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 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

RfC: Should Hope not Hate publications be considered reliable sources?[edit]

Should Hope not Hate publications be considered reliable sources provided they are properly attributed? E.g. Anti-hate organisation Hope not Hate report that... --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


Discussion thread[edit]

Doesn’t this discussion belong on the noticeboard? And don’t we normally discuss the reliability of a source within the context of its use? Work permit (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay done. I'm not sure what you mean by within the context of its use though, it's whenever it is used. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Scroll up to the instructions at the top of the page. Reliability always depends on context. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi A Quest For Knowledge, Please see my answer lower down diff. Thanks. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with Work permit regarding need to evaluate context. Hope not Hate is apparently an advocacy group, so it seems WP:BIASED would apply to potential use of this as a source.DynaGirl (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • We can not give an opinion on reliability unless we know the specific context in which a source is being cited. For example, a source might be unreliable if cited to support a statistic, yet quite reliable if used to support a quote, or a paraphrase of the author's opinion. Also, be aware that reliability might not be the only issue ... WP:UNDUE WEIGHT can be a factor (ie a source can be reliable for verifying the opinion of it's author, but that leaves open the question of whether the author's opinion is important enough be mentioned in the first place.) Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with DynaGirl. It's an advocacy group, so it's not going to be a good source for facts. It's a notable and influential one, that gets results, so may be useful as an opinion in some cases, but that's hardly the classic use of reliable sources. --GRuban (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • No, a political pressure group with an angle can't really be considered as RS, particularly when it is highly likely there is no editorial oversight. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Perhaps. Contra The C of E, the publications of a political pressure group might be RS for the views of their spokesperson, or the group as a whole, and may undertake and report on research. Conisertaion of possible bias or balance would depend on the context of use.Martinlc (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • No, in reply to the specific question at the start, which was "Should Hope not Hate publications be considered reliable sources provided they are properly attributed? E.g. 'Anti-hate organisation Hope not Hate report that...'". That is not "proper attribution" -- "report" makes it sound like they're passing on news rather than opinions, and "anti-hate organisation" is an assertion in Wikipedia voice that they are what they claim to be. Others say otherwise. Maajid Nawaz (who persuaded SPLC to withdraw similar stuff) called one of their reports a "witch-hunt that conflates Muslim reformers and critics of Islam, with bigots". And, since context has been brought up: coincidentally I tried to remove a not-attributed-in-text cite from a BLP yesterday but Newimpartial quickly re-inserted it. I assume though that The Vintage Feminist has a different case in mind. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Peter Gulutzan: that looks like a pretty good example of a case where a group like Hope Not Hate would be perfectly fine. It's a totally non-controversial statement of fact that can also be verified by looking at primary sources - better sources might exist, but they're certainly reliable enough for something like "such and such published this book". Nblund talk 15:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes it can be verified by primary sources, and one is already cited, adding unreliable sources adds nothing. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I would say notable for what they claim (many RS seem to use them in just this way "hope not hate said). But not RS for putting as if it is an irrefutable fact.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The Vintage Feminist, please note the instructions for this page:
Before posting, please be sure to include any of the following information that is available:

  1. Green tickYSource. The book or web page being used as the source. If it's a book, please include author, title, publisher, page number, etc. If it's an online source, please link to it. For example: [].
  2. Red XNArticle. The Wikipedia article(s) in which it is being used. For example: Article name.
  3. Red XNContent. 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".

I suggest/request that you delete the RFC template. Discussions here generally aren't tagged as RFCs, and you've already gotten about the best answers that you're going to get for a question that doesn't identify the Article or Content involved. Alsee (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alsee, There now exists a list WP:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, the original idea for the list was mine and I was asked to contribute diff. I thought of adding Hope not Hate (the source mentioned in the RfC) but realized there was no discussion / consensus on the group. So I created this RfC to see what the community thinks. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Psychology Today piece?[edit]

Source: [1] - On things impacting IQ, secularity and religiosity

Article: Religiosity and intelligence

Content: Diff : [2]

Background on the source: I wanted to get other opinions on this. The source at hand is blog entry by an expert in IQ and religion research named Nigel Barber (some examples of his expertise in this area: [3], [4], [5], [6]). The publisher is Psychology Today, a mainstream printed and online periodical like Scientific American that transfers scientific research to lay people by experts, scholars, professionals and etc. In its history, Psychology Today was owned and operated by the American Psychological Association [7] at one point too. Furthermore, it is controlled by experts [8] and it even has contributions by the American Psychological Association’s Division 15 [9].

