanta (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I think they would be reliable sources on astrophysics, in the case of Sagan, or biology, in the case of Mertens. From this, it of course does not follow that they are reliable sources on informal logic and the philosophy of science, which are the fields implicated by the claim in question. The inference "They're reliable sources, so they're reliable sources about phil. sci." ignores the role of context in determining whether a source is reliable.

I am saying that, in making claims about informal logic and the philosophy of science, we should defer to logicians and philosophers of science. Suggesting that an article on Wikipedia, which has a policy of deferring to reliable sources, should defer to experts in the relevant field is hardly suggesting that those experts should be able to "lord over" anyone outside the context of editing Wikipedia articles. Lord Mondegreen (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The most preferred sources are of course experts in a particular subfield. There is no rule that says these are the only experts which can be cited in a particular article. Gamaliel (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Scientists talking about science, especially very well known and reliable ones, are reliable sources for what's valid scientific evidence. I couldn't think of someone more reliable than Carl Sagan here, especially when backed up by an article in a biology journal about the exact matter in dispute. 172.58.224.235 (talk) 06:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Carl Sagan is NOT an expert in the topic of the article: logic, which is a part of philosophy. Argument from authority is not science and is not philosophy of science. I am pretty sure he is not an expert in philosophy of science either. So I agree with Lord Mondegreen. Of course, Sagan is a very notable figure and an expert in a number of scientific fields like astronomy listed in the first paragraph of our article on him. He could be attributed in wiki-voice to sentences about the subject matters to which he is an expert, but not as an expert on "appeal from authority".

However, I did skim over the dispute about whether Painter's chromosome count is an example of a problem with argument from authority, and it is interesting. I am amazed at the amount of text spilled over whether this example is appropriate or not for our article. From what I read I feel like I see both sides and there is no "right" answer on whether it is appropriate to include it (but I have not read the WP:RS, so I might change my mind if I do read it.) Even if we could find zero logicians, philosophers or philosophers of science in WP:RS commenting on whether this is an appropriate example of argument from authority, I am not 100% convinced that means it could not be included as an example in the article, just as saying 1+7=8 as example of addition would be okay in an article on addition, even if we found no mathematicians in RS who cited that specific instance/example. However, if there is no consensus to include a specific example, I think that would kill it if it could not be found in RS in the subject of the article, as then it would be an editorial decision.

But this leads to another interesting problem. Let's say we had a consensus of editors who are incredibly bad at math and mistakenly believe some untruth about math, possibly one that is popular or some myth that is circulating. Let's say they wanted to include an example such as 1+7=9 that any mathematician knows is wrong. Those competent in math would be outraged and say, "no mathematician would ever include this example, because it is not true. Find me ANY RS that supports it." But the other editors are insistent that it is valid and put it in, over the expert's objections--after all we have no mechanism to establish subject matter expertise. And worse, the "consensus" group and one of the their friendly admins even bans the mathematician for being "incompetent" in math and being overly irate and uncivil. I honestly could see that happening. Originally, as someone who has studied both science and philosophy, I suspected that was happening here, but further reading on the dispute made me more partial to the chromosome example and the possibility of quoting Sagan as a prominent publicly known science figure (even though he is not an expert in logic/philosophy)--just as long as it is a valid example of argument from authority... But obviously there is a huge disagreement on that... --David Tornheim (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• And to sweeten this argument from authority argument, consider that most WP arguments are over which authority to argue from! Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• The fundamental problem with including the example this question revolves around is that it doesn't fit the criteria for a fallacious version of the argument. Painter was an acknowledged expert in the field speaking to his expertise, not stating a controversial opinion, not joking or drunk and the fact that his count was eventually overturned shows that it wasn't taken as being certainly true. The two who want to include it have both argued that appealing to any authority is fallacious, under any circumstances. Hence, they say, this illustrates the fallacy. Of course, their argument hinges upon cited sources, the irony of which seems to be mostly lost on them. Additionally, the citation to Sagan contains the quote "Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts." The connotations of this are, again, lost on those arguing for inclusion.

