(Please note: readers will need to google the article in question. The Daily News blocks linkage to its articles, and I don't know how to circumvent it) It's been alleged that the New York Daily News is not a reliable source, because it is a tabloid—specifically that "Soccer Rat! The inside story of how Chuck Blazer, ex-U.S. soccer executive and FIFA bigwig, became a confidential informant for the FBI," from 1 November 2014 can't be used as a source for Chuck Blazer. The specific fact in question is how Blazer 'flipped.' I contend that the News's reporting is reliable, despite its over the top style. There's strong documentation, including official documents. The NYTimes saw fit to quote the Daily News account of the encounter verbatim. Comments please. Tapered (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

why would it not be a reliable source? It is reliable, in my opinion.🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 23:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1]? Because "over the top style" seems to be another way of writing "will exaggerate the facts for a better story". We want to be very careful about getting the facts correct in controversial issues about living people. Something like just how he became a confidential informant for the FBI seems like it could be very controversial. I would avoid relying solely on the New York Daily News for it. --GRuban (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Over the top" would seem to refer to style, not substance. Is yours a warranted assumption? Can you back it with instances when the NYDN exaggerated or fabricated facts? If not, I'd describe it as "label and dismiss."

I invite you and other readers (and I wish I'd put this in the main post above) to read [2] and take note that some of the best coverage of the OJ Trial was done by the National Enquirer. Tapered (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the NY Times is writing articles about the topic, use that, as that is a known entity. NY Daily News is, as GRuban states, far more borderline. GiantSnowman 08:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a look at the front page of today's http://www.nydailynews.com/

• Sisters known for sexy Instagram posts arrested for allegedly exorting Nigerian billionaire
• Man convicted in death of single mom from Colorado who led double life as paid escort
• Jennifer Lopez posted a photo of herself in Drake's arms, Dec. 28, 2016.SEE THE PHOTOS
• Parents enraged after defective Hatchimals ruin Christmas
• John Kerry calls two-state solution only path to peace in Israel, defends Obama stance on U.N. resolution
• GoFundMe created to ‘protect Betty White from 2016’ following Carrie Fisher's death
• Apple manager stabbed to death on Christmas Eve, husband arrested
• Shocking footage from former NFL player Ray McDonald’s domestic violence case released
• North Carolina home intruder gets beaten by firewood-wielding resident
• Suspect in deadly Brooklyn stabbing over soccer game found in North Carolina

One item - Kerry - that would be found generally newsworthy. The rest is "if it bleeds, it leads". This is the front page of classic tabloid journalism paper, "a style of journalism that emphasizes sensational crime stories, gossip columns about celebrities and sports stars, junk food news and astrology". We have it all, the crime stories, the celebrities, the sports stars, and the "sensationalized, personalized, and homogenized inconsequential trivia". The only thing missing is the astrology. Your comparison to the National Enquirer seems apt. WP:BLPSOURCES clearly states, "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." Fortunately Chuck Blazer seems to have no shortage of more reliable sources: BBC, Bloomberg, The Independent, Daily Telegraph, Sports Illustrated. If you can, stick to more like those. --GRuban (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, the article in question is of the same ilk as the Kerry article, not a bleeding lead. Filling a post with bullet points is a rhetorical flourish, not a tool of reasoned discussion. It's quite a bit like tabloid journalism, designed to appeal, and persuade, the viscera. Tapered (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily News is no longer the only source for the information, and IMLTHO since it scooped the non-tabloids with its well-sourced and accurate reporting, it ought to be the source of record.Tapered (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a reliable source. While Wikipedia articles should not read like tabloids, there is no guideline not to use them, provided they have a reputation for fact-checking and employ professional journalists. The story btw about the sisters is about two Toronto women and was carried in the Toronto Star and Toronto's National Post and other major media in Canada. The reason broadsheets in the U.S. did not carry it is that their readers are not interested, not that the story is bogus. However, we are supposed to use the best sources available and generally ignore information that has not been widely covered, so normally there would be no reason to use the Daily News. TFD (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• One thing that does need to be mentioned... while the actual reporting in the Daily News is accurate and fact checked (and thus reliable)... we can not say the same for its headlines. Take for example what was reported on October 30th, 1975... the day before (on Oct. 29), President Ford had given a speech saying that he would deny federal assistance to spare New York City from bankruptcy. The paper's responce to this speech was probably the most famous front page headline in Daily News history: "Ford to City: Drop Dead".

The problem is that Ford never used the words "Drop Dead" in the speech. The headline is essentially an editorial comment about Ford's speech. However... as sensationalized as the headline may have been... the report that follows this headline accurately discusses what occurred... reporting faithfully on what President Ford actually said in his speech.

This is really the crux of the issue here: When determining the reliability of a "tabloid" news source, we need to look beyond the sensationalized (and unreliable) headlines that the paper may use to attract readers. We need to look at whether it has a reputation for factual accuracy in the reporting that follows those headlines. The Daily News has a fairly good reputation. Blueboar (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm reading the Daily News article in question. Here are some quotes:

• "The News, based on interviews and a review of previously unreported documents, found"
• "sources told The News"
• "“We cannot confirm, deny or comment on any such case,” said a spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office"
• "The investigation, according to sources,"
• "Those no doubt shaken by Blazer’s choice to cooperate with investigators include"
• "an associate of the soccer big-wig would later say."
• "Documents reviewed exclusively by The News"
• "According to one source, the feds also held racketeering charges over Blazer’s head, claims possibly built on financial irregularities"
• "But another person familiar with Blazer’s behavior suggested"
• "said a source."

So, in short, it's OK to base a Wikipedia article about highly controversial actions of a living person, on the report of a tabloid newspaper that is based on speculation ("no doubt", "possibly") and unnamed sources that no other newspaper will confirm? Surely this is against the principles of WP:BLP. --GRuban (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're referring, again, the style of tabloid journalism, not the substance. Plus, the NYT and other non-tabloids quote unnamed sources also—with more 'class,' perhaps. Further, there is no controversy about Blazer's criminality—the NYT ran several articles in 2015, describing Blazer's criminal activities (The Daily News scooped them by breaking a great deal of the story in the article in question). And again, the NYT quoted the section of the Daily News article most crucial to this entire discussion verbatim, with attribution, in one of its articles on Blazer. Tapered (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That last does make me feel better. --GRuban (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, but I think it does show the weakness of paying attention to the Daily News' downmarket format in the matter of reporting and substantive content. A la the National Enquirer as the primary reliable source for the OJ Trial. The Daily News doesn't make up its salacious stories, and the Enquirer does—but it's still the best source on a serious, but salacious story with a dedicated Wikipedia article. Tapered (talk) 03:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How were you able to link to the article? According to the OP, "The Daily News blocks linkage to its articles".--Auric talk 16:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Auric:A brief experiment showed that my issue with linking to the NYDN and other commercial sites is a caused by either Adblock or Ubuntu, or both. Tapered (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I use Adblock and am able to see the link fine.--Auric talk 20:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes it's reliable mainly per TFD. If we rejected every source that used eye catching or tabloid style headlining we would have a very short list of RS newspapers. And the list of rejected papers would be long indeed... the NY POST, The Telegraph and the Guardian from the UK etc. Tabloid does not mean "we make it up as we go along." If there is specific evidence of poor editorial oversight or a string of stories that required retraction then we can discuss it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Headlines are never acceptable as sources. And certainly all news media sometimes use qualifications such as "according to sources." When they do that, we cannot assert something as fact. Another proviso is that investigative journalism should always be treated with care. We need to establish that other news media have picked up on it in order to show its weight. But broadsheets do investigative journalism too, the most famous of which was Woodward and Bernstein in the Watergate case, who relied on an unnamed source they referred to as "Deep Throat." TFD (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source in question is Heaton, Colin; Lewis, Anne-Marie (2012). The Star of Africa: The Story of Hans Marseille, the Rogue Luftwaffe Ace. London, UK: Zenith Press. ISBN 978-0-7603-4393-7.

It is used several times for lengthy paragraphs in Hans-Joachim Marseille#Marseille and Nazism to make the case that Marseille was "openly anti-Nazi". I have argued at Talk:Hans-Joachim Marseille#Evidence for Marseille's "anti-Nazi" stand that these passages in Heaton's bio are almost exclusively based upon personal reminiscences by former comrades and Nazi persona like Karl Wolff, Artur Axmann, Hans Baur and Leni Riefenstahl, which are renowned for being talkative about the Nazi era and being apologetic at that. Their stories are not supported by other sources, but in fact appear to be very unlikely, if not impossible. Heaton's gives dates which contradict themselves and commits obvious errors. The stories he relates about Corporal Mathew Letulu [sic!], i.e. Mathew P. Letuku, contradict much better documented secondary literature. Apart from interviews, possibly conducted by himself, which is difficult to tell given the rudimentary nature of the footnotes, Heaton relies almost exclusively on two biographies, one by military pulp writer Franz Kurowski, the other a "tribute" by some Robert Tate. Based upon this evidence Heaton draws far reaching conclusions, namely that "Marseille was perhaps the most openly anti-Nazi warrior in the Third Reich." (p. 4) Given its focus upon oral evidence, collected somewhat 40 (?) years after the events, its poor editing and obvious errors, I consider that biography to be an unreliable source that should not be used excessively (and it is used for many more dubious claims) in a GA in the English Wikipedia, because it is misleading.--Assayer (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that this source is very weak for an article on a Nazi era figure. I wouldn't have a problem with it being mentioned as "some biographies say", i.e. carefully attributed. It seems to be overused at the moment. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be usable only as evidence for what unreliable sources say, and I'd use it only when it is explicitly described as unreliable. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing but opinions from an agenda-driven Wikipedia editor. Assayer wants Heaton off Wikipedia. He has failed to show Heaton unreliable. Those are the facts that matter.

