Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.
Before posting, please check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions of the source. If after reviewing, you feel a new post is warranted, please be sure to include the following information, if available:
  • Links to past discussion of the source on this board.
  • Source. The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example: [].
  • Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: [[Article name]].
  • Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y".
While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.
Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability.
If you are looking for a copy of a specific source, please ask at the resource exchange board.
Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250

Is an article in World Net Daily reliable source?[edit]

Is [ this link] a reliable source? There is a discussion of this source at the Mass killings under communist regimes article, and it would be desirable to have a fresh opinion on that account.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Never for factual statements, only in its own article to document its own positions. It's birther central. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
WND is no-no. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Terrible article, and certainly not to be used as a source for history. Which is hardly a surprise considering this is WND. O3000 (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
It is being used in "Mass killings under communist regimes" as a source for quotes from Rudolph Rummel. I think it may meet rs because WND is probably a reliable source for the opinions of authors it publishes. Surely no one doubts that Rummel actually wrote the article. Also per "Exceptions", Rummel could be seen as an expert and therefore the article would be a reliable source for facts. I would omit it however because when an expert writes for conspiracy theory websites, it's often because they want to express views are so far outside the mainstream that they cannot be published in reliable sources. If that is not the case then it would be better to use better sources where he says the same thing. TFD (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd be leery citing facts to that article directly. If Rummel is an expert on the subject of the article, he's written all of those facts down before in more reliable sources. Find his original works, and use those instead. It would be very strange for such facts to have been published first, and only, in an article on such a website. --Jayron32 16:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
A source which comments on a secondary source or is presented as the basis of a secondary source should not be regarded as an accurate or fair descriptive of it as such. Recommended to not use it, or not regarde it is a fair source, given Rudolph Rummel has existence, good sources you can refer to. (talk) 06:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Articles should not contain quotes from primary or unreliable sources unless the quote is cited to a secondary source which includes it. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Primary sources are not unreliable. Those are not synonyms. I'm not saying he is an expert, but insofar as someone would be an expert, citing their work is fine. His works on history would not be primary sources. If he's a historian, his books ARE secondary sources. The primary sources would be the documents he used in compiling his research. --Jayron32 16:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I mean primary or unreliable as a general comment on deciding if a quote should be included. As a hypothetical example;
If Mr Jones writes something in say Breitbart then that should not be quoted in the Wikipedia article. If the New York Times reports that Mr Jones wrote something in Brietbart then it can be included in the Wikipedia article.
Equally if a company says in a press releases that includes the CEO saying they have made a flying car, then the CEO of the company should not be quoted in the Wikipedia article as saying the company has a flying car. If the BBC run a feature about flying cars and quote the CEO as saying his company has made a flying car then that quote can then be included in the Wikipedia article. This is basic common sense when dealing with quotes.
I say basic common sense because I can't remember if a policy says this or which policy that would be. Feel free to come up with something else, this is just how I would personally treat whether to quote or not in my understanding of how to make articles neutral and reliable. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
As I expressed below, "opinions of authors it publishes" is not a blank check for WP:RS concerns. Opinion pieces used as sources here must also be published by someone with a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy - that is to say, a source that passes WP:RS - or they cannot be used. WP:ABOUTSELF establishes some very narrow exceptions for opinions that lack the backing of a WP:RS with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but that clearly does not apply here. The idea that being published in WND grants someone's opinions more weight than if they were published on (for instance) Reddit or their personal website is so bizarre that I find it honestly shocking coming from an experienced editor. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random opinions and burblings - even the most carefully-worded quote or paraphrase of an opinion, with the most cautious inline citations, still must be cited to a source that passes WP:RS if it violates any of the limitations in WP:ABOUTSELF. This is absolute and non-negotiable, and the idea that someone's opinions on third parties (or history, or exceptional claims in general, or anything that isn't strictly personal details about themselves) could become acceptable for a Wikipedia article via publication in an unreliable source like WND is absurd. WP:RSOPINION still requires that the opinion piece be published in an otherwise-reliable source, not in someplace like WND. --Aquillion (talk) 03:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I responded to this point of yours in your second posting of it below. AmateurEditor (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Its reliable for author words whatever its WP:DUE or not its question for other for board--Shrike (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
It absolutely is not WP:RS, not even in that context. Not ever. We rely on whoever published something to perform basic due-diligence and fact-checking even for opinion pieces; WND does not do that. Citing it for "the author's opinion" is no better than citing the author's unfiltered musings on a personal website, forum post, Reddit AMA, email chain or the like. There are very narrow circumstances where we can do that under WP:ABOUTSELF, but this doesn't pass those criteria (it involves claims about third parties, claims not directly related to the source, and - debatably - exceptional claims.) WP:RS is absolutely required even for opinion-pieces - that's why WP:ABOUTSELF, which covers people expressing opinions in venues that lack the fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires, is so restrictive. Implying that we can just put an opinion from WND about third parties into a Wikipedia article is absurd. This is clear-cut enough that I would express serious WP:COMPETENCE concerns for someone who insists on trying to do it. --Aquillion (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Aquillion, WorldNetDaily is included in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, as a "generally unreliable" source, which I would agree with. However, it does not support your statement that Rummel's 2004 op-ed is not a reliable source in this context (for citing Rummel's opinion, not for citing support for factual material). Here is what the list says about WND, with bold added: "WorldNetDaily is not considered a reliable source for most purposes. The website is known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories.[54]" The listing has two links to where the site has been discussed on this noticeboard in the past and here are the closing remarks for those discussions:
1) "Consensus appears to be that World Net Daily is not generally acceptable as a source for factual material (as is, for example, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal etc.). While prior RS/N "Consensus" is cited evidencing WND "unreliability", individual citation(s) evidencing WND "unreliability" have not, thus far, been provided. As to whether or under what criteria/circumstance WND might be considered WP:RS, opinion is divided."[1]
2) "Resolved: Sigh, not again. It's been clearly agreed (you know, that "consensus" thing we have) before that apart from editorial opinion, if one is unable to source a supposedly factual statement without having to use WND, it probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Jake, your efforts would be far better aimed at better sourcing rather than this repeated waste of everyone's time, and it's now time to leave the equine corpse alone. There's only a certain number of times before being pointy becomes disruptive. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC) "[2]
The past consensus for this site supports using it in this context, for the op-ed author's opinion. AmateurEditor (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
This begs the question of why we would include the author's opinion, instead of a factual statement published in a secondary source, in the Proposed causes section. –dlthewave 15:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The reason is because the content supported by this source is in the "Proposed Causes" section of the article, where sources' opinions are summarized, rather than facts. In this case, this op-ed was the most directly relevant publication by Rummel for his opinion related to ideology, because he explicitly discusses "Marxism", rather than "communism" generically, which might refer to regimes, rather than ideology. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

No, not under any circumstances. It's an absolute garbage source. Daveosaurus (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Absolutely not reliable. Find a better source. If you can't find a better source, consider that the information in question may not belong in a serious reference work. MastCell Talk 22:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The original poster, Paul Siebert, was supposed to include three things in his post here, according to the page notice at the topic of the edit screen for this noticeboard. He did not post number 3: Content. The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting. Please supply a WP:DIFF or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y". Here is the missing content for the context of this citation:

Rummel positions Marxism as "by far the bloodiest – bloodier than the Catholic Inquisition, the various Catholic crusades, and the Thirty Years War between Catholics and Protestants. In practice, Marxism has meant bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal prison camps and murderous forced labor, fatal deportations, man-made famines, extrajudicial executions and fraudulent show trials, outright mass murder and genocide."[53] He writes that in practice the Marxists saw the construction of their utopia as "a war on poverty, exploitation, imperialism and inequality – and, as in a real war, noncombatants would unfortunately get caught in the battle. There would be necessary enemy casualties: the clergy, bourgeoisie, capitalists, 'wreckers', intellectuals, counterrevolutionaries, rightists, tyrants, the rich and landlords. As in a war, millions might die, but these deaths would be justified by the end, as in the defeat of Hitler in World War II. To the ruling Marxists, the goal of a communist utopia was enough to justify all the deaths."[53]

As you can see, the content is direct quotes of Rummel's own views and has nothing to do with the reliability of WND as a site in 2018. Besides the fact that the op-ed was published there in 2004 (well before any birtherism), the reliability is based upon the author; the publisher is not the source of the reliability. Per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source:

"The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." You can read his Wikipedia article here: Rudolph Rummel. And here is an article about him: R.J. Rummel—A Multi-faceted Scholar. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

If it's worth including here, then it WILL be found in a RS, and that source should be cited, never WND. If it isn't, then we don't include it. Period. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
With respect, BullRangifer, how is an op-ed by Rummel not a reliable source of Rummel's views? AmateurEditor (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Generally that's true for everything, but we base all of our content on what's in RS, including our documentation of fringe views. If something is only found in unreliable sources, we don't document it. If a fringe source is notable enough for an article here, we will use RS to document it's existence, and we will often use it to document it's own positions, and only its own, but that's about it. An unreliable source is not accepted as a platform for other's views. This can get a bit tricky, so I won't get into that here, but the basic idea is to base all content on RS. If Rummel wants his ideas documented at Wikipedia, he'd better publish them in RS.
I'm not calling Rummel a charlatan, but Jimmy Wales said something interesting that's of some relevance here:
"No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful. Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately. What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn't." — Jimbo Wales, March 23, 2014
So stop looking in unreliable source....for anything. It smacks of desperation. Look only in RS. Some things are not worth documenting.-- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. For example, if you are not calling Rummel a lunatic or a charlatan (and you are right not to), then posting that Jimbo quote here seems like a smear in this context. The reliability of a particular source for a particular statement depends on the statement in question, which was not included in the original post here, despite the instructions. That context, of it being an op-ed and that it is being cited for the author's opinion (who is widely regarded as a RS for the topic) makes clear that WND's reliability for facts as a news site has nothing to do with it, especially in 2004, prior to almost all the controversy there. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't doubt that these are the words that Rummel wrote, but we use reliable sources for more than just faithful reproduction of words. Reliable sources tell us that these words are accurate and represent a prominent scholarly viewpoint. Rummel's estimates, along with his theory that killings by communists should be lumped together as a single category, represent the WP:FRINGE view and should not be included unless they have been published in academic sources. The final sentence confirms that this is a non-mainstream opinion piece and not a scholarly work: The next time you come across or are lectured by one of our indigenous Marxists, or almost the equivalent, leftist zealots, ask them how they can justify the murder of over a hundred million their absolutist faith has brought about, and the misery it has created for many hundreds of millions more.dlthewave 12:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
dlthewave, if you don't doubt that the words are what Rummel wrote and accurately reflect his opinion, then you are agreeing the op-ed is a reliable source for Rummel's view, even if fringe. About whether views are "accurate and represent a prominent scholarly viewpoint", there is a separate fringe theories noticeboard for that, Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. The reliable sources noticeboard is just for determining if a source is a reliable for a particular statement in a Wikipedia article. In this case, it clearly is because there can be no more reliable source for Rummel's opinion than Rummel himself. AmateurEditor (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
An unreliable source is not a reliable source for the author's opinion about anything other than themselves, period. –dlthewave 15:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The author here is Rummel himself. The sentences this is being used as a source for are Rummel's opinions, as published in his 2004 op-ed at WND. The source directly supports that and, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, is reliable for that unless you think Rummel did not actually write it. WND is not being cited as a reliable source of factual material, such as the news. Using WND in this context is consistent with the results of past discussions here about this site (that it is a reliable source of editorial opinion).[3] AmateurEditor (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
If Rummel wants his ideas documented at Wikipedia, he'd better publish them in RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree with BullRangifer It is a normal situation when some author publishes some good research in a good journal, and then published more questionable speculations in some less reputable journal or even blog.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────AmateurEditor, your linked RS/N discussion was closed with this:

Motion to close with injunction
Resolved: Sigh, not again. It's been clearly agreed (you know, that "consensus" thing we have) before that apart from editorial opinion, if one is unable to source a supposedly factual statement without having to use WND, it probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Jake, your efforts would be far better aimed at better sourcing rather than this repeated waste of everyone's time, and it's now time to leave the equine corpse alone. There's only a certain number of times before being pointy becomes disruptive. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty good close from Black Kite. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, the reliability of a source depends entirely on how it is used and in this case it is being used appropriately. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
BullRangifer, Note the "apart from editorial opinion" part. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
If Alex Jones writes an editorial opinion at InfoWars, it's fair game for the opinion of InfoWars, even though it's a horrible source. (It happens to be notable enough for an article here, but is deprecated as a source.) If anyone else writes an article at InfoWars, we ignore it. They must publish their article at a RS for us to even consider it. The very fact that they chose to write something at InfoWars seriously damages their credibility and makes them less reliable, no matter where else they write. I'd be less inclined to use them at all, even if they wrote in a RS. Such poor judgment should have consequences. We should not suffer fools lightly. Let's ping Black Kite to get their opinion. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I would say it is fair game for the opinion of Alex Jones, or whoever else wrote it, especially if that person is considered by Wikipedia standards to be a reliable source in their own right for the topic they discuss. There are three definitions of a reliable source, and the creator of the work (who is an expert on the topic in question as well as, of course, about his own opinions) is the one that applies here. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
No, we don't use unreliable sources to publish other's opinions. We try to avoid using unreliable sources at all. In the example, only Jones, or another editor of InfoWars, such as Paul Joseph Watson, who uses it to publish their dubious opinions, would be considered here, and such "consideration" is no guarantee we'll do anything, because we should only document the ideas they write there which are also mentioned (preferably criticized) in RS. The RS gives it notability enough to maybe be worth mentioning, and the RS is enough of a source, without linking to InfoWars. We do not allow InfoWars to be used as a platform to get their fringe theories documented here. Only if RS mention it. We really need to treat InfoWars like the plague. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a reliable or unreliable source outside of how it is being cited. What you mean is that WND (or InfoWars, or whatever) is not a reliable source for statements of facts, such as the news. That's not the situation here because we are citing the op-ed for the author's opinion and citing it as such in the wikipedia article. The op-ed is a reliable source for Rummel's opinion and Rummel is a notable expert for the topic he is discussing in the op-ed. If the website bothers you so much, please keep in mind that a website's reputation can change over time. This was back in 2004, before the controversies that would crop up later. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not going to belabor this point and will wait for more outside input. You should seek a third opinion. I'll leave you with this experience. It illustrates how we treated a notable person who lost their way. A number of years ago, we had a new editor who was a Nobel laureate, I believe in physics. They were obviously very notable and a subject expert, and they appeared here to push their own fringe theories, which were rejected by the scientific community. They didn't understand our rules here and demanded we just accept their word for it and use them and their website as a source. Well, we couldn't do that, and they became so disruptive we finally had to block them. I don't recall the name, but that's what happened. If they had published their fringe theories on some unreliable source, we still wouldn't have used that source to document their opinions. Now if it had also been mentioned in RS, we might have mentioned it. I don't recall other details now. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Fine with me. And it sounds like your previous experience would have fallen under RS guidelines at WP:Self published sources and WP:Academic consensus and the editor might have been referred to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard if they hadn't been disruptive. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
AmateurEditor, I think we should do our best to improve a reputation of Wikipedia as a serious encyclopedia. Consider a situation when the reference to some "Science for kids" blog is added as a source to the article about Quantum entanglement. Even if this source is authored by a very reputable physicist, by adding this source, we undermine credibility of Wikipedia. Yes, formally, "Science for kids" may be a RS according to our loose standards, and the author is very reputable. However, if this author writes about really serious things, it is quite possible to find the same information is a more serious article published in more reputable sources. By mixing best quality sources with questionable ones (although acceptable by our loose standards) we undermine an overall credibility of Wikipedia. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia's credibility is undermined by mis-statements of facts (including the fact that someone has some opinion) and by not being consistent in the application of its policies. If certain policies need tightening in your view, then get that change made. If not, then find a replacement source that you prefer for the facts as stated in the article and swap it out. I am sure that would cause no objection from anyone. But trying to delete highly relevant information from what has historically been a very contentious article on a premise that contradicts Wikipedia policies should not get you anywhere, if Wikipedia is working properly. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Not shown to be due. And is not presented as even minimally reliable - such a thing as important to the twentieth century would be the subject of WP:SCHOLARSHIP not op-ed from a suspect source, is it scholarship of the author of the op-ed (and that is what would be cited not op-ed) and what's the prevalence of scholarship in this vein and complementary or qualifying or contradictory scholarship. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Due weight is not relevant to this noticeboard (its a consideration for the NPOV noticeboard). This is only about whether the citation serves as a reliable source for the statement it is used as a reference for. This reference is also not the basis for the article in question, which does have multiple reliable academic secondary sources, including the author in question. See the references and the excerpt section here and the further reading section here. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
AmateurEditor you wrote Wikipedia's credibility is undermined by mis-statements of facts- What facts? Please tell us. As far as Rummel is concerned it is a fact that was an academic who published statistical data on the lives lost due to the policies of non democratic regimes. I am not aware of a comprehensive critique of Rummel by a reliable academic source. We can cite his statistics on Wikipedia and contrast them with other reliable sources. We cannot as editors state in an article that Rummel is correct or not. The demographic facts of Stalin’s USSR and Mao’s China are disputed, we have a range to cover. We can however contrast him with other reliable academic sources, the topic is covered in Demographic Trends and Patterns in the Soviet Union Before 1991[4]. Rummel is not even cited in their bibliography. Rummel is a 800 gorilla that appears on Fox News to prove that America is the greatest country in the world, he is now sitting down in Wikipedia
Rummel’s claim of 43 million dead in the USSR makes no sense when you put it on a spreadsheet, unfortunately I can’t post that here. --Woogie 10w (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I was not referring to any specific mis-statement of facts in that comment, Woogie, I was responding to Paul Siebert's characterization of how Wikipedia loses credibility. You can review Rummel's body of work for yourself, but I do not know what you are talking about regarding Fox News. Rudolph Rummel died in 2014 so he certainly hasn't appeared there lately. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Good point,AmateurEditor. I was referring to Rummel metaphorically, since his 1997 estimate of 100 million deaths due to communism appears on Fox News[5], and the WSJ[6]. Rummel was the grand daddy of this statistic that appears in his "Democide" from 1994 and the Black Book of Communism from 1999. Fox News and the WSJ are widely read sources that we cannot ignore. Reliable or not Fox News and the WSJ parrot a statistic that many readers believe as an accepted fact. We should point out that there was no body count, the 100 million is a demographic estimate. Without posting OR we need to inform readers that Rummel's figures are estimates not established facts. N.B. Rummel subsequently updated the 100 million figure by adding 38 million famine deaths in China --Woogie 10w (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd say no. For all I know he chose to publish that in WND because he knew he couldn't publish it elsewhere. And I have no problem with editors pointing out other issues here such as WP:UNDUE, in fact I'd rather deal with all the issues about a source in one spot. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Doug Weller, It's probably because this 2004 op-ed was after his retirement from the University of Hawaii in 1995, so we wouldn't expect to see it in an academic source. If you mean why was it in WND rather than some other website or newspaper, that was probably because this was in 2004 when the site had an uncontroversial reputation. Rummel also wrote an op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter the following year, which begins with the following statement: "Many scholars and commentators have referenced my total of 174,000,000 for the democide (genocide and mass murder) of the last century. I'm now trying to get word out that I've had to make a major revision in my total due to two books. One is Wild Swans: Two Daughters of China by Jung Chang, and the other is Mao: the Unknown Story that she wrote with her husband, Jon Halliday. I'm now convinced that Stalin exceeded Hitler in monstrous evil, and Mao beat out Stalin.". The timing may be related to a renewed interest on his part related to that or may not, I can't say for sure. He apparently often preferred to use his own personal website, posthumously maintained now by the University of Hawaii.
If the question is what weight Rummel should have in the article, it should be significant. His work is foundational for many others and is widely cited. A Google Scholar search for "R J Rummel" returns 25,500 hits, the first of which has been "cited by 3423". You can read a list of his publications in his wikipedia article. Here is the list of other academics citing or responding to his work in Mass killings under communist regimes:
  • Harff, Barbara (1996), "Death by Government by R. J. Rummel", The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, The MIT Press, 27 (1)
  • Harff, Barbara (2017), "12. The Comparative Analysis of Mass Atrocities and Genocide", in Gleditsch, N.P., R.J. Rummel: An Assessment of His Many Contributions, 37, SpringerBriefs on Pioneers in Science and Practice, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-54463-2_12, ISBN 978-3-319-54463-2
  • Dulić, Tomislav (2004), "Tito's Slaughterhouse: A Critical Analysis of Rummel's Work on Democide", Journal of Peace Research, Sage Publications, Ltd., 41 (1)
  • Valentino, Benjamin A. (2005), Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century, Cornell University Press, ISBN 978-0-801-47273-2
  • Wayman, FW; Tago, A (2009), "Explaining the onset of mass killing, 1949–87", Journal of Peace Research Online
  • He is included among a 2016 compilation of academic sources assembled by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation for an updated range of estimates of those killed by communist regimes, seen here.
These are just the ones easiest to find with CTRL+F on the article page at the moment. Other sources currently in the article cite him but it doesn't cite them citing him. This should be sufficient to show that he clearly remains notable in this area. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
There is actual WP:SCHOLARSHIP you argue, than use that not op-ed per WP:BESTSOURCES. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The scholarship I listed relates to Rummel's due weight in the article. The best source for Rummel's opinion is Rummel himself, and this source is the best one for his opinion on how ideology related to the killing. Where he wrote it doesn't change who he is. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
No. It's not BESTSOURCES, at all. And where someone writes does matter per the policies I already cited. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
This is the entirety of what WP:BESTSOURCES says:
"Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look online for the most reliable resources. If you need help finding high-quality sources, ask other editors on the talk page of the article you are working on, or ask at the reference desk."
It links to WP:RS, which begins with this overview, after the lead: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process."
Rummel is a reliable source. He wrote the op-ed. It includes his views about about Marxism and mass killing, which are relevant to the article and cited there as his opinion, along with the views of others. It is the best source available for that particular opinion of Rummel's, and WND's later issues have no bearing on any of this because it was written in 2004. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Your argument is a bad-joke. The op-ed is not scholarship. Its mode of publication says it's not scholarship. You've been directed to how to identify scholarship. Looking above, it appears multiple editors in multiple ways have told you this: use scholarly sources. Don't use lazy sources in lazy ways and pass it off as worthwhile. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say the op-ed was scholarship, I said Rummel is a notable scholar and this is a reliable source for the article statements it is being used to support. That is the issue to be discusses at the reliable sources noticeboard and WP:RS is clearly not restricted to scholarship. It is the best source yet identified for his views on Marxism's relationship to the killing, but its reliability as a source depends on the author, not on WND. AmateurEditor (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
It remains, you want to use a crap source, instead of scholarship for what should be by weight alone covered in scholarship, and WP:RS does choose scholarship every-time over an op-ed published by an unreliable publisher and so does WP:V. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────AmateurEditor, I explained you several times: Rummel is notable for introduction of factor analysis into the area of conflict and genocide research. He also is notable foro his "Democratic peace" concept. However, he is not considered as a good source for figures, and his conclusions he made based on his estimates are not recognised by experts. Therefore, he published his research related to factor analysis in reputable media, and his more extravagant conclusions - in a personal blog.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, it is not a choice between a "crap source" and a scholarly one, it is a choice between a reliable source for his views and nothing else (at the moment). Of course we should cite a scholarly source over a non-scholarly equivalent, but we should not delete a source that meets RS criteria (for the author in a question of the author's opinion) before finding a better replacement. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not a reliable source for his views on this, a reliable source for his views on this intensely covered aspect of 20th century scholarship would be found in his scholarship, not in an unreliable publication. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Paul Siebert, you explaining to me what your opinion is doesn't change what reliable sources we have identified for the article and so shouldn't change how we write the article. We already have identified reliable academic sources that cite his figures, such as Valentino, so his 110 million figure is recognized (and his update to it based on more recent RS publications should be as well). When you say "experts", you are referring to single-country specialists who do not mention the broader topic one way or another, so we cannot come to any conclusion about him from them. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Doug, a summary of Rummel's material appeared on the website World Net Daily. Rummel's works were published by Transaction Publishers. I own hard copies of Rummel's four works on "Democide".--Woogie 10w (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker you cited sources that discuss Rummel. He is a reality that has to be dealt with, an 800 lb gorilla. Using Accounting 101 methodology, I Would take his figures line by line and provide contrasting sources that differ from him line by line. I am currently reading about the Chinese famine which was not a natural disaster, reliable sources are cited that indicate least 40 million deaths, not including the Laogai deaths. The Soviet issues are well covered in the Soviet Studies articles. The Wheatcroft supporters will say that the famine deaths were not deliberate purposeful deaths but in reality caused by poor planning. The Rosefielde,Rummel Fox News crowd will claim a Red Holocaust. Make it simple line by line, with brief explanations. You guys are blogging about an issue that should be put to sleep AASP--Woogie 10w (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Just one more thing, I am reading Demographic Trends and Patterns in the Soviet Union Before 1991 from page 434. 18.5% of all deaths from 1946-58 were not registered, they were estimated. We are not dealing with established facts, but with a rough estimates. An educated guess made in Russia that is treated as gospel in the west.--Woogie 10w (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I cited sources? I think you meant someone else did. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • We should always consider where something was published when considering due weight and whether an opinion is significant enough to include in an article. If an eminent expert on something writes on the wall of a bathroom, the result is still bathroom graffiti. If the best place you can get published is a cracko conspiracy theory rag, that indicates better and more reliable sources do not regard your opinions highly enough to publish them. So in articles about general subjects, we should stick to the opinions of people who are subject matter experts and had them published in high-quality, reliable sources. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pile-on no - It's all been said already (and on this board in the past). Not a good source for statements of fact (or just about anything else). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Opinions sourced to WorldNetDaily[edit]

This is both an RS and NPOV issue, but I'm bringing it here so that it can be discussed in one place. I removed opinions sourced to WND from Conservapedia [7] and Ann Coulter [8]. My concern is that although a non-rs may be used as a source of opinion in certain situations, these particular opinions do not seem to meet WP:WEIGHT because they do not appear in reliable sources. This is currently being discussed on both talk pages, and I'm coming here to get some clarity on A) when a non-rs can be used as an opinion source and B) whether it is appropriate to include these opinions per WP:NPOV. –dlthewave 01:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I see this as a separate issue, since these RS questions are usually handled case-by-case and the "expert" credentials of the quoted person will vary. –dlthewave 02:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I would also like this issue addressed from a general perspective, because there seems to be some inconsistency. Is an op-ed published on an otherwise non-RS site a reliable source for the author's opinion or not? WorldNetDaily is listed in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, as a "generally unreliable" source, with the following description (bold added for emphasis):
"WorldNetDaily is not considered a reliable source for most purposes. The website is known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories.[54]"[9]
The listing has two links to where the site has been discussed on this noticeboard in the past and here are the closing remarks for those discussions:
1) "Consensus appears to be that World Net Daily is not generally acceptable as a source for factual material (as is, for example, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal etc.). While prior RS/N "Consensus" is cited evidencing WND "unreliability", individual citation(s) evidencing WND "unreliability" have not, thus far, been provided. As to whether or under what criteria/circumstance WND might be considered WP:RS, opinion is divided."[10]
2) "Resolved: Sigh, not again. It's been clearly agreed (you know, that "consensus" thing we have) before that apart from editorial opinion, if one is unable to source a supposedly factual statement without having to use WND, it probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Jake, your efforts would be far better aimed at better sourcing rather than this repeated waste of everyone's time, and it's now time to leave the equine corpse alone. There's only a certain number of times before being pointy becomes disruptive. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC) "[11]
If an op-ed on the site is not permissible as a source for the op-ed author's opinion, then the description in the listing should be updated so this doesn't come up here again. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
If I understand it correct, the issue is whether we are supposed to trust a person (e.g., a renown expert) or a source. When a person who is an established scholar publishes their view on some site with questionable reputation, what should we do with that?
This story reminds me a situation with publication policy of the Royal Society. In past, some established scientist were granted a permission to publish their paper in Royal Society journals, and they could publish whatever they wanted. That was an old analog of a modern peer-review procedure: instead of subjecting each paper to a peer-review procedure, Royal Society "peer-reviewed" scientists themselves: as soon as some scientist successfully passed a "peer-review", his manuscript were published without any restriction. However, later, this strategy was abandoned, and now each paper is subjected to a peer-review. (Arguably, the only exception is Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of U.S.A., which publishes manuscripts authored by members of the National Academy without peer-reviewing; as a result, everybody knows that a PNAS article authored by some academician may be of lower quality than the articles submitted by other authors).
In connection to that, the idea to trust an expert, not a source, is a step back as compared to the old publishing strategy that existed in a scientific world a 100 years ago. I don't think Wikipedia will benefit from that.
Frankly, I cannot understand the motives of Wikipedians who are advocating various questionable web sites. When some renown expert publishes their thoughts on such a web site, and the same information cannot be found in more trustworthy sources, that this expert is not totally confident in what they say: such statement may be inaccurate, provocative or questionable, and its publication in peer-reviewed of other good quality media may lead to some sort of reputational risks. In other words, publications of that sort should be considered as the expert's "hobby", and treated accordingly.
Wikipedia has a very non-uniform reputation, some say it contains a lot of bullshit. If we really want to improve it, it would be better to too rigorous than too liberal when we select sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
According to WP:RS a person is a source, as is a publisher and a work, so it is not choosing between a person and a source. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
No. Not alone, who-by and where it's published matters to source evaluation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Only to a considered extent in an overall evaluation, the conditions for inclusion are section 1 OR section 2 OR ... not AND. Dmcq (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry? I understand, I think, the first part of your comment, "overall evaluation", as I said it is part of the evaluation of a source, (who by, who the publisher is, where, where is it published) but I don't understand the second part, are they abbreviations(?) (eg. WP:OR? WP:AND?) and what you are trying to say there? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm saying the basic conditions for inclusion are condition 1 OR condition 2 OR condition 3 etc, not condition 1 AND condition 2 AND condition 3. AND means all conditions must be satisfied, OR means one or more must be satisfied. I capitalized them so you would have a chance of noticing them. Dmcq (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
You're comment is still cryptic, "condition for inclusion" is odd, but to the extent you are arguing that you consider things in isolation your statement makes little, even common-sense. We consider things in context, given several factors that are bound together simultaneously not in some fictitious isolation. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
AmateurEditor, I really cannot understand why you are so persistent: this approach would decrease quality of Wikipedia. Imagine some serious article about, e.g. black holes, which is based on good articles from Science, Nature and PRL: will it benefit if we add there some claim from some "Flat Earth society" portal? Even if our rules do not prohibit that, a good faith user is supposed to avoid such things.
And, by the way, you interpret WP:EXPERTSOURCE incorrectly. Expert's opinion published in questionable sources is acceptable only when this statement is uncontroversial: our policy does not allow it as a support of extraordinary claims. Obviously, that means that everything written in WND should be treated with greater suspect. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • WorldNetDaily is an appropriate source for uncontroversial facts about itself on the article WorldNetDaily and pretty much nothing else. Anything which is said only on WND and not repeated by reliable independent secondary sources, is WP:UNDUE pretty much by definition. Guy (Help!)

10:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  • When we can't trust the publisher/editor, we can't trust what they published or how they edited it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
We don't need everything peer reviewed on Wikipedia. That is a daft idea. In this case we're not talking about WND as a general source but its editor as a source about conservative ideas on the Bible. The appropriate criterion to judge that by is section one of WP:NEWSORG. Dmcq (talk) 11:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
It's WP:SPS for that, and its editor is not a notable qualified commentator on the subject. $RANDOMBLOWHARD cited to their own website is never a good idea for Wikipedia sourcing. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I don't have an opinion regarding if WND is a reliable source. However, I do have concerns when I see all material cited to WND systematically removed without asking if a lower quality source is really a concern and/or if an alternative source is available. Take a case where WND is reporting the views/statements of a person who's opinion on a subject would generally have WEIGHT. Unless we think WND is actively changing/misquoting people then I would say there is ONUS to show that WND is not reliable for such basic material. That doesn't establish WEIGHT, only an assumption of a low level of reliability. If the author is someone who's opinion on the subject would generally be notable then we shouldn't exclude it just because it was published on WND. In that case I would treat it like self published material from an expert. Unlike such an opinion published in say the NYT, I wouldn't take the fact that it was published on WND as evidence that the opinon/views/facts etc in question have WEIGHT. If WND reporters are interpreting facts/events then I would say the bar is higher and it sounds like the general answer is no, not reliable. However, this does not mean any material that is sourced to WND should be automatically removed from articles especially with no effort to find an alternative source for the same material/quotes. Instead if the sourced material is factual (quotes, otherwise non-controversial statements/attributions) then an effort should either be made to find alternative sources or start a talk page discussion asking if removal is justified. Springee (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Springee, I think you are not right. Per WP:EXPERTSOURCE, a statement published in WND may be acceptable when it is made by an established expert, and it contains no extraordinary claim. Removal of materials supported by WND happens not because someone dislikes this source, but because someone considers the claim this source makes extraordinary. If that happened, the best way to restore this material is to find a better source that supports the same claim. If that was done, the material can be restored, and, probably, the WND reference can be restored too (optionally). However, per WP:BURDEN, all of that should be done by those who want to restore this material. It would be absolutely incorrect to say that "there is ONUS to show that WND is not reliable", but the opposite is correct: a proof should be presented in each case when WND is used that this particular WND article is reliable. However, if such a proof (in a form of another publication in more reputable source) has been provided that makes WND redundant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we actually disagree here. The question is what counts as "extraordinary"? Consider an article statement, "Expert A said, "This is a good idea because..." ". WND is only being used to claim that Expert A made the statement. In that case are we claiming WND falsified the statement? In any case, an editor removing material from a Wiki article because it is cited to WND should make a good faith effort to see if an alternative source for the claim is available. Springee (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
That is not a big question. "Extraordinary" means "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". That means any surprising statement not supported by better sources can be considered extraordinary unless opposed has not been proven. Regarding "good faith efforts", that is what I usually do. However, that is not mandatory. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

─────── Do not include spaces between replies per MOS:INDENTGAP Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems wikiEd adds spaces automatically. Just in case if other users are having this problem, disabling of wikiEd resolves it. Or switch to from Firefox to Chrome...--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Same as above. Bathroom graffiti written by an eminent expert is still bathroom graffiti. If the best source someone could get published in is a totally junk publication like WND, we should probably ask ourselves "Huh, why didn't better sources publish this too?", and then use those better sources, and the things they chose to publish about the subject, instead. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Well better sources by our standards have said essentially the same thing there, but they are sources which one would expect to pooh ppooh some nutcase conservative idea. This is a dyed in the wool right winger and creationist that one might expect to be supportive saying the project is nutty. Dmcq (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Almost never - Basically what JzG said. Maybe an opinion about itself or one of its authors, used in the article about itself or said reporter, but basically nothing else. Too often we find something to be a terrible source, but exercise no discretion when it comes to including those sources anyway, but with attribution. If something is as poor of a source as WND, we just shouldn't be using it except in remarkable circumstances. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
You seem to be answering the previous discussion 'Is an article in World Net Daily reliable source?'. This one has a title phrased like that one but the question is different, it is about the editor and his competence for a particular type of opinion. Dmcq (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
No, I responded in that section, too. Perhaps I answered OP's questions a little sideways, but I'm responding to the question of, ~"let's say WND is an unreliable source; when should an opinion published in WND be considered suitable for inclusion per WP:WEIGHT". My answer is "almost never," and I would say it's generalizable. I think it's too often that we come to a consensus that a source is unreliable for statements of fact, but exercise little control over use of that source for attributed opinion as though e.g. anything published in a lousy source can be included if it's attributed. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 07:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
That just indicates to me you missed the point. Anyway no skin off my teeth I'm happy enough for it to go. Dmcq (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Rhododendrites, RS discussions often end with consensus regarding statements of fact but no clear guidance for when a source may be used for opinions. It might help to have an RfC for WND as a source of opinions, since it's been coming up a lot lately. Part of the problem is that reliable sources aren't only used to determine the veracity of a statement; they also tell us how much WP:WEIGHT the viewpoint should carry. My opinion is that even if an unreliable source faithfully reproduces the words of the author, it does not contribute to its weight. As others have pointed out, the opinion would need to be repeated by reliable secondary sources to justify inclusion, so we might as well just cite those sources. We should also reject arguments that assign weight to a particular individual due to their prominence or expertise since this is not supported by policy. –dlthewave 23:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Agree. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Here's policy:

Due and undue weight

  • "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

I think that's pretty clear. We determine due weight based ONLY on what's in RS. We ignore unreliable sources. If anything, content in unreliable sources is a negative weight matter. We not only don't use it, we deprecate it and those who publish in unreliable sources.

Yes, there are situations where an unreliable source can be cited, and that is the source's opinions about itself and its POV, in its OWN article. It cannot be used for other opinions and POV published on the unreliable source. Find a RS which comments on it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Are university presses legally affiliated with the Univ. independent of the parent ORG of the University?[edit]

Are university presses WP:INDEPENDENT of the university to which they stand in a legal and financial relationship? Manchester University Press, for example has always been housed by the university (always in one of the university's treasured, historic buildings.) It is "a department of the University of Manchester", all decisions "must be approved by the Editorial Committee, which is composed of academics based at the University of Manchester.". The University of Manchester is a public university. Is it an independent source for books about British politicians? The British government? British political history? And if it is , is it different form Brigham Young University Press? In a series of AfD discussions, an editor I respect, User:NorthAmerica has argued that no publication from BYU Press can be sued to establish the notability of anyone affiliated with the LDS Church. See current discussion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoshihiko Kikuchi. The formal wording of WP:INDEPENDENT appears to rule out a great many scholarly journals and university presses. It may be that we need ot revise the guideline. But as worded, it ought to apply equally to every publisher with any "any financial or legal relationship to the topic." E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the university normally has at least ultimate control. Is MUP an independent source for books about British politicians, the British government, British political history? Yes of course it is. Manchester U is no more "public" than Oxford or Cambridge. Religious university presses, and many 3rd world ones, may raise a question here. Johnbod (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Just fyi the Manchester U Press is part of th eUniversity. Cambridge and Oxford U. presses are freestanding corporations, fiscally and legally independent oft the those universities. This is why I selected Manchester to stand for a type.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC) My error.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
That is absolute nonsense, at least as far as OUP goes. I can't be bothered to look at CUP, but I'm sure it is the same. OUP is exempt from Corporation tax, as a department of a charity (the University). Their website could not be more clear: "Structure: Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide". For any UP, look at the boards and ask yourself who the shareholders (if any) are. Just fyi! Johnbod (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming that we have a problem. Many university presses are in a very close financial and management relationship with a university. Some (Georgetown University Press, Catholic University of America Press,) are church affiliated. Others - including Oxford and Manchester - are attached to government-funded universities. Problem is, the rule seems to be applied only to Brigham Young University Press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The reliability of various presses is a separate question. This is a question about what publications can be used to establish NOTABILITY at AfD. The wording at WP:INDEPENDENT doses not distinguish religious from non religious publishers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, WP:IS isn't a guideline. But it's important to remember why the independence criterion exists: "We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and to ensure that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization." (WP:WHYN) It's clear that many university presses routinely publish books critical of the institutions with whom they may have a legal and financial interest, which gives some indication of the impact those interests actually have on those presses in terms of their ability to produce sources that support fair, balanced, NPOV articles while not advertising their employers. Ruling those presses out based on a narrow reading of an explanatory supplement would impede the work of the encyclopedia. Bakazaka (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The way these criteria are being used to try and exclude books published by BYU press and BYU studies is just out of line. Basically they claim that these organizations do not publish works critical of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other presses publish works critical of their owners, so it is a different story. This is flawed on many counts. While BYU press, BYU studies, Deseret Book and related entities do not publish works that deny the basic truth claims of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, they most definately do publish works that are critical of specific policies of the Church, actions of members of the Church, actions of leaders of the Church, and related issues. This is even more true of the Neal A. Mawell Institute and the Mormon Studies Review, which are from all standpoints of organizational analysis just as much under the control of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are is BYU Studies. Academic journals should not be treated as unusable sources because of ownership. This is especially true of subjects that have a long history of very few balanced studies on them. This is especially the case of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The most strong and serious scholarship of the history of this organization has been conducted by professors at Brigham Young University or people published tyhrough BYU until very recently. This applies even more so to studies about the Church as a contemporary or near contemporary organization especially outside the US. The attempt to exclude from being a reliable source a work edited by Reid Neilsen, the leading academic expert on the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Japan, from consideration as a reliable source just because of the affiliations of the university that published this work is ludicrous. To take a look at other works published by BYU studies they published Ron Walkers Qualities that Count, a collection of essays on Heber J. Grant. Despite the title, the work would generally be considered a very balanced one on Grant, and it clearly shows his human side and gives deep insight into the struggles of his life. The same is true of Walker's bio on Grant's mother included in the BYU press published work Supporting Saints. Some of Walker's comments are even quoted by virulent anti-Mormons in their attacks on the policies of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I would argue that these are fed by misunderstandings of Latter-day Saint views on revelation, specfically that Latter-day Saints accept not just Joseph Smith but all his succesors as prophets, seers and revelators. They also accept that the revelation that guides and directs the Church, from its head Jesus Christ through his chosen leaders, does not need to be explicitly stated as new revelation to be binding, and that policies can and do, and in fact must change. The Latter-day Saints are inherently anti-fundementalist, they believe not in preserving some pure Church that once existed, but that Jesus Christ speaks to each time in their own language, and part of that speaking in their own language is making a Church that best meets the needs of the people and best prepares them to come unto him and receive his blessings. To me Walker's writings reinforce my faith and help me see this, and Walker if pushed would have almost certainly stated that Grant was an inspired man of God. However Walker was first and foremost a historian, who wrote balancved historical essays, and if these are not reliable sources on the life and work of Heber J. Grant none such reliable sources exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
While BYU press, BYU studies, Deseret Book and related entities do not publish works that deny the basic truth claims of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Doesn't that indicate that these sources should be considered primary or at least not independent when it comes to claims about the Mormon Church? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
The question at the top of this section is about independence, not reliability. A source can be reliable but not independent. For example, some church publications are reliable sources for the church's position on an issue. But they are not independent, and therefore cannot be used to support notability of a subject under WP:N. Bakazaka (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:INDEPENDENT is an "explanatory supplement to Wikipedia:Notability It clearly defines a great many university presses as not INDEPENDENT from the universities, governments and churches with which have "financial or legal relationship". But this guideline appears to be applied only to Brigham Young University Press; at AfD, scholarly books and articles about Mormons are being dismissed as sources for notability by an editor who has recently nominated dozens of articles about Mormons (some historic figures, some BLP, on the grounds that scholarly material from [[Brigham Young University Press]] is PRIMARY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Many university presses are members of the Association of American University Presses. This is noteworthy because, historically, many university presses have been targets of their parent institutions, which have sought to shut down the presses. Banding together has helped university presses act in concert against such efforts. If we're here to exercise judgement based on practical, empirical information, then we should note, again, that the supposed financial and legal interests do not have equal implications for all institutions. Also note that presses from some religious institutions are members of this organization, including Baylor University Press and University of Notre Dame Press. BYU Press is not. Neither is Liberty University Press.[12] Bakazaka (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis depending on how much editorial independence is acutally given to the press. Publications funded directly by a corporation would presumably reflect the corporation's best interests and might even have a legal obligation to shareholders. Educational institutions, on the other hand, theoretically operate in the interest of furthering human knowledge and have varying levels of independence from their sponsors; even when the University has final authority over what is published, a well-run institution would use an editorial committee to assess content from an academic rather than financial/promotional perspective. Public universities often have greater degrees of academic freedom, while religious institutions are required to follow their ideology more closely. In this case, sources such as the Encyclopedia of Mormonism are meant to be independent of the Mormon church, even though BYU resources were used in its publication. It would be far-fetched to say that church officials are pressuring the University press to cast them in a positive light. –dlthewave 00:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This is a strange question. University presses in most countries (at least those with freedom of speech) aspire to be, and usually are, scholarly publishers which prepare and publish works to scholarly standards independently of the university hierarchy. Reliable sources which state that the press is failing to be independent of the university would be needed to sustain a claim to the contrary. It's usually a big deal when a university's hierarchy attempts to influence works produced by the university press, so such sources should be readily at hand if this is an issue. The suggestions above that scholarly presses aren't independent because they form part of universities and/or because universities are (usually) government funded seems to be based on a lack of appreciation of the fact that universities in democratic countries are self-governing and run themselves along scholarly lines, with academic independence being fiercely protected. When this doesn't happen, it tends to be a major story. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The issue here is reliability, and a university press of a recognized university is RS pretty much by definition. There is no requirement that any publisher belong to any group of publishers, only that the publisher does reasonable fact-checking on non-fiction books. ("The Hunt for Red October" was published by the Naval Institute Press for example. ) So, in this case, all the side issues about the Book of Mormon being fiction and the like are irrelevant to the core policies of Wikipedia. If other reliable sources are found, then they clearly can be cited, but saying that this university is the Daily Mail of university presses is precisely the wrong thing to do. Collect (talk) 13:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Major rewrite of Siege of Singara (344)[edit]