As an additional point, I would like to say to anyone who considers these people experts; why then, are there degrees in logic which have different criteria than degrees in science? If being a scientist makes one an expert on the philosophy of science, why then are there degrees in Philosophy of science? More to the point, why do those we refer to as philosophers of science or logicians have these separate degrees? Why do we refer to people with degrees in physics, biology or astronomy as physicists, biologists or astronomers, instead of calling them logicians or philosophers of science? The obvious answer is, of course, obvious and correct. Because they are not. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• This is an issue for WP:NPOVN and not WP:RSN, as far as I can see. The real objection people are raising to its inclusion seems to be that it is giving it WP:UNDUE weight. Nobody denies that these are Sagan's opinions; the question is whether the article should cover his opinions, which is a WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE issue rather than a question of whether his book passes WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, of course you should cite scientists, especially Sagan, who wrote prolifically about science, religion and philosophy. Most professional scientists are necessarily highly knowledgeable in the history of their subdiscipline, and many scientists know and publish on the history of science and philosophy beyond their specialization. Another reason to cite scientists is that they will tend to have a different and valuable perspective on the philosophy and history of science. -Darouet (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC) Amendment to position: just because Sagan has decried the invalid invocation of the argument from authority by scientists does not mean that particular quote should appear in the lead section of the article Argument from authority. -Darouet (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Darouet: I just wanted to point out that, as Aquillion mentioned above, the issue here is a matter of weight. The article has plenty of reliable sources from logicians and philosophers accurately describing the argument as only being fallacious when made under certain conditions. The proposal to include this seems to be based on the assumption that Sagan (while likely quite knowledgeable on the subject) is an expert on equal standing to that of logicians and philosophers, and as such, the statements Sagan made in a popular science book can be used to demonstrate the supposed contentiousness (or possibly wrongness, I can't speak for other editor's private thoughts) of a claim made in academic and scholarly books by quite literally every logician who's cited in the article (and a number of others who just weren't needed). Also, I'm not arguing with you, I'm rather agreeing with you. Just in a more wordy, detailed way. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: thanks for your comment and I get where you're coming from. I agree that this edit attempting to add Sagan's comment in the lead is totally wrong because it gives undue weight both to Sagan's views as a whole and to the point he is making in the context of the larger article. That said, when thinking about other applications, scientists are likely to take more seriously what other scientists write on philosophy, religion and the history of science, and less seriously what logicians and philosophers write. But this discussion is pointless here since we seem to be agreeing. -Darouet (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

lol it looks like the philosophy majors are out in force today. On science we trust scientists. They're natural philosophers. If a philosopher - who's work can't be put to the test and which gets thrown into a journal to be forgotten and never actially does anything - disagrees with a scientist, who's work we can actually test and which makes predictions, we should go with the scientist every time. Include both but the scientists take precendece for the article. 172.58.224.134 (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I take it we don't need to give much weight to a comment that straight up tells us to ignore the opinions of scholars in the relevant field. Lord Mondegreen (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

This conversation is useless if we attempt to apply it globally: there was a specific dispute regarding the lead at Argument from authority and I think it appears to be resolved? -Darouet (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Not even close. I can't speak for another editor's thoughts, but I'm pretty well convinced that this argument will never be over unless the article is changed to say that appealing to an authority is always a fallacy. That is the stated position of the editors pushing for the example and it is the impression that would be given by including it. Frankly, I'm rather reminded of the Creation–evolution controversy. There's literally no way to convince someone who's unwilling to be convinced. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

All of the accusations you give here have already been answered - no one's trying to make it say its always a fallacy. The only topic to discuss here at the RSN is whether these are reliable sources for that page. It isn't a place to discuss the text on the page, or any issue with it specifically. The only question is whether these are appropriate sources for the page. FL or Atlanta (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Atopthefourthwall.com[edit]