I am also concerned with the comments from Itsmejudith. What do you know about the literature of aerial warfare in World War II? And how could you say that about a book you've never read?

I'd encourage people to have a look at the talk page of Hans-Joachim Marseille - where the complainant makes accusation and assertion with no evidence. Dapi89 (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:HISTRS. Popular books by non-historians are not reliable for the history of WW2. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, biographical works by academic historians on members of the Wehrmacht or SS below the rank of general can be numbered on the fingers of one hand, so WP:HISTRS is useless and we must fall back upon the traditional methods of evaluating a book and its author like use of primary sources, use of puffery or biased language, etc. All that requires actually reading the book more thoroughly than a Google snippet can allow. I've never read Heaton so I really don't know if I'd consider him RS or not. Personally, I'd be most interested to see what Wübbe has to say.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He doesnt have a biography here, but from what I can google online he probably passes muster as a reliable source. Ex-military, ex-history professor, current historian and consultant for TV/Film on WW2. He is qualified in the area, has been published on the subject as well as earning a living from it for a significant time. If the only thing being held against him requires second-guessing him, thats not how WP:V works and is bordering on original research. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As to the argument that Heaton is "qualified in the area": According to Heaton's own CV on his own commercial website he holds a BA and two MA degrees in history, was consultant and adjunct professor to the online American Military University and guest historian for a single episode of a History channel programme. That's not very impressive. What is more, I looked for reviews of his works and could not find much. It seems, however, that Heaton regularly uses "oral testimony" from people involved. That is stressed by Stephen M. Miller in a recent review of Heaton's Four-War Boer for the Journal of African History (2016), commenting that the information of the interviews are not substantiated in the text or in the notes ("unfortunately") and Horst Boog, reviewing Heaton's Night Fighters (which is his MA thesis at Temple Univ.) for the Militärgeschichtliche Zeitschrift (2010). Boog also points to numerous errors, for example Heaton's estimate of 1.2 million civillian German bomb victims. (The highest estimate is actually 635,000 victims, recent research (Richard Overy) estimates 353,000 victims.) I might add that by now I am challenging the reliability of the book for a certain, controversial characterization of Jochen Marseille. Thus one does not need to read the whole book (which I did), because I refer to a couple of pages which are cited at length in the article, I point to the sources and how they are used and I point to the language.--Assayer (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a combination of original research which we dont do and actual genuine concerns. If multiple reliable sources have cast doubt on his credibility (critical reviews, peers countering his claims etc) then that does shed doubt on his useability in an article. Could you make a list of the sources critical of him/his book? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked. Nothing. I did say earlier in this thread, this claim of unreliability is just an opinion of one editor. This type of personal attack on sources has been made across multiple threads and articles with the same old result. Heaton qualifies as reliable. Dapi89 (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that you could find critical reviews about facets of any one of these academics work, even Overy and Miller. Using the differentials in casualty figures, which vary among all academics is a weak argument (never mind what the latest, supposedly new, research has to say, which doesn't automatically make it accurate anyway). And can you define victims? Anyone who suffered a gash from an air attack can be considered a victim. Such vague descriptions are unhelpful. Opinions are also unhelpful. Assayer is well aware of what is required here. Does this editor have reviews that are directly critical or not? Dapi89 (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Only in death: Could you please elaborate where you draw the line between OR and "genuine concerns"? Neither do I use unpublished sources nor do I come to a conclusion on my own. I simply hold what Heaton says against what other published sources say. Isn't that what User:Sturmvogel 66 asks for, if we don't have biographical works by academic historians at hand? How else could we evaluate the reliability of a publication, that is ignored by historiographical works? Please do also take into account how the material sourced to Heaton's biography is presented in the article, namely as factual accounts. Of course this is what Heaton does in his work: He weaves lengthy quotations of various anecdotes related to him through interviews into a coherent narrative. These anecdotes are not supported by third party sources and Heaton does not discuss their reliability. Thus many of the information can only be traced to oral testimony. Do we have to accept that as reliable, simply because Heaton does?

@Dapi89: Although I chose to ignore your continuous personal attacks I have to say that remarks like "Anyone who suffered a gash from an air attack can be considered a victim" are highly inappropriate. And the literature on aerial warfare in World War II is not that "vague".--Assayer (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an attack it is an observation on your behaviour. Those comments are entirely appropriate unless you feel the wounded don't count. I didn't say it was vague. I said you're vague. All this is hot air. You're trying to use discrepancies and differentials in accounts and figures, and unbelievably spelling differences (!!), to try and have an author discredited. OR is being kind. You're views are personal and tendentious. You're a polemist. End of story. Dapi89 (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article: RF resonant cavity thruster
Primary source: A June 2016 journal article in AIP Advances
Main secondary source: An article in the International Business Times UK
---

There is an ongoing dispute at RF resonant cavity thruster (EMdrive) about the IBtimes, and whether they are a reliable source. In the section we have a peer reviewed primary source, and secondary sources by the International Business Times, Sciencealert, and Next Big Future. There is also a secondary source by the Daily Mail, but I don't really think they are a RS, and not necessary anyway, as we have other, better secondary sources. This is the section in dispute:

Scientists in Finland have proposed a possible explanation of this phenomenon involving the propagation of microwave photons leaking from the closed metal cavity and thereby producing an exhaust momentum, satisfying the classical action-reaction principle.[1] This explanation relies on the wave-particle duality of electromagnetic radiation, postulating that the stochastic phases of the microwaves will (with some probability) result in destructive interference between microwaves which cancels their electromagnetic fields but allows continued propagation of the microwave photon pairs, generating net thrust consistent with the impulse-momentum theorem depending on the asymmetric shape of the cavity.[1][2][3][4]

Others, particularly Rolf H Nelson, Guy and TenOfAllTrades have called the above sourcing into question, saying that we should use 'editorial judgement' with regards to removing the material as not reliable. Rolf in particular has been extremely adamant about the IBTimes not being a reliable source, going as far as to remove the material on 7 different occasions (reverted by myself and several others). This is despite the fact that it is used widely throughout the rest of the RF resonant cavity thruster article and in at least one other related example a story that the IBTimes was picked up widely and reported by others (notably by Popular Science) who seem to regard the IBTimes as a reliable source, even with regards to the EMdrive.

As we do not seem to be getting very far in resolving the issue on the talk page, I would like some discussion here on whether the view that this material should be removed is justified. Or whether this is a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.

Pinging involved editors not already mentioned above. Musashi miyamoto, Zedshort, mfb, Tokamac, Sparkyscience.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly, and Insertcleverphrasehere's misleading and deceptive summary notwithstanding, we have a low-impact primary publication (the AIP Advances paper, in a journal with an impact factor of 1.4) that has managed to generate a very small number (three, it appears) bits of clickbait, in outlets that are known for problematic content.

If Insertcleverphrasehere were genuinely interested in true secondary sourcing, he would be waiting for proper, independent confirmation and commentary by genuine experts in peer-reviewed, high-quality secondary articles in respected scientific journals—not whichever bloggers could be duped into writing a high-hype headlines. (Given how badly Insertcleverphrasehere was suckered by the incredibly fraudulent Energy Catalyzer, you'd think he'd be a little more cautious this time around....) Recruiting IBTimes, ScienceAlert, or NextBigFuture as secondary sources for scientific claims lies somewhere between desperate and just sad. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll briefly respond to the few things you've actually said that have to do with WP policy. While it wasn't published in Nature or Science, an IF of 1.4 is not a low impact factor, it is middling, and anyway, the validity of using impact factor to judge the merit of academic work is debated widely (nothing in WP policy required a high impact factor to my knowledge). Also, while peer reviewed secondary sources are of course preferred, I don't believe there is anything in WP policy that requires anything of the sort. Generally secondary sources are required to have editorial oversight, and come from reliable sources, which the IBTimes and Sciencealert both seem to easily satisfy (I have doubts about NBF but it is there).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP doesn't have a fixed rule concerning impact factors, but that doesn't mean every primary source is equal. Extraordinary claims (like a contradiction to special relativity) in mediocre journals are highly questionable.