  • It think that this source is a reliable source because Nigel Barber certainly has experience in the field of intelligence research and even religion. I also think that the source is reliable because it was published by an organization that is not self-published, has a pretty good historical reputation, provides some degree of fact checking and oversight on what it publishes, is handled by experts in the fields. I think that this source by Nigel Barber falls under WP:NEWSORG and also WP:NEWSBLOG.
I did attribution to the author since it is his view, per the guidelines in WP:NEWSBLOG.
So would it be ok for use in wikipedia? Rewording? Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Psychology today is a site along the lines of sciencedaily - a solid example of science churnalism. Just look at the name of the blog that publishe the article "The Human Beast", and the article title "The Real Reason Atheists Have Higher IQs". It is just 1 step away from "doctors hate him!" or "one quick trick", or "number 7 will shock you". Petergstrom (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • It looks like a reliable source to me. It's an article on a website operating under the masthead of a popular-science magazine written by a PHD on his area of specialty. Simonm223 (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Since the article is used as a source for an opinion rather than a source for facts, then the relevant consideration is weight. Instead of just saying this is what Dr. Barber said, you need to explain the degree to which this opinion is held. You need secondary sources for that. Generally it is best to avoid this type of source since are written for a general audience. However, the list of articles he provides is a good starting point. TFD (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • This source is a reliable source for the context being requested and the article at hand. For sure the source is not a self published blog or by a non expert so it is good there. The source looks to be by an expert on the matter and the publisher does do some degree of oversight on its content to keep its respectability as a mainstream science publication in print and online. The context is important here. The attribution to Nigel Barber makes it appropriate for use on wikipedia since it is the opinion of the expert, per WP:NEWSBLOG. Also for such things, WP:RS does mention "editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author..." Not all cases qualify and attribution is key since it places weight on who said it. This case looks straight forward, however.desmay (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
See the reason I like it for a RS here is because the author is specifically pointing out the difficulty of creating a causal link due to the presence of so many correlative factors. A scientist working in publication on popular science explaining the difficulty of establishing causality seems not only reliable but also to the benefit of the article in general from a WP:NPOV perspective.Simonm223 (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
There are reliable sources that explain the difference between causation and correlation. Do his own peer reviewed sources that he cites in this article really not make the same distinctions/claims he makes here? They would be much better sources for the article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
The WikiProject Psychology link says it is not a policy but an essay for advice. Even there it certainly notes that there are exceptions too with blogs, depending on the level of expertise of the author. The "popular press" link also says the same thing in that "high-quality popular press" (it mentions New Scientist and Scientific American as examples) can be good sources for background and context of the issues involved. That is the point of the source to expand on things that are known to correlate with IQ, in context of claims of IQ and religiosity. It all depends on who says it, a general writer or an expert on the matter that can provide context for the issues involved.
I think that rewording, to something more compact and condensed would solve any issues. For instance, something like "According to biopsychologist Nigel Barber, some of the variance in national IQ and religiosity in Lynn et al's study are explainable by various social, environmental, and wealth conditions among countries." Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Psychology Today has lots and lots of blogs and historically speaking they have, um, varied in quality (classic eg). So while they may technically qualify as newsblogs, I wouldn't recommend them as sources for the relevant scientific discipline except for the most anodyne, non-controversial claims. And setting aside WP:RS for the moment, if you can't find a proper secondary source (ideally a review article or textbook) for the claim in a blog entry, it is likely undue for most wikipedia articles.
As for the particular blog entry: the author is clearly just thinking aloud and making plausible hand-wavy arguments here, which is perfectly fine for the medium he chose, but that does not make it a good source for us (eg, the sentence "I doubt that religion causes stupidity if only because some of the most brilliant people of history, such as Isaac Newton, were highly religious like most of their contemporaries", won't survive any scientific review process). Fwiw, his thoughts and speculation are reasonable and if you find better sources making similar points, include them in the article. If not, leave them out per WP:RS/WP:DUE.
In short, I'm with User:Rhododendrites on this. Abecedare (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the viewpoint in that blog is, like, the standard one. There are many recent studies on this subject and even reviews on it. I'm sure something relevant can be gotten from one of those. Some of them are already cited in the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The Monthly[edit]

I am requiring independent editor's opinions please on whether this subjective 'essay' [1] from the The Monthly which is on the international List of political magazines is a reliable source to be used in The Australian which is one of the largest mainstream newspapers in Australia. Specifically my question is in relation to this edit [10] placed within the 'Editorial and opinion pages' section of the article. It seems to also give undue weight to this essay writer's subjective opinion and swamp the other sources within that section. If the source is used I am also questioning the undue weight of the long quote that has been included. I would like to resolve the dispute at Talk:The Australian under the title "Questionable source" as quickly as possible through consensus and have not reverted the bold edit that was made.Merphee (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

