Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 179

Epeefleche (talk) 07:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it was off-topic at all. I will reiterate: since the inclusion of the supposed RS is under dispute (currently two editors vs. one), it would be advisable to find a source where Patrese explicitly identifies himself as Jewish to lend better support to the claim in question, rather than him being name-dropped on a large list which seems to have plucked his ethnicity/religion out nowhere. Did they ask him about it? All I'm asking for is a quote from the man himself. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The question appropriate for this board is whether this book is an RS. It is clearly so. And even more clearly for the particular purpose for which the book is cited. The book is published by a decades-old, award-winning established bona fide publishing house. And the book is written by a bona fide journalist. And the very subject of the book is what you denigrate as name-dropping ... it's not name-dropping, but rather the entire focus of the book, and precisely what the book does in its entirety. The only issue here is whether this is an RS, and it indubitably is. Your comment that "Regardless of the source's credentials otherwise ..." and what follows is off-topic. This is an RS, and that's all that this board concerns itself with. Epeefleche (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

So far, I can find no other supporting source for the claim. Do books of this nature fact check each event listed? Yes - the events occurred. But is it a source that a specific person is Jewish? Nope. Result? The source is insufficient to add such a religious categorization here. Collect (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I suspect the counter is that we're not talking religion, but ethnicity. That aside, everything you say applies to his ethnicity. Bromley86 (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

We don't just decide if a source is reliable. We decide (or rather discuss) whether it is reliable for a particular claim. IMO, this source is too poor to support the claim made on its own. It is clearly lightweight (the information is listed in a section with the flippant title "Mazel Tough"). The book is essentially a long list of names and events. Books this generalised almost invariably contain mistakes. I've seen howlers in compilation-works of this sort from even the most serious of academic publishers. If the statement were unchallenged I'd have no problem, but the fact that it seems to be difficult to find another source is a red flag. The very fact that Jewishness is - or rather can be - ill-defined is part of the problem. How do we know what the criteria are for counting as "Jewish" in this instance? Paul B (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, so this is going nowhere. User:Epeefleche still has not managed to produce a quote from Patrese himself—all you keep doing is singing the praises of one source, which I maintain is insufficient to explicitly support the claim in question. Granted, it may fall under WP's definition of RS, but with it there is a content dispute which must be addressed. As it stands, I strongly dispute its inclusion within the Riccardo Patrese article as the sole source to him being Jewish. When has he said it? Why is there nothing searchable on it whatsoever besides one book, which has plucked something as profound as that from out of nowhere in 2007? If they are so bona fide and "reliable", and choose to focus on claiming sportspeople as Jewish, why do they not cite their own sources in doing so? Perhaps prematurely, I've taken it to WP:DRR/DRN. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

.. Well, that was just after other editors started weighing in, so maybe scratch that DR for now. I didn't anticipate an outside response. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

One more for wanting better sources. It seems to be a controversial issue, so we do want a good source, not a passing mention. --GRuban (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

In the article Elton Mayo the two close friends outside of Wikipedia psyc12 & iss246 worked in unison and as a 'tag team' to recklessly remove a solid, long term edit regarding the established occupation of psychologist Elton Mayo clearly stated in all of the major published reliable sources. First, psyc12 sneakily removed the first 5 reliable sources and left one and then his friend iss246 snuck in, sneakily, like a fox during the night, and removed the final reliable source, and the long established edit.

On the Elton Mayo talk page there are at least 10 reliable sources including the encyclopedia Brittanica, all clearly stating Elton Mayo is a psychologist!

They removed this edit [6] edit with no less than 5 reliable sources attached.

There are many concerned individuals in Australia who don't like the history of their National figures like Elton Mayo 'doctored' as psyc12 & iss246 are currently doing. If nothing else, are all other experienced editors and administrators who are here to supposedly protect the integrity of Wikipedia articles, reading this here and at the this COIN filing and let iss246 & psyc12 blatantly remove a reliably sourced long standing edit with no less than 5 major reliable sources attached? In fact, on the talk page it looks like there are at least 10 reliable sources to this widely accepted fact that Elton Mayo was an Australian born psychologist!

How would American editors feel if an article on George Washington was blatantly vandalised like this by a non US editor?? Elton Mayo was a Psychologist. Ten reliable, major published sources say so. There are countless others that could be used. Wikipedia is obviously based on what the reliable sources actually say. Not some editor like iss246 & psyc12 want it to say!

Iss246 cannot and has not produced one, single, reliable source clearly stating that he was not a psychologist. Elton Mayo is an Australian icon. Could someone please follow up on this, for the integrity of Wikipedia and for our Australian and other readers?

It would be like some Aussie vandalizing the George Washington article and saying he was not the first President of the United States (1789–1797), the Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War, and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. And provide not one single, reliable source clearly stating George Washington was not the first President! Thanks for everyone's integrity ahead of time.Truthbringer1 (talk) 04:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure this is the right place for this and you probably (IMO etc.) need to ditch the emotion. However, on the subject of sources, NNDB[7] is not a reliable source in this case (actually it's not a reliable source ever). It's circular, as it lists WP as one of its sources. It also references EB, so is unnecessary (i.e. there's no point in having 5 sources if they all reference one of the sources).

The other sources: Australian Dictionary of Biography, reliable. New World Encyclopedia, not ever (New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards.). State Library, I'd assume reliable, although I'd not bother using it as the EB & ADoB are enough, assuming the result of the discussion on the Talk page is that he was in fact a psychologist (this is, from a quick read, not open and shut). Bromley86 (talk) 06:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Truthbringer1 offers a canard when he suggests that my editing of the Mayo entry is equivalent to an Australian vandalizing the entry on George Washington or Thomas Jefferson--if it is true that Jefferson had relations with slave then it should be in Wikipedia. It is also untrue that that Elton Mayo is an Australian icon. Kyle Bruce of Macquarie University, in Australia in The Deification of Human Relations, published in Organization Studies this year, advanced the view that the Mayo's human relations movement was undemocratic. I personally hold a more benign view of Mayo than his countryman Mr. Bruce, and that is probably because of the sympathy for Mayo Cullen's research aroused in me.

Nationalistic fervor is beside the point. The important goal is to have an accurate Wikipedia entry. Iss246 (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Iss246 in all that text you have still not provided even one single major published reliable source, that clearly states "Elton Mayo was NOT an Australian-born Psychologist? or even Mayo was NOT a Psychologist. If you had even one major reliable published source you would have provided it, I'm sure. Nowhere in Miner's book does he state Mayo was NOT a Psychologist, by the way. Elton Mayo as at least 3 reliable sources, clearly state was an Australian-born Psychologist. In Australia, that is. Not in America. But in Australia he was definitely a Psychologist. User Bromley is correct in their conclusion. That is why the Trahaire source and many others clearly state that Mayo was a Psychologist in Australia. The point you are missing is that he was a Psychologist in Australia. He was perhaps not a Psychologist in the United States. This is clearly where Miner got confused. Its the same as today If an Australian Psychologist travels to the USA they can't use the Title as a Psychologist in the United States, unless they have a Doctorate. But they are still a Psychologist (in Australia) and can still use the title of Psychologist in Australia.

So far, you have NOT provided even one, single reliable source that clearly states Elton Mayo was not a Psychologist? Not even one. None exist. Hope that clears things up. Wikipedia is based on what the reliable published sources say iss246 not what you or Harvard wants them to say! In Australia, Elton Mayo was definitely a Psychologist. Full Stop.Truthbringer1 (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I'm a regular editor at esWiki. Over there we're having a debate about the use of this site as a source for articles. I think I speak for many users over there when I say that your opinion on this matter would be helpful to resolve this dispute. I don't intend to bias your opinions so I will keep this message short.

The question would be: Taking into account it's editorial policy and process, can RSSSF be regarded as a reliable source?

If you need further information I'll be glad to answer.

I would appreciate any opinions. Thanks in advance. --Facu89 (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue was debated here a few years ago (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_30#RSSSF.com) and seems to have been considered a reliable source for numbers, mainly due to the fact that other books and newspapers rely on it. --GRuban (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

We have a new article on the

I did not say Peter Kirby was a reliable source as Peter has no published work of his own, so the site wouldn't violate

talk

) 23:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think this statement speaks for itself a far as explaining the problem. So, yet again, What should be done here? Ignocrates (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I should also have mentioned this new article appears to have been added directly to mainspace without going through the

WP:AFC process. Therefore, it was never properly reviewed. Ignocrates (talk

) 00:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

More manipulation for denouncing the site as a source, obvious scrutiny; and on what Wikipedia policy requires me to go through

talk

) 00:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The point is that all new articles are subject to review, either during the AFC process or by NPP. Ignocrates (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

So far,

talk

) 01:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Just because an article can be deleted doesn't mean it has to be deleted. Its continued existence on Wikipedia invites improvements and additional sources to be added to the article. If it is deleted, you deprive future editors the opportunity to make improvements and provide references. In addition, we often forget to apply the Assumption of good faith. In most cases, and editor who edits or creates an article is doing so with the purpose of improving the article or making information available to people who are seeking information on the topic. I have run into too many editors who like to pick apart articles for some reason (unknown to me). How about this novel idea-let's start looking for things we like in the article and encourage the editors and contributors to have put time and effort into their work.

  Bfpage |leave a message  14:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the article can be greatly be expanded. I put more sources in the talk page of the article under section Sources. I didn't really have the time to expand it when made. --

talk

) 16:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@

talk

) 18:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't appreciate being threatened. I contacted Dougweller about the conduct issue which has no relevance here, but it will at ANI. Ignocrates (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@

talk

) 00:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I've brought in several academic sources to the talk page, a good many of them

Brill publishers (does anyone else's mouth water when they find a Brill book?). Notability established, everyone settle down and focus on the encyclopedia. Ian.thomson (talk

) 18:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I get a tingle when I see a Brill book. Thanks for the reliable sources. :0) Ignocrates (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The current version of the article War of the Pacific states:

... However according to Peruvian historians, during the war, both sides commonly ordered a repaso (or repase), a method "to completely kill the dead" by executing all soldiers, regardless of injuries, of the opposing army left in the battlefield.^[1] After the Battle of Tacna, Chilean troops went as far as to enter field hospitals and execute all soldiers of the opposing Peruvian and Bolivian armies.^{[1][2][dubious – discuss]} The repaso further incremented the number of Peruvian casualties in the battles of San Juan, Chorrillos, and Miraflores.^{[3][dubious – discuss]}

I considered the sources unreliable. 1) (Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán) it is a primary source. The sources 2) and 3) are available only stripped. The names of the books, "El expansionismo de Chile en el Cono Sur" (Chilean Expansionism ...) and "Historia del patriotismo, valor y heroнsmo de la Naciуn peruana en la guerra ..." (History of patriotism, bravery and heroism of the Peruvian nation ...) don't seem very RS.

Thanks in advance. --Keysanger (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

P.S.: M.F. Paz S's book "Narracion historica de la guerra de Chile contra el Peru y Bolivia" can be found in archive.org. --Keysanger (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Humberto Cayoja Riart

Those sources are fine as the content is attributed to Peruvian historians. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Just saying that someone is a "historian" does not make them a professional academic historian reliable source. At what point do we distinguish "propagandists"?Wikidgood (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As soon as you get a source saying they are "propagandists" I suppose. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems prima facie obvious. As suggested by another editor, above. Just sayin'Wikidgood (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This source, a Chilean nationalist website says it: Este mapa aparecido en la obra "El Expansionismo de Chile en el Cono Sur", del general boliviano Humberto Cayoja Riart, nos demuestra hasta dónde ha llegado el reivindicacionismo boliviano, que ahora va en Taltal, mucho más al Sur del límite que alegaban antes de la Guerra del Pacífico. El autor acompaña la imagen con el siguiente párrafo: "El litoral boliviano: Ley Nº 405 de 15 de agosto 1968. En todos los mapas y cartas geográficas de Bolivia deberá incluirse obligatoriamente el territorio del DEPARTAMENTO CAUTIVO como parte integrante del territorio nacional, EN BASE A LA RIGUROSA VERDAD HISTÓRICA, A LA DOCTRINA QUE CALIFICA Y DESCONOCE LAS USURPACIONES DE TERRITORIOS POR LA FUERZA". It is also a propagandist. --Keysanger (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Fuck me, Chilean nationalist website says Peruvian historians are propagandists, stop the press. And I see no issue at all in citing a book published the year the war ended, it is not a primary source, just an old one. Perhaps you ought to read

WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV Darkness Shines (talk

) 18:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Cayoja is not a historian and he is not Peruvian, he is a frustrated

putschist Bolivian colonel in 1981 [12] and 1984 [13]. You said it "As soon as you get a source saying they are "propagandists" I suppose". So, he isn't a RS, he is a propagandist. You said it. --Keysanger (talk

) 19:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

In [14] you find a prolog to cayolas book, and the author Agustin Saavedra Weise says about the book:

El libro del Gral. Cayoja es un llamado de advertencia y un compendio de sus preocupaciones geopolítico-estratégicas surgidas al legítimo calor de las siempre conflictivas relaciones bilaterales chileno-bolivianas.

It is not a history book, it is a book about the Chile-Bolivia relations, written by a putschist, nationalist Bolivian Colonel. It doesn't belong into Wikipedia. --Keysanger (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán

What about the primary source? It was written 1884, the year the war finished. Do you also think it is "fine"?. --Keysanger (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Carlos Maria Muñiz

I think, the best opinion about Muñiz and Paz Soldán is given by Emilio Rosario in Un balance historiográfico a la guerra del Pacífico, (ABSTRACT: Throughout the years many studies has written a considerable number of texts of the «War against Chile». Next, we show a detailed study of what has been realized from 1880 until 2008.) In part 1. Una revisión a la crónica de los vencidos (1884-1910) he says:

Si algo podemos concluir hasta aquí es que tanto las memorias y diarios como los primeros trabajos avocados a la investigación histórica elaborados por la llamada crónica de los vencidos sirvieron para ir bosquejando la imagen discursiva con la que se explicaría la Guerra del Pacífico en adelante, una historia de carácter decimonónico, estructurado a partir de acontecimientos donde tendrían un lugar por demás sobresaliente las batallas y sus héroes, destacando en medio del fragor de las confrontaciones armadas la acción patriótica de los ejércitos que estos conducían valerosamente. Es así como esta estructura dual del individuo magnificado dirigiendo a las masas en la batalla llegará a establecer el derrotero de las futuras investigaciones históricas, cubriendo con su velo de entrega y valentía heroica durante largo tiempo las bases estructurales del real acontecer histórico. (Bold by Wikipedia)

Also the Peruvian historian Carmen Mc Evoy take the same line in Historiadora peruana expone en Igualdad:

Por mucho tiempo la historiografía peruana estuvo entrampada en una visión “traumática” de la guerra. Una visión que anteponía la humillación y el dolor, un enfoque tremendista de la derrota, a la asimilación racional y analítica del acontecimiento dentro del marco de la construcción republicana peruana. (Bold by Wikipedia)

So, you can use it if you want to eulogise the heroism, bravery, etc, of the Peruvian people, but not to describe the history of the War of the Pacific.