I didn't notice any editorial oversight of IBtimes or Sciencealert in terms of physics. They seem to write about anything that could have a connection to the EM-drive. And while it is not the same topic: Every time sciencealert writes an article about particle physics, you can be sure that there are multiple errors in it. If they get things wrong in a field where "ask an expert" is easy to do, I don't expect a better quality in the topic discussed here. --mfb (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All other hypotheses in this article (perhaps except the measurement errors) are equally, if not more controversial - however, that does not matter, because Wikipedia users should not assess validity of peer-reviewed papers. If you were to remove this hypothesis then you would also have to remove all other hypotheses. Why would you want to remove the whole hypotheses section from the article? What would be the point of doing that? All what Wikipedia editors have to do is to establish WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS, and not debate about scientific issues. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Musashi miyamoto: The other hypotheses are not discussed here (feel free to make new sections for them if you like), and "but this is in the article" is not a valid argument. --mfb (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very valid argument, because first we debate here whether IBTimes is a reliable source, and IBTimes has been a source for all other hypotheses in this article too, second this is supicious that Rolf is being so adamant regarding this section, when there is other material in the Hypotheses section of the article that is at least as controversial, and arguably worse sourced than the section that he has repeatedly tried to blank, that is why I pointed out that if you removed this section then you would have to remove also all other sections in the Hypotheses section - but that would be pointless and counterproductive. Thus, this also shows that what Rolf is doing is pointless and counterproductive. As long as we do not know how this drive works, it is best to share and consider all options, which have been published in peer-reviewed journals. To respect the scientific principles is the best way to ensure progress. Rolf's belligerent behaviour may indicate that he knows very well that he is not right, but despite that he is pushing his POV just for the sake of "I don't want to be wrong", and that can be considered a non good-faith behaviour. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AIP Advances has a better IF (2015/2016 Impact Factor : 1.444) than the Journal of Propulsion and Power where the notable NASA paper was published about the EmDrive (2015/2016 Impact Factor : 1.134), and in the past the difference was even greater. Most of scientific journals in which most of papers are published have similar IFs to those journals. This is a reputable peer-reviewed journal with good IF, published by a notable organization the American Institute of Physics, which publishes also many other reputable journals. There is nothing untoward about this journal. All hypotheses in this article (except perhaps measurements errors) are controversial. So why would anyone challenge this one and not the other ones? There is no difference between the position of this hypothesis and all the others. All of them have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals with decent IFs and subsequently debated in popular press. This is not up to Wikipedia eitors to decide which one is correct one and which one is not. Wikipedia editors have no qualification for that, unless they published a rebuttal in a scientific peer-reviewed paper - but even then the hypothesis should not be deleted, but merely an information about the rebuttal paper added. However, no such rebuttal paper has been published in this case. Personal opinion of anybody about the validity of the paper's theoretical musings is very unimportant to establishing WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. All Wikipedia polices have been met. Rather this seems to be a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, which is not a reason for the deletion of the section. This hypothesis is as 'valid' and as sourced as any other hypotheses presented in that article. So there are no reasons to remove this hypothesis - if you would decide to remove this hypothesis then all other hypotheses in that article would have to be removed as well, because they are all equal in a sense that they all have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals with decent IFs, and all have been published in decent secondary sources. Why would anyone want to remove the whole Hypotheses section from the article? What would be the point of doing that? Who would benefit from that? Certainly not Wikpedia and not Wikipedia users.
WP:PRIMARY says "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense". So having secondary sources is not always obligatory, but nevertheless there are several secondary sources in this case, so IMHO there is no issue at all. I do not see a reason why deny Wikipedia users access to all peer-reviewed papers publishing hypotheses trying to explain how this invention works. It would be helpful not only to general public, but also to those research scientists who just heard about EmDrive and who just become interested in this topic, they are likely to read first the article in Wikipedia about EmDrive and in particular the Hypotheses section, which would help them to figure out what already has been done and whether they would be able to contribute. It would also help them finding scientific sources, because they are available in the Hypotheses section. So removing from the article any of the hypotheses without a good reason would be detrimental to Wikipedia, Wikipedia users, and in fact detrimental to progress in science.
Also please note that this article in not about a new theory, but about a new invention, so all those scientific papers about hypotheses how the invention works should not be treated in the same way as papers about a new theory entered as a separate article in Wikipedia.

Rolf H Nelson was disruptively blanking multiple times the whole sections not only of the 'Photon Leakage' section, but also 'Tests in space' section, again claiming witout any valid, relevant arguments, that IBTimes is allegedly not a reliable source. IBTimes report was based on the Chinese government Science and Technology Daily report. Also there was added as a source a report from china.com, which reprinted China Daily report, but that source was removed two times by JzG editor without any explanation why he/she removed that source. Subsequently multiple other sources reported very widely from there quoting IBTimes, so apparently all these other reliable sources considered the IBTimes to be a RS, so why wouldn't we? IBTimes reported also about all other hypotheses presented in other subsections of the Hypotheses section. IBTimes has been awarded many times for their journalism. IBTimes has not been the only secondary source. So even if IBTimes is excluded there is still no reason to remove those sections, which Rolf H Nelson has been repeatedly removing against the earlier reached consensus, and whose disruptive edits were reverted multiple times (about a dozen) by 4 different editors (Tokamac, Sparkyscience, Insertcleverphrasehere, Musashi miyamoto).
IMHO it was Rolf H Nelson who should have started RS, because it was he who disagreed with the consensus previously reached. Yet, despite the repeated many times advice from many editors that he should start RS or DR, instead of talking, he started editing war. He alone was blanking multiple times the whole sections of the article without good reasons and against the existing consensus.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In a general sense, I believe IB Times is a reliable source, but I've only used them for technology related articles - usually non-controversial stuff like video game previews. I have no idea if they're an authority on whatever all of this is about - which is difficult to ascertain between the massive long responses and arguing... Sergecross73 msg me 05:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Status quo ante dispute

FTR status-quo ante is non-inclusion; but this WP:CONSENSUS dispute will be a matter for an administrator's noticeboard, not here. Some initial discussion in [3]. IMHO we should instead discuss, here, whether the WP:WEIGHT of the text's sources merit inclusion; despite disruptive behavior by certain pro-inclusion editors, the text can nevertheless be included if the RS board agrees it merits inclusion. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. There has been a consensus that it should be included.[[4]] Only your behaviour was belligerent and disruptive. Four different editors were reverting your very disruptive editing - you alone were blanking indiscriminately multiple times the whole sections of the article without good reasons and against the existing consensus. Nobody else was doing that, just you, so you are the only perpetrator in respect to removal of the whole sections.
Regarding your other points my answer can be already found above, so I will not be repeating myself here. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Background on publishing journal

"AIP Advances is a community-based journal, with a fast production cycle. The quick publication process and open-access model allows us to quickly distribute new scientific concepts. Our Editors, assisted by peer review, determine whether a manuscript is technically correct and original. After publication, the readership evaluates whether a manuscript is timely, relevant, or significant."[5] 2015 impact factor was 1.444. The publisher is legitimate: "AIP Publishing is a wholly owned not-for-profit subsidiary of the American Institute of Physics (AIP)". Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed text is an "extraordinary claim"

The claims made in the paper, "On the exhaust of electromagnetic drive", is that photons can pass through arbitrary potential barriers if they are "out-of-phase" with one another, and that this provides an explanation for the emdrive. The out-of-phase argument is nonsense, but that requires some knowledge of quantum electrodynamics, or at least an understanding of how waves work, so the WP:FRINGE board might have more expertise if there's doubt about it being an "extraordinary claim". The claim has basically been ignored by the scientific community; without good WP:SECONDARY sources, it'll be hard to satisfy WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV on it even if we do include it. If there's a dispute that this is an extraordinary claim to which the "NEJM rule" should apply, then we should bring in the WP:FRINGE noticeboard, as they have more experience judging whether a claim is extraordinary. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IBTimes as a general source

Dubious to me; I drafted [6] to document the judgements of RS on IBTimes; "clickbait" and "content farm" are the key words. Rather than being founded by established journalists, the paper was allegedly founded as a way to make money for an dodgy cult "enigmatic religious figure". List of awards seems unimpressive to me. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the basis for your anecdote about "cults"? . Or your unexplained, vague comment that you're not personally impressed by them? Sergecross73 msg me 05:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sergecross73 My sources are The Guardian and Mother Jones on both the clickbait/content farm characterization by many of its own employees and the cult allegations. The awards it won don't look Notable by Wikipedia standards nor prestigious, and I personally haven't heard of them, but other RS board members can follow the link to awards and issue their own opinions. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but notice that neither article contains the word "cult" at any point, for starters. Sounds like they've got some controversial religious beliefs I neither support nor defend conceptually, but that doesn't necessarily ban them from being a Wikipedia-reliable source in a general sense. Sergecross73 msg me 21:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point, so let me elaborate. From the Mother Jones article: 'IBT is hardly the first media company with close ties to a religious group. The Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church founded the Washington Times; the Christian Science Church has published the Christian Science Monitor for decades. But while those affiliations are formal and public, IBT's ties to the Community are neither. In one email, (IBT co-founder) Davis went so far as to refer to his Community role as "inherently covert."' As for the cult characterization, the Lloyd Grove of the Daily Beast alleges "A further wrinkle in the current flap is IBT Media’s alleged relationship to enigmatic South Korean-born pastor David Jang, the founder of an apparently cult-like ministry called “The Community,” in which some members whisper that Jang is actually the Messiah." To me the articles suggest that making money, and not providing quality journalism, is the founders' driving goal. If the RS board doesn't consider all that relevant in any way, then I'm happy to drop that point. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd drop it, yeah. If it requires that much explanation and piecing together of points, I don't believe it really has that strong of a bearing on the actual writers, editors, and day to day running of the website... Sergecross73 msg me 15:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All that aside, this really looks like it'd meet Wikipedia's WP:RS standard in a general sense. Its not like we're talking about some obscure blog a guy started up in his basement last year or something. We're talking about a global company that's been around for over a decade, has a corporate staff that's college educated with Masters and PhDs with experience at other big corporations, and a massively detailed ethics and editorial policy detailed. Are they an authority on high science stuff you all are arguing about? I have no idea. Maybe not. But they don't have to be. Kotaku or Entertainment Weekly probably wouldn't be good sources for hard science either, but they're still considered reliable sources in their respective fields. You guys can keep hashing it out in the sections below on that, but I strongly oppose rejecting them wholesale on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 20:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IBTimes as a science source