I noticed this website being used as a source; more specifically, a blogger with a handle being used as a source for a quote. I am not sure how we land on the topic of how reliable the reviews and statements of anonymous contributors. I've searched through the RSN archives, and it doesn't appear that this has been discussed before. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to where its used so we can take a closer look? 172.58.224.235 (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"Anonymous" is very rarely a "reliable source" for anything. Collect (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm: Channel_Awesome#Atop_the_Fourth_Wall. The only place I see it quoted currently is All Star Batman & Robin, the Boy Wonder. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That's where I saw it. The cited text:

"The internet reviewer Linkara declared that the characters in the book were so removed from the original characters that they were instead different people playing the roles of the real heroes, referring to Batman as "Crazy Steve" and Wonder Woman as "Bonkers Betty". He stated that the book seemed to believe that "rampant violence, both physical and emotional, is the solution to all of life's problems." He also criticised the characterisation, dialogue, pacing, fight-scenes and plot as bad to non-existent as well as declaring that the pacing of the comic and time jumps were so confusing that it was possible for a reader to interpret that Dick Grayson was kidnapped by Batman before his parents were murdered. He did however praise the artwork by Jim Lee, although he did say that the artwork just drew attention to how bad the writing was. Linkara also accused Miller of casual homophobia and misogyny for how some of the dialogue was written, using gay as a slur and for having the women portrayed as little more than objects for the reader to admire.[22]"

Collect voiced my main concern, in that the reviewer is anonymous. Additionally, there doesn't seem to be any editorial oversight - like its just a bunch of chatroom warriors pistoning their opinions into the fray. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Linkara is a internet personality, the main person behind Atopthefourthwall, and his real life identity is well established. He's not as "random" as suggested above, but he's also not a professional reviewer, so caution should be used to include even opinion from the site. --MASEM (t) 04:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Online music magazine[edit]

Any issues with using an interview that was on the Perfect Sound Forever website, furious.com, as an external link in a music article? 63.143.230.53 (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Not a thing! (^_^)b 172.58.224.235 (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

SOHR[edit]

I would like an advisory opinion on whether it is ok to use the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights in the lede of a high visibility article, as is done here [6]. Thanks, Athenean (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The report has been picked up by numerous high-end reliable sources such as The Guardian and Al Jazeera. Per WP:PRIMARY it would be better to cite one of those sources rather than citing SOHR directly. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Please see discussion here. Yes, it was quoted by numerous mainstream sources on many languages and therefore can be used, but preferably by quoting other secondary sources which refer to SOHR. However, data in the diff above are slightly outdated. According to SOHR, "about 1800 civilians are among the nearly 4650 killed by Russian air and missile strikes in Syria" altogether [7]. My very best wishes (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not a "discussion". And I am more interested in other users' opinions. I'm already familiar with yours. Athenean (talk) 04:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No, this post is exactly on the subject of your request here. It did not cause anyone's objections so far on the article talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'd say SOHR itself should not be used directly as a source, only reliable sources that quote SOHR. It is a highly partisan outlet, and its methods have been questioned. FunkMonk (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Especially on something as divisive as the Syrian Civil War, multiple sources should be quoted. Including here with each side on the matter of how many have been killed in Russian airstrikes. TheLogician112 (talk) 06:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not see any official estimates by the Russian "side" of the number of civilians being killed by their bombardments. If there are such estimates, then yes, they should also be noted. Obviously, no one objects to using multiple sources. My very best wishes (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Miao People[edit]

Please remove the Han Chinese married to Hmong women. This section has no credible support. I kindly as you to remove it.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.250.140.90 (talk • contribs)