--Keysanger (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I think there might be a

WP:WEIGHT

issue as well, however that is not the purpose of this board, given that it specifies Chilean actions, but not the other parties of the conflict, especially if we are to hold true that both sides committed similar acts.

As for the issue with these sources, are there more contemporary sources that validate the sources in question here? If so, those could be used instead.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone pinged me to comment back here but all I have to say is please translate or write in English on en.wikipedia,org and Spanish on es.wikipedia.org Thanks/GraciasWikidgood (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

About the article Mansplaining and reliable sources. The Antidote to Mansplaining, a review of a 2008 essay by Rebecca Solnit "Men Explain Things to Me," is used to support the statement:

Mansplaining is a

portmanteau of the words man and explaining, coined in 2008 to describe a social phenomenon

commonly experienced by women.

There is a second citation for the statement: Zimmer, Benjamin; Carson, Charles C. (2013). "Among The New Words". American Speech. 88 (2): 196–214.

It gives Rand Paul as an example of whitesplaining in the Chicago TribuneRand Paul has lotsa 'splaining' to do. Also, this journal article comes from a site where, once you've signed up, you can upload your own journal article. This citation was added because one of the editors said only an academic could determine whether mansplaining was a social phenomenon.

The editors of mansplaining do not consider it a pejorative term because is is a social phenomenon.

What is the right thing here regarding accurate citations?

Thanks, EChastain (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not all the article from American Speech says. See http://imgur.com/a2QhoeZ for the rest of it. The journal does not appear to be peer reviewed, but has editorial oversight and is indexed by major academic citation indexes (see https://www.dukeupress.edu/American-Speech/). It is peer reviewed according to EBSCOHost.

re

}} 02:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

"Some consider The Stranger reliable?" It's a prominent newspaper in Seattle, and it is where Savage Love by Dan Savage is published. I'm not sure what else to say; newspapers are perfectly acceptable sources for commonplace topics. The citation to The Stranger was added to address a "citation needed" about whether the phenomenon was "commonly experienced", which the article indeed does assert; the journal was added to back up the claim that it is a social phenomenon, but I have not read the article myself. That was added by EvergreenFir. As far as "pejorative", this is original research. EChastain wants to label it as pejorative but has yet to find a source that labels it that way. Whether I consider it pejorative or not is completely irrelevant. The fact that "mansplaining" is a portmanteau is non-controversial and needs no citation; even so, the XoJane article explicitly describes it as such. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not really sure what is being argued. But two points:

• Ben Zimmer is an excellent source for for contemporary English language use, and especially neologisms. He is the chair of the New Words Committee of the American Dialect Society and just today won the Linguistic Society of America first Linguistic Journalism Award.
• That said I am not sure why the first sentence of the article is getting into mansplaining being a "social phenomenon commonly experienced by women" instead of first
  defining
  what it means ie the act (or phenomenon, if you wish) of a man condescending explaining something to an audience of women ?

PS: I have shortened the section title, to keep the page's ToC and the edit-summaries readable; hope there are no objections to that. Abecedare (talk) 03:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Neat. Didn't know that about Zimmer. And good point about LEADSENTENCE. Something we can address on the talk page.

re

}} 04:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There is an RfC

Newsweek recently published an article about a study examining the content of twitter comments using the hashtag #GamerGate. One editor has claimed

Newsweek does not have to publish behind-the-scenes raw data so that individual Wikipedia editors can "factcheck" them to see if a random Wikipedia editor would come to the same conclusions through original research. Nor does Newsweek need to supply reporters' notes, raw unedited interview tapes, addresses of quoted sources or anything like that in order for Newsweek to be considered as meeting

WP:V. There may be other concerns (weight, etc.) when adding material, but Newseek is perfectly verifiable as a source for details about the journalism Newsweek has published.__ E L A Q U E A T E

02:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

To be specific, the article in Newsweek presents enough data to factcheck a few things, and without getting into details, they give us an exact idea of how much topics X and Y are mentioned in 2M tweets, and then make a broad conclusion about X being much greater than Y based on tweet count that is a very controversial result even if it is "true". But as been pointed out, with the known valus of X and Y, that makes up < 1% of the 2M tweets, begging what the rest of that data is, and whether that small set is sufficient to make such a controversial conclusion when they do not make it clear what is in the remaining 99% of the tweets, so making a conclusion on those questionable numbers, while technically right, would be rejected by your average statistician or, in my case, a scientific/data mindset eye. --MASEM (t) 02:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

So says you. Newsweek has a better overall reputation for fact-checking and accuracy than thee or me. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I am saying that Newsweek has provided enough data to determine what they based their claim on (we are not guessing their numbers they are printed in the report). They have conclusded two things: X > Y , and then based on that, a broad general claim that X is much more prevalent than Y, which, even prior to this publication, has been unproven, questionable assertion. X>Y is not in question (numbers don't lie), but the conclusion from the small sample size to make the broader claim is a problem. --MASEM (t) 03:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

They don't have to provide data. That's not how

WP:V works. Your premise is that the stuff they didn't report, but that they saw and evaluated and you admittedly haven't seen, might contain material that somehow disproves their overall conclusions. Well, that's possible, as possible as the idea that they made up all the numbers from scratch, or fabricated every quote..........but if they have a reputation for almost never doing that, then they are generally acceptable as a reliable source. Two million tweets doesn't seem like a particularly small sample, and they seem to be basing their overall interpretations on more than one source. Offering only potential scenarios where they could be wrong is unlikely to invalidate what they reported or their overall journalistic reputation. What's important here is that they saw the data, not that you have. Wikipedia is built on material verifiably sourced to reliable sources, not material independently verified by individual editors with access to the same source matter as what scholars and researchers used to form their conclusions. __ E L A Q U E A T E

03:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Elaqueate is dead right here. We are not scientists trying to recreate experiments. The "reliable" in RS means that they have a reputations for reporting accurately.

re

}} 03:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me make the point clear: we are not questioning their data counting methods to the point X>Y; as a normally reliable source, this is right in line. Then they make a secondary statement on this data that is very slanted in a larger heated debate to prove one side of the debate. That's an opinion, not a fact, when they make that. And that opinion, based on the lack of details of their data collection, calls that secondary conclusion into suspect. X>Y is absolutely true, but a conclusion that goes beyond what X>Y says is not affirmed and there's several reasons to question how they came to that since they required no other data to make that statement. --MASEM (t) 04:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Absolutely reliable per ElequeateTwo kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Reliable for the actual non-anecdotal claims. The main gist is in the graphs given, showing over 90% of tweets are "neutral" ("Brandwatch found most tweets were neutral in sentiment.") This avoids any problems with relative importance of the statistics furnished. Collect (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue here is whether individual editors are better equipped to make a determination of what the statistics do or do not show than the source is. A source is either reliable or unreliable; we shouldn't be cherry picking information we like and ignoring what we don't. If this is a reliable source, we should be able to trust that any conclusions it reaches from the data it's evaluating are sound. The source considers the data they found significant enough to suggest something important about the overall sentiment of gamergate tweets. And I'd hardly call the analysis of such a large number of tweets 'anecdotal.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If Newsweek had not provided enough details of their methodology for us to assess how they came to that conclusion, I would agree we should take the conclusion at face value given Newsweek has been a reliable source in the past. But there's enough details to beg how they went from their facts to their conclusion that is not tied to their normal reliability but the specific writer's judgement. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You are still arguing that you are better equipped to evaluate this data than the source is, which seems to be explicitly contrary Wikipedia policy and to the advice of the uninvolved editor who's commented on the source here. You're essentially performing original research by claiming that you can see the 'truth' of what the statistics this source has published really mean and that the conclusions it reached are flawed. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If the analysis to call the Newsweek conclusion faulty required expert statistical knowledge, then yes, that would be a problem (hence why I referred to SNYTH before). But this is a very simple determine to show that they are basing a very controversial statement on an otherwise very small fraction of the overall sample size, which doesn't require expertise in statistics to know that's a very iffy conclusion to be making. As such, when it can obviously demonstrated by simple math (within the allowance SNYTH gives), we can question such conclusions. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is a very specific type of original research. What you're doing isn't synthesis, but it is OR, because you're using the data from the source to draw your own conclusions which are not supported by the source. It's your opinion that the degree of outright negative comments does not constitute an overall hostile environment. The source knows the study's methodology better than you do, and is better able to judge how many comments flagged by it as 'negative' it takes to constitute an overall negative or harassing environment. The source found that the data provides evidence of harassment. Reliable sources > your opinion. -- TaraInDC (talk

) 15:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Reliable, in general Newsweek meets the requirements set forth in
  WP:IRS. Questions of use of the source are outside of the scope of this noticeboard and are best handled in the article's talk page, or another appropriate noticeboard.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk
  ) 21:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Is The State Journal a reliable source? Specifically, does this article from The State Journal [15] support this edit [16], to the American Principles Project article? More on dispute can be found at Talk:American Principles Project --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

As I've already explained to this user, the problem isn't that the State-Journal isn't reliable, but that the "article" in question is quite obviously a press release. Real news articles aren't 100% made up of quotations about private organizations' positions and lists of the qualifications of their personnel, and don't end with "invit[ations] to attend" their events and check out their Facebook page. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Above, I linked to relevant talk page discussion, so such arguments would be available. However, glancing at article in question shows it's not 100% quotations [17] but rather an article in State Journal about a town hall forum to protest the Common Core. The article in question seems consistent with The State Journal's wikipage description as "only newspaper (in West Virginia) with political and general news content". --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Business news is often based on press releases, that's where they get most of their information. Presumably the editors are able to weigh these releases and sift out egregious errors. There is nothing misleading about the text - the issues of which "APP" promotes awareness make them sound like Tea Party types. TFD (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware that business news frequently gets its information from press releases, but does it go so far as to personally invite the public to events or to give contact information? That's a press release thing. (Also note that the reason for the discussion is "can we say 'APP supports kittens, sparkles, and rainbows' in WP's voice, or do we have to say that that's how they, or their affiliates, describe their goals?") –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

There do seem to be two distinct types of article in TSJ. Just clicking on the links on the right of the supplied article, there are two with the author names supplied,[18][19] and two without.[20][21]. The article we're discussing likewise has no author attribution. Those three without authors are shorter; two are announcing future meetings/lectures (although they get the date wrong in one) and the third is effectively a press release about a new course being offered. The longer ones are reporting events that have occurred. Bromley86 (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Wait. "Tea Party types"? What does that have to do with anything? If a source has authors who are favorable of the Tea Party movement, or neutral to it (as opposed to have a negative view of it), is that suppose to automatically disqualify it as a reliable source?
Imagine the outrage if Tea Party was replaced with a religion, or another political movement, or a race.
Seriously?!?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No one has said that. TFD is arguing for inclusion, not exclusion. That the APP shares ground with the Tea Party isn't a secret,[22] and the edit was typical tea party stuff. Bromley86 (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I know

Does a website proudly saying that it is "not responsible for any omissions, inaccuracies or other errors in the information it publishes" at the foot of every page rule it out as a reliable source due to lack of oversight, or is that just meaningless boilerplate? Site in question is http://devicespecifications.com, which seems to be an anonymously assembled database of phone specs. --

A Google search for "according to devicespecifications.com" gets two hits. I would say that other sites do not consider this one to be reliable. The disclaimer is a bit off-putting, too. It looks like they accept corrections, but I don't see any indication of who operates it or what kind of editorial control they exert. To some extent, I would be skeptical of its data until I could validate that it's not a

splog or other nuisance site. NinjaRobotPirate (talk

) 00:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The "not responsible..." is a pro forma legal disclaimer that you'll find (in one form or another) on most sites, and by itself is not a indicator of unreliability. From what I see, devicespecifications.com archives product specifications and seems to take its data from the manufacturer's website or product manuals. Can you point to what exact information in which article is being sourced from the website, and if there is any reason to suspect that it may be incorrect? Abecedare (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No specific reason to doubt its accuracy, had just noticed

McGeddon (talk

) 12:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The disclaimer does not detract from reliability. In fact even academic books and auditors' opinions mention the possibility of error. However, since this site summarizes manufacturers' information, it would be better to use the manufacturers' websites directly. TFD (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It is just boilerplate, a lot of sources that take accuracy seriously will add a disclaimer. Spumuq (talk) 12:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

A new editor is adding information to Almond (see this diff), sourced to www.plantvillage.com, which does not appear to be a reliable source. Further comments appreciated. Yobol (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I am replying to Yobol's comments about whether PlantVillage (www.plantvillage.com) is a reliable source. I am new to WP so please excuse any mistakes I may make.

I am one of the co-developers of PlantVillage.https://www.plantvillage.com/users/3-david-hughes?locale=en This is an open access knowledge base on crop plants and diseases. It has extensive information on 153 plants and over 2,000 diseases of plants. I am a professor at Penn State and the other co-developer (Dr Marcel Salathe) is also at Penn State.https://www.plantvillage.com/users/1-marcel-salathe?locale=en

We were frustrated that much of the knowledge on controlling diseases in plants was behind paywalls. For example, CABI Crop Protection compendium http://www.cabi.org/cpc/ and the compendia by the American Phytopathological Society (APS) http://www.apsnet.org/apsstore/shopapspress/Pages/Compendia.aspx. The knowledge that was collected for these compendia is based on work at institutions like Penn State. It is science that has come from multiple studies. It is now not accessible because of copyright and paywalls. So, to overcome this we collected the knowledge from these sources and completely re-wrote it. There were three reasons to re-write 1) We wish to avoid plagiarism/copyright infringement 2) We want to combine knowledge from different sources (CABI and APS for example). 3) We wanted to remove the dense scientific proses which is not helpful

One person wrote all the content. She is a plant biologist and her name is Dr Lindsay McMenemy https://www.plantvillage.com/users/2-lindsay-mcmenemy?locale=en

So, PlantVillage is an effort funded by Penn State University and the content is based on published studies. As such it is similar to any of the content in APS which is often referenced in sections on plant health. The difference is that we have much more information. We also have information relevant to people around the world and not just developed world. Compare our entry on Cocoyam, an important crop in Africa https://www.plantvillage.com/en/topics/cocoyam/infos/diseases_and_pests_description_uses_propagation with WP's entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocoyam

I would be delighted if WP would use our content.

We have been working on our content for 2 years. We invested over $200k and this is the result of 3 scientists and 2 developers.

The site developed out of Penn State, one of the worlds most trusted sources of knowledge on agriculture. Please check out this news story by Penn State http://news.psu.edu/story/330898/2014/10/20/research/plantvillage-solves-crop-problems-democratizing-science-based

I hope you will agree this is a trusted source. Do please ask if you need additional details. And thanks Yobol for starting this section

Dr. David P. Hughes 19:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I am waiting for a consensus on this and user Yobol deletes my entries, saying it is spamming. I read it the WP rules that consensus is often reached by edits being left alone. But no-one else is contributing discussions here. So I edited and for one day they were not deleted. And now they have been, PlantVillage is a respectable source as I detailed above. I am scientist with expertise on plant diseases and the content is, as I described at length above, published material.

So, please Yobol, stop deleting my entries. Or advance an argument as to why PlantVillage (a funded knowledge base from a Land Grant University with three scientists making content available in CC 2.0 and above) is not reliable.

Dr. David P. Hughes 17:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I have already indicated on your talk page why I do not think this website is reliable: "I appreciate that you feel this is an appropriate source, but we have to go by Wikipedia guidelines on whether this is a reliable source. The FAQ page you reference says this is a user contributed forum, similar to a wiki format. There is no indication that the material in question has had any editorial oversight, so it appears to be a self published source (WP:SPS)." The website makes does not clearly indicate who the author of the information is, nor that there is any true editorial oversight. I hope other editors can give their opinion (though I note

WP:PLANTS as well. Yobol (talk

) 18:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Not only is PlantVillage/Dr. Hughes a case of

WP:RS, and his own identity.--Zefr (talk

) 18:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:COI
 we are trying to make knowledge behind paywalls available in the public domain. It is totally congruent with WP

As an editor of the

WP:COI. Neutral editing where PlantVillage is used as a reference would occur if a non-Penn State editor were to independently cite PlantVillage because of its high quality, or if you and your colleagues were to use a different unbiased reference equal in content quality to PlantVillage, as it's unlikely that PlantVillage is the only expert reference to use as a source. --Zefr (talk

) 16:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no violation per WP:OUTING, it merely allows you to use that information to discuss potential COI ("although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing"). Also, surely the COI/BALANCE point disappears if plant village is deemed to be reliable, as long as David P. Hughes doesn't start promoting PlantVillage (e.g. by replacing existing cites with ones to PV, although, of course, someone else can do so)? Likewise, surely there's been no paid editing going on (no promotional tone)? Bromley86 (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

In response to Yobol's original about PlantVillage being user moderated. That is true, but only about the questions. The content of the library is not user contributed. It is taken from sources in our libraries- books, compendia etc

The issue raised There is no indication that the material in question has had any editorial oversight, so it appears to be a self published source (WP:SPS)."

The materials is taken directly from books, compendia etc. Please have a look at the content. It is extensive.

Here is the text from [https://www.plantvillage.com/faq#q1 FAQ PlantVillage) How is PlantVillage different from other forums? PlantVillage is user moderated - contributions can be voted up (or down) based on merit. This has tremendous advantages over standard forums. Most importantly, you don't have to read through all the posts before you get to the best post - high quality content will be voted up by the community, and you'll be able to trust the information that others found reliable. By voting on your contributions, the community assigns a score to your user profile. This will allow the most helpful members of our community to be rewarded with reputation.

Hope this helps. Look forward to reaching a consensus here Dr. David P. Hughes 23:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Users voting on contributions is not the editorial oversight we generally speak of when considering reliability. Yobol (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Users do not vote on the content of the PlantVillage library. That is extensive information on 153 crops and >2,000 taken from the books, compendia (e.g. or example, CABI Crop Protection compendium http://www.cabi.org/cpc/ and the compendia by the American Phytopathological Society (APS) http://www.apsnet.org/apsstore/shopapspress/Pages/Compendia.aspx. )

Users vote on the answers to the question they pose.

There are two components to PlantVillage 1) the library 2) the forum

I am seeking a consensus on the statement that the 'Library at PlantVillage is a reputable source. The evidence 1) It is based only on published work from books, compendia etc. 2) It has been collected from diverse published sources and edited by a person who has a phd on plant biology. The editing is just to remove the dense scientific language that is often a barrier 3) It comes out of a Land Grant school.

Hope this helps. Do keep asking for clarification

146.186.212.201 (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I still see no indication about who the author of the text is, nor what editorial oversight there is on the website. There has been multiple assertions that this website is associated with a university, but I see no indication on the website that there is any official association or editorial oversight by the university. Yobol (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I should note that the typical reliable source for plant science would be something like a published textbook, journal article, or website from an authoritative source. What we have here is a new website that does not indicate who the author of the content is or who has editorial oversight. Can you see why someone would be skeptical of this source? Yobol (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It is very clear. On the about page it says "PlantVillage is a project initiated by Marcel Salathé and David Hughes, both biologists at Penn State University. In addition, Lindsay McMenemy and Brian Lambert are on the PlantVillage team. The project is currently funded by a generous grant from the Huck Institutes of Life Sciences." It provides links to the Huck Insitiutes of Life Sciences which is at Penn State. It also provides links to each of the three academics mentioned (all at Penn State. https://www.plantvillage.com/about?locale=en

it also says

Who is behind PlantVillage? PlantVillage is a project started by Marcel Salathé and David Hughes, both biologists working at Penn State University. In addition, Lindsay McMenemy and Brian Lambert are on the PlantVillage team. The project is currently funded by a generous grant from the Huck Institutes of Life Sciences.

on our FAQ pages https://www.plantvillage.com/about?locale=en Here is a new article by Penn State about PlantVillage http://news.psu.edu/story/330898/2014/10/20/research/plantvillage-solves-crop-problems-democratizing-science-based

hope that helps 146.186.212.201 (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Except that who "initiated the project", "is on the team" or who "funds" the project do not speak to who wrote or has editorial oversight over content, which is the core of how we determine reliability. Yobol (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you think that if we state where the content is drawn from that would be sufficient to establish the source? I really do think that people looking at articles in WP on plant diseases would benefit from the knowledge on PV. Obviously would love other editors to draw content from it too. do please advise Dr. David P. Hughes 23:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that if you used those sources that you know to be reliable (such as textbooks, journal articles, etc) to improve our articles, citing those reliable sources, we can move forward. I think that the goals of the project are admirable, however, I do not see how it can be used here as currently constructed. If multiple high quality sources started using plantvillage.com as a source, that would go a long way to show it has a good reputation for fact checking, which is the core of our

policy on verifiability. If you want to improve our articles, (as opposed to using Wikipedia as a way to advertise the existence of the website), I would suggest using more reliable sources in the interim, until we can establish a consensus that it is reliable. Yobol (talk

) 23:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the material on the site and it does appear to be very nicely put together, but no sources are listed. At the bottom of the Almond page it points to Wikipedia as a useful source -- here we laugh at that, sorry. Pointing to Wikipedia looks like an indication that material has been scraped together from all over the web, as is so often done for spurious publications. The site being called www.plantvillage.com also looks dubious: the sites we trust that come from institutions possibly always have a .org suffix (theplantlist.org; ipni.org, tropicos.org). I realize that listing the sources on the page would involve a lot of work, but I'd suggest that it is essential for credibility. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Sminthopsis84. Glad you liked it. It is no problem if you 'laugh at it". We have not listed the resources as we should have, and just stuck on 'useful resources'. Part of the issue is that our stuff comes from behind paywalls. Which isnt useful. We were discussing this today and we feel we should in fact list exactly the resources it comes from, but delineate which are pay to view and which are not. This conversation has been really helpful to us in helping us better list what things are needed. As I mentioned, I do think PV can be helpful. No problem for the amount of work, we are constantly working on it anyway, and I think this conversation will improve the users' experience.

thanks

146.186.212.201 (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Question: Can we use quotes from this televised interview for the 'Prem Rawat' article? Is it a primary source, or is it upgraded by being broadcasted by an independent public news format like Taiwan Outlook? In this case, can we quote Rawat's attitude toward critics, which he displays in the video around 20:00 ?http://www.ocacmactv.net/mactv_en/video.htm?sid=53570&classid=12--Rainer P. (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Can news articles written by BuzzFeed staff writers be considered a reliable source? The site is extensively used as a Wikipedia source at this time, the site has an identifiable editorial structure and fact-checking processes and has been cited by three major journalism review organizations, noting its fact-checking structure and increased commitment to editorial oversight. The statement in question involves an investigation which revealed that moderators of GamerGate's organizing subreddit (who are not named, but are identified by handle) are also moderators or frequent participants in subreddits that can be charitably described as anti-feminist, misogynist and devoted to promoting the subjugation or degradation of women. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

See [25]. BuzzFeed is not a recommended secondary reliable source.

See [26]. Several editors view it as a propaganda source, meaning one would have to tread carefully in that minefield.

See also several BLP/N discussions - generally determining that BuzzFeed is not a proper RS for any contentious claims about living persons. In short - find better sources since specific living persons are involved. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That first thread is 3 years old so their editorial team and consensus can clearly change. And most of that discussion on

Russia Today regards someone having found a BuzzFeed contributor who was allegedly highly critical of RT and was not whether or not Buzzfeed could qualify as a reliable source.—Ryūlóng (琉竜

) 20:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Also these are the only things at BLPN that refer to Buzzfeed. I'm not sure I see this consensus.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

All the comments from Buzzfeed's EIC and reliable journalism institutions seems to support the idea that over the last two years, but especially around the middle of this year, they've seen a significant increase in their editorial control. The CJR piece linked by North mentions it approvingly, and following their plagiarism scandal in July, their EIC posted this which specifically talks about how they've had to increase their fact checking and attribution processes. There's also these two stories, which while primarily being about newsroom diversity, both mention a much higher standard for "serious journalism" at Buzzfeed.

Seems like a case-by-case basis will probably always be appropriate for Buzzfeed, but I see no reason to dismiss stories outright. If they're written by a staff writer and appear to be well sourced and investigated, they should be reliable. Parabolist (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Kopf, Richard George (July 21, 2014). "A disturbing anecdote about how some in the legal academy treated Professor Chris Fairman when he wrote his serious law review article entitled 'Fuck'". Hercules and the Umpire: The Role of the Federal Trial Judge. Herculesandtheumpire.com. Archived from the original
  on October 31, 2014. Retrieved October 31, 2014.
• About blog = http://herculesandtheumpire.com/the-who-and-why-of-this-blog/
• Wikipedia article page: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties

Is this article by this author on his blog an acceptable source to add to the article Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties ?

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

A source for what? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Info to add to the Wikipedia article about background material and history. — Cirt (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

What specific text are you proposing to cite to this source? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The author would seem to meet the SPS exception, but I'm not sure what the point of it is. The article is not about the book, so I don't see what role it would have in the article on the book. I can see how it could be used in the article on Fairman. Having read the post, I'm not entirely sure what point Kopf is making. He seems to be saying that Fairman was mistreated in some way, but it's clear that there was a serious point being made by those who did not think the Fuck article was important: that it was famous and much-downloaded because it had a rude word in the title, and that's not a real marker of academic impact. Paul B (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to use the above source to add to the Wikipedia article: The reactions to the article among some in the legal scholar community. The fact that it was the most downloaded article that year on the Social Science Research Network. The fact that this article caused its author trouble when he was a candidate for full professor, and that he was given the full professor title in the end. The analysis by the author of the above source of this situation in history. — Cirt (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence provided that it caused "trouble" other than the fact that some scholars who were consulted thought it had more fame than it deserved simply because of the title, and so did not include it in their assessments of Fairman's scholarship. In other words Kopf seems to creating a controversy out of very little. I do think his views are citable, but shouldn't be given too much weight as they appear to be isolated. Paul B (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright, Paul Barlow, that seems like a fair assessment, how would you word an addition? — Cirt (talk) 00:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This seems to have slipped into the archives before it got adressed, so I repeat the question again here .

Question: Can we use quotes from this televised interview for the 'Prem Rawat' article? Is it a primary source, or is it upgraded by being broadcasted by an independent public news format like Taiwan Outlook? In this case, can we quote Rawat's attitude toward critics, which he displays in the video around 20:00 ?http://www.ocacmactv.net/mactv_en/video.htm?sid=53570&classid=12--Rainer P. (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Can news articles written by

They are not reliable sources. Spumuq (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

When in-text citations are used, rs only requires that the source be reliable for what the writer said. There is no question that Press TV is a reliable source for what Press TV said. In this case they said it was censorship by the U.S. media not to report what the Argentinian president said in her address to the the UN. Incidentally do you have any sources that say Press TV's reporting is inaccurate? TFD (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Press TV is a reliable source for the opinions of Press TV properly cited as opinion. Using it as a source for claims of fact in Wikipedia's voice might be a problem, but we gain nothing by convoluted discussions as to whether opinions properly cited as such are "reliably sourced." Collect (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but many sources have opinions, why is it essential for our article to add the opinion of an Iranian website about an Argentine politician, if it is different to what reliable sources say? Spumuq (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The Iranian website interest is about the Jews behind Argentines economic and political troubles in general and the cover up of Irans role in the 1992 bombings of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires and the further 1994 AMIA bombings en detail. Kirchner had installed a joint cangaroo comittee with Iran on that.

talk

) 15:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces, Spumuq, and Cambalachero: Of course the article is not based on Press TV. as I explained before. Just ONE sentence ^[a] is mentioned from this source which is not in form of telling a fact. Is the only problem here really with Press TV only? I wonder why you don't point to many other sources used here! I think I'd better analyze how the sources are used in this article:

• UN News Center, Israel Nation News and Clarin make the 'Content' section.
• The Guardian, Haaretz, Clarin and La Nación are used for 'Reactions'.
• 'Censorship' is made using sources such as;
  Telam
  .

And clearly the lead part is an abstract of the whole, as you know. So, Where's the problem? Mhhossein (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

If a source is not reliable, it would have to be removed anyway, no matter if it's used for the whole article or just a single sentence. And if there are no reliable sources to back that sentence, then we'll have to remove it as well. Cambalachero (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

So, even if the reliability of the two mentioned sources are not proved yet, we can, at most, remove just two sentences! I don't know why Serten is trying to pretend that the whole article is based on this two sources!!! Mhhossein (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me clarify a detail, I had seen the article started by Mhhossein and expanded and fixed it a bit; and then opened a DYK entry because I thought that it would be a recognition for Mhhossein that would keep him around writing articles. I had never heard about Press TV or sleuthjournal, so I would welcome an explanation about the background of those media and why we shouldn't consider them reliable. Cambalachero (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

PressTV is certainly a reliable source for what PressTV says. In this case, the U.S. media ignored comments made by the Argentinian president and Press TV said it was "censorship." I do not agree with them. Americans have little interest in what foreign leaders say, so why report it.

Serten, AFAIK, Press TV news does not present promote conspiracy theories. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) criticized the channel for having anti-Semites as guests on talk shows. The ADL also complained to Fox News Channel about talk show host Glenn Beck inferring that the Jews killed Jesus.[27] Far right spokesmen and conspiracy theorists often appear on talk shows. Nick Griffin has appeared on the BBC. George Lincoln Rockwell appeared on CBC.

TFD (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Better check the

talk

) 19:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article, Press TV "reprinted an opinion piece in its 'Viewpoints' section, first written by M.I. Bhat in Veterans Today, above the disclaimer that The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of Press TV. " CNN has had Orly Taitz, a birther, and various comments from truthers, birthers, and other conspiracy theorists are regularly aired on mainstream U.S. media. Former CNN and Fox News Channel talk show host Glenn Beck routinely presented facts not accepted by the mainstream, like global warming denial, that the founding fathers were fundamentalists, that the NBC building has Marxist art, etc. It does not mean their news broadcasts are unreliable, or do you think it does? TFD (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand the explanations, and I agree. Those are not reliable sources, and must be removed. Cambalachero (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

My point is that a news service, no matter how biased its selection of stories and the opinions it publishes, may be a reliable source for news reporting. The best practice of course is to use the best available sources, which means Press TV would be rarely used. I have not seen any sources that say Press TV fails to accurately report news. But the reliable sources argument is really a red herring, since we are not relying on Press TV for facts. TFD (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Is used on a great many articles as a source (over 2K hits in the Wikipedia search function in articles) and as an "external link".

Is it a reliable source for statements of fact about specific campaign contributions? It is used in a great many campaign articles, and also in BLPs. Is it a reliable source in a BLP for statements of fact about contributions made to or from a living person? Is it a valid "external link" for political articles?

Some editors state that it is a "primary source" and thus can not be used - is that a blanket prohibition by

Cases in point include articles on the Kochs, and just about every major politician it would seem. The questionhere is about whether it can be used as a source on Greg Orman for what appears to be a widely stated comment in reliable sources that he has made political donations. Thanks. Collect (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This seems to have slipped into the archives before it got adressed, so I repeat the question again here.

Question: Can we use quotes from this televised interview for the 'Prem Rawat' article? Is it a primary source, or is it upgraded by being broadcasted by an independent public news format like Taiwan Outlook? In this case, can we quote Rawat's attitude toward critics, which he displays in the video around 20:00 ?http://www.ocacmactv.net/mactv_en/video.htm?sid=53570&classid=12--Rainer P. (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Should

Per NPOV, you cite both. You can cite INDEC and you can cite The Economist with full attribution if these two sources propose opposing views. That is NPOV 101. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Please note that this has been discussed at length before, and that I'm not trying to impose INDEC data to the exclusion of any caveats - on the contrary, I've added most of those caveats myself. If you'll look at the history of Renationalization of YPF, you'll see that he's deleting real news while adding opinion pieces - and had done so REPEATEDLY. I don't think it fits into policy to use opinion pieces from The Economist or anywhere really as primary sources (as Bob likes to do), as they're not proof of anything and least of all on contentious subjects. These are just some examples: here, here, here, here, and here.

Thanks again. Sherlock4000 (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I need not reply to Sherlock4000's comment, since parts of it are clearly false. However, to reply to Cwobeel: The first sentence of WP:NPOV is:

Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

If INDEC isn't a reliable source, then NPOV doesn't require that we treat it as one. I opened this thread on RSN in the hope of getting some other editors' comments on whether INDEC is a reliable source.

Anyway. Going back to the wider dispute, where other sources provide different numbers, I've made some attempts to mention both numbers - which goes above and beyond the requirement of NPOV - and still got reverted.

However, there are other places where mentioning both is impractical; for instance, fields in infoboxes work best with a single number rather than a carefully-worded analysis of conflicting sources, so in that case it may often be better to leave the field blank; and we'd have trouble with tables that compare multiple countries. (I wouldn't want to punish readers by inflicting on them a table which reflected every side of econometric dispute about every country in the world). More generally, in cases where multiple reliable sources say INDEC is wrong, putting undue weight on what INDEC's side of the story would pose an

NPOV

problem.

If article content contradicts what other reliable sources say, our

first step should be to remove the factual error rather than to find a way to retain it; but attempts at removal get reverted too. Usually calling me a vandal. bobrayner (talk

) 00:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course, it's not as broadly unreliable as Bob Rayner is trying to imply, since the controversies regarding same are mostly limited to CPI-related data - NOT regarding import commodities, export commodities, distribution of household income, unemployment rates, etc. Again, it is the official source, and where there have been controversies, I've always taken care to add a note of caveat to each set of INDEC data. An opinion magazine is certainly no substitute. Sherlock4000 (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop misrepresenting your edits. There are plenty of examples where you have presented INDEC's numbers without adding any such "caveat"; for instance, here and here. However, if INDEC isn't a reliable source we shouldn't be presenting its numbers like that at all.

In other news: The Economist is a reliable source. Globalresearch.ca is not (it's been rejected repeatedly at this noticeboard). Yet you and your IPs systematically remove content sourced to the former, and restore content sourced to the latter. Dozens of times. Without adding "caveats" on either of those sources. This should stop. bobrayner (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

At The Principle there is a small dispute about inclusion of a poorly written review from NYC Movie Guru, a website run by Avi Offer with no obvious editorial oversight which looks more like a blog. The reviewer is listed on the Rotten Tomatoes page as a critic however. Should the review be included because RT consider the source a critic? Sam Walton (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It is obviously a reliable source for the writer's opinion. However whether or not that opinion was significant enough to include is a matter of

weight. There are for example a number of critics listed that appear in fringe political publications. That's fine for Rotten Tomatoes, because they represent a small number of critics overall, and therefore have the correct weighting for the aggregate. But that does not mean that the reviews in the World Socialist Web Site should automatically be included articles about every film. TFD (talk

) 17:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I am unconvinced that a minor "documentary" is sufficiently notable under Wikipedia guidelines at this point. I realize some YouTube "documentaries" do have articles on Wikipedia, but that does not persuade me that those "documentaries" should have articles either. We have a lovely Pandora's box once we open the floodgates - and "true believers" in the documentaries always seem to appear. Collect (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• No. Rotten Tomatoes tracks a wide variety of reviewers, and being listed by that website is of no real consequence. I have seen them include user reviews from
  IMDB. Unfortunately, they don't really separate bloggers/forum posters from professional critics, and editor judgment is required when deciding whether a review comes from a reliable source. This one clearly does not. Wikipedia does not track the opinions of self-published bloggers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk
  ) 20:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: I have alerted

WikiProject Film about this discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk

) 20:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I followed the notice here. A film review should be assessed on its own merit. By and large, we want to sample the most authoritative reviews in the Wikipedia article. Film reviews can be less and less authoritative (e.g., less circulation, only web-based, etc), but I think after a certain point, they stop being from reliable sources. Rotten Tomatoes does assess all of them equally under its own criteria (though it groups the most authoritative reviews under "Top Critics"). I don't think this is bad; Rotten Tomatoes scores are commonly referenced by periodicals, which also tend to sample from the most authoritative reviews. NYC Movie Guru is not going to be sampled anytime soon. I think we are better off waiting for more credible reviews to be published and included in the film's Wikipedia article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Anyone can submit reviews to Rotten Tomatoes as far as I am aware, but not all of them are aggregated. RT have set some criteria for aggregation: [28]. If you look at the list of publications that submit reviews you will see NYC Movie Guru is listed but their reviews are not on the list of aggregated publications. Generally my view on this is that if a review counts towards aggregation then it is fair game to be quoted from in our reviews section; if this were not the case we would really have to think twice about including the RT score if we honestly felt the score was being biased by sub-standard reviews. That said, when quoting from reviews I think it is good practice to go with a top critic. Betty Logan (talk) 03:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I would say those marked as "Top Critics" by RT should be included, the rest with discretion and consensus. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a RfC on if we should require a secondary RS as part of the criteria for a list in addition to a clear statement in his or her own words of each living person on the list.

Thought some people here might be interested. --Obsidi (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I have a question on whether a 3-volume series published by Xlibris meets the RS criteria (here is the first volume). The books were written by a Gaetano Cavallaro, an MD but with no formal training as a historian. But according to this, Cavallaro has given lectures on his work at a variety of universities and institutions, to include West Point and he is apparently an "authority on warfare on the Austro-Italian Front". And according to the preface (written by a historian at Boston University) the books were quarried from records from the official Austria, Italian, French, German, and British archives, which I'd think adds some weight to their reliability. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Inconclusive, more research required. As a threshold matter, I think you forgot to mention that

burden of demonstrating verifiability lies with the editor who wishes to include the material. --Dr. Fleischman (talk

) 17:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I figured anyone who comments here regularly would know what Xlibris is - they're not a small company after all. On the contrary, formal training is quite relevant - if his doctorate were in history, we wouldn't be having this discussion. What I came here was for advice whether his apparently extensive personal research into the topic in question qualifies him as an "expert" or not. Parsecboy (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No, expertise is based solely on publication of peer-reviewed or otherwise professionally edited works. A Ph.D. in history would only serve as evidence that Cavallaro was published in that field. (As an aside, famed composer Charles Ives only had a bachelor's degree in music. He later became famous for music he wrote while riding the the commuter rail to his day job as an insurance executive. Amazing, eh?) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Brother / Sisters,

Tamil is one of the longest surviving classical languages in the world. 3,200-year-old Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions have been found on Samanamalai It has been described as "the only language of contemporary India which is recognizably continuous with a classical past."

can you check with the link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_language — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎217.17.237.149 (talk • contribs)

What problems do you have with the sourcing? That's what this board is for, not just repeating article contents. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I have had an interesting claim from an admin concerning the apparent consensus previously on the (policy talk page) that headlines are not actually a part of a reliable source, although some headlines ("Dewey Defeats Truman") are citable as proof of the notable headline.

Now, I'm sure Collect isn't being intentionally dishonest. I'm sure he's not purposefully misrepresenting a clear, unambiguous policy consensus to try to win a content dispute. I'm sure he's not trying to game the system to exclude properly sourced material which happens to be critical of a politically conservative agenda item. I suspect he simply forgot about the existence of this discussion, and its clear consensus that headlines may not be prohibited as reliable sources—even though the discussion happened a month or so ago and he participated heavily in it. Memories are funny like that.

I found to be, in its own way, quite an offensive misinterpretation of the discussion heretofore made.

I suggest adding, in line with what certainly appears to be the prior consensus (which suggested that in some cases, "the headline is the story"):

Headlines of articles, unless notable in themselves, are not an intrinsic part of news articles, or subjected to separate fact-checking, and are only reliable for statements that the headline existed.

I trust this answers the claims that there are to be zero restrictions on using headlines for contentious claims in biographical articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

To quote you: "Forumshopping requires accurate statements of the issue - when you mislead others, you cease being in "good faith" territory." Might it be that there is some misleading here as well?- MrX 13:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You might note that this topic has specifically been discussed on the (policy talk page) quite recently, and thus calling this post "forumshopping" is outré. On the other hand, when one posts a claim on a noticeboard that I only referred to a book as "unpublished" when my edit also had "since published" is, in fact, an inapt wording of a claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There was a very recent, extensive discussion on the topic of headlines

Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources here. In both cases, consensus has been strongly against Collect's proposals. To raise the issue a third time, here, without linking to either discussion, raises a legitimate concern about forum-shopping if not outright gamesmanship. Insofar as anyone cares to opine about the underlying issue, they can follow the links I've provided to a recent completed discussion and a current re-do initiated by Collect. The behavioral issues involved are significant, but outside the scope of this noticeboard. MastCell ^Talk

19:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I made this edit [29] to the Bill of Rights Institute, adding: "BRI hosts a free digital civics course which features material on American history, government, and economics." The source is this piece in the Washington Post [30]. It was removed [31] by another editor who said "COI source is questionable and promotional, see WP:QS, WP:PROMOTION." This seems weird to me. Yes, the author of the piece says he's been involved with the online civics course. But the material is not promotional or contentious. Moreover, there's a notability dispute about the page, so it seems that coverage in the Washington Post would be important to include in the article. Schematica (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The edit itself seems a smidge promotional, but the source is fine, even if COI exists. WaPo is RS and we can only assume the editors vetted the piece before printing and judged the COI to be acceptable. The section you edited has Blogspot as a source, so I'd think WaPo is a step up...

re

}} 19:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Pinging

re

}} 19:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that that is a blog , hosted by Wapo, not wapo itself which changes the analysis somewhat. However, even with the COI/Blog issues taken into account, I do not see this straightforward factual statement as being an issue. They do indeed host such a course. Even the BRI site itself would be sufficient to

WP:PRIMARY, a secondary (albeit a secondary with issues) is icing on the cake). Gaijin42 (talk

) 19:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, it is a blog. Missed that. Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/

re

}} 21:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• There's nothing in our
  WP:BLOGS, and past RSN discussions considering the reliability of Volokh Conspiracy posts bear this out. ([32], [33], [34]
  )
• More importantly in my mind, this isn't just a reliability issue as much as it's a matter of upholding our policy that
  not everything that's verifiable is encyclopedic
  . The trouble is that the source's author, Eugene Volokh, consulted for the project, received an honorarium for it, and has free editorial control over the subject matter of his blog. It seems to me that Volokh is engaging in promotion, which we are propagating by using his blog post as a source, and that his promotional use of his blog is in no way an indication that the digital civics course is sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion. If it is noteworthy there should be independent sources out there.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Its true that VS is considered a group blog (however a fairly well respected one in its own right that at least has the possibility of being a RS on its own one day), however in this case they are also "established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications", which would normally make them a reliable source even if self-published. I don't see a conflict of interest in this case, its true he accepted an consulted for the project at one time and received an honorarium for it, but I don't think that they paid him for this post. The edit isn't phrased in such a way as to be "unduly self-serving" so had the BRI said this directly themselves we could have used it as a
  WP:SELFSOURCE. (we are talking about a free online course that they don't make money off of which is important for the "unduly self-serving" question) As such I don't think there is a conflict of interest that exists here.--Obsidi (talk
  ) 00:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

This isn't subject matter that requires expertise, it's a factual question of whether BRI is hosting an online civics course, so the expert exception to

WP:QS and the links it points to. Volokh has a personal interest in promoting the project, so there's a COI, end of story (in my view). --Dr. Fleischman (talk

) 18:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY of just going to the website and seeing the course offered. Thats done for almost every article on every corporation and educational institution to verify basic non-extraordinary details about themselves. We aren't going to apply a different standard for this one case. The fact that volk has commented on it is a bonus and the information being included in the article does not hinge on it.. WP:ABOUSELF Gaijin42 (talk

) 20:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Then the article should cite the website itself. I don't have a problem with that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it: there's a note at the top of the article saying "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral." So I attempt to add a source not published by the group, and it's removed and replaced with a citation to the group's own website. I thought we were looking for more external sources, not less. Why not just source everything to the group's own website, then? When we have coverage available in the WaPo, and the notability & neutrality of the article are in question, it seems it would make sense to include the source rather than just keep citing the group's own website. Schematica (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

This seems to slip into the archives before it got adressed every time it is posted, what is this? Have I missed something? So I repeat the question again here.

Question: Can we use quotes from this televised interview for the 'Prem Rawat' article? Is it a primary source, or is it upgraded by being broadcasted by an independent public news format like Taiwan Outlook? In this case, can we quote Rawat's attitude toward critics, which he displays in the video around 20:00 ?http://www.ocacmactv.net/mactv_en/video.htm?sid=53570&classid=12--Rainer P. (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Primary. Certainly no problem with using it for direct quotes. I can't see a problem with using it to represent his opinions, as long as there's no controversial wording or interpretation. Bromley86 (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me obvious, but an editor disagree with it saying "RS question should be about the reliability of the source cited source, and not extend citation-by-citation to questioning the reliability of sources from which the source cited drew information." I am not saying the whole part of the reliable source is unreliable but the portion citing an unreliable source is unreliable. See the detailed discussion at Talk:Prostitution in South Korea#Reverted removal of the Japanese sex tourists in South Korea section―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Not nearly so obvious. For one thing, we don't hold our sources to the same standards we hold our articles - for example, if a wikipedian were to write "I was there on the scene and X happened", that's blatantly unreliable, but if a book or newspaper article were to write exactly the same thing, that's perfectly reliable. We let our reliable sources use their rules, not ours, and we do not automatically override them because Wikipedia automatically discounts blogs.

In addition, there is an additional link in the chain back to a reliable source that you're missing. http://www.ecpat.net/sites/default/files/exsum_a4a_eap_south_korea.pdf, which is from

ECPAT, a reasonably reputable NGO, is citing http://www.rjkoehler.com/2009/12/15/korea-still-prostitution-paradise-japanese-internet/ - a blog - but that article itself is citing http://www.munhwa.com/news/view.html?no=2009121401030827216006&w=nv which is Munhwa Ilbo, a 24 year old Korean daily newspaper, which is again sufficiently reliable by our standards. I think in this particular case this particular source meets our standards for reliability. --GRuban (talk

) 19:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I would like to confirm an important general point, not specific to this case. Wtmitchell says that if a cited source by Wikipedia is reliable, a description in the source is reliable even if the description is based on an unreliable source: "RS question should be about the reliability of the source cited source, and not extend citation-by-citation to questioning the reliability of sources from which the source cited drew information." He says the reliability of Munhwa.com is "All off that is just incidental". What do you think this idea?

In this case, I concluded that even if Munhwa.com is reliable, the article doesn't support the claim because it says nothing about the child sex.20:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix7777 (talk • contribs)

That's a different point. While I agree we shouldn't question the reliability of every step in the chain, that's not to say that we should perpetuate obvious errors; even reliable sources do make errors. Yes, I would see if we could find a better source for this edit, because you are right, we don't see the word "child" in either Munhwa Ilbo or rjkoehler, and it does seem to be a rather important point. I did a quick search for korean child sex tourism, and found a lot about Korean men visiting other countries for it, and nothing about Japanese men visiting Korea for it. It would be a shame if we would be perpetuating a clerical error in the ECPAT report. --GRuban (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was not trying to make a point saying (quoting above) "if a cited source by Wikipedia is reliable, a description in the source is reliable even if the description is based on an unreliable source". The point I was trying to make is that a source which draws some of its information from a blog is not thereby rendered unreliable. In particular, in the case at issue here, this source is not rendered unreliable by its citing of a blog as one of its sources of information in its note number 14. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

We should not second guess reliable sources and of course some sources, i.e., tertiary sources, provide no citations. Writers of reliable sources are able to weigh sources, including ones that do not meet rs for Wikipedia articles. What a reporter actually saw is one example. However, one must distinguish between when a secondary source is using one of these sources to support a statement of fact and when it is being used as an example. Frequently articles will quote witnesses, but that does not mean what the witnesses said was reliable. It may even be contradictory. TFD (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Can a description with a citation in a source be used in Wikipedia, if the description is not supported by the citation?

I summarized the current dispute below. This dispute began as a reliability issue but now became a verifiability issue.

A description (South Korea remains a major destination for travelling Japanese men who exploit children through prostitution.) is written in a source (ECPAT report) with a citation (a blog which is a translation of Munhwa.com). However the citation (Munhwa.com) discusses nothing about the child prostitution at all. An editor insists to use the description just because the source (ECPAT) is reliable, totally ignoring the description is not supported by the citation (Munhwa.com). ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

A ECPAT report is not a Wikipedia article. ECPAT would have their own policy as to how the citations are used in their publications; and any given citation is by no mean the only source for reaching certain conclusion in their reports. STSC (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough; you're saying that the sentence South Korea remains a major destination for travelling Japanese men who exploit children through child prostitution contains 2 elements: (a) that Japanese men travel to South Korea for sex and (b) that some of these have sex with children in South Korea. That their cite only confirms the first part does not mean that ECPAT don't have another, uncited, source for the second part.

The problem I have is that this is the only source that I've been able to find for this statement. I've seen plenty about Japanese (and Koreans) going to poorer countries for sex with children, but nothing about Japanese going to South Korea for it. Given that there is a question regarding the veracity of the ECPAT report on this point, we should confirm before inclusion. Also, surely if it was notable we'd see it reported elsewhere (which would fix the problem)? Bromley86 (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The ECPAT as a reliable source has reached that conclusion with their own findings, and we would include their conclusion in the article unless there are other reliable sources challenging its finding. And the burden of proof (to prove that they are wrong) is on you. Besides, South Korea is much nearer to Japan, why wouldn't Japanese men go there for child sex? STSC (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You're asking me to prove a negative; it's highly unlikely that I'm going to find a source that says, "Japanese men, whilst responsible for a lot of the demand for child sex in South East Asia, are not a real problem in South Korea." I've searched fairly extensively and not found that statement; more importantly, I've not found a single statement, other than this ECPAT one, that Japanese men are engaged in a significant level of child sex tourism to South Korea. The best I can do is point to the ECPAT report on Japan (the one on South Korea, that mentions once Japanese men, devotes a far larger space to what Korean men are up to; logically, then, we might expect to see a similar section on what Japanese men are up to in the Japan Global Monitoring report).[35] There is, on p.12, and it talks of Cambodia, Philippines & Thailand. No mention of South Korea.

I'm involved in a similar discussion elsewhere, but on the other side. In that case though, there are plenty of reliable sources that confirm the statement. In this case, there's one and there's reason to doubt it (footnote does not support statement).

As to why a Japanese man looking for child sex would choose to go to a country further afield than South Korea, I wouldn't know. Presumably because it's cheaper and more easily available? Certainly, the US 2014 Trafficking in Persons Report indicates that that is the case, "Japan serves as a source of demand for child sex tourism, with Japanese men traveling and engaging in commercial sexual exploitation of children in other Asian countries—particularly Thailand, Indonesia, Cambodia, the Philippines, and, to a lesser extent, Mongolia."[36] No mention of South Korea there, despite its proximity. Bromley86 (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't you find the answer in the ECPAT report itself? It says, "The absence of criminal provisions on child sex tourism in South Korea provides a major impediment in combating the problems." STSC (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion, attribute the statement to the source than, unless it can be verified as fact, and not a conclusion made by a source, don't write it as fact, write it says X says Y(inlince citation to X source).

ECPAT

is an organization, just like CATO Institute, Heritage Foundation, Brookings Institution.

Are there other sources that make this claim?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

any opinions about pingmag? (specifically this article http://pingmag.jp/2007/09/05/cosplay-girl/ for use in Fursuit) a prominent link on the page points to Write for us! and this article is The by-line is Written by Chiemi. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Appears to fall under

WP:SPS, useful for citing opinions, but not facts.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk

) 20:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Articles of this website, tellychakkar.com (such as this and this), are used as reliable sources in many Wikipedia articles related to the Indian television. One such article is

Avoided using it as citation before, and I would still do. It is not reliable because it is good for gossips, not very much for televisions shows or television actors. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)revisedBladesmulti (talk)

@

Washington Post would cringe when reading similarly accepted sources from India. Is your preference to ignore all Indian sources that use the flowery hyperbole and braggadocious tone prevalent throughout their media... even those with editorial oversight and a reputation for (flowery) accuracy? My own thought is that if we do cite anything to such sources, we make the great effort to neutralize what is being paraphrased and give proper attribution. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}

19:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

tellychakkar is the media wing of a PR firm "About us: Apart from conceiving and executing promotional campaigns targeted at the Media, Marketing & Television Trade online, it also offers similar services offline, thus providing clients with a 360 degree media service and marketing solution. " it is not a reliable source for anything. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

User:MichaelQSchmidt I agree and I would also suggest that if any sort of information is direct violation of BLP or it seems to be gossip, we happen to disacknowledge many reliable citations. I think it is great if you can find same information from any other citation/website. I wouldn't support any blanket removal of this link, but if it could be replaced with another reliable citation, it would definitely work. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's not get off track... as

WP:RS tells us that RS may be determined though who is writing, and not just where his writings are published. So looking beyond tellychakkar's for-profit sidelines, we examine its Editor-in-chief Anil Wanvari, reporter: Kavita Yadav, sub editor Srividya Rajesh, and other editorial staff to determine qualifications and expertise. Not focusing on one cherry-picked sentence from their more informative "About us" page, or speculating on gossipy tone, or judging it over its puffy articles, Tamravidhir's base question boils down to a simple "is it okay for TV rating data?" I would say yes, for that data. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}

04:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. Your proof about their editorial credibility is indeed convincing. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@

WP:QUESTIONABLE. If they are rejected then Indian television related articles will be devoid of any reliable sources. And can't we use Tellychakkar for other informations such as premiers, integration episodes, shooting, production and making? Tamravidhir (talk!

) 08:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

tellychakkar.com deals in gossip, rumor, hype and "scandal". The number of reliable sources covering the India entertainment industry are really quite limited but that doesn't mean a gossip site can be used as a reliable source. Aryan.for.you (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Aryan.for.you: By you comment it seems that you have expressed what tellychakkar seems to you. Do you have any proof (evidence) to support your claim, Aryan? Tamravidhir (talk!) 09:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

we have proof from their "about us" page that they are a PR marketing firm. thats all we need. their concern is promoting their clients not accuracy and fact checking. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: But that one sentence no way makes it an unreliable source on Wikipedia, right? Wikipedia does not say that if a source qualifies all the criteria of a RS but it's "About us" page says something else them it's unreliable. Tamravidhir (talk!) 14:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

To be a reliable source the three prongs must be met. Anything published by tellychakkar is failing the prong that the publisher has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy because BY DEFINITION a PR Marketing firm as the publisher does NOT meet that criteria. Their sole responsibility is to get out information about their clients. In addition, as a PR firm they are not independent from their clients and so even under SPS they would not be allowed as a source for anything unduly self promotional- when you are talking entertainment industry, pretty much everything falls under the umbrella of promotional.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom, What they are publishing is the second part. First it is not a entertaiment news site, it's a PR marketing firm which doesn't qualify for reliable source. Aryan.for.you (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@

WP:BLUD the discussion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}

18:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

if "focusing on the one sentence" where they declare themselves to be a PR firm is insufficient reason to exclude them (and its not, its prima facia why we should exclude them) we can then focus on another sentence "The exclusive peppery online destination for the hottest news on TV shows and movies, tete-a-tetes with TV and Bollywood stars, spicy gossips and much more." which even if they were NOT a PR firm would ALSO be sufficient in and of itself to identify them as a tabloid gossip machine that is unacceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Their admitting inclusion of some gossip does not denigrate the entire site, nor its editorial staff nor its interviews nor its harder news articles. As even

bloggers

have articles within WIkipedia and can be used to cite articles.

Lest it be forgotten, the original question waaay above dealt only with the site's suitability for TV ratings data. And as the ratings data are not controversial nor unduly self-serving, I believe the sources as offered can remain until replaced by others. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Lest it be forgotten that as a PR firm, pimping the ratings for your client or showing that your clients competitors are weak are standard tactics and clearly make a PR firm unsuitable source for such information. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to bring in notice the recent tv rating figures which was manipulated. The week 38 (2014) Comedy Nights With Kapil TV ratings on [[39]] and [[40]] is 4.0 which is correct but on Telly Chakkar it was 6.2 ratings and this sites have followed it [[41]],[[42]] and then Telly Chakkar has deleted the entire rating page of week 38 (2014). Similar incident happened in week 43 (2014) also and Telly Chakkar has deleted the page again. Both the said week ratings are not available now on Telly Chakkar at present. Even in their all available rating page like this and this its mentioned "(PS-As per data provided by TAM Subscriber)" which indicates ratings are provided by subcribers not TAM India directly then How can Telly Chakkar can be added has reliable source for TV ratings also? Aryan.for.you (talk) 03:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Aside from this one showing tellychakkar as one of

these others do not vet their informations... not tellychakkar. I suppose each of these others should be taken to WP:RSN themselves, and lacking discernible editorial oversight will do poorly. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}

10:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@MichaelQSchmidt, Aryan.for.you, and TheRedPenOfDoom: I don't know what you are talking. I don't understand what you are talking. i don't understand where this discussion is going. Seems to me as a battlefield. I see no tellychakkar in the sites mentioned by Aryan and I Michael I didn't understand a bit of what you mentioned on my talk page. I don't know. I don't know. I don't want this to take a toll on my real life. I have much to do than this stuff. I just do this for self satisfaction and to make Wikipedia better but then someone comes and says don't do this and don't do that even if I know I may be wrong. Showing power? Showing authority? What does psychology say me? Let me think. Uuh! Maybe.What will happen one day? I will die no one will see edits from this account anymore. And probably know one will know the face behind this mask. Anyway. Am I lonely? Am I sad? Am I disturbed? Who cares about asking that! Anyway. I don't know. I'm bad. I'm terrible. And you have to be. You can't smile away if someone slaps you and passes by. This discussion is going nowhere. I don't understand anything. My one question to all of the editors of Wikipedia who have commented here, or have read this or are reading this is that just because tellychakkar does a certain kind of job or provides certain kind of services it becomes an unreliable source? It fulfills all the criteria of a reliable source then why not? Tamravidhir (talk!) 13:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

My discussion entirely: Does the media wing of a PR Firm meet the reliable source criteria of fact checking, accuracy and having editorial oversight? No, their motives are to promote their clients. Under SPS, there might be some very limited uses, but I cannot actually think of any. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Then I feel that you aren't comfortable using the source personally. But now even if I agree that it is a wing of a PR firm" then tellychakkar still appears to meet all the RS criteria. And thus this question should be directed not just to you but to the entire Wikipedia community. Tamravidhir (talk!) 13:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tamravidhir: lets make it simple. Does the source (this and this) added by you says the ratings are accurate?, Do Telly Chakkar claims its official ratings provided by TAM India to them? No. Its says "(PS-As per data provided by TAM Subscriber)" which means ratings are provided by TAM Subscriber to them. TAM Subscribers are TV channels, TV shows producers, Ad agencies, Media etc. So ratings provided by any of Subscribers cannot be measure as accurate thats why Telly Chakkar has itself mention on each page that data are from TAM Subscribers instead of TAM Media Research. Aryan.for.you (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Aryan.for.you: If it says that the ratings have been provided by TAM then it's very good. And you are yourself contradicting your points. I would like to bring it to your notice that TAM Media Research is one of the only two television audience measurement analysis firms of India. And its more authentic because it was appointed by the Indian Society of Advertisers (ISA), the Indian Broadcast Foundation (IBF) and also the Advertising Agencies Association of India (AAAI) in 1998. Then? Now, please don't say that IBF is unreliable! Tamravidhir (talk!) 15:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

OH you are going from where to where without getting my points. I am not saying ratings provided by TAM is unreliable, I am saying ratings published on Telly Chakkar cannot be measured as accurate. If it says it's from TAM then its official TAM India ratings but its saying TAM Subscriber that's makes the differences. This type of tricky line is used by the media wing of a PR Firm to manipulate ratings according to the clients without facing legal troubles. They have done it in week 38 (2014) and deleted the complete page and same repeated in week 43 (2014). Try to find out the ratings of week 38 and week 43 you won't get it because it is deleted. There is a difference in "provided by TAM" and "provided by TAM Subscribers". Aryan.for.you (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Aryan.for.you:Aren't over interpreting Tellychakkar!? :/ And I had already mentioned above that Tellychakkar at times shares the articles published by Times of India and other newspapers and Times of India and few other regularly get updates from TAm so it is possible that Tellychakkar might have got it from some other source. Not only is this is a hypothesis but so is yours. we are assuming everything. Everything's being deduced. there's nothing concrete which is now needed. Tamravidhir (talk!) 16:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't have to "interpret " anything. Tellychakkar have positioned themselves as a PR Marketing firm. Therefore NOTHING they say about anyone who may be a client or may be a competitor to one of their clients is in any way acceptable as "reliable" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: I would like to repeat what I said earlier - "Just because Tellychakkar does a certain kind of job or provides certain kind of services it becomes an unreliable source? It fulfills all the criteria of a reliable source then why not?" Tamravidhir (talk!) 16:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

As a PR firm it CANNOT fulfull

WP:RS criteria. You cannot make apple sauce from oranges. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

17:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Please could you pinpoint where does it say so? I couldn't find it. Tamravidhir (talk!) 17:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

do you not understand what a PR marketing firm does and why that is inherently oppositional to requirements for being accurate, fact checking and having editorial oversight? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: I repeat again - Tellychakkar fulfills all the WP:RS criteria. So just because it does a certain kind of job or provides certain kind of services it becomes an unreliable source? Tamravidhir (talk!) 17:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

YES "just because it does a certain kind of job or provides certain kind of services it becomes an unreliable source". A reliable source is one that has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. PR FIRM's by their very nature do not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy - quite the opposite. They have a reputation for saying and doing ANYTHING that will promote their client or demote their client's competitors. What is so hard for you to understand about that? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tamravidhir:Got it.. Check the proof (evidence). See the difference in the ratings of Comedy Nights with Kapil in the week 38, 2014 Indian Television and Telly Chakkar. TV ratings of Comedy Nights with Kapil was added higher than what it achieved (6.2 from 6.5 in week 37 instead of 4.0 from 6.0). Telly Chakkar always publish higher ratings for their clients. This is why PR Marketing firm cannot be used as a source because it's not a reliable. This is the difference in "provided by TAM" and "provided by TAM Subscribers". Aryan.for.you (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm out. Why? 1) TRPOD's repeated
  WP:STICK. Have fun all, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}
  21:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@MichaelQSchmidt: What does it means by new user? I have seen it repeatly used by you in the discussion, does it lowers the value of discussion? Coming to point I have added 1 evidence of how PR Marketing firms works to support my claims. This was not the first time, It has been repeatly done by them. I don't know whether you are aware of how PR media marketing firm works. If there are no other source available for it that doesn't means a PR firms can be used has a reliable source. I still disagree in supporting Telly Chakkar has a reliable source for anything. Aryan.for.you (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Unreliable: I agree with TRPoD without reservation. PR firms' publications are inherently unreliable. PR firms put their clients' first, i.e. ahead of the truth. That is their job. If it wasn't they'd be out of business. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

* @MichaelQSchmidt, Aryan.for.you, and TheRedPenOfDoom: I still couldn't understand why a website can't be unreliable even if it fulfills all the criteria just because it does a certain job. I still couldn't understand the comparison made by Aryan as the Indian television website provides the ratings in TVTs while Tellychakkar has provided the ratings in the form of TRPs and apart from this the ratings given by Indian television are not in points as mentioned by Aryan. I still don't understand anything. But I'm leaving this discussion so that other editors might be able to put forward their opinions and research. But I still couldn't understand anything and due to this I would find it better to leave this discussion. I would like other editors to comment and give their opinions. As of yet I feel that no proper consensus has been achieved. But that's my perception. And I would not dare to generalise it. And Aryan I guess that Michael called you a "new editor" as compared to him, myself, and TRPoD, you are relatively new. He didn't say so to belittle or demean you. We were all once "new editors" and I'm proud to say that I am still a new editor as I have a lot to learn yet. I have lot to know. I have lot to understand. Tamravidhir (talk!) 14:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be asking "why cannot we treat an apple tree as if it were an orange tree? They are both trees." We do not care if they are trees. We care whether they are giving apples or giving oranges. PR firms are by their very nature paid to promote their clients / denigrate their client's competition -creating oranges. They have NO reputation for what we need in a "reliable source" ie actually being a source for reliable information -creating apples. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

burden of the person attempting to add or restore content to establish the reliability of the supporting sources. This means that if no consensus is reached then the material should generally be excluded. --Dr. Fleischman (talk

) 17:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no particular opinion on Universe Today. But "no publication" is wrong (or unclear) - the website is a publication. And "no commercial nature" is wrong as well - I see plenty of ads on that web page. The important question is if it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and if there is editorial oversight. The user comments are certainly not RS, but the posted stories may well be at least as reliable as your standard newspaper "science" section. What is it used for? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably unsuitable. No matter what it calls itself, or the fact that the site has advertising,

WP:USEBYOTHERS should it be determined. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}

03:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Has entirely unreliable sources, some don't even refer to figures at all. In fact the page is being used as an attempt to reify those figures to which the page is suppose to refer. Chief offenders are of course non account holders. I put a deletion notice on this article which was removed with no discussion. I have been watching this page for more than a year, and the figures quoted have changed in the list in an extreme escalating fashion (factor of more than 10 in one case with no change in reference!), so we can safely assume representatives of at least some of the film's are using the article to plump up perception of their products performance. A quick check would reveal a lot to an experienced editor. As I do not know how to proceed, I would like at least some advice on this article which I consider to be quite pernicious and damaging to a fragile industry that needs sources like this to be beyond this kind of manipulation which is rampant elsewhere. PakArtPatrol (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Aren't the normal Wikipedia mechanisms adequate? If the sources are not reliable then you can delete them and tag the figures with {{cn}}. If the sources are reliable then the figures given should agree with the sources. If not, they should again get a citation needed tag. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

In the early 1980s the Dalai Lama restricted reliance on Dorje Shugden to private rather than public practice. The tension this caused within the Gelug and wider Tibetan community may reflect some opposition to his ecumenical approach. ^[1]

http://books.google.com/books/about/Buddhism_in_Bath.html?id=oK8_AAAACAAJ Helen Waterhouse from University of Leeds, Department of Theology and Religious Studies

"in spite of his predecessor the Thirteenth Dalai Lama having banned the practice, commenced during negotiations between Tibet and China prior to the 1959 Chinese takeover. The Dalai Lama’s reason for first consulting with Dorje Shugdan was his need to decide between two courses of action and the absence at that time of the oracles with which he would normally consult in order to access wisdom beyond the human realms."

Both quotes are to give some context in regards to the Dorje Shugden Controversy. The reason they were deleted is because the authors/texts were deemed not sufficient enough for this topic, that their books don't talk about more of Buddhism/that their focus is narrow, and that they had been criticized for being critical of the Dalai Lama. Thoughts? Prasangika37 (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm doing this, but...is this Los Angeles Times article a reliable source for purposes of stating in Wikipedia's voice that the event described was a rally against same-sex marriage? This seems obvious to me, but other editors at

The article appears to have undergone a few revision since this inquiry was posted, however, it appears you posted after this edit by you. The question appears to be whether the article should state:

Cordileone took part as a featured speaker in the June 2014 March for Marriage in Washington DC, a rally against same-sex marriage.[52] Catholic and conservative press described it as a march for traditional marriage.[53] [54]

...or...

Cordileone took part as a featured speaker in the June 2014 March for Marriage in Washington DC. Catholic and conservative press described it as a march for traditional marriage,[55] [56] others as a rally against same-sex marriage.[57]

I happen to agree with the first version, but I prefer the second version as it appears to be more neutral. There is a bit of a double standard in allowing the Los Angeles Times (viewed by many to have a liberal bias) to be the voice of Wikipedia while alluding to The Washington Times citation as "conservative press". When in doubt, attribute the source. -

Location (talk

) 16:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see evidence that the LA Times is known as having a liberal bias. The failure to have a strong conservative bias is not a liberal bias. On the other side, the Washington Times is known not only for having a conservative bias but for having a conservative agenda. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Prefer the second, and it's not a matter of bias; if we have reliable sources saying two different things, we don't pick and choose, we say both, and attribute each. We don't have to decide who is and isn't biased. --GRuban (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The LA Times is certainly well known as having a liberal viewpoint [58] (Although there were rumors for a while that the Kochs were trying to buy it which certainly would have shaken things up), but regardless GRuban is correct. The second is more neutral and is practically required by

WP:NPOV) However, I would say even further, we should not be saying "conservative press" vs "others" and just name the sources directly. Gaijin42 (talk

) 20:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

[Edit conflict. Responding to GRuban, but it looks like Gaijin42 made the same points citing the same study.] Agreed. I think the point alluded to was that one source was unbiased and therefore reliable for a statement of fact (i.e. Wikipedia's voice) but that the other was biased and therefore only reliable for a statement of opinion. On this point, there is one study (Google "A Measure of Media Bias") that shows The Washington Times closer to the center than the LA Times.[59] Inserting "conservative press" rather than "The Washington Times" also appears to be a bit of editorializing on our part that could be used to lead the reader. -

Location (talk

) 20:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the question is less "did this thing happen" and more "what's the appropriate language to use to describe it." These other users at the article seem determined to show same-sex marriage as a POV term that can only be someone's "description" because it's not actually real marriage (if you look at the article history there are other recent attempts to remove references to the person's opposition to same-sex marriage). But this doesn't reflect the journalistic or academic standards of reliable sources and it doesn't reflect usage on Wikipedia. If a source has a known or stated agenda, we might (or might not) decide they're reliable for facts, but can and should question their use of language, especially when it diverges from the language used in proper sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, it appears as though you are stating that the LA Times is a proper source but The Washington Times isn't. Three uninvolved editors have suggested attributing each source. Why ask for input if you're really not interested in it? -

Location (talk

) 16:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

In response to an indication courteously given yesterday on the article's talk page of the existence of this discussion, I added, late in the day for me, the consideration under the heading "The problem" below. I now add here that the view expressed by Location, GRuban, and Gaijin42 respects Wikipedia's NPOV pillar, Roscelese's does not. As Location said, "when in doubt, attribute the source". Esoglou (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

LA Times legitimately journalistic WashTimes is like FOx News

Aside from any specifics in this particular instance, in which the hair splitting is being carried to a fine art, I feel that it is important to refute a fallacy in the above argument. It is really an "equal weight" fallacy to equate WT and LAT as somehow equally biased. They are not. I am not saying WT is never RS for anything but it has been a right wing hit piece screed sheet from the git go and the Times is one of the dwindling breed of fine American newspapers. Anyone who does not see this needs to lay off the Fox News and Michele Malkin and Rush Limbaugh IMHO. And I am very "right wing" in some ways on some issues, but I can distinguish news from editorial slant.Wikidgood (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2014

This has no basis here IMHO, this noticeboard is to evaluate articles against

WP:BIASED. Statements like the one above lead to criticism of Wikipedia and work against the pillar of neutrality IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk

) 20:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Articles in the LA Times are more often reliable, and more reliable, than the Washington Times to be sure, with Fox News falling somewhere in between — though it is neither a binary question or one of scale. If the Washington Times or Fox News report that it rained in Virginia or that a restaurant has become popular, they are usually reliable for that. When evaluating whether a source is reliable and how much weight it carries you have to look at the specific article, who wrote it, and how it relates to the subject. When reporting on politically charged subjects in which the Times is advocating, it is rarely reliable. Regardless, this particular issue appears to be a question of terminology, not of sourcing. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem

Is it appropriate for Wikipedia, dealing with the disputed matter of the 2014 Washington March for Marriage, to present one view as fact, rather than as "the general view" or some such phrase? Citing a single newspaper, Wikipedia at present states that the March was a rally "against same-sex marriage". Afterwards, it mentions that two classes of sources hold a different view, and that the person who is the subject of this article denies outright what Wikipedia in its voice and without qualification presents as simple fact; but by presenting a different view as fact, Wikipedia (again in its own voice) implicitly declares these other ideas incorrect. Is this acceptable? Esoglou (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Insofar as I can follow your post, I think you're asking the wrong question. This isn't really a reliable-sources question. It's a terminology question: do we use "same-sex marriage", "traditional marriage", or both? The term "same-sex marriage" is in widespread use by independent, non-partisan reliable sources. In contrast, the term "traditional marriage" is used largely or solely by socially conservative sources. Therefore, I think Wikipedia should use the former term rather than the latter. "Same-sex marriage" also has the advantage of being clear and comprehensible. In contrast, "traditional marriage" is a vague, unclear term for those of us not steeped in the partisan sources where it's generally used. After all, in Western society marriage was "traditionally" arranged by the parents of teenagers without their input or consent, or in exchange for a dowry of livestock. In other cultures, "traditional marriage" may involve polygamy or child brides. Presumably these are not the sorts of "traditional" marriage at issue here, but all the more reason to use the more precise and less culturally-restricted term in what is, after all, meant to be a global encyclopedia. MastCell ^Talk 19:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

There was a march. (fact). Group A says it was "anti-same-sex-marriage" (opinion). Group B says it was to promote "traditional marriage". (also opinion) (Or to promote their interpretation of/what they say is traditional marriage - but that might get into synth). Its not terminology. Its accepting one opinion as wiki's voice vs two opinions as their own voice. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Esoglu it would be helpful if you would clarify as requested above: Insofar as I can follow your post, I think you're asking the wrong question. This isn't really a reliable-sources question. It's a terminology question: do we use "same-sex marriage", "traditional marriage", or both?

Is that what you are getting at here?Wikidgood (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

What I put here was something I was preparing for insertion on the article's talk page, not for here. I was trying to make it as non-confrontational as possible, the reason too why I was making no reference to the 3RR violation by the editor who was repeatedly presenting one possible interpretation as plain fact. In the context for which it was intended, it would have been clearer, and there would have been no danger that "traditional marriage" would be interpreted as you interpreted it. Unlike me, Gaijin42 expressed the problem with perfect clarity. Esoglou (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It is my opinion that

WP:NEU.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk

) 20:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The terms in question are "against same-sex marriage" and "in support of traditional marriage". They are both equally weighted political shibboleths used by opposing sides in the current culture wars. The question is that the detractors of MFM describe it as the former, and the supporters describe it as the latter. I have personally offered plenty of

WP:BIASED. Elizium23 (talk

) 02:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I question the understanding of

WP:NPOV; it is misguided, and against policy, to adopt a he-said-she-said, false-balance approach here. (The opposing partisan/POV term to "traditional marriage" would be "marriage equality", not 'same-sex marriage"). Finally, any argument which relies upon the premise that reputable media outlets have a pervasive, nefarious anti-Catholic bias is ridiculous and is going to be ignored, at least by me. MastCell ^Talk

21:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Nobody here has questioned the legitimacy of using the expression "same-sex marriage"; the somewhat off-topic comment about a supposed anti-Catholic bias in certain media was made in relation to a characterization of Catholic media as biased. The question was and is whether the cited sources justify presenting, in Wikipedia's voice, one account ("the 2014 Washington March for Marriage was a rally against same-sex marriage", i.e., against the introduction of same-sex marriage in the US) as objective fact, while presenting another account ("the 2014 Washington March for Marriage was a rally to defend traditional marriage", i.e., to keep marriage as traditionally understood in the US") as no more than an opinion held by Catholics and conservatives. Surely, both accounts could and should be presented either as objective descriptions of the March or as subjective interpretations of it, not in this lopsided fashion. Isn't that what the cited sources support? Esoglou (talk) 11:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I think we're talking past each other. "...a rally against same-sex marriage" and "... a rally to defend traditional marriage" are both statements of fact. They're semantically equivalent. Neither one is a statement of opinion. They simply choose different terms to describe factually the aims of the rally. This is where Wikipedia policy comes in: the term "same-sex marriage" is neutral and widely used in reliable sources, whereas the term "defending traditional marriage" is restricted to lower-quality, partisan sources. Therefore, of the two factual descriptions of the rally's aims, we should choose "... a rally against same-sex marriage". That's my outside input. Now I think you should wait for other outside input, since I've said my piece and we've gone around in circles more than enough. MastCell ^Talk 17:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

But why are the sources low-quality for merely expressing a different viewpoint? Why is the corollary true, that the other sources are high-quality and less biased, more neutral? I contend that the so-called high-quality neutral sources are nothing of the sort. Furthermore, they describe two different activities. Opposing same-sex marriage is a currently popular political activity. Defending and promoting traditional marriage is something that has been done for thousands of years by Church and State alike, long before the question of redefining it ever came on the scene. Defending and promoting traditional marriage is a more comprehensive activity, and it is this activity that Archbishop Cordileone has been commissioned to do by the USCCB, and it is this activity that defines and describes his career, not "opposing same-sex marriage". Elizium23 (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

MastCell, there has already been outside input, none of it on your lines. Your latest declaration demands an answer. What you call statements of fact are statements of opinion. At least the first is. The term "same-sex marriage" expresses an opinion that the arrangement is indeed a marriage, a claim that does not have 100% assent. Though not neutral, it is widely used, because its meaning is universally recognized, but recognized as an expression of opinion, not as an undisputed description of objective fact. In the US context, which is the context of discussion of the 2014 Washington March for Marriage, the term "traditional marriage" is not at all as much an expression of opinion. Only if viewed as implying rejection of interpretations of "marriage" as encompassing non-traditional forms does it become in that context an expression of opinion, . Esoglou (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking at this fresh, it appears to have been an anti-gay marriage rally, not a rally that broadly supports marriage, and reported by most of the sources as such. The prevailing term for that is same sex marriage. If the organizations supporting the rally want to cloak that in a justification that they are supporting marriage just not the gay kind, and press with conservative agendas want to use self serving euphemisms like pro-family, traditional marriage, traditional values, etc., we don't need to get caught up in that. If this is just a dispute over terminology that should be the long and short of it. If there is a question of just what the rally was about, then we have to look for more sources. The sources always differ slightly, it's our job as editors to distill them. Pointing out that different sources say different things is a cop out, and not encyclopedic, unless the fact that the sources disagree is itself part of the notability of the subject matter. The fact that sources characterize the march differently is of no biographical relevance to the religious leader in question. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Nobody doubts, Wikidemon, that "same-sex marriage" is the prevailing term. Not everyone, even among those who may use it in discourse, considers it a neutral term. Everyone would agree that in your view "anti-same-sex-marriage" is the only objective description of the 2014 Washington March for Marriage and that in your view the organizers and the person the article is about were (either mistakenly or in bad faith) only using self-serving euphemisms when they called it "for Marriage", "in defense of traditional marriage", "pro-family". Not everyone would agree that Wikipedia should in its own voice present your view as fact. Not everyone would agree that presenting your view as fact "is of no biographical relevance" to Cordileone, especially since he explicitly denied what you state. Not everyone would agree that the fact that a wiki-reliable source such as The Washington Times described the March as "in defense of traditional marriage" should be cast aside. I think few would accept that presenting your view in Wikipedia's voice is in accord with Wikipedia's

WP:YESPOV norms such as "articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc." Esoglou (talk

) 07:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

They're not opinions, they're observations. My opinions do not matter here. Wikipedia's voice reflects mainstream reliable sources, written in encyclopedic tone. We use common terminology and avoid partisan doublespeak, hence we call it what it is instead of adopting the language of the advocates. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Your observation/opinion/preference, and that of the media that you think superior, namely, that the March was an anti-same-sex-marriage rally, contrasts with Cordileone's observation/opinion/preference, and that of some other media, that the March was a pro-traditional-marriage rally. Wikipedia itself says (

WP:YESPOV) that, in such cases, views should be attributed. Esoglou (talk

) 21:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Where is the policy statement that sources must be "mainstream"? It is clear we must avoid partisan doublespeak, and you've been using a lot of it in your opinions/observations. Much of the mainstream media uses partisan doublespeak, is that our excuse for violating

WP:NPOV and allowing it to permeate articles here? I suggest that mainstream liberal media sources are less reliable for documenting the life of a Catholic bishop or the March for Marriage; while it's useful to document the controversy and present opposing viewpoints, Wikipedia is required to be more neutral than the sources we report on. Elizium23 (talk

) 22:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

My preference is irrelevant, as is the old horse about the mainstream media supposedly being liberal. Avoiding the tone of partisan and fringe sources is fundamental to building an encyclopedia. "Same sex marriage" is the most common term, being more precise and less formal than the term it has gradually been replacing, "gay marriage". It is completely neutral, as it describes without any exaggeration or judgment the specific attribute of the marriages that is at issue, that two people of the same biological sex are recognized by the government as having the civil status of being married to one other. All of the sources, including the Catholic news service coverage of the Archibishop's speech at the rally, the text of his speech, and his letter, acknowledge that the rally was in opposition to the specific issue of same-sex marriage, not a general-purpose rally in support of marriage. They all describe it as two sides in opposition over a pending issue before the courts, the straight versus the LGBT community, and so on. The Archbishop's terminology is an effort to reframe the discussion, not a disagreement over what his position is or that of the rally. His efforts to justify himself and his controversial position to a local community and the broader public that largely disagrees with him do appear relevant to his biography. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You've missed the point again. The issue at hand is not about the term "same-sex marriage". It is about whether the March for Marriage (and more widely, Archbishop Cordileone's work on the USCCB Subcommittee) can be described as "against same-sex marriage" or "defense/promotion of [traditional] marriage". It's an issue of framing. Liberals want to frame this as equal rights, fair treatment, one issue at a time. Conservatives argue that this is about redefining marriage and family, a paradigm shift in perspective and the latest symptom of a general malaise regarding traditional family values. Cordileone has been commissioned to defend and promote marriage, that is his job description, that is how the Catholic Church sees the issue. Cordileone engages in catechesis and teaching, as he is a bishop, not a politician. Cordileone is not angling to make life hard on homosexuals or to deny civil rights, Cordileone wants to encourage everyone to consider marriage as a vocation and a lifelong commitment and the fundamental building block of families. The fact that he is against same-sex marriage is significant, but framing the debate to make it all about this issue is

WP:NOTNEWS. As I said, marriage has been defended and promoted by Church and State for thousands of years. The NOM, its March for Marriage, and Cordileone contend that they are simply carrying this forward, and that viewpoint should be represented properly in the article; opposition should also be represented properly, and NEUTRALLY. Elizium23 (talk

) 22:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Questions have also been raised on the talk page about the reliability of Catholic sources, which are supposedly low-quality because they are biased, while liberal sources are more high-quality because they are mainstream and biased in the other direction. I would like to see more discussion on those points. Elizium23 (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPV#Bias in sources) so again, the discussion belongs elsewhere. --Dr. Fleischman (talk

) 01:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:YESPOV gives clear guidance on how to deal with such issues. Esoglou (talk

) 07:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This discussion isn't appropriate here or at

talk

) 09:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Self-published books are self-published books, and they are already covered by

WP:SPS and related policy. They're not completely "banned" but they aren't generally acceptable for many claims on Wikipedia. This editor just seems to have been unaware that self-published books were already covered by existing policy.__ E L A Q U E A T E

18:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It's still a wiki though, even with that (apparent) editorial control. There's better stuff out there (here's one I found for FoW,[60] although that does feel a bit like providing a source for "the sky is blue"). Bromley86 (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for replying. I'll see what I can do :) Maplestrip (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Do note that there are Giant Bomb reviews/articles by the staff (eg like Jeff Gerstmann), and then there's their game wiki side. The former are reliable sources but the latter is not. Note that for a game that has received a good # of reviews, that one should be able to find gameplay descriptions in those reliable source reviews to augment such discussion; if the details of the gameplay are not described in those reviews or is not the subject of discussion, that probably means its too much detail to go into for our article. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not about gameplay for specific games, but gameplay in general. Descriptions of specific mechanics common in many games. Those mechanics are often not explained in reviews of specific games - for example, a review might state "the game makes use of fog of war", but it might not explain what fog of war is. The website seems to have somesort of glossary, though, which I am referring to here. Apparently it is part of the wiki-part of the website. Thanks for sharing your knowledge :) Maplestrip (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Maplestrip: We are actually trying to an encyclopic glossary here Glossary of video game terms which, we'll probably need better sources for in the future for some terms, but this is a good place to link to if , for example, you don't want to expand on what "fog of war" is. --MASEM (t) 23:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@

player-character, for example) that do deserve the article that they have. I don't think there is any need to have an article like Fog of war link to a glossary of gaming terminology, as th fog of war article now has a decent explanation of the subject. Perhaps an article like bonus stage

, sadly lacking sources, would be better off as a short mention in a glossary, though... At least until good sources are found.

This might not be the best location to discuss this. Maplestrip (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Specifically, I am talking about the upper changes made in this edit (the claim of human wave). Thanks.--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It meets the minimal standards that are generally accepted - a book by a journalist published by a reputable publisher. But I would question why one would choose this source, when there are others that have undergone rigorous fact-checking. One problem with this sort of source is spin. One might describe Canadian or ANZAC soldiers in the Great War as heroically defending God, King and Empire as they faced overwhelming odds while Iranians doing the same thing are seen as misguided fanatics. TFD (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add a sentence to the 'Media'-section of the Prem Rawat-article, like: "In the 21st century Rawat gave several extensive interviews to public TV-stations", and use links to the tv-corporations' websites as sources. In some cases the interviews are not available any more on the stations' websites, but they can be retrieved as Youtube-videos, like e.g. this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbYGhnChLT0 . The station logo is visible. Are such videos RS? Can they be used to reference to that statement?--Rainer P. (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

If you know a program was aired that included factual information, you can cite it as a television program or episode, without having to include the link to it; things like the show, broadcaster, date, episode#, etc. all are sufficient details to meet the verifyability policy. Now, as to whether you can link that video, that depends on whether the uploader (this Willex Television group) is affirmed to be the copyright owner of the show, and if the owner's identity on youtube is reasonably verified to be them, as the bulk of YT videos are generally considered copyright violations (uploaded by people without copyright allowance) and should generally not be linked to. If they are the copyright holder and they are who they claim to be, then yes, you can then include that link in the citation template. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Now the above video seems to have been placed on YT by the Willex people themselves, as it appears on their own YT-channel. What does this mean for us? https://www.youtube.com/user/WillaxTV/search?query=Prem+Rawat--Rainer P. (talk) 11:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It's without a doubt their YT channel, as their webpage links to it. Bromley86 (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. So do you conclude that it can be used as a RS for the above purpose?--Rainer P. (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It absolutely can be used, as long as it supports the content you are adding/verifying. Melonkelon (talk) 12:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

For stating that he gave interviews, yes. (Not that you asked this, but for directly quoting or summarising what he said, yes; in that case, use the cite av media "time=" function to cite where it happens). A much better source though would be someone else, or even his website, saying that he's given interviews, as otherwise you're courting

WP:OVERCITE (he's given a fair few interviews, from what I could see). Bromley86 (talk

) 12:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that if secondary sources ignored these interviews that they should be mentioned in the article. However, since readers may wish to know about them, provide a link to their youtube channel. TFD (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Some interviews are posted in a better quality on his homepage http://www.premrawat.com/category/updates/ , but isn't that a primary source and therefore not admissible?--Rainer P. (talk) 11:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Primary is fine to support the fact that he's given TV interviews. The only problem with that particular page is that it's not specifically about interviews; it contains postings of current events; some interviews, some not. As such, it'll be subject to update, so the interviews may well drop off the page.

I was thinking of something more like this, but it doesn't look right (2 out of 3 are paywalled and they don't look like public TV interviews). This is better, although it's still only pulling up 3 interviews. I couldn't find a decent 3rd party mentioning his interviews, which surprised me. Bromley86 (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That is probably due to the subjects controversial media history, as you can take from the WP-article summary, which reflects still ongoing POV problems, mostly stemming from the 70s and 80s. Media, especially in the West, are apparently a little at loss in this matter, perhaps fearing embarrasement. So, for the sake of balance and information, these interviews have some relevance. There have been more than three, but I can mostly only find YT-videos. Anyway, I take from your comment, that we can place a statement like 'He gave some extensive interviews to TV-channels', using a primary source, right?--Rainer P. (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Why does the question arise? As a mainstream newspaper, it certainly fits profile of

WP:RS. Kautilya3 (talk

) 22:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

There was a dispute over the use of this source in Ahmed Hassan Imran hence felt it will better if this is clarified.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course, it is. A mainstream Bengali newspaper. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Any newspaper is not a Reliable Source across the board, the reliability also depends upon context of the content for which it is considered as an RS. So, each case needs to be examined in this light, in addition to the fact whether or not it is a mainstream newspaper. AshLin (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, it definitely is a
  Anupmehra -Let's talk!
  13:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Given the history of Anandabazar Patrika as a non-partisan newspaper that is in publication for decades it should be considered as a reliable source. BengaliHindu (talk) 08:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone aware of anything that would suggest that ABP is not considered a reliable source?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Can we conclude that Anandabazar Patrika is a RS source.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I was wondering if somebody could clarify whether the following should be considered a reliable source:

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/27/turkey-murky-depths

Article: Fethullah Gülen

Content:

However, his Gülen movement has been described as "having the characteristics of a cult" and its secretiveness and influence in Turkish politics likened to "an Islamic Opus Dei".

I understand that the Guardian Newspaper is considered reliable as per Wikipedia:Suggested_sources however I was unsure about Comment is free given that this is a comment and political opinion site within theguardian.com. Many thanks RookTaker (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I would think that

WP:RSOPINION only if properly attributed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}

23:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

My first reaction was that it, of course, is not reliable. However, I see that they do list an editor for CiF, although presumably the level of editorial control is minimal. In this particular case though, rather than the article being attributed to an author, it's attributed to Editorial. C.f. this similarly attributed CiF article that's titled, "The Guardian view on Labour’s poll ratings." That looks a lot like an official statement, implying (to me, anyway) that the article you want to use is similarly officially a Guardian piece. Bromley86 (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, ignore me. Just seen

this: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." So what Michael said. Bromley86 (talk

) 00:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks MichaelQSchmidt and Bromley86. Should the quote therefore be updated as follows:

However, according to the opinion site

Comment is free in The Guardian

newspaper, his Gülen movement has been described as "having the characteristics of a cult" and its secretiveness and influence in Turkish politics likened to "an Islamic Opus Dei".

RookTaker (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you need to mention the CiF part, as it is a Guardian editorial. I had a look at the WP The Guardian entry and saw this, "Responding to these accusations, a Guardian editorial in 2002 condemned anti-Semitism and defended the paper's right to criticise the policies and actions of the Israeli government, arguing that those who view such criticism as inherently anti-Jewish are mistaken." So, in this case:

"However, an editorial in the The Guardian described his Gülen movement as having "some of the characteristics of a cult" and its secretiveness and influence in Turkish politics likened to "an Islamic Opus Dei". (note the "some of" - quoting should be exact)

I'd also be tempted to include the full quote ("Hizmet, which has relatively moderate Islamist views, also has some of the characteristics of a cult or of an Islamic Opus Dei.") as a quote=, just because it's the easiest way of quickly drawing attention to Hizmet=Gulen movement for those looking at the cite. That wouldn't be necessary if this is moved to the body, as I've added an AKA to the section dealing with the Gulen movement.

Finally, I'm not sure this belongs in the lead. Fair enough having it in the lead of the Gülen movement article, but I think it's inclusion in the lead of a BLP on the strength of one opinion piece might be questioned. Definitely in the body though. Note though that I'm not a particularly experienced editor, so I may be off. Bromley86 (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bromley86 - for now I will update the quote in the way that you have mentioned. I agree that perhaps this should not be in the lead of the Fethullah Gulen article, though this can be discussed further in the relevant board. RookTaker (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Opinion sources are almost never appropriate for lead sections, even when properly attributed. They have to be carefully

Thanks

Gulen Movement article however as this seems to be the more appropriate place to keep this. RookTaker (talk

) 22:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Dr. Fleischman's blanket statement: "Opinion sources are almost never appropriate for lead sections, even when properly attributed." They might not be common in the contentious, political content that the Dr. frequents, but often ledes will include statements like "(SUBJECT) is considered one of the best (ATTRIBUTE)" which if unsourced will attract a WHO or WHAT question. Attribution of such opinion statements are essential. The blanket summation is all blanket statements do not necessarily apply everywhere. Trackinfo (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha, so true, and thanks for pinging me as I had stopped watching this page. Now I have to walk back what I said. There are times when there is consensus among notable opinions, and in those cases opinion content may be appropriate for the lead. However, always be sure to do a thorough search of all opinions on the subject to make sure that what is included fairly reflects what's out there. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source? This is a facebook page of a scholar.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Only for

re

}} 06:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Not directly related to this case: The XLinkBot is going around removing content based of Facebook being used as a source. We need to have some reasonable judgement applied, rather than a mindless BOT. Self-sourced information in many situations is superior to no information at all. A lot of times it is accurate when no other sources seem to exist. In some situations, Facebook is the vehicle for a reliable source to disseminate information (even more frequently used in less technological countries around the world). We need to improve this standard. We need to consider the source, its role (if identified) and that particular account's history of accurate information. Merely because Facebook is the domain name should not itself make it unreliable. Trackinfo (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Moved to

WT:MEDRS § Six-year study.2C reported at the annual meeting of the American Heart Association

 – Zad68

13:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Is Foxe's Book of Martyrs, a strongly prejudiced 16th Century work, a reliable source for almost all of the information in List of Protestant martyrs of the English Reformation? - Cal Engime (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems like it'd be about as reliable as the Golden Legend in a "List of saints revered in the middle ages" article, that is, a primary source (though with some use). Probably good just for a list of names as a starting point, but any further details should be clearly attributed to that work or (more preferably) sourced to a modern academic source. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a primary source. In most cases it will be necessary to mention inclusion in th ebook and perhaps relate what th ebook states, but as a sole source it's insufficient. Mangoe (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

As with any primary source, it can be used... but must be used with caution and care. Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The article on Eric Diesel has many questionable sources. Some are introductory biographies of speakers at conferences, for example:

Biography of PAVA English Language Public Relations Manager Eric “Oops” Diesel, Kodak Theater Du Doong II festival brochure, Pacific American Volunteer Association, Los Angeles, CA, December 5, 2007

Are these types of sources considered reliable? What about unpublished transcripts of speeches, for example:

Korean Veterans Memorial Unveiling Ceremony transcript, Hae Soung Kim, War Memorial Park, Glenora CA, May 22, 2009

How would one go about verifying something like that? Lampuser (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Only if the speech was somehow reviewed by something akin to an editorial staff. Academic conferences would count. Exception would be if the page was about the speech giver themselves. Then it can be

re

}} 03:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

And before we even get into self-published, were these "sources" even

published, ie can a reasonably determined editor access and verify their contents? If the content is verifiable only by persons attending the concert or hearing the speech in person, then the sources are no better than "I heard/read it somewhere" and are not usable on wikipedia. On the other hand, some brochures are indeed archived online or in libraries, and speeches are recorded/transcribed, in which case we'll need to consider the other relevant factors. Abecedare (talk

) 03:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

And names of institutions and people? I don't see how these can possible be considered sources as they are not even published, but the article in question is full of such, for example things like "City of Los Angeles, Tom LaBonge, Councilmember 4th District" and "Phi Beta Kappa Eta of California, Kenneth N. Trueblood, June 8, 1980" Lampuser (talk) 04:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. That's an exceedingly strange article; even the more sensible sounding bits are twaddle. I.e. the Sherwood Prize mentioned in the lead, which turns out to be a $100 prize.[61] Although FloraWilde says "Tumblr is not a source used in this article", one of the (many) references for that point is "University of California Department of Mathematics, Alfred W. Hales, Chairman", which presumably is a roundabout reference to the Tumblr photo. Bromley86 (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Court orders, articles of incorporation etc, are
  primary
  sources and almost never suitable as sources on wikipedia (the exceptions being say citing supreme court orders when quoting them in articles about particular and notable cases)
• Yes, the article is very weird and very poorly sourced. For example Stanford Release Magazine is cited some 20 times, but searching for such a publication only produces links related to wikipedia's
  heavy culling, and after all the unverifiable details and puffery have been removed, it will possibly prove to be a candidate for deletion. Abecedare (talk
  ) 07:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone recommend the proper course of action at this point? Any attempts I've personally made to edit the page have been undone by FloraWilde, who I'm fairly certain is the subject of the article in question. Lampuser (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a matter for an

talk

) 05:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm giving it a while and then I'm intending to do something similar to this. If someone wants to add back elements, they can (a) supply proper cites and (b) justify its inclusion. Bromley86 (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

For the statement that the document On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, whose incipit is Homosexualitatis problema, was published on 31 October 1986 (Rome time), are any or all of the following books reliable sources?

• John J. McNeill, The Church and the Homosexual (Beacon Press, 1993) – preface to the 4th edition, whose text is also given here
• John J. McNeill, Freedom Glorious Freedom, p. 313
• Donald Godfrey, Gays and Grays, Lexington Books 2008, p. 175;
• Howell Williams, Homosexuality and the American Catholic Church, p. 111

For the statement that the document was published in Italian on 31 October 1986 (Rome time), are any or all of the following newspapers of that date reliable sources?

• L'Unità
• La Stampa
• La Repubblica

For the statement that the document was published in English on 31 October 1986 (Rome time), are any or all of the following newspapers of that date reliable sources?

• The San Bernardino County Sun
• The Times (London)
• New York Times
• Chicago Sun-Times

I ask because all mention of sources for these statements have been repeatedly deleted from the article

Is there a record in L'Osservatore Romano? It;s technically only semi-official, but it's usually treated as authoritative. DGG ( talk ) 09:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed there is: the document appears in the issue bearing the date 1 November 1968 (L'Osservatore Romano appears in the afternoon, with the next day's date. Unfortunately, that issue is not now available on the Internet, although a CD-ROM containing all issues of the year can be purchased. That is why I have not asked about it here. Furthermore, being an Italian-language publication, it is in that language that it gives the text, together with – as it usually does with documents of this nature – the Latin text, the text that explains the incipit by which it is known: Homosexualitatis problema.

The cited books in English that give 31 October 1986 as the date of publication are reliable sources, are they not? The cited Italian Internet-available newspapers dated 31 October 1986 that give the publication as news on that date are reliable sources, are they not? The cited English-language newspapers dated 31 October 1986 that give the publication as news on that date are reliable sources for the statement that it was released in English on that date, not 30 days earlier, are they not? (I won't ask about English-language LGBT sources that refer to the document as "the Halloween letter".)

The text of such documents is distributed to the press, under embargo, a day or so ahead of publication, in the hope that they will give an accurate account of it when it is actually published. In the United States, the embargoed text was of course provided in English. I presume this is the origin of the mistaken idea on the part of an American like Allen about the language of publication, and I presume that the fact that the document is dated 1 October 1968 underlies the mistaken statement in his book that it was released on 1 October. Esoglou (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I haven't looked thoroughly into this and don't know about the processes in the Vatican, but it looks like the letter was authorised and dated on 1st before entering the bureaucracy and being released on 31st (or 30th; depends which time zone the Sun Times was using when it said yesterday[62])."(During an audience granted to the undersigned Prefect, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, approved this Letter, adopted in an ordinary session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and ordered it to be published.) Given at Rome, 1 October 1986.". Says the same in any language.[63][64][65]

This seems to me to be a fairly clear case of one source, the bio, noting the approval date on the document and assuming it was published on that date. As such, it shouldn't be mentioned; the article should mention that it was approved on 1st and released on 31st (or 30th, or whatever). Bromley86 (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

What Bromley86 says is dead on target. Esoglou (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Are website photo slideshows considered to be acceptable as sources? The article

"Official digital archive of Fort Benning". Good enough, in the absence of any controversy. Ditto the commander bios (they're on the official website), although they should be inline cites. Additionally, I don't believe that there are any

copyright violation issues in that article. Bromley86 (talk

) 12:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Just had another look and, although those photos are reliable sources (as far as I'm concerned), they're not really great sources for the points they're used to support. Acceptable for the first, as that merely states that the 14th was involved in the post-Katrina operation; less so for the second as there's a date that not in the source (not a massive issue though). Fine for the third, as the source includes (admittedly minimal) context. Bromley86 (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Bromley86. The commander bios are can be easily converted to inline cites using {{cite web}}, etc., but how do you cite a slideshow of photos. "Cite web"? {{Cite AV media}}? - Marchjuly (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd just use cite web. After all, it's not really the photos themselves that prove the point, but the text on the webpage (i.e. 14th Combat Support Hospital>Task Force Katrina and (FORT BENNING, Ga) Soldiers with the 14th Combat Support Hospital return from a nine month deployment to Afghanistan, June 19, 2013 at Freedom Hall.).

It's a shame the Bayonet & Sabre search is down, because you'd likely find better stuff there (although a Google domain search only has 2 hits, only one useful (Liberia)). There are further slideshow pages that may be useful for the article (change of command, deployments).[69] Bromley86 (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the added links

WP:MCQ#Linking to website slideshows and at least one editor there thinks they're OK as well. - Marchjuly (talk

) 21:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Examples: Bartogay Lake

Some articles have no other information sources other than an Mbendi link.

Is this a reliable source, or is someone trying to use Wikipedia to legitimize a marginal resource?

I see a reference to this site in the archives but no conclusions were drawn.

A list of articles containing "Mbendi"--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

the Bartogay Lake page on MBendi is clearly a Wiki [70] - it has 'update' tabs on it. Accordingly, the page shouldn't be used at all. Their Tazlaul Mare oil field page on the other hand appears to be a press release [71], and clearly shouldn't be used for anything contentious. As for the website as a whole, I can find no obvious indication that it has "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy", or indeed that it has any reputation at all, and accordingly wouldn't recommend it as a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to follow on from Andy's statement, I wouldn't use Mbendi for anything. The press release/article can be found on a more reliable site, Rigzone. Bromley86 (talk) 12:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Andy, and thanks @Bromley86: for fixing those two.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I very much doubt that Ethiopianorthodox.org is the official website of the

The website's copyright notice reads "©2003-Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church" which suggests that it's official, but their "About Us" page (link) indicates that the website (or its webmaster) is based in the UK (as opposed to Addis Ababa) and, more importantly, makes no mention of any affiliation with the Patriarchate, nor with any church in Ethiopia or abroad. By contrast, a different website, Eotc-patriarch.org does present itself as the official website (at least of the Patriarchate), but does not present any English-language material (though it apparently did so in the past). My guess is that Ethiopianorthodox.org is maintained by laypersons; this page alludes to a controversy and suggests that interested parties consult a Holy Synod publication -- as opposed to saying "we are the Holy Synod and here's what we have to say about it" had it been an official website.

I am not sure how harmful it would be to continue using this website as a reliable source. My working assumption is that the webmasters have the best of intentions, but I'm not sure if or how that helps us. Some of the material (such as the citation I added to the Gigi article) is ostensibly reprinted from official church documents, which themselves would be reliable sources. (It turns out that when I cited the website at the Gigi article, I cited the original title, authors, and publisher as the website presented them. I think that this is the way to go, if we are going to allow the website as a source. I've since gone back and added |via=Ethiopianorthodox.org for clarification.) However, this raises issues about linking to (possible) copyright violations (see

• I've left notifications about this discussion at
  WP:OO. -- Gyrofrog (talk)
  19:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)