Dubious to me; for example [7] seems like clickbait: "In June, a young boy in India was snapping photos of clouds when he captured an image of what some thought may have been a flying saucer circling the skies. While some raised doubts as to whether the object was alien, others said it was definitive proof that UFOs exist, the Express reported"... "One of the more high-profile UFO sightings came after U.S. astronaut Scott Kelly tweeted a photo of the sky over India in November, showing a mysterious object in the picture’s corner. NASA didn’t offer an explanation, but at least one UFO hunter, Scott Waring, suggested that Kelly intentionally showed the UFO, trying to suggest that there may be aliens out there, the New York Post reported." Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While the title seems a bit clickbait-y, as is usual in the online news industry these days, this source doesn't strike me as 'unreliable' nor would it be a 'science' source. It doesn't really appear to be pro-UFO, despite what you've said above, if you read the whole article in context. To me the article seems to just make the ridiculousness of some of the claims speak for themselves, rather than bothering to condemn them, which is possibly where your confusion comes from. I'd argue that it would be an appropriate and reliable secondary source for use in the List of reported UFO sightings article.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If IBTimes isn't a good science source, this example certainly wouldn't be why. The title is "15 times people thought they saw UFOs". They then listed proceeded to list out people's personal accounts, with commentary from UFO enthusiasts but not NASA. What exactly did you expect? That's like every UFO news piece in existence. UFO reports certainly are dubious, their presentation of it here isn't - its not like they're trying to use this to make a case for the existence of UFOs. Sergecross73 msg me 20:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A look at the last five articles of the author in question, [8], gives [9][10][11][12][13], all five posted by Pandey in a seven-hour period. RS board editors can decide for themselves, but to me the article content of those five looks like a content farm based on rewriting press releases, with no effort to talk to independent scientists; thus to me the anonymous IBT employees' allegation that IBT often acts as a 'content farm' seems credible. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IBTimes as a source for this particular claim on emdrive

Extremely dubious to me. The article, [14], has a subheader "A new study proves that the EmDrive does indeed have an exhaust" (Nobel prize time, then!) and has nuggets like "since 2012 nine independent studies have been carried out by scientists from China, Germany and even Nasa to try to build and test their own versions of the EmDrive. Although the researchers are not sure why, they have all discovered signals of thrust that cannot be explained" (In truth, many results were null, most of the various study authors have acknowledged that the signals could be experimental error, and the original Chinese scientists have even retracted their findings) and "The EmDrive does work, but there's still a long way to go." This is all NEJM stuff, but none of it appears to be true, and the article doesn't quote any scientists besides the paper's lead author. IMHO an WP:RS would have spoken with an independent physicist; again, even if we included the text, inclusion would create WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV problems. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rolf H Nelson One quick thing which you haven't responded to elsewhere and I'd like your view on. If the IBTimes isn't a reliable source with regard to their reporting on the EMdrive, why was this other story by the IBTimes on the EMdrive picked up and widely covered by other media sources, notably by Popular Science?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Insertcleverphrasehere I don't have an opinion on whether the linked Popular Science blog is significant, but even if it is, I guess I don't seem to put as much significance as you do that they used IBTimes as a source. It's certainly valid of you to offer that as evidence of IBTimes' weight, maybe uninvolved RS board members can weigh in on whether it's significant. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly? It's probably because the Popular Science blog is also rather clickbait-y. The bloggers responsible for that particular article specialize in breathless coverage of anything associated with Chinese technology [15], which is the angle in the article you've linked. The fact that these particular Pop Sci bloggers have cited IBTimes should probably encourage us to be more cautious in citing Pop Sci, not less wary of IBTimes.

More generally, Popular Science isn't exactly the most robust source for proper science reporting. If we're ranking popular science (lowercase) outlets, you'd be much better off with Scientific American or the like—though when we're discussing something that represents a major realignment of our understanding of physics, there's no substitute for robust secondary coverage in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Overall, our sourcing standards should follow a "Bayesian" approach. The greater the significance, importance, or impact of a claim – especially with respect to how much it differs from the status quo and body of accepted science – the more robust the sources must be. When a really remarkable claim is accompanied by this sort of bottom-of-the-barrel scraping for tiny, bloggy blurbs to try to substantiate it, we can read that as a legitimate signal regarding the weight Wikipedia ought to (or not) lend that claim. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I ask you and Rolf again, because both of you ignored those questions before: do we remove the whole Hypotheses section from the EmDrive Wikipedia article (or perhaps do we remove the whole EmDrive article)? Because if we follow your (skewed IMHO) point of view, that is what should be done, as explained in more details in my entry above.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support including the above section, as written, because we are not endorsing the conclusions of the Finnish paper, we are merely saying that it exists, and has drawn popular notice; which it has. Yes, the IBTimes is not a great source for science. However, I would argue that the RF resonant cavity thruster isn't really presenting the thing as science, but as pseudoscience, which it is clearly categorized as (Category:Pseudophysics is part of Category:Pseudoscience). If we could only include scientific papers as sources for pseudoscience articles, we'd need to delete most of our sections on Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Piltdown Man, the Flat Earth theory, etc. So not very scientific but popular sources should be par for the course. We just need to keep it objective, and short (since it hasn't drawn that much notice), both of which I think the proposed section does. --GRuban (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GRuban, that's exactly the kind of thing I'm trying to get the RS board's opinion on. I agree that we should include it if it's brought a certain threshold of popular notice; you're saying that in your opinion the IBTimes meets that threshold. It'd be helpful to me but hardly not mandatory if you can also give a reason why IBTimes counts for you while you're here. FWIW I don't know that the RF article is currently doing an adequate job presenting it as pseudoscience. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here is where the Reliable sources noticeboard discussed the International Business Times before: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 104#International Business Times Reading that you can see that how reliable IBTimes is is debatable, but some reliable sources cite it. For example, here is Newsweek reprinting an IBTimes article. It is, however, clearly popular, and not tabloid journalism; it aims to cover business. I'd say that's enough to say that the Finnish paper drew some popular notice, enough to be worth a short mention in our article. --GRuban (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GRuban Note that the article has the Psuedophysics category because it is agued by some to be psuedophysical, not because it is universally accepted as such. "Inclusion in this category does not necessarily indicate a consensus or implication that the article topic itself is pseudophysical, merely that it has acquired an association with the concept in some way." Of the list of criteria for inclusion on the page Category:Pseudophysics, it only really meets 2 and possibly 4. I am only bringing this up because of Rolf's comment above that it isn't adequately described as pseudoscience; thats because it has only been argued to be pseudoscience by some, and as such should not be 'described as pseudoscience'. This is a debate for the talk page of the article, and one that Rolf and I have had before, but I wanted to make it clear why the article has the pseudoscence tag, and that it is not because it is universally accepted as pseudophysics (criteria 1). Rather, it can accurately be described as 'fringe physics', but i would agree that your point above about sourcing is still valid per WP:fringe.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• With respect to how the EMdrive should be classified (bleeding edge physics or pseudophysics), I would say both. It's bleeding edge in that reliable sources have been unable to discredit it within the scientific community thus far despite there being no good explanation for it, and because scientists (as opposed to pseudoscientists) are actually researching it. But it's pseudoscience because literally every hypothesis for how it works violates known, proven laws of physics. So, Insertcleverphrasehere, I would suggest that your argument above that it is not pseudophysics is counterproductive: If not, then we need much higher quality sources than we have, and the article should be stubbed out until we get those, 5 years from now or so. For what it's worth, I agree that the IBTimes cite is 'good enough' for this article and can stay. Pseudoscience rarely gets any real mainstream attention from the highest quality sources (if you think it does, let me know and I'll happily take you on a tour of some of the most bizarre fields of study you could ever imagine, from the electric universe to time squared to astral surgery), so we often have to make do with poorer-quality sources. But should another 'good enough' source appear with criticism of this explanation, then we need to discuss whether to add the criticism or use it as a reason to take this hypothesis back out of the article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I meant that it is not treated as pseudoscience universally. There are many physicists that do treat it as pseudoscience, hence the categorization of the article, and the way the article is written makes this clear. I would personally agree that the RF cavity thruster fits somewhere between fringe and psuedo. But as I said, this is a conversation for the talk page, not here. Thanks for stopping by and commenting.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Not reliable for the content The content is supported by a primary scientific source and three non-scientific popular media secondary sources. On a contentious issue like this there should be no primary sources, nor blogs, nor popular media used to generate any scientific content. Instead secondary sources in the relevant scientific literature should be used. Raising source quality is the only way to manage this kind of contentious content. If there is some agreed need to accept lower quality sources, it should be news reporting in very high quality sources like the "news" sections of Science or Nature or something like the NY Times. Jytdog (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog While your opinion is appreciated, I feel the need to point out that this view is not WP policy. Per WP:PRIMARY, primary sources may be used, and discussed per the views of reliable secondary sources. Also, per WP:Fringe_theories#Reliable_sources: Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas.

If we followed the draconian rules put forth by Jytdog, we wouldn't be able to make more than a stub for most fringe articles.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And if everyone did what they "could" do, Wikipedia would be more of a shithole than it is. Every policy says that we should use secondary sources. This is even more important in controversial articles, per the excellent and widely cited essay, Wikipedia:Controversial_articles#Raise_source_quality Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRIMARY says "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense".
What would be the point of removing the whole Hypotheses section or the whole Emdrive article? Who would benefit from that? Certainly not Wikpedia users, except perhaps that minority who have stocks in oil, gas, and rocket companies. ;) Musashi miyamoto (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Prefer not, thanks. IBTimes is not a particularly highly regarded source, they don't have any significant resources for news gathering and fact checking and a lot of material in IBTimes is blatant churnalism, whihc is especially relevant where you have a subject that has been assiduously promoted for decades with claims well beyond what the evidence supports. When it's in the Grauniad, we can talk again. Guy (Help!) 00:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any proof to support such opinion? Sergecross73 above proved that IBTimes meets Wikipedia's WP:RS standard.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 05:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceAlert as a reliable source?

