Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Binksternet (talk | contribs) at 20:32, 28 September 2015 (→The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial: reliable). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

vault.com

From my talk page:

Hello Staszek Lem, thank you for your edits at the RBSC article. I wasn't aware of that problem, but your edits made me look into it more closely: it seems like vault.com is used c. 200 times on en-Misplaced Pages - most often as vanity "award" for the "best place to work in" in older references or, more recently, for relatively trivial branche-internal opinion polls. Especially articles about consultant companies with significant SPA edits seem to include that kind of reference to boost their reputation. Do you think, a discussion at WP:RSN could help to address this issue (or at least raise some awareness about it)? GermanJoe (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I look at vault.com once again, to figure out whether it is a reliable source for their ranking, and the following their statement raises a red flag for me: "Vault’s influential company rankings, ratings and reviews are sourced and verified through ongoing directed surveys of active employees and enrolled students. Vault also welcomes current and previous employees and students who were unable to participate in the surveys, to submit reviews on their experiences, salaries, interviews and more." There is no transparency it their rankings, just one more "gradeMyTeacher" or "yelp" crowdsourced opinion collection, and I would suggest to remove its rankings from wikipedia as vanity puffery (by a number of anons, such as recent

• 2.32.200.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 151.28.131.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 151.28.164.106 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 5.169.179.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Staszek Lem (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

P.S. GermanJoe wrote there were 200 hits, but today I see already 325.

So I would guess that vault.com is being spammed into wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up here for discussion. Some of the search results are in userspace or other non-article pages (unfortunately external links search does not exclude them), hence my different guess. But aside from that minor detail I agree with your assessment of course (see above): the source information is of questionable reliability and relevance, and it is misused for company puffery. GermanJoe (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Down to 300 (total number of hits), but it looks like every single one of the entries would need a major overhaul to remove promotional COI editing and puffery. Maybe consultancy is especially vulnerable to that kind of self-adulation - that area of articles is a mess. GermanJoe (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I was an employee at a major consulting firm (Booz Allen Hamilton) and Vault was one of the rankings we participated in, alongside a few others. I think we did at my prior, non-consulting employer, too. Based on my experience, the survey methodology was legitimate - in other words, it's not one of those sketchy, Glassdoor-type sites or a random magazine that no one's heard of and exists only to help small companies get Misplaced Pages pages. That's not to say that cruddy consulting articles aren't using this to bolster how badly and PROMO they're written, but I wouldn't reject an otherwise sound article solely for citing Vault as a measure of notability. Alaynestone (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

This is your personal experience and opinion. The fact is that nothing is known about their ranking: the expertise of rankers, the criteria, the coverage, etc. I.e, how it is different from "a random magazine that no one's heard of". Staszek Lem (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

And my suggestion is not to reject articles, only to reject quotes 'from the vault'.~~

That's not quite true - we do know some things. Each survey lists its methodology (I've quoted the section from the Top 50 Consulting firms as a reference). My concern is that this still wouldn't be enough detail for this group to come to a fair consensus on. It's not the level of detail at, say, a journalistic article going through its detailed experiment parameters. That leaves it in the realm of a judgment call for editors. There, I can only give you my insight that I don't think this is one of the bad ones. That could be worth literally nothing to you. If you're in the "unless I can 100% validate it, it shouldn't be used" camp, that's where you'll end up. If you're in the "there are bigger fish to fry and this passes the sniff test" camp, then it may be fine. Or not. Either way, I think we're ultimately in the same place, which is that the survey reflects on pages but isn't the only parameter, which was my major concern.

In order to properly reflect a company's status as an employer within the consulting industry, the Vault Consulting 50 for 2016 is based on the following weighted formula:

30 percent prestige 15 percent satisfaction 15 percent compensation 10 percent firm culture 10 percent work-life balance 10 percent overall business outlook 5 percent promotion policies 5 percent ability to challenge

As ever, our survey is only open to consultants who are currently employed at reputable firms in the industry. When rating quality of life issues, consultants are only permitted to rate their own firm. For prestige and practice area rankings, however, consultants are only allowed to rate competitors, and NOT their own firms. Alaynestone (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The site allegedly performs branche-internal surveys by "verified" employees in the branche itself. By its very nature such a survey could only give a vague first impression of a company's branche-internal reputation from the employees' PoV. It cannot make any reliable statement about 1) the general world-wide reputation of a company, or 2) its business success against other similar companies. Still it is regularly misused by COI-editors for these purposes - such promotional misuses need to be removed. Branche-internal opinion polls are given too much weight in these articles; they are hardly relevant in an encyclopedic article primarily about facts, not opinions. The site also publishes lengthy company profiles with enthusiastic descriptions of all their activities: these profiles are clearly based on the reviewed companies' own information. GermanJoe (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Vault.com states "This year, over 17,000 law associates rated law firms on a scale of 1 to 10 based on prestige. (Associates were not allowed to rate their own firms, and were asked only to rate firms with which they were familiar.)" This appears to be a reliable source representing the aggregate opinions of 17,000 law associates. These rankings have value. JeanLucMargot (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