This appears to relate to this edit --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Complaint has some merit. All Hmong are Miao but not all Miao are Hmong etc. The sources support Han/Chinese origins for some Hmong groups, but that obviously does not apply to all Miao. There does seem to be a related issue in that section that some of the claims are more definitive than the sources (anthropogical texts for the most part) are. 'Group X descended from X' where source says 'Some of Group X claim descended from X' and so on. This may be a deliberate overstatement or it might just be a result of non-native English speaking editors - anyone who has played a 3 Kingdoms game translated into English can see what I mean - X from X claims X married X and was reputed to have been the founder of X' and so forth. Oral/Ethnic history reported as fact. The sources seem to be good however (and written by English-speakers) so what it really needs is a going over by someone with experience in Ethnic/Clan based lineages to clarify the nuances. It could be either tbh, the current lead states there is an ethnic lineage claim going on by the Hmong disapora over the Miao name so some sensitivity is needed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Birth year question[edit]

I'd encourage RSN regulars to take a look at Talk:Laura_Branigan#Consensus_discussion and give their views on the use of sources re this person's birth year. Many thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Now this is certainly an interesting one! TheLogician112 (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources used in Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album) needs review before GA passing[edit]

While reviewing the article for GA, I informed the nominator that this source, this one, and this one used to verifiy a court battle, new label change, and an annual songwriting compeition held in her country, looked like a Romanian version of TMZ and subsequenly asked him what made them reliable, for which the nominator proceceed by informing me that "the newspaper also concepted a television show which is very popular in Romania".

For this source, I didn't know anything about the website or author so I decided to further investigate the author and found that his his 'about me' page stated that he has a BA in an unknown field of study and his Twitter account says that he is a freelancer with no credibility to his name anywhere. The nominator used the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS line on me and also told me that the two reviewers who reviewed his past GA articles with the same source said nothing about it.

For this and this source I couldn't find anything on the website that gave me any reassurance that it was a reliable source so I researched the author and found a blog he uses for people to ask him questions on various topics and found nothing else on his qualifications.

And finally this source I too couldn't find anything on and when I researched the author I came across his personal website where he likes to write about the "private lives of celebrities" and gives no creditablilty as to where he gets his information from. Best, – jona ✉ 13:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Documents uploaded to ScribD[edit]

Key issue here is document uploaded to ScribD. Secondary issue is a second insufficiently cited ref, used inappropriately.

As an occupational lung disease, it is most classically associated with aerospace manufacturing, beryllium mining or manufacturing of fluorescent light bulbs (which once contained beryllium compounds in their internal phosphor coating).^[1][2]

--Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• In my view the first source, which is a document at ScribD uploaded by account that claims to be "US army" is not reliable. Like Wikipedia, anybody can create an account on ScribD and upload whatever they like. The source is not particularly helpful as there are far better ones one that describe the various ways that beryllium was used. The second source is in my view useless as a) there is not enough detail to allow anyone to go find and read it to see if actually verifies anything - and more importantly, its sole purpose seems to be to argue with the content and other source. This all was all in the lead (only) of Berylliosis, a medical caused by exposure to beryllium, so I had just deleted it. Others have disagreed.

  Anyway, please do comment on the reliability of documents uploaded to ScribD, and what the heck should be done with the 2nd source. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