As is so common, Merphee is forum shopping because he is not getting his way on the Talk page of an article. And I would like to see evidence that The Australian "is one of the largest mainstream newspapers in Australia". I'm not sure why he has to resolve the dispute as quickly as possible either. I regard getting our encyclopaedia right as more important that speed. I think it's also worth noting that Merphee has not advised anyone at the Talk page in question about this thread, and that he was the subject of a recent thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, which unfortunately got derailed and was never resolved. HiLo48 (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I didn't realise you had posted here already Merphee, you may want to check my suggestion on the talk page of The Australian. Curdle (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Again HiLo48 please stop the personal attacks, you've been blocked for a month in the past for personal attacks and belittling. So give it a rest will you. Curdle the discussion we were having at Talk:The Australian sat there for a week before I decided to post here to get some independent opinions so it was hardly out of the blue. As soon as I did you immediately commented on talk. Anyway I've replied to you on Talk:The Australian, thanks for your input. However I posted here to get other independent eyes on the edit HiLo48 made. I'm sure we can come to a consensus and I'll look at a couple of other sources and possible wording you suggested tomorrow. In the meantime I'd appreciate others actually having a look at the source I'm talking about and the edit itself including the undue weight issue I've raised in that section of the article. The edit outweighs all of the other sources is my point.Merphee (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 
Something you might also want to consider is the author of the piece, Margaret Simons. She is currently Associate Professor of Media Studies at Monash University, so is as an academic well versed on the subject (indeed is listed at Melbourne University as an expert here. One of her "essays" for the Monthly won a Walkley award for Journalism in 2015. She has written several books, including co writing a previous (liberal/conservative) Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser's, memoirs. As for the undue weight, I addressed that on the talk page of the Australian (suggesting we drop the long quote you have a problem with), so won't go into it here. Curdle (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Curdle I agree your suggestion to drop the long quote, that's what I meant by undue weight and the extreme quote drowning out other reliable sources that had been in that section of the article for a long time. I also suggest we wait for other uninvolved editors to give their opinion before we change anything and we can develop consensus. No rush. Some reasonable comments like this one [11] and this comment [12] both from uninvolved editors also support the point I was trying to make and was why I chose to post here.Merphee (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Merphee, can you please provide evidence in the form of references to reliable sources that support your claim that The Monthly is a "far left wing magazine" so extreme that it cannot be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia? Do you have evidence that it is a Marxist-Leninist publication advocating armed revolution, or an anarchist publication fomenting violence? Does it publish outlandish conspiracy theories devoid of evidence? Have professional journalists routinely described it as a purveyor of lies? More specifically, is the assessment by Margaret Simons obviously wrong, or is it in line with how other reliable sources assess the political orientation of The Australian? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
@Cullen328: I can't see anywhere on this page where Merphee asserts that The Monthly is a far left wing magazine or a Marxist-Leninist publication advocating armed revolution or an anarchist publication fomenting violence or a publisher of outlandish conspiracy theories devoid of evidence; or any of the other categorisations included in your comment. Reliability is not transitive - Unreliable sources do not become reliable through (occasional) agreement with reliable sources. The question is not whether the author is correct, but whether the content is verified by a reliable source. And that reliability comes down to a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
There is a current discussion on Talk:The Australian about this and an attempt to reach consensus. It is the long quote selected from the 'essay' that is my issue and I've explained it, and as neutrally as I can. It is about undue weight given to Margaret Simon's viewpoint in relation to the other perspectives in that section of the article. The quote selected from the essay makes The Australian look like some radical far right wing extremist publication, which it is obviously not.Merphee (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
If this is a question of WP:Weight, rather than the reliability of the source, then surely this isn't the right forum for this conversation. If there is a discussion going on at the talk page, that's the right place for a content dispute about due weight. The author is an academic in the relevant field at a respected university, and there's nothing obviously dodgy about the magazine - I can't see any reason to question reliability. Girth Summit (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • There are reasonable questions as regards the source. Firstly that it is WP:PRIMARY for the article content that it is/was used to support; it is the criticism itself, not an independent documentation of that criticism, and should, per that policy, be used with caution. That is is WP:BIASED, and should be used with attribution. And whether the source is reliable for fact, or reliable for opinion. At initial inspection, I would vouch the latter; that The Monthly is a publication of opinion, not of fact; and that it should be used with attribution. As comparison, I would assert the same for The Spectator. As for the questions of WP:WEIGHT, phrasing, jurisdictions et al, for mine, as WP:NPOV applies to all content, it can inform anywhere that content is discussed (cf. WP:NOTBURO). - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for commenting. Consensus was reached and the original edit was changed. The Monthly was one of three sources used for the revised edit.Merphee (talk) 05:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Subject of an article critiquing his bio on YouTube as a source[edit]

This has to be the strangest sourcing I've seen and I'd like some additional opinions on it: Recently an editor added this youtube video as a source for a date of birth where the subject of the article (Dan Avidan) appears to critique the Wikipedia page about him. That's got to be the weirdest WP:SPS source I've run across. Do folks feel that this is a reliable source as used here? Toddst1 (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we can say it is RS for his saying it is wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, as this is a verified account (tick mark next to GameGrumps, and Dan Avidan is one of the duo in GameGrumps). Per WP:ABOUTSELF the subject may be used for info such as DOB (assuming it's in there in the 13 minutes(4 parts - 79 minutes in all - listening to it). Actually a great way to correct one's Wikipedia's article while providing a RS for the article. Kudos to the article subject.Icewhiz (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • To a limited degree, yes. Simple facts that make no claims about third parties might be judged reliable. Date of birth can be cited to self-published sources, for example. If the subject makes exceptional claims, obviously that's not going in the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • What Ninja said. The 'limited degree' when it comes to age\DOB is that people in media routinely lie about their age (usually to appear younger or just to obfuscate it). If there is no contradictory information, it can be used as a self published primary source. How was the birthday sourced previously? Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • There was no birthday in the article previously. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Then there is no issue. Altho why he would want his birthday in the article is beyond me. But as a SPS from what is clearly the subject, and with no contradictory info, it's fine. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with the above, though my main reason for commenting is to say that, generally, YouTube videos from reliable sources in which the article subject comments on their Wikipedia article are excellent sources for the subjects on themselves. In principle, they are even better than text sources insofar as verifiability goes given how nigh impossible it is to fake a voice or video of the subject. Back in June 2018, I added one such source to confirm and expand Samuel L. Jackson's biography. There's actually an entire video series by GQ called "Actually Me" in which celebrities "go undercover" in various websites to comment on information about them, including Wikipedia. From the couple I've watched (I intend to watch all the ones involving Wikipedia and use them as sources, eventually), the series is courteous enough to not actually submit the vandalism on Wikipedia that they show in the video, despite simulating pressing the "Publish changes" button, which can be confirmed by checking the contribution and page histories of the accounts and pages shown in the videos.
    Frankly, YouTube sources are underused. Usually, they are poorer in quality and more difficult to verify than text sources, but reliable YouTube sources do exist and can be great sources for those willing to take the time to watch the video, note the timestamps, and transcribe the statements. When it comes to sources like the latter and the Avidan video, they are basically standard autobiographic sources—for YouTube-published interviews, standard interviews. So long as they pass the usual sourcing and verifiability criteria, the fact that they are in videographic form does not matter much. {{Cite AV media}} exists for a reason, after all. With that said, great find! —Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 08:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Digital Spy's reliability in general[edit]