An article like Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, where you reverted my improvements, violates Misplaced Pages's policies of WP:PROMO, WP:NPOV and WP:COI. The current lead version (and some of the later content) is actually a great example, why such blatant puffery and self-promotional COI-editing from a company's PoV is harming the neutral encyclopedic coverage of companies. I invite other editors to check the article for themselves. GermanJoe (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, the aggregate of 17,000 opinions in not a neutral point of view? Which other metric would qualify as neutral according to you? JeanLucMargot (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Not the source violates WP:NPOV, but how it is (mis)used out of context for non-neutral statements. Just analyze the information more closely: The survey asked "attorneys to score each of the law firms on a scale of 1 to 10 based on how prestigious it is to work for the firm." This source does not support the statement "The firm is one of the most prestigious and selective in the United States and ranks among the most successful firms globally." The only statement it could possibly verify is: "In a branche-internal survey by vault.com in 2015, the firm was ranked 11th in the top 100 most prestigious companies to work for." Any other usage is misrepresenting the source and WP:OR; a source must verify the complete referenced statement without any additional interpretation or analysis. GermanJoe (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Providing additional context for the source is certainly fine, but that is a different action than attempting to censor the source altogether. Note that there is nothing "internal" about the survey because associates were not allowed to rate their own firms. A more accurate statement would be: "In a survey of 17,000 law associates conducted by vault.com in 2015, the firm was ranked 11th on the basis of prestige." Does that sound reasonable? JeanLucMargot (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Your suggestion is an improvement, but the "for work" part is crucial. The survey is not about the company's general prestige, only about one partial aspect. And this needs to be clarified in the article. But a detailed phrasing discussion for a single article would probably be better held on that article's talkpage - we got a bit carried away here. If the source is reliable (that's still open for debate), its results need to be presented as neutral and unambiguous as possible. Also WP:WEIGHT should be checked. Currently the survey result is mentioned in the 2nd lead sentence - is it really the 2nd-most notable information about this company? But as I said, it's probably better to continue article-related fine-tuning on the article talkpage. GermanJoe (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Attempting to censor (or misrepresent) polls conducted by vault.com on the basis of an inability to "prove" that vault.com actually surveyed 17,000 law associates is rooted in denialism. Applying this denialism to other parts of wikipedia would force us to remove any sort of polling result (can you "prove" that Gallup surveyed X people?) or academic ranking (can you "prove" that US News and World Report aggregated the opinions of Y academics?). The vault.com surveys provide interesting data that have value. While some editors may be unhappy with what that evidence shows, it is still evidence. JeanLucMargot (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Accusing me of censoring or misrepresenting vault.com is bold, and easily shown as false. The statement, I fixed in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher is "In a branche-internal survey by vault.com in 2015, the company was ranked 11th in the top 100 most prestigious law firms to work for." This is a clear and neutral description of the poll's methodology and result, based entirely on available facts. Not "interesting data", not "evidence of prestige" - but facts. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a business magazine to propagate the latest branche-internal news. Gallup and Vault.com are not comparable in terms of reliability. Not even close, the companies play in completely different leagues. And, as a last point, removing misused or possibly unreliable sources and content is within our policies (see WP:RS and WP:V). The burden of proof is on the editor, who is adding such disputed content: a source must be reliable and must "directly support the contribution". GermanJoe (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Clarification: When I wrote " nothing is known about their ranking: the expertise of rankers, the criteria, the coverage, etc. " I meant nothing is is known about vault.com from independent sources. They can write whatever they want about themselves. They can claim 17,000 experts busily reviewing companies when for all we know they are hiring an Indian sweatshop to browse the web. You have to present a solid proof that the company is reputable. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

To put it in WP:V/WP:RS wording this seems to be my appreciation: Vault.com self-publishes their research. Unless a third party RS repeats the results of that research for a particular company, Vault.com cannot be used in the article of that company, per WP:SELFPUB.

Or, in WP:UNDUE wording: if the only place where the data can be found is Vault.com (and other non-RS-ses) it is undue weight to mention such things in the article on the company.

When the company mentions it on their own website (with no other sources than that website, Vault.com and non-RS-ses), the company website may be considered as a source that self-published about themselves, but would still not pass WP:SELFPUB, per criterion #1 "unduly self-serving". --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Summary Let me see if I can take the concerns and rebuttals specific to Vault (not the side tangent about the law firm) and summarize. Did I miss anything?

• Vault includes multiple types of content, including rankings and company-submitted profiles. For the purpose of this, I'll focus in on the rankings. I think this group would consider a self-published company profile pretty clearly not NPOV. (Correct me if I'm wrong)
• Vault doesn't publish its ranking methodology. They include methodology summaries in the individual reports (ex: ). This is not at the level of detail of an academic report, but addresses concerns such as whether it accepts anonymous reviews from the internet and the weighting.
• We don't know anything about Vault from independent resources. Vault is cited by other reliable sources. I don't believe any of these talk in detail about the methodology, but I also don't believe that's the standard we hold here. Other reliable sources are vouching for the quality of Vault's surveys by reporting on it, including on a quick search: Bloomberg, CNBC, Forbes (staff writer, not a blog).
• Vault publishes its own survey results, failing WP:SELFPUB. I don't think that's quite the right interpretation of WP:SELFPUB, but I'm open to other opinions. That gets at - for instance, if Vault did a survey and rated itself the top rating agency in the US and put that on its page, THAT'S self-publishing. If a law firm linked to its press release citing the Vault survey results, that's self-publishing. Citing an otherwise reliable source (see previous bullet point) that you didn't write yourself is fine. To put it another way, if I worked on a page about gun crime in the U.S. and the Washington Post wrote a major investigative report on the topic, would I have to cite NYT's coverage of the WaPo story or would I just link to WaPo and be done with it?
• Without other sources citing the data, it fails WP:UNDUE. Again, I'm not sure this is the right interpretation of WP:UNDUE. As I read it, that has to do with how much a particular source is used within the context of an article, not as a criteria for judging whether the source itself is reliable. This would be specific to each page and not relevant to this general discussion.
• Vault is not sufficient to show notability for a company page. The source appears to be notable enough via its 3rd party citations to support notability. I don't know if it alone could do so, but based on a very cursory review of the participants, it seems like most of those groups have other traits that also contribute to overall notability to pair with the Vault ratings. Again, in either case, this is going to be specific to each page and not a blanket judgement.
• Because Vault surveys employees, the rankings are inherently biased and not NPOV. This has two components which should be addressed separately. 1) The Vault rankings on prestige are not voted on by a company's own employees. You rank other firms, not yours. This is a clear pass. 2) If the Vault ranking is on employee satisfaction, the only way you can measure employee satisfaction is by interviewing employees. It becomes NPOV through comparison with other firms - you don't assign yourself #1 or a particular percentile. Alaynestone (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

You could summarize the concerns (at least from my PoV, others may have other priorities) more easily in 3 points:

1. Vault's company profiles and other articles are full of promotional, non-neutral fluff and lack critical, independent information about the companies (and clear authorship in many cases). Those profiles are most likely based on self-published company info. Similar to other unreflected publications from other branche-internal magazines and websites, this information is generally not usable. This point should be uncontroversial.
2. Their rankings of "branche-internal prestige to work for" are misused by COI editors to represent "general worldwide prestige". These are not a few sporadic accidental errors, but a systematic misrepresentation in dozens of consultancy-related articles on Misplaced Pages. Note, that Bloomberg, CNBC and Forbes take a different approach - they clearly explain the background and limitations of those surveys in their articles, and do not try to exaggerate their importance out of context.
3. Even being positive (ignoring the questions about Vault's reliability) and assuming such workplace prestige-rankings have some limited value, they are still the result of trivial opinion polls. Encyclopedic articles should focus on encyclopedic facts, not on the results of some subjective "prestige" votes from 1 to 10. Adding such trivial factoids in an article, let alone in an article's lead section, is undue WP:WEIGHT to begin with, unless the article is focussed on workplace quality, employee surveys or similar aspects. Lead and "Awards" section should focus on significant major accomplishments, being ranked in an opinion poll simply does not qualify. GermanJoe (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

#3 appears to be the sticking point, and I'm not sure how to get around that except through inviting others to comment. I agree absolutely that pages need to present these findings correctly (case in point: the law firm article in the side-tangent clearly did not). I disagree that this is a trivial opinion poll that does not demonstrate company notability, again pointing to the citations in other international, notable sources who wouldn't cover the poll otherwise. Alaynestone (talk) 03:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Retraction Watch

Is retractionwatch.com a "reliable source" for claims about living persons? Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ariel_Fernandez has editors discussing the issues raised about that blog, and clearly the issue is implicit as to whether it is a reliable source for the purposes to which it is proposed being used or accepted. Collect (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It strikes me as similar to Beall's List. Only here the issues are more straightforward (i.e., whether an article is in question or indeed has been retracted). There's no reason to doubt what the source is saying in this situation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that the claim is contentious if one believes RW's assertion that a lawsuit was threatened? And last I looked, blogs in general are not allowed as a rule as a "reliable source" unless under the aegis of a reliable source. Did you note that? Collect (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no blanket prohibition on blogs, but on self-published sources. Retraction Watch is published and overseen by The Center For Scientific Integrity, whose board is populated by experts in various fields. Gamaliel (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, there's no reason to doubt that what Retraction Watch reports is true -- particularly given what we see in the primary sources that RW is itself using. Gamaliel's point is also entirely cogent. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

There are really two questions here, aren't there? Whether the paper was retracted or not strikes me as uncontentious (it's a straightforward fact that is easily verified.) Assuming Retraction Watch does have some form of professional oversight, it would be a decent source for that. But the second and more important issue is whether the retraction matters -- whether it's worth covering or whether this is giving it WP:UNDUE weight. My feeling is that Retraction Watch is not useful as a source for establishing that, because as I understand it publishes retractions indiscriminately. --Aquillion (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• absolutely reliable for content about retractions and surrounding drama. This is not like Beaall's list where there is judgement about whether a journal or article is "predatory" - Retraction Watch reports about retractions, which are actions that others take. See descriptions of RW and its editor in:

NY Times and again in NY Times

Nature and Nature Medicine (editorial) ](many more)

Science

I could go on and on, but really this is ~the~ authority on retractions of scientific papers. This is exactly the kind of thing that WP:SPS has explicit exceptions for. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes for specific retractions, generally for the reasons behind retractions, case-by-case for commentary on the general landscape of science and retractions. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, RetractionWatch is, in general, useable for material about living people. WP:BLP states that blogs may be acceptable if written by professionals and subject to good editorial control. In this case, the editors of RetractionWatch are both reputable professionals with extensive experience in scientific publishing, and the site is subject to their full editorial control. Moreover, RetractionWatch has a pretty decent track record in terms of accuracy and is, if anything, quite conservative in avoiding unfounded claims. (In the interest of full disclosure, I once met Ivan Oransky, one of the editors of the site, very briefly when he came to my institution to give a lecture. That's another point; the site is well-regarded enough that its editors are often invited to major academic institutions to lecture on the subject of retractions). MastCell  00:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Not reliable. This appears to be a self-published blog. There is no evidence that these sources received any editorial review. Now, I agree that these authors, Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus, are established scientific journalists. Does that make them subject matter experts exempt from WP:SPS? No, no more than other journalists blogging about subjects they have reported on during their day jobs. They are simply journalists doing a little unreviewed, independent research in their spare time. These people might be experts on scientific journalism or retractions generally (especially Oransky). But they are not experts on the subject matter at issue, which is whether 4 specific journals have "questioned" a specific scientist's papers. That kind of factual conclusion can only be considered verifiable if it is (a) the result of journalism that has been subjected to editorial review by reputable news outlets, or (b) carefully supported by primary sources. In this case the latter is easy to do, as Retraction Watch helpfully points us to all of the relevant primary sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

In your opinion. But lots of independent sources consider it reliable, so we do as well, at least for the statements of sourced fact (e.g. retraction of a specific paper). For commentary, we take it on a case by case basis. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Guy, examples with links please? I found sources using Oransky for general commentary on retractions, but not Retraction Watch as a fact source for what happened in specific instances. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait a minute. RetractionWatch is not a self-published blog. It is published by the Center for Scientific Integrity, a reputable organization with a board of directors full of reputable scientists and funded by a MacArthur grant. Editorial oversight is exercised by Oransky and Marcus, who are both experienced professional scientific editors. In fact, they are arguably the leading experts in the US when it comes to scientific retractions, and are often quoted as such by major media when a retraction hits the news. MastCell  21:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

