text:
for and what isn't at least? Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What you're describing is more of a weight question not really meant for this board. The source would be reliable to say that individual said what they said, but what you are describing is the next step where you determine if that content should even be included. Personally I think it looks like undue weight as you described, but I'm not going to comment any more than that for weight. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You can use primary sources, indeed. However, the reason Wikipedia primarily calls for secondary sources is because they establish the weight of the primary sources they cite. It really doesn't matter if we think something is scholarly, doesn't look false, etc., but what others in the field think is worth mention from the primaries. That's why secondary sources tend to be needed for a lot of content people want to include since primary sources are very limited in the content they can generate for Wikipedia. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Irish Daily Mail
Are there serious objections to using the Irish Daily Mail as a source? We've recently had an editor repeated removing content from the Landmark Worldwide article with the comment "tabloid newspaper is not a reliable source" eg here:. Although in terms of format, it is tabloid, but so are almost all newspapers in the British Isles these days. The Mail is middlebrow, definitely not in the sensationalist red top bracket, which is the implication of describing a newspaper as 'tabloid'. The editor also objected to the fact that there isn't an online version of this paper, which seems an irrelevance. In this instance, it was being used as a source for the opinion expressed by the writer of the feature article quoted. The editor argued on the talk page that the page should include "facts about opinions on Landmark", but seemed keen to exclude opinions in favour of the corporation. DaveApter (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to be related to the British Daily Mail which is a tabloid in every sense of the word. That does tend to argue against its reliability for controversial issues. --GRuban (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * It is RS for opinions stated as opinions, and many claims of fact, but (like almost all sources) should not be used for contentious claims about living persons in the vein of "celebrity gossip"  without other sources backing it up.  Same as the Daily Mail - reliable for many things, but (like the Guardian and almost all other sources) iffy for contentious claims in the nature of "celebrity gossip."  The case at hand appears to be the personal opinion of a specific feature reporter "Nikki Walsh" and citable as such, but not as fact.   Collect (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would agree with what has just observed, and would not consider using it as a source for contentious claims or "celebrity gossip", and confirm that in this specific case it was being used as a source for opinions stated as opinions (and I think that was explicit in the context). DaveApter (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Although the Irish Daily Mail and the Daily Mail (UK) are owned by the same company, it's not clear whether the IDM is as unreliable as the DM (which should not be used as a source for factual information of any importance). The safest course is to follow Collect's advice for opinions stated as opinions. The question then becomes one of WP:WEIGHT, i.e., whether the IDM's view is important enough to include. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Use of a caste/tribe history
I am tying myself up in knots following a recent request made by me at WP:RX - see here. The problem is that the author is Hussain Khan, who is a member of the caste of which he is writing. The same content appears in his self-published (iUniverse, yikes!) book Chronicles of the Early Janjuas as in the Journal of Central Asia. The jounral may or may not be reliable - I've seen some calls for papers and notes that it is peer-reviewed but I've got a gut-feeling that all may not be as it seems.

Khan is/was a retired professor of history at the University of Peshawar but both the fact that it is self-published and that he is a caste member throw pretty big doubts on the thing: it is fairly common for academics in this field to throw their training to the wind when they are writing about their own communities, especially when it is being done as a "hobby" project. And he seems to be basing a lot of it on the work of Lepel Griffin, whom we know to be unreliable because he merely recounted the stories told to him, often through an interpreter.

The book/article is being cited in several articles, including Janjua itself. I would appreciate some input, and I'm going to leave a note at WT:INB pointing to this thread. - Sitush (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 * The Journal of Central Asia ( to be distinguished from Journal of Central Asia and the Caucasian Studies and several other similarly named publications), was published from 1978-1997 by the Centre for the Study of the Civilizations of Central Asia, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan. Since then the center has been renamed Taxila Institute of Asian Civilizations and the journal supplanted by the Journal of Asian Civilizations. FWIW, according to that UNESCO page, the journal (at least currently) meets Pakistan's Higher Education Commission's standard of quality (Category Y ie no impact factor; papers not necessarily reviewed by "expert from an Industrially/Academically advanced country").
 * In short, it does not appear to be at least a fly-by-night operation, though not a premier journal either (not archived by jstor; not found in any libraries on worldcat.) So this may be one of those tough grey-area cases where use will depend upon the relative quality of other sources being used in the wikipedia article, and whether are credibility/redflag concerns about the particular claims it is being cited for. Abecedare (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

marketwatch.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergys#References cites marketwatch.com, which has simply copied what Convergys sent them, without checking into the issue.

Are these paid press release delivery sites really reliable sources? Hcobb (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I think WP:SELFPUBLISHED applies here. It's clear that it's a press release commissioned by the company and published in MarketWatch without editorial oversight by MarketWatch. Therefore, it will not be WP:RS for most claims, but it may be used to verify certain basic information per WP:SPS. It should be treated as a press release written by the organization. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Polyamory
In this series of edits, an IP has added some information to the Polyamory page. The first paragraph, in particular, may be problematic. The sources were challenged and the IP provided a rationale in this discussion. The argument is that the otherwise unreliable sources are supporting claims made by others, not stating facts, and are therefore admissible in that context. The study noted to support facts comes from the Journal of Marriage and Family, which appears to be backed by the NCFR. That strikes me as likely to be a biased source.

I've never been particularly adept at identifying problematic sources and I'm cognitively challenged to boot. I would appreciate if someone could review the edit and sources and provide input as to whether it's appropriate or not. Thanks! – Robin Hood  (talk)  18:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If I may make my case here: there was one biased source used, but that's because the point of the section is to say what people biased against it argue. Citing is a critic to find the opinion of critics is very standard practice. The only substance to the objection is that the Journal of Marriage and Family has a name that sort-of sounds like something a conservative would call something. But it is a respected and cited and peer-reviewed scholarly journal with no political ties. Its point is just that: the scholarly study of marriage and families. The two have been intertwined for all of human history so its hardly surprising that study of one would go along with study of the other. In fact two married people are by definition family, so it would be impossible to study marriage-related topics without studying family-related topics. And again, the NCFR is an organization for family professionals such as marriage counselors. Its rather ridiculous to be objecting to a journal because its named after the things it studies. Frankly I believe you may be acting out of bias towards a particular political agenda here. Which is silly; I'm liberal as well but that doesn't mean we can't use a journal with the word "family" on it. You also say on your userpage that you identify strongly with the movement the article is about - are you sure we don't have a WP:COI here? <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I reverted the edits of <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) at sex positive feminism. The sources are a criticism of polygamy/polyamory but do not address sex positive feminism. Sex positive feminism is a specific movement within feminism (mostly in the US) that was primarily formed in opposition to anti pornography feminism. The debates were about the sex industry and sexual violence and coercion, and had nothing to do with monogamy/polygamy. You have also removed the warning that another user left on your talk page after I made reference to it. That is not very honest of yourself. You are also using several article to advance your WP:SOAP about polygamy/monogamy/polyamory. 2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:567B:22E8 (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