  I think the Army document can be authenticated by calling the phone number provided in said document. I don't see a reason to discard it based solely on the fact it's uploaded to Scribd without first making that check. The general case of Scribd, I agree, is unreliable without some authenticity checking. --Izno (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Glad you agree on ScribD, generally. But no, some editor calling the number cannot authenticate the source; no editor here has authority to authenticate anything - the publisher itself has to be reliable and scribD is not reliable - it is a wiki. Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Clearly, Scribd is often used to provide documents that are copyright violations, no question. But it is often the case that these documents have been published before in some medium (often behind a paywall). If you see a document on Scribd and can verify that that is the same as the original published document, then the reliability is based on that original source, not what Scribd puts up. Of course, you 100% cannot link to the Scribd version but you can still form a valid citation to the original document and publication from it. --MASEM (t) 19:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm with Masem except with one (major) caveat. If one can verify that the document on ScribD is the same as one which was reliably published, then there's nothing wrong with using it to determine if it can serve as a source for such a claim. However, I'm having trouble imagining how the ability to verify such a document in that sense is in any way different from the ability to access the original document. So what exactly would one need the ScribD document for? (Someone could, for example, copy the abstract, title and authorship from one paper which is publicly accessible, then fill the body with anything they wanted and upload that to ScribD. In that case, you'd need to get behind the paywall to verify it, and I would not put it past anyone, even our esteemed colleagues here on WP to try such a dirty trick if it advanced their deeply held views.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You have nailed it, MjolnirPants. If the source is the document on ScribD it is not reliable. You have to cite the actual publication, not this secondary instance of something that may be "it" or maybe some doctored version of "it". I could upload a contract from the City of New York deeding to me the Brooklyn Bridge and stick fancy seals on it and everything. It is a wide open vehicle for mischief. As a publisher it has absolutely no reputation for fact checking etc. it is just a place for people to upload whatever junk they want - authentic, fake -- we have no way of knowing. Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the Scribd account "Army" which has uploaded it, they have uploaded seven thousand similar pamphlets. Now either this is a genuine Army PR account, or that is an implausibly complicated scam, merely to confuse Jytdog with seemingly accurate reports of beryllium hazards.

Sometimes, when you hear hoofbeats, it's just a pony and not a zebra. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Or perhaps it's someone who enjoys uploading fake documents. Or perhaps it's part of the setup for an augmented reality game. Or perhaps it's an archive for a fiction writer who wants to do some world building. Or perhaps it's just some guy who like uploading Army docs and who may or may not have some fake ones mixed in. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Can we simply use a different source? Say this book by the National Research Council? Gamaliel (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

yes - when i removed this i replaced it with well-sourced encyclopedic content in the body of the article (this is an article about a disease, not about the metal and its uses; the "argument" in the 2nd source above is silly and OFFTARGET and was only in the lead):

Berylliosis is an occupational disease.^[1] Relevant occupations are those where beryllium is mined, processed or converted into metal alloys, or where machining of metals containing beryllium and recycling of scrap alloys occurs.^[2]

-- Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• would also appreciate comments on the 2nd source in my OP way above, which is, in my view, insufficiently described to allow anything to be VERIFIED from it. Besides its function being just to argue in a bizarre way. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I have not read the GE paper (I'm not in the US) but it is very widely cited in other RS sources dealing with the broad topic. As there is a direct quote from it, then I assume that some editor in the article's past history has read it. Certainly it should be easy enough for anyone with decent library access to get hold of it. I also note that it is NOT a requirement, per Wikipedia:SOURCEACCESS, that this source is available easily, immediately or on-line.

As to its relevance, then it shows that GE removed beryllia from the tube phosphors in 1949, on safety grounds. I was unaware that beryllia had ever been used in these phosphors, but I am familiar with the hazards of tube cleanup after breakages (which means mercury these days). The idea of this phosphor containing beryllia is something that I'm very glad they got rid of. It's entirely relevant to berylliosis.

You have described this source as both "insufficiently cited" and "used inappropriately", yet it is not clear what the problem is on either count. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes this is what you said elsewhere. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never good reasoning in WP. Besides the way the citation is being used to make some OFFTOPIC argument about whether and when Be was used in fluorescent light bulbs, the problem is that there is insufficient information in the citation to even go find it. What is that? An internal GE specifications document? Some little piece of paper that comes inside a light fixture when I buy it? I have no idea. Andy, this is a scholarship 101 thing and goes to the heart of why we provide citations. " While you should try to write citations correctly, what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source." (from WP:Citing sources) Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