First, the Center for Scientific Integrity appears to be nothing more than the organization that runs RW. It has no independent website and appears to be no more or less reputable than RW. There is no evidence that the RW posts at issue here were reviewed by anyone other than their authors prior to publication. Second, as I already wrote Oransky may well be an expert on scientific retractions, in fact I believe his is, but that doesn't make him an expert on the purely factual question at issue here, which is how 4 specific journals handled 4 specific articles. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait... you agree that Oransky is an expert on scientific retractions, but then argue that he's not an expert on a set of 4 papers which are being questioned and considered for retraction? MastCell  16:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm saying. I believe the content in dispute is: "Four of Fernandez's scientific papers have been questioned by journals that accepted them: BMC Genomics, Nature Publishing Group, Annual Reviews, and PLOS Genetics." So the question is whether these journals "questioned" Fernandez's papers. That's a purely factual inquiry that requires fact-checking, not subject matter expertise. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

And I just fact-checked it: here's the Expression of Concern from the editors of Nature. Here is the notice from Annual Reviews stating that they're holding off on publishing Fernandez's paper due to an unresolved concern about the underlying data. Here is the Expression of Concern from BMC Genomics. And so on. Incidentally, all of these are linked directly from RetractionWatch, so that anyone can confirm the accuracy of what they're reporting. It seems pretty silly to reject the source for a lack of "fact-checking" when they're not only completely correct about the facts, but also linked the relevant items directly so that anyone could confirm them. MastCell  16:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Aquillion is right on: This is a reliable source but by itself likely insufficient to establish notability or meet the burden of due weight. ElKevbo (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

For anyone still involved in this discussion, there's a nice article just published in The Chronicle of Higher Education that focuses on Retraction Watch: Meet Retraction Watch, the Blog That Points Out the Human Stains on the Scientific Record. The article discusses not only the blog authors' credentials (e.g., "veteran science writers") but also the blog's influence and reputation (e.g., "Armed now with a bona fide reputation and $700,000 in foundation funding, Retraction Watch finds itself in a position of unexpected influence at a time when scientific researchers are struggling to maintain their credibility in the public eye."). ElKevbo (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

answering-islam.org

The site http://answering-islam.org/ is used on 226 Misplaced Pages pages, 35 of them articles.

It appears to be a Christian site that gives a "answer" to Islam, with anonymous authors. I don't see any way it could be considered a reliable source.

Given how many christian apologists use this site as an authority, I predict a storm of criticism, edit warring, etc. if I make any attempt to remove those citations. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Obviously falls under WP:SPS, and nothing about it indicates that it would fall into any of the exceptions that make a SPS usable, so yeah, I'd say it should probably be pulled out of all of them. Reliability is contextual and all, but I seriously doubt that any of the places where it's being cited are ones where it would be appropriate.

UPDATE: After looking over it, actually, a lot of cites are to older things that are reproduced there (old documents which might be usable as primary or secondary sources -- old enough to be outside of copyright.) So it's worth being cautious and not just nuking from orbit. In some cases we can change the cite to the actual document. (I'm unclear if we can use a personal site like that as a convenience link for such a thing -- it would probably be best to replace it with someplace else when possible, and the widespread use of this site here makes me worry that someone is trying to promote it.) But something like this, which seems to be cited a few times, seems like a reasonable book to cite at first glance, with the caveat that we have to be cautious about citing it for anything controversial due to its age. The articles originally posted on that site, on the other hand, are clearly not usable as sources (except maybe in cases where the author is extremely noteworthy in the field, and then only to cite their opinion.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd be very reluctant on citing 19th century book on Islam as a secondary source. It might be a primary source in a historiographic article, but it's definitely out of date (note that the first edition was published in 1891). And we have plenty of good modern sources on this topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Because the site promotes Christianity over Islam, I worry about the possibility that even the old documents might be subtly edited, as recently happened with one of Darwin's books distributed by some creationists. Whenever possible I would keep the ref and change the URL to point to a reliable site, preferably academic. If I can't find the work anywhere else, should it be retained on the assumption that the anonymous authors of answering-islam.org didn't mess with it? We have rejected a lot of youtube videos because they we don't really know whether they might be edited. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

That has to be decided on a case-by-case basis, I think. If the claim seems uncontentious, it's probably not worth worrying about (although you could also try and find another source for it -- most of these seem to be old enough to be in the public domain, which introduces its own problems in terms of how dated the scholarship would be.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. This looks like one of those slow, careful jobs where you need to look at the context. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Dash (cryptocurrency)

On the Dash_(cryptocurrency) page, anonymous users from forums and blogs like bitcointalk.org, devtome.com, and dashdot.io are used as sources for information in the last part of the History section. This appears to violate the rules against using self-published sources (WP:RS). The language of the edits also use poor grammar, spelling, and weasel words. I've tried adding templates indicating such and attempted to direct the discussion to the Talk page but the editor (IP address 75.93.11.94) removes my edits and/or replaces them with another questionable source.

Any advice on how to move forward from here without edit warring? Thanks. Raze182 (talk) 05:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The first two sites bitcointalk.org (forum) and devtome.com (wiki) are not reliable. They fall under WP:USERGENERATED sites. The last one says "Hello World and the site probably crashed making it a dead link. As how not to edit war, look for a replacement, if a reliable one can be found replace it. if not start with a simple talk page section outlining the problems linking back to this section and the problem with the source. if a claim needs to be removed link back to the talk page section in the edit comments. If an editor wants to replace unreliable sources after that, use dispute resolution or a noticeboard like AN/I as a last resort. None of that is fast, but better than multiple reverts. AlbinoFerret 15:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah those sources are definitely not reliable, as they violate WP: RS self-published sources, like you said. I think that AlbinoFerret's advice was good. Try to find other sources that would count as reliable and propose using those, and perhaps the editor won't delete them. Good luck and hope this helps. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice AlbinoFerret and Comatmebro. Sounds like a plan. Thanks again. Raze182 (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Woman's Era magazine (Indian publication)

Hey all, I've noticed a flare-up of activity with users (for instance this one and this one) submitting WomansEra.com as a reference. I know that Arjayay has been encountering this a ton and reverting. Is anyone aware of this publication? Based on this poorly sourced draft article it's claimed that the mag has been around since 1973. A quick Google image search seems to support that they've produced a number of printed covers. The website doesn't strike me as very professional-looking, and this review is poorly written with consistently incorrect capitalization, misspelling of "title", etc. This seems like it would run afoul of the WP:RS requirement that our sources should have a clear editorial policy, but maybe it's just a crappy translation? I want to be sure we're being fair and not just automatically dismissive. Your thoughts are solicited. If this magazine isn't considered reliable and if the content keeps getting submitted, we might consider requesting that it be added to the spam blacklist to prevent future disruption. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Two points:

• Historically (ie going back a few decades), Women's Era (along with Eve's Weekly and Femina (India)), was a prominent and widely circulated women's magazine in India. V. S. Naipaul has a whole chapter in India: A Million Mutinies Now titled Women's Era analyzing the magazine, it and it's competitors target audience(s), and what that says about Indian society. Note too that the magazine publisher, Delhi Press, is well-established at least as far as traditional magazine publishing in India goes. The publication is definitely notable enough to have a wikipedia article.
• That said, today the magazine no longer has as prominent a place in the marketplace or literary circles. So, even though it is nominally a reliable source for generic entertainment information, quoting its film reviews etc is likely undue in most cases. Right now I don't see that as a a big problem in mainspace, possibly because Arjayay and you have have cleaned up the additions, but if there seems to be an organized effort to spam links to the website, it would be best to try to deal it by spam warnings and blocks to individual editors, before trying any drastic measures.

Abecedare (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

My particular problem has been COI promotion. User:Megha Jetley opened an account with User:Megha Jetley/sandbox stating that she worked for Women's Era. then, in this edit she added a Women's Era review on an already contentious page. I reverted this as a COI edit, it was re-added so I issued a COI warning.
This led to a brand new account User:Neha jetley being created and immediately adding the same information, and other Woman's Era reviews to 2 other films - I re-deleted and warned this account "you can't just hide behind a minor change in your user-name".
A third account User:Ravi dheeraj was then created and added the same review. Two reviews were then re-added and a draft article started in User:Ravi dheeraj/sandbox
A fourth account User:Sima Joshi was then created and used the content of User:Ravi dheeraj/sandbox to form the article Woman's Era.
Other users noted that this was not suitable for article space so I moved it to Draft:Woman's Era where User:Dodger67 deemed it an advertisement. It was resubmitted for review without any attempt to address this problem and User:Yann declined it for not meeting notability requirements.
Meanwhile Megha Jetley, Ravi dheeraj and Sima Joshi have all tried to add Woman's Era reviews to articles. - Arjayay (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Even if the it meets the notability criteria, as mentioned by Abecedare above, the current draft is basically unsourced. My 2 Rs. Yann (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional background information, @Arjayay and Yann:. I agree that the draft is unsuitable for wikipedia as written, and that the accounts appear to be sock/meat-puppets intent on promoting the magazine. If they continue, blocks may be warranted; hopefully we can handle the recent spamming without a blanket ban on all links to the magazine website, which may have legitimate use in particular and rare instances. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

A 15-sources backed statement being opposed with what seems just wikilawyering

I would really appreciate help to see if I am right at the discussion Talk:Serbs_of_Croatia#Serbs_as_.22constitutive.22_nation_in_Socialist_Republic_of_Croatia. The issue is about a constitutional change that happened in 1990 in Croatia which is controversial and uncomfortable for Croatians nowadays. The situation at the discussion is the following: me alone having provided 15 sources to back up a statement versus a group of Croatian editors challenging it however lacking sources (well, one editor claims there is one, in Croatian, but we cannot verify it). A RfC was made but no neutral participants jumped in. After about 3 weeks of discussion with some editors who challenged the statement admitted they could do nothing, I was bold and I added the 15-sources backed statement, with no sources contradicting it, to the article (my edit). In the edit I choosed some among the 15 sources I presented at the talk-page. Neverless, I was reverted (diff). At that point the main objection at the discussion was that I failed to provide sources that would explain what the "constituent nation" exactly means, and without the exact explanation, the 15-sources backed statement couldn't go to the article... OK, I said, some of my 15 sources deal with the issue more in detail, it is not a problem for me to add it, and I did it (). For time being I was not reverted yet, however, as it can be seen at the discussion (at recent comments by Direktor), one editor is challenging an author of one of my sources, Snežana Trifunovska. Her book I am using is: Yugoslavia Through Documents: From Its Creation to Its Dissolution. Is the challenging of her book as source correct? FkpCascais (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I added too much story and introduction for this noticeboard. Basically all I am asking is just an input regarding Snežana Trifunovska book Yugoslavia Through Documents: From Its Creation to Its Dissolution, valid source for the subject she is writing about, or not. Clearly valid in my view, but an editor is opposing her use, so I would really be glad if someone could provide a neutral opinion. FkpCascais (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I see no overt reason to doubt that source, but reliability is in a context. I couldn't say for sure without knowing more about what makes this passage of the constitution contentious. Rhoark (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Rhoark for your attention, the case for now seems to be settled, the editors did not further oppose the use of the source. FkpCascais (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Jordi Folch Pi

I was wondering if this kind of biographical memoir is considered to be a primary source for Jordi Folch Pi. It was apparently written by two of Folch's students who are now well-established scientists themselves, but the disclaimer on the first page of the source states "Any opinions expressed in this memoir are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy of Sciences." I tagged it as a primary source, but will gladly correct that if it's not since it's being extensively cited throughout the article. FWIW, the authors do cite quite a few sources themselves which may be considered independent enough to support what written in the memoir. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Just trying to decide whether something is or isn't primary is just abstract. Is there a question of whether it is 'too primary' to be reliable for a particular claim? Rhoark (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Rhoark and sorry for not being more specific. I am wondering if the source can be used to support statements about Folch's early life and early career. Most of the sources cited in the memoir appear to be related to academic papers, etc. for Folch's accomplishments after he was well established as a researcher. I'm just not sure where the writers of the memoir got their information about Folsh's personal history, etc., such as the stuff in "The Early Years", and whether they should be considered a reliable source for such things. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Notability for The Rhythm and Blues Brothers

Hi,

I'd like to list my band "The Rhythm and Blues Brothers" http://www.therhythmandbluesbrothers.co.uk/ on wikipedia, however I understand that you have a Notability policy in place for such topics.