 * It strikes me that the use of sources concerning polygamy in the polyamory article is highly problematic. Polyamory as a concept in contemporary 'western' societies may be a very different thing from polygamy in societies where it is a cultural norm, and one cannot use research regarding one to draw conclusions about the other. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * One of them did. The other is just about sexual exclusivity in general in relationships - and it was conducted in the US so there wouldn't be any actual polygamists in it, just those who are polyamorous. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

 * @IP: According to that very page, "Beliefs and desires alone do not constitute a conflict of interest." I do not in any way gain or lose from the article's content, so I'm quite sure I don't have a COI. Keep in mind, though, that your own edits are not unbiased themselves, as the above IP mentioned. My question on RSN, however, is not about who is biased towards what beliefs or whether the content has merit in terms of the page, but whether the sources can be considered reliable and appropriate to the content. Nothing more, nothing less. – Robin Hood  (talk)  21:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And as we've seen, the sources are reliable. Nobody has said any of the studies are unreliable - they fit WP:RS like a glove as they're studies from peer-reviewed, well known scholarly sources. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I can accept that the study from the JFM is reliable (the other sources, I believe, are all opinion pieces), so as far as RSN goes, the topic is closed. There are, however, other issues with the way unrelated statements and sources were strung together to make it present information that was never stated in any of the sources cited (the very definition of OR). I've identified those problems on the Polyamory talk page, which is where the discussion should continue at this point. – Robin Hood  (talk)  21:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There are similar problems with unrelated statements being combined to syntheses, and unsourced conclusions being drawn, on the Monogamy page. I think the text added to that article is essentially the same as the text added to Polyamory. --bonadea contributions talk 23:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Whether the articles are relevant to the page should be discussed on its Talk. The articles themselves do appear to be reliable and from unbiased sources as far as I can tell. TheLogician112 (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

 * No, the issue is not whether sources are 'reliable' in the abstract, but whether they are reliable for the material they are being cited for. And if a source is being cited for a statement about polyamory, at minimum it should explicitly refer to polyamory. If it doesn't, it isn't a reliable source on the subject of the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sex positive feminism - polygamy, polyamory and monogamy (related to the disscusion above on polyamory)
At the article Sex positive feminism, ip <IP_ADDRESS> (talk)  is adding inappropriate content, engaging in WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and most seriously of all, is misrepresenting what an author of a reliable source is saying. Please see Talk:Sex-positive_feminism. The ip has been reverted numerous time, at several articles, by several editors, but continues to add such content. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

 * The IP has been reported for edit warring now, which is probably the more appropriate venue for this sort of thing. – Robin Hood  (talk)  01:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Is an experts own blog a reliable source of what an expert says in that blog?
Source: http://moneyandstate.com/bitcoin-value-ponzi-schemes/

Article: Bitcoin

Content: Erik Voorhees, a bitcoin startup founder, stated, "the very idea of an 'open-source Ponzi Scheme' is absurd. A Ponzi requires a secret deception, and a deceptive creator, neither of which can be sustained with open-source, collaborative architecture."

An editor first removed the quote based on the fact that it was self-published. I then argued that based on Wikipedia:SPS "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." It is a reliable source because he is an expert in the field. He claimed that the author was not an expert. I provided proof that he was an expert, and then the editor said it didn't matter because even if an expert the guidelines say only say "MAY be considered reliable". He claims its still not reliable, but no further reasons are given. Another editor has claimed the author has a conflict of interest or is otherwise biased on the issue, but WP:RS states "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." As the quote is presented in a section detailing contrasting views on whether bitcoin is or is not a ponzi scheme, non-neutral sources are appropriate to show the contrasting views.

I claim that, especially as an expert on the topic, the author's self published source is an extremely reliable source for a quote that the same author said. There is even another site that republished it (http://www.cryptosnews.com/?p=1196), but as that site isnt reliable, in this case it would be better to go straight to the source.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

 * It should be noted that this 'expert' has a direct financial interest in the promotion of bitcoin. Accordingly, he is in no position whatsoever to give objective 'expert' advice on whether it is a Ponzi scheme or not. Such expertise should instead be sought from academia - in the fields of economics, sociology, anthropology, or psychology. We don't cite homoeopaths for 'expertise' on whether homoeopathy works... AndyTheGrump (talk)

 * There is no evidence that would suggest Voorhees is an "expert" on Ponzi schemes. He has no recognition in the fields of law, finance, economics or any other area that might qualify him to make such a jugment. SPECIFICO  talk  02:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Context matters folks... Voorhees does not have to be an expert on Ponzi schemes. The article does not present what he says as simple fact about ponzi schemes... it presents the fact that he says something about Bitcoin (and he is an expert on Bitcoin).  He is a founder of Bitcoin, reacting to comments about Bitcoin. His reaction is relevant to the article.  Blueboar (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

TMZ
Not a question per se, but I'd like it archived somewhere that, when TMZ uses "law enforcement sources", they are (at least in my experience) almost always right. — ATinySliver / ATalkPage 08:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

 * TMZ is self-described as a "Celebritiy Gossip" site. For example today is has a screaming headline Bruce Jenner   Cops to Get Search Warrant for Cellphone  Was He Texting? 2/8/2015 1:00 AM PST BY TMZ STAFF .  The imputation that he was "texting" is pure tabloid fare.  I find almost all sources of "celebrity gossip" are weak sources, but a source which uses that type of headline, even if you think it often gets inside information from the police, does not meet the requirements for WP:BLP.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Which, if I may, is exactly why there remains no consensus wrt TMZ within Wikipedia and why this site in particular keeps coming up for discussion. Essays suggest it should be used with caution—such as, when it uses "law enforcement sources". I argue for the same reason that it should also be nuked with caution. — ATinySliver / ATalkPage  21:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Our referencing style is partly to blame--we emphasize article titles, which emphasize the headline-grabbing aspect of articles. As we're not likely to change the formatting for this reason, the net effect is that we must be particularly careful in using these sources.  DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I tried to get headlines deprecated as a "reliable source" to no avail. Editors kept saying the headline is perfectly good as a "source." Sigh. Collect (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing we'll find out presently whether TMZ scooped everybody again ... — ATinySliver / ATalkPage 11:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Foreign Policy Journal
Source: Roberts, Paul Craig (28 January 2015). "It Is Time For Iran To Tell The West ‘Goodbye’". Foreign Policy Journal.