We've had a lot of comment on the reliability of IBTimes for the above section, and still need more to decide consensus I think, as there seem to be two clear camps, but there has been little comment on ScienceAlert, which is a second source for the above section that also seems to be a reliable source strong enough to hang the section on. Put another way, even if we decided not to accept IBTtimes (which I don't agree with), we should also discuss this other source as it would also need to be discounted.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Is this draft a reliable source for this section of the article? Mainly the allegations of raping prisoners. Thanks.--Kazemita1 (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it's not a reliable source. It needs to be in a reliable secondary source. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 15:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate a little bit?--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Joseph: This source has been used by secondary source http://docbox.un.org/DocBox/docbox.nsf/GetFile?OpenAgent&DS=A/68/340&Lang=E&Type=DOC (united nations) and its article is Justice for Iran. If you are not sure about something just plz say I don't know or say nothing. This is a long discussion about Kazemita1 trying for censorship and vandalism in wikifa article 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners. --IranianNationalist (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also if it not possible to open the un report this is the google cache : https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwieq7_Yz6_RAhVSkRQKHaUbBLgQIAgeMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwebcache.googleusercontent.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dcache%3AEsmkn06pbSYJ%3Adocbox.un.org%2FDocBox%2Fdocbox.nsf%2FGetFile%253FOpenAgent%2526DS%253DA%2F68%2F340%2526Lang%253DE%2526Type%253DDOC%2B%26cd%3D1%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dir%26client%3Dfirefox-b-ab&usg=AFQjCNF6-s-hHSn5pJdUAjDflZxokQc5UA&sig2=UWAYmAqxZHfoURrn90NebA&cad=rja

or just simply google this term : "Pathways to, conditions and consequences of incarceration for women site:un.org"

PDF version straightforward : http://dag.un.org/bitstream/handle/11176/273207/A_68_340-EN.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y (its archive) --IranianNationalist (talk) 08:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read the aforementioned UN report. The reference (#48) was to another draft by "Justice For Iran" different than the one I asked about. Moreover, the UN report did not talk about rape in prisons. Here is the exact passage from the UN report:

28. In many countries, women’s political activism has given rise to arrests and detentions. A recent report on the Islamic Republic of Iran refers to interviews with former women prisoners of conscience who were arrested for a number of reasons, including political affiliation, which can include affiliation with political opposition, women’s rights activists, student bodies, NGOs, members or defenders of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community or defenders of the rights of religious minorities; individual activities related to journalism, the media, blogging and human rights advocacy; participation in demonstrations or other forms of activism; religious crimes, including affiliation with unrecognized minorities; and violations pertaining to laws linked to dress codes (hijab).48

Kazemita1 (talk) 12:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kazemita1: Some wikien users may be not familiar to Farsi lang. Before you, Kazemita1, write any thing in this page, the right source (http://justiceforiran.org/crimeand-impunity/assets/crime_and_impunity.pdf) referenced by the UN, had been mentioned in the WikiFa talk page and article page by me. Also HOW DO YOU READ THIS PARAGRAPH IN THE UN SOURCE? (http://dag.un.org/bitstream/handle/11176/273207/A_68_340-EN.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y) :

38. A recent study uncovered cases of rape of female political prisoners in the Islamic Republic of Iran throughout the 1980s, including the rape of young virgin girls before execution, forced marriages and other forms of sexual violence, some of which continues today. In July 2011, a female prisoner committed suicide after violent beatings, including with electronic batons. The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran states that a prisoner alleged that prison guards tortured her by subjecting her to sleep and toilet deprivation, keeping her in a standing position for hours, burning her with cigarettes, exposing her to extreme temperatures for extended periods of time and punching, kicking and striking her with batons (A/67/369, para. 27).

--IranianNationalist (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About your censorship efforts (and your friends such as Sa.Vakilian censormen) I must add this diff link about you: fa:Special:Diff/18662321/18663525 you asked for a quote citation from UN source I think you need an eyeglass because you can't see the quote in the web-cite template!!! and you repetitively removed the reliable source during your editwar (it must be wonderful for @Jimbo Wales: to know that: Recently, I blocked once due to this subject above, I was hopeful about مهرنگار -the blocker admin- to be not partial this way I didn't complain from him/her in wikifa or en). --IranianNationalist (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not cite the UN report then, no one ca argue with that.Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: Hi, you may check the quote in the article (added on 8 Dec 2016) "A recent study uncovered cases of rape of female political prisoners in the Islamic Republic of Iran throughout the 1980s, including the rape of young virgin girls before execution, forced marriages and other forms of sexual violence, some of which continues today." in these edits (My edits from 8 Dec 2016) but 3 censormen in that talk page can't see it (and pinged admins are silent) (however I must appreciate Wikimostafa a good rational semi-admin but the 3 censormen don't accept the 3rd opinion of Wikimostafa. Kazemita presumes Wiki to be a democracy) :

• fa:Special:Diff/18520262/18520303 8 Dec added by me. You can see the "A recent study uncovered cases of rape of female poli..."
• fa:Special:Diff/18598577/18598587 25 Dec removed by Kazemita1
• fa:Special:Diff/18598587/18618774 29 Dec added by me
• fa:Special:Diff/18618774/18628321 31 Dec removed by Kazemita1
• fa:Special:Diff/18628321/18662321 7 Jan 2017 9:01 UTC added by me with some improvements in the sources including new UN link (PDF version) and Justice for Iran(JFI) new link (Crime and Impunity. Previous JFI link was the JFI source "Raped out of Paradise" referencing to the same "Crime and Impunity" source UN had used it but the link had broken thus I found the source by googling and mentioned it in wikifa talk and article next Kazemita mentioned it here in En as you can see the date of my edit in this case and the Kazemita1 3rd edit in this noticeboard)
• fa:Special:Diff/18662321/18663525 7 Jan removed by Kazemita1
• Heeeeey Wikifa admins... where are you? Previously I had complained in the WikiFa admin noticeboard but the admins gave Kazemita1 two warnings but nothing more however مهرنگار had blocked me once previously (and this is the Justice for Iran :) ).

I must remind that they (Kazemita1, Mhhossein and Sa.Vakilian) have same fallacious method in the WikiFa talk page (as you can see it above). I had cited the quote in the the article but he cited another part to distort the reader minds of the talk.

Note : the second blue/red part visible in the above links is about Islamic central Shiite Hawzah in Qom, Iran. There was another controversy between me and Sa.Vakilian and he called for the 3rd opinion of Wikimostafa but Wikimostafa took my side and mentioned 2 another sources from Shadi Sadr and Iran Tribunal. That Hawzah source is in Farsi language and in answer to a criticism to the verse 24 of Al-Nisa surah of Quran. The Hawzah source approves the slavery of female war prisoners based on this verse as "Kaniz Harbi" (means War bondwoman) and the source of Shadi Sadr and Iran Tribunal say the same thing "Kaniz Harbi" used by the prison official chief-warders during exactly "1988". This discussion must be resolved by the 3rd opinion of Wikimostafa but after the positive opinion of Wikimostafa to keep the content, suddenly Mhhossein and Kazemita1 started to vandalize the article and falsify in the talk.

Edit : Also I must remind that Shadi Sadr source was talking exactly about Sharia' and religious Fatwas --IranianNationalist (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"A UN report reported cases of rape of female political prisoners in the Islamic Republic of Iran in the 1980s, including the rape of young virgin girls before execution, forced marriages and other forms of sexual violence, some of which continues today."

Then link to the UN report. This might avoid conflict.~~

Also can users tone down their language, It is confrontational and abusive. if you thin editors are not playing fair do not shout a them report them.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: The report link was in the first edit (doc type, I added pdf later). About shouting :) tnx yes you are right however about Kazemita1 I did report in Wikifa admin noticeboard once previously and had no result.
If I had a biting language, I'm sorry. It had two reasons : 1. long discussion from this topic to the end of the page 2. In my talk and article talk, the Sa.Vakilian (a user seemingly registered on 2006) reminded WP:Not a Blender (as it is said in WikiFa policy) said to me don't add any "crap" you find on the web to the article! (fa:Special:Diff/18334888/18474089 and fa:Special:Diff/18032768/18474072("Hassan and Hussain were not the daughters of Muawiyah I" he said too) on 28 Nov 2016 this way the discussion started) tnx :) I'm a crap collector. "Crap" is probably based on WP:Patent nonsense (translated as Crap in the lead of the corresponding WikiFa policy :o just check it yourself "چرندیات محض" : fa:ویکی‌پدیا:چرند) but I just reminded him WP:Civility). In the Fa admin noticeboard Sa.Vakilian called me as partial having emotional talk participation ok I'm partial but his signature is "Sayyed" (means "Sir" as the descendent of the Islam's prophet however I'm a Sayyed too nominally but I'm partial because I don't have a Sayyed signature :) ).

• During the last 41 days in discussion I pinged admins (آرش، Dalba، مهرنگار,...) and experienced users to make the consensus. Thanks to Wikimostafa and Behzad39 who participated in the talk but Sa.Vakilian (who pinged Wikimostafa himself) refused the Wikimostafa's opinion. Mhhossein and Kazemita1 had no participation until 8 Dec when they started the vandalism editwar without any discussion (After the Wikimostafa's 3rd opinion). I reminded the talk to them in the edit sums repetitively. They made a noticeboard complaint and the admin (مهرنگار) banned me (because I had 3 edits and their army each one had 1 or 2 edits regardless to the 3rd opinion however the spirit of the wikipolicy WP:3RR is difference but this was the admin's justice).

Previously I had some edits in the Fa article Criticism of the Quran too also Saeed Toosi and some other controversial articles (many non-controversial too including Islamic articles). And always there are some users try to censor and admins have no reaction. Some of the users are too old accounts and experienced users such as Sa.Vakilian. (and usually طاها and Bruno and Mhhossein and Kazemita).

Actually there was another edit in Ali Khamenei (Farsi) about his FSU background (Patrice Lumumba). I have referenced the sources in here including rt.com video report from this university inside for the 50th anniversary (its wayback archive and relative video) and kommersant.ru and BBC Russian and political analysis of politifact.com and aim.org and the background of this famous claim about Khamenei in this old tiny newspaper (Observer-Reporter) by Smith Hempstone. All the content was impartial and as CLAIMS, researches, analysis and REFUSES with argues shortly but it is removed from WikiFa article fa:سید علی خامنه‌ای as inappropriate for alive person article :) who did it? "Mardetanha" ! (a good experienced technical admin).