And what is your actual, this-is-about-providing-great-content reason for wanting to hang on to some half-cited, badly-used source when there are scads are perfectly decent sources that could be used, as Gamaliel common-sensically noted above? You are just arguing this to be WP:POINTy. Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure, accessibility is not required, but common sense is. Should we really be citing decades old technical reports from a manufacturer when there are more current sources available digitally? And that citation is completely inadequate. Accessibility is not required, but citing your source sufficiently so people know what the heck you are citing is. I was only able to figure out what that source was after finding a proper citation to the same report somewhere else. Gamaliel (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You've heard of General Electric, right? GE's technical report TP-111 is an unambiguous and sufficient identifier for the document, even if it's not an easy route to finding it. We should cite "decades old technical reports from a manufacturer" because it is being used to cite that same manufacturer's actions 25 years even earlier. What better source would you expect? Besides which, I had already added the 1946 J. Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology paper on the same subject, part of what Jytdog chose to describe as "crappy, OFFTOPIC content". Andy Dingley (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• ScribD is not reliable due to zero editorial control or verification of docs that are posted there. Documents hosted there *may* be cited but only if their authenticity can be verified elsewhere - in line with our policies regarding sourcing/citing/verification etc. Something just sourced to a document uploaded to ScribD is an obvious no-no. We would be very unlikely to use Wikia hosted material, or megaupload etc as a source for anything, the same applies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Leith Fadel and Al-Masdar News[edit]

Leith Abou Fadel and his blog Al-Masdar News (link, link) have frequently been used as a source for battles and victories in the Syrian Civil War, most notably the map at Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War. However, on forums discussing the war, Fadel and Al-Masdar have a reputation for highly biased coverage and very poor reliability. For example:

"Also known as the chief (and one of the only) editor at Almasdarnews, a platform banned from this subreddit, Leith has been famous for making outrageous claims that are rarely backed up and posted on his blog, Almasdarnews. The issue is that he is often viewed as a good source by people who are not familiar with this conflict as he poses his platform (Almasdar) as authoritative and as a press outlet, whereas it is just similar to a blog. Leith does however have some contacts within the Syrian government but never quotes them or posts proof of their messages and communications. He has been very infamous for making clickbait titles in order to get more traffic to his blog, often making very extreme announcements such as the call of the start of the offensive for Palmyra 7 times or the splitting of Ghouta a similar amount of times. He is very pro-regime and will not shy away from posting outright false information about the Coalition forces, Turkey or Saudi Arabia.

Overall you only want to follow Leith if you want breaking news all day long with smileyfaces and wishful thinking about government achievements.

Accuracy: Very poor

Supports: Government" (link)

His reporting's accuracy has also been questioned by the New York Times (link).

Could we get a reliable source check for this? Thanks. NeatGrey (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

This source published many reliable data and on basis a collective decision of the more competent editors this source has been recognized as a reliable.here Sûriyeya (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Michelle Goldberg[edit]

Do we have reason to believe that Michelle Goldberg is an expert on anti-semitism, anti-semitic tropes, the Zeitgeist Movement, the Zeitgeist film series, or the movie producer Peter Joseph? Some editors here insist that her comments on the Zeitgeist film are factual and must be in the article. I am concerned that her remarks are non-factual (pure opinion) and border-line libelous about a living person, and we should not be repeating them in WP. The remarks are particularly obtuse because the films do not mention Jewish people or Israel, and the real experts on antisemitism (the ADL) make no similar pronouncement. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I would've thought this would've been resolved a long while ago since it's a fairly blatant and obvious smear. She doesn't appear to be a notable journalist or pundit, and her claims about this film or "movement" -- which are being presented as fact, clearly in violation of WP:V and WP:RS, stating an opinion is one thing, stating it as fact as another -- are not backed by evidence. I don't know similar this situation is to that of David Icke, who was also -- and from time to time continues to be -- hysterically attacked as being an antisemite, based on his claims about the Rothschild family, his outspoken criticism of the State of Israel and Zionist ideology, and some positive comments he once made in passing reference when the subject of American "patriot" militias had been brought up. He also that Queen Elizabeth, Dick Cheney, every member of the Bush family and the entire population of European royalty and aristocracy are reptilians from another dimension feeding on our fear and sacrificing babies in Satanic blood rituals. In spite of the fact that many of Icke's beliefs and theories are so utterly bizarre and over-the-top, he was never taken seriously by the media, mainstream, tabloid and otherwise. But the few people who accused him of being a genocidal antisemite (might as well have just started calling him Hitler II) believed he constituted a terror threat and used that to try to get him banned from entering whichever country he was headed to on his lecture tour. In spite of the massive amounts of funds used to promote these claims and allegations regarding Icke, they were all total failures and no longer carry any credible weight. While the article on Icke is still a rather biased and condescending mess, it's nowhere near as biased as it was a few years back.

