Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Resolved

 – Clearly a reliable source. Underlying disputes should be raised at another DR board. Fladrif (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Source: Israel and the Politics of Jewish Identity: The Secular-Religious Impasse by Asher Cohen and Bernard Susser. The Johns Hopkins University Press (May 24, 2000) - pg. 83

2. Article: Elazar Shach

3. Content:

The original wording on the Elazar Shach Wikipedia page was as follows:

In May 1998, following talk of a political compromise which would allow Haredim to perform national service by guarding holy places, Shach told his followers in a public statement that it is forbidden to serve in the army and that "it is necessary to die for this."^[1] All the leaders of the Haredi world united behind this stand.^[2]

.

This was later reverted and discussed on the talk page.

The specific line in question is the following:

All the leaders of the Haredi world united behind this stand.

.

The original quote in the book is as follows:

The leadership of the Haredi community made its uncompromising position as plain as it could. Rabbi Menachem Schach (the spiritual leader of the Lithuanian branch of the Haredi world) declared simply that “it is forbidden [for yeshiva students] to be drafted into the army – even if the price is sacrificing one’s life.” This is a case, Rabbi Shach continued, in which, halachically, one must “be killed rather than transgress.” All the leaders of the Haredi world united behind this stand.

.

Am I correct that this is a valid source?

Yonoson3 (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our presumption would be that a book from this publisher is reliable. If the author makes a statement that contradicts another reliable source, it would be OK to cite both and to attribute the claim(s) to the author(s) in our text, thus indicating to the reader that a disagreement exists. Does that help? Andrew Dalby 08:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the particular sentence in question here represents a highly WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, I would suggest it not be inserted until it can, in line with policy, be supported by "multiple high-quality sources". As this sentence has already been removed a number of times (if I recall correctly), seeking consensus on the subject talk page would also be advisable.--Winchester2313 (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. The book given as a source for the claim was published by Johns Hopkins University, and thus has good standing as a reliable source.
2. This book cites as its source for the claim a specific article in a journal called "Ma'arw". This is a transliteration from a Hebrew title and I cannot find what journal this might be. Any question about the reliability of the claim would have to be based upon the quality of this journal as a reliable source. At the moment, however, as it was employed by a reliable author in an academically published, peer-reviewed work, I would have to assume that the source is solid.
3. There have been various reverts, but no counter citation (or even claim) has been provided, for example of even a single Haredi leader who did not agree with the stand. One would think that this would be relatively easy to provide if there had been any notable dissent. Given the publicity around the situation, if no editor can find any evidence of a Haredi leader who disagreed with the stand, this speaks volumes.
4. Finally, given the Haredi position on military service, the claim does not strike me as exceptional. I would suggest that the source be regarded as valid and the claim reinstated until some proof of dissent from the claimed unity is found. hgilbert (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The claim being made in that statement is so obviously ludicrous that it can not be included without "multiple high-quality sources" as per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, that much is clear from the specific wording of the policy. As to what sounds like a fair amount of WP:OR, policy squarely places the burden on the contributing editor to justify inclusion as per WP:V. Strictly for informative purposes, awareness of the real life situation in 1988 would clearly be beneficial. The most prominent leaders among the various Haredi groups in Israel during 1988 included:

Yitzchok Yaakov Weiss

Ovadia Yosef

Avraham Shapira

Shlomo Zalman Auerbach

Shmuel Wosner

Mordechai Eliyahu

among others. To assume that they (or any other leaders) were in agreement with a reckless and incendiary statement by Elazar Shach who, unlike them, was never even a posek is a silly fantasy which also fails common sense.--Winchester2313 (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I really think that the disputants involved in the editing of this article are going to need to take the whole thing to some other DR noticeboard. I suggest Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies as a good first choice. There are limits to what RSN can and can't resolve. Fladrif (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, sigh, User Winchester2313 (talk · contribs) will never give up because from his unbending POV only the 7th and last Lubavitcher Rebbe can be the "greatest" rabbi of the age and since Shach was his nemesis, Winchester will be fighting tooth and nail until the end of time resorting to any and all forms of WP:LAWYERING and violations of WP:POINT to prevent this article from making headway, as he has been for a long time, for the "honor of his rabbi" to be named #1. Anyhow it's really not a contest because in the world Lithuanian Jewry Shach was the head rabbi of that group without equals in ISRAEL towards the latter part of his life when he headed the Aguda and then broke off to head the Degel HaTorah party. That's just the way it was/is, IZAK (talk) 11:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, RSN can advise as to whether a source is reliable or not. This one is - prominent academic press, highly regarded authors with extensive publication history in the field. Now, knowing nothing whatsoever about the subject-matter of the article, the statement in the source that all the rabbis agreed on some point struck me as unlikely - rather like the old saying that if you get three lawyers in the same room you'll get four opinions. But, that's a gut reaction, not an informed one. If the source is wrong, the solution is to find another reliable source that contradicts it, and present both in a balanced fashion, not to throw it out. What weight it or any other source should be given in this Wikipedia article, as well as the broader disputes between the editors involved in the article is probably something that should go to RFC/Biographies Fladrif (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fladrif. Thanks for your observations and you are are right. But as long as one is dealing with this topic in a rational manner then of course it's possible to come to agreements and consensus about sources. But just take a look for yourself at the highly charged comments right here, above, by User Winchester2313 (talk · contribs) [EMPHASIS MINE]: "To assume that they (or any other leaders) were in agreement with a reckless and incendiary statement by Elazar Shach who, unlike them, was never even a posek is a silly fantasy which also fails common sense" what kind of a way of speaking is that, it sounds so heated and in violation of WP:COI because it's obvious that what we have here is blatant pro-Chabad attack propaganda coming from a pro-Chabad editor namely Winchester, (and such editors have been warned, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Proposed decision#Future proceedings) yet this user opnely resorts to constant WP:HOUNDING and should long ago have been censured for always inflaming discussions about this topic. So see for yourself how he is so overly emotionally invested in both attacking the subject of the topic as well as his opposing editors resorting to obvious violations of WP:CIVIL; WP:AGF and sadly WP:BATTLEGROUND. Thanks again for understanding this problem that has been going on for years. By the way, none of the rabbis cited by Winchester above ever opposed Shach on the issue of drafting Haredi yeshiva students to the Israeli army, as even events from today, many years after Shach's death prove. IZAK (talk) 09:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this has already been to ArbCom once, then it is probably time to take this back to ArbCom. I think that RSN has done all that it can. Fladrif (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fladriff: Indeed, at ArbCom a huge number of similar examples were listed, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence, but the grey zone between "content disputes" and "edit warring" has been blurred -- to the advantage of the anti-Shach = pro-Chabad edit warriors, yet, with the level of aggressive blocking and stonewalling by the string of anti-Shach = pro-Chabad edit warriors this remains a part of an ongoing series of similar "fist-fights" that have no end. Feel free to take it back to the ArbCom if the discussion can't be concluded here or at any other WP noticeboard. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. There's been a very lengthy discussion about which website to use for box office gross at this section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Which_box_office_number_site_that_should_be_use_for_references) of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. This matter is getting out of hand. I feel like I'm talking with people who are not ready to listen anyone's opinion here. I'm not insulting them but after reading the content in upper link carefully you'll probably understand why I'm saying this. Trust me I've tried explaining to them and also they keep making stuff up like I'm bullying them. I accept I called them inexperienced users once but that was actually the only insult i gave to them well ony to users BattleshipMan and Betty Logan. All of these users are saying that Boxoffice.com is not reliable but BOM is. I'll like you to check this link carefully please ( http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=reddawn10.htm) . As you can see the total foreign box office gross of this movie Red Dawn is given as "n/a" while foreign box office gross of many countries is given. Now this user Betty Logan that I was discussing with say that gross for all countries is not available. Well I'm surprised how does user Betty Logan knows this? I don't think she has contacted them and even if it is true why don't BOM add up all the gross for all territories that are available to them. Even if they do not why in the world are they showing worldwide gross equal to the domestic gross. They're contradicting their own info! Which trade source have ever you seen state the domestic gross and worldwide gross of the movie equal when they only have the data about domestic gross of the movie available with them? Under one of the rules of idintifying a reliable source, " The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content." The data atleast for this movie is not reliable since they're contradicting their own info. And atleast for this movie BOM is not reliable however those users fail to understand this. I'd also like you to notice that this problem is present only with low grossing movies. No high grossibg film has this problem on BOM. Last of all no trade source uses BOM for citing the gross of this film Red Dawn. So I request you to exclude BOM as a reliable sources for the films where they make these type of mistakes.

My next topic is Boxoffice.com which kind of has a statas quo. I'd like you to notice that this website regularly updates it's foreign box office gross, backed up by TheNumbers.com and never contradicts it's own info. The users say it is not reliable. Well where's the proof for your statement? I accept budget is unusually high on this website and I don't want to get speculating like them. I do not want this to turn into an edit war that's why I requsest the intervention of admins. Instead of using a single source I suggest we use multiple sources for box office gross. Also last but not least I didn't say that Boxoffice.con is more reliable than Box Office Mojo. I used it because unlike BOM it does not contradicts it's own info. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that this editor is now WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Any readers will want to see this previous thread Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Which box office number site that should be use for references. You will note the reasoned arguments put forward by most of the editors there for the preferred use of Box Office Mojo. KahnJohn27 was warned about treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND but has obviously chosen to ignore that. So as to prevent the same discussion taking place you might add any comments to the previous thread - though you are certainly free to respond here as well. MarnetteD | Talk 00:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Followup I now see that K was recommended to come here to get more input so I have struck through my initial assertion of why this post came about. Editors will still want to be aware of the previous conversation. MarnetteD | Talk 00:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• KahnJohn27 is misrepresenting the discussion at the Film project. Box Office Mojo has served as a reliable source on film articles for box office data for many years, and has been included in many GA and FA rated articles without incident. This editor has been going through film articles replacing this source with a less reputable source on the pretext that he does not consider BOM reliable. The sole reason for this is that in some cases Box Office Mojo has not included the foreign grosses in its summary totals (see Red Dawn for an example, and note that the foreign gross is left unfilled). However, if you click on the Foreign tab, the foreign data is made available on another section of the entry. It seems KahnJohn regards Box Office Mojo as "unreliable" due to this inconsistency. I beg to differ: Box Office Mojo still makes the foreign data available to its readers i.e. it's there if you want to use it. He is drawing unfounded conclusions on the basis Box Office Mojo just hasn't updated a section of its website. The key points we look for in ascertaining the reliability of a source is that we trust it to accurately and honestly convey the facts and figures that we source to it, and there seems to be no cause for concern in this regard! Box Office Mojo still provides a breakdown of foreign grosses, it just doesn't conveniently tot them up for us in some cases, but the data is still there if we wish to use it and there is no compelling argument to doubt its veracity. He seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a "reliable source" on Wikipedia, and unfortunately despite several attempts at the Film project we have been unable to get the point across. As for the situation with BoxOffice.com, no-one to my knowledge has said it is unreliable: it's not a source any of us are particularly familiar with; in fact we advised that it should be vetted here before it is inserted into any more film articles. Betty Logan (talk) 01:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Just so you guys know, this is what KahnJohn27 wrote on my talk page in This section after I spoke to him on the talk page of Darkwarriorblake on this section. Betty Logan is one of the most experienced editors on Wikipedia. KahnJohn27 is not and he started editing as of last September. He is misrepresenting all this information and doesn't how to spell English that properly. I think the reliability and accuracy of BoxOffice.com should be vetted as well before it is inserted into any of the film articles. If it not that reliable, I say we should not use that site as reference for any of the films articles. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say I'm "one of the most experienced", but I'm certainly not "inexperienced" either; although being red linked I can appreciate why some editors might think that. I'm confident in my evaluation of Box Office Mojo though: I have used lots of box office sources in my time here and none of them have been without errors, and that includes Box Office Mojo. However, I don't believe this is the case this time: it's not ideal that BOM hasn't totaled the foreign grosses thus complicating its usage and that in itself may be a good reason to consider other sources on convenience grounds, but I don't agree it debunks it as a reliable source, especially if we don't have a legitimate reason for thinking the individual grosses are inaccurate. Betty Logan (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i accept I once called you inexperienced. That was the only insult I gave to you but I have never made a disrusptive edit so please stop that accusation. Also I might not spell English correctly. But this noticeboard is not the place for reporting someone's behavior or their incorrect English and nor any of us is going to decide which source is reliable or unreliable. The final decision rests in the hands of administrators and whatever they decide we all should respect that. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you all my edits are in good faith and I'm not trying to enforce my opinion. I am not misrepresenting the discussion. I am only reporting what I saw. Till now you have failed to give any proof that "Boxoffice.com" is unreliable. If I was trying to force my opinion I wouldn't have brought this matter here in the first place. Also I have already said that it was actually Darkwarriorblake who told me about Boxoffice.com so I think he will be a key help in solving this problem. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When a website starts contradicting it's own info it cannot be classified as reliable. Articles have earned the GA or FA status because they are reliably sourced and not because of Box office mojo. I'm not the one who is making things up but it is actually you. How can you so confidently say that BOM has'nt collected the box office gross for all territories that is why the total foreign gross is "n/a". Needles to say you're making this up on your own. I'd like to remind you just because a source is less reputable it doesn't mean it's unreliable. Also why don't you comment about using multiple sources? Is it really neccesary that we have to use a single source? KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