In WikiFa , We had a completely different problem too when I said the Arabs' invasion to Persia (حمله:invasion and اعراب:Arabs) (iranicaonline.org) has a race inappropriate meaning and it must be Muslim conquest of Persia (britannica.com) (regardless to the Persia means سرزمین پارسی or Persian land not Iran:ایران) I said Muslim is an adj not a noun same as Muslim conquest of the Levant but in the discussion we had a falsification by a completely different user (not religious) and the user complained in the Fa WP:ANB claimed that I called him as a racist thus I was blocked by the Sahehco admin for the first time as you can see the discussion above is closed as unsuccessful by the Sahehco himself.

Islamic censorship in WikiFa admin is complicated. It must be Arabs not Islam... if based on reliable sources you contribute to the criticism of the Quran you must expect a long 6 months discussion to protect it. You will see many falsifications and there will be no admin reaction but if some user assign a false distorted saying to you in the discussion if you say this is a lie and you didn't say that, you will be blocked because you probably wanted to show the user as a liar (personal attack). Here UN is different and they can't do anything so I was blocked due to a 3RR @مهرنگار:. --IranianNationalist (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not accuse other users of censorship or vandalism unless you are willing to back this up with an ANI. Just use the UN source and be done with it now.Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kazemita1 received 2 admin (Sahehco and Sunfyre) warnings in his user talk page for his editwars and misuse of revert access. When Sa.Vakilian said the same thing to me (partial) on the WikiFa WP:ANI it was not a personal attack on ANI? Now I said , it is a personal attack? ok the links are clear. More relative links for those can read Farsi : Fa ANI by Sa.Vakilian to me, admin warnings to Kazemita1 about editwar and access misuse about Justice for Iran --IranianNationalist (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've found the article List of United States cities by percentage of white population which draws on IndexMundi as its only source at present; the sited page is http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/cities/rank/white-population-percentage. I'm not concerned here with that article so much as what I found while looking at IndexMundi. The about page states "IndexMundi is a data portal that gathers facts and statistics from multiple sources and turns them into easy to use visuals." However, I've been unable to find a systematic set of information on where the data for any particular visualization comes from. Now, I could infer that the information cited for the noted article here comes from the 2010 US general census, but inferring that and seeing a clear specification of how the data visualization was arrived at are two very different things. What do you think? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering - can SFF Audio be seen as a reliable source here on Wikipedia? I've seen them around quite a bit and I do see where they get name dropped every now and again. They're mentioned in this Dummies book and their reviews do get put in book praise sections like this one by Galaxy Press. There's also some mention here, on the website for LibriVox. This mention from SF Signal bodes well for the site too, since the founder of SF Signal, John DeNardo, mentions that he regularly takes news and other tidbits from there - and the SF Signal is definitely seen as a RS for reviews and news. (Despite it being now closed, its stuff is still up on the Internet at this point in time.)

Do you guys think that SFF Audio could be seen as a RS on here? It's not a fly by night, they have a set staff, and they aren't a marketing outfit, meaning that they like to promote stuff that interests them but they aren't selling their services or out to promote everyone that sends them an inquiry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, their about page doesn't list any credentials, industry recognition or other indications of journalistic integrity. So for news claims, I would say no. The only subpage of the about page makes it clear that, to the owner at least, it is a hobby site. While a background in education and paying lip service to critical thinking are good signs, they're not enough to label it a blanket reliable source. So the question is, what statements are you proposing we use it to support?

P.S. Galaxy Press is a Scientology organization. Given Scientology's (well-deserved, IMHO) treatment in the mainstream press, them citing praise from a minor web site doesn't really mean much. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, while it's good they have an "about us" page with an established staff and that they've been doing it for 13 years, but I don't really see anything in the way of credentials of any of the writers/staff, other than "being fans/enthusiasts", which doesn't count for much when it comes to RS... Sergecross73 msg me 17:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm... I was thinking of using their site just for book reviews, honestly. As far as news sites go, there are more well-known sites but the website does tend to review a large amount of indie and self-published books that some of the larger sites don't. Of course one review from them wouldn't make a book notable if they're the only review out there, but it could be helpful for borderline cases, where the book has a decent amount of coverage otherwise but just needs that one review to really push it into notability territory. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, honestly I wouldn't revert someone inserting a review into a book article because it was sourced to this site, unless there were higher notability reviews there to offset the removal. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On December 20th, @Knowledgebattle: went through approximately 50 pages, deleting all sources from websites owned by ECT News Network, primarily LinuxInsider, leaving edit summaries saying "ECT News (and it's extra platforms) is a scam site. Shouldn't be referenced." In subsequent discussion on his talk page, he expressed a willingness to discuss it here, but then did not follow through and two weeks later said "I forgot to care about this. I dunno, do whatever you want." What I want to do is get this sorted out. Can these sources be cited or not?

What makes this particularly egregious is that Knowledgebattle removed the citations carelessly, leaving many orphaned refs—and then when AnomieBot rescued them, he reverted AnomieBot's edits (see this edit to Wikipedia as an example). So several pages have had orphaned refs in them for two weeks now as a result, and whichever way this is decided these need to be fixed.

(@David Gerard: @Guy Macon: @Icebob99: @Shenme:)

ZackTheCardshark (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This editor should have at the very least discus it first. So not points for that. He hasn’t indicted either what is wrong with L.I. just claiming it is a scam. Suggest a topic ban. --Aspro (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aspro: He did explain his reasoning on his talk page. Hoping he comes here to discuss. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Should have added that this editor called it 'just a blog' when it is part of the ECT News Network, Inc. featuring professional tech writers and read by professionals. Thus he didn’t explain why it is just a blog. The fact that some stories look rehashed, is for the same reason that the long running magazines such as new scientist, Nature, Scientific America etc., run stories may look rehashed, as they often print the same syndicated articles. A journalist can’t survive by the pittance one magazine will pay him, so his verbiage gets

syndicated.--Aspro (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable to me. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If those references are truly legitimate, then I would like for them to be returned back to their original articles, but I don't think any form of punishment or penance needs to be meted out. Icebob99 (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Just a reprimand. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Going by the "forgot to care about this. I dunno, do whatever you want.", I don't think user:Knowledgebattle cares anymore either way, so in the absence of anyone else to take his argument, I would like to see those citations restored. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CC: @ZackTheCardshark: @Aspro: @Icebob99: @David Gerard: @Guy Macon: @Shenme:

Re: LinuxInsider

As I've made clear elsewhere, it was the sketchiness of the ETC Network publishing practices which indicated to me that the site was a scam. A legit business model wouldn't have any need to copy their business model and present it as something different, while hiding their parent companies or owners. I've been corrected - I should have brought it here and presented my findings, rather than taking it into my own hands.

@Aspro: A topic ban? Oh puh-lease. What are you trying to do? Encourage socks?

@Icebob99: Thanks for that. I'm aware that other people have gone over the changes I've made, but I'll review the changes I made too, and try to fix whatever hasn't been addressed. However, in the several cases where LinuxInsider simply regurgitated an original source, I'll be sticking with the original source, rather than their echo. I would expect that's fair handling of sources.

@ZackTheCardshark: Sure, reprimand me. Whatever. Or don't. Whatever. In the meantime, I'm going to review those changes, too. It wasn't my intention to irritate you or anyone else. I enjoy contributing, and it's annoying when people use freelance journalists as sources. Could you imagine what the evolution article would look like, if just any source were deemed acceptable? LinuxInsider is hiring freelance journalists right now, according to their Careers page, and the expectations aren't that high - a journalism degree, a little experience and a little knowledge. That's understandable, of course, when you realize that all they do is rehash other stories they find online for advertising revenue. But, if that's what's considered an acceptable source for Wikipedia, I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

All, in conclusion: To clarify, I'm about to start reviewing the edits where I seemingly messed up. Gonna go make a pot of coffee, then get to work. However, consider the points I made at User:Knowledgebattle/interesting, as well as the points I've made here, when considering LinuxInsider as a source.

^Knowledge_Battle ^(Talk) | ^Godless_Infidel ︻╦╤── 11:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Think the proper way now, is to revert all this editor's edits regarding LI - period. Clearly (by his own comments) has demonstrated an inaccurate understanding of both the job and profession of journalism and how news gets presented to the pubic, not to mention the input of copyeditors, who can 'rehash articles' hidden behind pay-walls so that the general public can become aware if it. So he is demonstrably not well placed to review his own edits. What is Freelance Journalism?. He questions a topic ban, whilst at the same time continues to pontificate, adding yet more fuel to the fire for such a ban. --Aspro (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to attempt to provide an overview of this issue.

There are four places where this is discussed. Might I propose that all future discussion be referred here so that we have one discussion in one place?

The four places are: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#References to LinuxInsider and ECT network websites removed by KnowledgeBattle User:Knowledgebattle/interesting User talk:Knowledgebattle#LinuxInsider Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 December 20#LinuxInsider

First, let us have no more talk about sanctions, blocks, topic bans, etc. This is RSN, not ANI, and thus such discussion are inappropriate here.

OK, on to the main question. Knowledgebattle has presented evidence for CIO Today, CRM Daily, CRM Buyer, E-commerce Times, ECT News Network, Enterprise Security Today, LinuxInsider, NewsFactor, Sci-Tech Today, and TechNewsWorld having a common owner. (He got it wrong concerning FreeNewsFeed. That's a service offered by NewsFactor, not a site like the others)

However, as ZackTheCardshark asks,[16] "Is this particularly different from the way MacWorld, PCWorld, and TechHive are all part of the IDG network? Is that similarly problematic?"

