Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:20, 30 September 2017

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.

Sources on Estonian police battalion

Sources:

• Collaboration with the Nazis: Public Discourse after the Holocaust, edited by Roni Stauber; chapter by Yitzhak Arad

• "The report deals with the role Estonian auxiliarry forces in crimes committed outside of Estonia. ... On 7 August 1942, Estonian police battalion No 36 took part in the round-up and execution of all remaining Jews..." (somewhat loose paraphrasing, exact quote in the link)

• The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933-1945; edited by Geoffrey P. Megargee:

• "On August 7 1942, the Germans and their collaborators (including Estonian Police Battalion 36 ...) took away the remaining inmates (...) and shot them there": link.

• In contrast, Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity states: "There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews". ("Estonian defence battalions / police battalions". In Toomas Hiio; Meelis Maripuu; Indrek Paavle. Estonia 1940–1945: Reports of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity. Tallinn. pp. 825–876)

Article: 36th Estonian Police Battalion

Content: "In August 1942, the battalion participated in the murder of Jews in Novogrudok, Belarus."

The relevant Talk page discussion can be found here: Talk:36th_Estonian_Police_Battalion#Novogrudok. Courtesy ping to Nug & Jaan. I would appreciate additional input on this matter. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It's very interesting that the West German investigation in the early '60s could not prove participation in the killing as I wouldn't think that they'd have any reason to whitewash the Communist gov't of the time. I think that what we have here is reliable sources on both sides, so I'd suggest laying out the evidence like so: "The battalion has been accused of participating in the killings of Jews at X, on Y, (sources) but a West German investigation in the early 1960s could not conclusively link its members to the action(source)" and let the reader decide. RSN isn't meant to decide which evidence is the "best", and that's all I'm afraid that we could accomplish here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if there might be some clarification in the text of the second source, or possibly in any sources these themselves cite. I say this because the sources don't necessarily contradict. The first states the role the police played in the killings cannot be determined, whereas the second states that there is no evidence they participated in the executions. If the two sources are taking very different interpretations of "involvement", they might actually agree. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The talk page discussion mentions WP:WPNOTRS, and claims that we shouldn't use tertiary sources. However, WP:WPNOTRS doesn't really say that - it says secondary sources are preferred but tertiary sources are reliable also. In practice, we use specialty encyclopedias quite a lot, as they are often written by experts in the field they cover. I'd consider The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos to be a specialty encyclopedia that is probably quite a good source for information on its subject matter. And I'll also note that the three volumes of the The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos are quite extensively researched and do actually include sources for most entries. I don't have the first volume available at the moment (even I quail at buying the books - they are pricey!) but I do have the second volume here at hand and a glance through shows every article has a list of sources as well as most having footnotes. I'd suggest getting the book through interlibrary loan and consulting whatever sources are used for the entry snippeted above. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

And the work on Collaboration is also post-Cold War and the section by Arad would definitely be considered a reliable source for this subject, as Arad is a researcher in the field of the Holocaust in the Baltics. His work is most definitely NOT a tertiary source, it is in fact a secondary source also. He may be wrong, but its equally likely the commission was wrong also - especially if it based its conclusions on a West German commission from 1971, prior to the opening of many archives after the Cold War. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Your point about the West German commission not having full access to archival data is a good one, but none of these sources can be impeached as they're all post-Cold War and the commission doesn't even have any Estonian nationals as members. I'd need to see the sources myself, to see which way the preponderance of evidence lies if I were writing this article myself. But really, this is disagreement between reliable sources and should be discussed either in the main body of the article or a footnote, not a RS issue at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think we should take sides on either side - it appears to be a disagreement between sources ... all of which appear reliable. The ideal solution is to cover the controversy in the article. Both sides should be presented, and other sources brought to bear. A good start would be getting the Encyclopedia and seeing what sources it used. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I would first also cite this close study in Estonian, that, based on historical documents and interviews with historians also comes to the conclusion that there is no evidence to suggest the police battalion participated in the roundup of the Jews. And let me also point out that this is not a case of poor or missing documentation. The main discrepancy between the sources seems to be generality vs. specificity. The sources that claim the role of the police battalion may be generally reliable and use reliable PS but in this specific case either do not specify their sources or rely on indirect evidence, e.g. "The reports of this squad report many entries on "military action against partisans," a phrase which conceals punitive measures against citizens and the killing of Jews."

The dispute between the sources is not notable enough to warrant a passage in the article so my suggestion is to include it in a footnote. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The Ekspress source appears to be a general newspaper - at least I see articles on movies and other such topics on the main page of it. Google translate gives a very very rough translation which appears to be either a letter to the editor or an editoriak, which is supported by the translation of "PEKKA ERELT, EESTI EKSPRESSI AJALOOKÜLGEDE TOIMETAJA" which google gives as "PEKKA Erelt, Eesti Ekspress HISTORY sides of EDITOR". I'd suggest that the Ekspress is not exactly a scholarly secondary source here. Certainly, there appears to be a commission that does not think the brigade took part in the events. Unfortunately, an unsigned newspaper article is not a strong source contradicting the United States Holocaust Museum's encyclopedia of the various German labor/extermination camps, nor Arad, who is a scholar working in the field. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Pekka Erelt is the editor of the history section of the Eesti Ekspress. His article may not be scholarly but it is investigative journalism. Even if we do not consider his own discussion, we should not dismiss the quotes by professional historians Meelis Maripuu, Argo Kaasik and Enn Kaup in his article. And again, this is a matter of specificity. The core of this problem is trusting a general RS over specific investigation on this matter. And, again, the conclusions of the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity are not another opinion of 'a commission' but the conclusions of the commission established to investigate crimes by Estonian citizens. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It appears that the commission does not rule out the possibility that the Police Battalion participated in the massacre. If I'm Google translating it correctly, the opening para of the Estee Ekspress reads:

• Novogrudok, Belarus received notoriety among Estonians lately. Allegedly, the 36th Police Battalion took part in the mass murder of Jews committed there in August 1942. At least, Efraim Zuroff of the Simon Wiesenthal Center is certain of it. The wording in the report by the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity is more modest; the report, however, did not rule out the participation of the Estonians. (Not sure if "more modest" is the correct translation.) link

It seems to be an incident of significance & deserves more than a footnote in the article, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The Eesti Ekspress article was written in 2002, while the commission's work was still in progress, so obviously the commission "did not rule out the participation of the Estonians" at that time because it hadn't completed it's review of all the available evidence, including the 1960's West German investigation and post-war Soviet investigations. The commission's final report, published in 2006, concluded there was no evidence found relating to the participation of 36th Battalion. --Nug (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