Article: To the Youth in Europe and North America

Content:"Paul Craig Roberts, an economist and former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy, stated that he respects 'Khamenei's effort to reach out to Western youth in order to help them differentiate the reality of Islam from the demonized portrait painted of Islam by Western politicians and media.'"

Is the Foreign Policy Journal website (no relation whatsoever to the prestigious Foreign Policy magazine) a reliable source for the above? --Anders Feder (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Salon article news piece or opinion?
This article doesn't indicate that it is an opinion piece, but I couldn't find an opinion section on the website after a very brief search. In general, is it considered to be a news article or opinion piece? -- Ubikwit 連絡見学/迷惑 15:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like an opinion piece to me.- MrX 17:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree, but then there is this article in the Independent (which was already in use at the New Atheism article, which is a secondary source commenting on Leans's piece and two others, that says he launched that tirade in response to a flurry of Twitter posts"The opening broadside began earlier this month with a polemic from Nathan Lean on the Salon.com website. Lean, a Washington DC native and Middle East specialist who has recently written a book about the Islamophobia industry, was prompted to pen his attack following a series of tweets last month by Professor Dawkins attacking Islam in snappy 140 character sound bites ."-- Ubikwit 連絡見学/迷惑 19:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Comment Op-ed, opinion piece. Lean is not a staff reporter for Salon. He writes occasional essays and op-eds for Salon. Polemics don't ordinarily qualify as Reliable Source. I think the source is reliable for his opinion. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is clearly an opinion piece which should not be used as a reference for any statement of fact. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Poker blog
 I am a mathematics PHD in Cambridge university and a semi-professional poker player. I wrote the blog about poker strategy based on mathematical derivations and logic. So, it is easy to verify whether it is reliable for people who know the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liguolong (talk • contribs)

 * Comment, for context: the user has added his personal blog fillpocket.com as a source in articles such as PokerStove, Poker strategy, Bluff (poker) and No deposit bonus. Other editors, including myself, have reverted all those link additions, and I recommended that if he wanted to add ref links to his blog, he should ask for advice here first. --bonadea contributions talk 21:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose use of this blog on Wikipedia. It appears to be anonymous and we have no way to verify that the blogger has a PhD in math, or that he is a widely recognized expert in poker. The blog is overtly promotional, carrying the promotional name "FillPocket" and the tag "free money". At first glance, it appears to be quite new. We should not expect our readers to have the mathematical expertise to verify the reliability of the blog content. We should only link to those very rare blogs where the credibility and expertise  of the author is indisputable. This is not such a case. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  02:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

wekinglypigs.com
I'm posting here to request community perspectives on the use of wekinglypigs.com (NSFW) as a reliable source for Playboy Playmate data like that used in this article.

wekinglypigs.com appears to be a private individual's site that simply copies information straight off the Playmate data sheets in Playboy magazine. To me there are serious problems with treating Playboy's data in descriptions of its models as accurate for sourcing in an encyclopedia. For example, Playboy reports women's measurements at a point in time, but Wikipedia makes those measurements appear permanent. Moreover, Playboy is known for heavily airbrushing its models and sometimes using fictional names for them, and it has a clear business incentive to make its models appear to fit a certain mold, so I don't consider the magazine reliable for any data about those models. wekinglypigs is essentially a mirror, so it inherits those same problems.

This issue has bugged me for a long time, but it just recently occurred to me to ask about the topic here and see if it's just me. Thanks for listening and I look forward to your comments. Townlake (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 * No, that is not a reliable source. It's self-published, which makes it 100% unusable per WP:BLPSPS policy. Playboy magazine, or perhaps a book from a reputable publisher, would be the best source for this type of content.- MrX 17:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Thanks MrX. I concur with your assessment based on WP:BLPSPS. I don't think Playboy would be a suitable replacement source, for the reasons raised above, though that might be a question for the BLP noticeboard instead of this one. Townlake (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

For anyone interested, I've started a conversation about these BLP issues here. Townlake (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose use of this as a source on Wikipedia. Yes, some of the content is copied from Playboy. But in addition, the website owner "reviews" each Playmate centerfold, discussing and ranking her physical attributes and how much she appeals to him. He is entitled to his opinions, I suppose, but we should not be linking to his self published musings about his personal sexual fantasies regarding Playmates. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Mussolini's declaration of war speech, 10 June 1940
Hi, I have been browsing Google Books for a copy of this speech - in a RS - so the relevant sections can be used in the Italian invasion of France article, without any luck.

I have been able to find copies of it online, but unfortunately the clear cut reliable sources only have audio copies with no official transcript (as far as I have been able to find): for example I have found a few websites that have transcripts, but I am unsure if they can be used and would like some input: website 1, website 2, website 3, website 4

I fear I already know the answer, but feel its worth a try.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you take a look at book-length biographies of Mussolini by respected biographers, or books about Italy under Mussolini and/or in World War II, written by professional historians. The quotes from the speech such sources discuss would be much more worthy of inclusion than quotes extracted from a full transcript by a Wikipedia editor. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Declassified US document
This partially declassified document is a series of communiques from the US embassy in Venezuela to the US Secretary of State outlining a conversation between US representatives and Venezuelan media leaders following the 2002 coup attempt. It's cited extensively in 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt (3rd, 4th, final paragraphs as of this revision), which leads me to wonder in what context it's reliable. My initial reaction was to move all the information attributed to the document to its own paragraph and attribute the source, since its primary and the claims seem unsubstantiated by secondary sources, and thus it doesn't seem reliable beyond citing info on the document itself. Another editor apparently feels the document is reliable enough to integrate the information without acknowledging the specific source.  Mbinebri  talk ← 22:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

 * First, I would like to state that I placed the source since there was little to no content on the Venezuelan media's response to accusations that they were involved in the coup. I believe that this declassified document would be reliable and tried my best to attribute it to US officials. I have also placed other sources from a book by Brian Nelson that was manipulated and moved to another part of the section out of relevance. What I attempted to do with these new sources was to explain both the Venezuelan media's position and the position of those accusing it of being part of the coup in a blended manner instead of moving it all to one paragraph and polarising the content. The author of the document is not first party and uses third party tenses describing the meeting, showing that this may not be a primary source. It also reads more like a news report of what happened at the meeting, attributing certain sources such as specific media organizations and individuals, which was all wired to US agencies for their knowledge.-- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 22:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Your "blending" creates a false balance between the viewpoints, IMO. The media rep's claims on their behalf, via this document, are minor points compared to how overwhelmingly the larger media highlights their involvement, but that's for an NPOV noticeboard debate...    Mbinebri   talk ← 22:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

 * The State Department is certainly a reliable source. Regardless of grammatical choices, its a primary source, being close to the topic. The way to handle a primary source is to use it to describe events but avoid using it to interpret events. In this case that would suggest it could be used as a source for facts such as that a meeting was held or that certain statements were made there. Any general statements about "the media" from that document should be presented as the opinions of a particular person. It's not necessary on reliability grounds to isolate the material to is own paragraph. There might be other reasons to separate the material, which you should work out on the talk page. Rhoark (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used carefully according to WP:PSTS; I'm not sure that has been achieved here. (Overall, the entire suite suffers from poor sourcing, but that's another story.) And there were scores of secondary sources that covered this issue. This is not the best source, but the first one I found with a quick google search: St Petersburg Times. Considering there is plenty of secondary analysis of the issue to be found, it should not be necessary to rely on primary sources so extensively. Please also see Silence of the Scorpion for a full accounting of the very issue covered in the State Dept source. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Siren articles
Is https://airraidsirens.com/ a good source for a siren article, and the company that made the siren's website? Also, the siren wikia, is that a reliable source. Most people on these forums are experts and they know what they're talking about. Please respond.

Links https://airraidsirens.com/ https://federalsignal.com/ http://www.americansignal.com/ http://www.sentrysiren.com/ http://siren.wikia.com/wiki/Siren_Wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoJoes123 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 17 February 2015
 * This is a conversation that pertains to this, Talk:Federal Signal 3T22. -- GB fan 01:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Companies may be reliable in the limited context of a WP:SELFSOURCE. Forums and wikis are not reliable in themselves. An expert statement on a forum or wiki might be reliable, but it would need to come from an author that multiple reliable secondary sources have cited as an expert. Rhoark (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * By definition, a wiki is not considered a reliable source, as anyone could edit it to say anything that they wanted it to say, regardless of the actual facts. I recommend you familiarize yourself with WP:RS.  rdfox 76 (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so I guess it is reliable since nobody except the person who wrote the comment can edit it, right? The people I listen to are either employees that made/make the specific siren, or people who know a lot about them. JoJoes123 (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. Per WP:UGC, a wiki is considered to be user-generated content, and thus it is not considered to be a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. There is a caveat in WP:UGC though which says with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users. Most wikis, however, tend to be "open", i.e., they can be edited by anyone, so there almost always no significant editorial oversight or control in place. The "Disclaimers and Limitation on Liability" section of the "Terms of Service" page of the wiki you wish to use as a source begins with While we provide policies and guidelines for user conduct and submissions, the Company does not control and is not responsible and is not liable in any manner for any content submitted to the service., which in my opinion means it cannot be used as a reliable source regardless of who is doing the posting. Moreover, while people directly involved with making, etc. of the siren probably do indeed know alot more about it than "outsiders", what they know is not as important as what can be verified through published reliable third-party or secondary sources in Wikipedia's eyes. In other words, I may be an expert on something and know what I say to be true, but what matters is whether what I know can be verified by others through reliable sources. This doesn't mean that reliable sources are always error free, but it does mean that reliable sources do tend to be carefully checked for errors by more than one person before they are published. If any of that sounds confusing, please try reading the essays "Verifiability, not truth"　and "Expert editors" for reference. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

HighBeam Research
How reliable is HighBeam research? An IP user has raised concern that the content saved there might not be true,hence clarifying. According to the IP, since the original content cannot be traced back hence that makes Highbeam unreliable. But don't we use archives everyday for rotten links? —Indian:BIO  [ ChitChat ] 17:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Linkrot doesn't make something unreliable. Just see it it was archived at the WayBack Machine. From what I gather, HighBeam Research isn't a source, just a search engine. Sounds like each individual source would need to be assessed individually.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please {{re}} 17:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It would help to know the title and author of the target page. Rhoark (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Highbeam is definitively a reliable reproduction of what appeared in the original paper. That is their business. Whether the original newspaper article is appropriately reliable source is a different matter. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, though Highbeam itself shouldn't be used as a source. That is, the inline citation should name the original newspaper, not Highbeam. Highbeam can be used for the URL when the original article isn't available online. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry
Is The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry a reliable source in the context of the article on Clomipramine? What would be a reliable source in this context?-- Auric  talk  16:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Depends on the article, it needs to be a review, meta analysis, or other secondary source. Take a look at WP:MERS Formerly 98 (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Progress Illinois
The page in question is Illinois Policy Institute. Are these two sources  reliable to establish IPI's donors? They strike me as extremely partisan and attack-oriented. The two Progress Illinois citations are based off of a report by Center for Media and Democracy attacking IPI and other groups. The name of the reports is "Stink Tanks." Obviously Progress Illinois is an opponent of IPI, so I don't think these are appropriately reliable sources to be using on the article. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually this posting may be premature. A discussion is underway at Talk:Illinois_Policy_Institute. Interested editors are encouraged to contribute there. – S. Rich (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think this posting is premature. I've made numerous attempts on the talk page to discuss the neutrality of these sources, two editors have expressed objections to the sourcing, yet the sources are still being used in the article. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This strikes me as one step up from a blog. I seems to be advocacy and attack campaign site. I would judge it reliable only for its own opinions. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. Hmm, source for its own opinions. Works for me. That's good advice, thanks. Hugh (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * BUT I must go on, your assessment is rushed and harsh. Progress Illinois has been producing important stories since 2008. Progress Illinois has a decent size full-time staff. Please see also their FAQ which may directly address some of your concerns. Progress Illinois is a recipient of the prestigious Studs Turkel Media Award from the Community Media Workshop organization of Columbia College in Chicago, among other recognitions. Please see Progress Illinois, 2010 Terkel Award Winner: "...among the most successful of the local new news sites..." Their own WP page is long overdue. Yes, Progress Illinois is advocacy: "Progress Illinois is a website that provides commentary and analysis on issues important to working families and the progressive movement at large," but WP sources are not required to free of attitude. May I ask, what did you see in your brief visit that seemed to you to be as you say an attack? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it the role of RSN to maintain WP's black list of organizations from which no sources may be used? Why are we doing a thumbs up/thumbs down thing on Progress Illinois? I was surprised to see no mention of the particular context in your short comment. After all, the context is a WP article undergoing active improvement about a subject that is located at a particular point in the political spectrum, NPOV demands inclusion of other views. In Illinois Progress Illinois is an important one of those views. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Doing my best to steer this discussion to the pertinent article page, I again refer interested parties to consider the context in which Progress Illinois might be used. Perhaps PI is RS, perhaps not. But WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, so without Source, Article, and Content – which are requested in the RSN page instructions – this thread is ..... Well, I'm again asking that interested editors comment on the article talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 06:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

As noted in the wall above: "Sourcewatch" is a Wiki. It is not usable as a secondary reliable source, nor is any source which uses it then a secondary reliable source. Same as we do not allow any source which credits Wikipedia in any way for the claims being made. Remember Wiki's by their very nature are ephemeral in content - thus it is not even usable for claims of opinions, as anyone who can edit at all can rewrite and alter any opinions in such articles. In short - I would not even say "opinions cited as opinions" sourced to a Wiki can be used. Collect (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "...nor is any source which uses it then a secondary reliable source..." Too strong of a summary if the situation; regrettably, things are not so straight forward and must include context and be taken by cases. (cross-posting) Yes, SourceWatch is a wiki but it is not viral. We do not black list orgs in terms of RS without context. For example, the SourceWatch is a project of the Center for Media and Democracy, and the Center for Media and Democracy uses SourceWatch in part as a document repository. That repository includes numerous primary documents of which there can be no reasonable doubt as to their authenticity, for example, federal filings. SourceWatch may be referenced for those primary documents, and secondary sources including the Center for Media and Democracy which use those primary documents may be used as secondary sources. The mere existence of a hyperlink from a source to SourceWatch does not demonstrate that that source is not RS. The mere existence of a hyperlink to SourceWatch in a document produced by a publisher does not blacklist that publisher. Hugh (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Further clarification: the issue at hand is that the Center for Media and Democracy, a progressive group which publishes the wiki SourceWatch, published a series of attack pieces regarding state think tanks. The report is called "Stink Tanks." The report was cross-published and promoted with ProgressNow and Progress Illinois. The "Stink Tanks" report is now being used as a source on the Illinois Policy Institute page in the context of listing IPI's donors. I don't think exposes on an organization are a reliable source, especially for their donors. In this case, all roads lead back to SourceWatch, an open wiki, which adds to the issues establishing WP:RS. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Please start a new RSN request for your concerns with the Center for Media and Democracy or other sources. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

So, OP. Let me ask you: How do you think it went? How would you close this one? What is your interpretation of the consensus? Hugh (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

"The two Progress Illinois citations..." So, OP. No need to explain your initial confusion, lumping ProgressNow and Progress Illinois together? No way the mistake might have confused other editors here? You got what you wanted, a RSN request useful in spiking any source from any organization with "Progress" in the name, so might as well let sleeping dogs lie? How would you close this? Sum it up for us before it rolls off. Hugh (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Anything you want to share with your fellow editors before this rolls off? Hugh (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Let me help you get started: "I mistakenly created this RSN request and titled it thinking it was 2 refs from the same source. Sorry for the confusion. and given the confusion, of course I wouldn't think of using this RSN in support of anything, and if I have strong feelings, I will do better individual RSN requests." Hugh (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Eight days now since this thread was opened and we do not have a definitive statement as to what the issue is. Last comment, other than from HughD, was 6 days ago. Please let's permit this thread drop via normal 5 day archiving. – S. Rich (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How would you close it? How do you think it went? Was the consensus Progress Illinois is not RS, or ProgressNow is not RS, or everything with "Progress" in the name is not RS? How about your fav not RS? Yet another RSN discussion of which the consensus was Center for Media and Democracy is not RS? Sum it up for us. Hugh (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. In summary: ProgressNow, Progress Illinois, and the Center for Media and Democracy all published a riff on the same story, which was a non-RS report originally co-authored by ProgressNow & CMD. The talk page consensus at Illinois Policy Institute amply demonstrates a consensus against that report, or any republications of it. Rather than accept that consensus was against you in this situation, you instead chose to bat around the conspiracy theory that I had somehow maliciously conflated ProgressNow and Progress Illinois to get other people to agree with me here at RSN (ignoring the fact that it doesn't matter if the sources are named Progress Illinois or ProgressNow or if they are related to each other or not, because the problem is that all of these citations are simply re-postings of the decidedly non-RS "Stink Tanks" report authored by CMD). Your attempts at drumming up interest in this debunked theory were ignored, so now you are mad and have taken to posting a series of POINTY remarks on this noticeboard. This discussion has clearly run its course, so I suggest you drop it so we can both move on to greener pastures. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "...it doesn't matter if the sources are named Progress Illinois or ProgressNow..." You opened this RSN discussion. You titled it "Progress Illinois." You started the discussion with "The two Progress Illinois citations..." You have yet to acknowlegde this error in the RSN request. Let's summarize this RSN discussion before we move on. What is your take-away from this RSN discussion? ProgressNow is not RS, Progress Illinois is not RS? The Center for Media and Democracy is not RS? All of the above? Everything with "Progress" in the name? I'm curious how you will use this RSN discussion once it is archived. Thank you in advance for your reply. Hugh (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

 * ProgressNow unreliable, Progress Illinois reliable: ProgressNow is an advocacy organization, not a journalistic organization, so not reliable, end of story. Progress Illinois is a close call but I land on the side of it being reliable. It was called a blog by MidwestBusiness.com but hey, this is the new world of digital media, so I don't think that's an automatic disqualification. Both the author and the editorial staff have bona fide journalism credentials. Finally, the CMD report is heavily and properly attributed throughout the article; I see no evidence that the article has endorsed the report's findings. I also see zero language suggestive that the source is partisan or attack-oriented. And it's not at all "obvious" to me that Progress Illinois is an opponent of IPI. From what I can tell Progress Illinois is a news organization that covers progressive issues, nothing unreliable about that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Historyofwar.org
List of Iranian commanders in the Iran–Iraq War was listed on the Guild of Copy Editors request page, and there seems to be quite a bit of POV in the article. "During this phase of the war, the Iraqis used poison gas to repel Iranian attacks. Both mustard gas and the more modern nerve gas were used, demonstrating the Iraqis' capability to manufacture and deploy such weapons of mass destruction." is supported by this. How reliable is historyofwar.org for Iran and Iraq? Thanks and all the best,  Mini  apolis  20:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