Hello everyone. I'm sorry, but I feel that I have to pester you a bit about Digital Spy's reliability as a source in general. I have gone through the archives but did not feel I got a clear and definitive consensus about the reliability of this source. Looking at their website and what they put out, they look like a trashy pile of garbage that should not be used as a source for anything never mind an encyclopedia. However, that is just my personal feeling as someone who rarely watches TV. Digital Spy has been inflicted on several Wiki articles, and I would like some assistance from the community as to the reliability of this phenomenon called Digital Spy. Is DS reliable for anything other than itself? If yes, what? Thanks. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Part of the Hearst UK Entertainment Network? Doesn't obviously say unreliable to me. --tronvillain (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Crayola crayon colors[edit]

There is currently an RfC at Talk:History of Crayola crayons regarding whether or not History of Crayola crayons should include a list of Hex/RGB/HSV color values for each crayon. Part of the question involves the verifiability of these values: Newer colors are sourced to while older colors are sourced to "Color values estimated using swatch of original crayon." Do these sources meet Wikipedia's verifiability requirements? Note that the same sources are also used at List of Crayola crayon colors. –dlthewave 02:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

As has been stated repeatedly in this debate, crayons are a reliable primary source for their own attributes, such as their size, appearance, and the color of their wax, in the same way that a book or a painting or a statue is a primary source for its objectively verifiable qualities. Illustrations representing those colors are entitled to the presumption that they accurately represent the thing depicted, unless there's some evidence that they do not. Anyone can look at a swatch of a crayon color and compare it with the illustration to verify whether the hue, saturation, and value are reasonably described by the illustration. To use Wikipedia's language on the subject, any educated person with access to the source—in this case a crayon, a swatch of wax from the crayon, or a faithful reproduction of such a swatch—is able to verify the color without specialist knowledge, simply by visual comparison. However, any reader can easily determine the attributes of a swatch of color using common and abundant apps or desk accessories to sample swatches depicted on-line. Such tools require no specialized knowledge, and vary only to the extent that slight variations due to the thickness and natural variability of the wax and manner of digitizing the swatch make them approximate; but so long as this limitation is clearly stated in giving an approximate value, there should be nothing wrong with giving a value approximating the color, and indicating what the values of the color used to illustrate it are. RGB, HSV, and hexadecimal color codes are nothing more than three ways to depict the same colors, each of which has its own use and value to readers, and all of which are determinable through routine calculation—which by definition is not original research. They are precise mathematical equivalents of one another, and listing them separately makes the color tables sortable.
Beyond all of this, however, I think it worth noting that there seems to be a concerted campaign to expunge topics related to Crayola and Crayola crayons from Wikipedia. On July 22, six articles related to these topics were nominated for deletion, chiefly on the grounds that lists of, discussion of, and depictions of Crayola crayons and related topics were either "fancruft" and thus not notable, or fell afoul of WP:NOTCATALOG. When these arguments were rebuffed, the deletionists began to argue that none of the sources were reliable, and that most or all of the colors should be eliminated as original research. Three of the six articles have been deleted, and two of the remaining ones are the subject of lengthy debates that would, if the arguments of the deletionists carry the day, be reduced to little more than stubs. The arguments have been carried over from AfD to article talk pages to here; and every time the debate reaches a standstill a new "survey" or discussion topic is added with the same goal: eliminating as much data as possible, not because any of it has ever been disputed by the people seeking to remove it, but because the sources and methods of illustrating the colors can all be excluded, even though they seem to be perfectly reliable. Nobody has yet argued that you can't tell what color a crayon is by coloring with it, or that the swatches made from crayons don't accurately depict them, or that the research done by the expert on the topic (an external source, quoted and documented by published third-party sources) is in any way inaccurate, or that Crayola's own nominal colors as depicted on their web site don't accurately represent the colors of their crayons. In other words, neither the accuracy of the sources, nor the reasons for believing them to be accurate, nor the accuracy of the illustrations depicting the colors, nor the accuracy of the color codes describing those colors has ever been disputed, yet they're all on the verge of being swept out of Wikipedia en masse, despite the apparent ease with which all of the information can be verified by "any educated person with access to the source", without any evidence—or even the allegation—that the information or the sources from which it's drawn are inaccurate. P Aculeius (talk) 04:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I think that "no" is an accurate response to everything you just wrote. Guessing the precise coordinates of a color from a photograph is going to be influenced by everything that went into that photograph, and the process of scanning it to digital if it started as something else. It's absolutely original research. You can state with confidence what the color is in a specific digital image, but that's it. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Colour disclaimers are a common feature of websites: wool, paint, blinds. It's easy enough to use tools like Pixie to find out the coordinates of a colour, but colour disclaimers by manufacturers point out that computer monitors, photographs etc can vary considerably and do not always guarantee that what you see is what you get. The values given for the Crayola crayons have been added in good faith, but they are a form of WP:OR unless they come from Crayola directly.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
An illustration created for Wikipedia is entitled to the presumption that it accurately represents the thing depicted, unless there's some evidence that it doesn't. The fact that it's impossible to guarantee a 100% match between additive and subtractive colors doesn't change the fact that it's possible to illustrate one with another, the same way that a digital photograph of a solid painting can still be an accurate illustration. Otherwise, we'd need to delete every photo of a painting on Wikipedia, or include a disclaimer about the colors! But speaking of disclaimers, if you read the articles in question, you'll see that the distinction between additive and subtractive colors has been clearly stated, together with other factors that could preclude stating that the illustrative swatches are perfect matches, ever since the present tables were designed some three years ago. The problem was known, anticipated, and accounted for at the time. The same issue didn't preclude Crayola from creating its own digital swatches to illustrate around a hundred of its colors on its "exploring color" page; those swatches seem to be definitive as far as 1, the "official" digital equivalents of the colors they represent, and 2, the fact that digital equivalents of Crayola crayon colors can be established.
I'll also note that while monitor settings can affect how individual readers perceive values such as "#FF0000", they don't affect the objective attributes of the color, how it's displayed by a web browser or what RGB/HSV/Hexadecimal values it's measured at. Those will stay the same no matter what brightness setting a monitor has. I'd also note that even monitors are designed to show as consistent an image and color palette as possible, with the only setting regularly changed being brightness, and that usually within a limited range. So while it's possible for the appearance of crayon wax to be affected by thickness, lighting, paper, digitization, or simply natural variation of the wax (although presumably the quality control process in manufacture is meant to minimize this), an illustration of the color can only go so far wrong. As long as the inherent variability and impossibility of one exact color being "definitive" is clearly stated by the article, an image that reasonably approximates the color produced can be used to illustrate it, and can still be verified—or refuted—by anyone simply by comparing the illustration with a swatch of the actual crayon, without falling afoul of Wikipedia's policy on original research. P Aculeius (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
WP:OR applies only to Wikipedia itself. Research presented by a reliable external source other than Crayola itself would presumably be acceptable. If this material was published on itself, there probably wouldn't be a problem given that Ed Welter seems to have been acknowledged as an expert on the subject. --tronvillain (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The RGB/HSV/Hexadecimal codes represent the digital swatches used to illustrate the crayon colors, and thus are self-proving. The real question is whether the illustrations fairly represent the approximate color of the crayons, something that anyone can verify by comparing them against swatches of the original crayons. Mr. Welter's article depicts nearly all of the colors no longer produced by Crayola, and anyone can compare the colors depicted with those used to illustrate the colors in question on Wikipedia. I believe that comports with Wikipedia's standards for verifiability. P Aculeius (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Here comes the science[edit]