So, on what basis does Knowledgebattle conclude that "having the same owner" equals "unreliable source"? Disney owns ABC, ESPN, A+E, Pixar, Lucasfilm and Marvel Studios. Does that make those sources unreliable? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know, right? Frustrating. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the King Faisal International Prize website (http://kfip.org/en) reliable for biographical information? I am dubious as the organisation has commended people such as the Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy and the Islamist Syed Abul Ala Maudidi.

Beyond personal dislike of their "politics" have you any real reason for assuming they do not check their facts?Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• globalsecurity.org: 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

This is a very web 1.0 site with a good deal of what looks like opinion. Is it a reliable source? There are an enormous number of links on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A number of the staff and fellows appear to be experts in the domain. Their editorial policy does not, however, appear to be public. Perhaps you should invite WT:MILHIST to this discussion. --Izno (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• There was a discussion about this site not too long ago, see here. Many more in the archives. [17][18][19] It seems to come up frequently, we should really try to resolve its reliability a bit more firmly because obviously people keep using it even though it's often challenged. Looking at previous discussions, my sense is that it often ends up getting ruled reliable on military knick-knacks, but is considered a poor source for history, geopolitics, etc. Part of the problem is that they do employ a number of people who we might plausibly consider "experts" on military and intelligence matters - but they publish stuff on a variety of other subjects, where their expertise and accuracy is not great.

NB, it's not to be confused with globalresearch (I made that rather embarrassing mistake in the last discussion). Fyddlestix (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Schierbecker: called it "notoriously unreliable" in 2010.[20] @Brad101: in 2011 seemed to doubt that it is "high-quality and reliable." [21] Maybe we can decide which, if any, parts are usable. It looks like it's widely used on Wikipedia, but that may be mostly due to the fact that they post articles on many topics which are otherwise thinly covered. Felsic2 (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I said it was unreliable because it is mostly tertiary and doesn't always cite its sources. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This site has just recently been discussed to death on this noticeboard. The general consensus was that it's alright for some technical stuff, highly questionable for some news stuff and definitely not globalresearch.ca. (I mistook it for that site, myself.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good summary, but I'd also like to add a point that I raised, which is that it probably should not be used as a general reference for an article, and should be accompanied by an inline citation at least, if it is used at all. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm. So here's one link taken at random: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2001/010900-zhawar.htm - this is from a copyright source with no evidence of release, and was falsely attributed ot the website not to the originating journal. That seems poor. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt there a rule in the policy soup somewhere about not linking to websites that host copyright infringing material? (Found it: WP:ELNEVER "Policy: material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked, whether in an external-links section or in a citation". So if you think its violating copyright you can just nuke the citation.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be public domain since it's by the Foreign Military Studies Office, wouldn't it? Mark Schierbecker (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. It was published by The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then we must delink Wikipedia Commons, since, as well as the numerous copyright violations deleted from it on a daily basis, it hosts hundreds of thousands of images bulk copied illegally, under the laws of many nations, from the image archives of museums and galleries? As I understand it, the policy is intended to apply only to links that directly access the actual material that is violating copyright. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasnt suggesting removing *all* the links. Just the ones that are either clearly (or unclearly) violating copyright. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounded to me as if you were - you wrote "not linking to websites that host copyright infringing material". But yes, links that directly link to copyright violations should not be there. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a rather ridiculously technical interpretation of policy, and the implementation (in light of this comparison) of it pretty much the definition of a pointy edit. I'm not trying to bust your balls because I don't believe you're seriously suggesting we do it. I'm just pointing out that there's another big difference there. For what it's worth, I agree that the policy seems focused on stopping editors from linking to (for example) a bootleg copy of a film on youtube, or the torrent of some cracked software. I think a more pertinent question here is: can we link to something on globalsecurity.org that when we don't or can't know the copyright status? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons has a policy against copyright violation, and removes violations when reported. That is very different from a case where a site is careless or contemptuous of copyright. See Secondary liability#Contributory liability for the rationale behind our policies on this. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the above, we have:

• Some articles are tendentious
• Some are batshit insane
• Some infringe copyright

That suggests ot me that whatever editorial oversight they have, is fundamentally broken, and thus the site is not a WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 10:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles are written by people who we would consider experts in their field. If they had self-published somewhere we would still consider using them as an expert opinion correctly attributed. Thats the exception Mjolnir is referring to above when he mentions 'reliable for some technical stuff'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is the problem with a blanket "the site is not a WP:RS" statement. While some sources are not RS for anything, others sources can be a RS for some subjects or some purposes but not be a RS for others. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of the content on Islamic Human Rights Commission seems to have the organization's own website as its source. I have deleted some of the examples and tagged some of the content - but I am unsure as to how far to go with this. FOr example, if some of the organization's activities are entirely unreported except through the organization's own website, is its website a valid source to use, and if not, meaning the material will be unsourced, are such activities notable enough for inclusion in an article? And are quotes from press releases or response statements issued by the organization valid material for article inclusion if they remain unreported by any RS media outlet? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common problem. For bland organisations it's not a pressing issue, but for organisations that are controversial, their self-description is IMO not something we should report uncritically. I'm equally uncomfortable with the inclusion of slogans, mission statements and other such marketing guff. We should not self-source promotional material, and we should describe the aims of organisations by reference to reliable independent sources. This is especially true in the current post-truth climate, where a number of organisations seem intent on proving that Orwell was if anything too optimistic. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Is this draft a reliable source for this section of the article? Mainly the allegations of raping prisoners. Thanks.Kazemita1 (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who are they? [[22]], reading this I am going to question their neutrality (in addition it may count as self published). I think it can be used as a source for what they claim, but not for it being true.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a draft, it is a findings report. "International Peoples Tribunal" is a phrase / concept seen quite a lot - but I don't think there is a single organization behind them, and I'm not sure if the phrase's usage means that there is always a particular common methodology or high set of standards at work behind them. However, for this report, it appears to be a substantial and professionally-formulated report, has a large number of named individuals, and was the result of a physical event, a conference, hosted by a well-known RS organization, so first impressions for me is that it can be a RS for its claims. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working on improving the "Gliese 581 g" article, and I used the following source in the article's infobox: [23]. This is the diff: [24]. At first, I thought it was perfectly fine to use the Daily Mail as a source since it is the second largest daily newspaper in the United Kingdom, but after doing some further research about it, it turns out that the Daily Mail has been criticized for racism, homophobia, and printing false stories. Therefore, I would like to know what the community thinks about the reliability of this source. —MartinZ02 (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Daily Mail has a reputation for a lack of fact checking and poor editorial oversight. If you have to rely exclusively on their coverage, it probably isn't worth it, and if you have other sources, use them instead.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Well I guess they talked to some scientists or something, but the Daily Mail's not really an ideal source for an encyclopedia entry on astronomy, or indeed anything at all. There's been much discussion of this paper over the years, a selection of handy cut-out-and-keep quotes can be found here. Why it hasn't been formally banned outright (esp. for BLPs) is beyond me. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 23:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you can just ask Jimbo about that, he doesn't seem to like it either. —MartinZ02 (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  "It's really really really bad" He doesn't seem to like them, no. I'm sure it's nothing personal --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 01:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the ultimate problem with the Daily Mail is that their standard of proof is trash. They are known to base an entire story on an anonymous tweet or blog post. Plenty of news outlets are known to do that occasionally, but for The Daily Mail it appears to be standard operating procedure. The fact that most of their content happens to be true is an accident. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a low-quality source. As said above: "If you have to rely exclusively on their coverage, it probably isn't worth it, and if you have other [presumably better] sources, use them instead." Neutrality^talk 23:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The best thing I can say about the Daily Mail is that the Weekly World News is a worse source. But I'm open to being wrong about that. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The best thing I can say about the Daily Mail is that its photographic coverage (at least online) is often excellent, and can't be criticised as being false or distorted. Ravi Shankar was one notable example. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Replaced the source with an article from the The Daily Telegraph. Seems like the Daily Mail is the British equivalent of Breitbart News. —MartinZ02 (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I would say the New York Post (also not a reliable source). Neutrality^talk 00:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Breitbart is less obviously racist. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of what "racist" or "homophobic" implications could arise from the discovery of a planet 20 light years away - is there a disturbing rampant pink hue to it perhaps (or, worse still, a rainbow colored one), or have the astronomers detected it is full of bearded fanatics just waiting to make the long interstellar journey to Europe? Unless the Daily Mail has a hidden part ownership of the W. M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii, this newspaper is not the source of the story (and the article actually cites something called "Discovery News" as its source). Stop using this noticeboard as an excuse to make stupid and juvenile off-topic attacks on the Daily Mail (or to indulge in deceptive wikilinking using piping - should Hillbillyholiday editing be checked for similar violations in article content?). The Daily Mail is obviously not a suitable source for facts in contentious science-related subjects, but the OP has not asked that - in fact, they seem to be asking spurious questions for dubious motives. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shouldn't. His amusing contributions are very welcome. I often find Daily Mail content quite "stupid and juvenile", so I think such criticism is quite on-topic. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV manipulation of article content Wikilinks using piping is a serious infraction of good editing practice - so I think to do it anywhere is troubling, even as just an amusement. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have no idea what you mean or why you are in any way "troubled". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The code that does this Tony Blair is a vertical line that is called a pipe after its function to "pipe", i.e. direct, users to an article that is named differently from the visible name. Linking to an inappropriate article this way is an abuse of wikilinking. Hillbillyholiday wikilinked Daily Mail to Völkischer Beobachter, which is also a ludicrous over exaggeration. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks, so that's what a pipe means. And there's me thinking it was some kind of useless fancy frippery or just a confection. Billy's just on fire, ain't he. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC) p.s. but you're big a bit harsh on dear old Tony.[reply]