From the Talk page: The report states on page 861 that the 36th Police Battalion was investigated in the Federal Republic of Germany between 1967 to 1971 and no evidence was found -- "no evidence found" does not mean that the commission established that the Police Battalion did not participate. What was the commission's conclusion? (As an aside, I would not put too much weight into a criminal investigation in West Germany in the 1960-10s, due to various reasons, which are too long to get in here). K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you put too much weight on a criminal investigation of West German Police in 1960-70? I could understand your concern if they where investigating their own countrymen, but they spent four years investigating a non-German unit composed of nationals from the then Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. The Commission states on page 862 of their final report: According to data gathered by Israeli police in September 1963, about 2000 and atleast 3000 Jews were murdered in Diatlovo and Nowogrodek on 6 and 7 August 1942 respectively. There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews. Contemporary researchers accuse the local German gendarmerie, one Lithuanian unit and a Belorussian defence battalion of these specific actions.. Footnote cites Christian Gerlach, Kalkulierte Morde : Die deutche Wirtschafts und Vernichtungspolitik in Wießrußland 1941 bis 1944, Hamburg, 2000, pp. 701-702. --Nug (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Note re: "investigating a non-German unit composed of nationals from the then Soviet Union" -- presumably, the members of the Battalion retreated with the Germans and were residing either in West Germany or elsewhere in Western Europe; the Battalion's commander, Harald Riipalu, emigrated to the U.K, for example. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't see how that is significant, given that the majority of the Battalion where captured by the Soviets. Upon what basis do you dismiss investigations of West German police? As I understand it, there was an issue in the late 1950's to early 1960's in regard to the Police investigating their own members who may have committed crimes during the Nazi period, but I think it is too much to claim that this would have impeded investigations of foreign personnel in the late 60's to early 70's. --Nug (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Conclusions of the Commission

I tracked down the Commission's conclusions, and here's what the document says:

• "The study of Estonian military units is complicated by frequent changes in unit designation, in personnel and in duties, some of which are poorly recorded. However, it has been possible by careful use of Soviet era trial records, matched against material from the Estonian archives, to determine that Estonian units took an active part in at least one well-documented round-up and mass murder in Belarus. The 36th Police Battalion participated on August 7, 1942 in the gathering together and shooting of almost all the Jews still surviving in the town of Novogrudok.

"In the published records, this unit was described as fighting against partisans at the time. The Commission believes that although there clearly were numerous engagements between police units and partisans, "fighting against partisans" and "guarding prisoner of war camps" were at times ways of describing participation in actions against civilians, including Jews."

This is stated on page XXI: Conclusions of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity (PDF). So I really don't see the contradiction between the finding of the Commission, The Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos and Yitzhak Arad.

Does the statement "There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews" perhaps refer to the act of actually pulling the trigger? Unless I'm missing something, the sources agree that the Battalion in question was indeed involved. Ping those who have previously participated: @Nug, Ealdgyth, and Sturmvogel 66: to have a look. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems that both The Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos and Yitzhak Arad are paraphrasing this document you found, so obviously there would not be any contradiction. The basis of this appears to be the view that "fighting against partisans" was code for killing Jewish civilians. But it isn't clear how they arrived at that, as it appears to contradict the main body of the report itself, which devotes several pages to the activities of the Battalion and asserts there no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion. Are you able to access Gerlach's work and quote the original German here, perhaps that may shed further light, I've given the relevant page numbers above. --Nug (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

This document found comes from the website of the commission http://www.mnemosyne.ee/hc.ee/ and is called "Conclusions of the Commission". Are you saying that the Commission is contradicting its own conclusions? There's got to be more context around this. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I said it appears to contradict the main body of the report itself, which explicitly states "There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews". Do you have access to Gerlach's work Kalkulierte Morde, pp701-702? --Nug (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have access to Gerlach. If I sent you an email, would you be able to scan and email the relevant pages from the main body of the report (assuming its in English)? I'd like to see more context around their conclusion. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

That is a pity, with you being able to cite more obscure German historians, like Sönke Neitzel and Wolfgang Schneider, in other articles, you may have also had access to Gerlach. I can scan the relevant pages, but I don't have easy access to a scanner, perhaps I could go to the local library over the weekend. --Nug (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I would look forward to it. BTW, Sönke Neitzel is not at all obscure. He is a leading German military historian; his 2011 book Soldaten: German POWs on Fighting, Killing, and Dying (with Harald Welzer) was a sensation in Germany. The book was published in English and is even available as an audio book. It's a fascinating read; I highly recommend it. See also this interview (in English):

• "Mindset of WWII German Soldiers": video interview with Neitzel discussing Soldaten, via the official YouTube channel of The Agenda (TVOntario).

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nug: any luck? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nug: final ping. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Finally back, have been caught up in WP:REALLIFE. I've managed to scan the relevant pages and will post a link here in the next few days. --Nug (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nug: Hi, do you plan to post here, or should I drop you an email? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that Yitzak Arad cites as his source the Estonian Institute of Historical Memory, which is the successor to the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity. The Commission was disbanded in 2007 and Arad wrote in 2011. You need to check what the Institute says. If they are cited correctly, then we have to prefer what they say over the Commission. I do not have full access to the Holocaust Museum Encyclopedia. The article may provide sources which can be checked. It was published in 2009, so it may be relying on the same info as Arad. This seems to be a case where an original conclusion was changed, but we cannot tell without looking at what the Institute says. TFD (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Finally got my scanner working and have the Holocaust Museum Encyclopedia from the library. If anyone wants the scans of the article ... send me an email and I will send pdfs. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Unpublished FBI assessment, court report, other dubious sources at List of Juggalo gang subsets and Juggalo gangs

I posted to Talk:Juggalo gangs "This article relies heavily on a 2011 FBI report and an assessment that was the basis of it. Cryptobomb certainly fails WP:RS and the Publicintelligence source, which is an FBI intelligence assessment called "Juggalos: Emerging Gang Trends and Criminal Activity" was " isseminated for authorized law enforcement purposes only" and we should not use it directly. It formed the basis of the FBI's 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment that we do use, and that's the only FBI source that meets WP:RS. BitDefender blocked http://cryptocomb.org/ so I haven't looked at it but I can't see how it could meet our criteria. At Talk:List of Juggalo gang subsets I mentioned the same issue with the FBI assessment. That article also uses a court report and something called streetgangs.com. I'm sure there are a lot of bad guys there but we still need to follow our policies and guidelines. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I would agree it doesn't met RS, specifically via WP:V (not purposely published in an accessible manner). If a reliable source (eg like NYTimes) got it and discussed in in their terms, we could use that as the source, but we'd still not able to use/provide the original FBI report in that manner. --MASEM (t) 17:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Not reliable per Masem. No other reliable coverage. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Blog reliability at Mug shot publishing industry

Saw a section reverted with the claim "unreliable source", the section was added back in, and I found a reliable source to verify the information (I added mine and removed theirs). The editor who added the original source is bordering on an edit war with me trying to re-add their original source. I'm coming here just to verify that it isn't an RS.

• "Florida Mugshot Bill Signed". Jason J Watson Mugshot News. June 5, 2017. Retrieved September 22, 2017.