It is impossible to match subtractive colors with additive colors. If Crayola says that a particular RGB additive color is a close match to the particular subtractive color of a crayon, we can include that information, but it really needs at least a footnote explaining that it is impossible to match subtractive colors with additive colors. There are a lot more subtleties to this; see Color. Color model, Color space and Gamut.

Related question: what is the source for the RGB values shown in Pantone#Color of the Year? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Related: User talk:Guy Macon#Impossible colors: --Guy Macon (talk) 05:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Paul Rassinier[edit]

This is one that I wanted to post before using for obvious reasons. I know there are certain things Paul Rassinier should definitely not be used for - anything about the gas chambers and anything about the genocidal intent of the Nazis. But can we use him as an attributed primary source for other things like:

To cap their misery, for weeks there had not been an ounce of bread in the camp, and they had had to make do with supplies from the storage pits: plain soup of rutabaga, a quart sometimes half a quart, and small potatoes, in the evening, after a long, hard day of work. Nothing to eat. Everything else vanished before this menace.

I wanted to check before adding this to the Rutabaga article, which already has some unsourced discussion about the importance of Rutabaga (Steckrüben) as a famine food in wartime Germany and also in the camps (discussed by both Rassinier and Werner Weinberg). Seraphim System (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[edit]

This site clearly fails RS, as it is a fan wiki. If there any way of running a bot to remove it, and then blacklisting it to prevent it being used again? GiantSnowman 15:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean like WP:BLACKLIST? -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC) P.S.: Please ping me in your reply. Thank you.
That's the one, thank you! GiantSnowman 07:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Har’el: Palmach brigade in Jerusalem, Zvi Dror (ed. Nathan Shoḥam), Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishers: Benei Barak 2005,[edit]

Does Har’el: Palmach brigade in Jerusalem, Zvi Dror (ed. Nathan Shoḥam), Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishers: Benei Barak 2005, qualify as a RS on the 1948 Arab–Israeli War?

It is used extensively in the article on one operation, namely Operation Ha-Har.

Since it is in Hebrew, I cannot read it, but I cannot find any relevant academic qualifications when I google Nathan Shoḥam or Zvi Dror. To me it looks like an unscholarly account of the Palmach. Comments? Huldra (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Reviewd here. Ok publisher. Probably OK for biographical info and basic details (e.g, that such and such was published, such a command was given, etc.). It is not a military history.Icewhiz (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
What are the academic qualifications of Zvi Dror and Nathan Shoḥam? Huldra (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
this is the author, hewiki. The author is an established non-acadmic military historian, with multiple titles. This book specifically is biographical, not a military history.Icewhiz (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
So in other words, not a RS on Operation Ha-Har. Agree? Huldra (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
No, I do not agree. This is a reputable publisher, and an award winning military historian. The book itself is a collective biography. It should be OK for bio details and basic info.Icewhiz (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Totally disagree, for an article like Operation Ha-Har. "Award winning military historian" is not the same as an academic. After all, this is a field with a zillion academic sources. But again, lets hear what other editors say, Huldra (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually academic sources are not so easy to find for all military operations - which is quite evident at Ha-Har at the moment - which outside of the very short lede does not use a single academic source. If you had 3-4 INDEPTH high quality academic sources covering the same detail than it would be easier to advocate replacement. Quality wise, the book by Zvika Dror is better than a modern secondary piece in a reputable newspaper. It is not as good as an academic source. I am a supporter of WP:HISTRS, however it is not policy yet and it too would not totally preclude non-academic sources which can be useful too.Icewhiz (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
We regularly use non-academic sources in ARBPIA area.For example articles from Haaretz. --Shrike (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Shrike, but only for contemporary articles, not for historical articles unless for example Haaretz is hosting a historian like Benny Morris or Tom Segev. The source can't be used unless the relevant information is cited from a reliable secondary or tertiary source written by a competent academic historian.Nishidani (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
The Publishing house has a web-site here.Davidbena (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Avi Shemmi (Schmidt), Friends Speak About Jimmy (5th edition), HaKibbutz HaMeuhad: Tel Aviv 1958, p. 200 [Hebrew title: חברים מספרים על ג'ימי] (Yad Tabenkin Archives, Testimony of Danny Agmon, 16-12/52/194)[edit]