I just wanted to know, whether we qualify as we have been featured on the James Whale Radio show - for BBC Essex in the UK recently, please let me know if this can be accommodated for.

Regards.

Taylan Oliver. (Band Manager) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylanoliver24 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC+9)

The notability criteria are at WP:BAND. These offer 12 possibilities to assess notability. Would you think you could pass any of these? If so, which one(s)? As for radio bandwith, the criterion #11 says "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network", so once at an Essex radio show would usually not do. Criterion #10 has "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., performance in a television show ..." Just saw it, so would be OK, sorry missed it first. Correct again: not enough, radio show isn't television show. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Sputnik

Hello, The article that the source is supporting is the band genre Hogan's Heroes at Metalcore. Thank You for your time. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hogan's Heroes - Metalcore

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatMarshmallow (talk • contribs) 10:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC+9)

Unreliable. Site is WP:USERGENERATED. Woodroar (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable - There is obviously a tag on the side of your link that suggests that anyone with an account can edit that source. As such, it is not a reliable source, it fails WP:USERG. Sergecross73 msg me 03:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Sputnikmusic is only reliable when citing a staff review. The rest of the site is user-generated. You can see more at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Albums/Sources. There don't seem to be any staff reviews for albums by this band, so it's unreliable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

americanmusical.com

THE HEAVY METAL PERIODIC TABLE: A Brief History of Metal

The article that the source is supporting is all bands, genre. A combination of Hardcore Punk and Thrash Metal, Metalcore is among the most popular of the subgenres. Double-bass driven, tuned-down riffs punctuated by half-time breakdowns provide the foundation for the shouted vocals. Century Media and Medal Blade records saw huge success for the genre with several albums cracking the top ten of the Billboard Top 200. Quite an accomplishment. Examples: Hatebreed, Bury Your Dead, Killswitch Engage, While She Sleeps, Asking Alexandria, Bleeding Through, Integrity, Unearth, Hogan's Heroes, As I Lay Dying, God Forbid, Shadows Fall.

Metalcore. Examples: Hatebreed, Bury Your Dead, Killswitch Engage, While She Sleeps, Asking Alexandria, Bleeding Through, Integrity, Unearth, Hogan's Heroes, As I Lay Dying, God Forbid, Shadows Fall.

Metalcore— Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatMarshmallow (talk • contribs) 11:18, 25 September 2015(UTC+9)

Unreliable. This is a "Heavy Metal Buyer's Guide" SEO piece written by a non-professional on a music gear website. Woodroar (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

xzona.su

The article the source is supporting that Earth Crisis, Integrity, Hogan's Heroes are the first three Metalcore bands. bottom of page, below reviews is original article about Metalcore.

Первые металкор группы, такие как Earth Crisis, Integrity, Hogan's Heroes, музыкально ближе к хардкор-панку, а более поздние, например Trivium, Atreyu, Bleeding Through и Unearth, больше склоняются в сторону метала.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatMarshmallow (talk • contribs) 11:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC+9)

Unreliable. It's a file-sharing website. Woodroar (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It has reviews and administrators. Does it not?CombatMarshmallow (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The reviews are user generated, not written by known music journalists. Likewise, the admins are not an editorial board renowned for their oversight. The site itself doesn't have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". We're looking for music publications, not file-sharing websites. Woodroar (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The site does Reviews. The administrators do reviews. the file sharing is a completely different function.73.193.195.69 (talk) 04:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

They're not professional music journalists and professional editors. The site isn't a professional music journal or magazine. Sources must have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", not simply exist. Woodroar (talk) 04:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Unreliable - file-sharing websites are not a professional authority on music. WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES has a good list of usable and unusable sources. I recommend studying up on that list some to see the type of sources that are typically deemed reliable. Judging by your last few proposals, it does not seem that you quite understand WP:RS or WP:USERG. Sergecross73 msg me 10:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• Unreliable - due to file-sharing and user-generated material. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Metal Music Archives.

The article the source is supporting that Hogan's Heroes just like most bands who have Hardcore punk mixed with Heavy Metal, have been labeled these genres Metallic Hardcore, Hardcore Punk, Metalcore, Crossover Thrash and Skate Punk. That the band is seminal in the development of Metallic Hardcore, Metalcore, Skate punk, and Crossover thrash.

Hogan's Heroes formed in 1984. The band was seminal in the development of metallic hardcore, skatepunk, metalcore and crossover thrash

http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/artist/hogans-heroes — Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatMarshmallow (talk • contribs) 11:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC+9)

Right off the bat, your link says that the website says its "from the creators of ProgArchives". ProgArchives is deemed unreliable at WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES, I believe due to WP:USERG issues. So, I'm inclined to believe this would be the same, and it's unreliable. Sergecross73 msg me 02:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable. WP:USERGENERATED. Woodroar (talk) 03:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this a real comment. I can't eat apples because pears are deemed unreliable. wow. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Its not Prog Archives. Prog Archives being unreliable doesn't make Metal Music Archives unreliable. I feel sergecross should let others handle it as he threatened to block me recently "without a warning". I mean where is sergecross on the whole current page. People use the site on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?search=metal+music+archives&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go it has an about us and written by an administrator. Only that quote is the rest of it is a mirror of wikipedia article.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The site is user generated. (Their about us page even details how to join and contribute.) This specific piece was written by "Bosh66", not a named music journalist. As far as other articles using this source, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We should probably remove the references from those articles. Woodroar (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

"How does the artists and albums metal subgenres classification works ?

Initial importation of all the artists and albums associated a subgenre to all the albums the album based on our best evaluation of the artists discography main subgenre. We understand that albums from an artist may differ in genre from one to another -- so we allow metal subgenre(unique) selection at the album level.Not Done by "reviewers".