It's a blog, hence my concern. My other concern being that the editor has only edited the article where it was used, making me think it might be a COI issue. Primefac (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can create a website or a blog. I can find no evidence of reliability. BTW, the About page contains nuggets like "On the seventh day when Nigger Jesus said “Let their be scum” he was born, of a rib from a harlot. He sucked more dick than a bag whore dope sick. Because of this, he contracted Aids". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the source from the article. Other editors may wish to add Mug shot publishing industry to their watchlist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I missed that part of the about, but it definitely doesn't lead one to think that the source should be trusted. Primefac (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

jasonjwatson.com is a self-published source with no evidence that the author is an expert previously published, in the field it covers, by reliable third-party sources. So it may be used, within limits, as a source for unexceptional claims about the website jasonjwatson.com and the opinion of its author, but not for statements of fact about third parties. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, it is not a reliable source. One may search Google Books.com SwordOfRobinHood (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

No blog can ever be considered reliable. It would be considered primary if it's direct from the subject, but not reliable. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Internet Broadway Database

Can Internet Broadway Database (IBDB) https://www.ibdb.com/ be considered as a reliable source in BLPs? DrKilleMoff (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@DrKilleMoff: Take a look at Misplaced Pages:Citing IMDb. It depends what you're using it for. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Not IMDB, IBDB.DrKilleMoff (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@DrKilleMoff: Per my interpretation, mostly no. Per Internet Broadway Database it seems a smaller organisation than imdb, so I wouldn´t use them for anything beyond what Misplaced Pages:Citing IMDb says. And if possible, find better sources or don´t mention whatever it is that only can on ibdb in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

They should be generally fine as an external link though, like in Tim Curry. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It might be worth reading Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_162#Internet_Broadway_Database, where Metropolitan90 highlighted its' sponsor. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

In addition to my comments about IBDB being sponsored by the Broadway League, I would note that IBDB deals with a much smaller number of productions than IMDb. IBDB covers only productions that play in Broadway theatres, of which there are currently only 41. By contrast, IMDb attempts to cover every movie and television program distributed or released anywhere in the world. Consequently, IBDB can cover its subject thoroughly by using information from printed theater programs and, unlike IMDb, does not need to depend upon user submissions. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

They will also take user corrections, and require actual documentation before implementing them. - Nunh-huh 13:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I would treat IBDB the same as I would IMDB. Though a smaller brand, it has a similar model that IMDB uses. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. The IBDB is more likely to be accurate than the IMDb because IBDB's scope is much smaller and, unlike IMDb, IBDB doesn't have to rely on user contributions for most of its data. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Uproxx

Is this Uproxx source reliable for the following statement at the article Jill Valentine: "The actors who featured in the live-action cut-scenes and performed the voice work for the original Resident Evil game used pseudonyms." I hope to promote the article to featured status so keep this in mind when assessing if this source is reliable enough to support that statement at an FA article. Freikorp (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

No. That "article" is mainly personal editorial commentary on the game, and identifies (?) some of the actors, but does not use the word "pseudonyms" nor is the use of a "stage name" normally so characterized. The "article" asserts that their work was abysmal or deficient, and is not of a level suitable for use in any article in my opinion. Then again, I am not a person who thinks Misplaced Pages needs lots more articles on video games as a rule. Collect (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Collect: Thanks for your reply. The article does use the term pseudonyms though - "for obvious reasons all of Resident Evil’s actors went under generic pseudonyms like 'Charlie' and 'Inezh'". The article's author has also written for IGN (and other notable publications); there is a consensus that IGN is a high-quality source for video-game related featured articles. Does this change you opinion at all? Freikorp (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Nope. It is not a serious piece of journalism, and it deals in opinions and not facts. Sorry, but Misplaced Pages has quite sufficient cruft already, and this part (wow - an actor in a game does not use their real name!!! Wow!!) is of less than minor value. Collect (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

They do have editors, but they don't talk about their editorial policy at all, which doesn't breed confidence. Unless you're using it to cite a fact about something that Uproxx published (e.g. "X game was called the greatest game of 2017 by Uproxx"), or something that an Uproxx contributor wrote (e.g. "Uproxx contributor Y said that this game was the definitive installment of the entire series"), you should aim to get another source. ---- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 16:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Freikorp (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources arising from Hearst Communications digital media strategy - celebrity reality TV Misplaced Pages editing

So a comedian named Josh Gondelman has teamed up with Hearst Communications to set up a reality-TV-celebrity-Misplaced Pages-editing web property called "Wiki What?", in which Gondelman plays "wikipediatrician" and provides "Misplaced Pages consults" for celebrities, "editing" Misplaced Pages "live" and this is videoed. The resulting edited videos produced by Hearst are posted to Facebook. These facebook videos were then used as actual sources in subsequent actual edits.

Another Hearst publication, Esquire Magazine, has promoted the web series in articles. An editor replaced the facebook video refs with the Esquire refs, and these are what you see in the instances below.

This Hearst digital marketing strategy is clearly described in this article, called "Behind Hearst’s Facebook Watch Programming Strategy".

The edits by the initial editor, Mrazzle, are being discussed at COIN but the question for this board, is whether we should consider the Esquire articles and/or the facebook videos as reliable sources.

These web videos and Esquire articles are used in several articles as follows (I have left in a few other refs where necessary):

• Kate Upton

With her horse Roanie, ... With a second horse, Colby,...

References

1. ^ Rense, Sarah; Gondelman, Josh; Upton, Kate (22 September 2017). "Kate Upton Doesn't Like Her Misplaced Pages Page Photo" (Includes video). Esquire.

• T.J. Miller (used to source the exact punctuation of "T.J." - nice PR placement as 1st ref in the article, right?)

Todd Joseph "T.J." Miller ...

References

1. Bruney, Gabrielle; Gondelman, Josh; Miller, T.J. (September 3, 2017). "Watch T.J. Miller Have a Check-Up with the Wikipediatrician (Wiki What? #1)" (Includes video). Esquire.

• Lawrence Gilliard Jr. (placed as 2nd reference in the article)

Lawrence Gilliard Jr. (born September 22, 1971) ...

Gilliard was born in New York City..... Jada Pinkett Smith and Tupac Shakur were classmates of Gilliard's at the Baltimore School of the Arts.... Gilliard decided to pursue acting instead of music, attending Juilliard School for three years.

He joined The Walking Dead cast as a regular, playing Bob Stookey, as of season 4, appearing in thirteen episodes up until he got another job on a new show, which led to his character's death ...

Regarding the craft of acting, Gilliard has said "I do some of my best character work in front of the mirror... If I believe myself then I'm like, 'Alright,they'll believe me.'"

Gilliard has stated that he "loves dessert, especially ice cream and cake."

References

1. ^ "Larry Gilliard: Biography". Yahoo! TV. Retrieved 2009-02-17.
2. ^ Miller, Matt; Gondelman, Josh; Gilliard, Jr., Lawrence (18 September 2017). "Lawrence Gilliard Jr. of 'The Deuce' Explains the Tupac Connection on His Misplaced Pages Page". Esquire.

• Samwell Tarly

On the eve of the season 7 finale, Bradley explains on the show 'Wiki What?', "If you think they aren't keeping around for a reason, you haven't been paying attention."

References

1. Miller, Matt; Gondelman, Josh; Bradley West, John (8 September 2017). "'Game of Thrones' Star John Bradley Reveals His Actual Name in This Hilarious Video (Wiki What? #2)". Esquire.

• John Bradley West

John Bradley West (born September 15, 1988), credited professionally as John Bradley, is an English actor, best known for his role as Samwell Tarly in the HBO fantasy TV series Game of Thrones.

Bradley West was born and grew up in the Wythenshawe district of south Manchester. Bradley West has an older sister who is 13 years older than him.

Growing up in Manchester, Bradley West did not have a friend that was a boy until he was 12 years old. As a young boy, Bradley West was obsessed with the Spice Girls, specifically Ginger Spice. "A lot of people ask, 'Why did you get into acting?'" Bradley West said on the show Wiki What? to host Josh Gondelman. 'Genuinely I said to myself when I was about 8 years old, 'I have to get famous in order to meet Geri Halliwell.'"

John Bradley-West is a fictitious name usage that Bradley West created in drama school. His real and birth name is John Bradley West, with no hyphen.