Avi Shemmi (Schmidt), Friends Speak About Jimmy (5th edition), HaKibbutz HaMeuhad: Tel Aviv 1958, p. 200 [Hebrew title: חברים מספרים על ג'ימי] (Yad Tabenkin Archives, Testimony of Danny Agmon, 16-12/52/194)

a RS on the on the 1948 Arab–Israeli War?

It is used in the article on one operation, namely Operation Ha-Har.

Since it is in Hebrew, I cannot read it, but I cannot find any relevant academic qualifications for Avi Shemmi (Schmidt), Huldra (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Please follow the guideline of this board.What information its used to source?--Shrike (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Several items in the Operation Ha-Har article, do you want me to list them all? Huldra (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Reliable for attributed witness stmts. See hewiki on editor, and "חברים_מספרים_על_ג'ימי"hewiki on book, Father edited it, various friends wrote down their testimony. Reputable publisher and well known book (multiple edition). So definitely reliable for primary stmts by fighters/commanders who penned chapters or segments. Not a secondary source.Icewhiz (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
So in other words, not a RS on the article Operation Ha-Har. Agree? Huldra (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
No, I do not agree. RS policy does not work that way. This would be a reliable source for an attributed statement to someone. It would not be a RS for most other stuff - we should not use this unattributed.Icewhiz (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I do not agree that a primary, nonacademic source can be quoted in an article like Operation Ha-Har, even with attribution (unless, of course, it has been quoted by an academic source). But lets hear what other people have to say. Huldra (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
We generally do not use PRIMARY sources (which by definition are not academic analysis). However that is not so much a RS question. This source could be used for an attributed quote and little else - same as Glubb. Some of the writers in this book are more relevant to Ha-Har than Glubb - however both should be used apringly and attributed - if at all.Icewhiz (talk) 04:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I will note that the article at present also uses a book by John Bagot Glubb, A Soldier with the Arabs, as a source - which is probably only OK for Glubbb's views.Icewhiz (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
John Bagot Glubb is "slightly" more known than "Jimmy and his friends." But I agree, Glubb, if used, should be used with attribution, Huldra (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd really want to know specifically what it is being used for, but I'd think generally no. So I'll admit I haven't read the book, but based on the article section on it, the book is compiled from interviews, correspondence, and Jimmy's personal writings? So basically the whole thing is primary sources. I don't see why it would be used except in an article on ג'ימי שמי himself. I mean, even if an academic publisher had printed and published a pile of soldiers' letters, that doesn't make them reliable sources. Articles are supposed to be based on the secondary analysis of experts, after all. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Primary sources can be still user in the article per WP:PRIMARY

Its reliable source for the testimonies --Shrike (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

  • At the moment is used in combination with another book to stitch a story together (this book about playing the sound of machine guns, and another book about the effect that noise had). This is an obvious SYNTH violation. Zerotalk 14:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually, two sources speak about the very same thing. One is a Secondary source, while the other (that which is in parentheses) is a Primary source.Davidbena (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Is Punk Globe a reliable source?[edit]

It has its own Wikipedia article, sure, but it's pretty stubby and not well-sourced. From the looks of it, the article also appears to have been created in January 2008 by a user who has a clear undisclosed conflict of interest with the magazine. From all my searches, the magazine has been cited a small number of times, and links to the site are found throughout the project, but no discussion appears to have occurred yet about the reliability of Punk Globe (front page, index). Is it? What about when establishing notability, particularly in within music?

The website and magazine has existed for decades (and clearly shows it!); it has a dedicated staff of writers, editors, photographers, and others; all content appears to be controlled and filtered by that staff (i.e., no user-generated content); and it is still regularly updated (with the exception of its blast-from-the-past 20th-century website style). I have no clue about the credentials of these staff members or whether they are even paid. I can see how this might be passable, if only for interviews, but vaguely comparable sources appear to have failed in the past. Thoughts? —Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 23:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that a self-described Fanzine can be viewed as a "reliable source." Collect (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Usable with caveats. It's definitely a cut above the everyday "fanzine" put together by somebody in their basement. I'd say it's OK for basic info like band X released single Y, or band A played at venue B on date C, or direct quotes from musicians about their music. But it shouldn't be used controversial biographical information or other sensitive purposes. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes but so is my dog. He gets peer reviewed. On point, I would say reliable for interviews etc and non controversial material. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

is reliable?[edit]

On the article Daniel Doheny, a article was being used to give his birthdate and age. However, two other sources at the same article contradict him being born in 1997:one from a well-known daily Vancouver newspaper, The Vancouver Sun, which lists him as having graduated from a Vancouver-area high school in 2008 and another from a local theatre program, Bard on the Beach, which lists him as in college in 2013.

As a result, I edited his age here. It is sometimes being reverted to the 1997 date based on the source, so I'd like opinions as to their reliability on this kind of information (actor birthdates). —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Your edit is wrong. The source you have given doesn't say he graduated from high school at 18, so we can't put that. You can however use that as a source in the article for claims that it actually makes. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

References to songs, images, how-tos and similar on YouTube, Vimeo, a Web page and similar[edit]

The above noted content does not represent or substantiate an opinion, fact, but represents itself.