 * It says here that it's an "encyclopedia" and I believe tertiary sources are considered to have only marginal reliability - certainly not enough for such a bold claim. It looks like the project is operated by a couple people, but operates 5,000+ articles (not a good sign) and while it's possible the authors are just not boastful enough about themselves, neither seems to claim they are well-known historians to suggest they have a claim as expert sources. I don't think it's reliable. CorporateM (Talk) 00:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My concern was that it may be just passing along POV from unreliable sources. All the best,  Mini  apolis  14:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Russian sources
Dear colleagues, I wonder if Wikipedia rules allow use scientific reliable russian language sources? --Yury2015 (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Collect (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The language of the source does not matter, we allow reliable scientific sources that are written in any language. Of course, whether the specific source that you are thinking of is (or is not) a reliable scientific source is another question. No comment on that. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Finnish doctoral thesis
A doctoral thesis from 2009 is being used as a source for statements about masculism and feminism in the masculism article. The thesis doesn't cite references for its novel and probably fringe claims about masculism and feminism (e.g., "A parallel cause of gender discrimination is feminism, which is the female interest group ideology that causes discrimination against men due to the feminist bias.") The doctoral candidate writes about his or her definition of masculism and feminism ("Masculism may be defined..." [my emphasis]) but the author doesn't cite references or explain what his or her observations are based on, which is probably uncommon for a thesis. It starts on page 120 and goes on from there. Is this thesis a reliable source for statements about masculism and feminism in Wikipedia's voice? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * there are far more appropriate and definitively reliable sources that should be used. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I realize that it is technically not a medical claim, but a psychological one, but I would think the same principles apply; this looks like someone publishing the result of their own work, whereas we would want secondary sources. CorporateM (Talk) 00:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Not reliable. No evidence of independent publication or peer review. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

ResearchGate
I would like to solicit opinions on the general question of whether ResearchGate can be used as a reliable source. More specifically, I would like to hear whether people think that this can be used in our article on this journal (Journal of Slavic Military Studies). See also the recent edit history of that article and the discussion on its talk page. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Taylor & Francis appears to be a decent publisher. ResearchGate links to a publication of a reputable publisher here thus is usable.  Collect (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably not. ResearchGate appears to be a social networking site made up of user-generated content, and so it is not a reliable source. It may link to reliable sources, but me doing this, for example, does not make Wikipedia a reliable source. The specific page linked to carries a disclaimer saying "accuracy cannot be guaranteed". Formerip (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Not reliable. There is no indication material at ResearchGate has been fact-checked or peer reviewed. The content on that specific page could very well have been written by the Taylor & Francis itself for marketing purposes. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ResearchGate is not a Wiki - so we can stop that issue. The articles are named and sourced to a particular publication which is a reliable source.   BTW, Taylor & Francis has a quite decent reputation.   vets it highly and is not ResearchGate.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because a publisher puts out good peer-reviewed journals doesn't mean its marketing materials are reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Comment ResearchGate is not itself a source; it doesn't make sense to ask if it's reliable. It's a place where researchers can post their own papers, and it provides some aggregation services to identify the journals and publishers of those papers. The item you linked is just (maybe slightly old, since the wording is a tiny bit different) data from the publisher's descriptions of the journal. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That confirms my suspicion. Thanks for the research. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

 * No – I did some work recently on ResearchGate, and no it's generally not a reliable source. Or rather, since researchers can post anything they want, it's as reliable as the researcher. In this case the question seems to have been whether ResearchGate is more reliable than the journal's own website, and I would say obviously not, because it's likely that the publisher created both the website and the ResearchGate entry. Neither is more reliable than the other. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The question appears to be based on a misunderstanding of what ResearchGate is. ResearchGate is a social network, where, as noted by others, researchers can publish bibliographical information relating to their publications and upload their papers. When you find something interesting at ResearchGate, it has usually been published somewhere else, typically in a peer-reviewed journal. One would normally cite the original publication, not ResearchGate as such, but if the author has uploaded their work to ResearchGate, there is no reason not to include a link to it. Bjerrebæk (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Somewhat reliable, but better option. It seems like people are maybe misunderstanding the question potentially because it's a bit vague. Looking at the article, the question seems to be on info about scope. The specific content being referenced is just a description of what the journal is. I do not know how Researchgate gets descriptions for journals, but this does not appear to be user generated like a wiki or social networking site like others are focusing on. That information is likely generated by the journal itself or Researchgate. The link could be ok for describing the scope of the journal, but that's the only thing potentially reliable or even worthwhile from that page. That's largely moot though because you can get a very similar description from the journal itself on its scope here. Everything else is just an aggregation of sources from elsewhere. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, ResearchGate was being used to "source" the (rather promotional) statement "The journal draws from a "unique international editorial board" that creates varied and surprising content." The first part is actually also on the journal's own website. The second part has changed since yesterday ("surprising" has been removed). The assertion that the board creates the content comes out of nowhere. I agree that scope can be reliably sourced ot a journal's own website (that's actually standard practice for academic journal articles). Given the above comments that almost all conclude that RG is not a reliable source, I have removed the promotionall statement. I didn't give my own opinion in the original post, as I didn't want to influence the responses that I would get. In fact, I completely agree with about the nature of RG. I have never seen any indication that there is any editorial control. (As an aside, I'm quite familiar witg RG, having been a member almost since it started, although I don't find it very useful myself). Thanks to all for participating. --Randykitty (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this website reliable?
Are these two pages, both from same website reliable for writing the article on Shia view of Umar. Is www.al-islam.org a reliable source? Thanks Mbcap (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of the website www.austadiums.com
Can anybody check and confirm it whether the attendance data recorded for all venues for all sports played in australia and New Zealand in this website is correct or not? I mean can you confirm it whether this website is reliable or not?  Arka  92  09:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC) (Originally posted on talk page, moving here. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC))

 * It might depend on the specific content being cited. According to this page, Austadiums gets its news from Fox Sports. Presumably most Fox Sports article are reliable but you should be citing the original Fox Sports articles themselves rather than Austadiums. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Does Fox Sports publish the attendances for all matches? What about those matched where Fox Sports don't have the broadcasting rights, eg BBL??  Arka  92  03:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your guess is as good as mine. Remember that the editor seeking to add content has the burden of showing that content is reliably sourced. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So I can assume this website to be marginally reliable and we can use these data in Wikipedia. Right?  Arka  92  06:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

idiotbox.co.uk
I just wanted a couple of second opinions about the website http://www.idiotbox.co.uk/. They are reporting that Chris Pappas is leaving Neighbours here, but appear to be the only ones doing so at the moment. The article is a GA, so I'm just being a bit cautious about leaving a source there that I'm unsure about. - JuneGloom07  Talk  22:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Unreliable. Looks like a blog run by two enthusiasts. There is no evidence of editorial oversight. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with DrFleischman  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please {{re}} 01:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. I'll remove it and wait for a better source. - JuneGloom07  Talk  17:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Taddlr.com
I am interested in hearing the opinions of others on whether Taddlr.com satisfies WP:RS. I came across it while checking made to Melissa McBride. The same IP editor who made that edit also used Taddlr to support added to Mayim Bialik. Taddlr pages are also being used as references on Bastian Schweinsteiger, Booboo Stewart, Willa Holland. I tried looking for an "About Us" or something similar for the site, but couldn't find anything. I did find the following statement at the bottom of the site's Melissa McBride Page: ''On Taddlr you can find the 2015 boyfriend, husband, lover or kids of celebs. Also biography info and trivia about the ancestry and origin, age, height, weight, bra-size, hair style, diet, fitness routine & tips or whether she smokes (cigarettes or weed) or has a tattoo. And read about her net worth, salary, house and car. Almost everything is based on factual information, but sometimes we are forced to speculate. Has a couple broken up or gotten a divorce? Or does someone earn more salary this year? You can edit this yourself!''