Bradley West is Catholic.

References

1. ^ Fire and Blood (3 June 2011). "Interview with John Bradley". Winter is Coming.
2. Wigler, Josh (17 July 2017). "'Game of Thrones': John Bradley Describes Shooting Premiere's Filthiest Scene". The Hollywood Reporter.
3. ^ Miller, Matt; Gondelman, Josh; Bradley West, John (8 September 2017). "'Game of Thrones' Star John Bradley Reveals His Actual Name in This Hilarious Video (Wiki What? #2)". Esquire.

On the one hand, I also don't consider reality TV to be a reliable source for anything... on the other hand, the celebrities "really said" these things. But I don't edit content about celebrities so I will leave this for others to judge. Jytdog (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems to me like there is not much editorial control. These are basically interviews and as such primary sources that are not independent of the subject. I think that these things therefore can be used to source uncontroversial details (such as where a person grew up), unless there are reliable secondary sources that contradict this. Whether the kind of trivia listed above belong in a bio is a question for the respective userpages, I think. The Wiki What? editing is, of course, pure COI editing that should be avoided. --Randykitty (talk) 09:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• They're sources that the subjects "really said" these things. Which is UNDUE. They're not RS sources that these claims are true.

What's the problem? What isn't covered under basic Misplaced Pages 101 editing policy? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

* I am more than a little confused. The Media Industry Newsletter (MIN) article http://www.minonline.com/behind-hearsts-facebook-watch-programming-strategy/ that is being used to support the claim that there is something sinister and deliberately manipulative going on here is simply describing the process of how the digital media is being created. It is not a description of a Machiavellian approach to infecting or influencing content on Misplaced Pages. Median Industry Newsletter in and of itself is a niche, paid, subscriber-based insider organization that is creating this content. It is not the greatest citation and to use the organization as a basis for this argument actually undermines the strength of the concern itself.

* Esquire is a legitimate news source. Yes the prior link was to only the video on Facebook. In my opinion and experience editing Misplaced Pages, I know that Facebook, although they are starting to host original content, is not an ideal source for a citation. The Esquire article is also a lot more descriptive, as it is an article with the video -- and is not just the video itself. So based on the fact that it is a mainstream publication, I replaced the Facebook video link with the news article link from Esquire. This is an acceptable use of a source for the citation.

* Just because this has to do with celebrities doesn't mean that the celebrity has less rights to control or say over what is in their article. This is their right under BLP, and to use it as a basis for argument here -- as the reason to see there is something bigger picture here than there actually is -- is misguided and wrong. -- BrillLyle (talk) 10:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not give a celebrity the right to "control what is in their article". What BLP does is limit what anyone else can add to the article about them. Blueboar (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that what is meant by reliable sources can be over simplified to the point where it is assumed that what is considered to be a reliable source in one case automatically implies being reliable in each and every case, but I think that RS requires us to look a little bit further below the surface sometimes and actually examine the sourced article in question. What makes a "reliable source" reliable is that it is assumed that it is original content created by those working for the source which in turn has been thoroughly (or at least as thoroughly as can be expected) fact checked for errors, etc. by an editor or editorial board. As I posted at WP:COIN#"Wiki What?" (the thread which seems to have started everyone involved on this journey), this subject matter is an interview and Misplaced Pages asks us to treat interviews as WP:PRIMARY. This means we need to be cautious as how it's used, especially per WP:BLPPRIMARY. We know the interview happened and we know who was involved, but do we know whether what was said by Upton was fact checked. In a comedy setting where an interview is given, a celebrity may say things on a whim or in the spirit of the situation, but some of these things may not be suitable for a Misplaced Pages article and may not be the type of source we should use. If article content was being edited while the interview with Upton was taking place, then there's a chance that whomever did the editing was simply typing what they were hearing without even considered whether it was true. The Esquire article reports on the interview, but it seems to be basially a re-cap without any critical commentary or assessment of what was send. We have a copied-and-pasted Facebook post, an embedded video of the interview, and an op-ed like sentence "But Misplaced Pages isn't also trustworthy or flattering, so Upton and Gondelman fixed a few discrepancies as well." This Equire article seems to more entertainment fluff piece/opinion piece rather than a critical analysis, so it's value as a reliable source (even if I feel that Esquite in general is a RS) seems questionable in this case. If there are comments made in the interview which are acceptable (as touched upon by Randykitty above) for inclusion in the article, then directly citing the interview as a source (Facebook is not the source, the interview itself is in my opinion) seems possible. However, just assuming that because it's written about in Esquire, it has to be reliable for all uses does seem like a bit of over simplication to me. After all, we don't automatically assume that opinion pieces and blogs are automatically reliable sources themselves simply be the medium they were published in is generally considered to be reliable. I think the most we can say use this source for would be that Upton was interviewed on Wiki What? by Josh Gondelman, and perhaps the author feels that "Misplaced Pages is not trustworthy or flattering", but reporting on an interview given by someone else is not really the same (at least in my opinion) as formulating the questions and actually sitting down with the interviewee to ask them directly yourself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• I tried to write a more-or-less neutral post, but I will now say that I don't think we should use the facebook or esquire "sources" anywhere in Misplaced Pages. This is not any kind of journalism but is a cynical social media / digital marketing exploitation of Misplaced Pages that we should not have any tolerance for - none of the uses of these "sources" provide vital information; the placement of the "sources" high up in articles is especially disgusting. Even now these links are getting traction from being part of WP articles and are being mirrored all over the place. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Use common sense with these videos as with any source. Some of the things T.J. Miller said were clearly bullshit for comedic effect. Make that go away. Errors that are pointed out — fix those. Additional information? Use it or not on a case-by-case basis. The important thing is to get things right. Pay attention to the editing, not the editor — which is difficult for some people. But the show is a publication and if we have a subject saying something is true or not true in good faith, that is the very highest level of presumably reliable sourcing. Carrite (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

This citations are pure WP:REFSPAM in my view. Misplaced Pages is not a vehicle for promotion nor a tool to be abused in reality TV (the levels of abuse here are nauseatingly interwoven - here is the line of thinking: "Misplaced Pages gets lots of eyeballs, celebrities crave attention and need it for their careers to go, social media facebook is an endless churn of novelty seeking bullshit, I KNOW lets have a comedian edit Misplaced Pages with a celebrity!!! Everybody wins!! Eyeballs for everybody! And Misplaced Pages articles will end up saying what the celebrities want them to say!") The final edits are the same toxic-waste-dumping that Kohs and Woods do only made all social-media post-moderny, including with a citation to the "consult" itself. (Imagine if Kohs or Woods taped their consults with their clients, posted them online, and then cited those in Misplaced Pages - same exact thing as this.) It is disgusting and has done nothing to do with the mission of Misplaced Pages and everything to do with Hearst making money and celebrities getting eyeballs and managing their reputations at the same time. Not a single thing to do with our mission. I am talking about the sources here. We should ban all manufactured "sources" like this (lots of press, especially about celebrities, is "placed", but the blatant manipulation of WP here is just over-the-top). Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• I appreciate the heads up but I don't know why our current policies and practices can't deal with this. We should be able to apply the usual criteria to these sources (e.g., do they have a reputation for fact checking and editorial control?) and the information they contain (e.g., is this information critical for readers to know, has this information been included in multiple reliable sources). We're under no obligation to use these sources, especially if it's apparent that they're not reliable or the information they contain is trivial. In fact, I'd be quite appreciative if the subjects of some articles were to help us out a bit by ensuring that critical information is published by a reliable source that we can responsibly use. Finally, let's not lose sight of the fact that we usually are evaluating not just the author (or interview subject, in this case) but also the editor(s) who fact check, edit, and publish the material under their organization's name. If, for example, Vanity Fair believes that these interviews meet their standards for accuracy and newsworthiness (and entertainment) then that's really what we need to focus on. ElKevbo (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It is Esquire, not Vanity Fair, and again per this article, called "Behind Hearst’s Facebook Watch Programming Strategy", Hearst created the series and planned from the beginning to cover it in the Hearst publication, Esquire. This is all a planned digital media strategy for Hearst to generate eyeballs and thus money. This is not any kind of "source" for WP, not unless we want to be patsies and to be exploited this way. Is that what you want? Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

If their media campaign is not published in reliable outlets or includes material that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article then we won't use the material. "Intent" is not something we can or should try to include in our criteria for evaluating sources.