How do I contribute or become a special collaborator ? Every member can contribute his own way, just login and look for special action link in the left menu of each page , called MEMBER ZONE. Here's the list of all the possiblities that the site offers (as March 27, 2010): Posting reviews or rating only of albums Commenting reviews publicly or privately with the reviewer Posting shouts on artists page and video pages Search and add video related to artists. Members can vote : like or dislike videos or post shouts/comments about this video Complete discography for missing audio releases or movie releases, by using the add album action link Add artists to your "favorite lists" Participating in forum discussions and creating new topics. Not anything to do with the Original Opening statement which was written by an Administrator there with a web handle. Another editor said it was a "mirror" it has never been on wikipedia or anywhere else. Ever. You said "Bosh" doesn't have a name did you bother to click his handle as it says "BOSH66 Chris Dawson Forum Admin Group · Admin - H&C, Sludge, Metalcore, AG Registered 952 days ago · Last visit 12 seconds ago Send Private Message | Add to Buddy List" He wrote the original opening and is Administrator there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:302:d3a0:40a1:3456:56f4:29f9 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC+9)

Who is he? Where else has he written? This is the type of information you need to bring here to demonstrate that the source is reliable. Woodroar (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Metal Music Archives is a reliable source. Who is he, someone you said had no name. He is an administrator there. "Who is he? Where else has he written? This is the type of information you need to bring here to demonstrate that the source is reliable" Look how long and friendly the tonality is above on 99% of every reply. Also, helpful. and I have to have binksternet and sergecross follow my edits and page around. Do you know how big this webspace is. I like people who show helpfulness and are positive people. I don't want this to be a negative experience here at wikipedia. I have a brain and I am going to share it. Wow. I feel like throwing the computer through the wall. Out of all places I thought I could at least deal with some nice unbiased people here. Then I have to of course see a "familiar" name and not in a good helpful familiar. Someone who seems to assume Im some sort of "bad guy". I know my stuff and am very well versed if that aggravates some people, its not my fault debating or working together on something means the best ideas must rise to the surface. It doesn't mean I should be followed around the web. It says at wikipedia people aren't supposed to make good editors not want to contribute anymore due to basically harassment. "You'll get a block with no warning". This should be a no "politics" kind of environment but thats exactly what it is sometimes, "you aggravated my friend because you're smart and now Im going to aggravate you back". Thats not a Professional environment. Just seeing that name is aggravating. Good Administrators and Editors are Helpful and TEACH. They don't THREATEN and Assume. Its just not good. Sorry. Thats what I know. I haven't seen any good experiences with sergecross. Nothing personal, also Im not a "kid" I grew out of that stuff decades ago. In in real life am an old soul, mature, light, helpful, knowledgeable. Wow. Same thing with binksternet, hands out more warnings to me in one week then Ive had in about 7 or 8 years. Doesn't work together. If he gets out debated about a topic tries to "get you back". Really. Lets not forget, Professional Before Feelings. Some have it, some don't. I have that ability. I don't hold "grudges" I'm not a kid. I ran a 5million dollar DVP account and had accounts at 7 of the Biggest Brokerage firms in the world. I know what professional is and the environment of. This emailing and getting people to basically harass when it happens doesn't reflect on me it reflects on the Administrators and Editors who engage, in it. When an editor comes across an Administrator who is nice , helpful and doesn't seem to let web-friendship with other editors or administrators affect the way a person is treated that administrator is treated like gold because they are one of the Good ONES. Anyhow its no mirror. Ill just add it like every one else who used the source, they weren't victim to "politics" if it gets removed It can go to content dispute. have a nice night. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Responded on user's Talk page as this is getting off topic. Woodroar (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the "threat" this user speaks of, was in regards to him starting to edit war with another editor, where I told him he wouldn't get any more warnings because he's already been blocked for that at least once in the past. Its standard practice to not get further warnings when ones already been blocked for it in the past, not to mention, its not like that could possibly cloud someone's judgement on such an obvious WP:USERG problem this source presents. (Also, this in reference to an IP this editor uses, which is why its not reflected in his block log.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial

There is a "special repoert" from Mother Jones[http://www.motherjones.com/special-reports/2009/12/dirty-dozen-climate-change-denial ] titled "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial" that is being used as a source on multiple pages. It looks to me like an editorial opinion with no particular reason to give it any more weight than the hundreds of similar editorials on both sides of this politically charged issue. Is this a reliable source? --CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

For what? It's certainly a reliable source for the opinion of its author, but most likely not for statements of fact. It's been cited/quoted by mainstream RS like this article in The Atlantic, which suggests that it carries some weight. I don't see a problem using it as long as it's attributed and makes sense to use in the context of the specific article. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Note there's already been quite a lot of discussion about this, here, for example, and probably on the talk pages of some of the articles this source has been used in as well. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It is reliable without question, and no reason to question it as an editorial op piece and should only be used to stress the opinion of the author or quoted individuals. Koncorde (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The list is clearly a matter of opinion rather than one of objective fact, and should only be used where properly ascribed as opinion. It should also be noted that linking multiple persons together in any way because of inclusion on a list which is opinion might promote "guilt by association" which we must be careful not to do. (e.g. "George Gnarph and Adolf Hitler are both on Nils Garf's list of 'most hated persons'." would be an example of clear "guilt by association" synthesis, even if both of them are on Garf's list. Collect (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It's opinion, obviously. But it's noteworthy opinion, having been cited in high-end reliable sources such as The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Thus it can be useful if properly attributed. Whether it's appropriate for any particular article is an editorial question beyond the scope of this board. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

In the articles where it is used, it is referenced in text and its opinions are reported as opinions. Certainly it meets rs for that, and whether or not to use it is an issue for NPOVN, not here. Also, it is a news article, rather than opinion piece, so the facts are reliable. So for example if we mention the facts that the author uses to support his opinons, we can accept they are accurate. So we would say for example, the author said "Exxon, which is an oil company" rather than "Exxon, which the author says is an oil company." TFD (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The above comments answered my question - it is a RS or some purposes (where properly ascribed as opinion) - and so this can be closed. Thank you for clearing this up for me. There is still an open question about whether it is NPOV that is being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial --CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source. The issue of climate change denial is complicated by those who wish to obscure their denial stance, so we rely on WP:SECONDARY sources such as Mother Jones to determine who is a climate denialist. The author analyzed various factors that he or she judged important, and came up with the list. This is perfectly useful for Misplaced Pages. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

inweekly.net

inweekly.net—Pensacola Independent News. Appears to be a Pensacola weekly newspaper with claimed "print and online" circulation of 20,000 . Sources used at Memorial Day Pensacola Beach Pride: "Queer and Here: The Long History of Gay Tourists on Pensacola Beach" and "Gay Money: The Uncertain Economics of Memorial Day Weekend on the Beach". Is it a RS? — Brianhe (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You need to explain what edits these sources are supposed to support. Bear in mind that signed articles in rs typically include both factual information and opinions and we should never present opinions expressed as facts. But considering the topic, this appears to be a good source in general. TFD (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

United States

Can the following source be used in United States to say that taxes in the U.S. are more progressive than in developed nations.