all sources occasionally make mistakes. KahnJohn, in order to completely discount BOmojo you would need to show that it REPEATEDLY is coming up with incorrect numbers- not just that it has once or twice, or that it hasnt published all of the information that you want in the for that that you want. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of links proving that BOM repeatedly makes these mistakes repeatedly :-

• http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=burtwonderstone.htm
• http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=call2013.htm
• http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=21andover.htm
• http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=deadmandown.htm
• http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=lastexorcism2.htm

Also Betty Logan said that BOM is conveying facts honestly. How is it providing information honestly when it is contradicting it's own info? It is not honestly conveying facts but misrepresenting facts. Last but not least why is there any problem with using Boxoffice.com. Why are we just using a single source for box office gross when we know they can't be completely accurate. Why can't we use multiple sources? KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what " mistake"? it is not a mistake for them to not report all of the data that you want in the manner that you want it presented. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor for nearly eight years, I can vouch for Betty Logan as one of WikiProject Films' most conscientious, knowledgable and constructive editors for quite some time. Multiple editors at the Project's talk page have all disagreed with KahnJohn27's position and find it disruptive to face his thousand-word rants and his bullying insistence that we "prove" this or that to him.

Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, two of the most venerable, longstanding trade publications in television and film, use the figures from Box Office Mojo, as has Wikipedia for years. If the film industry itself, whose studio accounting executives are certainly knowledgable and experienced in these matters, accept Box Office Mojo, then it certainly makes sense for Wikipedia to comport with the industry's most-accepted figures. The discussion at Wiki Project films looks WP:SNOWBALL from my perspective. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that Box Office Mojo is a reliable source. From what I can tell, BoxOffice.com seems acceptable since it has been referenced in news coverage too. Regarding Box Office Mojo, the cited examples are films that are still screening in theaters, so the figures are bound to be dynamic. Is the so-called mistake that it says "n/a" instead of rolling up all the countries' figures? While odd, it's hardly damning of this source. I would be more concerned if this was a systematic matter with films no longer in theaters, but I do not believe this is the case. In short, let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. Instead of purging Box Office Mojo from Wikipedia entirely, we should email Box Office Mojo to get clarification about their approach here and/or consider a process of using alternative sources if BOM does not have updated figures. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also support BOM being used as a reliable source and I also agree with Tenebrae and Erik's concerns and helpful suggestions here. We should contact BOM to get clarification about their approach to box office grosses. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about Boxoffice.com's gross figures and they don't even actually list foreign figures, just American figures and a total gross so they don't offer the same breakdown that BOM does, but tehre is definitely something wrong with their budget figures which are often massively out of line with BOM and industry sources, sometimes by tens of millions. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should be reliable sources on this and I think BOM is reliable enough as possible. I notice something else. On Olympus Has Fallen, BOM lists it production budget as $70,000,000 and BoxOffice.com lists it production budget at $100,000,000, which differs $30,000,000 on those sites. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not completely discounting BOM. I am only saying that is unreliable for those movies where this "n/a" problem is occuring. I agree that contacting them this problem and why it is occuring will be a much better solution. Also if you think Boxoffice.com is reliable then why is there a problem for using it for those films where this problem of n/a foreign gross occurs with BOM. Besides there is not much difference between the gross of the two sites. Why do we need to mention the gross accuarately as given on the websites when it can't be accurate? Why can't we instead show it as $21 - 24 million instead of $23.5 or $21.8 million? This question has been asked by me from beginning and unfortunately no one has talked about it. I request you to discuss this too. Lastly about the high budget on Boxoffice.com I don't know about that at all and I don't want to speculate. I suggest we should contact Boxoffice.com about this. But their high or wrong budget doesn't mean they can't be used as a source for box office gross. Apart from that even BOM's budget can be incorrect. It has displayed the budget of Oz The Great and Powerful as $195 million while all other industry sources say it is $200 million. Last but not least. In order to assure you that my edits are in good faith and not disriptive I'll like you to know I'll support the decision of the consensus no matter what's the decision but only if all facts are duly weighed. If I fail to convince you even then be it. I will try to appeal the decision if all facts are not counted but won't get into an edit war. I request you to please forgive if I have made a mistake or if I have insulted you. I'm really sorry. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

at the risk of pointing out the obvious, you do realize that the difference between $195 million and $200 million is all of 2.5% - and you expect anyone to think that such a variance on estimates is evidence of criminal errors? you are just making your position look more and more ridiculous. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to not get bogged down too much in the budget debate. No sources are great for budgets because they are usually estimates or based on industry leaks, so on most articles we tend to represent them as estimated ranges (The Dark Knight Rises being a good example of that approach). Usually you can get a ballpark figure but pinning it down exactly is usually impossible. Box office grosses tend to be relayed by the distributor, so there is a process in place for reliably reporting them, that any competent publisher should be able to do. Unfortunately KahnJohn is still missing the point: not supplying a foreign total in some cases is inconvenient, but it's not like they are supplying a figure that mismatches the foreign grosses. That said I have no aversion to using other reliable sites for totals if the editors on those articles deem them to be a more suitable source for whatever purpose, but that's for the editors of those articles to determine through a consensus based process. Purely on the subject of Box Office Mojo's reliability, nothing has come remotely close to convincing me they are not accurately reporting foreign grosses in the cases raised. Editors obviously have to just use the data sensibly. Betty Logan (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Listen, KahnJohn27. A lot of us on that noticeboard vouches that BOM is accurate, despite the n/a problems that it has on that site recently. So they are looking into that problem right now and check out the reliability on these sites at this point. Let's just wait and find out. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were right TRPOD. I have put myself in a ridiculuos position. But not because I'm giving some stupid reasons because I now remember that BOM does not only show total foreign gross as "n/a" in movies. This is what Darkwarriorblake talked to me about when I was editing the box office gross at the 2012 film Dredd. I request everyone to check these two links carefully and try calculating the total foreign gross manually :-

• http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=dredd.htm
• http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=dredd.htm

Upon manually calculating the foreign gross of all countries of Dredd it comes out to be higher than the total foreign gross given by BOM. No it is no calculation error and you can check it for yourself. In the case of The Man with the Iron Fists the calculated foreign gross of all countries is lesser than the total foreign gross. How is that possible? If the reason is same that is grosses of all territories are not available well then why is total foreign gross is n/a while it is available for other movies when the gross is not available? Have they collected the data of some territories together? I don't think that's possible without collecting data of each individual territory. I'm not implying that BOM is incompetent or unreliable but this atleast debunks to some degree the implication made by Betty Logan that one of the reasons data for all territories might not be available. It also debunks to sone degree the myth that BOM is a very trustable source. It might be trustable but not that much trustable. But I don't want to imply anything and be rash. Also the theatrical run of Dredd ended many months ago. The theatrical run of The Man with the Iron Fists has also ended and so of Red Dawn. But Red Dawn's total foreign gross is still listed as "n/a". Now I wonder why is that. But still I think we should contact and ask them about it. Also please notice that while BOM might have been used for mentioning the gross of films by many trade sources. But please notice this no trade sources at all have used BOM as a source for mentioning the gross for Red Dawn, Dredd; The Man with the Iron Fists or The Incredible Burt Wonderstone. BOM is not reliable for referencing the gross of these movies. Maybe it is due time we paid detailed attention to Box Office Mojo because if you think it is reliable it might not be so. Apart from that if Boxoffice.com is reliable then why I am being stopped from using it as a source just because other users are already usig BOM. That is no proper reason especially when Box Office Mojo displays incorrect data. If Boxoffice.com is reliable then every user has a right to use it as a source instead of BOM especially if it is indeed displaying incorrect info. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Dredd the explanation is blatantly obvious because Box Office Mojo gives you a dated breakdown of all the figures: the foreign total is dated November 18, 2012, while some of the foreign grosses for that film (five at my count) are dated up to December. Yes, it's inconvenient that their foreign total hasn't been updated yet but that doesn't make it wrong: there is no reason to doubt the figure is correct for November, which is the month the source states it is for, and the up to date figures are still available for you to use. This doesn't make BOM unreliable, it just means care has to be exercised to not use out of date totals. BOM is hardly unique in this respect: in the case of Red Dawn, BOM shows it having a foreign gross of 5-6 million, while Boxoffice.com shows it having a gross of 3-4 million, so it is most likely that Boxoffice.com hasn't updated its total either to reflect the total current income. At least with a source like BOM the breakdown makes it possible to see which territories it is accounting for and when, which makes it possible for you to corroborate its data, which is its biggest asset IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 05:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know, KahnJohn27. At least now your starting to act less rashly. It's a start. You just got to avoid a WP:BATTLEGROUND from happening to you again.

The reason why we remove references on Boxoffice.com is because no one knows how reliable it is and there is conflicting reports on various movies regarding production budget on movies and the box office gross on each of them. While BOM gets news references from Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, no one knows if Boxoffice.com gets news recognition from any online news source. That's what we need some reliable and accurate sources before we put them in film infoboxes. What I mean that you indirectly cause a dispute over reliable sources regarding conflicting box-office gross and production budget costs that don't match to either of those sites. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your wrong on all accounts Betty Logan. May I ask how are you so sure that whatever is it saying is true. You don't have any proof for that so I ask you to please stop making up reasons on your own. You never have contacted any of the source. If the gross of Dredd is not updated then it is their error. Atleast Boxoffice.com never makes that mistake. Also User: Erik has already said that Boxoffice.com is reliable and it is also used by trade sources. If it is then why are you saying Boxoffice.com is unreliable. Now if you can't prove that Boxoffice.com is unreliable please don't call it so. If it used by trade sources then it is reliable. You have yourself said that BOM is reliable because it is used by trade publishers. Well Boxoffice.com is too. I request you to please discuss this issue. Also I please ask you again why aren't none of the editors commenting about using multiple sources? I have asked about it so many times. Please I request you discuss that too. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm completely correct, and denial doesn't make you any more right. Let's take this one by one:

1. BOM Foreign grosses for Red Dawn: 1,134,023 + 167,548 + 460,393 + 48,925 + 658,101 + 188,145 + 58,902 + 187,782 + 157,810 + 678,227 + 60,126 + 187,518 + 376,847 + 31,957 + 572,505 + 679,139 = 5647948
2. BO.com foreign gross for Red Dawn: 48,169,726 (worldwide) — 44,806,783 (domestic) = 3362943

So why don't YOU provide us with proof that BOM is incorrect in this case and BoxOffice.com is correct. If neither source is incorrect, then the most likely explanation is that BO.com has not updated the total with the latest figures. There is no inherent reason to drop BOM in this example, especially when it gives us an itemised and dated breakdown.