As a side note, some of the material that has been discussed so far has no business being included in an encyclopedia. That - the gratuitous linking of these sources when it's unnecessary and unmerited - is what several people are railing against and I stand with them. If we do our jobs here and apply the policies and procedures we use in other circumstances, we'll either get useful information that can be added to articles or the PR flacks engaged in this work will have wasted their time. ElKevbo (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the subtext at least :) Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Some of you are overthinking this. They are basically primary source interviews and can be used as such (either facebook or esquire) to source what we would usually source such stuff in biographies for. Basic uncontroversial and non-contradictory information. If actor Bob states he was born and raised in Bobville we would take his word at it unless there is evidence to the contrary. This is basic information which is *expected* in biographies. With the caveat these are clearly aimed at being entertainment, so I wouldn't put it past any of the subjects to big up their history in some manner, so be extra vigilant for any special claims. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The article Ambazonia doesn't provide verified source

1. Source. http://www.ambazania.org/1024_768/input/SCAPOFormallyProclaimstheRepublicofAmbazania.pdf Ambazania.org 2. Article. https://en.wikipedia.org/Ambazonia 3. Content ... (b) President Paul Biya is guilty of treason for furthering and completing the treason of Ahidjo by bringing about the secession of the first defendant (East Cameroon) from the United Republic of Cameroon on February 4, 1984, reinstating its name "Republic of Cameroon" which had not been used since January 10, 1961. (c) That the break-away Republic of Cameroon continues, illegally and forcibly occupy the territory of the first plaintiff, which means the first defendant is guilty of an international offence of aggression and annexation, (d) The report made the Restoration of the statehood of the first plaintiff the starting point of restoration of legality.

My Observation: While i reading articles on cameroon actuality, i was redirected on the ambazonia wikipedia page, but, the information provided by the page doesn't provide verified source. i'm a citizen, and think that an encyclopedia must provide right information.

Record label sources

In my progress to making improvements to the Monstercat article per an ongoing peer review, I have noticed that several sources are not listed on the sources page for a WikiProject: WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES. The sources in question point to:

• DJ Magazine
• NoisePorn
• The DJ List
• Magnetic Magazine
• Your EDM (See also previous discussion)
• EDM Sauce

DJ Mag is being used to back the beginnings of the label and their 2017 award for "Best Breakthrough Label". NoisePorn is also being used for the label's beginnings. The DJ List is being used to describe the label model, where a better source is used later on for the same content. Magnetic Magazine is being used for the compilations. Finally, both Your EDM and EDM Sauce are being used to cover Rocket League x Monstercat Vol. 1, the label's partnership with game developer Psyonix. The question I have is: are these sources reliable for the statements they are backing? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Since Monstercat is mostly about electronic dance music, most of these sources should be considered reliable. EDM Sauce, Magnetic Magazine, DJ Mag sounds reliable enough. I am not sure about Your EDM though, but NoisePorn is probably good to go. Excelse (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

That's...not a very good evaluation of source reliability. Pretty sure anyone can just say "ehhh why not - they're music sources". I mean, you may be right... but stuff like that isn't going to hold up to any counter arguments or concerns in the future. Sergecross73 msg me 01:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• DJ Mag - Reliable - per it's About Us page and Editorial Page. They've been around for 25 years, started as a print magazine, recognized in the industry, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 12:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• The DJ List - Undecided - Their About Us page states they've been around for two decades, but it was difficult to see any sort of staff list, editorial policy, credentials, or anything like that. Sergecross73 msg me 12:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Your EDM - Leaning Unreliable - they have an established staff, but virtually none of them any any sort of credentials other than "loving music" or "listing where they live or grow up". Seems like more of a fan/enthusiast group. Sergecross73 msg me 12:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• EDM Sauce - Leaning Unreliable - Similar to Your EDM above. They've got a staff, but I spot checked like ten profiles, and not a single one had any sort of credentials or authority other than "I love in (insert city) and I love (insert type of electronic music genre)". Looks like another fan/enthusiast group. Sergecross73 msg me 18:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this analysis. Although EDM Sauce is indeed a fansite and your analysis of this website somehow shows that it could be totally unreliable. Should we consider removing this website across wikipedia? Excelse (talk) 05:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I've already found a better source in Monstercat to replace the EDM Sauce source and have already implemented it. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Is a reliable source reliable for information about itself?

I have been working on a draft for Digiday, a media outlet that has been used as a source in well over a hundred Misplaced Pages articles. My thinking is that the media outlets that we regularly use as reliable sources are also usually notable. Although there is are reasonably extensive discussions of the subject in the Fortune article and the Fast Company top ten list in the article, searches for sources about Digiday are drowned in results from Digiday (and in sources like CNN, Slate, etc., citing Digiday as their own source). I believe that the best source about Digiday, however is "this Digiday article. Is it appropriate to use an article from a particular source to provide information about that source? Also, while we're at it, am I correct in considering Digiday a reliable source? bd2412 T 19:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Reliable for what ? Alexbrn (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a two-part question. Is Digiday a reliable source generally, and if so, is it a reliable source for information about Digiday itself? bd2412 T 21:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

It'll be reliable for some things and probably unreliable for others. Self-serving claims would ring big alarm bells. And then there's the question of due weight: if stuff hasn't been covered by decent secondary sources, then why should Misplaced Pages be the only publication on the planet to relay something? Alexbrn (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Isn't that why we have WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:WEIGHT? -Location (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd handle it the same way as WP:ABOUTSELF and any other first-party sourcing situations - it could be used sparingly for basic, objective, non-extraordinary details (its founding date, verifying staff, etc) but nothing extroadinary/self-serving type stuff ("one of the fastest growing media outlets", "top level, award winning staff", etc etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