FWIW, the same statement seems to appear at the bottom of every celebrity bio page on the site. This leads me to strongly believe that the site fails as a RS per WP:UGC, WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:BLPSOURCES. Since none information being supported by Taddlr cites seems particularly harmful to the subjects of the articles per WP:BLPREMOVE, I just thought I see if others felt the same before deciding what to do next. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not reliable. Spumuq (talq) 10:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. Let me ask a follow-up question. What should be done if the consensus is that Taddlr.com is unreliable? Should the information be removed altogether, or just the source removed and the information tagged with "citation needed"? - Marchjuly (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Remove the text, because it is about people and it does not have a reliable source? Spumuq (talq) 11:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is anything written about a living person that can't be backed up by an RS it should be removed without question. If it can be attributed to a reliable source (and isn't UNDUE) at a later point in time, it can be re-added. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback and clarification. I once removed unsourced info from a BLP, only be told that was overkill because the material wasn't contentious and that I should've added a "citation needed" template instead. So, I just wanted to make sure this time around. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , you're undoubtedly correct and fully justified in removing unsourced content in a BLP. The use of a template is often useful for other areas of Wikipedia but, for the purposes of a BLP, I adhere to an 'if in doubt, throw it out' attitude. We do need to take the WP:HARM principle seriously (regardless of its only being an essay). It's fine to remove the unsourced or dubiously sourced content out and create a new section on the talk page of the article in order to qualify why you removed it. Dependent on whether you consider that the content may violate WP:NOTGOSSIP or similar concerns (therefore preferably shouldn't be immediately visible on the talk page), either cut and paste the content or leave a WP:DIFF pointing to the removed content. In that manner the unsourced content won't be lost if someone can find RS for its inclusion, and provided that there is consensus that it's WP:DUE. 'Not contentious' is a subjective argument (i.e., the onus is on the user who added the information to demonstrate that it isn't simply a case of WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSIMPORTANT on their behalf). Good for you for being conscientious! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Iryna Harpy. Actually what you wrote is essentially what I did. Even so I was told my action was excessive. It was something that happened almost 6 months ago, but I've been wondering ever since if my interpretation of not using "cn" templates on BLPs was correct. For reference, the discussion took place at Talk:Mike Tyson. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Having read through that talk page section, I'd wholeheartedly agree with your evaluation, most particularly as it involved appropriate content for the infobox. Whether those developing the article are certain that everyone has heard a particular nickname and believes it to be common knowledge is irrelevant. We're not writing for ourselves. Nothing about a BLP can be assumed to be self-evident. If other editors involved don't like it, it's their problem. Being a pedant happens to be a requisite skill for bios. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Scotland women's national football team 1972–99 results
This list of soccer results fails verification due to inadequate sourcing. The two references cover only eight of 96 results while the external link lists only results from 2002, so is not a reliable source for 1972-1999. The owner of the article has repeatedly reintroduced the contentious material and removed tags. The list does seem quite detailed so I suspect the information must have some from somewhere (perhaps from de) or from an uncited offline source. If so, there are potential WP:COPYWITHIN and/or WP:PLAGIARISM implications for the article in its current state. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 10:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 184


text:
Cookbook:Chocolate Mousse

| Cuisine of France | Dessert

Mousse au chocolat (French for "chocolate foam") is a sweet food, normally served as dessert.

Ingredients

 * 200 g (8 oz) bittersweet chocolate, chopped (see notes)
 * 3 eggs (see notes)
 * 250 ml (1 cup) cream
 * 40 g white granulated sugar
 * 30 ml (2 tablespoons) hot water

Procedure

 * 1) Melt the chocolate in a double boiler.
 * 2) Separate the eggs.
 * 3) Whip the egg whites and cream separately until very firm. Put both in the refrigerator.
 * 4) Combine the egg yolks and hot water in a mixing bowl; maximum tap water temperature is enough, approx. 50–60°C (120–140°F). Using a mixer, beat slowly while adding the sugar, then speed up the mixer until the mixture is thick and becomes a light yellow color.
 * 5) Stir the melted chocolate into the yolk mixture (the chocolate should have cooled enough that it does not hurt if you insert your finger). Mix immediately, otherwise this will cook the egg yolks, and you'll have chocolate scrambled eggs!
 * 6) With a whisk (from now on do not use the mixer) add the egg whites in three parts to the chocolate mixture, followed by the whipped cream.
 * 7) The finished mousse should be light brown and very fluffy. While it is still liquid, divide it into individual serving dishes. Allow to chill in the refrigerator for 4–6 hours before serving. The mousse will be quite firm when ready.

Notes, tips and variations

 * This recipe is not the "purest" form, which contains only bittersweet chocolate and eggs: 6 eggs for 200 g (8 oz) of chocolate; no cream, no sugar.
 * It is one of the easiest recipes for untrained cooks. The only "difficult" parts are separating the eggs and folding the egg whites.
 * For the more advanced cook: use a fourth yolk (and only the yolk!); it ensures that the mousse becomes firm. However, the mixture must be worked faster, beginning with the addition of the chocolate to the yolk/sugar mixture.
 * Instead of the water, use an alcoholic spirit such as Cognac, Cointreau, Kahlua, Triple Sec, etc., for all or part of the 30 ml. However, the mousse is then not suitable for children or pregnant women.
 * Coffee can also be satisfyingly substituted for the liquid.
 * Almond powder, almond butter, or orange rind can also be used to add flavor to the mousse (one tablespoon per 6 eggs)
 * There is also an Atkins-friendly recipe.

Warnings

 * This mousse is best consumed within 24 hours.
 * Do not keep substantially longer, even if refrigerated.

Kochbuch/ Mousse au chocolat Livre de cuisine/Mousse au chocolat Kookboek/Chocolademousse

title: Cookbook:Chocolate Mousse


text:
User:Madekale/sandbox

Adding to An Article:

For this particular assignment, I added to the wiki article entitled: Vicarious Traumatization. I added the following sentence: “The symptoms of vicarious trauma align with the symptoms of primary, actual trauma. When helping professionals attempt to connect with their clients/victims emotionally, the symptoms of vicarious trauma can create emotional disturbance such as feelings of sadness, grief, irritability and mood swings.” I focused on discussing the symptoms of vicarious trauma (particularly, emotional symptoms). I would like to continue to edit this article. Below, I have compiled a bibliography list for future direction regarding this article: If I continue to edit this article, I believe I would like to discuss prevention, self-care strategies, or potential solutions for vicarious trauma (the findings may have strong implications for people in helping professions).

Bell H., Kulkarni S., Dalton L. (2003). Organizational prevention of vicarious trauma. Families in Society, 84, 463-470.

Bober T., Regehr C. (2006). Strategies for reducing secondary or vicarious trauma: Do they work? Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 6, 1-9.

Catanese, S. A. (2010). Traumatized by association: The risk of working sex crimes. Federal Probation, 74(2), 36-38.

Skovholt, T.M. (2001). The resilient practitioner: Burnout, prevention and self-care strategies for counselor, therapists, teachers, and health professionals. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Trippany, R., White Kress, V. & Wilcoxon, A. (2004). Preventing vicarious trauma: What counselors should know when working with trauma survivors. Journal of Counseling and Development, 82, 31–37.

Article Evaluation

I completed my article evaluation on the article entitled: Vicarious Traumatization (VT). The article needs some improvement:

·        The last word in the title (traumatization) should be shortened to simply read (trauma).

·        The first sentence appears to be cluttered with language and it just ends up making the sentence complicated. It reads: Vicarious traumatization (VT) is a transformation in the self of a trauma worker or helper that results from empathic engagement with traumatized clients and their reports of traumatic experiences. I am wondering why the authors can’t just simply say: Vicarious Trauma refers to secondary trauma that helping professionals experience due to helping traumatized individuals.

·        The definition of vicarious trauma in this article is incorrect.

·        The article states that McCann and Pearlmann coined the term. This is incorrect I believe. It was Karen Saakvitne and Laurie Anne Peralman that coined the term. Additionally, the article should state the full names of the folks that invented the word.

·        The article then goes on to name other people who contributed to the word. I don’t think this is necessary, just state the prominent contributors two or three names should be sufficient.

·        By the end of the article I felt distracted because the article started to talk about vicarious transformation. Is this an article about vicarious trauma? Or vicarious transformation? The article needs some focus.

·        Some links don’t work to the citations and some of the references are outdated.

·        Most of the information in this article is outdated (from the 80’s or 90’s). I am wondering if there is recent research, perhaps in the last couple of years, that talk about vicarious trauma.

·        The talk page seems to agree with me that this article needs some improvement.

·        The article is rated as an “unassessed psychology article” and “unknown-importance psychology article.”

·        The structure of the article can use some editing to include the correct definition of the word “vicarious trauma,” the origin and history of the word, the symptoms of vicarious trauma and examples of how vicarious trauma has been represented in our world throughout history, and in the present time. I am open to editing this article.

title: User:Madekale/sandbox


text:
Business Process Management and Automation in Project Management

Project Description
To improve the return on investment for all activities undertaken within any organization is a fundamental concern to everyone involved. This means that every entity must look beyond meeting the expectations of the current task at hand. They must also be looking forward to what value to the activity will bring to the organization as a whole. Doing so ensures not only the success of the organization and project, but also increases the likelihood of receiving funding and support for future endeavors.

To this end Project Managers, and in larger organizations the Project Management Office, have become integral parts to many initiatives. The leadership skills, industry specific experience and knowledge, and understanding of effective project management these entities bring have enabled projects to successfully come in on time, on budget, and as outlined.

But now the question arises : How does an organization improve upon the activities of the Project Manager and the Project Management Office? The answer lies within the field of Business Process Management and Automation. More specifically, these organizations need to undertake activities to optimize their existing business processes surrounding their project management methodology, and adapt these processes to new organizational needs.

The goal of this project is to outline to any organization the opportunity they have to improve their return on investment from projects through the application of Business Process Management and Automation techniques within their project management environment. Through the analysis of the PMI : Project Management Body of Knowledge, steps will be outlined in detail on how organizations can improve not only individual projects, but overall organizational performance as well.

Shera08 14:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)=Project Topics= Background Information ->Business Process Mangagement Automation ->Project Management Business Process Management and Automation in Project Management ->Project Lifecycle ->Scope Creep ->Resource Allocation and Tracking ->Cost Estimation ->Timescales ->Communication Plan ->Task Allocation

Suggested Reading / Bibliography
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge Third Edition. Project Management Institute (PMI) (2004). Newton Square, Pennsylvania : Project Management Institute Inc.

The Canadian Government’s Style of Enterprise Business Architecture, ID Number: G00128065. R. Scott Bittler and Greg Kreizman (2005). Stamford, Connecticut : Gartner Research Publications.

Contributors

 * user:jcoickle


text:
Talk:Derrick Alexander (wide receiver)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Derrick Alexander (wide receiver). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070507140016/http://stats.ath.umich.edu/football/schedlist.php to http://stats.ath.umich.edu/football/schedlist.php

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Derrick Alexander (wide receiver)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Derrick Alexander (wide receiver)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BR": From Ron Johnson (running back):  From Harry Agganis:

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Derrick Alexander (wide receiver)


text:
Portal:Quantum computing

Welcome to the Quantum Computing content development project where participants can create, organize and develop learning resources for quantum computing.

Learning resources

 * Quantum Computing
 * Quantiki - A Wiki about Quantum Computing
 * Temple of Quantum Computing - Good tutorial for everyone
 * jQuantum - Quantum Computer Simulator
 * IBM Quantum Experience - Use a remote real quantum computer

News
Quantum computers use quantum phenomena such as superposition and Quantum Entanglement to carry out operations on data. These computers do exist but use only a small number of qubits, on February 15th, 2007 D-Wave Systems, a leader in Quantum computing technology, demonstrated its 16 qubit quantum computer. 16 qubits is not that fast, and is expensive and hard to maintain, but research and technology in the area are growing at an incredible rate. In June of 2006 D-Wave systems was excited about the 3 qubit system they had available. 6 months later they have a 16 qubit system operational.

Requested related topics
Safeer E Kashmir Qau
 * Topic:Josephson junction
 * Topic:Topological quantum field theory
 * Topic:Anyon
 * Shor's algorithm

title: Portal:Quantum computing