With this Zeitgeist thing, it's the total opposite. If there is some kind of consensus that it is apocalyptic antisemitic propaganda, apparently most media outlets don't know that because they're not repeating these claims and allegations, let alone repeat them as fact.

The undue weight being given to Goldberg's sensationalistic and tabloid claims, especially considering that it is absolute hearsay, and hearsay from an utterly non-notable "journalist." Judging from the low quality of her sloppy articles, to use her as a credible source on Wikipedia is an embarrassment to this project and makes about as much sense as using David Duke as a credible source regarding the history of the so-called "white race."

What I'd like to know why anyone would be aggressively pushing so hard for this one particular source to be used, when no other sources bother to even acknowledge the existence of such allegations. This is a textbook example of WP:UNDUE. Laval (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Michelle Goldberg is a well known journalist writing in a well known publication. Its reliable. The paper in which she wrote this story is notable Tablet (magazine). She is a major journalist, she has written for many major media outlets. I think people may be confused in regard to the article. Its just a journalistic piece. The information has been in the article for years. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Do we have reason to believe that Michelle Goldberg is an expert on anti-semitism, anti-semitic tropes, the Zeitgeist Movement, the Zeitgeist film series, or the movie producer Peter Joseph? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

We do have reason to believe that the Tablet thought she was an appropriate person to review the film and that the article merited publication.Martinlc (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You are arguing 'reliable source' when really you should be arguing 'due weight'. Goldberg is a journalist writing for a magazine with editorial oversight, as such they would be considered a reliable source. Thats the end of the discussion for the Reliable Source noticeboard. However Goldberg is not a particularly notable journalist and the Tablet is described by wikipedia as "Tablet magazine is an American Jewish general interest online magazine sponsored by Nextbook.[1]" - neither of which make them particularly qualified for their opinions to be mentioned specifically in articles. Just because something can be reliably sourced does not make it necessary to include it. Either way thats a consensus discussion for the article's talk page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The question is whether her opinion of "antisemitism" is qualified by any expertise, or is Goldberg simply salting her article with colorful invective and opinion, as many reviewers do. In short, is her statement an item of "information" that is of Encyclopedic quality from an expert, as the editor claims in the edit note, or is it merely throwaway opinionated barb. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

[8] Not sure why the question is being raised so aggressively about her journalistic chops or ability and it seems some editors are picking a side against her in an unreasonable emotional way perhaps because of the information she is presenting. She is well known and respected and her piece on the Zeitgeist movement has been included in the article for years. There are some editors that routinely try to alter or put a positive gloss on Zeitgeist/Venus Project articles. That has been a long standing problem. Goldberg is an important thoughtful professional writer with vast experience and is highly respected and she has written for many world wide literary publications of note.. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• I just want to point out that there are very few experts on "anti-semitism, anti-semetic tropes, the zeitgeist movement, the zeitgeist film series or their producer, Peter Joseph." If we limited our commentary of those subjects to those who are acknowledged as experts in that particular field, we'd likely not have any material on them beyond a stub or possibly a short article about anti-semitism. The suggestion that one would need to be an expert on a particular film series to be a reliable source for its article, or the suggestion that one would need to be an expert on anti-semitism to be a reliable source for any mention of it is so far beyond ludicrous that is falls squarely into "desperate argument" territory. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

psychovision.net[edit]

Would the French film website 'psychovision.net' [9] be considered a reliable review source (for a related movie article reference)? Thank you for your thoughts. Carnymike (talk) 08:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)