And certainly not to prove the article meets the bar for inclusion. --Izno (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Very much so. The fact that people have linked to it on Misplaced Pages is not an indicator of notability. The fact that independent reliable sources have written about it in reasonable depth indicates that it is notable. If they have not, it is not. Obviously, a subject writing about itself is not independent. Independent, reliable, substantial coverage is always required. Seraphimblade 14:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Bd2412: Okay, I just took a look at the "article", and to be honest, my finger is twitching on both the G11 and G12 button. That's a massive quote farm of highly positive pull quotes. An article that's even 10% quotes is suspect, and that one is way past that. The article is promotional, far overuses nonfree content, and is totally unacceptable. I'll do you the courtesy of warning about it first, since I think you'll fix it, but if it stays like that I will delete it. G11 and G12 are global criteria and that "article" meets both. Seraphimblade 21:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for your theory that "even 10% quotes is suspect"? In the twelve years that I have been a Misplaced Pages administrator (one of the most active), and over the thousands of articles I have written, this is the first I'm hearing of such a notion. Using quotes avoids NPOV by making the article reflect exactly what sources say about it (in this case, independent, reliable sources), without imposing the POV of the person interpreting the quotes. In any case, this is a draft, and has not been submitted for review. bd2412 T 01:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: Although it is beyond the scope of this messageboard, I have further edited the draft to reduce the proportion of quotes, as intended. bd2412 T 03:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

First, I believe what Seraphimblade was saying is that much quoting is virtually a form of advertising and promotion. We essentially become a brochure for this company. We are in the notoriety business rather than other forms information and ideas exchange. Second, I think it is common practice to objectively summarize as much as possible and use quotations sparingly. I am looking for support in policies for this, because it seems I have come across this. But for now, take a look at WP:QUOTEFARM. Regards. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

This also seems helpful: WP:LONGQUOTE ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Render unto tabloids that which is tabloid.

Re Buckfast Tonic Wine, is Buckfast Tonic Wine#World Buckfast Day adequately sourced by two independent published media sources, a local TV channel and the national lightweight newspaper, The Daily Record?

This is lightweight tabloid fluff. As such, it is quite reasonable to source it from two such sources. It has been removed once just as "not notable" (of course, notability applies to articles, not sections). It is WP:UNDUE which might apply here, but that would be moving the goalposts. As to sourcing though, there is no credible challenge to these for their veracity. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

"War on the Rocks"

Hey all--this morning I ran into this, which looks pretty clean, but the rest of the website is a bit garish (and seems to have little more than things marked "Commentary") and I can't really figure out affiliation or editorial stance. There's a huge list of contributors, and this rather odd page links them to the Center for Security Studies. What do you all make of it? Drmies (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a serious platform - with quite serious commentary by professionals. They do have editorial staff - . One thing to note is that a very large portion of the pieces there are effectively opinion pieces. I'm not sure they have any really pronounced slant (other than realism) - though the writers and readers are to a large extent security establishment - who have their own biases.Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I saw that link (and linked it above), but almost everyone is a senior editor and there is no editorial stance noted--and nothing about process, funding, etc. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the piece you quoted by Luke O'Brien is an opinion piece. And I think what he is citing on that piece is possibly worthwhile, but I don't think War on the Rocks checked each and every factual assertion there (though they might have to some extent). War on the Rocks does have a positive reputation I believe (I follow it, have run across it before).Icewhiz (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

DensiFi special interest group (SIG)

I could use other opinions here. I think the right thing to do is delete the whole subsection #Illegal actions of DensiFi SIG which was basically added along with most of the article in one edit last January. The language needs moderating at least (e.g., "illegal", "cabal" which aren't used in the sources).

The sub-section in question is based entirely on primary sources (Perhaps the whole article is - I haven't looked) and I can't find secondary sources. They tell a pretty straightforward story and, aside from the above-mentioned limited instances of hyperbole, it seems to tell the story in a relatively unbiased fashion, though mention of the individual (and his circumstances) whose complaint precipitated the investigation is IMO WP:UNDUE.

Is this one of those instances where we can and should include content based only on primary sources?

Background

IEEE 802.11 is a set of specifications for WLAN computer communication. It is used in products branded WiFi. In 2013, the IEEE 802.11 "Working Group" established a "Study Group" to draw up protocols for the development of amendments to IEEE 802.11. It is hoped this new version - to be called IEEE 802.11ax - will increase the efficiency of WLAN networks by providing 4x the throughput of the current version. Once the Study Group's protocols were published, a "Task Group" took over and allocated a different approach to each of four "ad hoc groups" (the most productive of which was the "spatial reuse" ad hoc group). At about that time, a non-public, restricted-membership group of companies then formed, calling itself the "DensiFi Special Interest Group" (SIG).

The DensiFi SIG was found by an investigation (led by the Working Group's 2nd Vice Chair) to be "a large, unpublicized, closed or quasi-closed group developing material for submission to IEEE 802.11ax". She found

• Non-members were disadvantaged in several ways.
• "DensiFi SIG members, if voting as a block", are apparently able "to prevent adoption of any other proposal" for consideration.
• Just seven or eight companies determine which documents are submitted to IEEE 802.11ax by the SIG.
• "An implicit expectation that a member company’s participants support proposals from the SIG ..."

She concluded that the DensiFi SIG had engaged in "dominance" - a practice the IEEE bylaws define thus:

Dominance is normally defined as the exercise of authority, leadership or influence by reason of superior leverage, strength, or representation to the exclusion of fair or equitable consideration of other viewpoints. Dominance can also be defined as the exercise of authority, leadership or influence by reason of sufficient leverage, strength or representation to hinder the progress of the standards development activity.

The IEEE 802 Executive Committee accepted the report's findings and resolved to treat "the vote of all individuals affiliated with DensiFi SIG members as a single vote in Working Group and Task Group motions and letter ballots related to 802.11ax until such time the SIG is no longer active."

Qualcomm was a member of this DensiFi SIG. User:CorporateM, who has a professional relationship with Qualcomm was pointed to this article sub-section by an employee of Qualcomm. Because of that relationship, he asked if I would take a look at it. I'm a bit concerned by the appearance that I might be doing the bidding of a big company that has found something it doesn't like about itself in one of our articles. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Removed by User:Smartse. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

PoliticusUSA

1. Source. Haraldsson, Hrafnkell (March 15, 2016). "'Lion's Guard' Group Forms to Bust Heads for Trump, Then Disbands". PoliticusUSA.
2. Article. Lion Guard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
3. Content. The Lion Guard (also known as the "Lions of Trump" or the "Lion's Guard Militia") was a paramilitary far-right wing political group that was formed in 2016 in order to provide self-imposed security (outside of private security and professional law enforcement) at the rallies of Republican Party presidential nominee Donald Trump.

Regardless of the fact that the source only supports a portion of the content, I see little to no evidence of reliability here. The source content makes clear this is an opinion piece; PoliticusUSA's "About Us" page suggests that it's more advocacy than newsgathering; Jason Easley, the site's "editor-in-chief," appears to be a blogger, not a reputable journalist; and I could find no examples of PoliticusUSA being cited by other reliable sources. OberRanks claims PoliticusUSA is a "Reuters publishing partner and White House/Congress certified reporters"; regardless of whether that's true or not, that wouldn't seem to satisfy our reliability standards. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I certainly don't know the rules that well about on-line sources, but can only say I've seen PoliticusUSA referenced in quite a few places. They appear to be a legitimate web based news agency. The Lion Guard article is also a very sensitive one, it seems, and was the subject of an almost immediate AfD as soon as it was created and has been flooded with citation needed and dubious source tags every since on almost every paragraph and sometimes even sentences. The sources for this article get challenged quite a bit, more so than other articles, so clarifying this point might serve the article well as well as getting more editors involved with its research and expansion. -O.R. 17:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Is ISIS "usually accurate when it claims attacks" ?