Now for Dredd. The total for the foreign gross is dated 11/18/12. However, some of the foreign grosses have been updated after that date: Austria (12/23/12), Belgium (12/16/12), Egypt (12/16/12), Germany (12/9/12), New Zealand (11/25/12), South Korea (12/9/12). If you sum the indivdiual grosses, the foreign total comes out to $23,153,028, whereas for BO.com it comes to $22682533.

There are several things that are clear: In some cases BOM does not provide totals, but they do provide the individual grosses. This does not make the source unreliable, just inconvenient in those cases. In other cases the totals are dated before some of the actual grosses listed, meaning the sum of the grosses and the totals don't match up, simply because the figures come from different time periods. Again this does not make the source unreliable, since there is no evidence the figures were incorrect on the dates given, and simply means care must be taken when a total is dated earlier than some of the individual figures. Thirdly, in both cases the foreign totals on BO.com are less than the sum of the foreign grosses on BOM, which means—if we go by the assumption that both sources are reliable—that BOM is simply more up to date than BO.com. None of what you have argued makes a compelling case to replace BOM with BO.com; indeed it raises questions about how up to date BO.com data is. Betty Logan (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your takling about Red Dawn but looks like you've forgotten about "The Man with the Iron Fists". Adding numbers by yourself is only proving what I have been saying. You don't have any proof till now just like I don't have any proof that Boxoffice.com figures are reliable or not. A real proof in your case will be a source that confirms what you're saying and I have provided a list of proofs that atleast confirms that the foreign gross on Box Office Mojo is unreliable. Box Office Mojo is not honestly conveying facts Betty. The only way to comfirm what is right and what is wrong is to contact both sources. Unless and until then I see no point in having this discussion with you because nearly everything you have said has no solid proof and I'm sorry to say but it seems like your making this up on your own and trying to enforce your opinion. Darkwarriorblake, Sjones23 and Erik have rightly said the only way to confirm anything is by contacting the source. Unless the sources are contacted and replied there is no way to confirm that either of your or mine statement is true. I actually have no proof of Boxoffice.com is reliable except that it is used by trade sources and it does not contradict's it's own info unlike BOM. You might not have known this earlier but the worldwide gross of The Man with the Iron Fists is higher on Boxoffice.com is higher than that on BOM. Also if you manually calculate it's entire foreign gross it's only half of the total foreign gross that is shown. This debunks your claim that BOM gross figures are higher than those of Boxoffice.com. Boxoffice.com's figuress seems to be morsle up to date. I'm sorry to say but after this if you still say the figures are higher on BOM than I see no point in anymore discussion. Only contacting the sources can confirm what's real. Until then nothing can be proved completely. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For more convienience I am providing these links all of the same film The Man with the Iron Fists from BOM, Boxoffice or BO.com and TheNumbers.com.

• http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=manwiththeironfists.htm
• http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Man-with-the-Iron-Fists-The
• http://www.boxoffice.com/statistics/movies/the-man-with-the-iron-fists-2012

Now please read this part carefully. :-

• After manually calculating foreign gross on BOM it turns out to be between about $3.3 - 3.4 million. If you add that with the domestic gross it turns out to be round about $19 million.
• The worldwide gross shown by BOM is $19,721,245.
• In both of the above cases the worldwide gross is less than that at Boxoffice.com or TheNumbers.com whose grosses are $20,255,313 and $20,280,476 respectively. Also the gross of TheNumbers.com is much closer to that of Boxoffice.com. There is very little difference b/w the two but a much larger in case of BOM. The difference is $1.2 million. If it appears small to you then the difference between the two grosses of the film Dredd at BOM and BO.com is also very small. And you were saying that BOM is more updated than Boxoffice.com. I think that I have disproven your implication that Box Office Mojo is more updated.

Also please note that I eariler misplaced the link of this movie with that of Dredd. So the link of Dredd has been shown two times. That was a mistake . Sorry for that. I was actually going to add the link to Man with the Iron fists. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taken to ANI here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to dispute with anyone but to suggest an easier solution for Box Office Mojo's incorrect gross. I'm not enforcing my opinion and I will like to ask other editors about it first. Wherever this "n/a" problem is present we could instead manually calculate the foreign gross and add it to the domestic gross. The calculated gross can then be added to the infobox of the film on Wikipedia. I think it will be a very convinient solution. Also I'll like you to know that no trade sources use BOM as a source where this n/a problem is occuring. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is to inform every editor that I've contacted Box Office Mojo and sent them a message regarding this "n/a" problem or mistake as you might want to call it and have also included some examples along with it.. Hopefully they'll reply soon. However I seem to have forgotten to insert thank you at the end of the message. Just trying to lighten the mood up but I really have forgotten to insert a thank you. I don't know if that would have an impact on the message or not. If you will like to contact then you can do it easily through this link (http://boxofficemojo.com/about/). KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To all users who think Box Office Mojo provides correct budget please think again. Atleast in case of the film The Last Stand the budget at BOM is much higher than those of industry sources. BOM reports it to be $45 million while nearly all industry sources state it to be$30 million. The budget given by BOM is 50% larger than those of BOM. So I see no reason why Boxoffice.com can't be used in it's place. Box Office Mojo is not the be all end all. However we should wait for the reply of the website. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may not like the way you been disruptive before. I will say that in Olympus Has Fallen, BOM says it production budget is $70 million and in boxoffice.com it says it was $100 million, which it is $30 million off on both of those sites. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now I ask you how is that disruptive. I've tried very hard to keep polite in my previous comment. I have chosen the words very carefully. I'll say I don't know where you have called me being disruptive. If it is about ANI then all I have said is true. It was you and MarnetteD who started the so called edit war and User:MarnetteD and User:Tenebrae have induldged in uncivil behavior. Their claims of me being disruptive are highly doubtful when their behavior has been more disruptive than mine. Apart from that you always seem to be rather exaggerating matters. I have repeatedly requested you to comment about my behavior at ANI and not here since this is not the place for talking about someone's behavior no matter how disruptive they are. I haven't even once discussed about anyone's behavior here. If it is about my previous comment on this discussion then my behavior is completely polite and in line as well as im good faith. Also if you're saying that my behavior was disruptive in the beginning of the discidssion then you have already said it many a times and it is not correct to keep putting blame on othees. I think you should know that repeatedly blaming someone even if if their guilty or not is completely uncivil behavior because by displaying that behavior you are bullying him and harassing him. Not only this against rules of Wikipedia but also against human values. I'm sorry to say that if you continue to display this behavior I'll have no choice else to but to report it ANI. I am now taking time and choosing what to say carefully. Needless to say you are unfortunately either misinterpreting or misrepresenting my statements. It will be decided by admins if my behavior is really disriptive or not. I think it's no fault of my behavior in actual but it is the fault of your own behavior. That's whybI request to please stop making these same remarks again and again because it is disrespectful to treat someone

Apart from that coming back.to.this discussion I have already said that I know about Boxoffice.com's higher and inaccurate budget. Mostly instead of BOM industrial sources industry sources are used especially in case of big budget movies. BOM is rarely used in case of high budget movies. It cannot be denied that Box Office Mojo's budget is highly inacurate atleast in case of The Last Stand. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We told you boxoffice.com isn't the most reliable source for production budget and box office gross worldwide, KJ27. You're assuming that you always right. There maybe problems with BOM because of it's foreign gross issues. But it gets sources from The Hollywood Reporter and Variety, regardless of the problems and the flaws that it is having. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we have exactly one editor who is advocating for using Boxoffice.com rather than the long-established BoxOfficeMojo.com, which the two leading industry trade magazines and the studios themselves use, would someone other than that editor explain how this is not WP:SNOWBALL? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sorry, but I'm tired of KahnJohn27's bullying and threats. He already made a baseless claim against me at the ANI noticeboard, which an admin quickly closed, and now he's threatening BattleshipMan. ("I'm sorry to say that if you continue to display this behavior I'll have no choice else to but to report it ANI.") KahnJohn27 completely doesn't seem to understand that beating a dead horse, bludgeoning other editors with huge, rambling walls of text with poor grammar and spelling, and digging in his heels so tightly that he keeps dragging other editors to several different pages now is disruptive behavior. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well then I ask where is it written that poor spelling is disruptive behavior. Even if it was it was not intentional. My claims were not baseless and Tenebrae has been told to improve his behavior and the discussion was closed because you accepted to improve your behavior. You had yourself accepted that you made personal remarks. You are misrepresenting everything. Your own spelling is sometimes incorrect. However removing somebody's comments as ramblings is disruptive behavior. And words like "I'm sick and tired of you" represent conflictive and disruptive behavior. Apart from that I already knew about Boxoffice.com's inaccurate budget even way before this discussion began. I am not assuming that I am correct but I am simply speaking the truth. I had noticed about it's innacurate budget when I came to know about this website for the first time. And that was on the 2012 film Dredd. My edits were made on that film long before I replaced your edits with Boxoffice.com as a source. Apart fron that it hasn't been disproved that BOM might be unreliable atleast in some cases. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from that Hollywood Reporter and Variety use BOM as a source but not always. Especially in the case of films like Red Dawn, Texas Chainsaw 3D, Dredd, 21 & Over, The Man with the Iron Fists and many more where it provides inaccurate gross. However you have not mentioned that. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KahnJohn27 and Tenebrae requested that I come by and try to help you guys figure things out.

Before I begin - please note that I am functioning as a neutral bystander in this role. My function as an administrator is not relevant here, though I'd like to think I have experience with Wikipedia's policies.

I've done my best to read through every relevant talk page and discussion between individual editors. I'd like to commend everyone for remaining (mostly) civil and focused on the subject at hand.

I've already said this on KahnJohn27's talk page, but my outsider's perspective on is that consensus favours BoxOfficeMojo as a reference. As I've explained to KahnJohn: per this policy, we cannot act as number crunchers. Note that the 'Routine calculations' section does not apply here; while you may, for the reader's convenience, take two relevant figures from a reference and add them for easier readability, you may not work the other way and use numbers to attempt to disprove the reference.

If consensus has termed BOM a reliable source, we may add up box office totals all day and compare them with whatever we'd like - what the reliable source says, goes. Unless multiple other reliable sources come out in direct opposition, we can't override a reliable source simply because we think their numbers may be wrong.

I'd like to thank you all for having Wikipedia's best interests at heart in this dispute. Your work is greatly appreciated.