I recently added to a page on Raoul Wallenberg SONGS section 5 songs about Raoul Wallenberg. Wallenberg[1], There is a man [2], Raoul we thank you[3], The Rescuers[4] and Louise and Marie[5] which I feel merit this. I don't know if the songs are referred to in any external document. The songs were removed with a revert since they are not independently referenced.

This presents a general problem since these days much quality content is posted on-lime without reviews or endorsement by "reliable sources". In fact, aside from science and similar journals these days the concept of reliable sources is questionable. For example CNN and FoxNews often (mostly?) offer point-of view vs. purely fact based content. Same for the major newspapers.

The problem of valuable content possibly not independently reviewed etc. extends also to science, technology and similar on-line content. I recently saw two excellent explanations about "Quaternions" involving 3 distinct imaginary numbers i, j and k which have important applications in physics. [6] and [7]. I have no idea who the first presenter is or if his presentation is referenced anywhere. Still, based on understanding the math and common sense I'd surely want to use the video as a reference in an article on the topic. The second reference is by a very bright postdoctoral physics student at Cambridge U. I don't know if her presentation is reviewed anywhere, but would certainly assume she is worth quoting on a Wikipedia page solely because of the quality of the presentation and the fact that she was accepted to be at Cambridge.

Would appreciate guidance on this matter Emesz (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Is The Globe Newspaper Zambia A Reliable Source ?[edit]

The Globe Newspaper(Zambian) Publishes both Hard copy newspapers and their online edition, i need your input on accessing whether it can be considered a reliable source on wikipedia see Regards

Some context is necessary here I think. The article appears to be recounting a feud between two musicians and the subsequent apology one made to the other. Is this source being used at an article referring to one of the involved parties?Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Simonm223 Yes, i was considering using it on the article Mic Diggy and also as WP:MUSICBIO criteria 11 Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. is it can be the strongest claim to notability (and also MUSICBIO criteria 2, though there's no currently accepted chart for Zambia). The article was deleted before i could access this. (talk) 06:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

If you are trying to establish notability for a musician, and you haven't previously brought this to talk at the article or it's associated WP:AFC or WP:AFD I'd suggest that'd be a good place to start. I can't find enough information on the Globe Newspaper Zambia to confidently comment on whether it's a reliable source, but I'd say that, assuming you've not already done so and been shot down WP:BOLD would apply here.Simonm223 (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Simonm223 one of the AFD active participants advised, i cite this reference, and see how the community reacts, and the AFD admin also thinks this is probably a reliable source. He didn't exactly reverse the deletion and i am not an admin so i can't. What would be the best step? recreating the article or ? (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

If there is an AFD, you'd post that you Oppose deletion on the grounds of notability in a media source and provide the link. Then participants in the AFD can discuss whether they believe it imparts sufficient reliability to warrant retention of the article in question. But even if the source is reliable it might still not be sufficient to demonstrate notability per issues like WP:BLP1E. Again, I don't really know the situation that led you to the Reliable Sources noticeboard. However, the RSN can't override a consensus decision on an AFD discussion; if this is subject to a concluded AFD proceeding and the page was deleted, and if you believe you now have sources to demonstrate reliability you might consider WP:AFC and making your case there. If there's a current AFD in progress I'd suggest you pitch the source there and see if it floats.Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
ETA I followed your IP address back to the concluded AFD. It's done. The page is deleted. If you believe there should be a page for this artist, I'd suggest taking the source to WP:AFC as per my previous discussion, as well, and this is important, as providing a link to the closed AFD so that people can see the discussion there too. If there's consensus at WP:AFC that the new sources warrant inclusion then a new page could be created. Simonm223 (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Simonm223 Thank you very much that was useful information. (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania[edit]

  • Source Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania by Barbara West Google Books link
  • Article Rouran Khaganate
  • Content ...was the name of a state established by proto-Mongols, from the late 4th century until the middle 6th century.citation
  • My concern is the author (Barbara West) is a social anthropologist:
    • "West, who holds a Ph.D. in social anthropology, defines a people based on shared language, ethnicity, nationality, tribe, or religion. Ancient peoples may also be classified by archaeological complex (shared material culture)."[13]
  • So does her book pass as a reliable source for history and language-related topics? --Wario-Man (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Note: It is an encyclopedia, and Barbara West is merely the editor. Question for Wario-Man: Do you have any reason to doubt the accuracy of that encyclopedia entry, regardless of who wrote it? Softlavender (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Note 2: Nothing on page 687 of that text mentions a Khaganate or any kind of state. It is only about the Rouran people. So it seems like you would need a different source to cite that there was an actual Khaganate and when precisely it existed. Did proto-Mongols even have Khaganates? There's no mention of that in the Khaganate article. Softlavender (talk) 07:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Unless there a good reason to doubt the name or content i'd consider that encylopedia not an optimal but a sufficient source in general, but you can probably find better ones. If Khanate/Khaganate is not explicitly mentioned, then of course the encyclopedia is only good for the name Rouran. However a quick look at google books quickly yields other (scholarly) sources using the name (see [14], [15]). So the name if fine and you could use any of those 2 sources (or others) to source the full name.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The use of khagan as a title is also supported in the body by the Rousset cite. - (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

THEM Anime Reviews reliability[edit]

Upon revisiting Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_65#THEM_reliability, T.H.E.M. Anime Reviews seem to have been used in some books and editorials. However, the website is currently run by hobbyists with no notable credentials and longevity is not a factor in websites used as valid sources. It also originated as a student-run organization from Arizona State University. Carlos Ross is one of the only known notable members who has appeared in press segments but he is no longer affiliated with the website. Perhaps at the time of review, this could be considered a valid source, but not by today's standards, especially when more industry-related resources are available. (Basically, the notable alumni of T.H.E.M. Anime Reviews seem to be valid sources, but the website itself should not be.) Please advise on this. lullabying (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Are they still being referenced by other sources? It seems that they qualified as an actual reliable source some years ago, but things change as personnel change. If secondary reliable sources still quote THEM nowadays, I'd say it's still OK. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
If the status of the website did change then it wouldn't effect the anime that was reviewed by the former staff. The status would be changed to "situational" in which reviews from the website up to x date would be considered usable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this point. I think it'd be best if we specify up to which date and personnel reviews from them should be allowed. lullabying (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Formalizing the addition of the Washington Post to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources[edit]

I know that the Washington Post is reliable and frequently used on Wikipedia and wish to add it to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources. Can I go ahead and add it, or do I need to start an RfC here to satisfy the discussion requirement? --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Go for it. That's what everybody's been doing so far. GMGtalk 19:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC about the reliability of The Verge as a source for use in articles relating to tech, science, culture, and cars[edit]

Is The Verge considered a reliable news source for use in articles relating to technology, science, culture, and cars? --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes for technology, science, and cars. A quick check on Google News confirms The Verge has been sourced by unambiguously RS outlets on these topics (including Forbes, TIME, and the AP) indicating existing RS are satisfied with its veracity. In addition, it has a gatekeeping process, a physical personality, and is not primarily involved in persuasive or advocacy communication. Culture is a broad topic that could encompass just about anything but I would generally say yes to that, as well with situational qualifications. Chetsford (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Generally yes is this RfC out of the blue? or is there prior discussion regarding this topic that we should be aware of? Their Ethics Statement page seems to indicate a good editorial policy, and media bias fact check indicates that they have good factual reporting but that they have a centre-left bias (like most media outlets). I'm not seeing any other outlets accusing them of 'fake news' either.[16] Generally I'd consider them reliable for technology, science, and cars. As far as 'culture' goes, I would probably be careful to attribute anything they said that might be impacted by their political bias, though I would still consider them a reliable source (perhaps WP:RSOPINION when it comes to some political coverage). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    @Insertcleverphrasehere: You are correct that this is out of the blue. This source isn't like The Washington Post (see above), so figured that an RfC would be the best way to (hopefully) gather wider community consensus either way. --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Depends on context - they seem a tech pop culture site, with opinions and sensation. A bit light on facts rather than being biased, and it specific topics in these fields rather than generally informative -- so it may not be appropriate for a specific context, or may not be the WP:BESTSOURCE. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Generally yes for the topics of tech, science, culture, and cars, although I would qualify that as "pop" culture. They have a reasonably good editorial policy and reputation for fact-checking. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Generally yes as per ICPH and K.e.coffman. Established and relatively-reputable tech news source with clear editorial structure, fact-checking policies, no particular reputation for sensationalism or gossip-mongering... though as with many tech blog-type sites, we should be careful with posts that might seem overly promotional or based mostly or solely on press releases. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes – Many technology articles I've come across on that site are regurgitated or corroborated in other reliable sources, such as AnandTech and Forbes. They are generally well written and highly accurate. I can't personally vouch for other topic areas such as culture, but I have no reason to be concerned. Throwing my hat into the 'yes' column doesn't mean I wouldn't suggest to an editor to bring any specific examples to RSN if they question one from Verge: all publishers/sites can have a few bad apples from time to time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Is "The Space Gamer" a peer-reviewed journal?[edit]

In a recent AFD an editor suggested The Space Gamer, an early 80s magazine on fantasy games like Dungeons & Dragons, was a peer-reviewed journal. On the basis of it not having a process of double-blind review, being indexed, or being sponsored by an academic publisher, I don't believe it is. However, out of a preponderance of caution, was wondering if others could offer some input on this question. If there's a consensus that The Space Gamer is a scholarly journal, and I have misinterpreted it, I would like to amend my !vote in the aforementioned AFD. Chetsford (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Topical RS, not scholarly' - my impression is that it was a semi-normal magazine, and would be reasonable RS within it's topic field. But it seems in the category of a general magazine, like Time, or The Atlantic, or Popular Mechanics rather than an academic journal or the journal of a society. I believe they had editorial oversight and did print corrections, so could be a RS if the context is something they covered. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • RS for games, not an academic journal (even if it had a peer review process - one would need to look at the identity of the reviewers). For Wiki notability - a review there would definitely be significant for establishing notability (assuming independence of the product from the magazine - which in most cases was the case).Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
No it is not a peer reviewed journal, but then neither is the Times. But is did have some editorial policy and staff. So it would be RES for gaming.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Which of the sources on this google book result considered reliable?[edit]

[17]. Looking for references for Ultra high-net-worth individual.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

You should start by simply looking at who the publisher is for each book. Looking at the first page of results, there are several books from Wiley, one from Harvard University Press, and one from Springer. All of those would probably be presumed reliable for most purposes absent evidence to the contrary. Others might be reliable, at least for finding significant opinions, depending on who the authors are. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Is an image upload site a reliable source?[edit]

This is being claimed to be a reliable source for adding an entry to List of oldest living people. It is merely an uploaded image from another, unnamed, source. As such there is no way of assessing the reliability of the original source. Given the nature of the image there appears to be no straightforward way of even translating what is shown. Does such a source pass WP:RS?I would say not, as we have no way of verifying if this is real, false, altered or whatever.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

No definitely not a reliable source.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)