The Daily Mail is very right wing, populist and opinionated and the UK it is treated as a tabloid. Even the normal newspapers WP:RS tend to use 1 journalist for "Science." I'd recommend a specialised Science journal. JRPG (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is worse than most tabloids in that it has a reputation for malicious dishonesty. And actual, literal, support for Nazism. The Mirror has a political agenda and will spin any story about party politics, the Mail is not above outright fabrication. And then there's the Sidebar of Shame. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you've convinced me that I was wrong. The Weekly World News is a better source. At least they're not malicious about it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 06:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should we prohibit the use of The Daily Mail as a source? I envisage something just short of blacklisting, whereby its introduction to an article could be accepted only upon there being a demonstrable need to use it instead of other sources. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 13:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

• Support prohibition Looking through the archives and talkpages across WP reveals a clear consensus not to use it at all. Many, many editors (and Jimmy Wales) have said over the years that the Mail is not a relaible source in any area. A list of reasons why would be enormous, it doesn't need reiterating, the paper is trash, pure and simple. There may be rare exceptions where a reference may be useful, perhaps when a Mail story is itself the subject – cases could be presented here for discussion. There is little chance anything of encyclopedic value would be lost from such a move, and everything to be gained, not least an end to continual Mail-related arguments. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 13:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There is no justification for the blanket banning of a mass-circulation newspaper as a source. There will be cases where it is a suitable rs source. The problem with the "Mail-related arguments" mentioned, if the latest example here [25] is typical, is just with editors not knowing what appropriate sources to use. Should the Daily Mail be used to support a claim related to astronomy? Well duh, obviously not! The proposer seems to have a longterm pov agenda here, in an earlier comment he actually compared the Daily Mail to Völkischer Beobachter and has been busy compiling [26]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We obviously shouldn't use it for anything science related, it is de facto prohibited from BLPs and BLP-related articles, and politics would seem out of bounds given their continual lies and misrepresentation in this area. Even their photography can't be relied upon (sorry, Martin). In what scenario would the Mail be an irreplaceable source? They regularly publish sexualized photos of children. A coroner blamed them in the death of a transexual they had hounded. How on earth is dailymail.co.uk (current front-page headline: "Patrick Swayze was a 'flirt' and Ariana Grande hung out with 'snobby entitled rich girls': Former classmates of A-listers reveal what they were REALLY like at school - but who were the meanest?") a suitable source for an encyclopedia? --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 16:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone proposing to use those articles for Wikipedia citations and article content? Making over-the-top hypotheticals and comparisons and very dubious allegations are not convincing. 99.999% of the content on the Daily Mail that could be in some way be Wikipedia notable will also be source-able in more appropriate sources, so I do not see a problem that needs to be addressed in this way. The problem is editors not using appropriate sources. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Mail should be on the citation blacklist. There's no area of news where it is actually reliable. It can be relied on to accurately report celebrity gossip, but in that case the gossip itself is frequently false and the Mail doesn't check it. Their coverage of medical, science and political topics is a byword for deliberate inaccuracy. It is pretty close to a fake news source in some areas. Also: this: [27]. Guy (Help!) 16:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That link is absolutely hilarious.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hipsters with access to a guitar, freshly-bought artisan-brown T-shirts, an A3 color laser printer, and a slightly lighter brown blank wall make formidable satirists (or at least they seem to think they do). I suggest we derail their brown revolution by providing a suitable framed poster to stick on that blank wall. Something hipster ironic - like a reprinted wood-cut on rice-paper Bolshevik propaganda poster perhaps? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny link, Guy! DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a gem. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Grammy worthy example of songwriting if I've ever seen one. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 06:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

• Support prohibition As others have said it is a byword for the worst kinds of yellow journalism, it is (in effect) a fake news organ. Just because a lot of people buy it (or even by it) does not mean it is a reliable source for anything other then it's own views.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Only very limited circumstances. I've defended the use of the Mail in the past for uncontroversial stuff like sport news, but actually the paper has got much worse and I can't think of many circumstances when it would be the best source or even acceptable. Definitely never for international news or science. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that if we restrict it's use to anything uncontroversial we are (in effect) prohibiting it anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support prohibition It's just a mouthpiece for Paul Dacre & I remove it on sight. JRPG (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support prohibition unless directly relevant to the article - Anything found in the Daily Mail which can't be found in a more reliable, trustworthy source probably shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support prohibition (within reason) if it can't be found anywhere else reliable, then it probably isn't reliable anyway.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I find the Mail to be just as ok as other large outlet news/trendycr@p places, and anyway there are bigger outlets (read: Wired, TTAC) to fry than Mail.L3X1 (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose prohibition, but there are very few circumstances in which we should rely on tabloid journalism. Exceptions include when BLP subjects have a byline in one of those newspapers, so long as they're not disparaging third parties. I can't see a reason to single out the Daily Mail; there are others just as bad and worse. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We should put it on the reference revert list (so good-faith additions of refs are reverted and can be discussed individually) but not blacklist it, and we should strongly consider doing the same for other tabloids, especially the Express and the Sun. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd support that. I've come across a few BLPs at FAC that rely on these tabloids, and the nominators get upset when asked to remove them, so a broader solution would help. It would also be good to add something more detailed to WP:BLPSOURCES. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• e/c Comment I am totally fed up with seeing this subject come up. Many, many readers are not aware of the disdain with which the Mail is viewed by some editors and then when they try to use it as a source, they are treated as if they are stupid or deliberately trying to get around PAG's. I know this from personal experience when in the distant past I tried to use the Daily Mail as a source - a sharp learning curve ensued. I agree with comments that if it is not in other newspapers, then it should probably not be in Wikipedia at all. However, I also agree with SlimVirgin above that there are others just as bad, and worse. This means we need to be looking at a number of papers. On occasions, I have been editing and used a website source. However, when trying to save the article, Wikipedia automatically rejects it because it has been blacklisted. Can we not set up a similar system for those newspapers we consider to be unreliable sources? DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up: For those who wish to stop short of blacklisting, maybe we could flash up a warning message that the source is widely considered to be unreliable and the saving editor should reconsider its inclusion and use other sources instead. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there may be others as bad does not justify using the Mail. And my proposal, with which I think SV agrees, is to use the citation revert list, as we do for predatory journals. Guy (Help!) 01:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think DrChrissy has a good idea. A warning message whenever anyone puts 'dailymail.co.uk' or 'The Daily Mail' between a pair of <ref> tags would be a great idea. I get uneasy about fully blacklisting any source (it's the sort of thing that adds fuel to the fire of every editor who whines about WP being censored), and would rather see a more educational than legalistic approach taken.

I also agree that there are many other sources just as bad, and possibly even worse. I think getting something going that would create a list of these sources and generate a message when folks try to use them is the way to go. Hell, I'm a coder myself, and I'd be happy to work on it. I don't think it's a big project, but I'm not sure where to get started with something like this, beyond maybe taking it to the village pump or the main page talk to get enough editors behind it to impress the WMF or the en.wp staff. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 06:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support prohibition I thought it was considered unreliable before I saw this RfC. The worst kind of tabloid spam journalism. Laurdecl ^talk 10:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Editors are supposed to always use judgment when choosing sources. Usually the broadsheets are better than the tabloids but there are circumstances when tabloids provide better coverage such as sports and crime. And if we exclude the Mail, there are a lot of other publications of lower quality that would still be considered reliable. TFD (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I noticed this edit by @Robynthehode: and since I'm a bit rusty on current V policy I wanted to ask for a second opinion here. WP:TWITTER allows tweets by a subject about themselves as primary sources. But what if the Twitter user is not talking about themselves but a subject they work on? Here it's Pablo Hidalgo (who really should have an article) talking about Star Wars, something he didn't create but certainly knows a looooot about as a member of the Lucasfilm Story Group. Does his work suffice to make the tweet a reliable source per WP:TWITTER? Also, complicating the matter further, if it does, how about the fact that the account is not verified by Twitter? Regards SoWhy 17:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind your answer is in your last part of your question. As this is not a verified account we cannot be sure it is him expressing his opinions. His tweets (assuming they are his) can be used for what he is working on, but not for what a company he is working for may be doing unrelated to his direct role.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, his tweets are believed to be his by many reliable sources (I'm currently writing the article about him and I noticed this a lot), so there is a high chance that he really is the guy using the account. Regards SoWhy 19:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since articles are supposed to be based on secondary sources, I would avoid them. Let journalists determine whether the accounts are legitimate, what was actually expressed in 140 characters or less and whether it is worth mentioning. TFD (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to an RfC that relates to reliable sources: Talk:Banjica concentration camp#RfC about the use of Cohen's Serbia's Secret War Your input would be appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about a source at Jacob Barnett.

The relevant passage is this:

In 2011, following a series of (no longer available^[1][2][3]) YouTube videos published by Barnett's mother, several articles appeared in the mainstream media...

The source I'd like to discuss is:

• "This video is unavailable". YouTube. Retrieved 2016-12-30.

The apparent reason that this dead URL is being included is because, if you wanted to verify that this URL originally contained the now-unavailable (at that URL) video, then you could go to various Wikipedia talk page archives, and determine that some Wikipedia editors had viewed the video years ago and said that it contained the now-unavailable video.

I believe that this is insufficient to meet WP:V. First, it assumes that Wikipedia's past discussions are reliable sources for a BLP, even though WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Second, the policy is that some people "can" verify whether or not this cited source contains the alleged information, not that "they could have checked this source, if they'd happened to have been around four years ago".

What do you think? Is this dead URL reliable for a claim in a BLP article that a particular video is "no longer available"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]