If anyone has further questions, feel free to ask here or swing by my talk page. Regards, m.o.p 17:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I would like to thank m.o.p. for intervening.With all due respect I would like to say that I don't think that the consensus is in favor of BOM because Darkwarriorblake and LordSjones23 haven't said anything about using Boxoffice.com in place of BOM and neither any user has said that BOM and Boxoffice.com should be used together. Not only that it hasn't been confirmed what exactly this cause of "n/a" problem is. BattleshipMan and Betty Logan have said that it is because BOM hasn't updated their gross which they are clearly making up on their own since their is no proof for it. Also when asked for proof they said that it is the truth and I should accept it. It can be clearky seen who really is trying to enforce their views and I cannot let that happen. Also the users seem to be taking decisions without any proof whether their decision is right or not. There must be a proof and I've been saying this again and again. Needless to say it cannot be considered a valid consensus when decisions are taken without any proof. Many editors seem to be reaching a decision themselves because they think BOM is more accurate which might not be so. I've already contacted BOM and only they can confirm about it's exact reason. One of the reasons might be they are not really reliable and might have been providing inaccurate or even false data. Nothing can be said at this point. So it is impossible to reach a clear decision. BOM might have been confirmed reliable many times but unfortunately this "n/a" issue was never taken up while confirming it's reliability. Any user has the right to question it's reliabity when they have concrete evidence for their claims which is what I have done. As is said in Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources under [section] "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content." However it can been seen that Box Office Mojo is not reliable for the statement being made where the foreign gross is "n/a" or inaccurate. I don't think it will be fair to take a decision till the reason is known for this inaccurate data and if and when BOM replies I will take it up again. According to Wikipedia policies all points and counterpoints should be weighed and judged in a discussion. I have no right to decide about a consensus but until the exact users should use BOM as a source but please I request you not to remove Boxoffice.com and replace it with BOM in mine or any other user's edit because it will be edit warring. It still has not been proved whether BOM is reliable where this "n/a" foreign gross is present. I promise not to replace BOM with Boxoffice.com anywhere in the future unless this matter is decided and try to infom everyone about it. However I would like the admin to tell me if what I am saying is according with Wiki's policies or against it since I do not know all of them. Also I don't think any user has noticed this but Boxoffice.com provides the gross for many films whose gross is not even given at Box Office Mojo. I think Boxoffice.com can be used atleast in these cases where BOM does not provide any gross. I would like to request all the users to comment about that to because all editors have said that Boxoffice.com is a good source. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Boxoffice.com could be inaccurate in production budget cost and box-office gross numbers as well. We don't even know how reliable boxoffice.com really is or it's even getting an outside online news source or what kind of source as well. I will tell you one thing. I do know that Olympus Has Fallen has conflicting production budget cost numbers and are off by $30 million. Boxoffice.com is less than reputable and nobody knows how reliable and accurate the numbers in that site are. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KahnJohn: this is not a court of law. People with a differing viewpoint are not required to document and present every piece of evidence they have. Multiple editors, some of whom have been along for quite some time, have stated that they prefer BOM as a source with valid rationale. That is the definition of consensus.

Now, if there's no opposition to using BO.com in situations where BOM does not have the required information, or using them both, then that's a respectable solution. However, that's something you'll have to discuss - I know that Lexein was talking about it earlier, but I'm not sure if the other editors involved support that direction. m.o.p 00:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know evidence isn't required how ever I am only demanding evidence of why this n/a problem is happening. Also they themselves have said that BOM hasn't updated their gross. Proof for this is atleast required because it might not be the only reason. This is no court of law but we are not required to always abide by a single source. This is no court of law but still making a claim always requires evidence no matter wherever it is. However I can perfectly understand the concerns and opinions of fellow users. It is the exact reason why I want to let this matter end right now and thus give my final vote. I also request all users who have participated and also request admin m.o.p. to do the same :-

Not use Boxoffice.com instead of Box Office Mojo and manually calculating the gross where "n/a" - The only reason I have made the decision because of no perfect proof whether BOM is unreliable and Boxoffice.com is more reliable.

If and when BOM replies I will inform m.o.p. and hope due action is taken according to it. Also I would like to request m.o.p. to contact Box Office Mojo since I think his approach will be much more professional. Last but not least thanks to everybody for devoting their valuable time to this discussion. Many thanks to all and take care. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if there's anything I can do to contact BOM tomorrow, though I can't promise anything as of yet.

Thank you for changing your viewpoint, though. Adapting to consensus will bring this discussion along, and I'm sure that other editors may chime in shortly. If we can all focus on KahnJohn's proposed resolution, this dispute may just be resolved yet. m.o.p 07:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification, KahnJohn: when both BOM and BO.com figures are present, are you okay with going with BOM's amount? This seems to be the currently-supported consensus above. Would we use BO.com in instances where BOM does not have figures? And would said additions be performed solely from BOM's public gross numbers?

Others are free to respond below, as well. m.o.p 07:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for double checking. It's always better to be completely sure. As for my final vote :-

• Use BOM always when figures of both sources are present.
• Use BOM even when total foreign gross is n/a and wherever it is n/a manually calculate foreign gross of all countries on BOM and add it to the given domestic gross to obtain the actual worldwide gross.
• Use Boxoffice.com for films whose gross is not given at BOM.
• Not replace Boxoffice.com with BOM and vice-versa when they are already present there.

Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While the first three points seem workable I would add that we should be able to incorporate Lexein's suggestion here [1], especially in regards to using footnotes. On the other hand, the last point cannot be used. It is basically saying that, at the spot in the article where either BO or BOM has been used it can never be edited again. That flies in the face of the basic concepts of Wikipedia. It also does not allow for updating if the current source is proved wrong or a better source comes along that refutes the info as is. One last item, several of the editors who had previously made their thoughts known here (or at the previous thread at the filmprojects noticeboard) have stopped following the conversation for various reasons. It would benefit the move towards a resolution if they could be made aware of where the conversation is now and they could add their input. MarnetteD | Talk 17:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let the other editors involved know. m.o.p 18:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can afford to be flexible here. If a film article lacks box office information, we can reference either Box Office Mojo or BoxOffice.com. (I am assuming BoxOffice.com is reliable because various news articles reference that website. Let me know if its reliability is questionable.) It is just that Box Office Mojo has been the traditional go-to source, and the "n/a" marker for foreign gross is new and odd. We should acknowledge that for films currently in theaters, either website may not be fully updated or be in sync. I don't want to have footnotes for temporary differences; they make better sense for when the theatrical run has come to an end and when both websites (perhaps The Numbers as well) have significant differences. In short, I would rather take a case-by-case approach. Perhaps we can focus on one example where the figures are especially dynamic? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first three points seem helpful to everyone. I think that, per Erik, a case-by-case approach may be necessary in any case. I think it would make sense when a film's theatrical run has come to an end and when either BOM and The Numbers have serious differences. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think those solutions are a good idea. I like those ideas. What I think we should do at when the numbers differ from both sites, we should double-check news sources including The Hollywood Reporter, Variety and other reliable entertainment news sites for accurate production budget costs and box-office gross numbers, just to be sure. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we should be manually calculating anything. That seems as if it would be OR synthesis. It would also be problematic to update, since a change to any one or two counties' total in a list of countries' totals wouldn't be immediately noticeable. Even if it were, this would call for continually checking and recalculating figures. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not disagreeing or agreeing, but note that the OR policy has a sub-clause on routine calculations which I think this would fall under - provided consensus supports such calculations, of course. m.o.p 22:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I am against this proposal, simply for the fact that it is not the place of RS/N to determine which source should be used. The most suitable source(s) should be determined by the article editors in deference to WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. I can think of many cases where this proposal would break down:

1. In some cases if any one of these sources can be proven to be demonstrably wrong, then there shouldn't be a mandate to use them (the further back you go for instance, the more inaccurate box office data becomes).
2. Contradictory numbers do not automatically mean one of the sources is incorrect. One could just be more up to date than the other depending on the internal update procedures, and if the more up to date source can be identified it should be used, regardless of editorial preference. A source being out of date does not make it unreliable, since if the data was correct at the time of publication then the source has reliably published it.
3. Box office data is drawn from a wide variety of sources, among them Variety, The Numbers, books and various studio ledgers. I see so logical reason for elevating one source above another.

RS/N should only decide whether a source can be used, and discussion on the article talk page, the relevant projects and RFCs should determine that in the case of a dispute. It's pretty obvious the consensus of this discussion is that Box Office Mojo is reliable, and as such it is just one of the many sources available to us when we source box office data. The issue we should be focusing on is whether BoxOffice.com is a reliable source by our criteria. At the Film project I suggested to KahnJohn he should bring BoxOffice.com here to get it vetted, and he still hasn't done that. If it meets the criteria then it simply joins Box Office Mojo and The Numbers as just another source we can select from, and then the job of RS/N is done. My suggestion is that this discussion is closed since it hasn't actually accomplished anything, and he starts a fresh one to purely address the reliability of the BoxOffice.com. Betty Logan (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You know what, Betty Logan, I kind of starting to agree with you on this. I think your right. Do you think we should set up a new discussion on the reliability of Boxoffice.com once we research it for it's outside news sources and such? BattleshipMan (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Betty Logan and BattleshipMan I have been saying this the whole time that just because there is difference in between the gross of two sources it does not actually mean that one source is incorrect or that it is reliable or unreliable. However I still say that we should not replace BOM or Boxoffice.com when they are already there because it will trigger edit warring with many users. Also according to Wikipedia policies it is ok to manually calculate data from a reliable source and m.o.p. has already mentioned that fact. KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the box-office gross is different between two sources, the production budget cost numbers in those sites differ, as seen in Olympus Has Fallen (as BOM shows the production budget is $70 million while boxoffice.com says $100 million). They can be some movies that have inaccurate production budget costs in those two sites. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you there BattleshipMan. Really to say I don't know why Boxoffice.com budgets are so high. It might be that either they are inaccurate. But on the other hand their budgets might also include the marketing costs. Most of the sources just mention production budget but don't include the marketing costs. However even if they have inaccurate budgets that does not mean they are'nt a reliable source for box office gross. I also agree with you that a new thread or discussion should be started about Boxoffice.com and also a background check should be performed. Thanks BattleshipMan and Betty Logan that's a useful advice. KahnJohn27 (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if you dont know and they dont say, where they get their numbers and they seem different than other reliable sources, that is a far more serious reliability issue than whether or not certain foreign Box office numbers might not be specified for certain films. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Information

This is the Wikipedia page where boxoffice.com is at. It on Boxoffice (magazine). The article is a stub at this point. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to this it is the web presence of the official publication of National Association of Theatre Owners, so on that basis I have no problems with it being used as a source for box office data (I still have concerns over its budgets, since they are so out of sync with every other source). We should probably add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources#Box office if everyone is ok with that, and wrap up this discussion. Source selection should remain the domain of the article editors, with any disputes settled at the Film project. Betty Logan (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about this. Like you said, the budgets and gross numbers are out of sync with every other source. We could have future disputes over the accuracy on the production budget and box-office gross numbers. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Budgets and grosses are different types of data, since they are obtained in different ways. Grosses are reported through despatches by the distributor, whereas budgets are usually estimated by whoever is writing the piece. I would be interested in learning why their budgets are so much higher than the others (are they including marketing? distribution costs?), but the fact is Box Office Magazine appears to be a respected industry journal in the vein of Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, and has reported box office for years, making it a reliable source, at least for box office data. The website is basically just the web presence of the same thing. It would take a very strong argument to discredit an industry trade journal. Betty Logan (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Per the above, a proposal we should add boxoffice.com as a reliable source and should be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources#Box office. Should we add it? Votes below:

• Support inclusion as nominator Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As I said above, I don't know about this. The budgets and gross numbers are out of sync with every other source. We could have future disputes over the accuracy on the production budget and box-office gross numbers and that's was concerns me and Betty Logan. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RS status for grosses. Truth be told I think the jury is still out on budgets. I don't think it's a great problem that there are inconsistencies between grosses; it's most likely due to internal update procedures, and that can be dealt with on a case by case basis i.e. checking the dates on the data, corroboration with other sources etc. Betty Logan (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support treating BoxOffice.com as a reliable source. Identifying it as a reliable source does not mean we will use it blindly. Since there are several outlets regarding box office figures and production budgets, it is only fair to compare this source with other sources and make a determination about what detail (or range of detail) to include in a film article on Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support it as reliable for grosses and budgets. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I don't know about the budgets but the difference between the grosses at boxoffice.com can't be taken as a reason not to include it as a reliable source for box office gross data since in actual no source can be completely accurate about box office gross. Also budgets and box office gross are seperate data. As already said that it is a reputable industry source and it will be hard to discredit it without a concrete evidence. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Partial support: In that case, I would support the idea for grosses, but maybe not the budgets since they can be off, like I said above. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Partial support: From what I understand, BO.com's budget figures are problematic. Secondly, for consistency of reported figures throughout Wikipedia and the industry trades themselves, and so we're not comparing apples and oranges, I would strongly advocate we use BoxOfficeMojo numbers unless for some reason it has no numbers for a particular movie. In that case only would I use BO.com. This isn't a question of reliability, but if we're metaphorically measuring things with pounds and ounces throughout most movie articles, we don't want a bunch of movie articles measuring things in liters and grams. Yes, I know it's not exact comparison since figures can be converted, but you get the idea: BoxOfficeMojo has one methodology, BO.com has another, and it's important to keep methodology consistent across a numerical landscape. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It doesn't make sense. Why do we need to follow the methodology of one source when we have multiple sources available? Grosses can never be completely accurate. KahnJohn27 (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

• It seems to be obvious that despite the discrepencies both Box Office Mojo and Boxoffice.com can be regarded as reliable sources. Bearing that in mind I have taken the liberty of adding Boxoffice.com to WP:FILM/R#Box office, so I think we can close this discussion now. If there are inconsistencies between sources, and you would prefer to replace BOM with BO.com or vice versa, it would be wise to initiate a discussion about it on the article talk page rather than edit-warring. Betty Logan (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't mean that if BOM is in place however that it can be replaced just because Boxoffice.com has a higher gross which has been the frequent implementation of boxoffice.com referencing. The site is useless to wikipedia as it cannot be archived and it's budget figures are questionable, it should only be considered where BOM fails to have figures, which is never the case, just not high enough figures for some people. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of makes sense. The budget number differs on both BOM and boxoffice.com. The budget on Olympus Has Fallen on boxoffice.com is $30 million higher than on what it says on BOM. I think we should only use that site as a last resort if BOM files to have it's figures. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize DWB, and have added a warning about the budget figures at our resource page. But the archiving issue is really a question about whether the source is robust enough to use, rather than the reliability of the source, which is what this board is supposed to assess (you can't webcite the New York Times for that matter either (or the Wall Street Journal which hides behind a paywall), but that doesn't mean we strike them off. I think on balance it is no more or less reliable for box office than The Numbers for instance, since the magazine version seems to be a low-rent Variety. I prefer BOM for the sole reason it is more comprehensive: country by country breakdowns, and they are dated too; but if there are instances where BOM is clearly not updating and the others are then we do need to consider looking further afield for our info. Betty Logan (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't mean to exclude it just because it can't be cited, but if BOM has the figures there, it's hard to argue for replacing it, while I feel this discussion seems to be veering towards more of an attempt to gain justification for that. At the The Man with the Iron Fists, the source was replaced with boxoffice.com because it was higher by a few hundred grand. No excuse for why that is the correct figure, or why it's more up to date beyond the user's personal interpretation which makes it seem a lot more obvious that it's about getting the higher figure, but as we found with The Dark Knight Rises when it was first released, we're not a news site and it isn't about having the highest gross, and a part of the reason I round those figures is because at teh end of the day they are estimates, they cannot know what something has made down to the dollar, and the movie sites report rounded figures also. It's fine to add BO.com as a reliable source, I'm just making sure it isn't taken as a sign to run through articles replacing existing reliable sources because BO.com offers a higher gross. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KahnJohn did enquire about this on my talk page, and I asked him to obtain a consensus before changing any of the box office sources. We certainly don't want to keep flipping between sources every few days; basically we need to be sure that one site is tracking it and the other is not. Betty Logan (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Betty, we are concerned about the budget of films in Boxoffice.com. They are off from BOM. Sometimes, both sites can differ on grosses as well, even domestic and foreign wise. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the budgets are a problem, and I have added a note about their usage at the resource page. Personally I think they probably include the distribution and marketing costs too (and hence why they call it "Total budget"), but there is no way of knowing that for sure. As for the reasons why the grosses differ then that is more complicated, which is why it is important to discuss any source replacement beforehand. Does anyone know if these discrepencies occur in films 2-3 years old? Betty Logan (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution costs is probably what matters more than marketing cost. I wouldn't rely on boxoffice.com for budget numbers. Plus, I wouldn't know when discrepancies occur in films to be honest. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think what we should do is investigate the budgets on boxoffice.com to see how reliable it really is since it is quite higher than BOM. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are these sources suitable for a controversy section in a BLP? The article is Suzanne Nossel, the claims are "Organizers from the feminist peace group Code Pink formed a campaign asking the Amnesty board for Nossel's resignation because of Nossel's support of the war in Afghanistan" (Alternet) and "Pulitzer prize winning journalist and peace activist Chris Hedges resigned from PEN to protest Nossel's appointment" (Truthdig). January (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that they are in the context of supporting uncontroversial and neutrally-written claims. The sources are not being used to make controversial, salacious or derogatory statements about the article's subject. Is there a question as to whether those sources are correct? That is, is anyone arguing that Chris Hedges didn't resign in protest, or that Code Pink didn't form such a campaign? polarscribe (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted extensively in the talk page, over the last 8 months, about the reference links (not the attached media outlets) used to post the article about Jung Myung Seok.

THe AP articles can not be verified at the original AP archives despite powerful search engines finding them somewhere in the WWW but not at the original AP archives. Much older articles are easily found at the AP archives with no problem.

The News Limited article is a planted article. I contacted Adam Sucking via email and his staff confirmed that News Limited has NEVER written an article about Jung Myung Seok.

A clear pattern is emerging here with the quality of reference links used to write the ARTICLE ABOUT JUNG MYUNG SEOK.

I am requesting previously univolved admins to help clean up this article.MrTownCar (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Supplying more detail to facilitate outside review here, MrTownCar is challenging the reliability of several sources critical of Jung Myung Seok and used in the article about him and his religious movement. See this revision of the article as it stood before MrTownCar removed a sizable chunk of material. I advised MrTownCar that he should ask for opinions here at WP:RSN rather than reopen a long-running edit war on the issue. MrTownCar is challenging numerous sources, but his present comment here appears to be focussing on the following:

• A 2008 article by News Limited, reportedly entitled "Accused rapist cult leader faces extradition to Korea". This link is currently dead, but a copy of the page can be found here at Archive.org. MrTownCar says he has contacted someone (apparently working at News Limited) who told him that News Limited had never written any articles about Jung Myung Seok, and on this basis MrTownCar argues that this 2008 article is a fabrication (despite its apparently having appeared on News Limited's web site, news.com.au).

• A 2008 TV story by the Associated Press, reportedly entitled "South Korean fugitive cult leader Jung extradited back to Seoul". MrTownCar has repeatedly stated on the Jung Myung Seok article's talk page that this article could not be found via a title search of AP's own online archive index, and has rejected reprints of this same story on HighBeam Research and LexisNexis (generally accepted as reliable sources) on the grounds that its absence from AP's own archive index conclusively proved the story was fabricated and fraudulently planted on these other sources. It should be noted here, though, that this particular link is from www.aparchive.com, a site which claims to be "the film and video archive of the Associated Press" — so the overall situation seems to me to point, not to fraud, but to possible deficiencies in AP's archive index.

I am supplying the above details to make it easier for people here at WP:RSN to evaluate the reliability of the sources in question. I am not arguing in favour of MrTownCar's position — on the contrary, I am skeptical of his claims and am assuming for the moment that the sources in question are most likely reliable — but I want to make sure these claims can be adequately reviewed and either confirmed or debunked as authoritatively as possible. If I have inadvertently misstated MrTownCar's claims here, I trust he will set us straight. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The story referenced to the AP is not correct. It is an article titled "Alleged South Korea Rape Cult leader Arrest in China" 5/16/2007. This article can not be located in the AP archives. However, I found other articles regarding cults dating back to 1997. MrTownCar (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 article appears to be substantiated by other sources (Kyodo, Fox, HighBeam). My opinion, for what it may be worth, is that this story, together with the 2008 articles reporting Jung's extradition to Korea, would almost certainly be reliable for purposes of substantiating the fact that Jung Myung Seok was arrested in Beijing in 2007 — and probably also reliable for establishing that Jung has been accused of coercing his female followers to have sex with him — but these articles do not prove that Jung actually did this (since these news sources would not normally have knowledge of the circumstances beyond what may have been reported by law enforcement agencies). As for the argument that the story (which Fox says came from AP) must be a "plant" because it couldn't be found in AP's search index, this line of reasoning is IMO not persuasive at all, because there may be many perfectly valid reasons why the article did not appear in your search. For example, there might have been minor changes in the headline title of an article (if you were searching for the exact title, rather than doing a full-text search for "Jung Myung Seok") — or AP might have chosen not to keep this particular story in its archives indefinitely — or there might have been a clerical error of some sort. As for whether it is permissible for a BLP to report criminal accusations against someone, this most certainly is OK if those accusations are a matter of public record, though opposing views defending the accused are also appropriate to report (per NPOV), as long as those opposing views are substantiated by reliable, non-fringe sources. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't merely accusations. There are multiple reliable, readily-available sources which support (i) that Jung was charged in Korea in 2001 with raping female followers; (ii) that he then fled to China (iii)he was arrested in China in May 2007 and (iv) extradited to Korea in February 2008 for trial (v) was then convicted of rape in August 2008 and sentenced to six years imprisonment and (vi) following appeals, his conviction was affirmed and his sentence increased to 10 years. See, eg [2];[3] The claim that other sources reporting exactly the same thing are fabrications beggar belief, and the argument that the allegedly fraudulent articles are reporting falsehoods staggering. Is the editor claiming that Jung wasn't charged, arrested, extradited, convicted and sentenced? It's fine to say that Jung and his followers deny the charges, as the sources indicate. But that is all that is required here. The sources are reliable, notwithstanding that they may now be dead links or otherwise unavailable online Fladrif (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fladrif. In addition, personal communications ("Someone emailed me and said...") are not WP:Reliable Sources here. MrTownCar: You would need to find a published news story debunking what these articles said, from a source as respected as the multiple news sources affirming these claims, and even then both the widely reported (i)-(vi) above, and the dispute about this, would have to be reported, with weight given according to the number and quality of sources on each side. At the moment there's no documented dispute among the reliable sources about the truth of this sequence of events, however. hgilbert (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree with both Fladrif and Hgilbert. One other thing that might be worth bringing up here is that I'm wondering if MrTownCar's adamant refusal to accept the reliability of these particular articles is that he might be objecting to the use of terms like "cult" in the stories and their headlines. Accepting a source as reliable for purposes of substantiating the facts of Jung's criminal case does not necessarily mean we're declaring the same source as reliable for purposes of substantiating the accuracy of a "cult" label. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can, however, say that various sources have called Jung a cult leader and/or have referred to his movement as a cult. Normally, we would want to ask whether a given source is reliable for purposes of classifying a religious movement, but since "cult" is an inherently loaded, POV term, there may not be any universally accepted standards for deciding this — so I believe the best approach is simply to acknowledge that some/many people consider JMS/Providence a cult, while the movement's own followers (and, if sources exist, specifically named others as well) reject this label, but without taking a position ourselves as writers of Wikipedia. Acknowleding a controversy of this sort over the use of a contentious label does not violate BLP or NPOV.

MrTownCar, given that the consensus here so far is to accept the sources you have questioned as reliable (at least regarding the facts of Jung's encounters with the legal system), do you have any other specific sources you want to ask about, or do you have any other questions to ask people here? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Another observation about the News Limited article now at Internet Archive. It says right on the page(upper right-hand corner) that the original source of the article is Agence France-Presse. So, even if MrTownCar was told that News Limited never wrote an article on Jung, it wouldn't negate the fact that it published an AF-P story on Jung. To claim that the article was somehow fraudulently planted is absurd. AF-P is, of course, a clearly reliable source. Also, the May 17 2007 AP article that MrTownCar claims isn't in the AP archive appears to be the same story published at the Fox News site linked above, albeit with a different headline. Again, these objections don't pass the smell test. Fladrif (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have gotten the impression that ADL and SPLC, more than most other advocacy groups, can be used for some level of noncontroversial factual information on groups it investigates in its area of expertise. An editor disputes using this low key and factual ADL article for these factoids at this diff in Students for Justice in Palestine:

• "As of 2010 SJP had more than 80 chapters at American universities."
• "Students for Justice in Palestine was first established at the University of California, Berkeley in 2001 where the group organized the first Palestine Solidarity Movement (PSM) conference to coordinate corporate divestment from Israel efforts nationwide. PSM served as a national umbrella organization for SJP and other groups until it dissolved in 2006. In October 2011, SJP held their first national conference at Columbia University which was attended by 40 chapters."
• "SJP has used Facebook successfully to do outreach to individual and organize and promote events both on and off campus. Many chapters have hundreds of members and also use Twitter and other social media."

Thoughts? CarolMooreDC🗽 13:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the basis to distinguish ADL and SPLC from "other advocacy groups"? There are a wide range of such groups, on almost every topic area and across the political spectrum, that have specific expertise in unique areas. It seems that this opens up a Pandora's box.Scarletfire2112 (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for question, editor involved in the article in question. I'm quite willing to go through and delete the probably 500 refs (of 1200 mentions]) from ADL and SPLC of facts about this, that or the other allegedly antisemitic or racist group/individual per this search. (Some of which I felt were uncalled for in the past but had to put up with.) But I have a feeling there'd be a big objection quick and people would be reverting and running here. Sigh... CarolMooreDC🗽 14:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center are established, respected advocacy groups, that are often treated as reliable sources by other reliable sources. That means that they are generally reliable for non-controversial information in their areas of expertise. They do have their own opinions, but that doesn't disqualify them, it merely qualifies them. See WP:RS#Biased or opinionated sources. For some topics, and Israel/Palestine is probably the poster child for these topics, there are no unbiased sources. The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the United Nations, the United States, the European Union, and every government or non-governmental agency in the world that have ever been involved in any way with the topic, have all been accused of bias on this topic by one side or the other and often by both. So if we want to write anything at all on this topic, we have to do the best we can. In this case, we will use the best sources available, and where they differ, give both sets. Is there an alternative source that says SJP has fewer than 80 chapters at American universities? Then write: "According to the Anti-Defamation League, as of 2010 SJP had more than 80 chapters at American universities;[ref] but according to the XYZ, they only had 27.[ref]" And so forth. It does not mean we exclude all uncontroversial information from reliable but potentially biased sources if we don't have alternatives. It would be different if the information were inherently controversial, such "According to the ADL, the SJP kills puppies." - then we'd want to be sure we had many sources. But for something as inherently uncontroversial as how many chapters they have, the ADL, or the SPCL, being established and respected groups, treated as reliable sources by other reliable sources, should suffice. --GRuban (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GRuban I don't disagree with you. But I suspect, especially given her snarky comments here, that CarolMooreDC is not attempting to include ADL and SPLC per se, but rather to exclude the other advocacy groups. It seems to me that "established, respected" and "often treated as reliable sources by other reliable sources" are a bit subjective and probably apply to a lot of groups that would not be accepted even for non-controversial information. Is it possible to sharpen the criteria?Scarletfire2112 (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the talk page, SPLC and ADL are exceptions to the rule on advocacy groups. Other excepts are various human rights groups frequently quoted by high quality sources. The ones brought up on the talk page by you and/or another editor are ones that WP:RSN frequently has found to be unreliable except for their own opinions that aren't about 3rd parties. My opinion is based on actually searching WP:RSN or reading opinions here in the past on those sources. I know you are new to Wikipedia, so you have to get into habit of checking WP:RSN particularly for precedents. Thanks. CarolMooreDC🗽 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CarolMooreDC, I think you have me confused with someone else. And I look forward to seeing you remove all the non-RS from the pages you edit. Scarletfire2112 (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have specified "brand new since December" per your comment here. It took me a long time to get up to speed on many issues, so four months looks like brand new to me. Also, let's only discuss specific issues that are relevant here. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both organizations are reliable sources, which is after all a function of whether they are likely to get their facts right, not the views they hold. There are a number of other groups that are rs, such as Human Rights Watch. Often they are the best sources for certain groups and activities which do not receive comprehensive coverage in the media and academic writing. TFD (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i am not convinced that one org is more reliable than another IF (yes, "if") there are reports of mistakes they make. to say, hrw gets their facts right is problematic - see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch -- so, i think any given org needs to be judged on what they are saying AND based on what facts/where the facts came from, etc. that is much harder to know and dis/agree with. Soosim (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

one more thing - i checked the adl source you posted on the sjp wikipage. it says that there are 80 chapters - which you quoted, but it also says "SJP has consistently demonized Israel, describing its policies toward the Palestinians as racist and apartheid-like, and comparing Israelis to Nazis." - seems like a fact as well. ok? Soosim (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course one org can be more reliable than another, even if there are reports of mistakes they make. Case in point: org: New York Times; report of mistakes they make: Jayson Blair; another: Weekly World News. Clearly one is more reliable than the other, no? And your second paragraph would be a fine example of a fact that seems inherently controversial so would require some additional sourcing. --GRuban (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

gruban - i took something which is perhaps more black/white than grey, but i see lots of issues with it and not sure what to do with it. the adl has proof - online sources from sjp itself - that sjp in fact describes israel's policies towards palestinians as racist and apartheid-like and compares israel to nazis. the adl is merely quoting from sjp material on its own website. so, is that ok? Soosim (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soosim, the whole point of collaboration is to work on these fine points case by case. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

carol - which is what we were doing on the talk page and on other article talk pages, until you brought here.... Soosim (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article have any reliable, relevant information? --George Ho (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What, that "the security services... reported that [Noel] Coward and [the Duke of] Kent had been seen parading together through the streets of London, dressed and made up as women, and had once been arrested by the police for suspected prostitution"? It may well be relevant to something or other, if it is reliable...

Seriously though, you aren't being exactly specific about what you want to cite it for, and it is hard to generalise - though given the Mail's failure to even spell the author's name right, I'd not want to cite it for anything too contentious. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It discusses his love life. Is the information accurate or dubious? --George Ho (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be excerpts from a memoir -- not something reliable for absolute statements of fact, but if an anecdote belongs in an article, properly ascribed to its source, there is little problem for dead people. The Daily Mail is, moreover, not actually at "fault" for some programmer misspelling a name in a URL -- it is found on almost all news sites as a matter of routine. The correct spelling redirects to that page <g>. Many RS books refer to the same affaire. Collect (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Anthony Chenevix-Trench, primarily based on a book called The Land of Lost Content, is up for Good Article review. The book in question is published by Pentland Press, which appears to be widely described as a vanity press (e.g.,[4], [5], even on SFFWA's "Vanity Publishers Gone Bad" [6]. Does this book qualify as a reliable source? (It's not practical to list individual statements the book supports here, as it is the source for the majority of the article).

If it makes a difference, the book is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article and received some reviews from quality publications. The Daily Telegraph praised it, while the Daily Mail called it unrigorous and the London Review of Books called it "a wretched hagiography". (Citations at the book's article). -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly a vanity press. If the subject were a living person, WP:BLPSPS would absolutely bar use of this source. Since the subject is dead, WP:SPS applies. The author is not writing about himself, so that exception doesn't apply. We are left with (i) is the author a recognized expert in the field; and (ii) has the author previously been published by reliable, independent sources within the relevant scope of that expertise. It looks to me that the author has written a few books about food and about Australia, and handful of biographies, most of little note. This particular biography, as you note, appears to be highly controversial, and to have little or no acceptance as authoritative. I don't think this comes close to passing the requirements of SPS, and should not be used at all as a source, let alone be relied upon almost exclusively for content in an article. (I'd note in passing that this article also uses as a source thepeerage.com, which has been extensively discussed at RSN and is clearly not a RS, as well as several letters to the editor, none of which are reliable sources) If this passes GA with this kind of sourcing, there is something seriously wrong with GA. Fladrif (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's my take, too. I'll transcribe this response to the review page. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hold off on that until other people have opined as well. Fladrif (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't see this note until now. I did note on the review page that further comments might be forthcoming. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that Peel's biography of Ken Barrington (ISBN 978-0413663702) apparently won a Daily Telegraph award, and was published by Kingswood Press (no idea if they count as reliable or not). The books about food may be a mistaken identity - Amazon's U.S. site believes Peel was a chef in Los Angeles, at a time when he was actually Head of Politics at a school in Scotland. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There does appear to be some ambiguity about which Peel is which. I see a number of books from Kingswood Press London - most of them about cricket - but it doesn't appear to have a website, odd thing if it is still in business. The only Kingswood Press I can find in London is a print shop, not a publisher, leading me to think that it is another vanity press, but I have nothing definitive on that. Fladrif (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peel's other biographies have mostly been about people in cricket - not education. The award was from the Cricket Society - Cricket Book of the Year.[7] Fladrif (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Education and sports like cricket have a certain odd intertwining in the British psyche - they are not utterly distinct topics as one might imagine. This was especially true in the sort of era that Peel wrote about; Barrington was a cricketer in the 1960s I think, Chenevix-Trench taught from the 1950s to 1970s. (Watching P'tang, Yang, Kipperbang, set in that era and filmed a few years after the end of it, gives an idea.) I do take the point that Peel is certainly by no means as established or successful a writer as some of those who disapproved of this particular work for various reasons, though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Peel was not just at a teacher at a school in Scotland: it was Fettes College. Chevenix-Trench was headteacher at Fettes College. Too close for comfort? Emeraude (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was about a 5-6 year overlap at the very beginning of Peel's teaching career and the very end of Chevnix-Trench's career as headmaster at Fettes, some 20-25 years prior to the book's publication, which explains the connection and perhaps the motivation and hagiographic tone of the biography, but it doesn't really affect reliability of the source one way or the other. Fladrif (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book should be in the bibliography, and in view of its very strong relevance its existence should be mentioned in our article, but we really can't rely on it as a source. We know nothing firm about its reliability, the publisher was (generally agreed to be) a vanity press, the author is not known as an expert, and the reviews (so far as I've seen) are mixed. (Any one review could come from a best friend, e.g. at the Daily Telegraph, or a worst enemy, e.g. at the London Review of Books: we'd need a consensus.) Andrew Dalby 14:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been actively editing pages and have come across link rots which I have addressed successfully. However, in the same process many sources that I have seen are online media portals which are mostly a collection of blogs and op-eds with minimal editorial control (WP:RS). These news portals leave many open questions on their eligibility as reliable sources.

1. Malaysian Insider (http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/) 2. http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/ 3. Free Malaysia Today (http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/) 4. Malaysia Today (http://www.malaysia-today.net/) 5. Malaysiakini (http://www.malaysiakini.com/)

These sites are just examples of the sources that I have come across. Are they valid sources in WP? I know this is a place for asking whether a source is suitable in context, but I am looking for some general comments and suggestions for these links. RomeoPapaKing (talk) 06:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source: Leader’s Suicide Brings Attention to Men’s Rights Movement. Arthur Goldwag, SPLC Intelligence, Report No.145 [8]

Article: Men's rights

Content:

• "Aspects of the American movement have been criticized by the Southern Poverty Law Center for exhibiting misogynistic tendencies." (in Lead)

• "The Southern Poverty Law Center has criticized aspects of the American movement for exhibiting misogynistic tendencies. The SPLC noted about websites, blogs and forums related to the movement that "while some of them voice legitimate and sometimes disturbing complaints about the treatment of men, what is most remarkable is the misogynistic tone that pervades so many." (in Criticism section)

Comment: The question I would like help in clarifying is:-

Is the Arthur Goldwag article reliable as a citation to reflect the views of the SPLC? These views are expressed in the voice of the SPLC in the Wikipedia article. Or can this only be used as a citation for the views of Arthur Golwag. I don't think broad statements about the reliability of the SPLC can be made; good judgement should be used with each case looked at individually. In this case I feel this article is not reliable as a source for its contents to be quoted in the voice of the SPLC. Though clearly reliable for the views of Arthur Goldwag.

To me parts of this article read like a polemic, and it further includes statements such as:-

• The men’s rights movement, also referred to as the fathers’ rights movement (which is factually incorrect), is made up of a number of disparate, often overlapping, types of groups and individuals.

• The men’s movement also includes mail-order-bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers, and wannabe pickup artists who are eager to learn the secrets of “game”—the psychological tricks that supposedly make it easy to seduce women.

• Some take an inordinate interest in extremely young women, or fetishize what they see as the ultra-feminine (read: docile) characteristics of South American and Asian women. Others, who have internalized Christian “headship” doctrine, are desperately seeking the “submissive” women such doctrine celebrates.

I would appreciate your feedback.

CSDarrow (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flippant comment Combining these two subjects is like the anti-Christ of Reese Peanutbutter cups.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC) −[reply]

(edit conflict)Thank you for bringing this here CSDarrow, and I toowould also be glad to hear other opinions. But I would just like to point out that this argument is incorrectly framed, since it isn't just Arthur Goldwag and the article mentioned above that speak about the SPLC in relation to the men's rights movement. Two other articles in the same Intelligence Report issue, [9] one] written by Mark Potok (the editor-in-chief) and Evelyn Schlatter and an unsigned article also makes the same claim of misogeny among Men's rights activists. This clearly isn't just Goldwag's opinion. Slp1 (talk) 03:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My question is clear and with respect to Arthur Goldwag. CSDarrow (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the source, it is clear this is the opinion of the SPLC and not soley Goldwag's opinion.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the further 3 statements I quoted from the article are also the opinions of the SPLC? CSDarrow (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It looks like he is speaking for the SPLC. He's writing in their magazine, without any disclaimer that he's only speaking for himself. Another SPLC article by different authors seems to have said many of the same things.[10] In a later blog post on the SPLC site, Goldwag seems to have thought he was speaking for the SPLC.[11] He's made other posts on the subject on the SPLC site.[12][13] The Good Men Project thinks he was speaking for the SPLC in that article.[14] He was quite harsh, yes; but he's not claiming to be balanced. We can't cite the things he says as facts, but I think we can cite them as the view of the SPLC, which is generally notable on this sort of subject. --GRuban (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the SPLC has a formal opinion in the sense that an esteemed group sits around a table balancing out evidence. They rely on editorial control and authors who they feel will reflect the general ethos of the organisation. Usually their targets are pretty easy marks and it is pretty difficult to mess up. They messed up with the Goldwag et al articles and they know it. Goldwag wrote a damage control article later. [15]. I doubt they will revisit this issue, it's too contentious. CSDarrow (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Directly responding to your critics isn't "damage control". It's called communication. I'm concerned, CSDarrow, that your own POV is getting in the way here. Viriditas (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. SPLC's Intelligence Report isn't merely a magazine with articles by authors expressing their independent views. The views are those of SPLC on the issue, not just Goldwag's. The two other articles in the same issue expressing the same views underscore that conclusion. Fladrif (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see evidence supporting that statement. Viriditas (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note, having written about Goldwag and his work I'm somewhat familiar with him if anyone has any questions. Viriditas (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is a low brow equivalent of Anne Coulter. He is from the genre of 'journalism' that writes polemics for the masses, either left of right. They appeal to the adrenalin kick of agreement or outrage and have existed for centuries in all cultures. In the Middle East it is a national sport, with wildly popular TV programs featuring the likes of Goldwag or Coulter shooting from the hip, it's considered humor by most. In the West we are novices in comparison. CSDarrow (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you must have Goldwag confused with someone else. There is no valid comparison at all. In fact, I would challenge you to come up with a single evidence-based comparison. Frankly, your statement appears to be based on pure fantasy and wishful thinking. It's one thing to make an informed criticism but quite another to invent it because you dislike the subject. Sorry, but honesty isn't optional here. Viriditas (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We obviously aren't talking about the same Arthur Goldwag. CSDarrow (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Put up or shut up, CSDarrow. You have repeatedly claimed that "Goldwag is a well known polemicist" and you've compared him to Ann Coulter. Which reliable, independent third-party sources support your contention? None, of course, because you made it up. Sorry, but the RS noticeboard isn't a place for fantasy and science fiction. Viriditas (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As my 8 year old daughter would say, "Lol". CSDarrow (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you openly admit that everything you said about Goldwag cannot be found in any reliable source. Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment. Thanks to all for considering this. I take the consensus is that the opinions express in Goldwag article, and other pieces discussed here, can be considered to be the opinions of the SPLC. CSDarrow (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "final" for me. Could you tell me how you arrived at that opinion? In what way is Goldwag representing the opinion of the SPLC? Not only is he a reliable, authoritative source on this subject, he's speaking as an expert, not as a representative of the SPLC. The claims that the American men's movement is misogynistic is an uncontested, uncontroversial observation based on good observations and solid analyses. It's hardly a "polemic" nor a minority opinion. In reality, it is considered the mainstream view. Wikipedia strives to give proper weight to mainstream views in our articles. Viriditas (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's pretty clearly giving the opinion of the SPLC. (Which we should have in the article, but labeled as such.) Look at how Goldwag describes his own article himself [16]:

• "The last issue of the SPLC’s Intelligence Report presented a scathing portrait of “a hard-line fringe” of the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM)" - if he thought it was not a polemic, but a balanced view, he would not have called it scathing.
• "The article, entitled “Leader’s Suicide Brings Attention to Men’s Rights Movement,” provoked a tremendous response among men’s rights activists (MRAs) and their sympathizers." If this was already the mainstream view, it would have been unlikely to provoke a tremendous response.
• "It should be mentioned that the SPLC did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement; nor did our article claim that the grievances they air on their websites – false rape accusations, ruinous divorce settlements and the like – are all without merit. But we did call out specific examples of misogyny and the threat, overt or implicit, of violence." Note the emphasis (bolding mine) on how this is the SPLC saying these things; "label"ing, "claim"ing, "call[ing] out". Not "these are just the facts" or "this is just the mainstream view", but "we, the SPLC, say this". --GRuban (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is the mainstream viewpoint and Arthur Goldwag is an expert on organized hate and extremist groups. He does not work for or speak for the SPLC. Unless you have evidence showing otherwise, then you will have to concede your argument. Opinions from the "manosphere" are fringe opinions, not the mainstream. Wikipedia isn't part of the manosphere. You don't get to make stuff up about Goldwag. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, I don't care if it Goldwag or the SPLC who is speaking. But it is very important to know who is. Consensus is, whether you like it or not, seems to be the SPLC not Goldwag. I don't have a counter to the arguments presented here, as neither it would seem do you. CSDarrow (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does Goldwag work for the SPLC? Yes or no? He's an expert on this subject matter, and he is speaking based on his expertise. Wikipedia recognizes sources as authoritative, not editors. A consensus must be based on the sources, not on what editors think about them. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um - hello? Viriditas? Did you read the statement just above yours? The one where Goldwag refers to his own article and says it is the SPLC speaking? If he doesn't work for or speak for the SPLC, then he is one very confused individual. --GRuban (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You took a statement out if context and made a comment about his use of the royal we. Am I supposed to take this seriously? Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are. It's not out of context, the entire article refers to his previous article as speaking for the SPLC, and never says that it is only speaking for him. Earlier I linked to multiple articles he has written for the SPLC in exactly the same context. He is absolutely convinced he is speaking for the SPLC, as are the various people complaining about the article. "The royal we" seems farfetched. --GRuban (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's speaking for himself and when he says "our article" he's responding as the writer of the article published by the SPLC. This is obvious. That you are turning this into something it is not is telling. Does he work for the SPLC, yes or no? Do writers who are published by the SPLC speak for the organization or for themselves? Yes or no? Viriditas (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think we are getting a bit of an unnecessary tangle here, as I think Viriditas and GRuban are really saying much the same things in terms of the reliability and the inclusion of this material in the article: it doesn't matter really about the status of Goldwag, as an article by the editor in chief as well as an unsigned column in the same issue make much the same point. Together there are several reliable sources saying that the SPLC has pointed out misogynist aspects of the MRM.

What I am concerned about, however, based on CSDarrow's "Final Comment" is the possibility that s/he is hoping to use a "consensus" here to justify some proposed pointy edits - see this and this. I've already commented on the talkpage of the Men's rights movement that while Goldwag and the Intelligence Report are reliable sources, particularly for their opinions on specific situations, this is not an all or nothing situation. The comments made here, it seems, are about the misogeny material, not necessarily giving the green light to the other quotes from the Goldwag article listed above. It would be good to get the opinions of other editors about this aspect of the issue. Slp1 (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spl1, I think you need to read WP:GOODFAITH. Either this is Goldwag or the SPLC speaking. Initially, I actually thought it was Goldwag, but have been convinced otherwise.

CSDarrow (talk) 02:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then. I'm happy to assume good faith that you won't use this discussion to justify any other edits than the misogeny material. Would you care to confirm that my good faith is well-founded? Slp1 (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spl1, I think you really need to read WP:GOODFAITH again. Either this article is Goldwag or the SPLC speaking. This is a very simple question I was asking, and I think a very important question. I actually thought it was Goldwag, but have been convinced otherwise. I don't care who it is, if people want to go with Goldwag I'll go with Goldwag. But the consensus among uninvolved editors, supported by convincing argument, is that it is the SPLC. Your posts are muddying a very simple issue.

Frankly I find your comment utterly puzzling, perhaps I am tired. Time for me to go to bed, goodnight.

CSDarrow (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CSDarrow, I am much more puzzled by your repeated characterization of Goldwag as a "polemicist". I am quite familiar with Goldwag's work, and he's as far from a polemicist as one can get. Now, you can stop characterizing him in this strange way or you can cite a reliable source supporting it. It's your choice. You recently compared him to Ann Coulter, which is so off the mark, that I'm questioning your ability and competence to participate in this discussion. There isn't a single thing that Goldwag and Coulter have in common. Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:- "There isn't a single thing that Goldwag and Coulter have in common."

7 letters? You have sources for your statement? CSDarrow (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CSDarrow, you asked if Goldwag was a reliable source? He is. You also claimed that his piece was a polemic. There is no evidence of any kind, and Goldwag is not a polemicist. He's an expert on organized hate and extremist groups, and his piece on extremist elements of the men's movement is backed by solid sources, as is all of his work. You appear to be misusing the RS noticeboard to push your singular "men's rights" POV. Please don't do that. Viriditas (talk) 03:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas: In fact Arthur Goldwag is such an expert he does know the difference between the Men Rights and Fathers Rights movements. And I quote

"The men’s rights movement, also referred to as the fathers’ rights movement....." [17]

I was not going to post again but the absurdity of your comments was too much to resist. 18:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You apparently have difficulty understanding what you read. That would explain the reason for this thread. Goldwag is an expert on organized hate and extremist groups. At a higher level of abstraction, one might certainly paint all related groups with a broad brush, just as one would refer to a family of plants in general without specifying their subspecies. Your fallacious focus on highlighting such minutiae is quite telling. I get it, you are only here to play games and push your POV not build an encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Formal reply: Arthur Goldwag is an author and journalist who writes for the Southern Poverty Law Center Hatewatch blog as a "hate expert". Writers do not "speak" for their publications, although they may accurately represent their positions. On Wikipedia, when we cite a quote, statement, or opinion from a writer, we attribute it to their name (Arthur Goldwag) and their publication (in this case, based on the two different sources linked above, the Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report and the Southern Poverty Law Center Hatewatch blog, depending on which one you are citing). End of discussion. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended, Viriditas, but the evident consensus (as Wikipedia defines the term) reached here is in direct contradiction to your statement, and your assertion that you somehow have been entrusted with the power to end the discussion in contradiction to this consensus seems a bit overstated. If discussion is over, it's because the person asking the question got his response. And, unfortunately, it is not your response. --GRuban (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I know quite a bit about Goldwag and I know how we attribute authors. I can say with some certainty that the so-called "responses" that you refer to demonstrate that they know neither. Worst of all, they are intimately involved in editing the article in the question, and they appear to be pushing their own POV in that regard. I am not involved, and as someone who is familiar with the source and how to attribute it, I can safely say that this is the only correct response. Further, the original question was flawed. We don't determine who the author is speaking for, we focus on proper attribution. I hope this corrects your misunderstanding. Viriditas (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am duly corrected, and honored to be able to share a noticeboard page with someone of your authority. Will you also be changing the header of this page, so it no longer suggests visitors ask for the consensus opinions of other editors, and just directs them to go straight to you from now on? --GRuban (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general the SPLC has not disavowed signed articles for claims of "fact", and they are routinely referred to as being in the voice of the SPLC on Wikipedia. It is unusual indeed for anyone to argue otherwise - where the claims are phrased as "fact" and not as "opinion" then we do not ascribe the "fact" to the author. SPLC presumably fact-checks facts, after all. Were the example to be clearly an "opinion" then best practice is to ascribe opinions only to those holding them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Irvin ia a Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu trainer at the centre of various allegations. However given the niche nature of martial arts, reliable sources are few and far between. Most of the reporting has been done by bloodyelbow.com and then repeated in other outlets. The previous consensus on bloodyelbow.com was that it was generally unreliable, which I would agree with, as although I'd consider it relatively reliable for MMA news I've seen little evidence of the editorial oversight that would be required for it to be a good Wikipedia source. However I have a general question regarding public statements.

In general, is it appropriate to report public statements? Can they, for example, be used as a source for the views of the person who made the public statement? Does it matter if the statement has been reported by third party sources? Does it matter if the statement has been published by a third party?

Examples:

"Lloyd Irvin issued an official statement to Graciemag, the Brazilian jiu-jitsu magazine, on January 22nd 2013, in which he made it clear that he deplored what had happened, and distanced his team from the incident, noting that the accused had only trained with his organization a few months. He also responded to online discussions regarding a 1989 incident involving himself where he was found not guilty."[18]

"Jordon Schultz has left Team Lloyd Irvin."[19]

"On March 10th 2013 it was reported that Lloyd Irvin had announced on Facebook that he was terminating the Team Lloyd Irvin Affiliate Program, because of what he described as lynch mob attacks on Team Lloyd Irvin affiliate businesses." [20]

"Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu gold medal winner Keenan Cornelius said in a statement that he could no longer be sure that it was the right environment for him."[21]

Is bloodyelbow.com a reliable source for the statement "Some of Irvin's best students have recently left his team."[22] Does it make any difference if this is broadly supported by the Schultz and Cornelius statements above?

Is graciemag.com a reliable source for basic Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu news, for example: "Keenan Cornelius has joined team Atos JJ"?[23]

Thanks in advance. --Merlinme (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it helps or hurts, I think it should be additionally mentioned that all of the Bloodyelbow blog posts provided have evidently been authored by the same individual. Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These do not look like reliable sources to me. Fladrif (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to notice from my watchlist that User:Kwamikagami (a very hard working and respected Wikipedia editor when it comes to linguistic subjects) removed all mention of above-mentioned widely cited academic from two article on Afroasiatic languages apparently on the grounds that he is not strictly a linguist: [24], [25]. From what I know he is very widely cited in this area. Any comments? For now I reverted both for further discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record there seems to have been a sweep of edits eliminating mention of Ehret.[26] I am a big admirer of Kwami's editing that I have seen, but find it worth taking a step back here to see what others think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He may not be the best historical linguist, but it's quite clear that he can, indeed, be considered a linguist. He is widely cited in linguistic literature and he has a clear following in linguistic circles. While he may teach in a history department that doesn't mean anything in terms of linguistics. I teach in an English department, but I'm still a linguist. I think that in this case, kwami's elimination of Ehret's citations just because kwami doesn't think he's a linguist is unjustified and Ehret should be returned to his place. As I start with, he may not be the best historical linguist in certain respects, but we all can't be the best. --Taivo (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What following? Linguists do not take him seriously. I don't care what department he's in – I know lots of good linguists that are not in linguistic departments, but his work is shoddy, he doesn't bother to consider the work that other, more qualified people have done before him, and he hasn't been invited to relevant conferences for years. He is perceived as dabbling in a field he has not been sufficiently trained for. From what I understand, his reputation among archeologists is similar. Perhaps Afroasiatic is an exception, but his Nilo-Saharan and Khoisan work is ignored unless an author feels the need to overtly dismiss it as nonsense. He's like Greenberg with Amerindian, though at least Greenberg was trained in linguistics and is respected as a pioneering typologist. As with many fringy writers that people don't feel are worth their time, it's not always easy to find his work falsified in publications, but talk to specialists in these fields, and if you bring up a claim that Ehret has made, the response is, well, that's just Ehret, no need to bother with it.

Ehret is, however, a good writer, better than most specialists, and his publications are easily understood by nonspecialists. Perhaps this explains some of his popularity. There was also a time a decade or so ago when Ehret published a lot of interdisciplinary papers with linguists. This doesn't seem to happen much any more, since he now claims to be a linguist himself rather than a historian and generally ignores work that does not agree with his own, even when that other work has been well received; what you do see are things like him coauthoring with geneticists who are also dabbling in linguistics and are similarly clueless. — kwami (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But note the beginning of my comment--he may not be a good one, but he is still a linguist and, as you yourself admit, his works are still referred to. Whether he is right or not is immaterial in mentioning his views in Afroasiatic articles and, like Greenberg's, should not be simply eliminated from reference as if he doesn't exist and wrote nothing. That's the point here--just because he might very well be wrong doesn't mean that his works are not reliable sources for alternate views. And despite your protestations, his works are cited and his views referenced in multiple works on those language families. We don't ignore Greenberg, we cite his views and then state that they are not widely accepted. Ehret's views fall into the same basket. --Taivo (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear I am not a linguist and I have no attachment to Ehret's theories. (I know they are in some cases controversial.) But I have looked for sources in this field and I know he is widely cited, and that pretty much all sources are controversial in some of the fields he is most cited in (such as reconstructing very ancient languages). So I find it problematic to remove mention of his work. And there are apparently only a few sources everyone always cites in some of these areas, so removing a major one can quite significantly change Wikipedia's presentation of facts. Honest question: Concerning the assertion that linguists do not take him seriously is there some way to prove this? As a secondary point I would mention that one of the deletions of mention I saw is about the subject of the geographical origin of the Afroasiatic language, not that language as such.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not justified for Wikipedians to remove mention of Ehret's work. He is a comparative linguist, published in major linguistic periodicals and by respected academic presses: his conclusions are widely cited elsewhere and should be cited here too. We can, of course, equally cite the comparative linguists who disagree with him. It's not up to us to reach a conclusion, for him or against him, where there is current controversy. Andrew Dalby 09:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a linguist. He is a historian who dabbles in linguistics. Rather than comparing him to Greenberg, who was an actual linguist and made contributions that are still important today, a better parallel would be geneticists who publish on linguistics without any knowledge of the subject, such as Knight et al. who wrote the article in Science that claims the original human language probably had clicks, based on no credible evidence whatsoever. They required dubunking because they appeared in Science; otherwise actual linguists wouldn't have bothered. Per WEIGHT, Knight et al. are not worth covering in articles on the topic unless the popular coverage is enough that we feel we need to report it. When we do, we would say they are geneticists drawing conclusions about linguistics which linguists do not find convincing. There isn't any real controversy about Ehret: The linguists and even anthropologists in the areas I am familiar with all say his conclusions are nonsense. Again, perhaps Afroasiatic is the exception, but I'd like to see linguistic coverage of the family that refers to him as a credible scholar

You say that the origin of a language family are not the same as a language, but you can only draw those conclusions through linguistics, and they are uncertain and contentious enough when qualified linguists draw them. — kwami (talk) 05:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you, Kwami, on large parts of this, but beyond a certain cutoff point it isn't up to us to decide. Ehret's work is above that cutoff point. His ideas are currently discussed by linguists (and historians and others), and accepted by some, and, even when not accepted, taken seriously. He is published on these subjects by academic presses and in peer-reviewed journals. He gets academic responses. That being the case, it doesn't matter to us -- sorry -- that Kwamikagami says he isn't a linguist. Linguistics isn't a walled garden.

What I would think significant (for what my view is worth :) ) is if reviewers and academic peers publish the view that he's out of his depth and shouldn't be dabbling in a certain subject area. If that view is visibly, cite-ably maintained, and not strongly opposed, then (for me) the balance shifts. Andrew Dalby 08:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I do not see how we can remove mention of one of the most widely cited sources for Afroasiatic based on the heresay of a Wikipedian concerning the unpublished opinions of academics. I appreciate the problems that can happen because of interdisciplinary citations in the way academics work today, which often gives too much apparent credence to certain types of sources. But I think this is not a very subtle way of handling it, and extending this type of approach to more such controversies would surely to cause some un-needed wikidrama. I note that in the citations given, Ehret is being cited for opinions which are in themselves widely cited, and not apparently controversial or fringe, at least not amongst all specialists.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt a tedious undertaking, but it would seem to be necessary to leave the refs to his work and add citations from others' work that discredits it, if that is the case, and then let everyone decide what the article(s) should reflect through consensus achieved on the Talk page(s).--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor added in baby powder a link to Amazon as a reference for the ingredients of Johnson's Baby Powder. I reverted, and the other editor re-reverted to include the link as a reference. Is a site that is selling a product (but not the manufacturer thereof) a reliable source for the ingredients in that product? LadyofShalott 23:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for other references for ingredients. The manufacturer doesn't list it, but other sites selling the stuff does. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel's response beat me to coming back. The most recent diff in this string is [27]. LadyofShalott 23:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who created the The Full Armor of God Broadcast article is arguing that the self-published sources there are reliable because the subjects being interviewed on the program make the program notable. Not sure how to explain that's not correct. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have any specific guidelines for broadcasts, so WP:GNG will cover this. Dougweller (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And it doesn't seem to meet our criteria there, so AfD is probably the way to go. Dougweller (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for AfD.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has been added as a source to Khattak - I have no idea what it is. I've removed it from some other articles (one of which said that Sikandari disagreed with the article itself)[28]. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me that this image is c. 1945 and was lifted from Getty Images [29]. That site indicates that this is the right person, but this photo is probably a copyright violation. Original photo by Keystone/Stringer from the Hulton Archives. Fladrif (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently a dispute at Talk:George Juskalian on whether the Centreville Patch, a local newspaper, is a reliable source for the claim that his "decorations [are] among the rarest bestowed on United States service members". Kevin McE says that's "a throwaway comment in a peacock piece in a local paper" and thus not reliable; I'd say it's ovious from the paper's very next sentence that the journalist did fact-check his claims and thus is a reliable source. Opinions? Huon (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Local papers get PR from the government - so it is not just a "throwaway line" in all likelihood. He did get a post office named after him. The Air Medal is a notable one, indeed, and very far from common, as are some of the others noted. Collect (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I understand that it is wrong to use personal blogsites for citations.

Source: [30]

Article: World Mission Society Church of God

This site contains copies of books that certainly violates the ownership of the valid publishing company.

It is not an official site but a personal blogsite, violates copyright, and the translation is terrible.

Content:

For the History section of World Mission Society Church of God.

• 1985 - Ahn Sahng-hong, dies in February of that year; Church is divided into New Promise Passover, Church of God (Now New Covenant Passover Church of God) and Ahn Sanghong Witness Church of God (Now World Mission Society Church of God).

Is it a reliable source for biomedical information? Considering that:

a) It is a commercial site that gets commissions from sales on other sites to which they refer and profits from the sale of publications.

1. Stated income is also derived from usage of sponsored links, including Amazon.com.

b) Using online and self-published sources - Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Using online and self-published sources, a guideline, warns against use of sources whose content is controlled by their owner - "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication." Ryanspir (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]