• Eduardo Porter, "Combating Inequality May Require Broader Tax", New York Times, Nov. 27, 2012: "Many Americans may find this hard to believe, but the United States already has one of the most progressive tax systems in the developed world, according to several studies, raising proportionately more revenue from the wealthy than other advanced countries do."

The column was republished in an "In the News" box in a reputable textbook, Principles of Economics, p. 428 (Cengage, 2014).

To me, this is not a reliable source, because it comes under "News organizations": "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The author although a respected economics journalist, is not an economist, and the column's appearance as an "In the News" item in a textbook does not necessarily mean that the authors of the book endorse its views. I note too that Porter does not unequivocally state that taxes are more progressive, just that several studies have concluded that.

I do not know whether U.S. taxes are more progressive. But I think better sources are needed in order to say they are.

TFD (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Not reliable the "several studies" referred either ignore regressive sales and payroll taxes while considering income tax alone, or are based on an OECD analysis which is very frequently misrepresented. EllenCT (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• On a significant and widely studied issue such as this, surely we have more and better sources than to draw from than a newspaper, even a first-rate newspaper like the NYT? Gamaliel (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The graph at the top of page 2 in this CTJ report shows the sum total incidence of all US taxes, weighted on a per capita basis from the ITEP analysis of all 50 states. As it says on page 1, "the nation’s tax system is barely progressive." Should an article about a country compare its tax incidence to that of other countries, or its historical incidence? EllenCT (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Beware of moving the goalposts. The question here is whether the New York Times is reliable for comparing the progressiveness of different countries' taxes. The question of whether Misplaced Pages should report such comparisons is a separate question for the article talk page or NPOV noticeboard. Rhoark (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

In the context of the United States article, should a study of federal income tax only, but not including e.g. the very regressive federal payroll and state and local sales taxes be used to support the statement that, "the United States already has one of the most progressive tax systems in the developed world"? EllenCT (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

In the context of RSN, should one ask leading rhetorical questions? Rhoark (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• It's a reliable source, as it's a NY Times economics writer covering economics, and in context its "several studies" comment can be taken as a summary of the field's conclusion. However, in this case I agree that more than one source should be used to support such a claim. Fortunately in this case there are many sources being used. The most pertinent one may be this 2012 OECD secondary source summarizing the field's conclusion (p 27): "Various studies have compared the progressivity of tax systems of European countries with that of the United States (see for instance Prasad and Deng, 2009; Piketty and Saez, 2007; Joumard, 2001). Though they use different definitions, methods and databases, they reach the same conclusion: the US tax system is more progressive than those of the continental European countries."

That should settle this matter in the minds of any honest observers, especially since no disputing sources have been produced. PS - I assume the op meant to say other developed nations, unless he also intends to challenge the categorization of the US as a developed nation. VictorD7 (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The OECD characterization is not accurate and other sources based on it are not reliable, for the reasons explained at . EllenCT (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that EllenCT has presented partisan, think-tank sources, neither of which have applied their models to other countries for comparison purposes. It's apple and oranges - they are focusing on the US only and not a global comparison.

Before accepting her analysis, perhaps the RSN should evaluate whether or not these qualify as reliable sources themselves? By comparison, the NY Times is pretty mainstream and subject to editorial oversight. Per WP:RS, it qualifies. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy and Citizens for Tax Justice? Not so much.

However, if we were to accept those as sources in this regard, so must we accept the Tax Foundation which also agrees US taxes are the most progressive at it indeed looks at comparative nations. But I suspect EllenCT would object to that source, well, because she disagrees with it personally since her mentioned sources make no comment on the actual topic.Mattnad (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The 2012 OECD report I linked to is accurate and the leftist think tank EllenCT linked to in response isn't even talking about the same report, but 2008 one that was also accurate but focused on income taxes. The 2012 report cites research examining overall taxation. VictorD7 (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

And that doesn't even include the 2013 tax changes mentioned in this NY Times article: Tax Code May Be the Most Progressive Since 1979. Evidence piles on (it's easy since it's right out there).Mattnad (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Venezuelananalysis

In the article Human rights in Venezuela I gave as reference for the text of an open letter by experts to the Board of Directors of Human Rights Watch. Another editor maintains the source is not reliable and, therefore, I can't use it. I have no information on any political slant of the source, but I think this is immaterial since the text is genuine. I would like to have more opinions. Againstdisinformation (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

References

1. http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/4051

It is reliable, there is little doubt that the letter was sent, its contents are reported accurately and the signatories signed it. What might be an issue is weight - you need to show that the letter has been widely reported. TFD (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

TFD, thank you for your help. Againstdisinformation (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Another commentator on talk disagrees. First, what is "venezuelaanalysis.com"? Second, this does seem undue. Volunteer Marek  02:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

And you're suppose to alert others involved in the discussion, like myself and User:Oscar. Volunteer Marek  03:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The letter was originally published by the North American Congress on Latin America and most of the signatories would qualify as experts in the field. The reliability of venezuelaanalysis.com is only pertinent if there's serious doubt they have correctly transcribed the letter. Here is the HRW's response to the letter. The original "Decade Under Chavez" report, the open letter, and the response form a chain of successive qualifying viewpoints. Per WP:CHERRYPICKING if one of these sources is cited there is a duty to cite the successive responses. Rhoark (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution