Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 188

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 185Archive 186Archive 187Archive 188Archive 189Archive 190→Archive 195

Tweets from Zoe Quinn

I am a bit unclear how it words regarding tweets from Twitter. WP:SELFSOURCE mentions:

These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter

So presumably you can use a page for a specific tweet as a reference if it fulfills them?

I think it would be nice if we have a template where we could just plug in the serial number of a specific tweet (the numerical string at the end of the URL) and the Twitter username so it generates a pretty-looking reference. Template:Twitter is used for listing Twitter names on articles while Template:Tweet is in use on user-pages as some kind of 'you got mail' thing.

I guess I'd just like an easy way to generate this cite-web template using a Tweet-specific template. NM just found Template:Cite tweet upon instinctively thinking to type it.

Seeing as how /status/ divides the Twitter name from the serial number, I propose we call something like this Template:TwitterStatus with 3 variables to input (name, number, date) unless anyone can think of more.

First, involving verification of ID: http://www.quinnspiracy.com/ is listed as the official web site of Zoe Quinn and if you hover over "About" it drops down 2 clickable options. The first says "Help Me Keep Making Stuff" and the second says "Twitter" which is a link to https://twitter.com/TheQuinnspiracy

Regarding the validity of Tweets as references, I think it worth pointing out that at Zoe_Quinn#Early_life the very first reference we use (for her birth year) is a Tweet:

Zoe Quinn was born in 1987@TheQuinnspiracy (Zoe Quinn) (13 October 2014). "1987 is my birth year. I am 27". twitter. Retrieved 13 October 2014.

I will avoid posting the text from the Tweets in question but I will post their serial numbers so that Wikipedias here on the RSN can simply google them and read the tweets themselves: [redacted]

As best as I can tell, all 3 appear to be made from the Twitter account specified on the web site which has been listed as her official site on Wikipedia.

So assuming there is consensus about this verification, here is the issue, does it fit the criteria, I will first post a criterion bullet and then my response to it:

  • The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
    • The material does not appear to be self-serving at all, they are simply revealing information about her employment history, which could be used to expand the background section of her article.
  • It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)
    • I cannot see her making any claims about any specific third parties. She mentions "people" and "you" and "they" and "y'all".
  • It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
    • These events are directly related to the subject, as they are discussing her employment history
  • There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
    • I see no reason to doubt her claims, in fact they confirm what many people have already concluded.
  • The article is not based primarily on such sources.
    • It isn't, her article is already based on major newspapers, however these Tweets from her would help round out the article and provide "from the person's mouth" confirmation data about some things.

I have received a warning related to the content, I hope this was simply because of sourcing issues. I am hoping I will not be blocked for bringing this up here because I am not adding it in some easy-to-find place like an article or its talk page, I want to vet whether these Tweets are proper sources for adding data about ZQ's employment history and the statements she has made on her official Twitter regarding it. Ranze (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It's been rev-deleted at Talk:Zoe Quinn as well. In short: if anyone would find it controversial or object, we need a reliable source. Primary/SPS sources are great for trivial facts like birth or graduation year, or for the person's opinion on otherwise notable events (barring discussion of other living persons, of course). But things like summa cum laude or employment history or "what I ate for breakfast" can be self-serving, controversial, or irrelevant and undue. If reliable sources don't care what a person did before they became notable, then we shouldn't, either. Woodroar (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi there! If you're uncomfortable posting the text itself on the RSN, it's probably not suitable to provide the means for accessing it either. If you think the material is fine for inclusion, you should feel okay linking to it directly. Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • In general, it's best to avoid relying exclusively on primary sources for anything remotely controversial (which seems to apply in this case.) This is because while you might be able to cite someone's twitter as proof that eg. they made a specific statement, you can't use that to establish the notability of that statement or whether it actually says anything useful about them; going over someone's entire twitter history and pucking out whatever tweets you want to make an argument about them is effectively WP:OR in the absence of secondary sources attesting to the significance of those specific tweets (eg. why quote these tweets, and not that tweet? Just because you can dig up a tweet where someone said eg. "sometimes I hate dogs!" doesn't mean it makes sense to include that in their Wikipedia page; just because you can dig up a tweet about their employment history doesn't necessarily mean that that's relevant to the article as a whole.) Another issue is that the context in which you place a fact in the article can sometimes lead the reader to a conclusion, which is WP:SYNTH if it's not attested by the sources -- eg. one example I saw elsewhere was someone saying "this article's subject did this[cite for something they did], which is against this law[cite to law in question]." While both cites were reliable, the combination of them (asserting that the article's subject had broken that particular law) was a synthesis not present in either -- the first cite didn't suggest the action in question had broken the law, and the second cite didn't mention the article's subject, so we didn't actually have any reliable source saying what they wanted to say. Because of things like this, it's better to find a secondary source which can explicitly speak to a fact's meaning and relevance; even then, your secondary source has to be reliable, especially for BLPs. If you want to state something as fact, it ought to be a reliable news source and not an editorial; if you want to report someone's opinion, you need to argue that their opinion is noteworthy enough to be in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The warning you received was from someone already themselves banned from Gamergate-related topics (including related to Zoe Quinn) due to battleground mentality about BLP policy. It is entirely permissible and appropriate to put a link on a talk page for the purpose of discussing whether it's a reliable source. Reliability is in a context, so without something concrete we can only talk in circles around the question. A tweet can be a reliable source in narrow circumstances, which you seem to have a handle on. The question of "why this tweet and not others?" is a red herring, inasmuch as its the same as "why this sentence of a peer-reviewed journal and not others?". That is what editors are meant to decide. Anything reliably sourced is never original research. Rhoark (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Editorial conflict: Framingham Public School District

The following is a proposed addition to the Framingham Public School District for a new section titled "Employment":

This district recognizes a teacher's union, a labor union [1] that generally advocates for fair employment conditions. It employs administrators, teachers, and other staff members. Typically, when Category:labor disputes arise, teachers may receive assistance from the teachers union to reach a resolution.

Occasionally, a labor dispute arises for an employee who is not a member of the teacher's union; a resolution must be reached through an alternative mean. [2] According to the Town Clerk, who maintains a record of Conflict of Interest trainings for the public schools, this class of dispute is referred to the Town Council, the Ethics Liaison for Labor Disputes, who may or may not advise the disputing party. [3] The Human Resources Department claims not to discriminate in their employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religious creed, religious accommodation, national origin, ancestry, sex, age (40 and over), criminal record, handicap, retaliation, sexual harassment, sexual orientation, genetics, active military personnel, and gender identity. [4]— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristopherThomasLeonard (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ "Framingham Teacher's Association".
  2. ^ "Employee Terminated After Sharing A Controversial Topic".
  3. ^ "Public Record Portal".
  4. ^ "Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination".
What is the question? Article talk page does not show any actual dispute either. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Mr. Leonard claims that the following sources are reliable, while I assert that they are not.
Mr. Leonard's posting on seeclickfix.com
The Framingham town website, which does not support Leonard's claims
Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, which also does not support Leonard's claims
In addition to the issue of sourcing, there are the issues of neutrality (use of weasel words such as "generally advocates for fair employment conditions" and "The Human Resources Department claims not to discriminate"), original research (gathering unrelated details in the same place to imply something none of the specifically state), and conflict of interest (Mr. Leonard, a terminated employee of the District, is more interested in advancing his own interests against Framingham than advancing the aims of Wikipedia). --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
The proposed text does seem like a strange aside to be putting in an encyclopedia. But concerning sourcing, if the point here is that this district had some history of controversy it would be best to get something like newspaper coverage, and not rely only on primary sources. But please keep in mind WP:NOTE, and WP:COI.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

107.77.76.123 (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC) I have emails from officials that are legally considered Public Records that would easily verify my content, not to mention an employee handbook that also supports my content. I cited the Town website to request Public Records. The editor who is troubled by my contribution is mainly concerned with the adverse image it may portray; I am not fabricating knowledge, I am reporting it. 107.77.76.123 (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Personal e-mails not otherwise published are not reliable sources. Rhoark (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

My email communication with political officials are legal public records. I challenge editor Hirolovesswords to reveal all pertinent affiliations that may cause undue censorship of Wikipedia-worthy content. This editor has mocked me by calling my neutral-tone "weasel words".

"Weasel words" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. See: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributions. Emails are not considered a usable source on Wikipedia because they are not published and do not meet the requirements at Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Archive of criminal trial

Is this transcript of Herbert Rowse Armstrong reliable?

https://archive.org/details/TrialOfHerbertRowseArmstrong

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alligators1974 (talk • contribs) 15:23, April 5, 2015

I'm guessing this is for the article Herbert Rowse Armstrong. Court transcripts are considered WP:PRIMARY sources so any use of them needs to be done cautiously and kept to a minimum. It's very easy to cherrypick from such sources or to add personal analysis and stray into WP:SYNTH territory. Far better to use secondary sources who covered the case than transcripts. Ravensfire (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
A strong resounding "no". Our policies about Biographies of Living People explicitly forbid using primary sources such as trial transcripts for contentious material about a living person. And even if this person is deceased, we need independent secondary sources. CorporateM (Talk) 15:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Totally agree for living people. If I'm right about the article, this person died in 1922. Even then, I generally agree with CorporateM. I really, really don't like using court transcripts because it's so easy to cherry-pick information, fall into WP:SYNTH and ignore subsequent cases (appeals, etc) that might strike certain portions. For something like dates the trial started / ended, useful (but secondary sources should have covered that). @Alligators1974:, does this help? Ravensfire (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Shaygan Kheradpir

The article states in the Lede:

Kheradpir was among those who noted the effects of the commoditization of information technology,[1][6] and the need to orient IT programs around the consumerization of technology, in which people, not businesses, drive technology development.[7][8][9]

The sources are press articles in which Kheradpir is quoted commenting about these topics. I believe that quotes from the article-subject should not be used and there is an OR/SYNTH problem. You can see @Inthcar*:'s arguments in favor of the material/sources here. CorporateM (Talk) 22:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

That sentence is unwieldy and vague, needing to be rewritten regardless of the quality of the sourcing. Something like "Kheradpir has been noted for his emphasis on responding to the market for domestic consumer electronics, rather than commercial technology only." Rhoark (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Buzzfeed, Mother Jones for BLP's.

Are Buzzfeed, and Mother Jones considered reliable sources for BLP's? And what qualifies as a "High Quality" source in terms of BLP? --Kyohyi (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

One of the challenges with sources like Buzzfeed is the wild inconsistency in article quality, so it really depends on the specific circumstances. If written by one of their real journalists as a legitimate news item, then it should be fine to treat it as a reliable source. Can you tell us what you'd like to use it for? TheBlueCanoe 16:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Mother Jones is a well-respected and longstanding journalistic outlet; BuzzFeed articles are, as TheBlueCanoe says, situationally reliable depending on who they were authored by. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not using the source, it was recently added. The Buzzfeed source is http://www.buzzfeed.com/adamserwer/how-mens-rights-leader-paul-elam-turned-being-a-deadbeat-dad#.dyDNqpPz5, and the MotherJones piece is http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/01/warren-farrell-mens-rights-movement-feminism-misogyny-trolls . I'm fairly certain they are reliable to satisfy basic WP: V, however under WP: BLP there's a stress for high quality sources, and I'm not sure if they qualify as "high quality" per BLP. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Could we have some indication of the edits these are/might be used to support? Mangoe (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
They were recently added over at A Voice for Men, according to the sources there is only a single employee, and I'm of the opinion that would put them under WP: BLPGROUP. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Both the Buzzfeed and Mother Jones articles are extended reported pieces by established journalists, and not throwaway listicles, so I don't think there is any general concern about using them in BLPs. Here is the diff of the particular edits. On a quick glance, they seem okay, except for the last para ("AVFM's finances have been described as murky"), which should be rewritten to avoid the passive voice and/or properly attributed. Abecedare (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there's a definition of sufficient reliability, but its in proportion to the claims. The Mother Jones piece seems mostly unproblematic, from a BLP standpoint. For NPOV, Farrell's response should be mentioned if Mother Jones is cited for anything addressed in the response. The Buzzfeed article is flat out character assassination, and I think it would need a better source. Maybe, maybe, it could be used in conjunction with the court records it mentions, if those records can be found and cited. Rhoark (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
To clear things up, the BuzzFeed source was used for uncontroversial statement like the fact that A Voice for Men is a for-profit LLC, that it has an estimated revenue of $120,000, that it has an online store that sells T-shirts and other stuff, and that it was unclear what A Voice for Men does with donations until Elam wrote on the site that they go directly into his pocket. The BuzzFeed piece is clearly critical of Elam but so are all reliable source (have you read some of his quotes and can you imagine a mainstream publication that wouldn't be critical of him?). None of that stuff about Elam's relationship with his daughter and his ex-wives is relevant for the AVFM article. So what's this about court records? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The exact claims were posted while I was writing my response. Project consensus seems to be that BLP is not concerned with "other stuff" in the source that isn't repeated on Wikipedia, though there's significant minority dissent to that view. Everyone seems to agree its better to use less problematic sources where available, but quick Googling didn't show an alternate source for the financial information. The particular use of Mother Jones is fine. There's a lot more of that article that could be used. Rhoark (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Kyohyi refers to my edits here and here. Shame he forgot to notify me of this discussion. Do tell, Kyohyi, what is it you believe is problematic in terms of BLP in those edits and the two sources that support those edits? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Since I was looking for a general answer about buzzfeed, and motherjones, there was no particular reason to notify you. If the sources are considered highly quality for terms of BLP, then there is no problem. If they aren't, particularly the buzzfeed piece, then I think we need to weigh whether the information added which is linked to that piece is of encyclopedic value or not. But that would be something to take up on the article talk page. And that in turn cannot be done unless the first condition, which is whether or not the sources are high quality, is determined. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
You started this discussion with a misleading question that implies that the two sources have been used for BLPs. But the sources haven't been used for BLPs. The two references are reliable sources, especially for the fairly uncontroversial edits that I made based on those sources. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree that they haven't been used for BLP's, one of the sources you listed says that AVFM has a single employee. Per BLPGROUP small organizations which cannot be differentiated from their members fall under BLP. Since AVFM has only a single employee how can AVFM be differentiated from that person? If not, it falls under BLP. Particularly with regards to that organizations financials. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The AVFM isn't just an organization, it's also a website with hundreds of contributors, dozens of staffers, and an active message board. Statements about AVFM can clearly be differentiated from statements about its founder. You need to establish first if statements about AVFM are always statements about the founder. Once you've established that, you can question if all the sources on the AVFM page satisfy WP:BLP. These particular two do. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Then you need to be careful when adding content about AVFM the LLC, which has a single employee. To statements about AVFM the website with hundreds of contribors, dozens of staffers, and an active message board because BLP protects one, and not the other. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
AVFM is notable as the most popular men's rights website. Let's not pretend that it falls under BLP. Sources aren't unreliable just because they're critical of AVFM and its activities. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

VenEconomy/VenEconomia

I was wondering if this book review by VenEconomy, is reliable as a book review of The Chávez Code on the article for Eva Golinger. I noticed a dispute about reliability on the article's talk page and decided to look up VenEconomy and noticed that they are frequently mentioned by the Latin American Herald Tribune.

For those of you who cannot read Spanish, a quick Google Translated portion of the text states this:

"On page 111, Golinger attributes to Shapiro a written statement, quoted in the notes to the footer where refers to an embassy cable in the appendix of documents in the book. The document does not contain this statement. This is a recurring to the notes as footnotes throughout the book problem. 'The Chávez Code' does not dwell on the events of April 2002. Includes chapters on the oil strike of December 2002 and January 2003, and the recall referendum of August 2004. VenEconomía found many more inaccuracies in these chapters but do not want to deprive others of the pleasure of making their own discoveries as you read this Bolivarian bestseller."

Like with other sources, this will have to be presented neutrally, of course. Thanks already for any help with this!--ZiaLater (talk) 08:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Is WND.com RS

I was doing NPP and ran across Turkish American Community Center. Looking at Google News the only significant coverage I can find is from [http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/100-million-mega-mosque-coming-to-this-state/ this WND.com article]. If it's not notable I'm going to just WP:SD nominate. Jerod Lycett (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

WND has been discussed numerous times on this board (eg). Short answer: Not reliable for any factual claims. Abecedare (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Of course it's not reliable. Mangoe (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Looking at that link @Abecedare: provided I found 1300 uses of it. A chunk are on talk pages, but another good chunk are on actual pages. We have a bot to send? Jerod Lycett (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
There can be some legitimate uses of WND as a source, eg per WP:ABOUTSELF or when an article they have published has been part of a controversy and is linked to in addition to reliable secondary sources discussing it (this is a judgment call esp. in BLPs). But my guess is that most of the mainspace links to wnd don't qualify for those exceptions, and need to be removed. Abecedare (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Denis Arthur Bingham

The book, "The Marriages of the Bourbons", by Captain Hon. Denis Arthur Bingham, New York:Scribner and Welford, 1890.

Can this be considered a reliable source? I have found nothing about Denis Bingham that would indicate he was an academic. Does anyone have any information concerning the author or the book? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, Denis Arthur Bingham the author (1829-1897) was the son of Denis Arthur Bingham, 3rd Baron Clanmorris of Newbrook (1808-1847). The author was stationed in Paris, and published his journal written during the Siege of Paris, as well as other books touching on French history (The Marriages of the Bourbons, The Marriages of the Bourbons, The Bastile, etc.) I'm not sure why, though, you'd want to used a book from 1890 regarding the marriages of the Bourbons. Surely more recent books would reflect modern research? The Siege of Paris might be useful as it reflects first hand knowledge, but genealogical material even on people as famous as the Bourbons has progressed in the past 125 years. - Nunh-huh 01:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I do not want to use a book from 1890. Another editor, whom I had contacted, used this for a source. The editor, I contacted, had no knowledge concerning Denis Bingham and my search for information was fruitless, so I came here.
So, besides being a primary source for the Siege of Paris, which we can not use on Wikipedia, Denis Bingham was not an academic and therefore not a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know that it's a requirement that book authors also be academics in order for their books to be considered "reliable sources", but I agree that "The Marriages of the Bourbons" should not be considered an authoritative source ;) - Nunh-huh 03:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC on three journal articles, WP:REDFLAG and WP:NEOLOGISM

Input is requested into this request for comment on the use of three academic journal articles to support additions to the Somalis in the United Kingdom page, and whether the additions breach WP:REDFLAG and WP:NEOLOGISM. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Bob Odenkirk interview

Bob Odenkirk#Personal life contains the following sentence:

"He has stated that his wife and children are Jewish, but he is not"

The information comes from an interview with Odenkirk in this source. Setting aside any possible WP:NOTEVERYTHING issues with the sentence, my question is whether the source satisfies WP:RS.

In the interview, Odenkirk says this about his role as "Saul Goodman" in Breaking Bad: "I called Vince and he goes he's a sleazy lawyer, and I go I can do that. And then he goes his name is Saul Goodman and I go whoa whoa whoa just so you know I'm not Jewish. My kids are Jewish, my wife is Jewish, but I'm not Jewish. He goes he's not Jewish; he just changed his name to appeal to the gangsters and homeboys. He’s Irish. I said oh good I’m half Irish I can do that." Since this comes from an interview it would be considered a primary source, right? It seems as if the above was said half-seriously and half-jokingly, so I'm not sure if it would be considered a straightforward statement of fact and, therefore, acceptable for use.

In addition, the source is a blog/personal website. The writer Matt Copa appears to be an established writer/commentator on media matters who has written for numerous reliable sources, so maybe he is considered to be an "established expert" per WP:UGC; The article, however, is a BLP so it seems that WP:BLPSPS should take precedence. The blog might be acceptable to add as an external link per WP:ELMAYBE, but I'm not sure if it's acceptable for an inline citation.

What should be done if the source does not satisfy WP:RS? Remove only the source and add {{citation needed}} to the sentence? Remove both the source and the information it cites and add the blog as an EL? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Since it comes from an interview in Odenkirk's own words, I'd consider it WP:ABOUTSELF. The fact that someone else posted it online should only have bearing if it raises a reasonable doubt as to authenticity, which I don't feel is the case here. Rhoark (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Rhoark. Could Odenkirk's family possibly be considered to be "third parties" in this case? I'm just asking for the sake of clarification and not to be annoying. FWIW, I just started out to fix the bare url, and not to remove anything from the article. But, I figured I'd ask about the source here just to make sure. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
It's easy to get lost in the exact wording used by WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:SPS etc, but applying common-sense and the keeping in mind the intent behind those guidelines, I'd say the source is reliable enough for the claim it is being cited for. That said, the claim should be removed from the article since without the context in which the quote was made it appears bizarre for the wikipedia bio to note that the subject is not Jewish; and the religion of his wife and kids is also not worth including since it is not a defining, or even much remarked upon, fact about the subject. So this is more of a WP:DUE and WP:BLP issue, than a WP:RS one. Abecedare (talk) 02:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification Abecedare. Actually, my next step, once the reliability of the source had been confirmed, was to discuss whether the statement should even be in the article at Talk:Bob Odenkirk for the very reasons you mentioned above. I was going to discuss first, but maybe just being bold is a better course of action in this case? - Marchjuly (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I take the opposite view. As a blog, even if the author is an expert, this site cannot be used as a source for information about a living person other than the author of the blog. The last sentence of the SPS section of the Verifiability policy says, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." (Emphasis added.) Because we have a mandate to get BLP's right, we have a rule that says, in effect, that while we can barely (see the qualifiers on use of experts in SPS) extend trust to expert's self-published work in other matters we cannot extend even that minimum level of trust when the subject is a living person. That's the common sense of this situation. I believe this case falls dead center in the prohibition italicized above (which is repeated at WP:BLP#Reliable sources without even a hint of an exception for experts). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Invoking the interviewer as an expert is not the way to go about it. I endorse the opinion of WP:INTERVIEW, "If the material is primary, then it is treated the same way as if the interviewee had written the same thing on their website or in a message on Twitter. As long as we can be reasonably certain that the material was written by them, then the Wikipedia policy on primary sources applies. Such material can be used, but needs to be used with care, and only to cite facts that can be verified from the source itself." Rhoark (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
INTERVIEW is an essay, not a policy or guideline, but even it says, in so many words, that the publication where the interview is published must itself be reliable and specifically addresses blogs: "While primary-source material from interviews is treated the same as other kinds of primary-source material, it is necessary to verify that the comments attributed to the interviewee were actually made by them. Publications with a reputation for reliability can usually be trusted to report their interviewees' words accurately and without embellishment, but there is no guarantee that other publications will do the same. For example, an interview posted on a blog could have altered the interviewee's words, or even be completely made up. If there is any uncertainty about whether the interview is a reliable and accurate depiction of what the subject said, then it should not be used." (Emphasis added.) This source still fails the test of reliability. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Not a bureaucracy, no firm rules, etc. The litmus test is whether there is reasonable doubt that these are Bob Odenkirk's own words. Rhoark (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Nope, the litmus test is that we've got to get BLP's right and part of getting them right is only using high-quality reliable sources, and the community has decided through policy — and policy is the established consensus of the community — that self-published sources, even by experts, can never be trusted for that purpose. "Never" doesn't get used much in policy, so never means never. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this not a joke? I don't see how you can transpose a joke into a factual claim in an article.Pincrete (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC) … … ps, even if this is RS, what is the relevance of mentioning a religion that the subject is NOT an adherent of?

Exactly (wrt the PS). That was mentioned above and the OP has already removed the sentence from the article. Abecedare (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their comments. As mentioned by Abecedare, I was bold and removed the sentence and source form the article for the reasons given above. I explained the edit at Talk: Bob Odenkirk#Not Jewish so hopefully it will not become an issue. Regarding the reliability of the source, I tend to fall on TransporterMan's side of the line, but the discussion was an interesting one and made me think, so I am glad I decided to ask about the source here. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

A Field Guide to Carnival Glass

I would like to make sure this site link is a reliable source. The site is the work of David Doty who is also the author of a book by the same name link. I believe it falls under the expert published by a third party exemption to self published sources. Its to be used for non controversial information on antique glass like makers marks and patterns. AlbinoFerret 01:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Is David Doty's name on the website? I can't seem to find it. BMK (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The name is in the url, and is well know to be his. A Google search for David Doty carnival glass brings it up as the first result with the meta tag info that its his. search. Collectors Weekly also lists it as his link. Lastly a Google book search brings it up as his on page 9 of Warman's Carnival Glass: Identification and Price Guide the 4th book in the search, its in the search description for the page, but the page isnt available online. Im sure I could get a copy within a few days. The site is also registered to him, here is a link to a whois link AlbinoFerret 02:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Google displays the name of the website as "David Doty's Carnival Glass Website". Doty seems to be a recognized expert in carnival glass who has published work on the topic for at least 17 years, so I consider his website an acceptable reliable source for this topic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I do think that the site itself has all the appearances of a expert site, my only concern was clarifying the connection to David Doty. I agree that it should be considered to be a reliable source. BMK (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Given the apparently-recognized expert nature of the author and the non-controversial nature of the material in question, I think this can be treated as a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive comments, I was just making sure since its a self published site. Its much easier to check than to replace citations at a later date. AlbinoFerret 11:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Ancestry.com

These are previous discussions which I found with search of the archives where Ancestry.com appeared in the section head.

--September 2007

  • Not reliable

--June 2010

  • No... Ancestry.com is a valuable and useful resource in which to find reliable sources, but not a reliable source in itself.
  • I am unfamiliar with the magazine, but from what I've seen, I'd be reluctant to cite Ancestry.com as a source for anything – except in the first instance mentioned above, where Ancestry obviously struck a deal to carry proprietary content from a reputable source, the Dictionary of American Family Names published by Oxford University Press.

--July 2010

  • I'll also add that if the people involved are living, then the BLP policy kicks in, which says that the dates of birth should only be included where they have been "widely published by reliable sources". If the information is only available behind a paywall, then it can hardly be considered widely published
  • For the most part, Ancestry.com contains user generated material without editorial oversight, and thus fails WP:RS.

-- March 2011

  • Previous discussions here have noted it is not reliable - I'll dig up the link for you.
  • Elen and Andrew are both correct about the problem inherent with using an old census; the census itself is very often inaccurate regarding basic facts such as age and even name, and (even if the spelling matches), one is never sure whether it is referring to the person in question, someone else with the same name.

--October 2012 -- about the sources at Ancestry.com

  • The sources you mention are primary sources and should be used with care
  • And in the case of secondary sources, it is within the capacity of the encyclopaedist to reasonably make such an encyclopaedic interpretation. This is not the case with primary sources regarding historical biography where encyclopaedists are not adequately trained (and we do not certify any editor as anything but an encyclopaedist). Again, this has been previously discussed
  • I will just add that there can be times when primary sources are suitable, but this is clearly not one. This is, just to make it clear, because original interpretation is required in this case, in order to use the source. It is not "2+2=4". (I say this as a keen amateur genealogist.) This is NOT intended to mean that I think Albacore is wrong. He is very likely correct, but that is not the point. As soon as we do anything ground breaking we should do it somewhere else and not on WP, which simply aims to summarize what other sources have already published.

--May 2013

  • Largely, no. The amateur-provided data can't be used directly as cites in articles per WP:SELFPUBLISH. Ancestry.com does make lots of public records available, but a lot of that public record data isn't necessarily very accurate, especially from the early 20th century. It also contains a lot of outright lies about things like professions - on immigration forms, immigrants would put down good-sounding high-skill jobs or whatever they thought might not get them turned away, even though they did not have those skills. There was also a lot of fudging of names and addresses. Such sources also could not be used to establish notability.
  • Adding - not to discourage the use of ancestry.com as a resource entirely, however. You can use ancestry.com to find leads to acceptable sources. For example, an ancestry.com record might lead you to a newspaper article, which could be used.

--29 June 2014

  • This and similar sites come up all the time. They are user created by amateur genealogists and therefore are not rs. However, their pages may include copies of reliable primary sources, for example birth and census records. Do you have any examples?

It seems to me from the content of this survey that Ancestry.com is not a Wikipedia reliable source for supporting content, but it may be a useful place to start an investigation. Presumably it is used to find reliable sources that a Wikipedia editor has not read themselves they should then cite Ancestroy.com and the primary sources as laid out in WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT.

I have done this survey because of a discussion at Template talk:Inglis family tree, should such trees carry citations and if they were created using Ancestroy.com is that a Wikiepdia reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Not RS, but great way to find them. Speaking as someone who used to use the site to make my living. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It depends. Ancestry.com hosts a huge repository of public records including birth certificates, death certificates, census records, military records, passenger lists, newspaper clippings, and other potentially useful primary sources. On the other hand, member contributed research is not usable in any context.- MrX 15:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The problem with the official primary sources is that to use them almost always means applying original research and/or synthesis. How can we be sure that the person in the record is the person of interest. I've done a lot of my own genealogy and I'm trained in using sources of this nature, but nonetheless I get them screwed up sometimes! Basically, I don't think we should use even our own amateur detective work, let alone that contributed by some member of the ancestry/findmypast etc site. - Sitush (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I mostly agree, and I'm an (amateur) genealogist myself. Consider this hypothetical: We know a subjects birth place, birth year, and parents names. In that case, we could potentially use an official birth register to determine the birth month and day. As with most things, common sense applies. Also, ancestry.com hosts published, public domain sources from professional genealogists (e.g. Tanguay [1]). - MrX 00:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Although it may seem intuitive to search for an individual, or even a family, living in a known location, in records like the census, it isn't always so cut and dried. There are very many examples where startlingly similar people are found in the same area at the same time with similar records who may or may not be related to one another. A simple search cannot be relied upon for definitive conclusions. Genealogical research relies on multiple sources and even then may require one's best-guess analysis from which provisional conclusions are drawn.
And has been pointed out above, Ancestry.com has collections of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources (all well and good), but many of their so-called "collections" are amalgamations of data gleaned from LDS members' church submissions, skimmed from online family trees, and taken from free sites like Rootsweb, all repackaged as filler for their paying customers. Information for every one of their collections must be examined and evaluated for reliability and relevancy, but most A.c members don't do that. They treat everything as equally valuable "sources" when it could merely be taken from people who are no better at genealogy than they are.
Bear in mind that many of the vital records are found through searchable transcripts and that tertiary data are transcripts of transcripts of transcripts. While originally accurate, errors can easily be introduced into records, then compounded, at each level of duplication.
A very common bad practice is circular sourcing. Since some of the stuff on A.c, FamilySearch.org, etc, is packaged from member-submitted family trees, it can be unreliable, even false. However, Person 1. happily takes that info as gospel and incorporates it into their online tree. Person 2. happily sees Person 1.'s tree and takes that info as gospel and incorporates it into their online tree. Then Person 1. finds that site and "confirms" their own data by using Person 2's tree as a verifying source. Genealogical research can be tricky - too tricky to try on the spur of the moment to quickly confirm info like vital dates, family members, and locations. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a really, really good accounting of why we have to be very careful with sourcing even innocuous-seeming things about people. Thanks, Wordreader. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

USS John Paul Jones (DDG-53)

Reliable? Found this in the below article. Source appears to be the work of a single author who may be an expert in the field. However, it does not appear there is any review of author's work, per the "about" and "disclaimer" pages of the site.

Source: http://ejection-history.org.uk/ About source/Project Statement Disclaimer Specific page of source that is referenced

Article: USS John Paul Jones (DDG-53)

Content:

On 20 September 1995, an F-14A Tomcat fighter jet crashed in the vicinity of John Paul Jones. A fly-by at supersonic speed was performed, during which the engine exploded (due to "compression failure") 55 miles away from the carrier, USS Abraham Lincoln. Both pilot and Weapons Systems Operator ejected and survived with only minor 2nd degree burns.

David Tornheim (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I would lean towards it not being reliable. Though it says the database is compiled based on decades of research, the author also admits the database is too large to ensure its accuracy. The quality of the website is very low and appears to be the work of a single person. It's not clear what his sources are, but probably whatever his sources are would be better. A quick Google search does verify this plane crash took place with plenty of video evidence in non-reliable sources. However, even if we could find a good enough source, it's unlikely that this incident is significant in the biography of this ship. In almost all cases, these kinds of databases and directories should be avoided, because of the weight issues. CorporateM (Talk) 15:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk: Ulster

User:Rhoark suggested I raise my query here. I wrote the below section which was deleted by another Editor on the grounds that it did not rely on secondary sources. It relies mostly on Cabinet papers published many years after the events in question.

Section that was deleted and is under discussion

(for the benefit of those who don't know what we are discussing, I re-produce the above here):

Serious consideration was twice given to renaming Northern Ireland as Ulster. Ahead of the renaming of the Irish Free State as Ireland in 1937, the British Prime Minister and the Home Secretary discussed the matter with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Lord Craigavon when he was in London in July 1937.[1] On 1 December 1937, Thomas Joseph Campbell, MP (Nationalist) asked the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland whether the Government was considering changing the name of Northern Ireland, and, if so what name was being considered. Responding, the Minister of Finance John Miller Andrews MP said "the matter has been under discussion amongst Members of the Government, but no Cabinet decision has been taken". The Attorney General of Northern Ireland remarked around the same time that the Ulster name was of "great importance" and that the "cumbersome name" of Northern Ireland that came into the Act of 1920 alongside Southern Ireland should be changed.[2] He continued further remarking that "The name of Southern Ireland has been changed and it was time that the name of Northern Ireland should be changed to Ulster".[2] However, ultimtely no change was made to the name in 1937.

Renaming Northern Ireland as Ulster was considered even more serioiusly in 1949. A Working Party was established by the British Cabinet and chaired by the Cabinet Secretary, Norman Brook. Its report dated 1 January 1949 was presented by Prime Minister Clement Attlee to the Cabinet on 7 January 1949. Among its recommendations were that the name of Northern Ireland should be changed to Ulster. In this regard the Working Party's report noted:[3]

The Government of Northern Ireland have formally asked that the title of Northern Ireland should now be changed to "Ulster"...As a name "Ulster" is clearly to be preferred to "Northern Ireland." "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ulster" is a rounder and more resounding title than "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." ...The majority of the working party conclude that the balance of advantage lies on the side of adopting the title "Ulster" for the six counties.

However, the renaming proposal was ultimately rejected by the Prime Minister with Attlee reporting to the Cabinet:[4]

The consideration which weighed most with me and with the other Ministers whom I consulted was that the proposed use of the title "Ulster" was likely to provoke acute controversy among Irishmen in other Commonwealth countries. This in itself would be unfortunate: but, even worse, it would aggravate the difficulties of securing the agreement of other Commonwealth Governments to the necessary change in The King's title. In discussion with the Northern Ireland Ministers we found that they were not disposed to press very strongly for the adoption of the title "Ulster."

References

  1. ^ British National Archives, Catalogue Reference:CAB/24/273, Cabinet Papers, 1937
  2. ^ a b The Irish Times, 20 November 1920 reporting on a speech given by the Attorney General on Monday, 15 November 1937
  3. ^ British National Archives, Catalogue Reference:CAB/129/32 (Memorandum by PM Attlee to Cabinet appending Working Party Report)
  4. ^ British National Archives, Catalogue Reference:CAB/129/32; Memorandum from Prime Minister Attlee to his Cabinet dated 10 January 1949

Question

Is the above reliance on sources other than secondary sources acceptable? Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I suggested bringing it here rather than the OR policy talk page, because there was no OR involved. I missed the context that OR was alleged, but my assessment stands. The use of primary sources falls short of being "interpretation". It is merely summarization. It's my personal opinion that the level of detail of the quoted section would be undue weight for something that, ultimately, didn't happen. Rhoark (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
As Rhoark says, this is merely summarisation. I don't see a problem with its use. Possibly some detail could go, but I don't see obvious candidates. Although the renaming never happened, the widespread use/non-use of 'Ulster' continued/continues.Pincrete (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
In general, reliance should be on secondary rather than primary sources. For instance, how does one say that "Renaming Northern Ireland as Ulster was considered even more serioiusly in 1949", using just a primary source? This is why secondary sources are used for this sort of thing. There are often many things going on in history: how notable something is, is usually thus decided by secondary sources. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Cinemablend

Is this Cinemablend story reliable for the claim that the films ending was controversial with fans? Also the responses from the writer and director?

Cinemablend was considered on RSN in 2010. At the time, it was running a disclaimer that said, "CinemaBlend.com is a private, independently owned website which is intended only as entertainment. The views expressed on this website may or may not reflect those of its owner. Don't take us too seriously," which reflected poorly on its reliability.

That disclaimer is no longer present, and a section of their FAQ page reads:

This is primarily an opinion site and because of that we don't rely on breaking news to bring value to our readers. We do however, from time to time, receive exclusive information from outside sources. Still, we do not publish every scoop we receive. If it's something from a source we believe to be reliable, we'll share it with you. In every case, even if the source is someone we know well, we'll always make it clear that the story being reported on is a rumor until confirmed by an official source. We do not knowingly publish unreliable information, nor are we some British tabloid inventing fake stories to suck in unearned internet traffic. The truth is that, even if we didn't have a moral problem with that kind of reporting, we simply don't need it. We're doing fine without it. If we bring you a story, it's because we believe there's something to it. As always, things in the entertainment industry change fast and not everything that comes across our desk pans out. But you'll never doubt where our stories come from or whether or not it's confirmed. Our policy is full disclosure, we reveal our sources whenever possible, and when it isn't possible we'll be honest with you about whether or not the story is something you can trust. Our integrity is everything and honesty is the only thing we know.

List of editors

Rhoark (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

For something that's about a fictional universe and is just an existential argument over whose version of a story is better or more "true" to the character... (to get even more meta, what even is canon, anyway?) I feel like this is an acceptable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
As far as usage in WP goes its reliability on the matter of a fictional universe seems less pertinent than its reliability as to the existence of a fan reaction and to what the creators' responses were. I certainly wouldn't care to make claims about canonicity in Wikipedia's voice. Rhoark (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Is IMDb reliable for filmography credits?

The following discussion was moved frm my talk page. We would like to get broader input on whether some or all of IMDB's filmography credits are citable per WP:V and WP:RS.- MrX 19:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

About Hugh Elliott Changes

MrX, thanks for your guidance on the Hugh Elliott (editor) page. I have a question for you. I've noticed you've been removing the IMDb references from the page. After studying your comments and the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources page, I would like your feedback regarding the IMDb process. In my experience, certain aspects of IMDb (such as personal bios) are not vetted factually by IMDb and therefore not reliable. Whereas filmography/credits, for example, may only be recommended to IMDb. They then study, properly vet and make any approved changes internally. For this reason, I would have thought filmography credits - as opposed to biography data - to be a reliable reference, as it would not be self-published or questionable (due to IMDb's process and reputation). Any further guidance would be appreciated. 1sjjmhbt0 (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is the applicable guideline: WP:USERG. if there are exceptions to this guideline, or if IMDb now has an editorial process for some content, I'm not aware of it. Here are some discussions that may help: [2][3], or this essay: WP:CITEIMDB.- MrX 21:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
MrX, thank you for the reply and the information. I see there is quite a debate going on re IMDb's validity as a reference with many pro and con views. All I can offer to the discussion is my personal experience. From that, I would say the reason why IMDb falls into the middle category of "Disputed" (between "Appropriate" and "Inappropriate") is that many of the IMDb categories clearly don't get fact-vetted - they are only vetted for obscenity, reasonableness, etc. But, this is not true with the Filmography Credits category. Upon submitting credits to IMDb, I have often received inquiries from them for "more reference needed", so there is editorial diligence being done on their end for this category. As a film editor, my response to such requests can only be to reference directly the actual show or episode on Amazon Instant Video, where my credit clearly appears in the end credit roll. My credits are factual, though - aside from IMDb Filmography - can only be proven through this non-standard means. Considering this, would you be amenable to the following: I do not use my IMDb Bio as a reference - I use only the Filmography Credits page as a reference? Further, a reference could be added to an actual episode on Amazon Instant Video (for instance) showing my credit in the credit roll?1sjjmhbt0 (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow reply 1sjjmhbt0. You make some interesting points that I was not aware of. Could I suggest that we continue this discussion at WP:RS/N to get more input from others? You can just copy this discussion (in whole or part) to that notice board and we can see what other editors have to say. My knowledge of IMDB editorial practices is obviously very limited.- MrX 00:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Haven't we historically allowed IMDB for filmography and casting info? Unlike the trivia sections etc, the filmography isn't user contributed. It's actually placed by IMDB staff. While I've seen plenty of incorrect trivia or location information on IMDB, I can't recall ever seeing a cast list or filmography wrong. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Jewogle

Would this page from Jewogle.com be considered to be a reliable source for Lauren Cohen. It's being used to support the statement "Cohan was also raised in her stepfather's religion, Judaism, from age 5 and had a Bat Mitzvah". I can't find anything about editorial control at all in the sites FAQ so there's no way to tell where they are getting their information. Are they generating their own content or just mirroring stuff found on other pages? Does not seem to reliable per WP:BLPSOURCES, but I'm not sure. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I share your distrust of the "Jewogle" site, Marchjuly. I think that this is a better source, which includes a direct quote from her about her identification with Judaism. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Cullen328. The AJL magazine piece you've mentioned above is also being cited in support of the same sentence. Maybe somebody just added the Jewogle cite for additional support? Regardless, it doesn't seem to be reliable or needed in my opinion. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing to even suggest any form of quality control. As there's an alternative, credible source, this looks distinctly like a good argument for citekill. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
"Jewogle" is definitely not a reliable source; no editorial oversight at all. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 Done I have removed the source from the article and posted at Talk:Lauren Cohan#Jewogle citation referencing this discussion to help explain why. Thanks. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Using tweets to support 'endorsement'

Article/section The Presumption of Justice#Threats controversy

Two editors want to use a Twitter exchange to support this text:

Shortly afterwards, in a Twitter communication with Malagurski, the then VP of the Government of Vojvodina Goran Ješić lambasted the filmmaker for filing a criminal investigation request against Dinić, Poleksić, and Nikolić over online remarks, arguing that "as a public persona he should just take it". Furthermore, Ješić endorsed Dinić's, Poleksić's, and Nikolić's original online remarks against Malagurski as part of an invitation to the filmmaker to "sue him as well". [4] ( Goran Jesic's Twitter account, in Serbian, translation below)

The translation of the tweets is "Your filing of the investigation request is shameful. If you're a public persona you're supposed to take it. … … … Now file an investigation request against me since I second everything they wrote." (trans not disputed). In another tweet (not referred to), Ješić says (from memory) "You abuse politicians in Serbia all the time".

The context is that 3 young men (Dinić Poleksić and Nikolić) were found guilty of 'organised threats' against the filmmaker Boris Malagurski, allegedly made on a closed internet message board. The court's decision prompted several articles in Serbian papers criticising both the decision and Malagurski's involvement in the affair. The tweet exchange between this politician,(Ješić) and Malagurski, occurred shortly therafter. It is the content of the message board that the politician is presumably referring to in 'you're supposed to take it' and 'I second everything they wrote', though that is not explicitly stated, I believe.

The guideline here: [5] states "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself" . I interpret this as meaning that ANY 'interpretion' of primary sources is unacceptable, but that accurate verbatim quoting would not be.

There are other issues relating to this section, mainly neutrality, but I wanted to clarify the use of 'tweets' first. Please 'Ping' or 'name' if additional information is needed.Pincrete (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I would say that no, we can't use tweets in that context; my impression they're effectively trying to use Wikipedia to report on those tweets (to get the word out there about them), which is generally unencyclopedic. If these tweets clearly have the meaning and significance they say they do, it should be easy to find secondary sources covering them; otherwise, it feels to me that relying on quotes from someone's twitter to implicitly make an argument about their political positions is WP:OR. --Aquillion (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
While WP:TWITTER can be reliable source under certain situations per WP:SPS, these particular tweets fails criteria #2: "It does not involve claims about third parties." Not reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Skepticule

I am wondering if these would count as RS for the point of WP:GNG for the conference to be in its own article. I think it would. Jerod Lycett (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

No, not even remotely. Notability is established by significant coverage in third-party sources. Nothing the website says about itself can establish notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree - not even close to establishing notability. Not even a reliable source. CorporateM (Talk) 03:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Walter O'Brien

The article Walter O'Brien currently uses several news websites as the only sources for O'Brien's technical achievements. For example, the sentence "ScenGen is a scenario generator that can generate a number of possible results for any given situation according to user entered variables and relationships." is sourced to an article on IrishCentral [6]. I don't believe a news article should be considered a reliable source for describing technological or engineering achievements, since the author is not an expert in the field. In my opinion, a news article could reliably quote a scientist or engineer regarding a technological achievement, but it should not be a reliable source for original research in science or engineering. I believe that the information relating to O'Brien's engineering career should be removed until it can be sourced more reliably, but another editor believes that IrishCentral and The Irish Daily Mail are reliable sources in this case. Who is right? AliceIngvild94 (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

There are two sources in the article under contention. Following are the sources and the facts they report. The ones with a Blue Ribbon (Blue ribbon) mean they are the only source in the article reporting this fact. The rest have multiple sources reporting the fact:
  • The Irish Daily Mail (same company as Daily Mail, the Irish version)
  • Blue ribbon "O'Brien is the founder of ConciergeUp, a think tank of geniuses that execute "funded wishes.""
  • Blue ribbon "examples of funded wishes include predicting winners of horse races by analyzing the racehorses' DNA and finding out whether the fiancee of a billionaire's son is after the family fortune"
  • "O’Brien attended the University of Sussex, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science and artificial intelligence"
  • "He is also the inspiration for and executive producer of the 2014 CBS television series Scorpion."
  • "O'Brien founded Scorpion Computer Services in 1988 and serves as its CEO."
  • Blue ribbon "O'Brien's work has saved hundreds of thousands of lives."
They have also been flagged in the article with inline unreliable source? tags, so they are easy to find, and help bring more participation to the discussion. -- GreenC 21:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Any affiliate of Daily Mail is definitely not reliable; tabloid deluxe and poor reputation for accuracy. Not sure what to say about IrishCentral, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Question for AliceIngvild94, Green Cardamom, SNUGGUMS (and anyone else who wants to answer): Is the Daily Mail not being reliable a Wikipedia opinion or an editor's opinion? In other words, is the Daily Mail listed on some "Unreliable source list" within Wikipedia? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The level of fact checking of these publications when it comes to technical issues is low because the story is a fast turnover entertainment one with a single individual as the source for the claims. Thus many claims are accepted at face value rather than being properly checked. The establishment date of the company/corporation is a classic example of the lack of fact checking. It is actually quite simple to check if a company was registered as the Irish companies office has a searchable website for all companies registered in Ireland. The corporation was only established in California in 2009. The Irish CRO has no record of such a company ever being registered in Ireland. But apparently simply checking if a company exists or existed is "original research" in Wikipedia terms and some editors prefer to recycle unverified and unchecked information as "fact". That's the big problem with using entertainment sites as reliable sources. They don't have a particularly high level of fact checking because their journalists are typically in a rush to churn out content and tend to rely on press releases. For technical details, such claims require technically proficient analysis. And for technical claims, it is usually the technical details that validate or invalidate the claims. That Irish Central article seems to be discussing the TV show in the first few paragraphs and it blurs the line between fiction and fact. When the TV show promotion started last year, it wasn't long before IT experts, Computer Security experts and hackers started to dig into the backstory with the inevitable fallout. While not a technical publication, Fast Company's Susan Karlin ([7]) did try to follow up with O'Brien on issues that had been raised. Some of these questions, such as the one about why O'Brien never sought a MENSA IQ test to confirm his IQ given that it was such a big part of his "self-marketing" did not get a reply from him. There's also the issue of O'Brien claiming to have been invited to present at an AI seminar in Ireland (the professor running the event was contacted by Karlin) when, as confirmed, he was only invited to attend the seminar. These kinds of things only became apparent when journalists actually started to do some fact checking and much of this was done in response to concerns raised by the IT and Computer Security community about the backstory. It does reinforce the need for technical claims to be backed up by reliable sources that check the facts and understand the claims. Jmccormac (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
My question was quite simple, your response WTLDR. I'll ask again: Is there, within Wikipedia, a list of unreliable sources, and, are either or both of these references are included such a list? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
There is no list. We don't do that on the English Wikipedia. They do it on the Russian Wikipedia for example. Here, reliability is determined on a per-article per-fact basis, based on consensus processes. However there is precedence and it is generally understood that Daily Mail is not reliable. I'm not sure how to convince you of this but search on "Daily Mail" in the RSN and AfD archives. And listen to what other people are saying. 5 people saying the same thing. -- GreenC 04:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm...seems to me I recall hearing/reading of something very much like that in the past. Are you sure there is nothing in Wikipedia which lists unreliable sources? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Got a link? Didn't think so. English Wikipedia doesn't do it like that. -- GreenC 05:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
My reply is not a response to your question. Perhaps if you read it, you might understand the problem of using entertainment sites as reliable sources for technical claims. To simplify it for you: extraordinary technical claims require technical corroboration and validation from technologically reliable sources. Entertainment sources are not typically reliable on such matters. Jmccormac (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The indentation you added made it look like a response. Even so, you're responding now, and you still haven't answered the question. 04:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Winkelvi I don't have any idea whether IrishCentral specifically is reliable or unreliable as a news source. Other editors seem to think it isn't, but my main concern is that we're using news articles beyond their domain of reliability. If you read the IrishCentral source about ScenGen, you'll see many technical statements being made by the author, which aren't attributed to a particular computer science or engineering professional and are therefore original research by the author. I don't think news articles (no matter how reliable) are good sources for original research in computer science/computer security. Of course the press does write many articles about technical subjects, but they typically only report on statements by experts or summarize the results from reputable journals, and it's usually better to use the primary sources in Wikipedia articles rather than the interpretation of a journalist. The IrishCentral article in question makes vague technical claims and does not attribute them to any reliable source on this topic. AliceIngvild94 (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
TLDR: News articles are reliable sources for journalistic original research, not for scientific/technical original research. Journalists are qualified to say "X happened on date Y because I was there and I saw it." A journalist is also qualified to say "professor Smith says she discovered magnetic monopoles." A journalist is not qualified to say "magnetic monopoles exist." AliceIngvild94 (talk) 07:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

boxrec judoinsider

I am wondering if these two websites are considered to be reliable sources. http://boxrec.com/ which is used on pretty much every boxing wiki page. Also is http://www.judoinside.com/ which is a similar database used on wikipedia . I would like to use them but there has been arguments about them not being a reliable source. I use them as a growing database of records such as here [8] and here [9] CrazyAces489 (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

They at least do not seem to be unfiltered user-generated content or group blogs. Reliable for information about fights, but maybe not biographical information. Certainly not biographical details that are challenged at all. Rhoark (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Boxrec has a disclaimer at the bottom that says "This page may be incomplete or inaccurate". The about page doesn't provide any information to help us determine if it is reliable, except that additions can be submitted via a forum. JudoInside on the other hand looks like it is probably reliable. Their about page has an editor in chief listed that has a background as a professional journalist. CorporateM (Talk) 22:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Every site could be incomplete or inaccurate. Good on them for being honest about it. Rhoark (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
A reliable source is one that has earned a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Both look like WP:FANSITES which are not reliable. What evidence exists that these two sources have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Boxrec's reputation is imperfect, but generally strong. [10] Rhoark (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It would have been courteous for CrazyAces to notify me about this discussion since I'm involved in it on one of his pages. As I told him, this site relies heavily on user submitted content, which we know is a reliability issue (a la IMDB and many other sites) That was one of my primary objections to it. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I was checking on both of them. Since they are similar databases. You are free to test the information. Put up a fake name and see if they post that fake name onto their database. That would show whether or not they are reliable. I do ask, why is boxrec considered to be a strong source but judoinside is not? They both operate the same way. Boxrec explicitly states "© BoxRec : this data may be incomplete and/or inaccurate" CrazyAces489 (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • As I told you, I've formed no opinion on boxrec. I don't use it and generally don't edit boxing articles. No, that test wouldn't demonstrate reliability. It would demonstrate paying attention. There is much more to a source becoming reliable. And since you're linking them together (and would have predictably used anything in your favor here to rebut my removal of judoinside from an article), it wouldn't have been a bad idea to notify me. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I am asking others as they might see something I don't see. I am wondering why Boxrec is considered to be strong when it states Boxrec explicitly states "© BoxRec : this data may be incomplete and/or inaccurate. The same problem that you see with Judoinside. They do say they analyze the submissions. [11] They also give some records of results (although probably incomplete as many judo records weren't kept. [12] CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
RS was a place I was advised to go to. I don't believe that judoinside should be excluded as a possible source. It is one of the rare trackers of judo records. To delete it as a source would cause a lot of harm to many judo articles. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • You're in the correct place. But the majority of editors here don't think either a reliable, especially not the judo one. This is what I've been trying to tell you. You need to build articles based on reliable sources. Sometimes we have to wait for better sources to be found. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Boxrec seems to be widely relied upon by practitioners in the boxing industry. It has a team of people dedicated to fact checking. They don't catch everything, because its a Sisyphean task, but they're on it. Rhoark (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Boxrec is pretty much on EVERY boxing article. The same way sports reference is on every article. [13] Pick any decent player on any pro level Don Mattingly, Bob Gibson, Lawrence Taylor, etc and you will see that these databases are on every article. They do offer some sort of correction [14], but not to the degree that you would like. Maybe this is what is considered to be acceptable on wikipedia. If you have another suggestion, I am open to bringing it to another forum. CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

anyone? CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  • What exactly are you looking for as a response? Boxrec and judoinsider are entirely different websites. One or two have indicated some value in boxrec, most haven't. Nobody aside from you has indicated that judoinsider would pass RS. Sports-reference has nothing to do with this discussion at all. The purpose of this noticeboard isn't to go find editors new sources of information. As a rule, arguing that a source is used somewhere isn't a very compelling argument. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Biographical Encyclopedia

It may be that I'm overthinking this, but there are different sources that have biographies of people by profession or group. In some cases, the books have a "dictionary" or "encyclopedia" in the name. Sometimes they don't. If the title has "encyclopedia in it's name, like 100 Greatest African Americans: A Biographical Encyclopedia is it automatically a non-reliable / non-useable source?--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I would say it depends on the book. For that particular book we have articles on the publisher, the author, and the book itself. I haven't looked inside, but it probably shouldn't be dismissed automatically. And I would think that a book with ambitions to be a dictionary or encyclopedia should at least be considered. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Most of the recent biographical encyclopedias or dictionaries I know of can be used as sources, at least in the beginning of creation of articles about the subjects and to maybe in some cases help establish notability, although it would, in general, be a good idea to find other sources of a more clearly secondary nature to maybe use as sources for content in the article as the article gets developed. John Carter (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
It's a tertiary source. They can be used, but the ideal role is for broad overviews of a topic. For example it would be a fine source for "Some notable Aftican-Americans are...", but a secondary source would be better for "On [such and such date], [such and such person]... etc". Rhoark (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Rebecca Heineman - vidgame.info or Gamemoir as a source

The claim "She won the National Space Invaders Championship, sponsored by Atari, in November, 1980, making her the first person to ever win a national video game contest." is currently sourced to vidgame.info which appears to be the personal website of a Ken Polsson, whose hobby is making timelines of things. His timelines are cited in a few potentially reliable sources, but I didn't find any case where he was directly published to be considered an expert. I found what looks like a better source at a site called Gamemoir. It looks like it probably began in late 2013. Their ethics policy says, "While every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of our articles, some issues may not be detected prior to publication. In cases where inaccuracy occurs, a correction and clarification will be issued." I was able to find one correction, which isn't much, but they publish mostly opinion (which would be hard to get wrong.) Thoughts on either source? Rhoark (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Vidgame appears to be a tertiary source, which doesn't necessarily rule it out as an RS, but it would have to really shine for such a bold claim. The Gamemoir post is filed under "Opinions" and should not be used. However, Vidgame provides their sources here and if the original source material can be found, I think you'd be set. CorporateM (Talk) 03:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
There are a few sources for her winning the competition.[15][16] They don't make any claim of it being the first such competition. It seems likely to me that is a conclusion derived from the timeline. I have to disagree that what you've pointed out is probative. Tertiary sources still need to be published by a third party, and factual statements can be made alongside opinion. (The one correction they've made was of a factual statement, so it can't be said such things are not in the remit of their editorial oversight.) Rhoark (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Essay feedback requested

Motivated by some recurrent questions and misunderstandings at RSN, I've written an essay about reliable sourcing guidelines. The intent is to supplement policy pages (which are very bullet-point oriented) with guidance on identifying which policies are at the crux of an issue in a given case. I could particularly use feedback on two questions:

  • First, is what I've written an accurate reflection of policy? Some of the things I say are, by design, divergent from instances I've seen of policy applied in actual practice; however, they should adhere to policies as written and as applied in best practice.
  • Secondly, is it helpful? The hope is that someone having read it would be less likely to (innocently) engage in policy shopping or forum shopping out of ignorance, and instead cut to the heart of the matter.

Here is the essay. Rhoark (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Having had only a quick read, I would say that while at times the essay is admirably clear and direct, at other times it 'gets lost'. For example following a very clear opening statement about verifiability, we get "Note that the policy demands that information be verifiable, not verified. It is not necessary to identify any particular reliable source for a claim as long as there is a consensus that one is certain to exist and could in theory be consulted. This is why no citation is required for obvious statements like, "fire is hot." couldn't all this be said much simpler? Is it saying we don't require refs for (almost) universally accepted truths?
Similarly, later The ability to actually consult the source can still be mostly hypothetical, such as when the source is expensive, in an obscure language, in a remote location, or only available at certain times of the year. The allowable difficulties are not unlimited, though., this is mainly acting as an 'intro' to 'must be published'.
Whether this essay is wholly in line with policy, I don't know. I can see value in trying to communicating clearly WHY sourcing is crucial and why no simple formula exists for whether/when/for what something is a RS.Pincrete (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
@Pincrete:Thanks for the observations. Another editor has added some clarifications to the portions you commented on. Rhoark (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it is good. You set about writing an essay as a counterpart to policy language which tends to be bullet-pointed. That would have to be said to be one of its strengths. There is greater nuance conveyed in your version. I think it is basically in line with the more regimented presentation that we find scattered elsewhere. I think it is a welcome addition. I'm sorry I can't be more specific. But those are my thoughts thus far. Bus stop (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Janis Joplin Sessionography

Is this source, which purports to be a log of Janis Joplin's recording sessions, a reliable source? It looks like a fan blog to me, and there's no indication of where the information came from so its accuracy can be checked. It's apparently used as a source in the Janis Joplin article, and an editor wishes to use it on the "Mercedes Benz (song)" article about one of Joplin's songs. BMK (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I would say no; it doesn't provide references for where information came from, and really does look like a fansite. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Seems to be the work of a single person, who does not have expert qualifications. Rhoark (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems to be that way? Maybe you should do some homework with Whois.net so you can prove a negative -- i.e. prove that an unreliable person concocted all the dates listed on "Sessionography." Sessionography shows you dates of recording sessions for other artists in the 1960s and 1970s besides Joplin. Nico is one of them.
If "smironne," the person responsible for them, is a fraud, you need to show evidence for that. Your accusation runs into a wall at the following web page:
defense of "smironne" who set up list of Janis Joplin's recording session dates
The Janis Joplin Wikipedia article lists her Sessionography by smironne as a source multiple times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.50 (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2015‎ (UTC)
Sorry, but you have it precisely backwards. WP:Reliable sources says: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." For an unknown source, there is no reputation to rely on, so the party who wishes to use it must provide the evidence that the site routinely checks its facts for accuracy. In this case, the party who maintains the website cannot be the source of the information that is on the site, if it is true and accuratem it had to have come from either published sources or recording studio logs -- but the website gives no sources whatsoever, so the information cannot be verified, Perhaps it did come from reliable published sources and certifiable studio logs, but perhaps it also came from other people's blogs, we just don't know.
What this all means is that the person who wants to use the source has to make the case for its reliability, not the other way around. BMK (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Books copied from Wikipedia being used as Rses

A search for "Handbook - Everything You Need to Know About" shows more than 7,000 results. These books with title "XYZ Handbook - Everything You Need to Know About XYZ" are merely copies of Wikipedia articles and they are being used as RSes. They are authored by Emily Smith and published by Emereo Pty Ltd. There are 1,000+ books having the same title style. They should be removed immediately from Wikipedia.--Skr15081997 (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's see. The first result from an actual article for that search seems to be for The Itty Bitty Kitchen Handbook: Everything You Need to Know About Setting Up and Cooking in the Most Ridiculously Small Kitchen in the World--Your Own by Justin Spring which seems to be a legitimate book. The second result is for The Social Media Management Handbook: Everything You Need To Know To Get Social Media Working In Your Business by Robert Wollan, Nick Smith, Catherine Zhou - also a real book. I think the sky is not falling, and we should be very careful before we choose to go on a source deletion spree based on what a book is titled. --GRuban (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I have myself removed cites from 9 pages after checking about the books.--Skr15081997 (talk) 03:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
This search is more relevant, and much easier to handle given only 3 entries. Also worth checking other Emereo publishing books for reliability. Abecedare (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Another name for Emereo is Tebo publishing.--Skr15081997 (talk) 03:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Could be, although I haven't been able to verify it, or find any book published by "Tebo publishing" cited on wikipedia. That aside, each title from Emereo that I have checked so far (about a dozen in total), has turned out to be either copied directly from wikipedia with acknowledgement, or copied from wikipedia without attribution with some attempt at automated word-replacement to hide the plagiarism/copyvio (often producing nonsensical results, eg "a quorum of ten or more adult Jews" became "a minimum number of 10 either further grown up Jews"). In short: a badly produced WP:CIRCULAR source, and an untrustworthy publisher that should not be used on wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Gatestone Institute used as source for Rape jihad, WP:OR?

I'm wavering between asking this here or in WP:RSN. In the article Rape jihad, a paragraph references the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal as a part of the topic. The Gatestone Institute [17] is the sole source of the term "rape jihad" among the sources (Gatestone does not appear among the sources in the Rotherham article), and even there it's limited to the headline. First, Gatestone Institute seems a spectacularly weak source to me. Every time it has appeared in WP:RSN or WP:AN, the response has been mostly negative [18], [19], [20]. Second, using a phrase in a headline from a dubious source to include a paragraph that doesn't even mention the words "rape jihad" in this rather controversial article ([21] [22]) seems far from enough. I personally do think this is WP:OR, but I put the question to the community. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "never for any claim", but the reliability of Gatestone looks very limited. Whether a source uses the exact phrase "rape jihad" is immaterial if it is a reasonable paraphrase (i.e., its about jihadis raping). That said, it doesn't seem like a phrase with wide currency. I suggest the article merge with Slavery in 21st-century Islamism so the material that is of encyclopedic interest has a place to live without the sword of Damocles about a questionably sourced article title. Rhoark (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer; I think your suggestion is the superior one. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The section does not belong in the article, since the only source that includes the neologism "rape jihad" is the GI source, and not even in the text, only the headline. The paragraph itself does not even mention the phrase. Pax has been edit warring to keep it in; at least three editors (myself included) have removed it, so consensus does not exist. The reliability of the source has now been doubted by three WP:RSN queries, so more solid sourcing needs to be found. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The deletionists failed to establish consensus during the recent AfDs, thus there is no point to yet another interminable rambling excess in yet another inappropriate forum. All queries to date regarding Gatestone have revolved around spurious and arbitrary POV claims (not veracity), in direct opposition to Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines (see WP:BIASED), which observe: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Pax 18:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
No, the Gatestone Institute does not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". It's a so-called think tank, and like most think tanks, it's aim is not to provide reliable information, but to rationalise certain political positions. Not a reliable source for most claims, and certainly not for topics around Islam and Islamism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
If you can demonstrate that Soeren Kern (the author of the source in question published by Gatestone) is routinely inaccurate, by all means do so. Regards think tanks in general, they are widely used as RS in the project, so that argument is bollocks in a generic sense. Pax 19:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, it's the other way round. Sources are not reliable by default, reliability has to be earned and demonstrated. Kern has e.g. been very wrong in the recent "no-go zone" debacle, where he completely misrepresented French government reports. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. We sometimes do use think tanks as sources for notable opinions, but they are not very often useful as sources of fact. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note that Schultz appears to be referring to this. If Kern's article in specific has been debunked, it's not appearing high on Google. Only partisan blogs, and the always unreliable Snopes (whose dismissal of no-go zones doesn't mention Kern or Gatestone). Pax 21:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The Gatestone Institute is a partisan organisation explicitly set up to promote a particular point of view - and it has been the source of frequent criticism for the Islamophobic spin it puts on subject matter. Accordingly, it has no "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - quite the contrary. It is not a reliable source for anything but the opinions of its contributors - and whether such opinion is significant is of course a matter of WP:WEIGHT policy, not WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The fact that you're using the coined smear-term "Islamophobic" speaks volumes. Pax 21:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The fact that you refer to a word widely used in reputable academic sources as a 'smear-term' speaks louder.
Of course these "reputable academic sources" wouldn't dream of explicitly promoting a particular point of view. Pax 09:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

  • The main problem with the "article" in question here appears to be that it's really an opinion piece, as Soeren Kern appears to be a weekly columnist for the Gatestone Institute, which is pretty obviously a Right-wing, American think tank. The fact that Kern was also apparently caught-up in the recent "European 'No-Go' Zone" debacle doesn't appear to speak favorably of his opinion writings on this subject area as well. The entire "rape jihad" Wikipedia article really only directly hinges on 5-6 articles, which is a problem that has bugged me for a while...although I don't know what the overall solution to that is at this late date. Guy1890 (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

'Comment' The source is bad, I think we all agree on that except one single user who appears to counter sources arguments with his own opinion so basically his input is ignorable. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

FamousWiki.com

Per the disclaimer at the bottom of each page on the site, http://FamousWiki.com is compiled by FamousWiki users, Wikipedia, and other sources. It is being used as the source for date-of-birth on these pages:

– Wbm1058 (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it is not a reliable source, please feel free to challenge the source either by removing it and then following BRD or by discussing it first on the respective talk pages of those articles. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 12:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Also agree that this is not a reliable source, especially for DOB's. Perhaps direct the authors of these articles to the WP:RS page so they can have a more clear understanding of what the term "reliable source" actually means. Cheers, Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 19:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

http://www.allmusic.com/

Is this website considered to be an RS? It seems that anyone can submit a source here. [23] CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is a list of all of the conversations on RSN on whether or not allmusic.com is a reliable source. The answer, as usual, seems to be "it depends". Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Books by John Hill

John Hill has in the past added references and external links in ~90 articles to his book, Through the Jade Gate to Rome: A Study of the Silk Routes during the Later Han Dynasty 1st to 2nd Centuries CE. He is currently updating these links to a newer edition, volume 1 and volume 2. Examples are in the articles Book of the Later Han, Yarkant County, and Dunhuang.

This book is self-published via Amazon's CreateSpace.

Discussion has been on my talk page and his talk page.

My reasoning for not allowing the book is WP:SELFPUBLISH, WP:SELFCITE and WP:REFSPAM.

Mr. Hill's reasoning from my talk page is:

"I hate to be in the position where I am forced to "blow my own horn," but I do think it is fair to say that I am widely considered an 'established expert on the subject matter.' and my book is considered a key reference in the field by most, if not all, serious students of this field of history."
"I have shown above that my work has been widely accepted in the field as authoritative - otherwise it would not be quoted and referenced in so many peer-reviewed articles and books (actually there have been dozens if not scores of such quotes and references), nor would leading academics and authors have praised it so highly."

Note: Mr. Hills's "shown above" is the Amazon reviews of his book. He has not given proof that he is an "established expert on the subject matter".

A Google search of "John Hill" and "Through the Jade Gate to Rome" is here. A Google Scholar search for "Through the Jade Gate to Rome" is here. "John Hill" is to common of a name to do a Google Scholar search.


I'd like to note that by bringing this here, I'm not disputing any of Mr. Hill's edits he has made to the main body of articles. He does appear to be knowledgeable in this area and he is an asset to Wikipedia. Bgwhite (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I didn't find any academic reviews of the book, and no popular reviews in any reliable source either. Searching on JSTOR, there is only one passing citation to the book in this paper (it is cited along with 5 other works to support the non-controversial claim that Palestine was connected to rest of Asia through the Silk Road). At this point, I don't see how these books can be used as a source on wikipedia, although as usual, it is fine to consult them to find sources that comply with WP:HISTRS. Abecedare (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
This may qualify as "published" [24] Rhoark (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Google Scholar finds 36 citations for the first edition. They are a mixed bag, but there are some good ones among them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, one of these GScholar citations is Christopher I. Beckwith's Empires of the Silk Road (2009), which cites Hill (2003) on three pages.
  • 378 re the etymology of Saka
  • 380 "For extensive discussion and quotation of the earlier literature, see Hill (forthcoming)."
  • 405 "For references on the early names of Yarkand, see Hill (forthcoming)."
It seems odd to claim that this book is not a Reliable Source if an eminent scholar like Beckwith refers to it. Full disclosure: I've added references to Hill's book into several WP articles, and came across this discussion through reverting the Book of the Later Han deletion. After discovering Through the Jade Gate to Rome on GBooks, I was so impressed that I bought the dead-tree edition (which I rarely do anymore), and consider it an erudite tour de force. Keahapana (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Reliable sources can cite unreliable sources or no sources at all. It can help establish the reliability of a source if it gets cited, but it doesn't make a source stop being self-published. Rhoark (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Note from John Hill: Recently I attempted to update references to, and quotes from, the 1st edition of my book, Through the Jade Gate to Rome, published in 2009 (and now out of print) with the new revised, updated and enlarged 2nd edition, with the slightly different title of: Through the Jade Gate – China to Rome, Volumes I & II and found that an editor was removing them almost as soon as I entered them as he considered them unworthy because they were self-published.
I corresponded with him but we could not agree – which is why I am asking for a determination to be made whether my book can be accepted as a “reliable reference.”
I have been making edits on the Wikipedia since January 2005. I soon noticed many articles were lacking references or had clearly inadequate referencing. As well as starting new articles, uploading photos and illustrations and general editing, I focussed on updating references and adding pertinent quotes to hundreds of WP pages.
Where I thought it was appropriate I did add quotes from, and references to, my own works, but many of the quotes were actually from other authors who I had quoted in my works. Furthermore, I made many, many more references to the works of others than to my own.
At some point, not long after my first book was published in 2009, someone started deleting my quotes and questioned whether my book was a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes – a very similar situation to the one I find myself in now. The pros and cons were discussed in detail at one of Wikipedia’s forums (perhaps this one). It all happened so long ago I cannot remember exactly what happened (maybe someone could check this – I can’t find a way to access such old discussions), but I was allowed to keep the references I had made and the book was accepted as a reliable reference.
Most of the references to my work in the Wikipedia have been there for years and have never been questioned since – so I assumed there was no problem with them.
Much of the recent criticism recently of my books has focussed on the fact that they were self-published. I understand that this rule was probably designed a working rule of thumb – but it does seem a bit strange to favour works solely on the basis that they have not been self-published. Some very unreliable works are published by established publishers. Surely, each work should be judged on its merits
The WP guidelines on self-published books Self-published includes this sentence: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
Unfortunately, I find myself again in the position of having to “blow my own horn” but I think any fair-minded person would agree that the long list of academic papers and books listed here that include quotes from, or references to, my book, must establish me as “an established expert on the subject matter.”
Also, my article, “Notes on the Dating of Khotanese History” was originally published in the highly respected and peer-reviewed academic journal Indo-Iranian Journal 31 (1988), 179-190. It is still available (in a slightly updated version) at: https://www.academia.edu/453864/Notes_on_the_Dating_of_Khotanese_History where it is still regularly read and downloaded by members of the Academia.edu website and has been frequently quoted and referred to in academic articles.
I also should point out here that I have had academic publishers wanting to publish my books, but, for a number of reasons, including the fact that I wanted to keep the retail prices reasonable so students and people in poorer countries can get access to them, I decided to publish them myself.
As I am an independent researcher and not attached to a university I have not regularly published articles in peer-reviewed journals to establish my position on the academic ladder. Instead – I have spent most of my spare time since 1979 working on my two books – trying to make them truly valuable resources for anyone working in this field. Should my work be ignored because of this?
Finally, early draft versions of both my books – the annotated translation of the “the Chronicle on the Western Regions” from the Hou Hanshu and the similarly annotated translation of “the Chronicle on the Western Regions” of the Weilüe were posted on the silk Road Seattle website hosted by Professor Daniel Waugh of the University of Washington as part of their collection of Historical Texts. They are still regularly accessed by scholars and students at: https://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/texts.html .
I will be happy to abide by any decision made here after open discussion.
Thank you all for your consideration of my position,
John Hill.

PS I will paste in a list of some academic books I have discovered this afternoon on the internet that have quotes from and/or references to my 2009 book, Through the Jade Gate to Rome - obviously, their authors felt my books were worthy of consideration. I have included the page numbers which refer to my book:

The History of Central Asia: The Age of Steppe Warriors. Volume One. Christoph Baumer. Tauris. 2012, pp. 330, 332, 333, 342

The History of Central Asia: The Age of the Silk Roads. Volume Two. Christoph Baumer. Tauris. 2012, pp. 326, 329, 330, 331, 341, 343, 356, 366.

Early China: A Social and Cultural History. Li Feng – 2013, pp. 279, 280, 281.

Globalisation and the Roman World: World History, Connectivity and Material Culture. Martin Pitts, ‎Miguel John Versluys – 2014, pp. 95, 97, 239, 289.

Food and Environment in Early and Medieval China. E. N. Anderson. 2014, pp. 135, 310

The Roman Empire and the Indian Ocean: Rome's Dealings with the Ancient Kingdoms of India, Africa and Arabia. Raoul McLaughlin – 2014, (two references)

Silk Biomaterials for Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine. Subhas Kundu – 2014, pp. 4, 33.

Rome and the Distant East: Trade Routes to the Ancient Trade Routes to the ancient lands of Arabia, India and China. Raoul McLaughlin - 2010 pp. 204, 207, 209, 219, 224.

Geography in Classical Antiquity. Daniela Dueck, ‎Kai Brodersen – 2012, pp. 62, 128

The Silk Road: Interwoven History, Volume 1. Mariko Namba Walter. 2014

Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Asia. Christopher I. Beckwith, pp. 378, 405.

Rome and China: Comparative Perspectives on Ancient World Empires. Walter Scheidel, 2010, pp. 215, 240.

A Resurgent China: South Asian Perspectives. S. D. Muni, ‎Tan Tai Yong – 2013, pp. 206, 309.

Macedonia 311 Success Secrets - 311 Most Asked Questions. Russell Olsen – 2015

Globalization and Culture: Global Mélange. Jan Nederveen Pieterse – 2015, pp. 193-194.

Transnationalism in Ancient and Medieval Societies: The Role of Cross-Border Trade and Travel. Michael C. Howard – 2012, pp. 257, 258, 279.

Hi John, thanks for your contributions. Unfortunately, Wikipedia editors in general cannot be assumed to be competent to evaluate material on the strengths of the material itself - most are anonymous. We also have some serious cases of Dunning–Kruger effect, resulting in an anti-expert bias. See WP:RANDY. That's why we rely mostly on formalistic criteria, like publication by reliable publishers or peer review. Anyways, I'm happy with accepting your books, on the strength of the citations, and in a pinch per WP:IAR. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stephan! Thank you for your supportive comments. And thanks for giving me the link to WP:IAR. You have really cheered me up - I think I was letting the whole business get me down more than I should - I felt like people didn't understand that I wasn't just trying to promote myself - but I really want to make the WP articles better - more informative and more reliable. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Self published books are rarely considered reliable here, and for good reason. Yet in the last few years a few academic authors have self published significant works. (One incentive for this is that most academic publishers a ;east in the humanities expect a considerable contribution from the author or his university; this subvention is normally more than it would cost for a minimal but adequate job of self-publishing, especially if graphics are involved.) The author obviously gives up the imprimatur of a ordinarily peer-reviewed book, but a person sufficiently secure in his own field, such as a person who is and intends to remain an independent scholar or a person who already has tenure) may not particularly care. There an be other contributory reasons: the book may be a reprint of an earlier edition that isn ow out of print, but that the publisher is not willing to reprint. the book may be collection of previously published peer-reviewed essays; the author book may intend a protest against the current academic publishing system. The book may be in an extreme niche area and the available subsidy may be inadequate. With different implications, the book may be so far away from prevailing trends in academic scholarship that it receives negative peer-reviews, and no regular publish will chance it.
There are three indicators that can be used to judge the significance of such books. One is the presence of citations to it. This needs to be done very carefully, for in the humanities a small number of citations is in most fields all a book can expect, and they take many years to come in because of the very slow pace of publication in these fields A second is the presence of academic book reviews of the work, which also may take several years until they are published. . A third is the extent to which academic libraries buy it; in my experience as an academic librarian, they buy on one of several bases: certainly they all buy on the basis of faculty recommendations, Many will buy on the basis of the presence of book reviews--but the slow pace of publishing them makes this much more chancy than for a public library; third, a sufficiently wealthy library may try to use its own judgment to cover a field known to be of interest to its faculty and their doctoral students; Fourth, a very fee libraries still try to be complete in certain subject ranges .
In this,case, the quotations above are very few, but the subject is specialized and one of traditionally small interest, though both general and academic interest have been greatly increasing in recent years. The existence of the quotes from Beckwith is particular significant here,m for it is one recognized authority referring to the book as being an authority. There unfortunately do not seem to be any academic reviews. Iknow that the journalfor which I review, Choice, would not ordinarily review a self published book, but it would be useful to know if the leading journals in the field were sent copies--their editors would presumably recognize the author as one worth reviewing. As for holdings, I see there are 71 According to WorldCat, [25], which is not that low I would expect. For a truly minor work in this subject there would befewer--only the relatively few specialist libraries would have it-- they do, Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, Chicago, and similar libraries abroad, but a number of other good universities have it also.
My conclusion is the same as Stephen's, that these books are reliable enough to use for the subject . DGG ( talk ) 14:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

"Prayer for the World" published by a Evangelical Christian media foundation - is this RS?

Is this book:

Johnstone, Patrick; Schirrmacher, Thomas (2003). Gebet für die Welt. Hänssler,

a reliable source? The title of this German book is "Prayer for the world". It is published by a Christian media house, and as the title indicates, part of Christian religious literature.

The source is used to support claims Christianity in several countries around the world. Such claims should at least be sourced by academics or independent journalists, of which many exist, not by Christian preachers or sectarian media houses.

The book is published by Hänssler which became part of SCM (de:Stiftung Christliche Medien) - an Evangelical Christian media foundation.

The book is used as a source in Shanghai, Guangxi, Christianity in Shanghai, History of Shanghai and other articles. --92.20.11.203 (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

"Prayer for the world" is the German version of or a companion book to this, Operation World, by the same author Patrick Johnstone (with a German co-author/translator), according to the article Operation World is "regarded by most evangelicals as the definitive volume of prayer information about the world".--92.20.11.203 (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
A thread about this source seems to be right below this one. That would indicate that multiple users are concerned about it. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

This has come up at Guangxi. The book Gebet für die Welt, has been used as a reference for information about Christianity there. But from my search for it online it seems to be a evangelical Christian work, the German version of this: Pray for the World. It describes it thus: "When you hear a country mentioned in the news, you can use Pray for the World to pray for it in light of what God is doing there", i.e. not a reliable academic source. It published by the same people as Operation World, a companion work to it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

This question seems to be asked in the thread above this one. Even without me commenting, it would appear that there are multiple editors concerned about it. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree. I have merged the threads as it is just the same issue. I noticed it on the other pages but the issue is the same whether on one or many pages.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

People are claiming that WP shouldn't cite sources published by evangelical Christians

On the article, Conversion therapy, I added this source. User:Jeraphine Gryphon removed that source, and she wrote, "wow, biased much. 'InterVarsity Press (IVP) ... as a publisher of evangelical Christian books.'" It is true that the source I added was published by IVP, and that IVP is a publisher of evangelical Christian books. Then, on the article's talk page, Jeraphine wrote, "given who the publisher is... this is a really dubious piece of work." If I understand Jeraphine correctly, she is claiming that, if a source was published by evangelical Christians, it is not reliable. This, is most certainly NOT a policy under WP:RS. It is nothing but plain old religious bigotry to claim that I can't cite sources if the sources were published by evangelical Christians. This issue needs to be resolved. Since I already have three reverts on that page, I won't revert jeraphine again, I'll take the issue here. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

That's not quite what is being said there. Citing InterVarsity press for information about evangelical protestant beliefs about religion? Totally fine. Citing it for information about science, psychology, neurology, or genetics? No, you cite scientific sources.
Also, everyone note that the IP has been forum shopping to oppose Jeraphine at any point, even filing a ludicrous COI report. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
First, the COI report I filed was on Roscelese, not on Jeraphine. Second, @Erpert: thought that my COI report was not ludicrous. And third, what basis do you have for saying that a book published by an evangelical Christian publisher is not scientific? Must a publisher abandon its religious beliefs before that publisher can be cited as scientific? 70.128.120.202 (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Although I did agree with your original claim, IP, what I don't agree with is your forum-shopping. This should stop. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The publisher's focus is not primarily science. You admit that. It's not an issue of abandoning, but focusing. A scientific publisher could coincidentally be staffed entirely by Christians, and could coincidentally happen to cite nothing but Christians -- and if their focus is science instead of religion, that's fine. If their focus is religion, then citing them for science is like citing Prometheus Books for information about evangelical protestant beliefs. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that we should look at the content and authorship of the book itself, rather than its publisher. Yes, IVP publishes primarily religious books. But that doesn't mean that if IVP chooses to publish a scientific book, the book doesn't have validity. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
'70.128.120.202',you have it backwards - if the credibility of a source is questioned, it is up to the person proposing that it be cited demonstrate such credibility. Has this book been cited in other scientific works on the subject? And if so, what do they have to say about it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The book has been cited in many scientific works; some agree, some disagree. The authors themselves acknowledge that the study has its limitations. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Here is a page from Google Scholar, showing 51 different scientific works that cite the Jones and Yarhouse study. If the source is good enough for these people, it should be good enough for WP. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Um, no. Posting citations from Google scholar doesn't actually establish that it is 'good enough' - for that, we need to know what was actually said about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the edit in question, [26] I have to suggest that regardless of the credentials of the source, the paragraph is questionable. It cites the author's own opinion of the study, and then makes vague assertions about what happened to 'many', or a 'a large percentage' of subjects. That is not how a scientific topic should be discussed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree. I've written the details of the study on the Conversion therapy page. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
that is journal article is a primary source, and what is needed for WP is a secondary source, independent of the original source, from the psychological literature, that discusses the primary source and puts it in context. The 2011 paper is PMID 21961446. I found two reviews that discuss it.
  • Jack Drescher MD, (2015) Can Sexual Orientation Be Changed?. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health 19:1, pages 84-93., which says of the Jones/Yarhouse study, "Little research has been done on either the benefits or harm of sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) (American Psychiatric Association, 2000; American Psychological Association, 2009). In published reports by SOCE advocates, the majority who try to change do not and it is not uncommon to overstate claims of benefits while concerns about possible harm are minimized or dismissed (Jones & Yarhouse, 2011)."
  • Jeane W. Anastas, (2013) Policy, Practice and People: Current Issues Affecting Clinical Practice. Clinical Social Work Journal 41:, pages 302-307. which says: "For some time now, the major mental health professions— psychiatry, psychology and social work—have taken positions that describe treatments to change sexual orientation of a person from gay or lesbian to ‘‘straight’’ or heterosexual as ineffective and unethical. This stance has been taken for two reasons: (1) there is little evidence that such treatments work (e.g., NASW 2000; American Psychological Association 2009a, 2009b; the World Health Organization [WHO] 2011), and (2) these treatments often have harmful effects (e.g., NASW 2000; Schroeder and Shidlo, 2001; American Psychological Association 2009a, 2009b; WHO 2011), which of course cannot be weighed against benefit since there is little. One British study even recorded that those who had provided such therapies in the past had painful memories of the experience (King et al. 2004). However, there are some who disagree with this conclusion (e.g., Jones and Yarhouse 2011), but even they agree that change was ‘‘modest’’, required great effort over time, and was subject to interpretation"
What we need for Wikipedia content are sources like that - secondary sources. Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Conversion therapy is not science, it is homophobic pseudo-science. This project should not be presenting findings by any alleged "researchers" that such therapy "works", any more than we would champion research on blood letting or ear candling. Tarc (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
It appears that the only reason you removed that research from the Conversion therapy page was because you don't agree with it. Your use of the word "homophobic" shows your bias. If you want to remove content from Wikipedia, you have to have some reason other than you don't like it.70.128.120.202 (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd have thought that using the term 'homophobic' for so-called research that labels 'Gay Identity' as “Failure' was pretty accurate - it is a value judgement that has no place in legitimate scientific research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd have thought that using the term 'homophobic' should be restricted to hatred and prejudice. AFAIK, conversion therapists don't hate gays; good albeit confused doctors they are, they try to "cure" gay persons, and just as well may "love thy gay neighbor". Likewise, all these weight loss quacks, we don't call them "fat-people-phobic" (is there a Greek name?), just crooks or idiots. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
We don't just have reliable and non-reliable sources, some sources can be considered reliable in some contexts and not in others. (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS) No one here is saying that material published by a Christian organization is inherently unreliable. But in this particular case here their reliability is dubious. I'm not saying the study is fake or that it didn't happen or that the results were strongly skewed (we can see some of the results in article history and I'm not particularly surprised about them). But it does appear to me that the end purpose of the "study" was to make Conversion therapy look better and the interpretation of the results is questionable. Christians are the ones trying to push conversion therapy to be a thing, despite all the evidence that it's harmful and ineffective. It's a religious thing. That's why it's relevant to point out that the publisher is a Christian ministry (InterVarsity Christian Fellowship). Also we can't give WP:UNDUE weight to a minor and possibly biased study. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
yes every policy and guideline we have, says we should cite secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I provided two of them above, that put the primary source (the 2011 journal and arguably, the intervarsity book) in context. We also get direction for WEIGHT from secondary studies. Note that they both give the J-Y study only passing mention - what i quoted above from each was the entire discussion of the JY study in those sources. Jytdog (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
So even though the study itself can be found in reliable sources - it was reported in a peer-reviewed article - the issue is really one of weight, what weight to give to the theory. Since the article conversion therapy is about a fringe theory, we should mention what fringe theorists say, but should use mostly reliable secondary sources, which will explain the significance of the study. Both WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS are relevant guidelines for presenting the material. TFD (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Can a newspaper title alone be a source?

Several editors want to add the word "spy" to the article Gertrude Bell because a NYT newspaper article [27] uses the word "spy" in the headline of a rather simplistic article about that person written by a non-specialist. Nowhere in the actual content of the article is the word "spy" used, nor is there any explanation or justification inside the article for the headline's use of the word "spy". I have argued that a simple headline alone is not a valid source for a claim, especially since newspaper headlines are often not written by the authors of the articles they headline. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I suspect the "spy" headline word might actually be derived from a past version of the Wikipedia article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Probably best treated on a case by case basis. Most newspaper article titles are not written by the author but rather by subeditors and editors. They are often phrased in such a way as to get people to read the article. As such, they may be sensationalist rather than precise. Jmccormac (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Dude ... I can't help but think you did not actually read the article. "Nowhere in the actual content of the article is the word "spy" used"? What? The very first words are "A picture of Gertrude Bell, the British diplomat and spy, still hangs on a wall in the Alwiya Club...". You also must not have read other articles. Here is The Guardian that does explain: "With the outbreak of war that summer, and the entry of the Ottoman empire on the side of Germany that November, Bell was swept up with TE Lawrence and other archaeologist-spies into an intelligence operation in Cairo, known as the Arab Bureau.". Here is National Public Radio, first sentence: The extraordinary British diplomat and spy Gertrude Bell was buried 80 years ago today. --GRuban (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a specific question about a specific issue and source. That other source, and your inability to read a sentence in it correctly, is a different issue: I have suggested a RfC. Captions are the same as headlines, they are rarely written by or decided by the author of the article. There is no explanation or justification inside the article for the headline's or the caption's use of the word "spy". And please leave off with the "Dude". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Newspaper headlines are usually given less weight than the article they are attached to, because they often simplify the subject in order to be concise and/or pull in readers. Therefore they should be treated with care. However in this case the claim that Gertrude bell acted as an (unofficial) spy, is not a controversial claim and several sources (including the body of the NYT article itself, unlike what the OP claimed) as Gruban has pointed out. Many other sources are available, and provide more detailed and nuanced picture, but that is topic best discussed on the article talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The "spy" label is extremely controversial. And ongoing. There is barely a week that passes without aid workers, teachers, immunization medics, etc, being murdered somewhere in the world because their murderers consider the victims to be "spies". In the middle east in the period of Gertrude Bell everyone, from peasants to public officials, could not comprehend why anyone would have an interest in old ruins, it had to be for some other reasons, spying out our secrets. That there were no obvious secrets to be spied out just proved to the locals how devious the spies were. Nothing in Bell's career fits the dictionary definition of "spy". Where in the body of the NYT article is there any content backing the "spy" word? Abecedare, answer or withdraw your allegation that I am claiming something that is not t rue. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
You claimed, Nowhere in the actual content of the article is the word "spy" used..., which is provably untrue. If you had simply admitted that as an oversight, that would be perfectly understandable and fine. The approach you chose above, does not help your credibility on wikipedia.
Setting your conduct issues aside: Bell's role as an unpaid spy, and why she wouldn't have accepted that as a label, can be explained in the wikipedia article based on good sources on the topic, such as
all of which discuss the issue. If you have equally good sources that contend otherwise, those can be included too per WP:NPOV. Again, this is best discussed on the article talkpage, and I'd suggest that you continue it there with other editors involved with the article. Abecedare (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be an out and out liar. You have accused me of bad faith by saying that I am falsely claiming the headline-issue article contains no content to back up the spy allegation. And when I ask you provide evidence that the article contains such content, you refuse to provide it and again repeat the slur. You are the deceiver here - a provably true one given your marked reluctance to say where in the body of the NYT article is content backing the "spy" word? . Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
The NYT article contains the word 'spy' in the body text: "A picture of Gertrude Bell, the British diplomat and spy, still hangs on a wall in the Alwiya Club, the Baghdad clubhouse for the social elite that she established...". That is not a headline. It is not an image caption. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, the article also decribes Bell as "a member of the Arab Bureau, the British intelligence office in Cairo during the war...". AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
It is a sub-heading (a byline I think it is called?). It is not content that explains or justifies the word "spy". No content in the article explains or justifies the word "spy" - I don't understand why you don't understand the importance of this. The author is a jobbing journalist, not a specialist, and the article provides no evidence to back up the use of the word "spy" used in its headline and photo caption. There has to be a credible source that gives some reasoning behind the "spy" label before that word can be inserted into the Wikipedia article. It especially cannot be in the lead if there is no content in the body of the article at the moment. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
It is nothing of the sort - it is the opening paragraph of the article. As should be self-evident to anyone reading it, since the following paragraph follows on by referring to Bell as 'she...'. If you want to dispute the reliability of the source, do so, but please stop misrepresenting the content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Now it's a photo caption? Please. It really seems as if you have not actually looked at the link you yourself have presented. It is absolutely not a photo caption. Conveniently enough, for contrast, there is a photo caption in the story, directly underneath the photo. This is not it. --GRuban (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Headlines of news articles should absolutely not be used for RS even if from an RS. They are normally crafted by people downstream of the editing process from the original writer, and meant to summarize and draw eyes, and thus make take liberties with phrasing to do just that. So if a headline makes a claim that the actual article it is tied to says nothing about, it should be flat out ignored. --MASEM (t) 23:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Since the 'spy' characterisation isn't sourced to the headline alone, I think this is something of a moot point. There may possibly be legitimate grounds for questioning the reliability of the source (I've not looked into it, and have no opinion one way or another), but the headline shouldn't really be the issue here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
The 'spy' description IS clearly part of the text, however the nearest the article gets to explaining what it means is "Miss Bell was an agent for her own country, advancing the interests of the British to secure influence, and oil", this appears to be using the word 'agent' in the everyday sense, NOT the espionage sense. Is it possible that 'spy' is similarly being used to mean simply 'someone providing intelligence', rather than the more undercover/illegal sense in which the word usually is used. I share Tiptoethrutheminefield's reservations about using the term based on such scant information, though his claim that it is 'headline only', is wrong.Pincrete (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC) ps … … I have just noticed Abecedare's list of books in which the subject is discussed, these books seem likely to provide better info about whether and in what sense GB was 'a spy', than the NYT article.Pincrete (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The Needle Drop as a reliable source

For the past week I've been in a discussion on WT:ALBUM (see here) on the subject of whether or not The Needle Drop (Website & Youtube) can be considered a reliable source. The discussion began due to this discussion in which I felt there were unresolved points on the issue. Many editors on the original discussion felt that The Needle Drop failed WP:RS due to its policy on WP:SPS. There seemed to be a disagreement over whether or not The Needle Drop could be considered a reliable source due to Fantano's previous published work for reliable sources such as MTV, Triple J and Consequence of Sound (see here for sources for this). The Needle Drop doesn't raise any "red flags" in WP:EXCEPTIONAL and the only thing stopping him from being considered a reliable source seems to be his lack of an editorial team etc. in accordance with WP:SPS which also states there can be exemptions for this for those who have previously published. I'm not trying to make the point that The Needle Drop should be added to all reviews from now on, just that it doesn't belong on the list of unreliable sources on WP:MUSIC/SOURCES for the reasons mentioned. Surely it is only a matter of opinion from this point on as to whether it should be considered a reliable source given Fantano's history of publishing for other reliable sources? RatRat (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Comicbook.com?

I'm seeing a lot of information being used in references, but the sources being used appear to be written by unknown writers (who presumably start an account and begin writing articles). Has this source ever been examined more than cursorily before? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I see that it has a small editorial staff (listed on its about page) and there are at least a few folks who claim on their individual social media pages to be staff writers or other in-house writers. On the other hand, I cannot find much about it at Google News or from reliable publishers at Google Books. It seems to me that the presumption that writers can just start an account and begin writing is unlikely, since most of their articles come from a small number of writers (and since in their terms of service they clearly distinguish between edited content and contributed content). Having said that, however, I can find virtually no other evidence on which to base a conclusion that they have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and without that they're not reliable. As always there's never any black and white here and the question is always, "Reliable for what?", but I'm not seeing much of a reason to think that they're generally reliable like, for example, most major metropolitan newspapers. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I cam accross this topic when reading something for another article. I myself have used the site as a reference, for the claim that Bloodshot #1 had a chromium cover (not really a controversial claim as I see it, but someone tagged it, so a reference was needed) and used http://comicbook.com/blog/2014/07/06/10-silliest-comic-book-gimmick-covers-from-the-1990s/ . With comic books it is real hard to find mainstream coverage and for non controversial facts I thought it would be ok. Was I wrong to use it? Would it be reliable for this kind of information? AlbinoFerret 20:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
The strict answer to your remark that "With comic books it is real hard to find mainstream coverage" is this: if reliable sourcing cannot be found the information and ultimately the article (if no reliable sourcing can be found for anything in the article) shouldn't be in Wikipedia if our highest standards are to be respected. On the other hand, IAR plays a part here: With a few exceptions involving legal issues such as slander, copyright, advocacy of child molestation, and perhaps a couple of others, if you put something in which clearly violates policy and no one removes it or objects to it then it gets to stay until someone does and that frequently happens, for long periods of time, in popular-culture articles. If someone does remove it or object to it — which is how most things come to this noticeboard — then IAR (and its running buddy consensus-by-silence) offer little support to keeping the information in the article. In that situation, the information needs to come out unless a truly reliable source can be found for it. The long and the short if it is that if you believed the source to be reliable at the time you used it you may have been objectively wrong to use it, but not morally wrong and if those references have been there for awhile without being challenged or reverted I wouldn't hurry off and remove them and the connected information but you should consider finding a better source for them. Remember: Anything which is important enough to be in Wikipedia will ordinarily have a reliable source out there somewhere; if it doesn't then, it's probably not important enough to be here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks TransporterMan as is pointed out alot on this board, it depends what the source is used for. I did check to see that they had editorial staff and did believe that the source was reliable for its use. Im going to let it be as its really a non controversial claim. I would never use the site or another like it for anything controversial or extraordinary. AlbinoFerret 16:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Legitscript

Why is legitscript.com not a reliable source? Overall, I fail to understand why the sources in the last section of the edit "Poor business ethics" is deleted as not reliable. Endurance International Group - diff

Some background: Legitscript assists Google, Bing, Visa, and other partners to let them know which Internet pharmacy merchants are legitimate and which are not in 19 countrie...and Yahoo. (Paragraph two). This blog background is written by the owner of Legitscript.--Nodove (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Because a blog written by a party involved in a dispute is a primary source, not a secondary source, and we certainly don't create sections with negative titles based upon the primary-sourced arguments of one side of a dispute. It may be a reliable source for what Legitscript thinks, but whether or not we care about what Legitscript thinks is an open question. The section in question was written in a highly-accusatory and POV manner, assuming that Legitscript's arguments were all correct — a logical leap we are not permitted to make as encyclopedia editors. If there are no reliable secondary sources discussing the dispute, it is not likely to belong in an encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for being pedantic about this, but I'd like to point out that you've got the wrong terminology here, and are citing the wrong policy. Legitscript is a verification service. It is full of 99.202.76.63 (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)analysis and interpretation of primary source data. Therefore it is a secondary source, not a primary source. You are objecting to it because it is involved in a dispute. That's a perfectly valid objection to make here at RSN. But what you should do is cite WP:NPOV (not WP:OR) and say that it is an unreliable secondary source. An unreliable secondary source is not the same as a primary source.
Sorry again if this sounds pedantic, but currently I'm involved in an effort to clarify the wording of the WP:OR so that editors will not make this mistake. It may be a hopeless quest, but at least I would like the policy to be worded correctly. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, no. The posting in question is a self-published blog-posting written by a primary source — someone involved in an argument. A blog written by the PR person for a company involved in an argument is *not* a secondary source, not at all. A secondary source would be, for example, a newspaper or professional magazine article written *based upon* research and investigation of the primary sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof: A self-published blog "may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications"--last paragraph.Nodove (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
It "...assists Google, Bing, Visa, and other partners to let them know which Internet pharmacy merchants are legitimate ...in 19 countrie...and Yahoo..." I'm to believe that these entities happen to all depend on this unreliable source; it's an unreliable source? The source states and all these entities accept the assistance of the analysis and interpretation as legitimate, not as being unreliable.Nodove (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof: OK, I looked at the blog post. It was about a online pharmacy in Russia that was selling unapproved drugs to Japanese consumers. The blog post considered several facts about this pharmacy – no prescription required, unapproved drugs, no pharmacy license – and concluded that this was a "rogue Internet pharmacy". The conclusion is what makes this a secondary source.
You may object that the blog post was self-published, not fact checked, not independent, and not neutral, because the author was engaged in a Twitter feud with the pharmacy operator. But none of that changes the fact that it contained analysis. See WP:ANALYSIS, which says: "Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources." The essay Identifying and using primary and secondary sources, which we cite in WP:SECONDARY, goes further, and says: "Secondary does not mean that the source is independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, or published by a reputable publisher. Secondary sources can be unreliable, biased, self-serving and self-published."
All of those things may be grounds for describing legitscript as an unreliable source. You can have a discussion about that with Nodove and other people who point out that he seems to be an expert, all of his facts are verifiable, and he's authorized to file complaints on behalf of the Japanese government. Whatever. None of that changes the fact that reliable (self-published, fact-checked, independent, neutral, etc. etc.) or not, it's a secondary source. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome to your belief. The title of the article (My Twitter Spat With a Russian Rogue Internet Pharmacy Operator) makes it very clear that it's a primary source - it's not a detached perspective, it's the perspective of a person deeply involved in a personal dispute and social media argument with someone or something else. Its "conclusion" is that of a participant in the dispute, not that of a detached observer. Whatever it is, it's staying out. Have a nice day. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, I don't want to harass anybody here. I said it's a fairly pedantic point, namely that "primary" is the wrong word to use for "not detached". If editors insist on using the wrong word, it's a failure of the policy to explain what "primary" actually means and a failure to suggest a better word that should be used instead. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it recommended that I take this matter to mediation? I haven't gotten an answer about: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=657679815&oldid=657669710 My idea is that the source may be used, regardless of the NorthBySouthBaranof opinion.Nodove (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Personally I would simply ignore NBSB's objections, as most editors have learned to. Margin however makes some relevant points - it may be helpful to continue discussion with him elsewhere. 107.77.76.120 (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
As several other editors have objected to the use of the phrasing and sources you propose, the path would be to discuss on the relevant article talk page. If there is no consensus for your proposed additions, they will remain out. The section in question violates WP:NPOV (the title "Poor business ethics" makes this obvious) and is additionally a clear and unambiguous example of original research and original synthesis, taking several different previously-unconnected claims and using them to create a new claim which has not appeared in any reliable secondary source. This is categorically prohibited on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

May Day, 1971 Civil Disobedience in Washiington DC

Although the Wikipedia report is very good some clarification is in order. The DC Park Police arrived at the West Potomac area around 6 am. They waited a long time before disbursing the campers. They used megaphones repeatedly to warn everyone to leave the park by 7 am. Many of the campers were asleep or simply ignored the warnings. At that point they were interfering with police commands. Obstructing. They paid the price. During the civil disobedience that occurred on Monday I observed many incidents of protesters who opened hoods of cars and removed and stole coil wires which completely disabled these vehicles. This was not civil disobedience. It was criminal. There was a significant amount of property damage done to public and private property. A lot of people got away with it. Many who were arrested for the right reasons never paid for their crimes. As a matter of fact, some were rewarded as part of the class action suit. It believe it was $10,00.

This noticeboard is for the purpose of asking questions about whether or not sources are reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia. If you believe that changes are needed in the text of an article, post a request on the article's talk page, or boldly make the change yourself remembering that all information in Wikipedia must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable source. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

http://breakingnewsusa.com/

This appears to be an ad supported blog with various stories presented as "news", but I can't find any writer/journalist credits, staff listed, or a backer/publisher of any kind. Anyone care to comment or render an opinion? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it just links to stories from other sites. It would be better to link to the original sources. To give you an idea of their editorial judgment, the first article I drilled down into turned out to be taken from the Daily Mail. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
No. It exists primarily to monetise other people's content. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source for net worth

I was looking to find a reliable source for net worth of individuals for the List of heads of state and government by net worth article. I have tagged some of the sources in the article since I am unsure of their reliability.

Here are some that I need advice for reliability:

Also, I would like to see if the following sources are reliable for adding the net worth of Hugo Chavez:

What the sources say is that Chávez was worth about $1-2 billion and left that money for his family after he died.--ZiaLater (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Dailymail is not a reliable reference. Noteswork (talk) 10:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
On what do you base that opinion?-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
The editors of Dailymail usually stick to very critical language. Once you have read their figures and analysis and you happen to be an expert in that field, you will know that their articles have got many mistakes. Noteswork (talk) 11:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I found something: User:John/Is the Daily Mail a reliable source?;;; http://www.quora.com/How-credible-is-Daily-Mail ;;; Precisely why the Daily Mail is irredeemable shit on BoingBoing;;; http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Daily_Mail;;; The World’s Most Popular Online Newspaper Might Also Be Its Worst on Slate.com ... — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Chavez's net worth... all the given sources ultimately cite a piece from the Criminal Justice International Associates for their figures, so the question is really whether the CJIA is reliable on this issue. Given that their claim is based in an accusation of theft/corruption, that the organization appears to be minor, and that the main English sources willing to carry the info are The Daily Mail and The Inquisitor, I wouldn't use its figures, especially in the "net worth" article chart because attribution can't be given.  Mbinebri  talk ← 13:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Just to note, it seems the CJIA is only one person—Jerry Brewer—with a history of writing attack pieces on Chavez's government and other South American leftists. I also can't find the original CJIA piece these other sources use.  Mbinebri  talk ← 15:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The list is a BLP nightmare. Three points:

  • None of the estimates should be cited without WP:Attribution
  • Mixing and matching estimates from different sources, for different years, using different (often unspecified) methodologies, with and without inflation adjustment, possibly mixing nominal and PPP numbers and placing them in a sortable table probably qualifies as OR
  • Many of the estimates are dubious, and in fact WP:REDFLAG-claims. For example see this Forbes article on the credibility of the $70 Billion claim for Mubarak; the Guardian article that is cited attributes its numbers to "anti-bribery campaigners"; a source cited for Kennedy's $1 billion net-worth, may not even be RS, and in case says "Although he never inherited his father’s fortune, the Kennedy family estate was worth nearly $1 billion dollars." etc.

Even the estimates cited to Forbes are by a Forbes Contributors, which as has been discussed on this board before, is not a reliable source. As the column by a Forbes staff member (which are considered reliable) I linked above said, "We don’t include heads of state in our annual Billionaires List valuations, and their fortunes are often impossible to pin down...". The article needs major clean-up, or should be deleted outright if it cannot be brought in compliance with WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:BLP. Abecedare (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Abecedare is correct about most. Article is violating REDFLAG and there are also major BLP problems. Noteswork (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I am also thinking if tables are even necessary, we need paragraphs. Noteswork (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Who will go for AFD, deletion or merge might be an appropriate idea. Noteswork (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I can agree with a deletion. I brought attention to this notice board because I was pretty sure the article was a mess and the net worth of these individuals is very difficult to calculate. Some even claim that Putin is worth $200 billion (the article explains why it is difficult to confirm net worth though). Thank you for your responses.--ZiaLater (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
One more thing. Since some of the information on this article may be properly referenced, can we move some of this info to appropriate articles? I just don't want to put the work of all of those who attempted to make this work to waste.--ZiaLater (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
The individual articles are indeed the right place to include the information, since it can be discussed with proper attribution, and context (although we will still need a reliable source, and keep WP:DUE and WP:BLP in mind). For example, the List of heads of state and government by net worth simply claims that Wen Jiabao's net worth is "$2.7 billion (October 2012)", which is flatly false and a misrepresentation of sources. The correct statement is In October 2012, The New York Times reported that Wen's relatives have controlled financial assets worth at least US$2.7 billion during his time as Premier., as the Wen Jiabao article already says with proper sourcing.
Further errors: Neither Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, nor Saad Hariri are current hed of government or state. And that's just on a random spot-check. Abecedare (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: Given the rough consensus of participant on this board, I have proposed deletion of the article. If there is an objection, it can be taken to AFD. In either case, we should have at least a week to salvage any reliably sourced data to include in the subject's article (if it is not already there). Abecedare (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Might be cancelled anytime soon, there is backlog of proposed deletions. You should create an afd. Noteswork (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Amazing. People resort to unreliable sites in order to include unimportant information beloved of a tiny minority. That has literally never happened thousands of times before. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Academic Questions?

Found what may be the sole scholarly analysis of SPLC, certainly the only one I've encountered. [1] The article noted a significant inconstancy in how the organisation applies its criteria in classifying an organisation as a hate group and postulated funding might influence selection. While it appears an excellent article, if oddly placed, the majority of those commenting about its addition object to its inclusion on the grounds Academic Questions is unreliable and possible even unscholarly. I disagree, and my reading of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR is that the article should be acceptable for inclusion in the article, and definitely appropriate in the Controversy section where I believe it most appropriate. Concur/Disagree? 118.208.177.225 (talk)

References

  1. ^ Yancey, George (January 2014). "Watching the Watchers: The Neglect of Academic Analysis of Progressive Groups". Academic Questions. 27 (1). Springer US: 65-78. doi:10.1007/s12129-014-9411-x.
For note, it seems to satisfy WP:SCHOLARSHIP as it is indexed by EbscoHost and I'm told it's peer-reviewed. And Springer, the publisher, has a reputation for quality. I'm still leery of it tbh, but seeing it on EbscoHost makes me lean toward saying it's an RS, but perhaps one we should make sure we attribute the statements to the authors. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
It's sponsored by the National Association of Scholars, a conservative advocacy group, and, according to our own article (which referents the Times Literary Supplement) "is a missionary journal, not a scholarly one". I'd treat it with extreme care. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
The journal is an alternative to mainstream academia which of course puts it outside the mainstream. But the IP is asking the wrong question. He wants to include the opinions expressed in the article as facts. Opinions expressed in even the best sources are never facts. The real question is whether the opinions expressed in the paper should be mentioned. While fringe opinions may be mentioned in articles, they should be sourced to secondary sources that explain who expressed them and how accepted they are. So if we decide to mention the paper we should use a secondary source, such as this article in Media Matters. TFD (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm having trouble following this logic. Academic Questions is a peer-reviewed, academic journal funded by a conservative action group. Media Matters is a WP:NEWSBLOG not just funded but legally itself a progressive lobbying and action group. Why should the latter be a stronger source than the former?
Re: claims of "fringe", this is the sole academic study of the SPLC, logically it can't be fringe. If you have examples of other articles and studies published in the journal that demonstrate fringe, that's relevant, but given their legitimate peer reviewed status that's unlikely.
I agree the conclusions of the study shouldn't be presented as fact. They should be attributed per WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:BIASED. That's not an argument for excluding the (again) sole academic study of the group from our article about the group. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:SCHOLARSHIP says: One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes... Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals. These caveats describe how we should approach the Academic Questions piece.

As best I can tell, it has not been cited at all by other scholars in the academic literature, which suggests that we're potentially giving it undue weight. Separately, the journal in question clearly exists to promote a particular ideological point of view. In light of its ideological agenda and the lack of citations, the claim of peer review alone isn't particularly weighty.

Finally, the piece is not scholarly nor a "study" in any sense of the word. (I've read it, although it wasn't easy; Academic Questions is obscure enough that it was a challenge to find the piece even with access to a major university library). It has no methodology, makes no empirical claims, and supplies no hard data. It's about as scholarly as the average newspaper op-ed. Altogether, while it is perhaps reasonable to cite this piece with proper in-text attribution, I think the original poster's formulation gives excess weight to what is essentially an opinion piece in an obscure partisan publication with no apparent impact on actual academic discourse. MastCell Talk 18:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

If the average newspaper op-ed were legitimately peer reviewed I think political discourse in the US would be much improved! :) This guideline seems relevant : "One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes" Can someone with access investigate? While this particular study is unlikely to come up - being the sole study there are no other studies to cite it - citations of other articles in Academic Questions would establish (or not as the case may be) its reputation.
Out of curiousity: Mastcell, what kind of catalog does your university employ that makes obscure journals more difficult to find? José Antonio Zapato (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
ResearchGate has a page on it. All indices are at zero, from "5-year impact" to "Eigenfactor". The journal has been around for more than 20 years (at least Google Scholar finds articles going back to 1995), so it's not because it is too new. Talking about Google Scholar: Older papers have up to 50 citations (which is not much for the most cited articles of the journal). Restricting the search to recent articles (since 2011), none on the first two pages has been cited at all - on the 3rd page, there is one paper with 6 citations, and a few with a single citation. This is not impressive, at least notfor any of the journals in my field. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I checked out Researchgate - it seems more geared towards hard sciences, no? I decided to search previous versions of RSN for "journal" (social science) and compare their cites in google scholar. After two results I found this earlier discussion on Academic Questions. It resulted in the journal (actually the article we're presently discussing) being sourced twice in the article Academic Bias, both statements either attributed to the journal or the author (Yancey) directly. I think the OP would be fine with a similar resolution. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The reliability of a source is independent from whether it is biased. Most academic articles for example are written to support a specific view and news media generally have political positions. Newspapers for example usually endorse political candidates. But it is unusual for an academic journal to have a particular bias. The problem is that they reject mainstream academia and publish papers that could never be accepted in mainstream sources. But again, the real issue is how significant the opinions are. TFD (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Just so we are clear here, the OP wrote Found what may be the sole scholarly analysis of SPLC, certainly the only one I've encountered...this doesn't mean this article is the only analysis of SPLC or that it is valid as an analysis at all. It's the only one that 118.208.177.225 has seen. If it is used, it definitely shouldn't be considered the sole study of the SPLC. Liz Read! Talk! 18:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Is it a reliable source for its own opinion. Yes. Should it be given weight? That is a content question best left to the article's talk page. If there is a dispute regarding content there are several ways to resolve that dispute and create consensus.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Huffington Post

Is the Huffington Post an RS for the purpose of the statement that "The Huffington Post reported that DogsBite.org, a US group that tracks dog bites, blamed pit bull breeds for 62 percent of the 325 people killed by dog attacks from 2005 to 2014."?

Discussion is here. An editor has deleted the text and ref repeatedly at dog bite (including after talk page discussion started), claiming that the Huffington Post is a "poor source", "low-quality source", and not a "high quality source", and that therefore deletion was called for. --Epeefleche (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

As the byline on the Huff Post makes clear, the original source is Associated Press - which looks to me to be a perfectly acceptable source for the statement that "DogsBite.org, a US group that tracks dog bites, blamed pit bull breeds for 62 percent of the 325 people killed by dog attacks from 2005 to 2014". Note that neither AP nor the Huff Post are saying that the statement is true - they are instead reporting what DogsBite.org says on the subject. Whether what DogsBite.org has to say on the subject merits inclusion is an issue of weight, not reliability, I'd suggest. AndyTheGrump (talk)
My personal take on HuffPo in general is that it's acceptable in most cases, but needs to be used with caution on BLPs. As ATG pointed out, it's from the AP which is certainly an RS. I don't know much about the specific topic here, but I don't think there's any issues with the reliability of the source per se. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, whether we attribute this to Huff Po or AP, both are reliable for the fact that DogsBite.org stated this statistic. Of course this does NOT assess the reliability of the underlying statistic. Nor does it assess the issue of whether mentioning this statistic in the first place might give WP:UNDUE weight to a minority viewpoint (or not). Remember, reliability is not the be-all-and-end-all of inclusion. Other polices and guidelines can influence inclusion as well. Blueboar (talk) 03:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes; the reasons given for the deletions of the text and the Huffington Post ref were "removed poor sources", and "Not a good source, please use high quality sources", and "It is a low quality source and we tend to avoid the popular press.". In the ensuing conversation, the deleting editor seems to think that only sources from pubmed (and not the Huffington Post) can be used as an RS for this statement. Epeefleche (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I didn't see the discussion here before starting discussion on Pit Bull so I apologise. I think this is absolutely not reliable information. Dogsbite.org is a self published source which has been known to skew its statistics. It is run by a single person, Colleen Lynn, who has no professional experience in animal behavior. It is not peer reviewed. All of their dog bite statistics come from media reports, which is not a reliable way to track dog bites, and many of the dog bite fatalities attribute "Pit bull" as the breed, where the associated media article in question does not mention it is a pit bull or contain a photo of the dog. Many of its statistics and claims are contradicted by the Center for Disease control and National Canine Research Council. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Also per WP:NEWSORG: For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context. Articles which deal in depth with specific studies, as a specialized article on science, are apt to be of more value than general articles which only tangentially deal with a topic. Frequently, although not always, such articles are written by specialist writers who may be cited by name. - cited peer-reviewed literature which reviews dog bite studies, like this AVMA's 2015 literature review must be given weight over primary studies quoted by news orgs, per WP:RS. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, one more, this article by the Huffington Post discusses Lynn's lack of credentials, stating Colleen Lynn is a menace; she's a web designer who was once bitten by a dog, and has been on a vicious campaign to eliminate the pit bull type ever since. Still, she makes no pretense to academic credibility.. If the same source has two conflicting views, which should we use, especially when the dogsbite.org statistics in question are only a very small aside of the original article? Boiling down the entire article on something else (pit bulls as service dogs) to the one sentence about quoted that only seems tangentially related strikes me as WP:UNDUE in light of everything else. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pearl - this is a board for discussing whether a source is an RS in context. The other editors and I all agree that The Huffington Post/Associated Press source above is an RS for the statement indicated.

As to your animus against the organization that the RS reflects the views of, that is your personal view. RSs in abundance, in contrast to your view, also reflect what this organization has to say. For example, The New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, USA Today (also here), Time, the Seattle Times, the Houston Chronicle, ABC, CBS, NBC, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Vancouver Sun, etc. If you have a contradictory RS-supported view that you wish to add to the article, feel free to do it. But please stop deleting this sentence (and similar sentences, as you[33] -- including in this massive deletion -- and Lovepitbullsforever[34] have been doing recently), claiming "not RS." Epeefleche (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm aware this board is about discussing whether a source is an RS in context. These issues will allow us to determine the context. I disagree that my views on dogsbite.org is personal opinion. It is a fact dogsbite.org is not peer reviewed. It is a fact that it is self published. It is a fact that Colleen Lynn, the sole operator of dogsbite.org has no credentials in veterinary science, animal behavior or other related matters that would make her reliable for quoting these kinds of statistics from. It is also fact that HuffPo wrote an article which I quoted above that labels Lynn and Merritt Clifton as academic frauds. If you look at the data on Lynn's website, its mostly circular citations with Merritt Clifton.
I think one of the biggest underlying questions here is if WP:MEDRS applies to animal behavior and veterinary matters. I asked this question on the Pit Bull talk page some time ago and have not received a response either way. I would argue yes, it should. If yes, MEDRS explicitly states Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content. , which would make this issue a moot point as any sourcing attributed to news bodies would fail off the bat, as they are not academic publishers.
If MEDRS doesn't apply, then lets look at WP:RS and specifically the clause WP:NEWSORG. All the sources you've posted are news organizations quoting the DBO statistics. NEWSORG states: For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context. - in this case, the scholarly sources include the AVMA, which I've added to the Pit Bull page (and you've since removed), which draw different conclusions than the dogsbite.org statistics. Why would we give more weight to a news source quoting DBO than an peer-reviews academic organization which has published a comprehensive literature review of all known dog bite studies?
Furthermore, the WP:SCHOLARSHIP part of RS states that Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper.. Again, why should a news organization quoting a single statistic from a single study be given more weight than a secondary peer-reviewed literature review?
And finally, I disagree in your reading of the other editors statements. They seem to be weakly in support at best, and have all chimed in before my comments. Now, if after reading my comments, they all agree with you that I'm full of BS and that this HuffPo quote is indeed RS for this article, then I'll abide by consensus and back down. But until then, I don't think you as the person who added this information to three articles and submitted the discussion on this noticeboard get to decide that consensus has been reached only two days after discussion has been started. PearlSt82 (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
One final point on the issue, please look at the Maul Talk blog run by the dogsbite.org people, specificially the entries for science whores where they describe mainstream academics as whores, people who "Wanting to keep making money on the very lucrative dog-talk circuit, s/he sells both soul and credibility for a few dollars.", or the article for advocacy groups where they describe anyone who disagrees with them as a "nutter" and refer to Ledy VanKavage as "Bledy VanKarnage”. Is this something a legitimate academic organisation would do?PearlSt82 (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • You miss the point. It is the Huffington Post/Associated Press that is the RS. It is reporting on what an organization says. That organization does not in turn have to be an RS (though it may be). We as a matter of course reflect RSs reporting what organizations and individual in turn say -- though those organizations and individuals are not RSs (necessarily). And as you can see from the above dozen RSs that refer to the statements of this organization -- it is an organization that RSs see fit to report the statements of. Epeefleche (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I understand that point quite well. In this case we have a news org quoting a fringe source for a straight statistic on veterinary science data. HuffPo has done numerous pieces on A Voice For Men, and we wouldn't add their views on domestic violence to the Domestic Violence article even through attribution. PearlSt82 (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
We would use as refs those other dozen RSs, if they were in turn quoting an organization that reports a straight statistic on deaths in, for example, the Syrian Civil War, or in a terrorist attack, or in World War II. We don't need a medical source for that. Same here.
And your POV branding of the organization, which is quoted by these RSs, as a "fringe source" is belied by the fact that the organization's statements are reported, in just the past two years, by among others: ABC, CBS, NBC, the Associated Press, The Huffington Post, The New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, USA Today, Time, the Seattle Times, the Houston Chronicle, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Vancouver Sun. Epeefleche (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Again, those are all news orgs. Not academics. My labeling of dogsbite.org as fringe is absolutely NOT POV. Look at the Maul Talk entry for "Science whores" I posted earlier. What organization other than a fringe one, would describe all mainstream PhD academics in that fields as "whores"? Look one step further at DBO's about page - specifically this paragraph: We champion the rights of victims through our research, education and advocacy. Our statistical data has been cited in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and well over a hundred reports from local, regional and national newspapers. Our advocacy helped move the highest court in Maryland to issue the seminal ruling, Tracey v. Solesky, declaring "pit bulls inherently dangerous" and to modify state liability law to ensure a compensation remedy for pit bull mauling victims.
Lets unpack these sentences. Our statistical data has been cited in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. "A". As in singular. They link to this journal here, which is "Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs" from "Annals of Surgery". Annals of Surgery is a surgical science journal which deals with humans. It is not a veterinary science journal. So the only peer-reviewed article that cites their data is one from an unrelated field. Moving on to the next clause: over a hundred reports from local, regional and national newspapers - yes, you've covered these, I will give you that one. And finally: Our advocacy helped move the highest court in Maryland to issue the seminal ruling, Tracey v. Solesky, declaring "pit bulls inherently dangerous" and to modify state liability law to ensure a compensation remedy for pit bull mauling victims. This court decision has since been reversed. SO the only thing that uses their data are news organizations, an unrelated journal and a reversed court decision. On one hand we have data that no mainstream academics in the field cite, and on the other hand we have a blog where they call all the mainstream academics in the field whores. How is this not a fringe organization? PearlSt82 (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

PearlSt82, I'm not sure where you're getting that this is an academic topic. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

To reliably determine breed in dog bite fatalities one must be able to reliably identify them. Most dogs involved in fatalities are mixed breed. As noted in the lede of the Pit Bull article, visual identification of breed is not accurate. As such, veterinary organizations don't compile dog bite fatalities by breed as identification is often done visually by animal control, shelter employees, media orgs or other, and their identifications will often conflict with oen another. It is only possible to conduct accurate breed identification through DNA testing. In other words, in order to reliably compile a statistic like "Pit bulls make up XXX percentage of dog bite fatalities", you need to reliably determine whether or not it is actually a pit bull before including it on the list, which can only be done through DNA and is what Dogsbite.org does not do. The Syrian Civil War analogy breaks down here. It is quite easy to tell if a dead body in the civil war is human or not. A more appropriate analogy would be "List of Ethnicities Killed in Syrian Civil War", where the list compiler tries to identify the ethnicity of the bodies just by looking at them.
Dogsbite.org is a anti-Pit bull, pro-Breed Specific Legislation advocacy group. They have a vested interest in skewing statistics regarding dog bite fatalities in order to make pit bulls look more dangerous than they are noted in the veterinary and animal behavioral sources. DBO's tactics of assigning "pit bull" breed to dog bite fatalties where no breed has been identified by the media has been pointed out by quite a few people. Does this make sense? It is indeed an academic area as number studies have been done on dog bites, dog behavior and animal aggression by veterinary scientists. This 2015 literature review of such studies by the AVMA cites 66 said studies. If DBO's data was reliable and assembled with proper methodology, wouldn't it be cited by any of these studies? PearlSt82 (talk) 10:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
With that many citations, we need to mention what DBO says. We can also mention conflicting studies, other views, or criticims of their methods, but we would clearly be not doing our jobs if we just left out what such a prominent organization in the field has to say. --GRuban (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Does that include attribution of raw statistical data to them? I can understand citing their positions in an article like Breed Specific Legislation where their views are currently cited as an example of what BSL proponents argue, but shouldn't we source statistics from more reliable organizations? This AVMA study on dog bite related fatalities notes that "Valid breed determination was possible for only 45 (17.6%) DBRFs" - would it really be appropriate to say in the text something like "The Huffington Post reported that DogsBite.org, a US group that tracks dog bites, blamed pit bull breeds for 62 percent of the 325 people killed by dog attacks from 2005 to 2014, but a study by the American Veterinary Medical Association noted that valid breed determination was possible for only 17.6% of dog bite related fatalities."? PearlSt82 (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
PearlSt82, the fact that (uncited) academic studies have been done on a subject doesn't make it an academic topic. It seems pretty clear to me this is not an academic topic, just as "List of Ethnicities Killed in Syrian Civil War" isn't an academic topic. These are the types of straightforward factual inquiries that are frequently made by industry associations, NGOs, and government agencies as well as academics. Clearly, the AP thought consulting this organization was appropriate. I believe what you're really saying is that this dogsbite.org is biased--but please review WP:BIASED. If dogsbite.org has been reliably identified as having an anti-pit bull bias then it may be appropriate to add that information to the article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
And by the way, I've briefly reviewed dogsbite.org and agree it likely does have an anti-pit bull bias. But that doesn't change my analysis on this particular issue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I've cited two of those AVMA studies, this one which is the literature review that mentions all 66, and this one that discusses about the reliability of breed ID. Surely you don't want me to paste citations for all 66 studies here? What criteria is needed to determine that an organization is reliably biased? In their own words they call the mainstream PhDs in this field whores. Is that not enough to display evidence of their bias? PearlSt82 (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
You're missing my point and misunderstanding ignoring WP:BIASED. Fine, so dogsbite.org is biased. That doesn't make the AP unreliable. The way to handle this is to add the source, describe dogsbite.org's bias, and describe the conflict with other reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I read WP:BIASED which says Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context.. I just don't understand how any attribution of DBO stats is reliable in this context. Are you saying the way to go here would be the sentence I suggested above, namely: "The Huffington Post reported that DogsBite.org, a US group that tracks dog bites, blamed pit bull breeds for 62 percent of the 325 people killed by dog attacks from 2005 to 2014, but a study by the American Veterinary Medical Association noted that valid breed determination was possible for only 17.6% of dog bite related fatalities."? PearlSt82 (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
The last sentence would be some serious SYNTH. Arkon (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
So how can we mention that DBO's data and AVMA's studies starkly contradict one another without mentioning the two studies side by side? I'm not drawing any conclusions beyond what is stated in the AVMA journal? PearlSt82 (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Seems like stating those facts separately would be the way to go. Arkon (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, some proposed text: "The Huffington Post reported that DogsBite.org, a US-based Breed Specific Legislation advocacy group that tracks dog bites, blamed pit bull breeds for 62 percent of the 325 people killed by dog attacks from 2005 to 2014. However, the American Veterinary Medical Association notes several problems with tracking breed in dog bite related fatalities, citing that dog bite statistics "do not give an accurate picture of dogs that bite", due to problems with accuracy in recording the breed and mixed-breeds being described as purebreds.(avma cite 1). In a 2013 study of 256 dog bite–related fatalities in the United States from 2000–2009, the AVMA determined that valid breed determination was possible for only 17.6% of dog bite related fatalities studied.(avma cite 2)". Is this closer to the mark?PearlSt82 (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, still seems synthy, but it's beyond the scope of this board in any case. Arkon (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
PearlSt82, yes, something like that. However the attribution ("The Huffington Post reported that") can and probably should be removed. No need to include attribution for properly sourced facts--plus, it calls out HuffPo, which was only one of many newspapers that carried this AP story. I'm specifically not weighing in on neutrality issues as they're beyond the scope of this discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok - would AP attribution be more appropriate then? Am I correct in my read of previous discussions that this is only reliable because the AP posted it? If so, then wouldn't we need attribution? PearlSt82 (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
We don't need attribution to HuffPo, HuffPo, or AP, merely say that DogsBite.org says this, which is not disputed. We do need attribution to DogsBite.org, because what they say is disputed. It's not synthesis in this case because it's a mainstream view opposed to a fringe view, that's the heart of WP:FRINGE, we can't expect the AVMA to name each specific lady with a web site that they're rebutting, just that they are rebutting breed specific fatality studies in general. I'd write something like: "DogsBite.org, a US-based Breed Specific Legislation advocacy group that focuses on pit bulls (ref: their about page), blamed pit bull breeds for 62 percent of the 325 people killed by dog attacks from 2005 to 2014.(ref)(ref) The American Veterinary Medical Association notes problems with tracking breed in dog bite related fatalities;(ref) in a 2013 study of 256 fatalities in the United States from 2000–2009, the AVMA determined valid breed determination possible for only 17.6% of cases.(ref)" --GRuban (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks GRuban, thats incredibly helpful. Then if noone objects, I'll add similar text to the three pages where the DBO stats were added. There were some other issues with Pit Bull that got included in the reverts, but I consider those to be separate issues and will address them on the talk page. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
If possible, I'd give at least 2 refs (AP/HuffPo, and another or two) for the DogsBite.org statement, otherwise it's not clear that despite being a minority view, it has gotten a lot of media attention. --GRuban (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with the statements of nearly all of the above editors; excluding Pearl, whose above views have been non-consensus. The Huffington Post/AP are indeed RS refs for the statement set forth at the outset of this thread. The reasons giving for removing the statement -- assertions of "poor source," "Not a good source," not a "high quality source," "low quality source," "not RS", "pubmed sourced required," and "academic source required" are unfounded non-consensus views. As mentioned at the outset, properly sourced contrary views can of course be added -- note that the study mentioned covers a different timeframe, so it's not an even comparison. But of course SYNTH must be scrupulously avoided. As others have said, we don't need attribution to HuffPo or AP, though I personally don't object to it, and in a highly contentious area such as these seems to be (for at least one editor), it may perhaps serve a purpose. Epeefleche (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

This source is not needed as we have much better sources on the topic. We have a good 2015 literature review on the topic here [35]. There is no reason to use the popular press and WP:MEDRS recommends against it for medical content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This shouldn't a question about content in the article, but about the source itself. HuffPo in this case is only republishing a report initially from the Associated Press. Associated Press clearly is a reliable source. Are there "better" sources? Possibly. But is this source reliable per WP:IRS, regardless of HuffPo republishing it? I think the answer to that is clearly yes.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Boxofficecapsule

Lots of Bollywood movie pages quote www.boxofficecapsule.com as a source for the box office results and final gross of the movie. When we have Koimoi , Bollywood Hungama , Box Office India , IMDB International Business Times and The Financial Express (India) , why this boxofficecapsule is given so much prominence. I am not able to find out who is adding it as reference. --C E (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it should not be used. The box office numbers in India are notoriously not reported officially therefor all numbers of estimates and subject to immense pressure from creators and distributors, so much so that the most significant national paper dropped its box office column because it did not feel it coult accurately report [36]
Only sources with the highest reputation for fact checking and accuracy should be used, and boxofficecapsule has not met that threshold. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC at Somalis in the United Kingdom

Hi. There's an RfC open about the proposed use of quotes from a number of different academic sources in the Somalis in the United Kingdom. No previously uninvolved editors have commented in several weeks, so input would be welcome! Cordless Larry (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I have commented. VandVictory (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, User:VandVictory. It's not that complicated an issue, I don't think, so if anyone else wants to take a look, please do so. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
The one user who disagrees with the addition of the material is now suggesting that we should use government sources rather than academic ones. This perhaps requires input from more editors with experience of WP:RS. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Is IMDb reliable for filmography credits?

The following discussion was moved from my talk page. We would like to get broader input on whether some or all of IMDB's filmography credits are citable per WP:V and WP:RS.- MrX 19:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

MrX, thanks for your guidance on the Hugh Elliott (editor) page. I have a question for you. I've noticed you've been removing the IMDb references from the page. After studying your comments and the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources page, I would like your feedback regarding the IMDb process. In my experience, certain aspects of IMDb (such as personal bios) are not vetted factually by IMDb and therefore not reliable. Whereas filmography/credits, for example, may only be recommended to IMDb. They then study, properly vet and make any approved changes internally. For this reason, I would have thought filmography credits - as opposed to biography data - to be a reliable reference, as it would not be self-published or questionable (due to IMDb's process and reputation). Any further guidance would be appreciated. 1sjjmhbt0 (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is the applicable guideline: WP:USERG. if there are exceptions to this guideline, or if IMDb now has an editorial process for some content, I'm not aware of it. Here are some discussions that may help: [2][3], or this essay: WP:CITEIMDB.- MrX 21:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

MrX, thank you for the reply and the information. I see there is quite a debate going on re IMDb's validity as a reference with many pro and con views. All I can offer to the discussion is my personal experience. From that, I would say the reason why IMDb falls into the middle category of "Disputed" (between "Appropriate" and "Inappropriate") is that many of the IMDb categories clearly don't get fact-vetted - they are only vetted for obscenity, reasonableness, etc. But, this is not true with the Filmography Credits category. Upon submitting credits to IMDb, I have often received inquiries from them for "more reference needed", so there is editorial diligence being done on their end for this category. As a film editor, my response to such requests can only be to reference directly the actual show or episode on Amazon Instant Video, where my credit clearly appears in the end credit roll. My credits are factual, though - aside from IMDb Filmography - can only be proven through this non-standard means. Considering this, would you be amenable to the following: I do not use my IMDb Bio as a reference - I use only the Filmography Credits page as a reference? Further, a reference could be added to an actual episode on Amazon Instant Video (for instance) showing my credit in the credit roll?1sjjmhbt0 (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply 1sjjmhbt0. You make some interesting points that I was not aware of. Could I suggest that we continue this discussion at WP:RS/N to get more input from others? You can just copy this discussion (in whole or part) to that notice board and we can see what other editors have to say. My knowledge of IMDB editorial practices is obviously very limited.- MrX 00:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Haven't we historically allowed IMDB for filmography and casting info? Unlike the trivia sections etc, the filmography isn't user contributed. It's actually placed by IMDB staff. While I've seen plenty of incorrect trivia or location information on IMDB, I can't recall ever seeing a cast list or filmography wrong. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I've run up against this time and time again, so let me say that I think you understand the situation pretty well. Even though there are 80,000+ mentions/uses/citations of IMDB on this site, many Editors are quick to denounce it as a "user generated" site when that is only true for certain portions. The resume portion, or what everyone calls the casting and crew credits, are generally fairly accurate. Are their ANY errors in a database as massive as IMDB, YES, of course. And the same tired examples keep getting mentioned like its some shocking expose.
Anyway, one extra piece of advice I'd give you is that IMDB is fine for credits for productions that have been released or aired. If the production is in any stage other than final or maybe post production, its subject to change based on the whims of the Director or editor. If something is "filming" or "to be released", then I'd find another source like Variety or some other publication that covers the Entertainment industry. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 14:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No, the IMDB is not reliable for filmographies. I created an article recently where the IMDB had the wrong person listed as a producer. It's a good starting point for further research, but it's not a reliable source as Wikipedia defines it. For personal use, yes, it's good enough and often correct. For an encyclopedia that depends on verifiability and editorial control, no. Until WP:USERG changes, I think Wikipedia guidelines are pretty clear on the IMDB. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Question: if it is not reliable for film credits, why do we have a template and link to it from every film page? i assumed it was at least reliable for that.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
As I stated above, and as one who is a film editor in Los Angeles, my personal experience with IMDb is that there absolutely IS editing due diligence being done re Filmography Credits. I've researched other IMDb discussions on this subject, and the only dissension seems to be a single mistake discovered by a wiki editor. It seems to me that if wiki editors are to base validity upon sources that are perfect, instead of reliable, then all references must be pulled down. The New York Times itself prints retractions. There is a huge difference between perfect and reliable. Being in the film/tv industry, knowing the industry well in the this regard, having personally submitted a multitude of filmography credits to IMDb, and knowing many others who have as well, I can tell you that it is reliable, though imperfect, as is every print publication in existence, whether online or not, I would argue. So - I ask in genuine interest - how does wiki/ a wiki editor determine the line between reliable and perfect in a world where there is no perfect - Wikipedia included?1sjjmhbt0 (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
External links don't have to satisfy the criteria of WP:RS; they just have to offer useful content. The IMDb offers information that Wikipedia often deems indiscriminate, unreliable, or both. I don't think anyone would say that the IMDb is an inappropriate external link, but there is heavy resistance to its use as citation, as seen in WP:RS/IMDB and codified in WP:RS itself. I've never tried to do it myself, but I understand that it's fairly easy to insert yourself into the credits of low-profile independent films. This is why we shouldn't trust open wikis and other user-generated sources – including Wikipedia itself. It's not a matter of being perfect, it's a matter of being reliable. Nothing is perfect, but it's much easier to settle on reliable... and the IMDb is a canonical example of an unreliable, user-generated source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
In my personal experience of self-generating facts on IMDb for high-profile TV series, I can say that my submission is not usually where the vetting ends. First, I have on a number of occasions been asked to provide further information to support my submissions. Second, there is good vetting done by the industry itself. We all know who was, for instance, Director of Photography on a particular show/episode we were involved in, and if an incorrect name appears one of us will pull it. It is also very much in the poster's best interest to not post falsely, as it will be seen and known by all of those involved. This will place the false-poster in a bad light, so not only will it be corrected, but it will affect his/her reputation and possible ability to get booked again. It seems that what's making this difficult for wiki editors is the inconsistency throughout IMDb, where facts can be reliable in high-profile productions in the Filmography Credits section, yet quite unreliable in other corners.172.250.48.230 (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, they're fairly good for film credits, but it's a slippery slope to use IMDb as a reference for anything given what it is. They've a very long way to go before they can be considered reliable, and don't have the manpower or need to do so. Personally, I'll overlook its use on a poor article when it doesn't look like there could be a BLP problem. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a note, if you search the archives for this page, and probably other places as well, you'll see that this discussion has been had a number of times regarding IMDB. I don't recall the outcome, but it does seem to be something of a perennial question. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Yep, Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#IMDb, though the specific question of film credits is worth this discussion imo. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

As stated, upon submitting my film editing credits to IMDb, I have received, in the past, requests from IMDb for further sourcing. When this happens, I can only point them to the actual series/episode on iTunes/Amazon or other streaming source where my credit clearly appears in the episode credit roll. In situations like mine where filmography credits are true/valid, yet IMDb is deemed - as a whole - an unreliable source by Wiki, might the actual streaming source of the series/episode be considered an acceptable citation? What other recourse do genuine folks like myself have to support what is true in a way that jives with wiki standards?172.250.48.230 (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

(I've not read and express no opinion about the larger question of IMDB's general reliability being discussed here, I'm only replying to 172.250.48.230's question about the series/episode being used as a source.) The actual episode or film can be used as a source under PRIMARY but you have to realize that it's tricky because PRIMARY says, "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." (Emphasis in original.) That leads to several issues in doing what you suggest: First, the episode can only be used to identify individuals who appear in the credit roll. The episode cannot be used as a PRIMARY source for uncredited appearances, even by well-known and easily-identifiable actors and actresses, because that requires analyzing, interpreting, and evaluating an image to actually be a certain person. Second — and I may be being a bit over-strict here — identifying a person named in a credit roll to be a particular individual by that name in order to link the person's name to an article or other information about that particular person seems to me to also require analysis, interpretation, evaluation, and if the link between the name in the credits and a particular person is made not only by the name but also by comparing the name to the image of the person, synthesis. (That is, to put that in English, a credit roll says that an actor named Robert Taylor was in the show; it may be a violation of PRIMARY to link the name Robert Taylor with any particular person named Robert Taylor.) Third, some media articles consist of little more than a sentence or two about the production and a long cast list. Using the video/film itself as a PRIMARY source in that case may violate the consideration about basing large passages of an article on primary sources. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
PS: And if I may editorialize for a moment, I think it's important to remember that Wikipedia is not a directory, nor is it a database. People who work on media articles sometimes lose sight of the fact that it is not a horrible failure for Wikipedia to not include a cast list or to only include those parts of a cast list which can be established through reliable sources and to omit cast lists or significant appearances merely because reliable sources cannot be found for them. We only report what can be verified, and that sometimes results in information which is, or which someone believes to be, Absolutely True and Vitally Important from being included or in information only being partially included. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
You folks are doing great work, and I appreciate it, personally. I just wish there would be more of it, because from the Wiki-layman's perspective, Wiki's practices - regardless of posted standards - can be perceived as inconsistent. I know we could each - right now - find Wiki entries with IMDb filmography credits being used as an accepted reference, for instance. I wish standards could be strictly applied across the board. The net has brewed a new generation believing that if it's online, it's true. If Wiki could be the one resource that actually deserves that assumption, how valuable that would be.1sjjmhbt0 (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Its a Wiki. YOU can help! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

need help in reliability of a source

hi. I want to use an site as a source for the page of Abdul-Malik al-Houthi. any one can help me about the reliability and notability of the site:http://www.albawabaeg.com/52258.--m,sharaf (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The source you link to [37] is a page on the Egyptian site of Al Bawaba. This appears to be a mixture of a professional news site and a blog site, and so individual pages might have to be assessed. In your case the author of the page, Ahmed Mamdouh, seems to publish regularly at the site, but not elsewhere. Use only with caution. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Peanut Butter Conspiracy http://www.peanutbutterconspiracy.com/

Is the website of a band a reliable source? One user is saying yes [38] . Another user is saying it is not. [39]. What does the group propose? I am pretty sure that the author of the article will be following me around ranting about a conspiracy theory. [40] CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Depends on what it is being cited for; I can't figure it out from those links, as they're all to user talk pages, and the only article link there is broken. Basically, what everyone is saying is correct, if the Yankees ... er, the band's ... official site calls the the greatest team ... er, band ... in history, we shouldn't cite that, since it's just puffery, and they are clearly biased in such an opinion. On the other hand, if the official site says the date they were founded and gives their current roster as of such a time, that would be perfectly reliable. --GRuban (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, wait. http://www.peanutbutterconspiracy.com/ says "the unofficial web site". If it's not the actual site of the band, but just that of some fans, it's almost certainly not reliable, unless the fans have major publisher books about the band or something. --GRuban (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I consider it a fan site. One editor said there was a former manager and a former band member, which makes them current fans to me. I can't see how we'd call it a RS. The initial dispute was one editor tagging the source as a SPS and the other unhappy with the tag. I was asked for my opinion and my opinion was to forget the tag and remove the site because it fails RS. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I got the notice from Niteshift's talk page, so I just wanted to say the reference in question had been replaced. No need to continue this subject. The users who offered appreciated weigh-ins can now solve other matters. Thanks Niteshift GRuban for your positive contributions. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 15:51, 24 April 2015
Not the official site, so not a reliable source and also not a suitable external link. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

MusicRadar.com

I see [[41]] somewhat recent discussion of this site, but it didn't come to anything and I'd like to know, since to me it's unclear if the content is solely user-generated and lacking an editorial filter-- I'm also not especially experienced with determining the reliability of a given source, since I'm still on the new side. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 23:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

http://www.allbutforgottenoldies.net/

Reliable source? CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Almost certainly not. Any reason to think otherwise? What information is it being proposed to verifiy? --Ronz (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


@Ronz: To avoid an edit war, I was double checking before removal in the article The Peanut Butter Conspiracy Is Spreading . CrazyAces489 (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Try refraining from removing the book reference "accidentally". It will be nice to see the article kept again as usual. Also, the reference in question is an interview so what is wrong with that? TheGracefulSlick (talk)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_188&oldid=1142578327"