Hi, i'm currently rewriting the above article, since it's almost exclusively sourced with outdated 19th century sources. I need to know if the following sources are reliables for this topic before to cite them in the new version of the article :

Please ping me if you need additional informations. Thanks.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I am suspicious of these, the publisher specialises in popular history rather than scholarly works. My normal practice would be to see who added them and find out if they had any edits adding sources by other publishers, because I am a nasty suspicious bastard. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey Guy, thanks very much for your insight. Actually, these sources are not yet used in the article. This article is quite messy with numerous claims not in accordance with WP:NPOV and rather WP:OR. The sources currently cited in the article are outdated 19th century sources (mainly). I want to rewrite the whole article, remove the outdated sources and replace them with recent ones and i was wondering if i could cite the two above sources.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 00:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah, OK. Yes it's a mess. I would prefer academic sources to these, myself, they look a bit Dorling-Kindersley. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I would consider both books reliable, but agree with Guy that some more serious academic sources would be preferable if possible. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much to both of you for your insight. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Is a WP:RS for use in a WP:BLP?[edit]

Here's the edit that cites this website. My gut is that it's not a WP:RS. But I'd like to hear other opinions. Msnicki (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

It appears to be some sort of curated inspiration site, there is no evidence that it's RS. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It is a perfectly good site but not what I would describe as a reliable source, for BLPs particularly. Mainly due to the fact it is unclear who write their content or what their editorial process is. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I spend a lot of time working on scientists. One of the hardest things is to find sources that actually discuss the science and what people did. This site gives more detail about the actual science than most of the sites I've seen, and I find it extremely useful. I found it when looking for information about the work of Marie Maynard Daly. It actually gave some information about what she did on nucleic acids and why that was important to researchers like Watson and Crick. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, the author, Dale DeBakcsy, is clearly identified on the site, and has published books in this topic area. cf. The Illustrated Women in Science (2015), The Cartoon History of Humanism. This is a very reasonable site to be referencing, and much better than a number of others I've seen, many of which just repeat the same information without giving useful detail. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No. According to the site's footer and privacy policy, Women You Should Know is owned and operated by Outhouse PR, which describes itself as a "Public Relations and Event Marketing Firm". The company's homepage states:

We specialize in grassroots brand building and image proliferation for both emerging and high-profile brands across a number of consumer industries. Delivering incomparable services and measurable results are our foundation. Contributing to the growth and success of our clients is our purpose.

Because of this, Women You Should Know appears to be a questionable source, but content from the site that is authored by established subject matter experts may qualify for the expert exception. — Newslinger talk 23:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
And to clarify, I don't think the expert exception is adequate justification to include content regarding living persons from questionable sources. — Newslinger talk 00:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Wetherby (film) location of filming is incorrect and misleading[edit]

The original text on the page "Wetherby (film)" stated that no filming took place in Wetherby itself, I edited this page to explain that scenes in the released film were filmed in Wetherby. This edit has now been deleted, and continues to state incorrectly that "Despite the name and alleged setting, none of the film was shot in Wetherby".

I saw the filming take place in Wetherby and our family house was hired by the producers for two outdoor scenes in the film. The producers and actors will be able to confirm these facts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) - Donald Albury 20:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Your eyewitness testimony are not a valid source by Wikipedia policy. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Are you at all interested in the truth ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
If it's wrong you can always remove it. Leave this note on the article talk page and wait and see if a published reliable source can be found with the right details. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Please state your sources for the original statement "no filming took place in Wetherby"— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
The IMDB entry for Wetherby, given as an External link in that article, certainly includes the town as a filming location. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
It is clearly controversial and entirely unsourced. I simply removed the whole section. You can put something back if it is verifiable in line with WP:V and other policy. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Also note: the closing credits of the film itself say only: "The film was made on location in Yorkshire and London ..." (If you want to check for yourself, there is full-length 1080p BluRay x264 version on YouTube that has been there for over two years: see t=1:42:38) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Probably best discussed further at Talk:Wetherby (film). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

who2 Biographies[edit]

This has just been used as a reference for a date of birth. It looks to me like a collection of dates taken from other sources (like probably Wikipedia). Does anyone know anything about this website? Deb (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

They claim to write all their content themselves, double check the dates, and existed for several years before Wikipedia. The editorial staff is listed as well on about page. I think it is reliable for dates. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, then, I'll trust it until I have reason to do otherwise. Deb (talk) 09:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Is a reliable source?[edit]

Is British Army Units From 1945 On a reliable source?

Thanks. Gavbadger (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Not reliable. There is no indication of what experience or qualifications the two people who run the site have or where they get their information from or how they check it. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No. Same reasons as Frayae. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both. Gavbadger (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No. The source offers no information about what editorial oversight or peer review the information it provides is subject to. There is no information more definitive than a copyright notice as to who owns and operates the website, and nothing at all about the qualifications of the people behind it. Factotem (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Australian Head of State[edit]

Article: Monarchy of Australia
Source: Government Politics in Australia, 10th edition, by Alan Fenna, Jane Robbins, and John Summers. Pearson Higher Education 2013, p. 21: "The precise status of the two, the Queen and the Governor-General, is so unclear that experts debate which is the 'true' head of state in Australia."

There is a question whether the article should say the Queen is head of state or to say there is a dispute. Does the wording of the source say there is a dispute and if it does, is it a reliable source?

TFD (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I would rather there we had more then one source saying there is a debate among experts. It is an RS but should be attributed. But No I am not sure it says there is a dispute, it says it is unclear.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Given the content of the current version of the article[13], and the Talk page[14], please note that the above query seems to be beside the point. Qexigator (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Slatersteven, I found a number of books and articles about the topic, but unfortunately do not have access to them. But here are two Australian government sources I found used in the Australian head of state dispute:
"Who is the Australian ead of State?", Parliamentary Research Service, 28 August 1995. " The Constitution can be used to argue either proposition."
"Governors-General of Australia", Museum of Australian Democracy (part of the federal Department of Communications). "Some authorities argue that the GovernorGeneral is Australia’s Head of State in every respect: others disagree."
TFD (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Well that is enough to say it is unclear and undefined.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
This has been going on for years and will undoubtedly continue until Mrs. Windsor pops her clogs, leading to the accession of Prince Chas and Australia becoming a republic. Guy (Help!) 15:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


Alternet is in the red box in the media bias chart, it is heavily opinionated and at least as biased as the Daily Mail. It is cited in around 900 articles, often for medical claims (it is an abject failure on WP:MEDRS and many of the claims are bogus alt-med nonsense). One particular favourite is punting homeopathy as a remedy for anthrax. Kids: don't try this at home. I propose to clean these references out. Any fact that is genuinely significant will be covered in a better source. Guy (Help!) 08:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Clearly unreliable.Should be put in the same category as Daily mail --Shrike (talk) 08:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support oh my goodness yes. Is its owner, Raw Story, already categorised similarly? If not it should be - David Gerard (talk) 09:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Paging BullRangifer, because it is on his list regarding the reliability of various sources. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Not generally reliable. They provide an "alternative" news story - which is at times very much alternative. They definitely do not have a reputation for fact checking. As for whether they are as bad as the DM - not sure - but they aren't far off.Icewhiz (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Sequential Tart[edit]

Please could I have some opinions as to whether Sequential Tart is a reliable source? It is currently being used to support a statement in the next DYK queue (see Template:Did you know nominations/Girlamatic), so we need to decide before the end of today whether this is permissible or not. If it isn't, the hook will need replacing and probably the sourced material removed from the article too. Also courtesy pinging Yoninah, Maplestrip, Narutolovehinata5 and The Rambling Man who have been involved in discussions about this hook/article. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment - just to add, initially I was tempted to just scrap it immediately, but looking at a Google search it also seems to feature a lot in various places on Wikipedia, so it may be more notable than initially meets the eye. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
In this case, it appears to be an interview with someone actually involved with the article subject. At the very least, this could be an IAR case, and according to an off-wiki conversation I had with Maple, the source used is reliable and a frequent source for webcomics both on and off-wiki. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Amakuru, I think the better or more pressing question for the moment is, is it (or the specific article/link in question) a reliable source to back up whatever claim it is currently supporting? What is the claim, and what is the article/link linked to? After that is determined, then the overarching use in other Wikipedia article citations can be addressed. Softlavender (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Softlavender: the claim is: that the editor of webcomic subscription service Girlamatic originally wanted to call the website "ModernGirls", but this name was already taken by a porn site. For which the Sequential Tart source is [15]. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The article in question being an interview, I believe the source should be relatively safe regardless. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Whether or not it's an interview, there seems to be no evidence whatsoever that what is being claimed is actually true, where's the editorial oversight in the website which checks the facts? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • You think Sequential Tart should have confirmed the fact that "ModernGirls" was considered as a potential name with other people who were involved with the creation of the website (like Joey Manley, for example)? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I think someone should have checked the claim about it being a porn site was actually true, yes. For a RS, I'd expect that kind of check, and certainly before such claims are made on the main page, doubly so. I can't find any reliable third party evidence to back up that claim, can you? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It's a direct quote from a verbatim interview on a site that, per the comment by Maplestrip below, is reliable, and there seems to be no reason to question the reliability of the verbatim interview. The only conceivable reason I could see to discount or disbelieve that statement is if it had obviously been made in jest or as a snark, but nothing in the interview indicates the interviewee is being anything but sober and frank anywhere in the interview. Softlavender (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • But there's no evidence what was said is true. No evidence at all. Show me some third party RS where ModernGirls has ever been a porn site and no problem. In the meantime, it's just something someone said which (apparently) is completely untrue. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Why do you say it is apparently completely untrue? And what motive would Lea Hernandez have for making a "completely untrue" statement with that amount of specificity? Softlavender (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I have no idea, maybe it was a mistake? But as I noted, there's no editorial oversight on that website that I can see, no fact-checking, and therefore it's just a primary claim until proven otherwise. As I said many times, an RS proving this was the case when they tried to obtain the domain would be just fine. Otherwise it's not. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The hook should probably say " but she claimed that name was " ... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This is likely not the correct venue to propose alternative blurbs, but would you be OK with the following: ... that Lea Hernandez, editor of webcomic subscription service Girlamatic originally wanted to call the website "ModernGirls", but Hernandez said this name was already taken by a porn site. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • That's appears much closer to the reality of the situation as far as we can reliably source, yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm completely fine with this change; it matters little to me. I do not know where to formally propose this change in the current state of the DYK process. Can you help me with this, Rambling Man? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • At the risk of TMI, I subscribed to a for-women porn site in approximately 2005/2006, and it was called Modern Girls. Softlavender (talk) 10:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC); edited 11:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC); see below
    I was just about to say that I was having difficulty finding the non-notable porn site, but it is good to hear this. Do you remember the URL? Maybe we can find it on the Wayback Machine. Just confirming that it existed at all should probably be enough. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    No, I don't remember the URL, and I unsubscribed to it in 2007 because the videos got pretty samey and tame. But I am certain it was called Modern Girls, and that had sounded classy to me and made me feel like it wasn't so sleazy to actually subscribe to a porn site. Even the URL would be defunct by now, since I think it went out of business as things got a lot more competitive. I dont think that Wayback would have captured a porn site in the early 2000s; it doesn't have workable captures for the URL "" until 2015: [16]. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC); edited 11:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    So anecdotal evidence but nothing reliable. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    I have done some digging on Bing (Google seems to tend to suppress porn results nowadays), and the site I subscribed to is and was called "For the Girls" (here's a description; not the actual link, no NSFW images: [17]), so I mis-remembered the site's name. Softlavender (talk) 11:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I have done a write-up on Sequential Tart's reliability at Wikipedia:Webcomic sources#Sequential Tart a long while back, and my conclusion has been that it is reliable. It had simply not been contested until now. Sequential Tart has a clear editorial board and has been used as a source by some of our other reliable sources, like Wired and Comic Book Resources. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Can you link to this, I can find no reference to an editorial board, or editorial practices.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Its editorial board (as well as a list of contributors) can be found here. I am linking an older version because the list has been edited and trimmed in the past few years. Editorial practices are not described, no. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Trimmed? in what way. Surely if there are few people on the editorial board that must raise doubts?Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The staff has shrunk since the mid-2000s, that's true. I am not sure whether that changes how we consider their older articles, though. Moreover, they also simply stopped listing all of the authors who have contributed to the website since relatively recently, probably because that list had simply become too long. A lot of people have written for Sequential Tart in the past fifteen years. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
It does not matter how many writers they have, what maters is oversight.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Of course, but individual writers can be experts in the field, so having the list is useful. The editorial board was also bigger at the time than it is now. Perhaps they are downscaling the publication. Two sections, "Cultures Vultures" and "Features", seem to have been halted. If we want to use one of these sections as a source, this older version of the editorial board is relevant. Moreover, Patti Martinson was not yet an assistant editor at the time the interview under discussion was published, etc. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Is "Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine" a reliable source for our Posttraumatic stress disorder article?[edit]

See Talk:Posttraumatic stress disorder#Acupuncture --Guy Macon (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

One of the founding editors, Professor Edzard Ernst, has described the journal as "useless rubbish", primarily due to ineffective peer review. So no.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
SCAM-specific journals are rarely reliable, and this one, as noted above, is no exception. Also, as a PTSD sufferer and supporter of Combat Stress (patron Sir Patrick Stewart, no less): scamming PTSD patients with quack treatments is a shitty trick. Guy (Help!) 15:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)