Text and sources:

According to the New York Times, The Independent, and academic experts, Amaq is usually accurate when it claims attacks.

References

1. Kallimachi, Rukmini (8 June 2017). "Syrian Accused of Working for ISIS News Agency Is Arrested in Germany". The New York Times. Retrieved 30 August 2017. Despite a widespread view that the Islamic State opportunistically claims attacks with which it has little genuine connection, its track record — minus a handful of exceptions — suggests a more rigorous protocol. At times, the Islamic State has gotten details wrong, or inflated casualty figures, but the gist of its claims is typically correct.
2. Dearden, Lizzie (9 June 2017). "Isis propagandist who linked terrorists with Amaq 'news agency' arrested in Germany". The Independent. Retrieved 30 August 2017. It has been accused of opportunistically or falsely linking itself to atrocities, but no investigations have so far disproved Isis' claims and analysts say it is in the group's interest to maintain Amaq's apparent credibility.
3. Delepierre, Frédéric (27 August 2017). "Brussels attack: Is Daesh's claim credible?". Le Soir. Retrieved 8 September 2017. According to Michaël Dantinne, Professor of Criminology at ULG, the terrorist organization always scrupulously analyzes assaults and attacks before taking credit.

Text is used in 2017 Brussels attack article, here

The immediate disagreement is on the 2017 Brussels attack article.

Islamic State has claimed responsibility for this attack via one of its standard channels Amaq News Agency, (that ISIS has claimed the attack is not disputed).

The dispute is mainly whether the three sources above support the proposition that Amaq/ISIS "is usually accurate when it claims attacks". I contend that even if attributed to NYT and the Independent and the expert named in the third source, the sources support several conclusions, including that ISIS' "track record .... suggests a more rigorous protocol" (than the "widespread view" that it "opportunistically claims attacks"), that the (unspecified) "gist" of their claims is "typically correct", that "no investigations have so far disproved Isis’ claims" and that ISIS "always scrupulously analyzes assaults and attacks before taking credit". However, IMO it is a gross over-simplification to render this as ISIS is "usually accurate".

The same sources have been used in several other terrorist-related discussions and I am keen to establish WHAT these sources support, since this affects numerous other terrorist-related articles and the credibility of ISIS claims across a broad, and very contentious, subject area.

There is a seperate issue of whether it is appropriate to discuss ISIS credibility in THIS article, (as opposed to somewhere in the Amaq/ISIS pages) previous discussion on talk is here. Thankyou Pincrete (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC) Please ping if any response is needed from me.

• Seems a bit like a troublesome conflation. The issue is not whether or not they get the details right: journalists and criminology professors can compare these details only to details that have been communicated about the incident, the same details which Amaq/ISIS can "analyse scrupulously" before vindicating the crime (and even then they appear credulous towards some fake news circulated together with the true details). So the reasoning is largely circular. The issue is whether or not their central claim, i.e. whether or not the organisation is responsible for the crime, can be believed. Getting all the details wrong, but saying something which only they could know, would be more convincing regarding their credibility on the central issue. Anyhow, as long as there is "a handful of" cases where they got the details wrong, they can not be admitted as a WP:RS (if that was the question): they don't publish rectifications following a reader's complaint afaik.

As for the sentence with three references currently in the 2017 Brussels attack article: seems too conflated from pieces of different origin and weight to be viable as is (i.e. seems rather a case of WP:SYNTH), as it confuses "reliability on the details" with "reliability on the central claim of having committed the crime". For starters, I'd throw out the sources that don't say anything directly about the 2017 Brussels attack: so if the ULG professor doesn't say directly that according to his analysis ISIS might be correct in vindicating that crime, the Le Soir source can't be used in this article. I suppose the two other sources can be dismissed out of hand as not relating directly to this attack in Brussels. That would also impede a sentence being constructed out of different quite unrelated scraps of information, and thus prevent the SYNTH/OR situation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, The dispute is mainly whether the three sources support the proposition that Amaq/ISIS "is usually accurate when it claims attacks". I acknowledge that there is a secondary issue of 'implied synth' by juxtaposing the specific claim made by ISIS this time about this attack, and the general proposition of ISIS's ordinary level of accuracy. Pincrete (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The answer to the question whether the three sources support the proposition that Amaq/ISIS "is usually accurate when it claims attacks" should be "no":

• When Amaq/ISIS claims an attack it is usually fairly accurate on the "details" in their claim (apart from some obvious bloopers).
• Nothing can be said about whether or not their actual claim (i.e., Amaq/ISIS having committed the attack) is anything near to accurate, unless corroborated elsewhere (sometimes it is, e.g. assailant–ISIS communications about the impending attack recovered from the assailants laptop etc., and for other attacks it can't because Amaq/ISIS only gives details available to anyone at the time when they sent out their claim report and no other corroborating evidence is available).

Taken together, no, the sentence with the three references given above can not be used in that article, nor in any other: it is a mish-mash that mixes two things: Amaq/ISIS usually being by and large accurate/correct on "details" in their claim reports and on the other hand that this would mean that Amaq/ISIS would have been "correct" when they say they claim the attack. The "details in the attack claim" and the "claim of having committed the attack" are two different things: the word "claim" is used in two different senses, i.e. "making claims that contain a lot of correct details and thus making a lot of correct claims" vs. "claiming an attack". Some of the reporting plays on that ambiguity (always compare the headline with the content of the report...), and Misplaced Pages should rather defuse such ambiguities instead of furthering them by clobbering a sentence together that is WP:SYNTH. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Although the challenged sentence is no longer what the original editor added to the article, plus the additional academic source is also subsequent to his contribution, I think it is only fair to ping him @User:E.M.Gregory. Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The dispute is not about the original text, which is an even grosser distortion of sources IMO, since none of the sources mention "affiliation". I have no objection to E.M,G being pinged, but the main purpose of this noticeboard is to get 'fresh eyes', not to extend the talk page. Pincrete (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Indeed, my wording "According to the New York Times and The Independent, Amaq is usually accurate when it claims affiliation with an individual who has carried out an attack." is materially different from the text now used in the article, and was more accurate. Pincrete's wording is something of a straw man. The straw man nature of Pincrete's query is invisible to Francis Schonken because Pincrete has omitted the money quotes from the New York Times article, which I first used in 2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson, an article I was prompted to write by the remarkable New York Times article that Pincrete cites highly selectively above. What the June 2017 Times article revealed was that German prosecutors had just made an arrest that upset the conventional analysis of Amaq attributions of ISIS responsibility, discovering that Amaq News Agency was not merely frequently reporting attacks with remarkable speed and a puzzling familiarity with details not released by police or by the press, rather, it revealed that the Amaq agent just arrested was in contact with the perps before they made the attacks, and, in at least some cases, instigating attacks. The Telegraph was reporting on the same material from the German prosecutors. Here are two breakout quotes along with a bit of the text from 2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson for context:
  

In June 2017, German police arrested a A 23 year old Syrian man identified only as Mohammed G., accusing him of passing on information to the Amaq News Agency about this and other events since 2014. German police accused Mohammad G. of communicating with the alleged perpetrator of the Malmö arson attack on social media. According to the German prosecutor’s office, “One day after this attack, the accused demanded from his contact person (in Sweden) a personal claim of this deed..., The background was that Amaq did not want to issue a report about the attack without such a claim”.
Following the arrest of Mohammad G., Shiraz Maher, deputy director of the International Center for the Study of Radicalization at King’s College, London, said "We’ve all assumed that they are reading news reports, and then saying, ‘Our guy did this.’ But this is interesting because this does show that they clearly have someone, who is one of their guys, and who is getting verification and confirming that this attack was in our name”.
And, yes, I think it does support these article do support the claim as I phrased it:"According to the New York Times and The Independent, Amaq is usually accurate when it claims affiliation with an individual who has carried out an attack.", albeit not the statement now in the article as cited by Pincrete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

If I remember the chronology correctly:

(note: added refs to the VRT news website to support the chronology outline below – sorry for it all being in Dutch language, except for the Le Soir message, ref #3 above, which I inserted here at its chronological place. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC))

• First there was the attack, with some immediate speculation in the press on whether or not it was ISIS-related (25 August 21:01–23:23; 26 August 08:14; 26 August 09:52–12:20; 26 August 11:22; 26 August 16:35; 26 August 17:33)
• Then ISIS claimed the attack, with the press (and some politicians if I remember correctly) generally reacting "why would we believe those guys?" (26 August 22:15)
• Then there was the ULG professor (and some similar experts in the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium where I live) countering that scepticism by saying that the ISIS claim should not be rejected out of hand, while circumstantial evidence was up to that point still aligning with it being possibly true (Le Soir 27 August 17:32)
• In general the assailant having been psychologically unstable (considering the prior incident at his working place and other circumstantial evidence pointing in the same direction) seems more probable as a direct cause of the attack than the assailant having been steered by ISIS, if I summarize a host of subsequent press reports (with other academic experts explaining the psychological state of mind of the assailant) correctly (28 August 18:11). Maybe this line of reporting, less exploitable for its drama to attract an international readership than the "ISIS" keyword, didn't hit international news reporting all that much.

In sum, no, "According to the New York Times and The Independent, Amaq is usually accurate when it claims affiliation with an individual who has carried out an attack" is not suitable content the 2017 Brussels attack article: it gives too much weight to the ISIS speculation (which can neither be proven nor disproven at this point), and which is maybe no more than 10% of the speculation about the attack's causes in reliable sources (there being more than one reliable newspaper in Belgium of course). Especially the New York Times and The Independent, not speaking about this incident, should not be ushered in to give that minority view WP:UNDUE weight. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• My take on this... the entire issue is irrelevant information in the context presented (an article about a specific attack). Discussion of the accuracy of Amaq belongs in an article about Amaq... not in an article on any specific attack. Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The Le Soir article of 27 August 2017 (3rd reference in OP) probably speaks about the attack so may be germane to the article, if someone can read it entirely (I wouldn't quote its headline though which may or may not be a suitable summary of the key points of the journal article, as far as it relates to the August 2017 Brussels attack topic). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I cannot access the full Le Soir article either($$), but would also be grateful if someone could confirm what is has to say about the Brussels event, if anything. Pincrete (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Reply to E.M.Gregory, I did not select any of these quotes, they were the ones presented by XavierItzm as part of the discussion on talk, which he claimed supported the text in the quote box above. If some other part of the sources given supports the claims, rather than accuse me of being 'selective', please point out where such support can be found. Please don't 'explain' the momentous significance of the arrest in Germany, since the 'significance' is patently your own invention.

The most that could possibly be claimed from the sources discussing the 'German' arrest is that since the arrest, some commentators have speculated that ISIS/Amaq is probably/possibly more careful, and sometimes more reliable about some matters than widely thought and may have checking mechanisms, or fact checkers in place in Europe. It takes an inordinate number of logical 'leaps into the dark' to get from that to Amaq/ISIS is "generally accurate about" .... anything, especially about ISIS involvement in a different attack, in a different country, not even mentioned in the first two sources.

Equally, if, in your opinion, the sources endorse 'your' reading (namely, "According to the New York Times and The Independent, Amaq is usually accurate when it claims affiliation with an individual who has carried out an attack."). Perhaps you can point to where in the articles, claims of "affiliation", are discussed AT ALL, let alone such a huge 'dragnet' claim as 'your' text represents. Pincrete (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC) … … ps The quote you supply above from Shiraz Maher, which ends: "getting verification and confirming that this attack was in our (ie ISIS') name” is immediately followed by, Maher "cautioning that the (German) news release mentioned only a single example" (ie Malmö, not Brussels nor anywhere else). The very expert quoted above is specifically cautioning against reaching any 'general' conclusion based on such scant evidence. Pincrete (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The text at the top of this section is "According to the New York Times, The Independent, and academic experts, Amaq is usually accurate when it claims attacks". That text is properly sourced and should be allowed. Any additional claims about the accuracy of Amaq when claiming affiliation outside of particular attacks needs equally good sourcing. Also, our article on Amaq News Agency says "Amaq functions much like the state-owned news agency of ISIL, though the group does not acknowledge it as such", so we should not treat Amaq as speaking for ISIS/ISIL. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Guy Macon, sorry I would just like to clarify what you mean. The clear implication of an Amaq claim being "usually accurate when it claims attacks", is that those attacks WERE carried out by ISIS, (or "a soldier of the caliphate", or one of Amaq's standard phrasings), since "an ISIS soldier did this" is the actual content of the Amaq claim. I don't understand how you square that with us not treating Amaq as ISIS's mouthpiece. Also, is this content appropriate on any individual 'attack' article, or should it be confined to a page discussing Amaq and/or its credibility in full? Pincrete (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

History of the Thirteen Colonies, reliablility of Daniel K. Richters book "Before the Revolution : America's ancient pasts"

I would agree that the article relies heavily on that one source and that may be a problem. However, Dilidor apparently regards the work as completely unreliable and used the term "misinformation". Though I have not read the book, I did read a number of reviews, which seemed to be overall positive.

• Richters page on upenn.edu
• Muse review
• NY books.

These establish, in my view, the book as reliable per WP:RS. I would very much like some extra opinions. Discussion on the appropriate talk page. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 11:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Reliable... but seriously overused. Basing so much of an article on any single source is always a red flag that there may be POV issues in the article. Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

By the way... I have noticed that we also have an article entitled Thirteen Colonies ... and have proposed a merger. We don't need two articles covering the same topic. (and I suspect there are yet others). Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Patriot Prayer

Is Entertainment.ie a reliable enough source to say that the American group Patriot Prayer are American? They have a full editorial team so I believe they pass our rs guidelines Darkness Shines (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it's an entertainment website. Surely, you can find better sources. And if you can't, it probably doesn't belong in a Misplaced Pages article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Is someone actually challenging the fact that this group is based in America? Not every trivial factoid needs a citation. wow... it seems someone is challenging it. So AQFK's advice is good. Find a better source.Blueboar (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Got an American college paper Seems even Americans need to be told where their from lol Darkness Shines (talk) 13

53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Alex Jones (radio host)

Is right-wing think tank Accuracy in Media, run by this guy, an appropriate source for allegations that a living person is a propagandist for Russia? This source would not be used when it alleges against liberals (most of its work) but apparently when it makes extreme claims about other conservatives that's fair game, says MjolnirPants, who thinks he can make the source not right-wing by saying "no it's not" (see page history). Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

AIM looks as reliable in its political allegations as Jones himself, i.e. not at all Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

here is MjolnirPants, fighting the "post-fact universe" by discrediting years of research by SPLC who found that AIM is right-wing biased. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution